Jump to content

Talk:Diego Garcia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

2017

The first paragraph contains a lot of information about the removal of populations but absolutely no citations. That information should be supported by sources or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabbath999 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

The first two paragraphs of "Arrival of the US Navy" completely lack citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.22.11 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

2016

What is the justification for the claim that the US lease expires in 2016? 1966 + 70 = 2036 by my reckoning.

Xdamr 23:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It says in 2016 either party can opt out. Otherwise it will last until 2036.

In the last paragraph of "History":

The 70-year agreement between the UK and US for the US to use the island as a military base was made in 1966. Between...

I think I know what it's saying, but don't wan't to guess.

Some USians would like to buy the island after it is demilitarized and move there. Many US Conservatives believe that the moral wrong of taking

barista 

Is no news so very bad?

To answer, according to "The Peak of Limuria by Richard Edis" agreement will lastt to 2016, 50 years, then it will automaticlly be renewed for 20 years (making the total 70) unless one or both nation wish to withdraw fron the island. And the governents have to give notice within two years (2014) to do so! Also it is mentioned (vaguely but not in specifics) about returning the native population at that time. Whether or not it remains a British Territiory, becomes an American one or the natives have choice or control in it is not explained. Likelyhood a little bit of everything would happen but this is speculation on my part. -- Trekkiexb5 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The island is British. It's not for sale and we are not giving it up ever. It's all we have left in this corner of the world. YourPTR! 11:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess that's how the native Islanders felt about it too. PoizonMyst (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs informed review

What John Pilger says is not universal truth. I've changed it a bit, but it needs a knowledgeable review Philip 21:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, buddy. -- John Pilger

I'm currently on Diego Garcia and have yet to see the "shopping malls" that John Pilger references in his article "Paradise Cleansed" written less than a year before my arrival. I have added some photos, and would agree that it resembles paradise. Jared

Don't know what it's like in reality, but the website calls it the Cummins Mini-Mall! Not to mention a Pack & Wrap! Rwendland 20:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The "Cummins Mini-Mall" is nothing more than a few small service buildings lumped together within close proximity of each other run by Filipino contractors. T-shirt shop, tailor, barber, etc. Jared

Agreed, the Cummins Mini-mall has what 4 stores and a museum in it? The total amount of establishments are very little. There is also a grocery store (very small, like convience store sized), a bank, the ship's store (also very small), a photo shop, library, a galley and a mess hall, an MWR (Morale, Welfare, and Recreation) club & resteraunt, and internet cafe, two(?) gyms, a boathouse, a Merchant Marine club and the "Brit Club." Most of these places are in the "Downtown" part of Diego Garcia. There is also a golf course (7 holes), a Filipino club, and a Masonic lodge. -- Trekkiexb5 21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Some military base!

"The atoll is now covered in luxuriant tropical vegetation" What kind of military base is covered in shrubbery! :D

The portions formally occupied by the locals?

No, locals do not live there. The military occupy a small part of the island. Once us pass the runway on the road, going south, there is very little civilization out there, apart from some bunkers, antenna, and ruin remains of the plantation. The island is very big, just not very wide, and it can be very deceptive to the eye with the thick tropical growth.Trekkiexb5 19:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The island is not very big, quite long but there never were any locals. They were mearly temporary workers. YourPTR! 11:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There was about 2000 locals on the island in the 60's and 70's but where 'removed' to make way for the US air base, these where people living there with their homes not "temporary workers" as is claimed by some people. [1][2]

British Territory

So what happens to the British dependancy after the military order expires?

See British Indian Ocean Territory: When BIOT was created the UK Government gave an undertaking to cede the Chagos islands to Mauritius when they were no longer required for defence purposes [3]. But I wonder how often the defence agreement will be renewed? -- Rwendland 08:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

When does the lease run out?

Our article states

The 70-year agreement between the UK and US for the US to use the island as a military base was made in 1966.

In http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2006/#5 it is claimed

The United States currently operates a base out of Diego Garcia—a former British mandate about halfway between Africa and Indonesia, but the lease runs out in 2016.

Which one is correct? Was it a 50 or 70 year lease? AxelBoldt 04:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sort-of both. It's a 70 year agreement, with a possible opt-out at 50 years if either Govt gives termination notice to the other (i.e by default it goes to 70). See clause 11 of the original agreement. {I am assuming this hasn't been [secretly?] amended.) Rwendland 11:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Diego Garcia: Exiles Still Barred

This is reference to a CBS 60 Minutes feature dated June 13, 2003 link which talks about the uncompensated evatuation of indengenous people to the Mauritius main island. Also the about the fact that these original inhabitants are not allowed to return to their original place of residence.

The military base employs several thousand civilians but bars anyone who used to live on the island from working there.
The people of Diego Garcia say they left paradise and landed in hell when they were dumped here in the urban slums of Mauritius. They had brought no possessions and as islanders who had lived off fishing and farming they had no real professional skills.

I think this the existance of Diego Garcia is sad remnant of colonialism. Akshay--Aakkshay 14:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets get one thing right - they did not leave on their own volition, the British forced them out, as the United States required.

Military Base

In all honesty, i would not call an island, used as a military base to attack other countries, as having paradise no matter how many trees you put there. Tell me..what's better an island which has been used to attack other countries or an island where people lived without much outside intrusion, no jets no bombers, a people at much peace with the land.Domsta333 12:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a damn pretty island, too bad you'll never get to go there -- you worthless hippie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.228.95 (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a political view. A whether or not the military's presence is to your agreement, the island cannot sustain a native population. Most of the land is protected by British law, allowing the reef, animals, birds and such to survive in a evirnoment relativly peaceful. The security of the island for the military, and the strict consvation laws set by the British protecterate government, makes difficult for over-fishing, illegal hunting, and reef damage to happen. There is two sides to every coin, good and bad.-- Trekkiexb5 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I suppose...being of mauritian parentage though it's a big issue for us,I'm not saying that the Ilois had a kind of 'Noble Savage' total harmony with the land or something..you know giving up Chagos is supposed to be one of the main reasons Chacha Ramgoolam got Mauritius independent but I just can't stand to see the poverty they've had to live in, in Mauritius many ended up building shacks which the government is now trying to tear down and replace.Domsta333 14:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Being of British parentage it's a big issue for us that Mauritius is independent, does not have the Queen as head of state and the worry that one day we may have another Hong Kong scenario on our hands where we are forced to surrender more of our territory to another country and retreat from yet another part of the world. Mauritius should have been integrated into Britain like nearby Reunion was with France. That's what makes sense although it's probably too late for that ever to happen now sadly. Failing that, we can make sure what we do have left remains ours. Diego Garcia belongs to Britain, it is British territory and I hope British terriotry it will always remain whether the Chagos islanders are allowed to ever return there or not.YourPTR! 13:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Careful chaps, this isn't a forum! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the statement "Neither the UK nor the U.S. recognise Diego Garcia as being subject to the African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty, though the rest of the Chagos Archipelago is included, suggesting they wish to maintain the freedom to base nuclear weapons there.[14]"--there are a couple of issues. (1) The reference cites is not the primary reference. Within that reference are three primary references that involve this statement. (2) The cited reference makes clear that the situation is more complex or grey than suggested by this summary statement. (3) The latter part of the statement is not explicit in the cited reference. It's implied, but we don't know definitively what the US/UK intentions are as they don't publicize them. 71.230.124.112 (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

CIVILIAN CONTRACTORS

On all military bases these days, most of the work is performed by contractors under the guidance of GOV servants. Who are the major contractors on Diego Garcia. I would like to work there.

MHF

When I was there in 2002-3, the contracting agency was DG21. The vast majority of the workers were Filipino... some of them lived there for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.228.233 (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE

The last paragraph of the "Strategic Importance" section, beginning "The U.S. guards this strategic jewel very closely" is taken directly from a copyrighted source, Time Magazine's article of 20 February 1998 link Need to paraphrase, cite, or delete.

The last sentence, "Another example of it's strategic importance can be seen when yellowcake from Saddam Hussian's nuclear program arrived from Iraq to Canada via this naval base to the Canadian company Cameco." is neither sourced nor dated. Given controversy surrounding yellow cake and Iraq this statement requires clarification (when?) and citation. It is not from the Time magazine article referenced above. Jim.Callahan,Orlando (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Error

The article states that visitors were allowed in 1976 due to President Carter. Jimmy Carter did not become president until 1977. This is an obvious error that needs to be corrected. 21:34, 6 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.120.195 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}.

Also, is it truly necessary to list all of the GPS monitoring stations twice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.36.46 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See photos of Diego Garcia Plantation & nature above/below waves

See photos of Diego Garcia at http://users4.ev1.net/~mevansyfib

pictures of the Chagossian Plantation at Diego Garcia as well as nature both below and and above the waves.

GA pass

Well-written and a good number of references. Could be firther improved by adding more citations in the section on its early history. TimVickers 03:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Geological history?

I found myself fascinated with the physical shape of the atoll - what natural forces cause such a unique formation to form? Perhaps a brief geological history would be an interesting addition?

I believe it is formed by an extinct volcanco. Also I believe that it is sitting on the Lumeria landmass that was sunk when India subcontinet hit Asia (or Ice Age, must recheck facts!) Thus the Chacos Islands are actually tips of mountains with reefs. However, I will reverify that fact for you, with references. I have a book about Diego Garcia and have been deployed there recently.

As for natural state of the island from an ecologial standpoint, the British have been slowly removing the cats and rats from DG, and the only dogs there are the "working" military dogs that British and American have. And one Black Lab, which I think is a mascot. The chickens have free range and protected statis, with a cull every 6 months or so. THe Filipino and other "local" contractors are the only ones allow to cull the chickens. Donkeys, left over from the cocnut plantation days, run free on the uninhabited parts of the island and in the old plantation building area. There was a rumour that three horses escaped and their desentants also are present, however, they have never been seen and it is concidered "local" folklore.

Also, as depicted on the coat-of-arms, the sea turtles reside here, especialy Turtle Bay, the southern most part of the lagoon. You cannot step on the beach there. They are protected, as is the endangered (?) Coconut Crab.

Diego Garican Turtle Soup will cost you (at least) $1000 (USD) in fines, and a chicken and (coconut) crab dinner is $1500 (USD).

As for Diego Garica not looking like a coconut plantation anymore, I beg to differ. More than anywhere else, Coconut palms are inbundance. Make sure you look up when you go on a hike! Trekkiexb5 21:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Trekkiexb5

The book sited for the above information is "Peak of Limuria: The story of Diego Garica and the Chagos Archipelago" by Richard Edis (revised 2004 published by Chagos Conseveration Trust London England) This is one of best books I;ve read on the island, and is not very political, despite who published it. Both arguments for and against the military are addressed, as well as the geological, evironmental, and the history of the island. And a good read for those interested in the island chain. QUESTION: Is there any other books out there? -- Trekkiexb5 19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WILDLIFE?

I'm surprised the article does not mention the unique nature of some of the wildlife on Diego, despite it being referenced on the talk page. This island is probably the only place you will see wild chickens living amongst the population, with free run of the island. I certainly didn't know that chickens would climb trees in the evening to sleep, though they are not very good at it and have been known to fall out, which I have personally seen :) The donkeys that hang out near the antennae are also quite odd, with larger heads than the average donkey. Some say this is due to the trons floating around in the air around the antennae, but could also be due to generations of limited breeding options. The island is also a haven for several types of crab, hermit crabs overrun the jungle at night, and the extremely large (up to 9lb) coconut crab, or "robber crab" is found here as well. I'm not sure what species the red crabs are, but there are thousands of them, and they are found everywhere (tents, showers, laundry rooms, runway, etc..) All of the flora and fauna are protected, and hefty fines are levied against violators. It is even unlawful to be in possession of a dead coconut crab. I can't cite most of this, as it is just knowledge from experience having almost 2yrs total time on the island over 3 deployments. Grannis 13:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found that the article is under-referenced. Each statistic and each statement that is likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 17:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As no progress has been made with the sourcing in the past eight days, I'm afraid I've had to delist the article. Epbr123 00:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Refueling

Under the Space Shuttle header, it seems somewhat trivial to mention that President Bush landed their for refueling. Air Force 1 refuels all over the world. If we put it here it would seem to me we should edit each place this occurs and state the same thing.Rlbarton 14:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Prison site admissions

"Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star US general, who is now professor of international security studies at the West Point military academy, revealed the prison’s existence. In May 2004, he declared on MSNBC’s Deborah Norville Tonight, "We’re probably holding around 3,000 people, you know, Bagram air field, Diego Garcia, Guantánamo, 16 camps throughout Iraq," and in December 2006 he spoke out again, saying, in an NPR interview with Robert Siegel, "They’re behind bars … we’ve got them on Diego Garcia, in Bagram air field, in Guantánamo."

This text is from a Huffington Post article, but I think it would make a relevant and well sourced addition to the wiki of Diego Garcia if anyone wants to add it. Some might be misled into thinking it's a temporary holding facility, but here we have a retired 4 star US general ranking the prison along with other well known and more permanent facilities. I believe this is a more reputable source than a Swiss official, or some UN administrator, on the existence of prison facilities on the island. I would reorganize the whole "prison section" of the page, but I'm a wiki newb who doesn't want to mess up an otherwise good wiki. Just being considerate, but I'll work on it some over the next 5-10 minutes to see what I can do. 68.53.200.234 (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My edit was constructive. Peace... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.105.233 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Book: Island of Shame

I think this article should make a reference to a new (published in 2009) book by David Vine called "Island of Shame:The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia". Find the link to the PUP description about the book here: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8885.html. This book is a must for anyone looking into the history of Diego Garcia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.151.25 (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated ref link to History Commons. Old link outdated. 98.67.83.141 (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Black Max

Ambiguity

The second sentence in the "Politics" section says:

In 2002, the UK Parliament enacted legislation which gave all Chagossians the right to obtain British citizenship, granted the islanders the right to return to the Archipelago and granted them UK citizenship.

Did it

  • "give them the right to obtain British citizenship", presumably only if they wanted it and after a process of some sort, or
  • "grant[ed] them UK citizenship", presumably immediately.

Even leaving aside the difference between "UK" and "British", this is ambiguous. Which is it? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed this and added the related legislature as a source. Night w (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Night w You should be more careful with your edits. Once again you have provided a source which does not back up your edits. You state that the cited legislation grants the Chagosians citizenship and the "legal right" to return to the island. While this may be a true statement in principal, your citation only reinforces the first portion of your statement. No statement is made to the legal right to return to Diego Garcia. These edits introduce errors into the article. Revmqo (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Operators

It appears there's a confusion as to what and which commissions operate the base. If the Royal Navy do not operate the site, and have no presence in the base, they need to be removed from the list of operators. A source to this claim will also need to be added to the infobox. Otherwise, alphabetical order should apply as per WP:MOS. Night w (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added sources in the infobox to indicate the presence of the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy. I'm still not sure about the Marines though. As such, I've alphabetised as is standard. Night w (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The base is a US Naval Support Facility operated by the US Navy. The Royal Navy and Marines are present to enforce British Law, and they are present in very minimal numbers. The entire budget of the facility is funded by the United States, and the mission is 99.9% focused on US interests. This is referenced and cited throughout the text of the article. Please take the time to read your own reference as it does not provide proof of your own argument! Revmqo (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

...And what's my argument? So far, all I've done is reorganise the list into alphabetical order—which is standard. I haven't made claims of any kind. And I'm well aware of the content of my sources, thankyou. Night w (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

All I'm suggesting is that you re-read the source and then take a look at your edit. The source doesn't back up your edit. Didn't mean to suggest that you inserted POV. Also I disagree that the MOS dictates that the list be alphabetical. Revmqo (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Should it be noted at all that Diego Garcia was used as a setting in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen? - Areaseven (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The lede is too long.

See WP:LEDE: "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs." --Airborne84 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Geography section ambiguity

The first sentence of the second paragraph states: "The island consists of the largest continuous atolls in the world." This is confusing to me. Does this mean that the Diego Garcia island is the largest atoll in the world? If this is true, it should be stated as such. Or perhaps it means that Diego Garcia is part of the largest continuous chain of atolls in the world? In any case, this should be clarified by someone knowledgeable. --Asiir (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Mistranslation

The article states: "Societe Huilere de Diego et Peros (the "Oil Can Company of Diego and Peros")" Come on! someone has been using online translators which do too literal a job! "Société Huilière" does not mean Oil Can Company, even though in another context "huilière" might mean oil can. Actually it is an adjectival form of "Huile" (Oil), and refers to Société (company). A more accurate translation would be, "Oil Company of Diego and Peros" - which refers to Diego Garcia and Peros Banhos atolls, both in the Chagos Archipelago... Ptilinopus (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Why can the military do such things?

Why aren't there any laws prohibiting the depopulation of such islands? It's a shame that the militray can do such things, because otherwise this would be a great touristic site. But now it's only a military holiday inn. --178.197.237.28 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC) -- sadly, 'Might is Right' 81.155.211.56 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What you say is very true. If only people would stop fighting wars nobody would need military bases. Borock (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced text claiming island can't host a detention facility

IP 187.21.5.213 has here returned unreferenced text to the article arguing that ships can't be used as black sites at Diego Garcia because of shallow water. I have no idea if this is true, but it's not supported by sources and can't be included unless a reliable source is provided. Otherwise, the text is original research. -Darouet (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Added NPOV Box

I have added an NPOV box to the top of the article. I hardly have to tell the people on this talk page that the article has issues, and I'm not taking sides with regard to any of them. However, even just a cursory reading of the section "The Coming of the U.S. Navy" annihilates any thought that this article is objective. Wikipedia is serious about the NPOV policy, and this article is an editorial. Let's fix that. HenryV1415 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you got any reasons to believe it is not objective? I've heard rather bad things about the way the island was depopulated and both the US and UK military have done horrible things, so possibly this is just how it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.82.82 (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
OP stated that he "hardly have to tell the people", so he clearly doesn't have any good reasons. He could have contributed to improving this article over the last 6 months, if he wished to have meaningful input. I'm removing the notice. Stroller (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Military base

Above all Diego Garcia is a Us and British military base! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C001:7708:B4B9:95A1:AB2C:CE2A (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Diego Garcia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
"Freedom Next Time" by John Pilger offers a true and realistic look at the struggles of the Chagossian people in their quest for justice at their illegal and inhumane expulsion from their homeland of Diego Garcia. Both the U.S. and the U.K. have wreaked havoc on the lives of 2,000 people who have been left to live in the most dispicable poverty conditions imaginable, many tricked out of their homes with the promise that they could return. Chagossian people have had to watch their beloved dogs, (they treated their dogs as they would members of their family)be brutalised and finally gassed and set alight, many still alive before being torched.

This book is a must for anyone interested in reading the truths of the Chagos Islands and the unlawful occupation of Diego Garcia. At present the U.K. is still standing firm in it's refusal to allow these people back to their homeland. One other thing that requires mention is the fact that Britain tried to deny the existence of the Chagossian people and actually suceeded in hiding the truth. Many secret documents and letters, dating from the late 60's, have been brought out into the open, one in particular by Anthony Aust, a young Foreign Office legal adviser,who had written, ["we are able to make up the rules as we go along", advised that the official line should be, "to maintain the fiction that the inhabitants of Chagos are not a permanent or semi-permanent population".][page 60] I hope this information proves useful and again I would really recommend this book to anyone looking for the truth thats usually hidden behind the masquerade of media propaganda.

Caitnin (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 13:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diego Garcia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Duplication between Diego Garcia and Chagos Archipelago

There is a lot of duplication between this Diego Garcia article and the Chagos Archipelago article. What guide could be used to determine what information and how much detail for each article. Perhaps even a merge would make sense? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Diego Garcia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Politically-biased Edits

Regarding the current series of reversions - these edits do not "help the reader better understand the article" and I'm extremely sceptical that they're "verifiable". If they are, cite them.

That was the grounds of the original reversion one month ago - the edit was politically biased, unsourced and it came from an anonymous IP without any history of editing wikipedia. At that time I didn't really feel there was much point in discussing it.

What is definitely not ok is to excise words like "forcibly removed" (which is not an opinion, but confirmed by the high court), "intimidated" and "deported" under the guise of "slimming down" the article, and then add politically biased edits apparently in an attempt to justify the Chagossians' removal.

In order to support the edit about "owning property", I'd like to understand if the people of Diego Garcia actually had a property system at the time they were deported, and in the century up to that point. That they were "just plantation workers" is irrelevant - they were the residents of the island, de facto its citizens. So did the plantation owners have deeds for some of the island? Ones that were recognised by the residents, I mean - we know they weren't well-educated. The huts that the Chagossians lived in were built by themselves, their parents or (in some cases) their grandparents, and were inhabited and transferred on a familial basis - on what grounds do you claim they didn't "own" them?

However that would seem irrelevant in the context of the peoples' right to self-determination - self-determination being the subject of a bunch of United Nations resolutions and conventions. In layman's terms: I am a citizen of the United Kingdom, but I do not own land here. Am I at risk of being evicted from my homeland of these grounds? That is why the "despite (allegedly) owning no property" is biased here - it's irrelevant to their right to belong.

The deportation of the Chagossians is controversial, to say the least, so you need to exercise care when editing this page. When doing so, consider if you'd get away with talking of indigenous Americans in the same terms - "despite the Trail Of Tears being widely recognised by scholars as a genocide, they didn't own the land and were just being asked to move house."

I do recognise that this page could benefit from a lot of work, so perhaps there's an Indigenous Peoples Portal or a Portal:Colonialism we could ask for help. If you wanted to put in a lot of effort to improve this page, I'd fully support you, but I'm not ok with loaded little edits which happen to support a political view. I'm absolutely happy to get an admin involved in this although I'm not sure how to do that. The more eyes the merrier - I don't think the consensus will support these changes. Stroller (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

We actually have Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonialism, though it may be inactive.

And you might be overlooking something about the Chagossians. They are themselves relatively recent arrivals to the Chagos Archipelago. The islands were settled in the 18th century. The modern Chagossians are descendants of slaves, fishermen, farmers, and coconut plantation workers of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Also, the colony was originally part of the French colonial empire and the Chagossians still speak French creole. Based on the Chagos Archipelago article, the Archipelago was ceded from France to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1814, as part of the territorial changes at the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

I doubt if they count as indigenous people. Dimadick (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Former occupants comment

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

As a young sailor, I was stationed with U.S. Navy Seabees on Diego Garcia from June 1977 to June 1978. I was there at the time in part to help construct the airfield that remains Diego Garcia's most important feature. I'll confirm that the controlling factor in the airfield design was the ability to handle fully-loaded B-52 bombers. To the best of my knowledge, almost everything that I know confirms that this article is highly accurate. Considering how slim and unreliable various sources of information are about this once very highly classified military base, that's quite impressive. I just wanted to say thanks to those of you who spent time researching this. It couldn't have been easy to get that quality of information that you managed to uncover.

Steve Ussery {[User:Aletheia]}

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Diego Garcia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Diego Garcia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sovereignty of Diego Garcia

The article says Sovereignty belongs to Mauritius. While host his might be true, de jure, it is not the de facto status of the island. I recommend changing the “administration” to the UK while adding Mauritius as a “claimant” of the island. ThomasNelson1027 (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diego Garcia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"Old Maldivian name"

"Speculations include visits during the Austronesian diaspora around 700 CE, as some say the old Maldivian name for the islands originated from Malagasy"

What old name is this referring too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.224.98 (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the text is referencing the "Chagos" name given to the island chain. I thought the article was referencing this name explicitly enough not to be an issue. It is somewhat unclear, though, considering the confusion it caused for you. I'll workshop something using the sources cited. Thanks for raising the issue, 81.107.224.98. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying things - say the truth

We need to stop using euphamisms for Chagossians, it is dehumanizing. "Inhabitants" and "contract workers" is not the right adjective because some who left the island before the explusion (such as for medical treatment) were forbidden from returning to their homes, and the Chagossians from other islands far away from Diego Garcia were expelled too. Not all Chagossians on Diego Garcia were contract workers employed by the plantation (many were children) and treating their work contracts that exploited them as their defining characteristic reduces them to a vague "other". They lived in the islands for generations, first brought there against their will in times of slavery, grew up there, died there, were born there, and were only allowed to live in their homeland if they signed a labor contract - they weren't just random people who visited Chagos for seasonal labor. The government has admitted very candidly that they were not migrant workers and set out their intentions to falsify history and "maintain the fiction" [sic] that they were not a permanent or semi-permanent population. I don't expect to right the huge historical injustice done to them, but we all need to be respectful to the Chagossian people and not whitewash and falsify history. We have reliable and very respected sources that show the truth about the Chagossian people, like The Guardian, The New York Times, CNN. We should discuss the wording of the article and change it to prevent further disinformation to "maintain the fiction" as the government said.--BlueOceanLover (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

So does this article belong to the Pentagon

I gave reliable sources for all the information I added. The old version of the article tap-danced around without mentioning the Chagossian people and went along with the Pentagon "migrant workers" talkingpoint even though the most reliable newspapers by white people have since debunked the migrant workers trope. The Chagossian people lived in Chagos for generations and generations and generations. The fact that they were treated like indentured servants before their expulsion doesn't mean they were just "migrant workers". Enough with this revisionism about the horrors of slavery. It's like the Deep South textbooks calling slaves from the Atlantic slave trae "migrant workers". Give me one modern reliable source as good as the guardian that says Chagossians were not generational residents of the islands. You can't, because this is truth and I don't need the Pentagon's permission to tell the truth. White people don't have a monopoly on the truth. To say that mentioning the Chagossian people by name in the lead requires a discussion is RACISM. The article about the Chagossian people has this exact same information.--BlueOceanLover (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: do you have a reason for removing the information beside the fact I didn't ask for your permission? What is your personal reason that you think we need a discussion to link to articles about the topic mentioned and be direct instead of using euphamims?--BlueOceanLover (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
@BlueOceanLover: You'd probably do better engaging with editors if you assume good faith instead of accusing editors of working for/with the Pentagon (I don't, but I do drive by it a lot). Another good set of standards to bear in mind are that Wikipedia is not in the business righting great wrongs and puts the onus the changing editor to convince others that a change should be made following opposition. I'm not sure what "migrant worker" talking point you're referencing—could you quote a portion of the article that reflects this? ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
@BlueOceanLover Stop editing the article during BRD
You need to convince ME Thats not how consensus works
Calling people racist wont convince them or other editors. Stick to content and sources and wait for consensus Softlem (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
You still haven't given me a reason why we shouldn't mention the Chagossians by name. Wikipedia is not censored. You need to convince ME why we should use racist euhpamisms that respected newspapers like The Guardian have debunked. I gave lots of citations here are the quotes:

"A 1970 note from a Foreign Office legal adviser said that a key purpose of laws restricting the right of Chagossians to remain and live in Chagos was to “maintain the fiction that the inhabitants of Chagos are not a permanent or semi-permanent population.” In a paragraph entitled "Maintaining the fiction," he said that keeping any population in the BIOT increased the risk of having to report to the United Nations about a colony." - from HRW

" In 1970, the Foreign Office told its officials at the UN to describe the islanders as "contract labourers" engaged to work on coconut plantations." - The Guardian

"The Chagossians were wage slaves. But it was better than many places. It was their place – and the longing they feel for it is very real." from The Guardian


" In the end, 116 states were in favour, 55 abstained and just four supported the UK and US (Australia, Hungary, Israel and Maldives)." from The Guardian


"after the abolition of slavery, they were later joined by indentured labourers from India, as well as by a few with European and Chinese ancestry. Over nearly two hundred years, until the expulsion of the entire population, this diverse mixture of peoples, religions, and traditions merged to create a distinct society in Chagos." FROM THE BIRTH OF THE IloIS TO THE “FOOTPRINT OF FREEDOM”: A HISTORY OF CHAGOS AND THE CHAGOSSIANS by David Vine; from New Statesman, Volume 133, Issues 4708-4718

You still haven't told me why you personally think we shouldn't mention the Chagossian people by name in the head of the article. You need to provide a reason for wanting to exclude reliable sourced information besides "muh I don't like it" I'm not saying you work for the pentagon, but your certianly are repeating propaganda that the Pentagon and UK Foreign Office ordered their officials to repeat. Doing it for free doesn't mean it isn't praopganda.--BlueOceanLover (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@BlueOceanLover: I have inserted reference to the Chagossians by-name in the lead with this edit. You started this section, entitled So does this article belong to the Pentagon, when I reverted you the first time. You also accused me of bad-faith propaganda edits in an edit summary and now are claiming that I am repeating propaganda. This is definitionally uncivil and can result in a block. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for losing my temper emotionally and accusing you of bad faith. I should not have conflated your words with the government, since in all likelihood you have been misled by the government's "maintaining the fiction" to the public. I would like to discuss the wording of the article in detail. I will stand by my statement that the tap-dancing around the name Chagossian and using just euphamisms is very wrong, and I am glad that you recognize that we should call Chagossians by their preferred ethnonym.--BlueOceanLover (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
@BlueOceanLover: Apology accepted in full. This is a sensitive topic and this article has been vandalized to support various nationalist narratives (which is why I monitor the page). Your desire that the Chagossians be referred to by-name is one that very rightly inspires emotion. I, for one, would hate to only be alluded to in reference to the place I call my home. The article will be released from full protection in about 45 hours or so, at which point additional edits can be implemented. If you have specific passages you would like to see changed or added, please feel welcome to post them in a format similar to the one I used in the section below. You can add them as a reply to this discussion. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I think we need to remove this paragraph from the lead and put it in a lower paragraph because it is undue emphasis and a bit misleading (the term contract laboror implies not originating from the island, when in reality they had to sign up for the contracts to be allowed to live on the island. It is a lie of ommission of sorts, not detailing how the system came around (no mention of being descendants of the first slaves on the islands). How the Chagossians were exploited as wage slaves before they were expelled is not something more defining than being Chagossian itself (only does 3rd paragraph mention Chagossian by name, the paragraph I quote here just says "these people". If we don't agree to remove it, we should at least reword it, and again, just say "Chagossian" and not accidentaly contribute to "maintaining the fiction" as the diplomats ordered.


"In 1966, the population of the island was 924.[3]: par 23  These people [the Chagossians] were employed as contract farm workers primarily on copra plantations owned by the Chagos-Agalega company. Although local plantation managers commonly allowed pensioners and the disabled to remain in the islands and continue to receive housing and rations in exchange for light work, children after the age of 12 were required to work.[3] In 1964, only 3 of a population of 963 were unemployed.[3] In April 1967, the BIOT Administration bought out Chagos-Agalega for £600,000, thus becoming the sole property owner in the BIOT.[4] The Crown immediately leased back the properties to Chagos-Agalega but the company terminated the lease at the end of 1967.[3]"

--BlueOceanLover (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@BlueOceanLover: There's something of a buried lede in that lead: everyone over 12 was required to work or leave. That should be the gist of a summarized version of that paragraph. If you propose or add a tightened version of the paragraph that fixes that, I think that would be helpful. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 29 November 2023

If any admin has a moment, I think the following change to the lead should be made:

  • Replace sentence in first paragraph that reads "The Portuguese were the first Europeans to find it and it was then settled by the French in the 1790s and transferred to British rule after the Napoleonic Wars."
  • New passage: "Portuguese sailors under Pedro Mascarenhas were the first Europeans to discover the island, finding it uninhabited in 1512. After a 1786 British colony failed, the French began using the island as a leper colony and, starting in 1793, coconut cultivation by enslaved labor. It was transferred to British rule after the Napoleonic Wars."

The new passage is referenced in the body of the text, contains more detailed dating on 300 years of the island's history, and reflects that the island featured both transitory European and more permanent enslaved populations. I think this change also addresses some of the concerns that resulted in this page having to be locked in the first place. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Just going to do this myself, seeing no opposition and the full-protect having expired. ~ Pbritti (talk)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diego_Garcia/Archive_1&oldid=1257539220"