Talk:British Indian Ocean Territory
|WikiProject United Kingdom||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject British Overseas Territories||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Asia / British Indian Ocean Territory||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|Version 0.5 (Rated B-Class)|
|This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on November 8, 2013.|
Could someone please make a disambiguation page for the term "Biot", which could also refer to the French physicist/mathematician Jean Baptiste Biot?
- Done. --Billpg 19:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Asia or Africa
I am just now wondering as to which continent this territory is geographicaly more closely associated with. Who can clarify? My own bid would be that these islands should be counted as an Asian territory.
My clarification would be this. Historically the Chagos Archipelago has a long association with Mauritius and when Mauritius was still a British Colony it was administered by the Governor in Port Louis. When BIOT was created, Chagos was detached from Mauritius (controversial then and now). At the time, BIOT also included some islands that had previously been administered by the Governor of the Seychelles, but these reverted to the Seychelles when it became independent. The UK has said that when/ if BIOT (which now consists of only Diego Garcia and the Outer Islands) is no longer required for defence purposes, they will be returned to Mauritius. There is no doubt that Mauritius is the country in the region with which the Chagos Archipelago has been, is (with most Chagossians who used to live on the islands - and their families - now in Mauritius) and in future will continue to be Mauritius. Most reference books I have seen treat Mauritius as an island part of Africa. Biodiplomacy 15:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on whether infobox should be included here on the article itself or transcluded from Template:British Indian Ocean Territory infobox. Either way has its advantages. Honestly, I think this is an immensely unimportant issue. However, the following (from the edit history) strikes me as a little odd:
- 21:53, 30 Sep 2004 Gzornenplatz (just because the template can't be deleted, doesn't mean it has to be used here)
- 21:51, 30 Sep 2004 Benc (restore infobox template: no delete consensus on tfd)
- 14:33, 21 Sep 2004 Gzornenplatz (no need to outsource infobox, article is short enough and obviously the infobox is only needed in this article)
On one hand, this action could be seen as essentially thumbing your nose at the community's decision to not delete the template. Then again, only two other people voted on TfD, and neither of them are contributors to this article.
- Indeed, three votes in total is not a convincing quorum for anything. More importantly, the two others did not pursue the discussion any further. If anyone wants to use the template here, they can continue the discussion here. I still have seen no reason for using a template that will never be needed in more than one article. Gzornenplatz 22:48, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Since content of template copied to main BIOT page by Gzornenplatz, corrections made there by myself and other contributors not made to this template. If it is reinstated, these corrections will be lost unless template is kept in sync while debate over the merits of infobox templates ensues.
- Anyway, never say never. I think these country infoboxes would be suitable for other pages about countries less well known like BIOT - I was thinking about a page covering the high court case, which wouldn't belong on the main page, but would benefit from the infobox, as an example.
- For my part, if a vote were held again today, I'd also come down strongly in favour of using the template for the reasons set out by other "keep" voters in the TfD discussion. In general, the value of using of templates, styles and other standards of visual consistency lies not in the question of how many places they might be used, but the reassurance and aid to comprehension that they give users in accessing similar information across different subjects. In this case, it's a quick summary with pertinent facts about countries - I don't see how consistency across country pages can be bad. The use of the templates reinforces this approach.
- I don't understand this consistency argument. How is it any more or less consistent if the infobox is in the article or in a template? In fact, for most countries the infobox is in the article, so it should be here too to be consistent. Gzornenplatz 19:30, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
"Permanent inhabitants" & "indigenous population"
- I would assume that the BIOT is like the Antarctic territories and the TAAF, in that (almost) no one is born or raised there and most retire and plan to die elsewhere. But I'm not 100% certain. Apparently one person is literally native to Antarctica but the infant was shipped off to Argentina immediately. As for BIOT, I guess that if the population doesn't replenish itself and the indigenous population now resides in Mauritius, then one might say that the territory is permanently inhabited (there's always someone there) but that there's no permanent population (everyone there is from someplace else). //Big Adamsky 20:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
What about the Ilois? The Ilois don't inhabit the islands now, but were forcibly removed. Sowelilitokiemu 02:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
David Vine provides an extensive discussion of the population history of Diego Garcia and BIOT. Vine, David 2004 War and Forced Migration in the Indian Ocean: The US Military Base at Diego Garcia. International Migration Volume 42, Issue 3: 111-143. doi: 10.1111/j.0020-7985.2004.00291.x (22.214.171.124 06:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
Number of Islands
How is it possible the BIOT to has over 1000 individual islands while the Chagos Archipelago has only 65? I think that the 2 areas coincide.--126.96.36.199 11:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
not going home?
Looks like they're not going home, unless the European court has a say.
Geography of the British Indian Ocean Territory doesn't seem worth sustaining as a separate article in its present state. It contains only the sort of basic info that one would expect to find in the main article, so I propose merging it here. It can easily be recreated if it's ever warranted in future. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC).
I've just removed two, very different, sets of coordinates from this article:
How come the description says the islands total 60 square kilometres (23 square miles) but the infobox says it totals 54,400 square kilometres (21,004 square miles)?! It seems nearly impossible that a small group of islands can have that large of an area! Can someone fix this please! Frankster200277 (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)