Talk:British Indian Ocean Territory/Archive 1

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

Comment

Could someone please make a disambiguation page for the term "Biot", which could also refer to the French physicist/mathematician Jean Baptiste Biot?

Done. --Billpg 19:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Asia or Africa

I am just now wondering as to which continent this territory is geographicaly more closely associated with. Who can clarify? My own bid would be that these islands should be counted as an Asian territory.

My clarification would be this. Historically the Chagos Archipelago has a long association with Mauritius and when Mauritius was still a British Colony it was administered by the Governor in Port Louis. When BIOT was created, Chagos was detached from Mauritius (controversial then and now). At the time, BIOT also included some islands that had previously been administered by the Governor of the Seychelles, but these reverted to the Seychelles when it became independent. The UK has said that when/ if BIOT (which now consists of only Diego Garcia and the Outer Islands) is no longer required for defence purposes, they will be returned to Mauritius. There is no doubt that Mauritius is the country in the region with which the Chagos Archipelago has been, is (with most Chagossians who used to live on the islands - and their families - now in Mauritius) and in future will continue to be Mauritius. Most reference books I have seen treat Mauritius as an island part of Africa. Biodiplomacy 15:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox template

I don't have an opinion on whether infobox should be included here on the article itself or transcluded from Template:British Indian Ocean Territory infobox. Either way has its advantages. Honestly, I think this is an immensely unimportant issue. However, the following (from the edit history) strikes me as a little odd:

  • 21:53, 30 Sep 2004 Gzornenplatz (just because the template can't be deleted, doesn't mean it has to be used here)
  • 21:51, 30 Sep 2004 Benc (restore infobox template: no delete consensus on tfd)
  • 14:33, 21 Sep 2004 Gzornenplatz (no need to outsource infobox, article is short enough and obviously the infobox is only needed in this article)

On one hand, this action could be seen as essentially thumbing your nose at the community's decision to not delete the template. Then again, only two other people voted on TfD, and neither of them are contributors to this article.

I'm pointing no fingers here; I'm just clarifying the issue for anyone confused by the edit history. • Benc • 22:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, three votes in total is not a convincing quorum for anything. More importantly, the two others did not pursue the discussion any further. If anyone wants to use the template here, they can continue the discussion here. I still have seen no reason for using a template that will never be needed in more than one article. Gzornenplatz 22:48, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Since content of template copied to main BIOT page by Gzornenplatz, corrections made there by myself and other contributors not made to this template. If it is reinstated, these corrections will be lost unless template is kept in sync while debate over the merits of infobox templates ensues.
Anyway, never say never. I think these country infoboxes would be suitable for other pages about countries less well known like BIOT - I was thinking about a page covering the high court case, which wouldn't belong on the main page, but would benefit from the infobox, as an example.
For my part, if a vote were held again today, I'd also come down strongly in favour of using the template for the reasons set out by other "keep" voters in the TfD discussion. In general, the value of using of templates, styles and other standards of visual consistency lies not in the question of how many places they might be used, but the reassurance and aid to comprehension that they give users in accessing similar information across different subjects. In this case, it's a quick summary with pertinent facts about countries - I don't see how consistency across country pages can be bad. The use of the templates reinforces this approach.
To address the "edit this page" argument - I'd agree that included templates should also have "edit this infobox" links as a matter of policy - would that satisfy this concern? —samt talk 14:17, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
I don't understand this consistency argument. How is it any more or less consistent if the infobox is in the article or in a template? In fact, for most countries the infobox is in the article, so it should be here too to be consistent. Gzornenplatz 19:30, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

"Permanent inhabitants" & "indigenous population"

How is the BIOT considered uninhabited, if there are some 3000 military personnel there? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I would assume that the BIOT is like the Antarctic territories and the TAAF, in that (almost) no one is born or raised there and most retire and plan to die elsewhere. But I'm not 100% certain. Apparently one person is literally native to Antarctica but the infant was shipped off to Argentina immediately. As for BIOT, I guess that if the population doesn't replenish itself and the indigenous population now resides in Mauritius, then one might say that the territory is permanently inhabited (there's always someone there) but that there's no permanent population (everyone there is from someplace else). //Big Adamsky 20:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the Ilois? The Ilois don't inhabit the islands now, but were forcibly removed. Sowelilitokiemu 02:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

David Vine provides an extensive discussion of the population history of Diego Garcia and BIOT. Vine, David 2004 War and Forced Migration in the Indian Ocean: The US Military Base at Diego Garcia. International Migration Volume 42, Issue 3: 111-143. doi: 10.1111/j.0020-7985.2004.00291.x (65.102.139.250 06:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Number of Islands

How is it possible the BIOT to has over 1000 individual islands while the Chagos Archipelago has only 65? I think that the 2 areas coincide.--85.74.97.253 11:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are 65 main islands but when the number of islets and rocks is taken into consideration the total number rises dramatically to over 2,300. YourPTR! (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

what are your problems in governmemnt? what are your cultural values? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.181.29 (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated reference link

Fixed ref link to History Commons Diego Garcia site; old link outdated. 98.67.83.141 (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Black Max

Proposed merge

Geography of the British Indian Ocean Territory doesn't seem worth sustaining as a separate article in its present state. It contains only the sort of basic info that one would expect to find in the main article, so I propose merging it here. It can easily be recreated if it's ever warranted in future. 86.172.96.114 (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC).

Coordinates

I've just removed two, very different, sets of coordinates from this article:

Which, if either, is correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"national song"

I am wondering where the claim of the BIOT "national song" can be supported? EdwinHJ | Talk 03:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Area

How come the description says the islands total 60 square kilometres (23 square miles) but the infobox says it totals 54,400 square kilometres (21,004 square miles)?! It seems nearly impossible that a small group of islands can have that large of an area! Can someone fix this please! Frankster200277 (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

54,400 square kilometers/21,004 square miles refered to the total area of land and water in the BIOT. Dberard (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Indian Ocean Territory. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Indian Ocean Territory. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This article lists the UK as the sovereign state despite the fact that the United Nations lists Mauritius as the state to which it belongs. This needs more prominence in the article.

Even the United Nations map of the world UN Map of World now lists Mauritius as the sovereign state. Yet in the article, this isn’t mentioned at all in the info box. It’s not adequately covered at all. This is a territory claimed by the United Kingdom and administered by the United Kingdom. Its sovereignty is disputed and the UN General Assembly set a 2019 deadline for the UK to end its administration and permit Mauritius to begin to exercise its sovereignty over the territory. I know we all love the UK, but shouldn’t this be given proper prominence in the FIRST SENTENCE of the lede and in the INFO BOX and general prominence? Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes infoboxes stick to the de facto situation, sometimes they go mention varying de jure situations. As for the lead, there is a whole paragraph on the matter. I don't know whether putting it in the first sentence as well does much for flow. CMD (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Just for information UNGA resolutions are advisory only and the UNGA is not a supreme authority that is able to make pronouncements or set deadlines; in fact constitutionally it is banned from doing so. It's resolutions being simple majority voting are often incompatible with what it's actual powers are. And no it doesn't have to go into the lede, this is a classic example of lede fixation. WCMemail 08:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree with WCM. Best, Apcbg (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this is a disputed territory should be reflected in the very first sentence. Just as is done with South Ossetia; Abkhazia; and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, the latter being a jurisdiction that enjoys far more international recognition than the UK’s sovereignty over the territory in question. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have to be in the very first sentence. See WP:RECENTISM and WP:LEDE. WCMemail 09:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for a first stetence:

The British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) is a disputed territory administered as a British overseas territory of the United Kingdom but widely recognised as part of Mauritius.

As to WP:RECENTISM there is nothing recent about the dispute about its sovereignty. There is nothing inconsistent in the above with WP:LEDE either. If you oppose this suggestion and wish, instead, to insist on unqualified claims that the territory is a United Kingdom BOT, explain yourself. Why is this approach being taken here but not on South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic? Is this just a case of bias where matters concern the United Kingdom? As no reasoning has been given, that’s how it seems to me. My suggested revised first sentence has already been reverted. Frenchmalawi (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Opening with "disputed territory" is undue, and also redundant to the later information of the claim (whether in that sentence or the later paragraph) which explains that statement. Abkhazia and SADR do not use this formulation, and neither should South Ossetia.
On questions of prominence, my experience is that sources rarely mention the self-declared states without a note of their status, but when discussing the BIOT this is less common (although what is ubiquitously raised is the history of the Chagossians). I don't have a strong view on whether the first sentence of the third paragraph is the best place to discuss the issue, but it seems redundant to bring it up twice.
On comparative articles, a better comparison would be Mayotte, which is in a much more similar situation than the self-declared states. CMD (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
My reasoning pretty much follows that of CMD, thank for your that btw it saved me a job. I tend not to spend too much time of replying to editors making demands and seemingly here because they see Wikipedia as a mechamism to right WP:GREATWRONGS. I suggest you focus on content, as lashing out at other editors merely tends to convince people you're not here to improve the encyclopedia. WCMemail 11:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


-- Can we all agree that the article needs updating? The introduction mentions only the 2017 reference by UNGA to ICJ but not the ICJ opinion (25 February 2019) which was welcomed and endorsed by UNGA in May 2018 but rejected by UK. UK argues that it is a dispute between two states but ICJ opinion says Mauritius was was not independent when the "Lancaster House" agreement was made. ICJ says decolonisation of Mauritius is incomplete.

-- Should there not be a mention that the UK agreed to a US base on Diego Garcia in return for US supplying UK with nuclear missiles? A deal that continues.

-- Should there not be links to two other Wikipedia articles: Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute and Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 ? How could this best be done? 

  Kahuzi (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I have to declare a WP:COI as I am a member of a group that campaigns for the right to return of the Chagossians.
Agree that the article needs updating but this needs to be done in accordance with WP:NPOV, my concern is the article being hijacked for the sovereignty claims of Mauritius and ignoring the impact that this may have on the Chagossians.
However:
Should there not be a mention that the UK agreed to a US base on Diego Garcia in return for US supplying UK with nuclear missiles? A deal that continues. Is already mentioned.
Should there not be links to two other Wikipedia articles: Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute and Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 ? How could this best be done? Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute Is already mentioned., I will add Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. WCMemail 17:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The very first sentence needs to reflect that this is a disputed territory. The UK assertion of sovereignty is not recognized by most of the world’s states. A mere 5 other states supported the UK assertion of sovereignty at the UN’s last vote. If the very first sentence doesn’t indicate that there’s “something not quite right” then it’s a misleading article, belittling the remarkable position that the UK is administering the territory in question in outright defiance of the international community. WCM, the first sentence is about describing the territory. The first sentence is not about discussing the plight of its native people. I doubt that there is an article about a territory or country that begins with a statement about its people. I’ve pointed out that it is common on WP for the first sentence to identify an issue as fundamental as this touching on the status of the territory. Burrying this somewhere in the article really does a disservice. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

WCM, as you have declared a COI of the kind you mention, I’d just flag that persons who are United Kingdom nationals may feel they have a COI too. I do not know how many UK nationals are engaged in this discussion. But we are communicating in English about a territory claimed by the UK... so it seems probable that there could be persons with that background. Nothing wrong with that. But I encorage all to be objective and neutral here. This is very clearly a disputed territory. The disputed nature about the territory is its overarching political characteristic. This ought to be reflected in the first sentence. Khufu: not only did ICJ say decolonization was incomplete, it said that UK administration must end as quickly as possible (don’t have the exact quotes to hand). The UK’s arguments should not be simply parroted out. They should be described as having been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the international community. The UNGA adopted General Assembly Resolution 73/295 setting a 2019 deadline for the UK to end its administrationa and permit Mauritius to begin exercising its sovereignty. All of this needs covering but unless the first sentence is accurate, the article fails. To describe the territory as simply a BOT is very clearly wrong. Khazui, I made my suggestion for a first sentence (above in this discussion). It was rejected, or at least reverted. Have you any suggestion for a new first sentence? Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis, you talked about the formulations on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Its first sentence describes it as a “de facto” state. As you seem to object to use of the word “disputed” in the first sentence, are you suggesting that the ‘BIOT’ should be called a “de facto” territory of the UK? If so, I agree with that suggestion, albeit I preferred my own. Happy for you to make that change. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
If there is an adjustment, I would prefer "claimed by Mauritius", which covers the relevant information without redundancy. However, as I noted self-declared states are poor points for comparison. The best comparison I can think of at the moment is Mayotte, which provides less emphasis than done currently here. Browsing through other entries on List of territorial disputes there doesn't seem to be much consistency. CMD (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
--- I'll try to help with this but I'm short of time, at the moment (fruit picking). For the record, I am a UK national, but have worked for an international organisation so I have some experience of issues of this kind. I try to understand conflicting views and do not support any particular side(s). Going back to my earlier comments, I think the introduction needs revising to update and clearly signal the two areas of contestation (Chaggosian people and Mauritius sovereignty claim). In doing so, I think it would be helpful to mention the US/UK "deal" for the US to provide UK with nuclear weapons in exchange for the Diego Garcia base because it does explain why the UK's position of sovereignty is so entrenched. One final point, I have concerns about describing Diego Garcia as a "joint military facility"; seems to me that it's essentially a US base to which the UK has some access. There is a UK Naval Commander there but very few other UK military personnel, whereas the US has about 3,000. Must get back outside ;-) Kahuzi (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree, the plight of the Chagossians is often neglected as is their right to self-determination in preference to territorial claims. The US/UK deal is actually already mentioned, as is the fact it is predominantly US base. Best. WCMemail 11:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The Chaggosians and the claim take up about a third of the current lead each. What clearer signal are you thinking of? CMD (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
WCM et al., the International Court of Justice has not found that there is a Chagossian people separate and distinct from Mauritian people. The ICJ has found that the ‘BIOT’ is part of Mauritius. We can all have our opinions on the rights and wrongs of the ICJ position and the international community’s position as articulated in UN GA Resolutions too. But that’s all they are opinions. CMD, the article doesn’t presently adequately reflect the fact that the international community considers Mauritius the sovereign. CMD, Mayotte does indeed have some similarities. But there is no ICJ opinion that France must end its administration. There is no UN map listing the Comoros as sovereign in respect of Mayotte either. The position of the UK as regards the Chagos Islands is quite remarkable and more akin at this stage to the position of Israel in relation to the ‘Occupied Syrian Golan’ (to use U.N. Terminology). The FIRST SENTENCE ought to tell the reader “all is not right here”. It doesn’t at present. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
That differentiation is tenuous nitpicking based on a selection of sources designed to try and push this particular opinion. Mayotte has been on the UN agenda literally since Comorian independence. At one point a resolution was passed every year to return it to Comoros. It was included in Belize's opinion on Chagos as a prior example. The French ICJ judge gave a separate opinion on the BIOT case specfically to try and distinguish it from Mayotte. Further, you'll notice the UN map does include Mayotte as part of Comoros, as it doesn't append an (FR.) or even pull it out separately like it does the Scattered Islands. Here's another UN map showing Mayotte as Comorian. CMD (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing “nitpicky” about pointing out that Mayotte is not the subject of International Court of Justice opinion to the effect that French administration is unlawful and should end as rapidly as possible. That’s rather important. It very much distinguishes the two cases. The legal position of the Chagos Archipelago in international law is now beyond argument. That’s not true of Mayotte. Again, that’s not “nitpicking”. The Comorians may well try the ICJ route and if they do and the ICJ’s decision is the same, then the two cases would indeed be the same. Right now, that’s simply your speculation. I have been encouraging disclosures of COIs. Are you a United Kingdom national? I am not. The reluctance to recast the article impartially and accord appropriate prominence to this fundamental issue doesn’t appear objective to me and I suspect is being driven by UK nationals with understandable sympathies.
[1] - UN General Assembly Resolution 73/295 for general reference. Frenchmalawi (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
CMD suggested that the words “claimed by Mauritius” be added. CMD suggested that the words “claimed by Mauritius” be added. I’m the only one whose so far made a suggestion for an updated first sentence. Although I preferred my suggestion, based on that, this is another which I’ve updated on the article for consideration:

The British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) is a territory claimed by Mauritius but currently administered as a British overseas territory of the United Kingdom.

Frenchmalawi (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't appreciate my suggestions being misconstrued to support pointy edits. The repetitive insinuations about sympathies (from someone who literally opened this with the inclusion of "I know we all love the UK"), rather than addressing responses, is not productive. Calling a comparison I provided sources for as "simply [my] speculation" further suggests a lack of engagement with the sources and the arguments, as does the earlier misreading of the UN map which your response did not address. I note again that there is no consistent standard for presenting disputed territories, and will add that in my experience across many Wikipedia articles concerning disputed areas (including non-British-related topics if that helps), discussions on articles and relevant NPOV tend to lean towards a focus on the de facto (ie. in reality) situation, accompanied by relevant coverage of various de jure views as per their competing weights. However, despite Kahuzi's attempts, I do not feel this discussion has much chance of being conducive to a resolution on the matter. CMD (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It is entirely speculative on your part to suggest that the ICJ would give the same opinion in relation to Mayotte as Chagos. There isn’t really any arguing about that. It’s clearly your speculation. There is no ICJ opinion on Mayotte. If you take exception with this statement of mine, justify yourself. You say that I have not addressed responses. I have. I have made two suggestions for an updated first sentence now. One was based on remarks you made. What is your suggestion? Is it fair to say that you support NO CHANGE? If so, just come out and say as much. You haven’t said whether you are a United Kingdom national or not, so I do not know if you have a COI owing to natural sympathies. You appear to be insisting on NO CHANGE to this as the following first sentence which I find no defense has been offered for:

British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) is a British overseas territory of the United Kingdom situated in the Indian Ocean halfway between Tanzania and Indonesia.

If you are insisting on NO CHANGE, just come out and be clear about it. No need to try to cast aspersions on me or others who seek balanced change here. Frenchmalawi (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

As to WP articles on disputed territories etc. and where they lean. I kicked off the discussion at the very beginning pointing to how the topic is addressed in 3 such articles. Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, all of which covered the disputed status of the territory in the very first sentence by use of “de facto” or some other wording. There certainly isn’t consistency on WP and the administrative power does tend to get more emphasis. I am not suggesting a change to the emphasis. I’ve never suggested a first sentence that cuts out the UK from the picture. That woudl be misleading. The UK currently still administers the territory. But baldly saying as a factual matter that the territory is a UK territory in the very first sentence. No qualifications. No buts. Nothing. That’s just plainly misleading. That’s not accurate. This is a territory not recognised as under UK sovereignty under international law... The first sentence should not be bald as you seem to be insisting it should be. Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
This appears to me a classic example of lede fixation. The casting of aspersions about other editors is deeply unhelpful and puts me in mind to refer those comments to WP:ANI if they don't stop. Nationality doesn't imply a WP:COI, I have declared mine as I actively campaign with a lobby group on this issue. This issue isn't moving forward because of your attitude. WCMemail 11:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
You, like CMD, are apparently opposing any change to the first sentence of the article. The first sentence baldly describes and defines the territory in question as a UK territory. The first sentence is the most important sentence in an article. It defines the topic. Let’s all be honest and not create smokescreens or threats. I’m in a minority of 1 so far. Others are fro NO CHANGE. No one else so far has proposed or accepted that there should be any change to the first sentence. That’s why the issue “isn’t moving forward”. If you want NO CHANGE to the first sentence, I think it would be honest of you to come plain lay out and say as much. If you want a change, please suggest an alternative wording. Frenchmalawi (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Frenchmalawi, there is a very good reason to avoid changing both definition (first sentence) and infobox. And the reason is following: British Indian Ocean Territory (political entity) is, by definition, a British overseas territory of the United Kingdom. Just like the Republic of Crimea is, by definition, "a federal subject of Russia and does not exist out of this context". Again, in both cases these political entities are defined as belonging to respective countries - in RoC article we see that the first sentence describes is as as "a federal subject of Russia that is located on the Crimean Peninsula" and unqualified "Country | Russia" in infobox; the non-recognition (which, unlike BIOT, went "a bit" beyond lip service decisions by UNGA, ICJ or other ABCD's), while indeed noted in the lead, is not conflated with actual defintion of the entity. Same approach should be taken here: we have definition, which shall be left intact because this is what the entity in question is, and a notice of the dispute, which shall indeed be updated with 2019 ICJ & UNGA resolutions, but, nonetheless, not conflated into definition. Actual disputed territory (geographic entity) is described in Chagos Archipelago, which would be a far better place for "disputed territory" qualifiers. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Needless to say, I don’t agree with you. The political entity comprises a disputed territory. Sure, you’ve found an example of a similar approach where a “make-believe” position is described. But WP is supposed to reflect the reality. I’ve already given several examples of articles with first sentences that do so. No doubt there isn’t consistency across WP in approach.
Your approach is to treat WP as if it is a United Kingdom legal textbooks. There is no doubt that United Kingdom law invented the term “British overseas territory” and categorizes the territory in question as one of them. “This is what the entity in question is” you say. No, “This is what the entity in question is according to United Kingdom municipal law”. Two very different things. WP isn’t supposed to be an FCO website.
”The British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) is a territory claimed by Mauritius but currently administered as a British overseas territory of the United Kingdom.” BIOT is a territory. BIOT is claimed by Mauritius. BIOT is administerd as a BOT of the UK. That reflects the reality, which WP is supposed to be about. Not merely UK legal theory which is what your approach is about. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Frenchmalawi, BOTs, whetherer in accordiance with or in contravenation of the Int'l law, are indeed defined solely by the United Kingdom, just as Russian federal subjects are defined under Russian framework. Mauritius doesn't claim BIOT as a political entity, it claims Chagos Archipelago as a geographic entity and considers this geographic entity a part of the Outer Islands of Mauritius political entity, just like Ukraine doesn't claim Republic of Crimea political entity, but the geographic territory it situated in, and considers that territory to be the Autonomous Republic of Crimea political entity. And assertion that "your approach is to treat WP as if it is a United Kingdom legal textbooks" is a very strong one, if not an outright aspersion. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
No doubt we both agree, as I indeed had pointed out, that BOTs are UK municipal law concepts. Articles about jurisdictions on WP aren’t generally and certainly shouldn’t be merely about a particular state’s municipal laws. In contrast, an article on UK municipal law can properly be about just that. WP already has the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 article for example. It is about UK municipal law on certain territories under UK law. I have no issues with that.
Again, you wish to treat an article about a territory as if it is an article about the territory according to UK municipal law. ‘The UK legal textbook approach’, so to speak. You repeat your bald asssertion that the BIOT is a UK BOT. You have not accepted that what’s correct is that the BIOT is a UK BOT according to UK municipal law only.
I am not clear why you seem to take exception with my characterization of your view as reducing the article to a treatise on United Kingdom domestic law (a sort of mini UK law textbook). After all, that is precisely what you have argued for. Now you’re talking about aspersions... which makes me think we are getting back to “smoke and mirrors” again and not engaging with issues. I hope not. If you don’t wish to engage with me, just tell me or ignore me if you like.
You have provided reasoning for your argument, the ‘UK legal textbook approach’. I fundamentally disagree with such a reductive approach. No, I do not accept that an article on a BOT should merely reflect UK municipal law because it is an article on a BOT. I oppose the awful idea that we have a BIOT article that presents the UK municipal law position, presumably a Mauritius article that presumably would present the territory as if there was no BIOT and a geographical article, that instead of dealing with geography deals with the question of contested sovereignty. A question that applies to both political entities; not geography. No, articles on territories and countries should be just that and in the round; not framed by reductive concepts of simply reflecting municipal law positions. Frenchmalawi (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for a first stetence:

The British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) is a disputed territory administered as a British overseas territory of the United Kingdom but widely recognised as part of Mauritius.

The UK is now negotiating the exercise of sovereignty with Mauritius. Announced in Parliament. Any change in thinking? Or do we continue to pretend it’s not something worthy of mention in the very first sentence? User:Seryo93, M, User:Chipmunkdavis, Kahuzi

Mauritius

I suggest the silly editing to and fro stops in the infobox, either leave it as de facto or agree wording in talk. A clue if you find yourself writing more than 2 or 3 words then it probably doesn't belong. WCMemail 11:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Mauritius (de facto)
United Kingdom (de facto)
Above is my suggestion reflecting the overwhelming consensus of the international community and the International Court of Justice. I don’t think my suggestion is particularly elegant. I think Mauritius alone should be listed, but that would leave things a bit misleading. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant:
Mauritius (de jure)
United Kingdom (de facto)
Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. POV in nature and taking sides. WCMemail 11:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The proposal to write Mauritius in "Sovereign state" here is, well, very wrong. The British Indian Ocean Territory (political entity) is, by definition, a British overseas territory of the United Kingdom, just like, say, the Republic of Crimea (political entity) is by definition a federal subject of Russia and does not exist out of this context. The disputed territory (geographic entity) is covered in the Chagos Archipelago and it already has two claimants in infobox - administering UK and claiming-but-not-controlling Mauritius. That page's infobox probably could be realdjusted along lines of Crimea (another disputed geographic entity), that is, more clearly state that it is "int'l recognised as part of Mauritius" or something similar - but that belongs to Talk:Chagos Archipelago to decide. As for this page, the maximum possible thing that could be done is the update of "On 23 June 2017, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted in favour of referring the territorial dispute between Mauritius and the UK to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in order to clarify the legal status of the Chagos Islands archipelago in the Indian Ocean. The motion was approved by a majority vote with 94 member states voting for and 15 against.[9][10]" part to reflect ICJ decision and its endorsement by UNGA (=="by most countries"), but 1) this should not result in bloating, so the proposal is to replace that 2017 sentence with 2019 adv. opinion and its endorsement 2) in any case this could not involve a) change of the opening sentence or b) alterations to infobox - because, as said above, BIOT is, by definition, a British overseas territory, existing within appropriate context. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Well reasoned, you make an excellent argument. WCMemail 12:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
WCM, not sure why you started the discussion if you didn’t want to take views. I gave mine and you simply labeled it POV.
Seryo, you and I are having the exact same discussion on this same discussion page. Here I just repeat what my last post was in that exchange because it’s the very same matter (it wasn’t very helpful really to split up the discussion but it’s an open forum and that’s been done).
No doubt we both agree, as I indeed had pointed out, that BOTs are UK municipal law concepts. Articles about jurisdictions on WP aren’t generally and certainly shouldn’t be merely about a particular state’s municipal laws. In contrast, an article on UK municipal law can properly be about just that. WP already has the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 article for example. It is about UK municipal law on certain territories under UK law. I have no issues with that.

Again, you wish to treat an article about a territory as if it is an article about the territory according to UK municipal law. ‘The UK legal textbook approach’, so to speak. You repeat your bald asssertion that the BIOT is a UK BOT. You have not accepted that what’s correct is that the BIOT is a UK BOT according to UK municipal law only. I am not clear why you seem to take exception with my characterization of your view as reducing the article to a treatise on United Kingdom domestic law (a sort of mini UK law textbook). After all, that is precisely what you have argued for. Now you’re talking about aspersions... which makes me think we are getting back to “smoke and mirrors” again and not engaging with issues. I hope not. If you don’t wish to engage with me, just tell me or ignore me if you like. You have provided reasoning for your argument, the ‘UK legal textbook approach’. I fundamentally disagree with such a reductive approach. No, I do not accept that an article on a BOT should merely reflect UK municipal law because it is an article on a BOT. I oppose the awful idea that we have a BIOT article that presents the UK municipal law position, presumably a Mauritius article that presumably would present the territory as if there was no BIOT and a geographical article, that instead of dealing with geography deals with the question of contested sovereignty. A question that applies to both political entities; not geography. No, articles on territories and countries should be just that and in the round; not framed by reductive concepts of simply reflecting municipal law positions. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, apologies for that repeating what’s been said already. But this is a duplicative discussion and the point is the same. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Frenchmalawi, I see the point, yet i still disagree with as it conflates geographic entity (which is the entity in dispute) with a political one (which is merely an extension of claimant's authority). We don't write the Outer Islands of Mauritius' country as "Mauritius/United Kingdom (de facto, parially)" - because UK division doesn't contain such entity at all, and the Northern District (Israel) is written as district of Israel, not as "district of Israel (and, de jure, Syira)", because Syria doesn' consider the Golan Heights to be a part of the Northern District (it views them as being part of the Quneitra Governorate instead, and, likewise, that governorate is not designated as located in "Syria and, de facto, Israel").
Furthermore, your comparison with the de facto states is, as pointed above, not correct, and I'll explain why. In their cases, one of claimants very existence is disputed, but in our cases, in territorial disputes between recognised states, claimed administrative divisions are merely extensions of authority of already recognised countries - and their boxes should show that.
Even in cases of what I would term "undisputedly occupied territories" (that is, territories, which even controlling state doesn't consider as their own), local administering authority is shown as an extension of controlling state authority, not as an extension of uncontrolling state claim. Reichskommissariat Ostland and Reichskommissariat Ukraine have the "Status | Reichskommissariat of Germany" field, despite the fact that even Nazi Germany didn't considered these territories to be incorporated (annexed) - it planned for eventual annexations of these areas in the future, but that didn't happen, as we know. Seryo93 (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

You argue articles in reference to political entities should be framed by reference to the municipal laws. A highly reductive view. One that clearly disregards lots of WP principles of dealing with actual positions versus the position according to one or other municipal law. And, quite remarkably, you argue that articles that concern geography - yes geography - should be left to address questions of competing sovereignty. All the articles you mention should prominently refer to the competing sovereignty questions. You then try to frame an “argument” (well, you suggest you have shown something) if one can call it that, that the BIOT is different to a partially recognised state. This is because, apparently, the UK is a recognised state. It makes no difference whatsoever that the UK is a recognised state. That’s an irrelevance. The BIOT is the topic in question. And the BIOT is not recognised by the large majority of the world states. 

Frenchmalawi (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

not going home?

Looks like they're not going home, unless the European court has a say.[2]

Also, is there really a need for a separate article on the Chagos Islands? kwami (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The International Court of Justice would rule as one of the principle organs of the United Nations.

The Chagos Islands article refers to the geographic area, whereas the Indian Ocean Territory article refers to the political entity.

Example: The Great Britain article refers to the Geographic area but the United Kingdom article refers to the political entity (inc Northern Ireland[ ChefBear01 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

How ridiculous is it that the entire first paragraph does not even mention that the “BIOT” is widelly recognised as part of Mauritius?

The above is on my mind. Are there any others here who find this ridiculous? I’d particularly like to hear from editors who are not nationals of the United Kingdom or Mauritius? Though, obviously, I accept all editors are entitled to chip in. As to the answer to my question: In my view, 100% ridiculous. Pathetic. Frenchmalawi (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Indian_Ocean_Territory/Archive_1&oldid=1176455919"