Jump to content

Talk:Chagos Archipelago

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

NPOV!!

[edit]

Yeah, so some of this first section is seriously inflammatory and clearly NPOV. I don't know a darn thing about the situation, so I'm not gonna clean it up myself, but I will flag it, note it, and hope someone else can take over.

Corrected ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 14:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still heavily biased91.156.41.68 (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You say biased, but not in which direction. Yes, the article seems biased to me, in that it seems to minimise the plight of the Chagosians, or even treat it as an afterthought. What bias was this section referring to?Jergas (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

most isolated islands in world?

[edit]

I'm sure this isn't right - isn't St Helena or another British south Atlantic island more isolated? Saccerzd 16:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer Map? (copied from Gaimhreadhan's user talk page)

[edit]

The map of the Chagos you restored is not clearer and not more detailed. Did you bother to check with geographical Sites? In a nation like the Chagos made up of Submerged reefs, superficial reefs and dry land (very little of the latter), it is of the utmost importance to illuustrate the difference between the three. A map with only black outlines (most of them geographically inaccurate) like the one you restored, can never be clear enough. With my map I have tried to illustrate the particular geographical condition of the Chagos archipelago. Please check the image in high resolution. Besides the map you restored doesn't even have the Owen Bank and has a question mark instead. You could have checked well before removing my highly accurate map. We are supposed to improve the quality, not bring it down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohonu (talk • contribs) 04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I did closely examine both maps before I reverted your change. I agree that `your' map would be the better one to have if you were the master of a Super Tanker with a draught exceeding 60 feet. Unfortunately, because of the detail, when presented as a thumbnail as you edited it, none of the captions or names were visible at all. For the lede I think the map with clear captions and without a dark blue background is better. However the article's talk page is really the place to be discussing this - not here.
I have now added 'your' map to the right of the long history section, changed the caption and enlarged it to the minimum size necessary to read anything.
Thanks also for providing the Maldivian mariner reference - I have now also corrected the syntax so it displays better in the footnotes...
One wee quibble: you tend to mark you edits as minor; if you feel strongly enough about them to come here to my talk page rather than discussing them on the article's talk page, I suggest you do not mark them as minor.
Thanks for your useful contributions in improving our article!

PS: You do realise that, because Owen Bank is dropping to the sea floor and sea levels are rising, many cartographic charts no longer show Owen as a bank at all because of it's extreme depth - hence the question mark? ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 10:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owen- Submerged Bank or Atoll?

[edit]

As stated above, Owen Bank is dropping steadily. However, since it was in the past an atoll structure, shouldn't it be listed in the table as a submerged atoll instead of a submerged bank? --Maurice45 (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A map showing the continents?

[edit]

I cant guess where the archipellago lies, near Africa? in the Atlantic Ocean? in the nort pole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.241.55 (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Updated History Commons link in ref. Old link outdated. 98.67.83.141 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Black Max[reply]

'presented' or 'prevented'?

[edit]

"It was only by means of the executive order that this was presented." Should that last word for 'prevented'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.51.201 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of US Service Members?

[edit]

I find it highly unlikely that there are hundreds as supplies are flown in as weather permits and if there is any chance of them not being able to land on the Island the flight is deferred. I was on Diego Garcia for close to three weeks in the late 1990's and though I did not stop and count the people on the Island I can say that I do not believe the facilities would support hundreds of US military as well as the British presence, the contracted workers, and the merchant marines who use the Island as a stop over. I may be wrong but I don't think so. 216.96.63.165 (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Varsir[reply]

Is Africa or Asia ???

[edit]

Halfway in the middle of the Indian Ocean, ok, I understand. But geologically is the archipelago considered to belong to Africa or Asia ?? Why there is no mention on that ? I am trying to find it out and i cannot find any information about that. It should belong to one of the continents.08:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

Geologically they are recent marine (or oceanic) crust that has never been part of any continent. Do you mean, which tectonic plate they are located on? They are on the eastern slope of the mid-ocean ridge that separates the Indian and African tectonic plates, placing them on the Indian plate, though a little farther south and it looks as if they would be on the Australian plate. The Indian tectonic plate is distinct from the Eurasian plate and India is as a subcontinental landmass that started out as part of Africa and, thanks to the mid-ocean ridge mentioned before, has now collided with Asia forming the Himalayas in the process. See for instance http://www.learner.org/interactives/dynamicearth/plate.html. 65.78.152.17 (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC) JWD[reply]

size of marine reserve

[edit]

The line "At 640,000 km2, it is larger than the country of France or the state of California. It doubled the total area of environmental no take zones worldwide." should surely say 540,000 not 640,000. This is the size given both earlier in the article and in the source it links to (and also by the UK gov in http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/ot_biodiversity2011_BIOT.pdf) this would however make it smaller than France.

Fixed: The size is 640,00 sq km, see for example Chagos Marine Reserve and other reliable sources linked at Chagos Marine Protected Area. Whizz40 (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

In the process of doing EL cleanup, there are two dead links in that section. I'm placing them here for reference, in case they can later be repaired and integrated into the article:

PaintedCarpet (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reserve area

[edit]

There is a broken convert at Chagos Archipelago#Present (the unit should be "sqmi" with no space). The article used to say "640,00 sq km (397,667 sq mi)" until the recent edit which added {{convert}}. I would have fixed it (and added "|order=flip" so the km2 is first which seems most compatible with the rest of the article), but what is the correct area!?

  • Previous version of this article: 640,00 sq km (397,667 sq mi) (640,000? 64,000?)
  • {{convert|397,667|sqmi|km2|abbr=on|order=flip}} → 1,029,950 km2 (397,667 sq mi) (very different!)
  • {{convert|545,000|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}} → 545,000 km2 (210,000 sq mi)
  • Ref 1: 210,000 square miles
  • Ref 2: 545,000-sq-km
  • Ref 3: quarter of a million square miles

It looks like using 545,000 km2 would be best? Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication discussion

[edit]

Duplication discussion on Diego Garcia talkpage, Talk:Diego_Garcia#Duplication_between_Diego_Garcia_and_Chagos_Archipelago. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chagos Archipelago. 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) 12:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chagos Archipelago. 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) 03:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty claimed by Seychelles

[edit]

Dear Friends,

In the Infobox, Seychelles is being mentioned as claiming sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago which is completely false. The Reference which is provided for this is the CIA website where this is mentionned (See Link [1]). Although the CIA website is usually considered to be a reliable source, this is information is not true. It is well known that the US does not recognised Mauritian Sovereignty on the Chagos Archipelago and thus has a completely biased view on this issue and want the Seychelles to be involved in the disputes. In fact, not only, the Seychelles have no claimed on the Chagos, they even support Mauritian sovereignty on the Chagos Archipelago. Indeed, at the United Nation General Assembly in June 2017, the Seychelles voted in favor of a resolution to Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (see vote [2] and Resolution [3]). When the case was heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Seychelles submission to the ICJ never mentioned that it has any claim on the Chagos Archipelago (See submission [4]) and thirdly the Seychelles even voted in favor of the Resolution dated 24 May 2019 (See vote [5] and Resolution [6]) which call upon the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to withdraw its colonial administration from the Chagos Archipelago unconditionally within a period of no more than six months from the adoption of the resolution, thereby enabling Mauritius to complete the decolonization of its territory as rapidly as possible. Indeed, there are no other reliable sources where it is mentioned the the Seychelles claimed the Chagos. I hope this clarify why the information provided by the famous CIA World Fact Book is completely erroneous. Kingroyos (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done someone has already removed the claim from the infobox.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Act of Capitulation" or "act of capitulation"

[edit]

I have added a link from the text "Act of Capitulation", in section "Sovereignty dispute" to the description of this in History of Mauritius, however, the latter uses uncapitalised text, which seems to me more appropriate.

Reading 'between the lines', in this article and in History_of_Mauritius#French_rule_(1715–1810), it would seem likely that the "the Act of Capitulation signed between the two countries" described in the current article refers to 'the Treaty of Paris [signed] in 1814, [under which] the "Isle de France" which was renamed Mauritius was ceded to Great Britain' ["French_rule_(1715–1810)", History of Mauritius]. If this is correct, then the "act of capitulation" is a description rather than a proper noun and ought to be uncapitalised as it is in the History_of_Mauritius#French_rule_(1715–1810). Capitalisation suggests that there was some kind of Parliamentary Bill passed by a governing authority rather than - as it seems from the text of article "History of Mauritius" - simply a recognition of defeat by the French military powers in place at the time. Hedles (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 February 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Chagos Archipelago → Chagos Islands – "Islands" outnumbers "Archipelago" by nearly 7 to 1. Even the football team is called Chagos Islands national football team. Unreal7 (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chagos Archipelago is a true Lanka of Ravan

[edit]

According to Dr. Aditya Satsangi's research, the location of Chagos Archipelago matches the location of Ravan's Lanka which was point to point describe as mentioned in Valmiki Ramayan. 50.235.164.250 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add A Fact: "UK cedes Chagos Islands to Mauritius"

[edit]

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98ynejg4l5o

Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference: 

 {{Cite web |title=UK hands sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98ynejg4l5o |website=BBC News |date=2024-10-03 |access-date=2024-10-03 |language=en-GB |quote=UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius}}

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

chris_j_wood (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British oppression

[edit]

Note: More likely the 'British East India Company' and their huge army of mercenaries, than British policy. Needs more nuance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.103.21 (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administration

[edit]

I have reverted an edit claiming that the Chagos Islands are now administered by Mauritius. As the UK government makes clear: "Today’s political agreement is subject to the finalisation of a treaty and supporting legal instruments, which both sides have committed to complete as quickly as possible." [10] Let's not jump the gun. Lo2u (T • C) 18:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chagos_Archipelago&oldid=1250990296"