Talk:History of Mauritius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

I am confused by the following three sentences which appear almost one after the other.

"One of the most important events was the abolition of slavery in 1835"

"in order to work as indentured laborers after slavery was abolished in 1833"

"When slavery was abolished in 1834"

Avihu 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

According to this [1]:

The Slavery Abolition Bill 1833 was passed by the House of Commons and by the House of Lords. It received the Royal Assent (which means it became law) on 29 August 1833 and came into force on 1 August 1834. On that date slavery was abolished throughout the vast British Empire. There were a number of exceptions. First, its application to the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope (now the Cape Province of the Republic of South Africa) was delayed for 4 months and its application to the Colony of Mauritius (now the Republic of Mauritius) was delayed for 6 months.

Then, there is this [2]:

The abolition of slavery had some negative effects on the development of Mauritius. Manpower for construction and plantations had to be found elsewhere. In 1816, Governor Farquhar introduced a group of Indian convicts for employment in construction works. Mauritian planters followed the example given by Farquhar, and in 1829 introduced Indian contract labourers for the development of the sugar industry. In 1816, Governor Farquhar introduced a group of Indian convicts for employment in construction works. Mauritian planters followed the example given by Farquhar, and in 1829 introduced Indian contract labourers for the development of the sugar industry. By 1833, administrative procedures were set up by the Government in connection with the emigration of Indian labourers. The first main inflow of Indian labourers under contract arrived in Mauritius on 1st August 1834.

Hope it helps.

Ǣ0ƞS 19:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains everything, but it should be also written in the article itself clearly.

And while we are about confusing sentences the first sentence of the article state:

"It has been frequently hypothesized that Mauritius was first discovered by the Arabs but this is without proof."

This contrast with the main article about Mauritius which state:

"The first record of Mauritius comes from Arab and Malay sailors as early as the tenth century.^[1]

And the following sentences from the article about Rodrigues:

"From the 10th century, Arabs have been known to visit the Mascarene Islands. A 12th century map by the Arab geographer Ash-Sharif al-Idrisi, clearly shows the three islands of the Mascarenes as Dina Arobi (Mauritius), Dina Margabin (Réunion) and Dina Moraze (Rodrigues). The island was named after the Portuguese navigator Dom Diogo Rodrigues in 1528."

Avihu 04:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats the problem when editors don't cite their sources. The Rodrigues article also has this contradiction: "Rodrigues, named after the Portuguese explorer Diego Rodrigues, is one of the Mascarene Islands." (Intro) while in the History section its: "The island was named after the Portuguese navigator Dom Diogo Rodrigues in 1528."

In fact, if no reliable sources can be found for this: "It has been frequently hypothesized that Mauritius was first discovered by the Arabs but this is without proof.", it should be removed since it is speculative in nature.

As for the CIA reference, although it may be deemed reliable because it comes from the CIA, it is not since it is vague, i.e, it says "the first records", but what records? Are they manuscripts? Who authored these records? The Arabs themselves, European sailors or a contemporary scholar? Also, the CIA entries will be more concerned about current data than ancient history that is of no use for its purposes.

I found this: http://www.oldmaps.mu/History/Arabs.htm and the good thing is that it also cites its own references.

Then, this (But no citations of its own references): http://www.mauritius.org.uk/History.htm

Another: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/mutoc.html It is a table of contents. Can't give exact sections because of this:

Do NOT bookmark these search results. Search results are stored in a TEMPORARY file for display purposes. The temporary file will be purged from our system in a few hours.

Ǣ0ƞS 07:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes and references