Talk:British Overseas Territories/Archive 1

message: This article looks like it'd be a good a place to discuss the steps and when each of the territory was renamed from "colony"/"crown colonies" progressively to "overseas territory". I could only find out that the UK parliament voted in 1997 to rename all "dependent territories/overseas dependencies" as "overseas territories". But when was it enacted in each of the territory? --Kvasir 18:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming the status 

message: I have editted the article to remove gender bias toward males. There have been many women who have served as Commissioners/Governors/Administrators. Among these is Louise Savill, a former BIOT Administrator and Deborah Barnes Jones, the Governor of Montserrat. I feel this male bias is disrespectful. - Hoshie.Crat 07:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed gender bias 

message: Could it be explicitly said whether British overseas territory are part of the European Union? --Abdull 21:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Special member state territories and their relations with the EU for full details. Anyway, here's the short version: Gibraltar is considered a part of the EU as it joined when the rest of UK did. All of other BOTs (including WSBA and ESBA) aren't in the EU. - Hoshie  07:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  British overseas territories part of EU? 

message: I have removed the comment "Gibraltarians are considered UK nationals for EU purposes".
It's a true statement - British overseas territories citizens (BOTCs) connected with Gibraltar are UK nationals for EU purposes, the only BOTCs to have that status on the basis of being BOTC.
However, since 21 May 2002, people in all other British territories bar the Sovereign Base Areas have full British citizenship which they hold alongside BOTC.   So because of their British citizenship (and not because of BOTC), persons from Bermuda, St Helena, Cayman Islands etc are also UK nationals for EU purposes.
However the Overseas Territories other than Gibraltar are not part of the EU and do not vote in 'European elections'.  JAJ 05:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibraltarians - UK nationals for EU purposes 

message: "The term "Overseas territory" has only been used since 2002 ... The term does not apply ... to the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus which are governed by the British military."
According to Schedule 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are a British overseas territory on the same basis as any other.   
The fact that British overseas territories citizens solely connected with the SBAs are not entitled to British citizenship is irrelevant.
There's no reason I can see why they should be excluded from the article.  JAJ 04:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Legally and constitutionally they are an Overseas Territory and it's best to mention them in this article.   The two main differences I can see are: a. practical jurisdiction is exercised by the MoD rather than the FCO, and b.  British Overseas Territories citizens from the SBAs are excluded from British citizenship under the British Overseas Territories Act 2002.   JAJ 02:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereign Base Areas 

message: I removed the following from the end of the citizenship section:
:Other uninhabited territories such as British Antarctic Territory and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
I removed it because, obviously, it doesn't make any sense. If anyone knows what it's supposed to say, have at 'er. FireWorks 05:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship 

message: I moved this here from Overseas territory of the United Kingdom on behalf of User:JFG - just to clarify, I don't have any particular opinion about what title is correct. CDC (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please desist. See  Andrew Yong 14:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate the proposal nor official mentions elsewhere. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: *Bermuda isn't a crown colony it still has a House of Assembly. CaribDigita 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other British possessions were Crown Colonies, e.g. Colony of Vancouver Island.Skookum1 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Crown Colony in the historical context was usually when Britain dissolved almost all sovereignty in a territory. This was usually on the grounds that territories with a sovereign House of Assembly were difficult to manage from abroad.  This happened in many countries, but one that comes to mind is Dominica in 1896. CaribDigita 22:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the redirect should be cancelled. Crown Colony status is part of the national history of places as varied as Singapore, New Zealand and the 13 original states of the US. The British overseas territories are a new status invented in the last years of the last century. It's fairly hard to discuss the history fo thsoe places when you redirect to a novel class of British territory, all of them tiny. We've got an old, large and significant historical subject, Crown colonies, that somehow redirects to a new and insignificant subject, British overseas territories. Alan 03:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Would it make more sense to redirect "Crown Colony" to "British Empire"? Matt 22:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does Crown colony redirect here? 

message: They have just undergone constitutional reform -- since yesterday, their head of government is not Chief Minister any longer, but Premier instead... Does this also mean that T&CI status is at par with Bermuda's now, meaning they have the highest level of self-government possible? If so, the table and descriptions should be adapted to that effect... —Nightstallion (?) 19:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turks and Caicos Islands 

message: In the first line of the history section of the article there's a reference to the English Empire.  Am I right in thinking that there was no English Empire, and this should read British?
Ironcorona 08:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empire? 

message: This page really should be moved to "British Overseas Territories" or "British Overseas Territory" — it is a formal term that requires capitalisation (somewhat akin to United States of America, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or British Army).  It is especially the case here as the page makes distinction between an Overseas Territory and other overseas territories such as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.
*Foreign & Commonwealth Office UK Overseas Territories
Moongate 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move suggestion 

message: "Although Britain itself has seen immigration from these areas (over a far longer time frame), the nature, timing, and size of this non-British settlement, the resulting racial makeups of many of the populations, and both the legacies of racism, slavery, and economic exploitation, on the one hand, and the attitudes, within and without Britain and its territories, to nationality and ethnicity as they relate to race, on the other, mean that the relationship between Britain and some of its remaining settlements is often seen as more analogous to that which had existed between Britain and some of its now independent territories in Africa or Asia, rather than that with the previous North American or Australasian territories."
I'm stuggling to believe anyone could have wrote this without purposefully trying to make it needlessly long. I'll have a go at chopping it up--The Spith 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the paradigm of Charles Dickens' writing style, it even includes the overuse of commas. :) Chris Buttigiegtalk 21:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest sentence ever? 

message: US DST rules have changed significantly, effective from March 1st 2007.  The clock change which would have happened on April 1st 2007 will occur on March 11th 2007.  The autumn clock change will be a week later than in the past.
That affects (most of) the USA.  Also most of Canada, of course, and the Bahamas (Commonwealth, and off-topic here).  It also affects Bermuda and Turks & Caicos, which are British overseas territories.
Four other BOTs are near North America; i don't know their plans.
Change in Summer Time rules affects IT and travel.
(a) Does it affect any other BOTs (or commonwealth)?
(b) Is it, after independent verification, worth mentioning here or in individual BOT pages?  I rather think it might be.
82.163.24.100 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of US DST rule change, 2006/2007 

message: Hi.  There is a discussion going on over the Gibraltar article as to the legal status of the territory.  The outcome would have an impact on this article, because the claim is that Gibraltar is not a "British" overseas territory, because the legal name has changed since the 2002 Act.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 11:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion re Gibraltar 

message: "The Dominions achieved full independence with the Statute of Westminster (1931)". No they didn't. They gained partial independence to varying degrees. Treay Ports, Goff Whitlam crisis, Newfoundland, shared crown etc etc etc
194.46.227.118 23:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independence 

message: Does the term "British overseas territories" include the "Sovereign Base Areas"? ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 11:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do BOTs include SBAs? 

message: There are 17 images in the gallery of which over 50% of those are of Bermuda. If there is going to be a gallery of images within the article surely it should aim to portray at least one image of each of the 14 territories. I will try to improve this later on but if anyone else wants to give it a shot before I have, just go for it! --Gibmetal 77talk 13:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . The only territory not included is British Antarctic Territory as there are no available images. --Gibmetal 77talk 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Gallery 

message: The image :Image:Garrison HQ, Dhekelia.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with Image:Garrison HQ, Dhekelia.jpg 

message: I'm really not quite clear what the gist of this edit was - it seems to be quietly dropping or confusing the use of "crown colony", which as I understand it had a specific constitutional significance. I'm not quite able to put my finger on it, I'm a bit tired today, but it doesn't seem right. Anyone better informed about this than me? Shimgray | talk | 12:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oct08 edits 

message: I've been kindly asked to explain the full gambit of my edits.  Whereas the expressed intention was mainly to bring this article inline with what a British Overseas Territory (BOTs) is as it stands right now.  So I'll try to do so here.  The first thing that jumped out at me is that the article is trying to quantify exactly what is a British Overseas Territory in the current sense but it has scattered across it more historical contexts too.  Now it could be argued that previous places that were overseas areas of the UK could also be re-direct here but it is probably be better for them to reference British Empire instead since that would have been how they were governed then.  This is mainly because British Overseas Territory are a current evolving organ (or being) and if somewhere isn't a British Overseas Territory right now this probably wouldn't be the correct destination for those articles no???  Bear in mind there are articles on Wikipedia (right now) on citizenship of BOTS so if you mix Australia, Belize etc. as currently redirected to here and other articles says BOTS are British Overseas citizens you give the wrong picture. (See also British Overseas Territories citizen)
The existing statement that was here implied that British Territories are not actually a part of the UK. This is true in a sense. E.g. the relationship between Scotland or Wales with England is a lot different than say Bermuda and England. If you are of actual Bermudian parents you would be a British Overseas citizen. If you are born in Martinique, Guadeloupe etc. you are considered as being in a region of France.
In terms of government in places such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, and the Turks and Caicos islands they have evolved to the level of having a Premier (usually that is the jumping off point for territories should they choose to become independent.) Under that relationship the office of Chief Minister becomes Premier. And they vest more powers of the Governor into the Premier.  At this level it is taking on the character of a Self-governing territory and would gain more control over the budget, immigration, national agenda and the legislature gains more power from the Governor as well.  It this state legislation is usually presented to the Governor for the official go ahead.  The UK still retains the responsibility of national defence and International relations though. When a place becomes independent those costs and final responsibilities become the territory's own responsibility.  The office of Premier becomes Prime Minister.  The Governor becomes a Governor-Genereal. etc.
Crown colony goes in the opposite direction.  In British Guiana the UK had merged three former Dutch territories into one single state (British Guiana) and the Governor was granted the majority of the powers there because the Dutch system would not entirely lend to the English system.  This happened too in Trinidad, Singapore, South Africa etc.  (Crown colony is really something that again I think more belongs in the British Empire article because pretty much all current BOTS have progressed pass that stage.)  Some go by the term "Crown Dependency" (which I have to do more research on) but it so far looks like a modern adaptation of a Crown colony.  e.g. the UK still retains most of the governance in that location via an Executive Governor of sorts. Whether that governor in a Crown dependency has the majority of powers over the legislature and so on (as happens in a Crown colony government) I need to research more.
Basically, becoming a Crown colony was not something that British colonies aspired to have happen. It would be basically be like having the government seize control of your house but still allow you to live in it. It kinda means you overstepped your bounds and were reigned in by a direct representative of the Monarchy. I use the Commonwealth of Dominica as an perfect example because at a time when the legislature started to become too powerful it was stripped of its powers in 1896 and reduced down to crown colony level of governance. (Which doesn't mean it was colonised by British it already was a British possession.)
South Africa underwent Crown colony government as well it appears.  See Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner#The peace under the header "The Peace" note the importance of showing South Africa's relationship as a British Colony as it moved back and forth between "Crown colony government" and "Self-Governing" status. That is one of the few articles that I've been able to find that didn't have the phrase "crown colony" haphazardly thrown around in the incorrect context, but actually showed how "Crown colony" is a status of government that came and went in British colonies.
In Singapore, Britain used Crown colony governance again as a basis to transform the existing Dutch system and to vest the majority of powers in the Governor until this was done. (See Singapore in the Straits Settlements.
In 1876 riots broke out in Barbados at the prospect of merging Barbados even more firmly into the British Windward Islands, which was a just a loose association.  Most in Barbados were afraid that their 230+ years of Self Government under the British would be eventually reversed exposing the island to being placed under crown colony status.  The move was halted and the British Government removed the Governor (John Pope Hennessy) and accused him of inciting the riot. (Source: Insight Guide Barbados ISBN: 981-234-067-1) CaribDigita (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 18 edits, Crown colony et al 

message: Here it is.  As you can see Bermudian nationals are not granted the same benefits automatically as nationals of the United Kinddom.  Clear example.
Article: (Bermudian) Premier leads push for visa-free travel in the European Union
Date: Published: October 29. 2008 07:40AM
Source: http://www.royalgazette.com/ - The Bermuda Royal Gazette Newspaper
Link: http://www.royalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?articleId=7d8aeab30030001§ionId=60
[SNIP]Premier Ewart Brown has called for Bermudian passports to be accepted in Europe in the same way as British passports.
He made the point when he chaired an Overseas Territory Consultative Council (OTCC) session yesterday on visa-free travel for British Overseas Territory Countries' (BOTC) passport holders.
According to a statement from press secretary Glenn Jones, the Premier made a presentation with the objective of alleviating what he described as a "disconnect throughout the European Union on how to handle Bermuda passport holders".
Dr. Brown said: "If Bermudians are British citizens their passports should be accepted anywhere in the European Union just as British passports are. Right now that is not the case. [/SNIP]
CaribDigita (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should clearly illustrate what I was talking about regaring BOTs and nationals in the BOTs. 

message: I removed a paragraph from the introduction.  This is an article on British Overseas Territories, not the legal differences between the different types of British colony.  And wording "should not be confused with" may be appropriate for a school study aid but is not appropriate for an encylo (who said anyone would get confused?)  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed para from intro 

message: There's an information conflict right now.  On *this* article it says the Commonwealth of Nations do not contain the British Overseas territories (e.g. Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Cayman Islands etc. etc.  However, on Royal Commonwealth Society it says the name of that organisation itself was changed to reflect the evolution of those same British Overseas territories. Which is correct?  As far as I knew last- the Commonwealth of Nations did not cover the British Overseas Territories.  Did this change recently? CaribDigita (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it hasn't changed they're not part of the Commonwealth of Nations but like most things its shades of grey.  Many tale part in the Commonwealth Games for example.  Justin talk 10:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting information. Are the British Overseas Territories a part of the Commonwealth of Nations of some form? 

message: Shouldn't we move this page to British Overseas Territories as the term is used in capitals in the rest of the article? --Gibmetal 77talk 07:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move? 

message: *http://baumanblog.sovereignsociety .com/2009/03/second-dissolution-of-the-british-empire-whats-left.html - Second Dissolution of the British Empire (What's Left) -- Note this site is banned?  (I didn't know that was possible until now.)  So you'll have to move the .com part before "/2009".  I too wonder what will happen between Britain and the overseas territories.  What other industry(ies) could they fall back on besides tourism???
CaribDigita (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a blog and doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS.  Justin talk 09:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting read.  Are UK and overseas territories heading for a showdown over "Tax Haven" label? 

message: This is fascinating.  You don't see the British Government institute Crown Colony rule often.  Usually there is something bad that forces it to happen such as this.
*Britain partially suspends Turks and Caicos constitution
*UK action over Turks and Caicos 
*FIGHTING BACK: TCI Premier lashes out at the British
*UK to suspend Turks and Caicos' constitution after damning report charts 'palpable climate of fear'
*UK says ready to oust Turks/Caicos govt over graft
CaribDigita (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the first step to it becoming a Canadian territory, which has been on the Canadian mafia's wish list for some time now. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Turks and Caicos would probably need to make this decision known *before* this new administrative process kicks in, because it strips the territory of most of its local governance. (E.g. the Premier and the Cabinet.)  The British Parliament would likely still have the past an act to grant the TCs Independence or for transference of responsibilities to the Canadian Federation. As a matter of exercise, it probably would be closer to the agreement for the Transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong. CaribDigita (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Was just joking, BTW. I don't think joining Canada is a realistic possibility. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turks and Caicos heading for Crown Colony governance for next 2 +/- years? 

message: What are those stages of overseas territories? Baksando 01:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stages 

message: I'm not sure Cyprus actually does officially claim the bases.  There is no mention of it in the CIA World Factbook which usually covers such matters under its "Transnational Issues" section (e.g.   This needs a reference if it is to be put back. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyprus claim on Bases 

message: Flosssock1 continues with his civil POV pushing that the British Empire is still in existence .  I reverted this, because one of the purposes of the BNA was to change "colony" to "dependent territory".  Reference: "The Act came into force on 1 January 1983, effectively renaming the status of British (Crown) colony as Dependent Territory."   Note the "Crown" is in parentheses. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, please see the text of the British Nationality Act 1948, which the 1981 Act superceded, where we see many references to "United Kingdom and Colonies".  In fact, the term "Crown colony" does not even feature.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I don't understand. I originally added 'colonies or..' Flosssock1 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colony/Flosssock1 

message: why are some states more sovereign than others?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.129.49 (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  sovereign 

message: At the moment the article links to the National Archives (which gives the areas for 14 of the 15 "countries" mentioned (their word, not mine) . for the 15th one, you have to go to the cia Factbook for the area of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands . Adding up all those area it comes to 1,726,945.3 square kilometres. The populations add up to 258,522 so 260,000 is a fair estimate, but as the area is slightly out, I have changed the figures. I have also noted that most of the area is British Antarctic Territory.Michael Glass (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area and population of the British Overseas Territories 

message: One regular editor of this page has suggested that a single  tag at the end of an unsourced paragraph (where there are several potentially unsourced assertions in the paragraph) is not as useful as adding the tag to each and every unsourced assertion within the paragraph.  But this same editor has also provided me feedback on several occasions now that he really doesn't care very much for citation needed tags at all, usually with the idea that the claim is sourced somewhere else in the article, or is widely known to be true, or some such similar argument.  (all of which is fine, but should probably be handled on a case by case basis and considered individually--this question is NOT about any particular missing source, nor who should do the work of sourcing, but is rather more general.)
My question for regular editors of this article:  Assuming a Wikipedia editor wants to challenge a claim on the grounds of sourcing, is there a consensus on which of the two forms are preferred?  In many Wikipedia articles, I have found that editors think that more than one tag per paragraph is overkill.  (This is a simple question about article improvement and the preferred process for indicating a source in needed for THIS article.  Let's keep the conversation restricted to article improvement, viz, the edits to the encyclopedia, and not the editor.)  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no comment from other concerned editors to this point, I will continue with the fairly standard Wikipedia practice of tagging  only at the end of an unsourced paragraph, even where there are several potentially unsourced assertions in the paragraph.  If other editors would prefer a different practice for this article, I assume you will chime in here.  N2e (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagging the end of the paragraph is utterly useless in helping someone identify what fact you dispute and provide a supporting citation.  If you see that something needs a citation - WP:SOFIXIT.  Adding  to uncontroversial or well known material serves no purpose when the reference source is named in the paragraph.  Tell me what purpose do you think this serves.  Justin talk 13:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Justin -- It is difficult to be responsive to your questions when you bring up several topics in response to a single-topic section heading with a single question.  So I will just respond to the part of your answer that deals with the topic of this section, and suggest you create a new section if you want to also discuss other topics.  On the topic of one or many  tags in an article, I've got it that you prefer multiple instead of only one.  Let's wait a while (in this section on the Talk page) to see if a consensus develops among the regular editors of this page.  I don't really care, I just want to go with the developed consensus, either way.  N2e (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked for feedback you got it.  If you choose to ignore it that is entirely your prerogative.  I have asked politely what purpose you think it serves tagging uncontroversial and well known material?  Justin talk 12:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have asked you, on multiple occasions now, to focus on the contributions to the encyclopedia rather than the contributor.  My purposes, motivations and interests as an editor of Wikipedia are related to the later, so they won't be discussed further with you in the Talk space.  N2e (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: As of now, only one of the regular editors of the BOT article have weighed in.  Since I don't care one way or the other, I will assume the consensus (for now, at least) is that multiple  tags in a single paragraph are preferred to only one at the end of the paragraph.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  One or multiple {{tl|citation needed}} tags in a paragraph? 

message: In a related thing, how many times should the ref be inserted?  I mean, suppose I write a whole paragraph and cite it.  Is it standard practice to just put the cite at the end, or should it be after every single sentence?  Thanks...Smarkflea (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, a single citation can support an entire paragraph IF all of the assertions in the paragraph are supported by that source.  In Wikipedia-land, oftentimes new assertions are added by other editors to an existing paragraph that may, or may not, be supported by the existing source.  See WP:CS for more standard info, including exceptions where more frequent citations may be indicated.  Good luck.  N2e (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation question 

message: Per WP:BRD guidelines would suggest taking an issue to talk when a change has been reverted, I trust that you will do that.
Image Galleries, yes wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a collection of images, our purpose is also to educate.  The image gallery that has been repeatedly removed does that, it provides a gallery of images showing the diversity of BOT.
Guidlines are just that, guidelines, they are not mandatory.  The gallery serves a function here that is not easily conveyed in text and the article is all the poorer for it.  We need editors to create content not blindly follow guidelines without considering their actions will improve the article or not.  Please consider whether your change does that and don't blindly quote guidelines in response, because equally I can quote others for example WP:IAR.  Justin talk 12:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:IG guidelines are quite specific about what is or is not allowable, and you've done absolutely nothing to the gallery in the article to address the specifics of the guidelines. There is nothing conveyed in the article by including the gallery that is not also conveyed in the Commons gallery. Having the gallery here simply redundant and unnecessary. "showing the diversity of BOT" is just an inanity - it means nothing but showing pretty pictures, which still makes it an "indiscriminate collection of images". So far, you appear to be the only editor supporting its inclusion, which means the consensus is against you. The gallery stays gone until that changes. - BilCat (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have a strange idea of what constitutes consensus and really edit warring to impose a solution is just immature.  You're seeking to change an established consensus here,  the onus is actually on you to convince people to change, instead you're a WP:DICK and choose to edit war to impose your view.  I will not indulge you in that.  Congratulations have your own way but the article is all the poorer for it.  Guidelines are just that guidelines, pretty pictures as you put it, actually convey a great deal of information and after all our purpose is to educate.  Justin talk 13:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

text: And so anyone who disagrees with you must be "tearing down the encyclopedia". Surely you can make better arguments that that. - BilCat (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

text: "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." How exactly does this gallery do that? It's not explicit, which the guidelines imply that it needs to be. - BilCat (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

text: To edit warring: You seem to think you're exempt from edit warring if your edits are superior for some reason. WP policy is clear that only vandalism reverts are exempt from 3RR caounts, which this clearly is not. One editor removed the gallery, you put it vback, and I supported his removal. All reverts on your part after that are edit warring, and stubborn enought to let you keep doing it. I'm quite willing to push 3RR if I think the situation warrants it, and so are you, as you've illustrated here. So please drop the lectures about edit warring being "immature" - your'e just as gulty of it in this situation, and so apparently don't consider immature when you do it. I don't think its immature when I do it either, but I do know when to stop to avoid crossing 3RR. Do you? - BilCat (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I just can't be bothered to argue with someone being a WP:DICK being needleslly unpleasant over a WP:LAME dispute.  I think it improves the article, you appear to think articles are improved by removing educational content and edit warring to impose your will.  This appears to be a re-run of a similar discussion I had with you over your insistence on adding a long list of book title at random to articles, in fact pointedly so given your comments on edit warring.  I have clearly indicated that I won't edit again and no I'm not willing to push 3RR.  You might care to read WP:3RR as it is not a blanket allowance for 3 reverts if clearly your intention is to edit war to impose a solution as you indicate here.  Whether collectively it has encyclopedic value is a subjective judgement.  I point out it shows the diversity of BOT and you airily dismiss that without considering the point.  Fine, don't listen but don't pretend this is about improving the article because you're not.  Thats my last word on the matter.  Justin talk 14:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a question.... why can you not add in the images inline? That would be fine, it's just large galleries that frankly have no real relevance to the content article that are against the guidelines. Also WP:BRD does not say you can edit war, which you are doing - I've counted 3 reverts now. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He's only made two reverts in the last 24 hours by my count, as have I, so I don;t get his point that he's not revert-warring. Also, he has strangely one-sided definitions of edit-warring, and WP:DICK. I'm actually being quite nice to him by his own standards of past behavior. Still, he's given no explanation of what "shows the diversity of BOT", so I';ll ask more clearly this time: What kind of diversity? how is it relevant to the article? None of that is made clear by the galleerry's mere existence, and as such it is redundant to the Commons gallery. Anyway, Matt, I do think some of the images can be added to the article, but probably only 2 or three. Do you have any preferences as to which ones to add? - BilCat (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Two, my bad, sorry Justin. No preferences BilCat, though general overviews or views of the territory's government buildings would be best. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Matt no worries, I don't edit war and have no intention of doing so, especially over something so WP:LAME.  BRD is intended to avoid edit wars, the idea being if your edit is reverted it is best to discuss before reverting again that is all. I liked the gallery simply because it illustrates quite neatly the diversity of the BOT, words would not do the same job of doing so that is all - but its not my work and I realise your edit was well intentioned.  Rules being for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men, may I suggest that sometimes WP:IAR applies, guidelines are not rules either.  There are some for whom guidelines and rules are ammunition for their ego to win battles over trivia, in my experience simply walk away and WP:DGAF is the best response.  Justin talk 16:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Justin, I don't appreaciate your hypocrisy. You made 2 reverts, I made 2 reverts. If I was edit warring, then so were you. So plese stop pretending you're edits are suprior to mine in any way. I'm not admitting to edit warring, only pointing out that we both have made the same amount of reverts. There is no exemption for you on any grounds, as you';ve not accused me of vandalism - yet, anyway - with is the only allowable exemption. Please drop these hypocritical accusations - they only serve to stir up bad blood between us. So un;less you're prepared to avoid me, you need to accpet responsibilty for your own actions, and try to settle this like reasonable adults. - BilCat (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Further, we both appear to be opinionated, direct, stubborn people, yet you don't seem willing to accept those traits in others. Get over it. I am capable of working together with others civilly, in spite of a little personality conflict. You, however, don't appear to be able to do that. That's your problem, not mine. But when you keep m,aking snide remarks about me as if you're not doing the exact thing I'm doing, it then becomes my problem. If it continues, here or elsewhere, it will be dealt with according to WP policies and guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, the personal stuff is screwing around with your arguments. BilCat, you should not have reverted once you were reverted, and although understandably upset at Justins reactions, shouldn't react by what appeared to be attacks. Justin, you should not use such harsh terminology with such little basis, does nothing but procure bad blood. There is a sole issue to solve. What purpose would a gallery serve, and how would it serve this purpose? If it is meant to show the "diversity" of the BOT's (which I assume means island, island, island, island, snowy wasteland) how does it show this? If there is a gallery, it needs criteria. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

text: That's go to be the worst apology I've ever seen, then he goes right back to the same old accuisation and hypocrisy. I think at this point the continued accusations and protestations of innocene in his own actions can can be considered baiting. Time for ANIWQA. - BilCat (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Galleries 

message: What is going on with the new Coalition government and the current Caribbean overseas territories?
Turks and Caicos protests have increased with some calls for independence.
Bermuda was last year. (With a poll this year showing the populous doesn't support such moves by the gov't)
Anguilla is today.
Is the current British government perceived as anti-overseas territorial governments?
CaribDigita (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply, no. In any case, if a territory wishes to become independent it can. The troubles in Turks and Caicos have been brewing for quite a while and local corruption is the problem there (and they really shouldn't be complaining about the British attempting to restore sound government IMO). Bermuda is heading for independence and I think everyone is readying themselves that this will happen in the near future (I'm always surprised why they aren't already independent... they sure can afford it!) - as for Anguilla, again if they feel like being independent then fine. But I don't think any of this has anything to do with the change of government in the UK! In other overseas territories the new government is seen as being more supportive than the previous one, for instance in Gibraltar (stauncher position on the Spanish claim) and St Helena (new airport financed). David (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure... Anguilla and UK Governor in war of words. "I feel very disillusioned and frustrated with British administration for Anguilla. My commitment now is to press on with my programme for self determination," stated the Chief Minister to the nation last Thursday. CaribDigita (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is he complaining about? Could it not just be a local politician wishing to make it big? David (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: ah I see, the Governor is concerned that the Chief Minister/other Minister are abusing their positions. Another case of corruption in the Caribbean? The role of a governor is to oversee good government. I hope the people there see this and don't just listen to their local politicians. David (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bermuda independence is unlikely anytime soon. A poll in January showed that 73% of Bermudians were opposed to independence with only 18% in favor and the remainder being undecided. http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20110128/NEWS01/701289981  One has to understand that for the most part their is little support for independence except among the crooked politicians and their cronies who are upset that the British are asking for some accountability. 24.46.236.67 (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: April 26th 2011 poll via the Royal Gazette/Mindmaps - support for Bermuda gaining independence has grown by 2% to a whopping 16% in favor. 70% remain opposed to independence. http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20110425/NEWS/704259985/1001 As I said before, I don't expect Bermuda to gain independence anytime within the next 20 years or so and even then. Cfagan1987 (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New coalition government and territories. 

message: * "Full" rights in the UK? Even without Right of abode? That sounds strange to me.  Monserrations have been questioning their ability to move to the U.K. since the volcanic eruption.  Many actually chose to goto America or other *former* British colonies in the Caribbean citing it was somewhat easier to get status in those places.
* U.S. Is Ending Haven for Those Fleeing a Volcano- By NINA BERNSTEIN, New York Times (Published: August 9, 2004)
* 
* 
*Extension of the Designation of Montserrat Under Temporary Protected Status Program [ 68 FR 39106  [FR 29-03]], US Gov't.
*Termination of the Designation of Montserrat Under the Temporary Protected Status Program; Extension of Employment Authorization Documentation, US Gov't
A 2009 report by the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute, (Florence, Italy) stated this *still* was the case at that time.
* 
CaribDigita (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the understanding that the 2002 Act, gave citizens of BOT full British citizenship.  Is that wrong, I'm confused.  Wee Curry Monster talk 08:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any person who, immediately before the commencement of this section, is a British overseas territories citizen shall, on the commencement of this section, become a British citizen.  Wee Curry Monster talk 09:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you check your own sources eg U.S. Is Ending Haven for Those Fleeing a Volcano notes that they have had right of abode since 2002.  Wee Curry Monster talk 09:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article WCM just likned to, it states: "Citizens of British overseas territories were not automatically entitled to British residency until 2002. The Monserratians in the United States do not automatically have British passports." That appears to be were the confusion stems from, as these Monserratians in the US fled the volcano in the late 1990s. - BilCat (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you relocate to another country and take up citizenship there you lose the right to British Citizenship, I'm not 100% convinced the article is correct that Monserratians in the US do not automatically have British passports - they do have that right.  Wee Curry Monster talk 10:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How long do the old BOT passports last for? They may have had to reply for British Citizenship after 2002. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No different to UK Passports, 10 years.  I believe its an International Agreement rather than national legislation.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added one request for citation "full rights" as UK citizens? 

message: 16 @26:06 not 14.
Maybe someone you can phone Rosindell and ask him where he got the number from and whether he is able to list the 16.I am sure he is pruvy to prvilidged information and wikipedia should reflect that, and not the official, lower number.  Now what could the be two missing OTs.  1000 point for the correct response. U2r2h (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Territory - Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos), British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands, Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Saint Helena, Ascension Island, Tristan da Cunha  Crown Dependency - Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark SO IT IS 16 U2r2h (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's 14.  "Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha" is the name of a single territory; until recently it was known more simply as "Saint Helena and Dependencies".  Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  16 territories 

message: Someone has started putting on BOT articles that they are territories of the EU. WHich is totally wrong. They are not even strictly part of the EU, they just have a special relationship with it. We need to take this down, as it will confuse people.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.198.190 (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix this too.  I had created a template about economies of dependent territories (of EU states) and the terminology got changed over the years to something like economies of outer regions of the EU.  I too stated this was incorrect because E.U. law does not pertain to BOTS.  The U.K. has shielded them in the past pretty well. The BOTS act like mini-kingdoms of their own with their own immigration laws and all. Dutch and French territories are a lot more integrated these days than the BOTS. CaribDigita (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't BOTs receive economic assistance from the EU Development Fund? Cfagan1987 (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of countries do. (Besides UKOTs.) I know Barbados gov't works with the E.C.'s office (for the entire Eastern Caribbean) on that island.  CaribDigita (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 'I started the post' They are not part of the EU and this needs to be changed. What can we do about this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.163.52 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some BOT articles say they are a territory of the EU.... WRONG