Jump to content

Talk:Mauritius

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


Chagos Archipelago section

[edit]

The section on the Chagos Archipelago is far too long for this article. Everything other than the first paragraph and maybe a second paragraph summarizing the all other Chagos Archipelago dispute content should be moved to their own respective articles and removed from this article. This article is on the country of Mauritius after all, not the Chagos Archipelago dispute which only forms a a part of that country's biography.--Discott (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, i will try to clean it up. Regards --Kingroyos (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Discott:

Thank you ! That's exactly what I have been saying to @Kingroyos: for months !

Manish2542 (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Manish2542:, needful was already done in April 2019, we are already in August now. You had been removing content in the intro and not in the Chagos Archipelago section. Kingroyos (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


"The UK has restricted access to" has an ambiguous meaning and should be changed. It should I think say "The UK has imposed a restricted access to". Right now, it might mean that the UK cannot access it, itself. --User:theredsprite — Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022

[edit]

Typo in the introduction: change "country African country" to "African country". WikiFouf (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cannolis (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1914–1919: World War I prosperity

[edit]

The one and only source cited in the section "1914–1919: World War I prosperity" contains no mention of WW1, nor of the period 1914-18. 80.3.183.104 (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

To elaborate on what I'd written in my edit summary, I removed the sentence There are no legal restrictions against homosexuality in Mauritius. because, in a general article on Mauritius, in a general section about its legal system, listing that one particular thing is not illegal, out of all the things that are not illegal in that country, or that are legal there, gives that one thing WP:UNDUE emphasis. The entire legal system doesn't exactly revolve around that one non-prohibition, yet the positioning of that sentence in the place in an otherwise general section gives the impression that that is the height of everything that has ever happened in the Mauritian legal system. Its insertion there as though it were of supreme significance in the overall context of the Mauritian legal system is an WP:NPOV violation.

Varoon2542's alternative explanation for my edit, as though the above weren't a valid argument was that it was out of "low-key homophobia". As I've already noted in my edit summary response, I'm gay and have advocated for gay rights for 45 years. This isn't the first time somebody has resorted to attributing hatred of some sort to me as a reason for an edit I made. I (Jewish as well as gay) have been accused here of both homophobia and anti-Semitism for making legitimate edits. Let this be a lesson: hate is sometimes but usually not the reason that people do things you disagree with, so you'd better know what you're talking about before making accusations.

It's worth noting that the language was added in this edit. The full text had been Mauritius is often described as Africa's most developed country. There are no legal restrictions against homosexuality in Mauritius. This was clearly POV, with the second sentence intended to support the first in implying that a lack of legal restrictions on homosexuality is a centerpiece of a developed country. I mean, I think it is—but that's my POV, it doesn't belong in an article. Later, someone removed the first sentence, so that sentence about homosexuality was left dangling without even the original context it had been brought in to support.

The language has now been added and removed twice, so beware of edit warring. Please discuss before restoring it. Largoplazo (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is often difficult to figure out exactly how to balance information. The current sentence is cited to news reports directly about the specific law changes in question, and so aren't helpful in assessing WP:DUE. It would be better to have some sources that speak more generally about politics in Mauritius, and see how they assign weight to various topics. CMD (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following Moxy's advise, I'm copy pasting the discussion that Largoplazo brought to my talk page. As a side note, I wasn't the one to include this information here, I merely objected to its removal for dubious reasons given that the same reasoning is not used on articles on France and the United Kingdom, see below

"== Attributing things blindly to hate ==

Re your edit here: I'm gay and I've been active and vocal in supporting gay rights for 45 years, which shows just how reckless this stunt is of attributing everything you don't like to homophobia and other forms of hate despite your having been given the true and perfectly good reason for it. I removed the link for the exact purpose that I stated in my edit summary. Largoplazo (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a 34 year old gay man, born and bred in Mauritius
I had to live through homophobia through my teenage years before moving abroad for my studies
The criminalisation of sodomy was a constant argument for our oppression
For years, this criminalisation was mentioned in the "legal" segment of the article, there's no reason that the decriminalisation should find no mention
In 2017, during the gay pride, a muslim cleric, Javed Meeto, took to the streets with 300 of his raging dogs to call for the extermination of homosexuals
I guess you must be blasé after 45 years of supporting gay rights where you now live openly your sexuality but for us it is still a constant struggle
I find your reaction extremely uncaring and insulting for us
You are intruding where you don't belong and that's quite hurtful Varoon2542 (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should lay off the attempts at psychoanalysis. You're really bad at it (which should already have occurred to you after our first round, above), and it shows bad faith for you to make up what somebody's dark, unstated motives "must be" to explain their actions here rather than to take at face value their openly declared objective reasons that are based on Wikipedia's purpose and guidelines and unremarkable approaches to organizing an article. Do you find it extraordinary that somebody might oppose something you're doing for completely objective reasons?
How awful something was for you or for me and how great it is for you or for me that it's no longer that way doesn't mean that any place you choose to stick a mention of it is a good place for it. The legal status of homosexual relations is not a core aspect of how a legal system of a country, Mauritius or any other, is structured. It is a perfectly good thing to mention in a section on human rights in the country. It has nothing to do with "caring", and if you're insulted by the idea that information should be presented in an orderly fashion with attention to context, weight, and relevance; if you find conventional editorial practice hurtful; then you're going to find Wikipedia work on the whole very insulting and hurtful. What's insulting is you to ascribe another editor's actions to adverse intentions.
Read WP:OWN. There is no place for you to decide which people do or don't belong working on any area of this project. It doesn't follow from your being Mauritian that the article on Mauritius is a place for you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and that others don't have editorial input into your contributions there. Largoplazo (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpt from "France", section "Law"
"France generally has a positive reputation regarding LGBT rights. Since 1999, civil unions for homosexual couples have been permitted, and since 2013, same-sex marriage and LGBT adoption are legal.
Excerpt from "United Kingdom", section "Law and criminal justice"
"Same-sex marriage has been legal in England, Scotland, and Wales since 2014, and in Northern Ireland since 2020. LGBT equality in the United Kingdom is considered advanced by modern standards"
You said
"The legal status of homosexual relations is not a core aspect of how a legal system of a country, Mauritius or any other, is structured."
Do you still stand by that statement? I'm really tired of hypocrisy Varoon2542 (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I still stand by that statement. Can you just try to have a discussion without resorting to ad hominems and drama?
In the France article I wouldn't have jumped directly into the LGBT mention as is currently done there, but a significant difference is that it's included along with other material all of which deals with the relationship that the law has with the people. It should be reorganized a bit by prefacing that part with a cover statement making that point, laying some foundation within which to explain these individual rights including LGBT rights. Then it wouldn't be the same as you had it in the Mauritius article, jumping from Mauritius having this court and that court to a single sentence, presented without foundation, explaining that by the way, they have LGBT rights there. The relationship between the law and the people is a core aspect of the law. LGBT rights fall within that.
At least the French article is further along in that regard than the UK article, which also seems to think LGBT rights are the only demographic group rights that are relevant, but at least it gets a little bit into employment rights too. Still, from the point of view of good writing, there should be, again, some higher level foundation than just jumping into random provisions. Largoplazo (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The excerpts that you disapprove of on the articles of France and the United Kingdom are still there. What are you waiting for ? Varoon2542 (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that taking a position on an issue in one article obligates someone to edit the entire remainder of Wikipedia to make every other article conform to the same position or else to yield, you are mistaken.
I see from the above that you have a history of warnings for edit warring and have been brought up a couple of times on the noticeboard. Do you enjoy that? By now, at least, you should at least know what edit warring is and that it's not approved of. Largoplazo (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that taking a position on an issue in one article does not obligate someone to edit the entire remainder of Wikipedia to make every other article conform to the same position or else to yield, you are mistaken.
You saw from the above that I've been accused of edit warring, had you looked deeper, you would have noticed that most of the assusators have been banned, one even came back from the dead after being banned multiple times.
Now, the question remains. The excerpts that you disapprove of on the articles of France and the United Kingdom are still there. What are you waiting for ? Varoon2542 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's as though you didn't read my response the first time you asked that. Your premise, that every time someone addresses an issue on Wikipedia, they are obligated to address the same issue everywhere on Wikipedia or else withdraw their current objection, is not how this works. Largoplazo (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We both know why you didn't modify the articles of France and the United Kingdom
These articles are well guarded by an army of contributors from across the globe and editing them to conform to your wishes exposes you to immediate backlash while doing so for Mauritius is pretty much risk free
So please, have some courage and modify the articles of France and the United Kingdom based on the same reasoning you applied for Mauritius Varoon2542 (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mauritius&oldid=1250162142"