This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is written in British English which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, realise, aeroplane), 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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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. 18.104.22.168 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)
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)