This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Diego Garcia was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 16, 2006 Good article nominee Listed September 25, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cold War (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles Military history: Aviation / Maritime / North America / United States B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles Aviation: Airports This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the airport project. British Overseas Territories High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles Asia: British Indian Ocean Territory Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject British Indian Ocean Territory (assessed as High-importance).

I gave reliable sources for all the information I added. The old version of the article tap-danced around without mentioning the Chagossian people and went along with the Pentagon "migrant workers" talkingpoint even though the most reliable newspapers by white people have since debunked the migrant workers trope. The Chagossian people lived in Chagos for generations and generations and generations. The fact that they were treated like indentured servants before their expulsion doesn't mean they were just "migrant workers". Enough with this revisionism about the horrors of slavery. It's like the Deep South textbooks calling slaves from the Atlantic slave trae "migrant workers". Give me one modern reliable source as good as the guardian that says Chagossians were not generational residents of the islands. You can't, because this is truth and I don't need the Pentagon's permission to tell the truth. White people don't have a monopoly on the truth. To say that mentioning the Chagossian people by name in the lead requires a discussion is RACISM. The article about the Chagossian people has this exact same information.--BlueOceanLover (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pbritti: do you have a reason for removing the information beside the fact I didn't ask for your permission? What is your personal reason that you think we need a discussion to link to articles about the topic mentioned and be direct instead of using euphamims?--BlueOceanLover (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlueOceanLover: You'd probably do better engaging with editors if you assume good faith instead of accusing editors of working for/with the Pentagon (I don't, but I do drive by it a lot). Another good set of standards to bear in mind are that Wikipedia is not in the business righting great wrongs and puts the onus the changing editor to convince others that a change should be made following opposition. I'm not sure what "migrant worker" talking point you're referencing—could you quote a portion of the article that reflects this? ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlueOceanLover Stop editing the article during BRD

You need to convince ME Thats not how consensus works

Calling people racist wont convince them or other editors. Stick to content and sources and wait for consensus Softlem (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You still haven't given me a reason why we shouldn't mention the Chagossians by name. Wikipedia is not censored. You need to convince ME why we should use racist euhpamisms that respected newspapers like The Guardian have debunked. I gave lots of citations here are the quotes:

"A 1970 note from a Foreign Office legal adviser said that a key purpose of laws restricting the right of Chagossians to remain and live in Chagos was to “maintain the fiction that the inhabitants of Chagos are not a permanent or semi-permanent population.” In a paragraph entitled "Maintaining the fiction," he said that keeping any population in the BIOT increased the risk of having to report to the United Nations about a colony." - from HRW

" In 1970, the Foreign Office told its officials at the UN to describe the islanders as "contract labourers" engaged to work on coconut plantations." - The Guardian

"The Chagossians were wage slaves. But it was better than many places. It was their place – and the longing they feel for it is very real." from The Guardian

" In the end, 116 states were in favour, 55 abstained and just four supported the UK and US (Australia, Hungary, Israel and Maldives)." from The Guardian

"after the abolition of slavery, they were later joined by indentured labourers from India, as well as by a few with European and Chinese ancestry. Over nearly two hundred years, until the expulsion of the entire population, this diverse mixture of peoples, religions, and traditions merged to create a distinct society in Chagos." FROM THE BIRTH OF THE IloIS TO THE “FOOTPRINT OF FREEDOM”: A HISTORY OF CHAGOS AND THE CHAGOSSIANS by David Vine; from New Statesman, Volume 133, Issues 4708-4718

You still haven't told me why you personally think we shouldn't mention the Chagossian people by name in the head of the article. You need to provide a reason for wanting to exclude reliable sourced information besides "muh I don't like it" I'm not saying you work for the pentagon, but your certianly are repeating propaganda that the Pentagon and UK Foreign Office ordered their officials to repeat. Doing it for free doesn't mean it isn't praopganda.--BlueOceanLover (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlueOceanLover: I have inserted reference to the Chagossians by-name in the lead with this edit. You started this section, entitled So does this article belong to the Pentagon, when I reverted you the first time. You also accused me of bad-faith propaganda edits in an edit summary and now are claiming that I am repeating propaganda. This is definitionally uncivil and can result in a block. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize for losing my temper emotionally and accusing you of bad faith. I should not have conflated your words with the government, since in all likelihood you have been misled by the government's "maintaining the fiction" to the public. I would like to discuss the wording of the article in detail. I will stand by my statement that the tap-dancing around the name Chagossian and using just euphamisms is very wrong, and I am glad that you recognize that we should call Chagossians by their preferred ethnonym.--BlueOceanLover (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlueOceanLover: Apology accepted in full. This is a sensitive topic and this article has been vandalized to support various nationalist narratives (which is why I monitor the page). Your desire that the Chagossians be referred to by-name is one that very rightly inspires emotion. I, for one, would hate to only be alluded to in reference to the place I call my home. The article will be released from full protection in about 45 hours or so, at which point additional edits can be implemented. If you have specific passages you would like to see changed or added, please feel welcome to post them in a format similar to the one I used in the section below. You can add them as a reply to this discussion. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we need to remove this paragraph from the lead and put it in a lower paragraph because it is undue emphasis and a bit misleading (the term contract laboror implies not originating from the island, when in reality they had to sign up for the contracts to be allowed to live on the island. It is a lie of ommission of sorts, not detailing how the system came around (no mention of being descendants of the first slaves on the islands). How the Chagossians were exploited as wage slaves before they were expelled is not something more defining than being Chagossian itself (only does 3rd paragraph mention Chagossian by name, the paragraph I quote here just says "these people". If we don't agree to remove it, we should at least reword it, and again, just say "Chagossian" and not accidentaly contribute to "maintaining the fiction" as the diplomats ordered.

"In 1966, the population of the island was 924.[3]: par 23  These people [the Chagossians] were employed as contract farm workers primarily on copra plantations owned by the Chagos-Agalega company. Although local plantation managers commonly allowed pensioners and the disabled to remain in the islands and continue to receive housing and rations in exchange for light work, children after the age of 12 were required to work.[3] In 1964, only 3 of a population of 963 were unemployed.[3] In April 1967, the BIOT Administration bought out Chagos-Agalega for £600,000, thus becoming the sole property owner in the BIOT.[4] The Crown immediately leased back the properties to Chagos-Agalega but the company terminated the lease at the end of 1967.[3]"

--BlueOceanLover (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlueOceanLover: There's something of a buried lede in that lead: everyone over 12 was required to work or leave. That should be the gist of a summarized version of that paragraph. If you propose or add a tightened version of the paragraph that fixes that, I think that would be helpful. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

If any admin has a moment, I think the following change to the lead should be made:

• Replace sentence in first paragraph that reads "The Portuguese were the first Europeans to find it and it was then settled by the French in the 1790s and transferred to British rule after the Napoleonic Wars."
• New passage: "Portuguese sailors under Pedro Mascarenhas were the first Europeans to discover the island, finding it uninhabited in 1512. After a 1786 British colony failed, the French began using the island as a leper colony and, starting in 1793, coconut cultivation by enslaved labor. It was transferred to British rule after the Napoleonic Wars."

The new passage is referenced in the body of the text, contains more detailed dating on 300 years of the island's history, and reflects that the island featured both transitory European and more permanent enslaved populations. I think this change also addresses some of the concerns that resulted in this page having to be locked in the first place. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just going to do this myself, seeing no opposition and the full-protect having expired. ~ Pbritti (talk)

We need to stop using euphamisms for Chagossians, it is dehumanizing. "Inhabitants" and "contract workers" is not the right adjective because some who left the island before the explusion (such as for medical treatment) were forbidden from returning to their homes, and the Chagossians from other islands far away from Diego Garcia were expelled too. Not all Chagossians on Diego Garcia were contract workers employed by the plantation (many were children) and treating their work contracts that exploited them as their defining characteristic reduces them to a vague "other". They lived in the islands for generations, first brought there against their will in times of slavery, grew up there, died there, were born there, and were only allowed to live in their homeland if they signed a labor contract - they weren't just random people who visited Chagos for seasonal labor. The government has admitted very candidly that they were not migrant workers and set out their intentions to falsify history and "maintain the fiction" [sic] that they were not a permanent or semi-permanent population. I don't expect to right the huge historical injustice done to them, but we all need to be respectful to the Chagossian people and not whitewash and falsify history. We have reliable and very respected sources that show the truth about the Chagossian people, like The Guardian, The New York Times, CNN. We should discuss the wording of the article and change it to prevent further disinformation to "maintain the fiction" as the government said.--BlueOceanLover (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is presently no mention in this article (Diego Garcia) of the the people mentioned in the British Indian Ocean Territory article in the section British_Indian_Ocean_Territory#Marooned_asylum_seekers. I think they should be mentioned in this article as well, as they are in Diego Garcia.

I think the simplest thing would be to add something short to this article, in the Inhabitants section, with a link the existing section British Indian Ocean Territory article. I am not sure of the best thing to do. FrankSier (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These people are still there, as of 18 Feb 2024, as shown by this article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68326365 "Diego Garcia asylum seekers feel unsafe on remote British island territory". FrankSier (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now done what I have suggested. FrankSier (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A David Vine is quoted in the section Diego_Garcia#After_1971, and as they are quoted I think there should be some information about who they are. I am pretty sure they are not the person who presently has a WP article: David Vine who was an English television sports presenter. There are no other David Vines that I can find who have a WP article.

I am guessing that they are the same person as mentioned as "David Vine of The Washington Post" in the Territories_of_the_United_States article, and as mentioned 4 times in the references of in Marshall Islands article. They probably deserve an article of their own. A Google on "David Vine of The Washington Post" brings up lots of hits. FrankSier (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]