Talk:British Indian Ocean Territory

Template:Vital article

not going home?

Looks like they're not going home, unless the European court has a say.[1]

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)

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. WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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. WCM_email 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)

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• British Indian Ocean Territory Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Permanent population

Why does the quick facts box say there is one permanent inhabitant? The official government website says that there is no permanent population and I can't find any other source supporting the number of 1. 2001:9E8:A33D:9D00:A59F:3C46:AE08:8BCF (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I changed the permanent population to 0. It must have been a typo or subtle vandalism that occurred months ago. DDMS123 (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)