Talk:Depopulation of Chagossians from the Chagos Archipelago
|WikiProject Human rights||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|This article is written in British English (colour, realise, travelled), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
Extermely biased and factually suspect.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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. 184.108.40.206 09:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- According to wiki's article on "Indigenous_peoples" the people of Diego Garcia would certainly qualify.220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)