Talk:Rodrigues/Archive 1

Acropora rodriguensis

I cannot find Acropora rodriguensis on Google. Can anyone confirm that it does exist and is endemic to Rodrigues ? Thierry Caro 07:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The diving centre at which I was working had DNA tests done to confirm it as a separate species. However they may not have applied for recognition of it as the picture I submitted shows 1 of 3 of these corals known of at the time. For a new species to be defined they need at least one whole coral, which would be a bit destructive if that accounted for 1/3rd of the population. |--Spaully 01:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The grievances posted in this article may be valid, but they have no semblance of a neutral or scholarly perspective. Revise or delete. Homagetocatalonia 03:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly and neutral usually inhabit the world of make-believe, what I have done, is remain faithful to the cold hard facts that bleed and scream in the night.

Wow oh wow. This is an eggregous example of POV in an article. This article needs a big-time overhaul. I'm sure that the history of the island are very close and very personal to some people, but the language in this aritcle is completely unacceptable. Sparsefarce 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable to U! Would U rather read Taurus Excretus embedded in the language of academia, masquerading as value-free neutrality, or the truth? By the way, Where did your neutrality go? lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loulou 50 (talk • contribs).

Okay. Here is what we go by when we write articles on Wikipedia. Please review them. Manual of Style, verifiable sources, reliable sources, and points of view. Sparsefarce 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Greater liberators may become worse dictators when they can't accept other people to be wrong. This is clearly a political proclamation, a beautiful and harrowing text, but not an encyclopedic one, and not fitted for Wikipédia because everybody is here free to arrange it. So don't change a word of it, but remove it from wikipedia and put a link to the site where the article has been published. Channer 17:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough.

There is more to the history of Rodrigues. See Francois Leguat; "...the whipping boy, left behind at the mercy of new masters...", a funny parallel indeed were it not so sad. The addition has a valid point, but it is unencyclopedic in style and FAR TOO LONG. Somebody please compact this; the original essay can be linked at leisure. Dysmorodrepanis

I wasn't going to post anything more on Rodrigues' history, but unfortunately, some dimwit has erased an impartially edited version and posted a distorted one instead. Leveque 07:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

More compromises on my previous compromises. Ok then, as long as some numbat does not come along and puts in his 10 cents worth. Leveque 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that Google refers to the island as "Gambrani Island"? From what I can tell, this is a huge mistake. Google Scholar comes up with absolutely NO hits on this name, and the hits on Yahoo are mostly mirrors of Wiki. Wow. Rarelibra 18:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the map: Gombrani, S of the mainland Rodriguez. IONO whether the "a" version is faulty transcription, faulty sourcing, or a typo. Dysmorodrepanis 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Annexation

Rodrigues was NOT annexed by Mauritius in 1968. Nor is the sovereignty disputed. It has been a part of Mauritius for centuries. --Maurice45 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok Maurice, that's your opinion, fair enough. But, let's stick to facts. If Mauritius did not annex Rodrigues in 1968, why was it that the Mauritian flag could not be hoisted in 1968, despite police using tear gas on Rodriguan protestors? Why were British troops subsequently summoned to put down protests?

Did Mauritius discover a terra nullus Rodrigues? Did it conquer Rodrigues by force of arms? Did Rodriguans surrender their territorial integrity to a Pax-Mauritana? Please tell us.

How do u think the people of Rodrigues achieved autonomy? Well, let me tell u: After a 25 year struggle. So, sovereignty is not in dispute. Indeed! How did u work that one out?

Do u know that there's a movement afoot on the ground in Rodrigues militating for full independence? No, then, please do not assume to speak for an oppressed people. What u don't know, u just don't know, u don't know.

Kind regards, Leveque (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting, except for the fact that, despite the protesting, Rodrigues was ADMINISTERED as part of Mauritius! Maybe thet didn't want to be a part of it, but they were. They were, like Diego Garcia, Agalega and even the Seychelles originally, all bundled in with Mauritius. And, if Mauritius, and no other nation (neither France, nor the UK) claim Rodrigues as part if its territory, and the Mauritian flag flies over the island, then please explain to us.........

HOW is the sovereignty disputed?! Rodrigues may have gained autonomy, but it is still very much part of Mauritius! Mauritian money, Mauritian flag, Mauritian national anthem, Mauritian passport.......the works.

Mauritian government is in charge overall, they are responsible for development and infrastructure and even imports and exports. Please explain then, HOW the sovereignty is desputed, because there are not many calls for independence from Rodriguans. There may be some, but has it gone through to Port Louis yet? NO!!! THat brings me to the point..... Oppressed people? HOW exactly are Rodriguans oppressed. THat is YOUR Opinion, mate! MOST (maybe not all) have no qualms about being an autonomous part of Mauritius (remember, they are not calling for independence). Well, I guess some might be, but unless it reaches Kosovo points, you can't say that it's sovereignty's disputed. They have their own flag, which is the flag of the REGION, not the COUNTRY of RODRIGUES!!!! The MAURITIAN Flag is the official flag! They do not have their own currency or nationality, unlike, say, the Kurds! They are of the same stock as mainland Mauritius (though in different proportions), and speak a near-identical language (though with some differences. Even then, it can be said that different parts of any country have different lingos and accents). THE UN ACCEPTS IT AS PART OF MAURITIUS, as do all other countries in the world! Rodriguan authorities accept it as an autonomous..........PART OF MAURITIUS!!!! Rodriguans may be moving to independence, but has it gained it? please, do tell...... does it still depend on Mauritius for nearly all its needs? THE ANSWER IS YES

Oppressed People? NO MATE!!! Let me paint you a picture of oppression.... Jews struggling to survive in Germany dureng the time they were being mercilessly slaughtered. Palestinians forced to seek shelter in neighbouring countries when Israel was formed and they were forced from their home. Oppression is what the Romanis of Europe were facing, as were the Aboriginal Australians and Native Americans. What MY PEOPLE, the AHMADI MUSLIMS, are going through. Rodriguans are, for the most, a principally Roman Catholic community. But in a Hindu-dominated Mauritius, they are free to believe in whatever they want. My people in Pakistan and the Arab World are not even allowed to call for prayer!!! So unless you have been through something like that do not try and claim that what you are going through is oppression. You are born FREE, to be whatever you want! Yes, the Hindu-dominated society looks out for number one. Creoles and Muslims lose out BIG TIME. But that is NO REASON to say that you are NOT part of Mauritius; at least for the 150 years of British rule it WAS PART OF MAURITIUS. ANY ATTENTION PAID TO RODRIGUES WAS THROUGH MAURITIUS, NOT RODRIGUES ITSELF!!!!

I still have to find sources to back up your claim that there were huge riots on the island. For the most part, I only find sites stating "Rodrigues is a peaceful island". Doesn't sound very peaceful to me! And while it is autonomous, ALL LAWS ON THE ISLAND MUST BE PASSED THROUGH THE MAURITIAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY!!!!!!!!!! GET IT?! THEY ARE STILL VERY MUCH PART OF MAURITIUS!!!!!

Independence monevemt, huh? Yes, they may want independence, but do you REALLY think Mauritius is going to grant them it? I am speaking from experience- MAURITIUS IS A GREEDY ISLAND. Once it gets its hands on something, it will be adamant to let go, unless it is paid, as in the CHAGOS islands. Every single Rodriguan may stand up and shout for independence, but the Mauritian National Assembly may knock them all back with a simple "NO!!!!!". Yes, you are not being allowed to develope. Give them a break! they have enough troubles developing themselves without having to bear the expenses of modernising Rodrigues as well!!! But you canot claim that for that reason you are not part of Mauritius. Yes, you may not be happy about it---BUT DEAL WITH IT!!!! The UN is not coming to start a war on Mauritius for your sake!

You know very well that, at least fr now, RODRIGUES remains a PART OF MAURITIUS. So, unless the Rodriguans appeal for independence, AND IT IS GRANTED, it remains a part of Mauritius, DEPENDENT ON MAURITIUS FOR NEARLY EVERYTHING!!! Yes, NEARLY EVERYTHING. Anything, apart from local produce, that Rodrigues has gained since 1968 is all thanks to Mauritius. They are the ones IN CHARGE. They claim Rodrigues according to the Mauritian Constitution, the UK transferred it to Mauritius and there is no document that says that Rodrigues is not legally part of Mauritius.

So PLEASE, to quote another user, "SPARE US THE HIS-TO-RY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

--Maurice45 (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Rodrigues voted overwhelmingly AGAINST independence from the United Kingdom in the 1960's and should have remained British! After all, when Mayotte did exactly the same France respected its democratic wishes and kept the island French (and soon it will be integrated fully into France!). Shame on the British for treating the self determination of the people with such utter contempt by forcing Rodrigues into a political union it didn't want. It represents yet another decolonisation blunder in a long line of many!

...........

Hi Maurice, here is some background which u mau find useful. BTW, i empathise with the struggles of your people. Google: Rodrigues island case for self-determination zmag Leveque (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

He, Leveque, I also empathise with the struggle of Rodrigues. They are not being allowed to reach their true potential and could even be purposely ignored by the terrible Mauritian government. I do admit that Rodrigues would have been better off remaining part of the United Kingdom. they are suffering today because they were forcibly joined with Mauritius. You know Mauritius is a complete sellout by looking at the current plight of the Chagos islands; they might have even sold Rodrigues out if they had gotten a high enough price! I wish Rodrigues good luck with attaining independence, and hope they reach their full potential --Maurice45 (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Page move

I've moved the page from Rodrigues (island) to Rodrigues, and shifted the dab page to Rodrigues (disambiguation). Given the number of links, it's pretty clear that this is the primary topic with this name. The category was already at Category:Rodrigues, as well. Also, having the article with disambiguating brackets in the title caused headaches for templates like {{Flaglink}}. Grutness...wha? 22:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation not needed

We do not need a citation for the following:

In 1968, Rodrigues was joined with Mauritius when it attained independence; today it is an autonomous region of Mauritius which aspires to full sovereignty.

All points are in fact true. And there are many articles, books, etc. on this matter. Rodrigues was, as with Mauritius, a British colony. When Mauritius gained independence, Rodrigues was joined with it. It was once a district of Mauritius, but is now an autonomous region. And the people are also aspiring full ibdependence. All these points can be found online, and most people who know the history of both islands know this. So why do we unnecessarily need to cite a source? --Maurice45 (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If there are many sources available, then let's provide one in the article per WP:V. The "aspires to full sovereignty" has a strong pov and should be backed with a source per WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think that statement doesn't require a source citation, you need to familiarize yourself with the guiding principles of Wikipedia. You should start with Wikipedia:Five pillars. Rees11 (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with Ronz in that we might ned to cite a source. However, this only applies to the bit about aspiring for full independence. The bit about being a former district of Mauritius, however, is a historical fact, and I'm sure that even typing it into google would result in many hits. It's almost like asking users to cite a source for saying that Walthamstow was part of Essex when it is a well-known fact. And thanks, but I'm not a newly-registered user. I know the five pillars. --Maurice45 (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

New point: I haven't been able to find any hits regarding Rodrigues wanting independence, apart from a few POV-heavy articles by a single author. If there are no objections, I think the bit about aspiring full sovereignty should be removed --Maurice45 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, per my previous concerns on the matter. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, why have you reverted ALL my contributions, many of which i started and worked on for years? Vandalise all you like, but they'll be coming back one way or another. BTW, i've not vandalised your contributions, have I? Leveque (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No vandalism has occurred. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Leveque --Ronz (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Classification?

Is Rodrigues properly classified as a region, dependency, district, or something else? --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Arabs the first?

I read somewhere that Arabs were the first to visit Rodrigues but on Google maps it clearly shows large complexes and enclosures which look more typical of Austronesian cultures permanently living there. What does the archaeology say? In other words, who settled Rodrigues first and when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.177.97 (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

None of them. In 1601 some Dutch people tried first to establish a settlement and failed. 1691 a second attempt by French Huguenots failed again, till 1725 a second French trial was made. Since this year the island is inhabited permanently. --Otberg (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Arms of Rodrigues.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Arms of Rodrigues.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Krakatao eruption 1883

The Island of Rodrigues is, at almost 4800 km from Krakatoa, the point at which the sound from the cataclysmic explosion at Krakatoa was heard. Claims that it was heard at Mauritius were unable to be substantiated and in support of this is the fact that islands to the south and west of Rodrigues did not record any sound. When the Royal Society investigated the phenomena, people who claimed that they heard the sound gave conflicting accounts, people on Mauritius even gave the wrong time, claiming they had heard very loud thunder at a time which when corrected for the time difference meant that it was certainly not the explosion they had heard. The sound remains the loudest that has ever been reported within recorded history and was heard over about 1/5 or 20% of the Earth's surface.The Geologist (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)