[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Expulsion of the Chagossians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to depopulation of Diego Garcia. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

[edit]

Diego Garcia depopulation conspiracy → Diego Garcia depopulation controversy … Rationale: This title is more NPOV, and allows all sides of the controversy to be presented rather than assuming there is a conspiracy.- Djcastel 30 march 2006

Survey

[edit]
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments

OK, the first wiseguy who puts a pov-flag on this is going to have some explaining to do! Garrick92 17:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't acceptable to try to intimidate other editors, and in any case I am not going to be intimidated. The article appears to endorse a particular theory, and that does not accord with NPOV policy. Not every analysis agrees with that: see, for example, here. The article needs rewriting in an NPOV way. David | Talk 11:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better title for a rewritten article would be Depopulation of Diego Garcia? -JCarriker 11:17, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Er ... I think you may be misreading me, David. That's putting it neutrally - I actually *know* you're misreading me! It's not my intention to intimidate anyone (even if I was trying to, it'd be a bit of an empty threat, wouldn't it?). Perhaps I ought to use emoticons more often ...

My first remark was because I knew that someone would object to this article on the grounds that it appeared to endorse a particular theory, moreoever because it made specific reference to the dreaded 'c' word (which I now see has been implicitly objected to by JCarriker).

However, it is my belief that this article complies with Wpedia's POV policy. The archival record of the British Government (as cited) makes it clear that the Government deliberately and secretly arranged for the Ilois to be removed from Diego Garcia. It arranged to do this by fraud, and it arranged to lie about it afterwards.

That is not a theory - that is the actual state of the facts, in the words of the protagonists themselves. There was a successful conspiracy (conducted in secret) to depopulate the island. It succeeded. It was later ruled illegal. Historical fact. I refer you to Wpedia's entry on legal definitions of conspiracy.

JCarriker is being sensible with his suggestion of renaming the article. However, the article is really about two subject: the depopulation itself and the reason it happened. I don't see how you can separate the two. Hence the title. I suppose it could be split into two entries, but one would still have to deal with the conspiracy itself. If someone can think of a way round this they're a better man than me.

[personal observation]Why is it that Wpedia is apparently happy with articles about conspiracy theories (with due and proper rubbishing of certain ridiculous flights of fancy) but allergic to conspiracy fact? There ought to be evenhandedness, unless Wikipedia has a POV policy that allows denial of certain facts. In which case, it's not worth the paper it's not printed on.

If other people can't call a spade a spade, perhaps they ought to consider their own POV problems. I don't think people are quite conscious of what it is they're objecting to.[/personal observation] Garrick92 12:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One serious failing of the article is the use of the word "immoral". While you might argue whether the word conspiracy is correct or not, you can't possible draw moral conclusions in an article and still call it credible. For instance, I'd never heard of this situation until I read this article just now. But as soon as I hit that word, I immediately wondered just how "spun" the rest of the article was - basically, I strongly doubt the honesty of the author.

If this article is to be taken seriously, it needs considerable rewriting. Bob the Pirate 20:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Bob the Pirate's comments about the use of "immoral". Stating facts that can be checked is fine but stating that something is immoral is personal opinion. -- Orourkek 09:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not always personal opinion to say something is immoral. For example, if someone is trafficking children for sexual slavery I don't think "immoral" would have much trouble being accepted as a valid description. --bodnotbod 12:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's personal opinion. In your example the people who actually abuse children often don't think what they do is immoral, so it's just your point of view against theirs. All you're really doing is saying it's not really a point of view if it's a point of view that lots and lots of people believe in it really strongly.
Similarly, in this case moving those people off that island may seem immoral to you, or to many. But you could just as easily argue that providing a military base for US forces in the area was a greater good. Bob the Pirate 17:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extermely biased and factually suspect.

[edit]

Without doubt there is a story to tell here, but I don't think this is the place to protest the rights and wrongs of the depopulation. There is a simple chronology of events, any diversion into questions of conspiracy does not belong in quasi authoritative source such as this. From beginning to end this piece abounds in moral judgements, none of which belong here.

Describing the ilois as '(remaining) the rightful and legal inhabitants' is factually misleading. By UK law the 2004 Orders in Council deprive them of any rights to inhabit the islands. One may agree or disagree with this situation, but it cannot seriously be argued that this is not the position in strict law.

Innuendo which cannot be substansiated needs to go. The suggestion (and only that, a suggestion) that Sir Seewoosagar Ramgoolan received his knighthood for selling Diego Gargia does not belong here.

These moral judgements and factual inncauracies do no justice to this subject. Those coming here should be entitled to find balanced and accurate information. I would strongly urge the original writer to tidy this up.

Xdamr 23:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. We said this before, and nothing has been done about it. I would do it myself, but I know nothing of the history and fear I would introduce factual mistakes. BobThePirate 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll leave it a week or so to see if the original author will come back to it. Otherwise I'll be happy to go through it and try to eliminate the more obvious bias, I can't speak to the facts however (beyond a superficial level) so someone else will need to tackle this.

Xdamr 00:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


To reply to the comment relating to the 2004 Order in Council: That was the subject of a High Court action in 2006 and it was declared unlawful. The Government's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in May 2007. 82.29.215.250 09:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pontificating that because the UK legal system has upheld Island clearance by the UK Govt it must be correct under law is a tad absurd, don’t you think? I imagine Polish Jewry in 1939 found it hard to accept that it was absolutely correct for them to be herded into ghettos and deprived of their libert because Nazi laws made it lawful for that to happen. How stupid of them! It was correct under law.
thankfully the ICJ have taken a different view. Boscaswell talk 06:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the Highland Clearances in Scotland were ‘correct under law’. The forced removal of Aboriginal children and placement of them in homes where they were taught to forget their parents and culture was ‘correct under law’. In Australia this whole affair is known under the umbrella name The Stolen Generations and ten years ago the Australian Govt accepted that that was totally, totally wrong. Boscaswell talk 06:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked

[edit]

Right, I've had enough of waiting for somebody else to do something about the state of this article so I have rewritten it.

I know almost nothing about this business, so I have confined myself largely to rephrasing things to remove obvious allegations of improper conduct or motives - for example towards the end it stated that the "illiterate" islanders signed the British offer, but there's nothing to support that so I reworded it to say only that some accepted it.

One exception is that a lawsuit was mentioned as having been brought against the British. I deleted this fact as it said nothing about the outcome of the case, if any.

I've also cleaned up a lot of paragraph breaks. Previously it was more or less one to two sentences per paragraph.

I hope I haven't introduced any factual inaccuracies, but I think this half-solution is far better than what was there. BobThePirate 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Indigenous"

[edit]

I'm not sure they should be labeled indigenous. The island was uninhabited until the 1800's (or so). I'm not going to change it because I'm not sure what the best way to phrase it would be, but I think it should be changed. LM1026 09:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "established," which is both factually correct and avoids the implications of "indigenous." Nick Cooper 16:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "indigenous" is not accurate. It is as accurate as describing the populations of the Caribbean, e.g. Haiti, as indigenous. "Native" might be a better term though the difference between "indigenous" and "native" is probably too subtle. I prefer established or resisdents, even long-time residents, or "centuries-old community". --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to wiki's article on "Indigenous_peoples" the people of Diego Garcia would certainly qualify.99.232.129.5 (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy Theory"

[edit]

The section under 'depopulated' mentions the 'the conspiracy theory' making a certain argument, and this not only violates neutral point of view [in my opinion, 'conspiracy theory' is a weasel word], but it is very vague: it doesn't say who, specifically, made that argument. Filippo Argenti 22:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, although this seems to be a legacy of the origins of the page. I've toned it down, although it really still needs a citation. Nick Cooper 10:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate a point made earlier by Garrick 92, there are a lot of requests for citation here that could very easily be rectified by making reference to Hansard, the UK Parliamentary Record. I'm not familiar enough with Wpedia to do it myself. Maconochie 22:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial cut-down of lede....

[edit]

The lede is meant to summarize the article, not go into detail of what happened when and under what legal article. Therefore, I have cut out all the detail regarding the ongoing legal stuff and explained that there is ongoing legal stuff. That is the level of detail a lede should have, and it should not necessarily need heavy citation. Specifics belong in the body of the article with citations. MSJapan (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 July 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulation of Chagossians from the Chagos Archipelago → Expulsion of the Chagossians – Less unwieldy, similar to Expulsion of the Acadians and other articles of this type. Pharos (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and it highlights how the move is an act of abuseUndead Herle King (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
06:32, 4 April 2006‎ Nightstallion (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (42 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (moved Diego Garcia depopulation conspiracy to Depopulation of Diego Garcia: WP:RM)

and there have been two subsequent undiscussed moves (virtually one as they're so close together) 

07:42, 12 March 2013‎ Kingroyos (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (48 bytes) (+48)‎ . . (Kingroyos moved page Depopulation of Diego Garcia to Depopulation of Chagos Archipelago: chagossians was not only deported from Diego Garcia but also from the other islands, like Peros Banhos)
07:43, 12 March 2013‎ Kingroyos (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (69 bytes) (+69)‎ . . (Kingroyos moved page Depopulation of Chagos Archipelago to Depopulation of Chagossians from the Chagos Archipelago: more meaninfull title)

I also note that the comment it highlights how the move is an act of abuse is irrelevant in terms of WP:AT. But nom has made a good case and this !vote supports that case, so it doesn't need to be completely discarded IMO. So despite the low participation I assess strong consensus to move. Andrewa (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New BBC article with heaps of first hand information

[edit]

UK's Chagos Islands descendants feel like 'lost nation' https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48426031 There are approx. 3000 Chagossians living in the UK in or near to Crawley, East Sussex. Boscaswell talk 07:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

This is to discuss recent edits by PlanespotterA320 to Bruce Greatbatch and John Rawling Todd. I am raising them here as they relate to this article, and this article is probably more closly watched. I have reverted two edits, one of which PlanespotterA320 has unreverted.

  • Bruce Greatbatch
    • Category:War criminals should only be used for people convicted of war crimes.
    • Deletion of "It has been claimed that", relating to Greatbatch overseeing the deportations. It is unclear whether the source is sufficient to make a definitive statement. PlanespotterA320: did you check the source?
    • Addition of "to be killed as a means of intimidating the indigenous people before deportation", relating to the killing of the dogs. PlanespotterA320: did you check the source? There could have been other motivations, including wildlife conservation and the welfare of the dogs.
  • John Rawling Todd

After looking into this I want to raise a few other issues:

  • Category:Ethnic cleansing is inappropriate as the motivation was military expediency, not ethnicity. Category:Forced migration is accurate.
  • We need a source for Greatbatch's description of the Chagossians as "unsophisticated" and "untrainable".
  • In the International law section of this article, the sentence "The case has not been heard by any international court of law" looks wrong.
  • It may be inaccurate to describe the ICJ statement as a 'ruling'. Our source does not describe it as a 'ruling', and reports the UK Foreign Office as saying "This is an advisory opinion, not a judgment", and that it was not legally binding. We should describe it as an opinion and not as a ruling, and link to Legal opinion.
  • We should mention the comment of ICJ President Abdulqawi Yusuf that the UK's administration was "an unlawful act of continuing character",[1]. However, this is an opinion not a ruling and does not allow us to describe the UK's actions as definitively illegal.

Verbcatcher (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • The Category:Ethnic cleansing is absolutely appropriate (regardless of motivation) because this was a forcible demographic shift of the archipelago. Second, your various requests to downplay what was done by labeling forced population transfer and exile as merely "controversial" when it is rightly considered crime against humanity under international law raises questions about your motivations in editing this page. Nowhere else on Wikipedia can I find such thing labeled as "controversial" as opposed to "illegal", "a crime against humanity", etc. We do not label the expulsion and genocide of Armenians from Turkey as "controversial", we call a it "ethnic cleansing". A spade should be called a spade. There is no legitimate other side to the issue (The whole muh we want military base only comes from governments, not everyday people debating politics as in the case of truely controversial issues like abortion, tax brackets, etc). As for the killing of Chagossians pets - seriously? Multiple accounts attest to the fact that the dogs were gassed and then burned in the precence of horrified Chagossian onlookers. As for welfare/wildlife concerns, seriously? From the same people building a military base and dumping untreated sewage in the ocean? If they were so concerned about the dogs welfare they wouldn't be gassing and burning them en mass. As for Greatbatch's quote, source - https://books.google.com/books?id=X4kxAQAAIAAJ (page 22). And for putting the category "war criminals" only for people convicted of war crimes - do you seriously think that Hitler shouldn't be in that category because he also wan't put on trial? Stop trying to downplay what happened.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not make personal attacks, see WP:PERSONALATTACKS. You have no basis for alleging that I am attempting to downplay these events. I am asking for sources and challenging some of the terminology.
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources, not on gut reactions. I assume that multiple reliable sources describe the Armenian genocide as ethnic cleansing. We should not describe the Chagos expulsions as ethnic cleansing unless they is so described in reliable sources. You may consider these events as a crime against humanity, but we would need a source to establish this.
I did not reject your description of the reason for killing the dogs, I asked for a source to confirm it. Multiple accounts may confirm the brutality of the killings, I am asking for a source for its motivation. I found an article by John Pilger in The Guardian that discusses this, but it does not support your text.[2] However, this article confirms that Greatbatch oversaw the deportations (although some would question Pilger's neutrality).
We should not classify anyone as a criminal who has not been convicted. This is explicitly stated for living people in WP:BLPCRIME. Adolf Hitler is not categorised in Category:War criminals.
I cannot see any useful text at your link for the Greatbatch quotes. If the source is an article in the New Statesman then please cite this is the normal way.
You have not responded to some of my issues:
  • Is it accurate to describe the ICJ advisory opinion as 'a ruling'?
  • Do we have adequate sources to establish that the events were 'illegal'?
Verbcatcher (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broken reference link?

[edit]

I think the link in reference 55, which is supposed to refer to a White House petition, is broken (at least for me). I think maybe the correct URL is now https://web.archive.org/web/20201124153300/https:// petitions .obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/petition/us-government-must-redress-wrongs-against-chagossians/

I'm not sure if it's just me so I didn't want to change the article right away just to have it reverted.

AlfonsoAnonymous (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right about the dead link. The URL you posted has a space after petitions which needs to be removed. However, for some reason the site is blocked by the spam filter.Burrobert (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes against humanity category removal

[edit]

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom government has relinquished control of islands to Mauritius gov

[edit]

This article needs to be updated 92.236.211.53 (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians&oldid=1261538377"