Talk:Expulsion of the Chagossians

message: </br>
__TOC__
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move to depopulation of Diego Garcia. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Move to Depopulation of Diego Garcia, as was previously suggested, which better describes the content of this article. Jonathunder 01:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Right, I've had enough of waiting for somebody else to do something about the state of this article so I have rewritten it.
I know almost nothing about this business, so I have confined myself largely to rephrasing things to remove obvious allegations of improper conduct or motives - for example towards the end it stated that the "illiterate" islanders signed the British offer, but there's nothing to support that so I reworded it to say only that some accepted it.
One exception is that a lawsuit was mentioned as having been brought against the British. I deleted this fact as it said nothing about the outcome of the case, if any.
I've also cleaned up a lot of paragraph breaks. Previously it was more or less one to two sentences per paragraph.
I hope I haven't introduced any factual inaccuracies, but I think this half-solution is far better than what was there. BobThePirate 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reworked

message: I'm not sure they should be labeled indigenous.  The island was uninhabited until the 1800's (or so).  I'm not going to change it because I'm not sure what the best way to phrase it would be, but I think it should be changed. LM1026 09:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to "established," which is both factually correct and avoids the implications of "indigenous." Nick Cooper 16:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree "indigenous" is not accurate.  It is as accurate as describing the populations of the Caribbean, e.g. Haiti, as indigenous.  "Native" might be a better term though the difference between "indigenous" and "native" is probably too subtle.  I prefer established or resisdents, even long-time residents, or "centuries-old community".  --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

text: According to wiki's article on "Indigenous_peoples" the people of Diego Garcia would certainly qualify.99.232.129.5 (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Indigenous" 

message: The section under 'depopulated' mentions the 'the conspiracy theory' making a certain argument, and this not only violates neutral point of view [in my opinion, 'conspiracy theory' is a weasel word], but it is very vague: it doesn't say who, specifically, made that argument. Filippo Argenti 22:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right, although this seems to be a legacy of the origins of the page. I've toned it down, although it really still needs a citation. Nick Cooper 10:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To reiterate a point made earlier by Garrick 92, there are a lot of requests for citation here that could very easily be rectified by making reference to Hansard, the UK Parliamentary Record. I'm not familiar enough with Wpedia to do it myself. Maconochie 22:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conspiracy Theory"

message: The lede is meant to summarize the article, not go into detail of what happened when and under what legal article.  Therefore, I have cut out all the detail regarding the ongoing legal stuff and explained that there is ongoing legal stuff.  That is the level of detail a lede should have, and it should not necessarily need heavy citation.  Specifics belong in the body of the article with citations. MSJapan (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial cut-down of lede.... 

message: UK's Chagos Islands descendants feel like 'lost nation'  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48426031
There are approx. 3000 Chagossians living in the UK in or near to Crawley, East Sussex. Boscaswell talk 07:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New BBC article with heaps of first hand information 

message: I think the link in reference 55, which is supposed to refer to a White House petition, is broken (at least for me). I think maybe the correct URL is now https://web.archive.org/web/20201124153300/https:// petitions .obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/petition/us-government-must-redress-wrongs-against-chagossians/
I'm not sure if it's just me so I didn't want to change the article right away just to have it reverted.
AlfonsoAnonymous (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right about the dead link. The URL you posted has a space after petitions which needs to be removed. However, for some reason the site is blocked by the spam filter.Burrobert (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken reference link? 

message: Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimes against humanity category removal