Talk:Sentinelese/Archive 2

Paragraph on Chau's motivations
The following paragraph has been re-added to the section Sentinelese:

"The Washington Post obtained Chau's journal which stated that he had a clear desire to convert the tribe and was aware of the risk of death he faced, and of the illegality of his visits to the island. Chau wrote 'Lord, is this island Satan's last stronghold where none have heard or even had the chance to hear your name?','The eternal lives of this tribe is at hand', 'I think it's worthwhile to declare Jesus to these people. Please do not be angry at them or at God if I get killed ...'"

Other paragraphs already mentioned that Chau was travelling illegally, that he was there as a missionary to convert the Sentinelese, and that he was keeping a journal.

My view is that this paragraph, which makes no mention of any actions or observations of the Sentinelese, is unnecessary and contributes to the general unbalancing of this section to a focus on Chau, rather than on the Sentinelese who should be the topic of the article. (My rough count is that the section is currently over 2/3rds about Chau's biography, his motivations, his family, the fishermen etc., and less than a third about the Sentinelese.)

Any other opinions? TSP (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Include These two lines are Chau's own writings from his journal where he talks about the Sentinelese, his opinion of Sentinelese and the motivations of his daring acts. These lines give the reader a very useful insight of Chau's thought process and helps the reader to understand why Chau did what he did. These lines are basically a direct quote from Chau, where he speaks about Sentinelese. So in my opinion these lines are highly pertinent to the topic.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove This is an article about the Sentinelese, not Chau.  Lets stay on topic and keep it concise. Bonewah (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Include This man's actions could have sever consequences for the Sentinelese, and it's worth explaining what exactly drove his actions, as it informs why exactly he did what he did. It's definitely about them, in that in relates his perspective on them.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  22:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Include For the same reasons as the other include !votes. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Focus on Chau vs the Sentinelese People
I share the same concern has with the expansion of the Chau section. It has a real chance of overwhelming this article. I also agree with that WP:BLP1E also applies and that a single article about Chau is not appropriate at this time. Looking over the news articles, I think a new article could be created covering the "Contact with the Sentinelese" (under a much better title than mine...) and that article summarized here. The Chau section could be expanded there quite a bit and be appropriate. There are enough sources about the tribe's response to outside contact on each incident looking at google news and other sources. Thoughts?  spryde |  talk  16:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP1E can't apply, as Chau is not a living person (this isn't a technicality - WP:BLP exists because there are specific legal responsibilities on coverage of living people that don't apply to even the recently dead). The relevant policy would be WP:BIO1E, which says:
 * "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person."
 * I agree with it - I think the event - Chau's death - should have an article, not the person. The Sentinelese are not an event, so using this policy to argue his death should be covered here does not align with the policy.
 * The only policy that has been previously cited that is really relevant, I think, is WP:NOTNEWS, which says we shouldn't over-focus on recent events - but that applies at least as much here as it would in a separate article; arguably more, because here there is a balance issue that would not exist in a standalone article. "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information."
 * Regarding the proposal for a "Contact with the Sentinelese" article... it's possible, but I think by and large the amount of coverage in the Contact section here is appropriate - as an isolated tribe, this small number of contacts is really the only way we know anything about the tribe, so most details of those contacts is appropriate for this article. It's only Chau (maybe borderline some parts of 'deaths of two fishermen') where the amount of coverage in our sources about aspects of the contact that are peripheral to the Sentinelese themselves is disproportionate to what is appropriate to this article. TSP (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The possibility of new article has been discussed and there is a consensus that a new article on death is not merited here. (reasons WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTINHERITED) TSP's opinion is against the consensus, and nothing can be done about it.
 * Regarding the suggestion of a separate article on "Contact with the Sentinelese" we should follow WP:SPINOFF and first develop that article here as a "Sentinelese" (section), once it has crossed enough size to merit its own article, it can be forked to a new article.
 * The section on Chau currently has 2.6 KB of readable text while the entire article has 14 KB of readable texts (not counting the refs). This in no way is overwhelming the article. The event with Chau deserves the attention it is getting in the article.
 * If you have disagreement with any particular line of the content, there are ongoing discussion threads above discussing those lines, please participate in that and contribute to the consensus.
 * The sections other than Chau also needs expansion editors should focus on expanding the other section instead of focussing on trimming down useful information from Chau's section.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  02:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's remove the mention of cannibalism
The line telling us "it has been suggested" they don't practice cannibalism should, in my opinion, be removed. Why bring it up? It's just casting aspersions on these people. I'd do it myself bu I think there was a back and forth on this talk page about it, so I'd rather get the opinions of others.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  06:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ this has already been debunked that they are not cannibals. Yellow Diamond, Please remove. Also, FYI, there has been no discussion on this aspect on this page. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a section about the same sentence further up, but it might be something different. Removed. --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  07:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Marco Polo
I've removed Marco Polo entirely. There were a few doubts expressed further up, so I went and looked at the source, which we have at The Travels of Marco Polo/Book 3/Chapter 13. This simply refers to "the Island of Angamanain", which it calls "a very large island". There does not seem to be any reason to believe this is a specific reference to the Sentinelese; it probably refers if anything to tribes on Great Andaman. TSP (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good, I was about to add text to discredit him entirely because historians believe he did not visit the main Andaman Islands never mind North Sentinel Island and based his opinions on on hearsay.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  12:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The age of the population
"the group [...] is believed to have lived on North Sentinel Island for as long as 55,000 years". Is this based on anything? It's hard or, rather, impossible to imagine it could be. We are talking about people whom we know almost nothing about, and even if we did know, how on earth could it be proven or even speculated that a group has lived somewhere for tens of thousands of years. Even the DNA studies couldn't prove anything of the kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.191.141 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read somewhere that this figure was reached on the basis of gene related testing. Currently the artile doesnt mention this. I believe it should be added witha a reliable source. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing of John Chau as a missionary

 * I find the missionary mission hard to accept because he did not take an interpreter. Spreading the gospel requires language and nothing is known of the Sentinelese language(s), so interpreters do not even exist! 2001:8003:AD0E:C300:8128:A26:BC3B:CB85 (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits have shown Chau to be an “adventurer” and have removed all mention of the fact that he WAS a Christian Missionary, and that even his parents recognised this fact. The link I provided showed a post by his mother and father who corroborated his status as a missionary, and furthermore, police questioned his friend Alex who was also a preacher, because he specifically wanted to go there to proselytise.

The person(s) who have edited this have fundamentally removed all mention of the fact that this man, who was a missionary, and a Christian missionary at that, in favour of a biased and non-NPOV view that he was some kind of tourist.

It is a pertinent fact that he is a missionary and there is at lest enough evidence to suggest he was there in this capacity. The introduction says “some reports” describe him as a Christian, when it is an established fact that he described himself as one, as did his parents.

WobInDisguise (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I made some of these edits - though as far as I know mention of him being described as a missionary was never removed - and had no intention to whitewash; but I was concerned that earlier versions of this section presented him solely as a missionary, whereas most of our sources seem to suggest that he was primarily or at least partly an adventurer. (One of the sources for the sentence that previously described him purely as a missionary has the title "American 'adventure tourist' killed by remote tribe after visiting protected Indian island".) I'm sure his parents would rather think that he was there purely to spread the word of God rather than just to have an adventure; I don't know if our sources back that up quite so clearly.  (In any case, most of this content is now at Death of John Allen Chau rather than here.) TSP (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Since he had ZERO chance of communicating with them, his ill-advised action that broke the law strikes me much more of an adventure-seeker - and a very reckless one. A missionary has to be able to communicate, so he was not really in that capacity, no matter what family/friends say.50.111.51.207 (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is factually inaccurate. He was a missionary. He belonged to a church, his family referred to him as a missionary, he wrote in his diary his intent to proselytise. You're simply wrong, sir. WobInDisguise (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * TSP you should read some more reliable and recent news. This is clearly a whitewashing. WobInDisguise has already said everything that needs to be said. I will just add some sources and excerpts from his own diary published by Washington Post, that are enough to clarify his missionary status (which was also confirmed by his family in their statement.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ‘God, I don’t want to die,’ U.S. missionary wrote before he was killed by remote tribe on Indian island Washington Post 21 Nov( referred below as WaPo)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please assume good faith.
 * So, yes, there are plenty of sources that suggest his motives were at least in part missionary; but also plenty that describe him as an adventure tourist, adventurer, or explorer - and some that dispute the description of him as a missionary.
 * I absolutely agree that mention that he has been described as a missionary should not be removed - I don't think it ever was - but I think simply describing him as a missionary, suggesting that was his undisputed full-time exclusive activity and motivation, is also misleading and does not reflect the sources. TSP (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No there are only a few sources, one that you referred above that call this an adventure expedition. Almost all of the reliable sources note that he was infact a missionary/evangelist/etc ( choose your word) who was out there to convert them into Christianity. And all this was before the discovery of his hand written note. His own hand written note That was published today and excerpts of which I shared above and published by Washington post, remove any confusion anyone may have regarding the exact nature of his visit. WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:UNDUE are relevant pages that elaborate more on the what should be kept in the article and what should be avoided. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Some more reported today by CNN. 'You guys might think I'm crazy': Diary of US 'missionary' reveals last days in remote island-- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fear and faith: Inside the last days of an American missionary killed by remote island tribe. washingtonpost 22 Nov
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No there are only a few sources, one that you referred above that call this an adventure expedition. Almost all of the reliable sources note that he was infact a missionary/evangelist/etc ( choose your word) who was out there to convert them into Christianity. And all this was before the discovery of his hand written note. His own hand written note That was published today and excerpts of which I shared above and published by Washington post, remove any confusion anyone may have regarding the exact nature of his visit. WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:UNDUE are relevant pages that elaborate more on the what should be kept in the article and what should be avoided. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Some more reported today by CNN. 'You guys might think I'm crazy': Diary of US 'missionary' reveals last days in remote island-- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fear and faith: Inside the last days of an American missionary killed by remote island tribe. washingtonpost 22 Nov
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fear and faith: Inside the last days of an American missionary killed by remote island tribe. washingtonpost 22 Nov
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fear and faith: Inside the last days of an American missionary killed by remote island tribe. washingtonpost 22 Nov
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Could everyone who posted a quote without a source above please go back and either add a link to the source or delete the quote? We only care about what can be verified. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit, and TSP, you are clearly wrong about what you wrote of editing out the fact he is a missionary, was, and always has been. His family posted on Instagram STATING he was a Missionary and I cited it. It was removed by someone. Also this clearly IS Christian colonialism and that was removed too. 85.255.232.84 (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That would be relevant had I ever edited that out. I didn't; I always included the fact that he has been described as a missionary; I also included sourced statements that say he was primarily an adventurer, and specifically dispute the assertion that he was a missionary.
 * I feel one issue here may be that some editors see being a missionary as a bad thing, so think that saying "Well even his family say he was a missionary" should prove it. Whereas he and his family are likely to think that being a missionary is a good thing, so are likely to want to present him as one even if that wasn't his main motivation.
 * We have sources that say he was a missionary; and other, official, sources that specifically say he wasn't. Both these perspectives should be included; WP:NPOV. TSP (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Being a missionary isnt a bad thing. I dont think any editors is claiming it is bad. But there are attempts by some to hide this fact from the article.
 * removing mentions of Missionary in order to whitewash him while all the mainstream sources claim his intention was to convert the tribals is a bad thing.
 * The brave soul gave up his life spreading the name of God and here we have folks who are trying to call it an adventure trip, when he had written himself in his diary about attempts to convert the tribals. And all reliable source say he went there to convert.
 * His own family, frieds and his own note has been used by reliable sources to state that he was a missionary and he made this journey to convert the tribals and we have only one police officer claiming that he wanted to meet the tribals, well yes obviously, you cant convert without meeting could you ?-- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, please WP:AGF and avoid making comments like "...hide this fact from the article" and "whitewash". You were told about WP:AGF before, and then you violated it again. Are you going to voluntarily stop this behavior or do we need to put in a request to have you blocked from editing Wikipedia until you agree to follow our rules?

We all want the article to say what the sources say. Instead of attacking other editors and repeating the same arguments again and again, please address the sources that have been provided that don't support your preferred version. Just waving your hands, ignoring The Independent, Reuters, and BBC, and telling fibs like "all reliable source say he went there to convert" does not make those sources magically go away. In my experience missionaries and adventurers both take a dim view of people who write things that are not true. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have nothing but contempt for rules which limit the freedom of speech because it may offend people when spoken unfailingly, so if you wish to block me for failing to do so, do so, and prove even further the lack of repute that Wikipedia has, and further validate my claims. It was whitewashing, I used the term first, BigDXRay mirrored my concerns - don't threaten him as you clearly did, he mirrored my language.
 * Are you going to voluntarily stop this behavior or do we need to put in a request to have you blocked from editing Wikipedia until you agree to follow our rules? - Obviously far worse language, and even a threat, neither of which either of us have done. You yourself, sir, are guilty of more than we are - and moreover, your language is condescending and
 * Either speech is free or it is not. Those who edited out my, and other editors comments committed **far worse** an act than either of us have committed in speaking truth to whoever it may be. I state categorically I see Christian Colonialism and Missionaries as a bad thing; they impose religious views on others, and this is a blatant, clear, modern example of both of these things -a risible act in which one man had such contempt for human diversity and self-determination, and also laughably ancient and outmoded theological ranting about "satan". This is clearly an instance of volenti non fit injuria and I adequately represented that with citations from Chau's family and mainstream media. And a view of history in this sense, which reflects the clear motives of this man and their religious basis, has been removed in an act of suppressio veri to continue the use of Latin.
 * But regardless of my contempt for your rules, and your arbitrary threats of enforcement of them, to me or to DBigXRay, or their invalidity and effrontery to free expression, what I provided was true and what the article was edited to, **was whitewashing**. The term is direct, it is clear and accurate, and if only I were able to arbitrarily cite "WP: Don't be a jobsworth." (Oh, or Wikipedia:Don't link to WP:AGF) The only rule either of us is guilty of breaking is speaking the truth and including a valid perspective that you find disagreeable. Terribly sorry.
 * I do not assume good faith on the part of TSP, because there is ample evidence in his statements and edits of complete myopia in his analysis of what has occurred, which quite frankly beggars belief and points to obvious bias or inability to understand basic facts established by multiple mainstream media sources. I defy anyone to read the multitude of sources available on this and come to the conclusion that there is a balance between the view of "adventure tourist" and missionary - no such balance exists. A person can be an adventurer who adventures, and does so alongside their other aims, like those of Missionary work, which Chau CLEARLY did.
 * But, I doubt any validity in this discussion because those who are responding are talking out of each side of their mouth - in one side agreeing with us in principle, and in the other reducing the article to a mash note that whitewashes, and I will say it again - whitewashes the role of this MISSIONARY in trying to convert people to Christianity.

WobInDisguise (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:TALK. Wikipedia talk pages are indeed not a forum for free speech; they are places to discuss how to improve articles, and nothing else. Your musings on people's motivations are inappropriate.  TSP (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My "musings" on your motivations relate directly to an NPOV issue with this article, hence it is related to how to improve the article. A person's ability to produce accurate and unbiased information is directly related to his or her motivations in relation to that article. But since the policy is about "commenting on the article, not the contributor" (which is definitely a very flawed policy) - I stand by what I said in the 90% of the above you perhaps did not read.
 * I find it funny you only read one part of what I wrote, which was a minor percentage of what I wrote, which illustrates the point I am making abundantly. Perhaps you should direct that policy to the person above that threatened DBigXRay, then. WobInDisguise (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read your own comment again. It contains two sentences on content, and dozens on motivation and behaviour.
 * I defy anyone to read the multitude of sources available on this and come to the conclusion that there is a balance between the view of "adventure tourist" and missionary - no such balance exists. A person can be an adventurer who adventures, and does so alongside their other aims, like those of Missionary work, which Chau CLEARLY did.
 * That is what you said about the actual content of this article, so sure, I'll answer that part.
 * There are significant sources describing him as both - including good sources of notable people specifically saying he was not a missionary. And yes, someone can be both (but someone can also be called a missionary when they are not).  We can debate the precise balance between the two presentations - perhaps most sources do emphasise one rather than the other; what I object to is the article saying - as it currently does - that he was purely a missionary or evangelist, when there are reliable sources that say he was not.
 * (For what it's worth, I think my viewpoint here is pretty much exactly the opposite of what you think it is, but I also think it isn't relevant.) TSP (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)]
 * I think far less you are interested in portraying him as both, and I think you have a bias against this topic, because your myopia on this topic is quite frankly, astonishing. I see on your page you are a Christian and you're doing a great job of papering over the indiscretions and absolute immorality of your fellow Christians in this situation (*edited) who acted wrongly by trying to muddy the waters on the reason he was there and distance this obvious disgrace from Christianity. I doubt completely your motivations of "trying to have balance".
 * He could have been a horse inseminator, a fan dancer, and a unicorn (*edited) for 99% of the rest of his life, but the fact, as established, clearly, and with MOUNTAINS of evidence, that the reason he was THERE was to CONVERT the tribe. This is sincerely, and FACTUALLY accurate. You sir, are distorting this topic.
 * You wrote: We can debate the precise balance between the two presentations - perhaps most sources do emphasise one rather than the other; what I object to is the article saying - as it currently does - that he was purely a missionary or evangelist, when there are reliable sources that say he was not.
 * This is just ridiculous. He was an adventurer, but he was THERE as a Christian, to CONVERT them, solely, and ONLY in that role! He wasn't there to tell them how to adventure, was he? They're a tribe of people who spend their lives adventuring, and have done so since decades before America even existed. You ignored the obvious and voluminous evidence of his wrong-headed, illegal, immoral, unethical and self-centered actions - and instead focus on some balance between what he may have been. So sure, he's an adventurer, no dispute of that. But the SOLE, ONLY, CATEGORICALLY FACTUAL REASON he was there, was AS A MISSIONARY! Hence, saying "a missionary, John Chau, went to the island to try and convert them to Christianity and was killed by them" is completely, totally accurate. So would be "John Chau, amateur explorer and missionary, went to the island to try and convert them to Christianity." WobInDisguise (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

TSP and WobInDisguise, When the incident was newly reported, it is quite likely that all the facts were still hazy and since the discovery of Chau's handwritten notes and the statement by his family, this is a forgone conclusion now that he had indeed visited the island for converting the tribe to christianity. Let me Quote todays article from BBC which quotes the latest statements from " the officials ". Missionary’s one man invasion resulting in his death was his own fault, says family, News Corp Australia Network, Nov 25, this also has an interview of his close friend -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The problem as I see it is that the definition of a ‘missionary’, specifically a ‘Christian missionary’, is of someone who was sent on the instruction of a religious organisation or group. There is no evidence that any Church or religious organisation instructed him to go to this island. As he went of his own accord the umbrella term ‘Christian evangelist’ should be used. The question as I see it is: do we knowingly insert a demonstrably inaccurate term ‘missionary’ per the WP:COMMONNAME used in error by many journalists or do we be responsible Wikipedians and invoke WP:IAR and form a consensus to use the most accurate term used by more savvy journalists, which can be reliably sourced as there are many sources that describe him as a Christian evangelist.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  13:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * But he WAS trained and sent as a missionary. "Mr Chau went to “share the love of Jesus,” said Mary Ho, international executive leader of All Nations. All Nations, a Kansas City, Missouri-based organisation, helped train Mr Chau, discussed the risks with him and sent him on the mission, to support him in his “life’s calling,” she added." WWGB (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good find - obviously I am proved to be in error. The updates to the page made in relation to this reference is a good improvement. Cheers.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  06:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Further comment: it is absolutely clear he was there for the sole purpose of converting the islanders to Christianity. He brought a Bible with him and preached and sang gospel songs as they fired arrows at him. He instructed the fishing boat to leave without him stating that he was going to remain on the island. It was clear that he intended to live there long-term, learn their language and then convert them to Christianity. He had this ambition to go to this island since high school according to his friend. Any arguments that he was not there to convert the islanders should be hatted as disruptive.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  13:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good find, WWGB. User:Literaturegeek as you can see in the link provided by WWGB, he was indeed a trained missionary. The Missionary group "All Nations" have even issues a press release confirming the same and "mourning the reported death of one of its missionaries, Chau".-- D Big X ray ᗙ  00:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * -- D Big X ray ᗙ  00:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, wow. Agreed, good find - that is new and significant.
 * I am now left perplexed as to why someone who was actually a missionary, trained for this mission and sent by a missionary organisation, had apparently (from my understanding of his own writings) not bothered to learn any local tribal language and tried to communicate with them in English and Xhosa; but apparently (at least according to the organisation) that happened.
 * It would probably be justified to mention the missionary organisation; but they don't have a page, I'm not sure they can justify having one, and mentioning them without a link would risk confusion with one of the many other organisations called "All Nations". Perhaps sources for one will appear as this incident raises their profile. TSP (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * TSP, if you read the news.com.au source above it explains that his motive was to live amongst the tribe. By living with the tribe he would’ve learnt their language. Nobody understands a word of their language as it is a language unique to the Sentinelese, so it’s not possible to learn it before travelling. Nobody even knows how to say hello.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  06:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realise - I'd think it would still be worth learning at least a bit of Onge and Jarawa, which seem to at least have a remote chance of having some historic relationship to Sentinelese, rather than coming equipped only with two languages spoken by totally unrelated ethnic groups many thousands of miles away? But anyway, this is all just my speculation, so is irrelevant; I just find it very strange that a missionary organisation thought this approach was a good idea. TSP (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The idea was exceedingly idiotic. The decision to keep going back three days in a row after being aggressively chased away the first day with arrow wounds was insane. End result: social rejection Stone Age style.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  11:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, his own writings suggest that the picture wasn't quite as simple as our article currently makes out, and he did have some somewhat peaceful interactions with the islanders before the arrow that hit his bible - I'd like to expand these aspects a bit, though I am afraid of the section becoming very long if it has significantly more content about Chau's contact with the islanders AND the current amount of content about Chau, his family, his interactions with fishermen, legal consequences etc. TSP (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My recollection of his diary entries was that all of his visits were met with aggressiveness from the tribe. He only remarked that some of the Sentinelese were good/friendly towards him but others were openly hostile. I suspect he received some form of appreciation for the gifts he gave and this was followed by hostility when he did not then leave. To be perfectly honest, Chau’s social judgement skills seem very poor and incredibly intrusive (I think it likely his social judgement was partly impaired by his religious extremism), to the point that his own interpretation of how the Sentinelese responded to him should be taken with a pinch of salt. He may well have been able to befriend them with adequate social skills such as very brief visits once ever six months with gifts but that was not his intention. He wanted more than that, he wanted to live amongst them, impose himself upon their community, learn their language and teach them the gospels. What sourced text do you propose adding to the article? It might be justifiable to slip in another brief sentence enlargingly the section a little because, after all, this tragic death is going to be perhaps the most interesting to our readers.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  13:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My recollection of his diary entries was that all of his visits were met with aggressiveness from the tribe. He only remarked that some of the Sentinelese were good/friendly towards him but others were openly hostile. I suspect he received some form of appreciation for the gifts he gave and this was followed by hostility when he did not then leave. To be perfectly honest, Chau’s social judgement skills seem very poor and incredibly intrusive (I think it likely his social judgement was partly impaired by his religious extremism), to the point that his own interpretation of how the Sentinelese responded to him should be taken with a pinch of salt. He may well have been able to befriend them with adequate social skills such as very brief visits once ever six months with gifts but that was not his intention. He wanted more than that, he wanted to live amongst them, impose himself upon their community, learn their language and teach them the gospels. What sourced text do you propose adding to the article? It might be justifiable to slip in another brief sentence enlargingly the section a little because, after all, this tragic death is going to be perhaps the most interesting to our readers.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  13:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This article seems to describe some slightly more extensive and ambiguous encounters.
 * But the people seemed variously amused, hostile and perplexed by his presence, he wrote. He described a man wearing a white crown possibly made of flowers taking a “leadership stance” by standing atop the tallest coral rock on the beach. The man yelled, and Mr. Chau tried to respond, singing some worship songs and yelling back something in Xhosa, a language he apparently knew a few words of from when he coached soccer in South Africa a few years ago. “They would often fall silent after this,” he wrote. Other efforts to communicate with tribe members ended with their bursting out in laughter. Encounters became more fraught. When Mr. Chau tried to hand over fish and a bundle of gifts, a boy shot an arrow “directly into my Bible which I was holding.” “I grabbed the arrow shaft as it broke in my Bible and felt the arrow head,” he said. “It was metal, thin but very sharp.”
 * This at least seems significantly more involved than what we currently say, which is pretty much that he approached them and they shot him.
 * I think it's justified to include almost any amount of extra information about the Sentinelese. My concern has always been that the great majority of this section has nothing to do with the Sentinelese, and describes the various travails and thought processes of a non-Sentinelese missionary and his non-Sentinelese family and contacts. TSP (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That entire paragraph falls under the description of ‘social rejection’ - amused and laughing at him (not with him), firing a razor sharp arrow at him in response to his gift offering is all rejection. They were not his friends or friendly acquaintances at any point of that interaction, there is no evidence of them welcoming his presence. Just how you want to summarise all that briefly, I do not know.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  13:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I've made an attempt at this. "That entire paragraph falls under the description of ‘social rejection’" - yes, it could be summarised like that, but as this is the Sentinelese article the bits actually about the Sentinelese are the bits that should be being expanded upon; whereas the content on Chau can be summarised.  I've attempted to address the balance.
 * It's frustrating that I can't find a copy of his notes anywhere - various different newspapers have different excerpts hinting there is a lot more. Washington Post says, 'A section of his diary is devoted to his impressions of the Sentinelese: He jotted down details of their language (“lots of high-pitched sounds”) and gestures.'  These observations would be very relevant, but nothing more than this seems to be available anywhere. TSP (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I have jumped into this anew. I understand the wish for many wikipedans to make this young man appear noble. I had followed John Chau's instagram feed a week prior to this incident(correction: actually I was following him since 10 Nov). He often writes of his religions feelings and wish to convert the tribes (this was his 3rd visit to Andaman islands - correction, 4th visit - and his 2nd visit to North Sentinel). Of course I was mainly following his psots as I had also dived at Andaman so I was just curious for diving tid bits. Chau appears sweet and harmless. Hence would like to add some background info. Chau does not mention himself being a "missionary" leave alone a "trained missionary" - he mentions 6 other qualifiers, of which 2 are formal qualifications. I am sure he would have listed "missionary" if he was one. Fyi - his instagram profile gives the following qualifications - taken verbatim : "John Chau - Following the Way. Wilderness EMT. Padi Advanced Open Water Diver. Outbound Collective Explorer. Perky Jerky Ambassador (sic.). Snakebite Survivor." I can understand newspapers claiming this, I can also understand his parents claiming it. It is but natural. However, that does not change facts, unless a church comes out and says that he trained as a missionary with them (most churches have a strict regimen of education and training before one can be called a missionary - as done by Mother Teresa's Sisters of Charity). Again, no offence meant, but is Wikipedia not meant for facts and not what we wish was true? Notthebestusername (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware that this was not the first missionary trip for Chau, He had visited South Africa  and several other parts of Mainland India and Andaman islands as well for preaching (Source NDTV). -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

John Allen Chau detailed efforts to convert islanders to Christianity in final diary entries: 'You guys might think I'm crazy' All Nations Church have already claimed him as their trained missionary. See this article and the video. TSP, you might want to take a look at this article, it has more of Chau's notes. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"Unwittingly"
(Rather than continue this in edit comments....)


 * No, we aren't saying he intended to infect the Sentinelese; we're saying nothing about his intentions, just as our sources don't. That doesn't mean we think he did intend to, we are just following our sources in reporting the facts rather than speculating on his intentions. It's good enough for the BBC. TSP (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is uncharitable, to say the least. But I agree we have to follow sources. Of course it might be possible to find a source, other than the BBC, that actually says "unwittingly" etc.? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That sentence is specifically talking about what Survival International said; and they didn't make any mention of intent, so any further sources on it are probably not that relevant. I'm also not very convinced, as per several other conversations above, by taking an approach of "I'd like to say this, but our sources don't say it, can we hunt for a source that does say it?"
 * Also "unwittingly" means "without being aware"; while they probably wouldn't say any infection was intentional, I suspect they would very much say it was negligent, and something that he could and should have been aware of.
 * But more generally, I don't think there's anything uncharitable about not speculating on intent. If we report that someone was killed in a car accident, we don't add to their article "...by a driver who we're sure didn't mean to do it and is probably a very nice person". There's nothing uncharitable about just reporting the facts.  [User:TSP|TSP]] (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree that Chau was negligent. And no. I'm, not convinced either. But it seems to me to be all total speculation, not "facts" at all. We have no reports that any of the tribe have died, and of source that might take a very long time. Even then, I'm not sure how anyone would ever know. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure - we're not saying any infection has definitely happened. We're just quoting a human rights organisation that says the danger exists, as being generally representative of the reasons Chau was criticised for his actions. TSP (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess Chau and his family deserve no charity from Survival International, Dead or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor, I'm afraid, from us - per WP:NPOV, "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject". We are here simply to record the facts are reported in the sources, with neither kindness nor malice. TSP (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the statement by Survival International is a fact. I think that's as far as it goes. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123, buddy, I get your point. Looking at the facts here, Chau was a trained paramedic of some sort based on his graduation. And I am sure he is supposed to know more about infections and pathogens than lesser mortals like us. Since, ‘He lost his mind’: Slain missionary John Allen Chau planned for years to convert remote tribe, I am sure Chau must have read about the risk of pathogens and the disastrous effect it had on other Andaman tribes. In all probability it looks like Chau knew what he was doing but he possibly disregarded the threat from pathogens he was carrying. It looks like a great sin if Chau knowingly overlooked such deadly risks on pathogens. In any case I agree with the opinion of TSP here, since it will be an WP:OR on our part to add the word "unwitting" into the article when none of the sources said that.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't have to thank me for adding it, lol. If he lost his mind I guess it's hard for us to know what his intentions were. Unwittingly? e.g. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

1991 expeditions
Are the 1991 expeditions mentioned in the new section Sentinelese added by User:Montrealais the same as the ones already mentioned in the Sentinelese? They sound similar - both have specific mention of coconuts being accepted in 1991 - but it's odd that neither of our source articles seems to mention the other anthropologist. The article on Pandit seems clear that he was present for the coconut incident; the article on Chattopadhyay seems clear no other anthropologist was present.

[This PDF] seems to be the content page of "Andaman and Nicobar islanders: Studies on small populations" published by the Indian Anthropological Society as an occasional paper in 1992. It suggests there is an article called "Meeting the Sentinel islanders : The least known of the Andaman hunter-gatherers" co-written by Pandit and Chattopadhyay, which suggests they did work together. It isn't online anywhere that I can see, and I can find no other significant sources that mention them both. TSP (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Spears
I'm still pretty dubious about the spears, given that the source you provide asserting that spears were thrown is an article about a different incident, which mentions spears being thrown in a brief summary about the earlier incident; and in the same sentence links to the much more extensive article actually about this incident, which has actual quotes from the pilot involved, who says - direct quote (my emphasis) - that the Sentinelese "were using bows and arrows and had spears as well".

This feels a bit like picking the source that says what you want it to say, rather than the one that is actually the better source?

I'm not quite sure why you think it's so important to say spears were thrown, when the better source seems to specifically say they weren't? I guess we could say "with arrows and, according to some sources, spears" but that seems a bit excessive. Can't we just follow the actual words of the eyewitness? Or do you have some reason for believing that the brief summary in a different article is more accurate? TSP (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * you asked for the source and I have provided the reliable source that quotes it.


 * Well, the only weapons of tribals are arrows and spears and they have clearly used everything they got. A clear warning that meant "trespasser be gone". The damaging power of a spear is much larger than an arrow. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the only weapons of tribals are arrows and spears and they have clearly used everything they got. A clear warning that meant "trespasser be gone". The damaging power of a spear is much larger than an arrow. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for the claim "The damaging power of a spear is much larger than an arrow"? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict, reply to DBigXray)
 * OK. But there is another, as far as I can see significantly better, source, that says the spears were not thrown.  Indeed, the hyperlink in the sentence from your source to the other source suggests to me that your source is likely to just be poorly paraphrasing the other source, rather than to have unique information that contradicts it.
 * You seem to be saying you prefer what you have written because it confirms the narrative you would like to tell - that they threw everything they had to say 'trespasser be gone'. That is inappropriate.  We are not here to push our preferred narrative.
 * We are here to reflect the sources, and what seems to be the best source says the spears were not used. I don't think it's OK to go hunting for a different source, even if it's clearly less good, that tells the story you want to tell, and use that one instead.
 * But if you really want we can say "and according to some sources". But I think it's safest just to go with the eyewitness account and say they "also had spears".  That doesn't say they *weren't* thrown.  TSP (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * TSP Since you are doubting the NDTV which in itself is a very reliable source let me show you some more.
 * trespass is what the reliable sources are using, dont blame me for rehashing what RS states.
 * All these sources make their usage of spear against the helicopters abundantly clear-- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All these sources make their usage of spear against the helicopters abundantly clear-- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All these sources make their usage of spear against the helicopters abundantly clear-- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All these sources make their usage of spear against the helicopters abundantly clear-- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All these sources make their usage of spear against the helicopters abundantly clear-- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All these sources make their usage of spear against the helicopters abundantly clear-- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All these sources make their usage of spear against the helicopters abundantly clear-- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All these sources make their usage of spear against the helicopters abundantly clear-- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, the source that I was referencing is NDTV - the original NDTV article that was already referenced in that section, which is their article actually about that incident, where they interview the pilot who was actually there. And, as I say, the hyperlink from your NDTV article to that one suggests to me that it is highlighting that article as the more authoritative source.
 * You seem to have found a series of generic articles that refer to the incident more or less vaguely; or refer to no incident in particular; or even describe completely different incidents! The fact remains that the NDTV article which is specifically about this, and quotes an eyewitness, specifically says the attack was with arrows, and they merely "had" spears.
 * I'm really quite concerned about this approach to sources. Deciding what we want to say, then going looking for sources that support our chosen viewpoint, is very much not what should be happening here.  TSP (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You have to first make up your mind on whether you trust NDTV as a reliable source or not, You cant say that I will trust this from NDTV and I wont trust that from NDTV, this is clearly cherry picking. Should you decide that NDTV is unreliable, you are welcome to approach WP:RSN to get this clarified.
 * You asked for sources and I gave you the sources for spears.
 * You said the source is not reliable, I have added here a number of other sources saying the same.
 * I find this awkward that you want the mention of spears removed when we have so many reliable sources stating that they use both. I have said everything I had to say here.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * NDTV is fine; but when the same publication has an article specifically about a subject; then a one-sentence summary (which links to the first article) contained in an article on a different subject; it is perverse to suggest that the second of these is likely to be a more reliable source on the subject than the first.
 * Regarding your other "sources":
 * 1, 5: These are about a totally different incident.
 * 2, 3, 4, 6, 7: These are generic statements not describing any particular incident.
 * None of these describes the incident in question. The question is not "do the Sentinelese ever use spears?" but "did they use them on this occasion?"  We have a good source that says they didn't, and a clearly worse source suggesting they did.
 * You have already said that your reason for wanting to include this is not the sources, but the narrative you want to push. That approach to editing is not compatible with Wikipedia's policies. TSP (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait hold on, We have a good source that says they didn't There is no such source saying that, and claiming that the source said so is blatant misrepresentation. The WP:BURDEN has been met with the sources I have provided. Not sure why you are still disagreeing about spears, this is the most silly discussion thread I have responded to in past couple of months as far as I can remember. Anyway, please take this discussion to RSN with your sources. as I suggested above.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes we do. "As we were going down, we were attacked by the Sentinel tribals who were using bows and arrows and had spears as well." They used the bows and arrows; they had the spears.
 * I'm only still discussing this because you are.... The question isn't whether NDTV is a good source - it is that THE SAME SOURCE gives the contrary answer IN THE ARTICLE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS INCIDENT.  TSP (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * TSP, I have given you several sources that said they threw spears and arrows at the helicopter both in 2004 and 2006. Now please share a reliable source that says "they didn't use spears on the helicopter" (Even though they had it). You have no source to back up your claim that no spear was used.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  23:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Why would these intelligent people even try to throw spears at a helicopter that is 200 meters away? Arrows easily have a range of 200 meters but the very best javelin throw in the Olympics was 104 meters. Use some logic here. Spears are close quarters combat weapons, usually used for thrusting and sometimes very short range throwing. No skilled spearsman would waste a spear by trying to throw it 200 meters. It is ridiculous. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Cullen328, the world record for Javelin throw is 104.8m which is equal to 344 feet. As per statement of helicopter operator in 2006 incident, their arrows were reaching 100 feet in height. The sources above also note that they threw spears at the Helicopter in 2004 and 2006 incident. The intention of throwing Spears, arrows, stones, etc as "warning shots" is to register their unhappiness at the arrival of the trespassers and a clear signal to them to leave. If the trespasser continues to approach, they shoot to kill. So obviously there is some logic and reason behind it. (BTW, This is not my personal opinion but coming from various Anthropologists who have commented on the behavior of Sentinelese, that I have read recently).-- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The quoted direct statement by the direct witness Commandant Gaur mentions the islanders actually firing arrows several times but never once says that spears were thrown in the 2006 incident. Of course, arrows travelling to the effective range of 200 meters would reach 100 feet or more in height. These arrows would be fired in a lofting trajectory because an arrow fired horizonally would hit the ground much closer than 200 meters. Throwing rocks as warnings is one thing. Rocks are readily available and require no work other than gathering them up. Spears, on the other hand, require skilled labor to make and are in limited numbers in a combat situation. It would be as foolish to throw a spear at a target 200 meters away as it would be to throw a hand grenade at a target a kilometer away. A complete waste of a weapon that is in short supply on the battlefield. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * During the 2004 incident the helicopter did not land it was attacked by both arrows and spears, with a clear motive.
 * Please see Commandant Gaur's interview with NDTV here talking about the 2006 incident
 * Regarding your military analysis and possible uses of spear, You are making a flawed assumption that during the 2006 incident with Gaur, the Helicopter always remained at a height of 200m, that assumption is not supported by any evidence. Please note that during the 2006 incident the helicopter wasn't always at a distance of 200m. In fact it did land at two occasions at two different places on the island. So it is quite possible that when the helicopter was flying at a lower height or while being landed, the Tribals would have used spears as well. Gaur also states that they were attacked with spears and arrows and these 2 quotes from NDTV plus several others mentioned above should be enough to settle this thread. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your military analysis and possible uses of spear, You are making a flawed assumption that during the 2006 incident with Gaur, the Helicopter always remained at a height of 200m, that assumption is not supported by any evidence. Please note that during the 2006 incident the helicopter wasn't always at a distance of 200m. In fact it did land at two occasions at two different places on the island. So it is quite possible that when the helicopter was flying at a lower height or while being landed, the Tribals would have used spears as well. Gaur also states that they were attacked with spears and arrows and these 2 quotes from NDTV plus several others mentioned above should be enough to settle this thread. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your military analysis and possible uses of spear, You are making a flawed assumption that during the 2006 incident with Gaur, the Helicopter always remained at a height of 200m, that assumption is not supported by any evidence. Please note that during the 2006 incident the helicopter wasn't always at a distance of 200m. In fact it did land at two occasions at two different places on the island. So it is quite possible that when the helicopter was flying at a lower height or while being landed, the Tribals would have used spears as well. Gaur also states that they were attacked with spears and arrows and these 2 quotes from NDTV plus several others mentioned above should be enough to settle this thread. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your military analysis and possible uses of spear, You are making a flawed assumption that during the 2006 incident with Gaur, the Helicopter always remained at a height of 200m, that assumption is not supported by any evidence. Please note that during the 2006 incident the helicopter wasn't always at a distance of 200m. In fact it did land at two occasions at two different places on the island. So it is quite possible that when the helicopter was flying at a lower height or while being landed, the Tribals would have used spears as well. Gaur also states that they were attacked with spears and arrows and these 2 quotes from NDTV plus several others mentioned above should be enough to settle this thread. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly, anything about the 2004 incident is irrelevant. The question is whether we should say spears were used in the 2006 incident.
 * Secondly, anyone's analysis of good military strategy is irrelevant; we are to reflect what is in the best sources.
 * This new quote from Gaur seems consistent with his previous statement: he says "more than 50 or 100 people are running towards you with spears, arrows and shooting towards you"; earlier he said the Sentinelese "were using bows and arrows and had spears as well". In each case he mentions that they had spears, but only that they attacked with arrows.  (You don't "shoot" a spear.)  TSP (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Notice that Gaur clearly says "he was on the ground" and not airborne while talking about the attack.
 * Notice that Gaur clearly says "he was on the ground" and not airborne while talking about the attack.


 * The above is the quote from the Wikipedia article being discussed here and as it stands this statement doesn't make any wild or ludicrous claim and is sourced with RS and quotes that are mentioned above. Notice that our article is not claiming that the spears were thrown 200m above the ground. The line in the article does not distinguish between on ground attack or airborne attack. The line in article only claims what has been reported thus far. There are only 2 reported incidents of Helicopters coming under attack and both events mention arrows and spears. They used spears on Helicopter in 2004 and after just 2 years, in 2006 they did not use ? There is no reasonable explanation for why they will refrain from doing it. Anyway, we follow what the reliable media reports, and we have reliable media reports that back this statement.
 * Notice the usage of plural with helicopter, the reliable media uses the statement for both occasions and Gaur's interview also confirms the spears were used to attack.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  02:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Noting that we had a parallel discussion at WP:RSN about this, where a consensus was reached and the article updated accordingly .-- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Noting that we had a parallel discussion at WP:RSN about this, where a consensus was reached and the article updated accordingly .-- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Chau may not have acted alone

 * American killed by the Sentinelese in Andaman may not have acted alone

Latest update in the ongoing investigation of the incident. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Per this source, I've removed: "On 14 November, Chau paid local fishermen in Port Blair to take him to the island." as the article suggests this may not be the case, and they may have been "believers" acting voluntarily. I'm not sure there is a balanced way to include the uncertainty on this relatively minor point without the coverage getting too long. TSP (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are wilfully distorting this topic AGAIN. The information provided in that topic does in no way, invalidate the claim that he paid them. Stop trying to whitewash this guy; he paid them AND had accomplices. You really are taking the piss with these obviously POV-based edits. Stop. The article DBigxray posted in NO WAY contradicts the accurate claim that he paid fishermen to illegally go to the island, so please stop trying to assert against evidence which everyone else knows to be true. WobInDisguise (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with WobInDisguise, This article above does not establish or confirm that Chau did not paid money. Even if these guys are indeed believers, nowhere does the article state that these folks did it for charity. The fishermen clearly knew taking Chau to the island was an illegal act and could get them into trouble (and hallelujah, it did get them into prison). AFAIK "Believers" all around the world take money for doing things, after all, someone has to pay the bills. This article makes it clear that the investigation is still ongoing and they are checking other facts as well including other accomplices. The content is sourced, and should stay till there is a confirmation that he did not pay.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article says "The second officer said that what gave further credence to the theory about a group or organisation was that while the five fishermen arrested for taking Chau to North Sentinel Island said he paid them ₹25,000 to be sneaked into the island, his notes suggested otherwise, describing them as “believers”." (my emphasis). Whether you agree with its take or not, the article does specifically cast doubt on this.  TSP (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Cast doubt" is not the same as establish/confirm. we will have to wait till they publish something confirming something, which then gets widely reported in reliable media. As of now this is only a weak fringe theory from second officer. This is not even a part of the official statement from the Police department. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed not. I'm certainly not suggesting that we state this as fact; just that it might cause us caution in stating the opposite as fact, when there is at least a school of thought in our sources that it is untrue. TSP (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let’s not use “our” when referring to your sophistry, please. You have a severe difficulty in looking at established fact which has been repeatedly confirmed, and seeming to think that facts that do not contradict established, well-verified facts, somehow “cast doubt” on these facts. It’s as if you are at a crime scene where it has been established the guy was stabbed 40 times in the heart and has expired, but then you think that “doubt is cast” on the fact of him having died because it turned out his coat was purple and not blue as was originally thought. I’ve already doubted your motivations and still do, you’re outwardly, obviously trying to conduct PR for Jesus by covering up obvious facts, and your points are, on their very face, absurd and invalid.
 * So, stop obfuscating about facts, because all you have done is sought to mystify what is clearly fact in this case and frankly, you should be ashamed of your conduct. Whitewash all you want, your brethren was a lawbreaker and a colonialist. And that view so long as people wish to reflect the truth on Wikipedia, will be maintained, regardless of how much “doubt” you find is cast. Shame that “doubt” isn’t cast on your own veracity; maybe we’d get somewhere if you did. WobInDisguise (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * He was a lawbreaker, absolutely - but a colonialist, hardly since he wasn’t representing a government or empire.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  15:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (The best bit about these accusations is that, as far as I can see, WobInDisguise and DBigXray believe me to have precisely opposite biases.)
 * I said "our sources". OK, I'll be more precise: DBigXray's source that he posted at the top of this thread, and which I quoted in my previous post.  TSP (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article says, according to Chau’s diary, that the people who transported Chau by boat were believers but says nothing about them not being paid. They would have needed to be compensated for their fuel costs of using a boat for three days as well as lost earnings or holiday time, which could be considerable, so the claim about him paying them 384 is plausible and until sources state otherwise the claim of Chau paying for the boat crossing should remain.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  15:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * True, that's all possible - I'm referring to the specific quote from the source, "The second officer said that what gave further credence to the theory about a group or organisation was that while the five fishermen arrested for taking Chau to North Sentinel Island said he paid them ₹25,000 to be sneaked into the island, his notes suggested otherwise, describing them as “believers”." That seems to be specifically questioning the veracity of the assertion currently in our article.  Perhaps not a notable doubt; I just don't think it's an important enough fact to include at all if it's not 100% unquestioned. TSP (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Literaturegeek, I am sure WobInDisguise wasn't referring to the European colonialism or American colonialism but Christian Colonialism. Mainstream Media are calling the incident as "" for some reasons I believe. And this is also being heavily discussed, see  -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Look up the definition of colonialism and it is about a more powerful country wielding political control over a less powerful territory or country for their economic gain. The sources point out that previous countries and political powers often used spreading Christianity as justification for colonialism. They don’t actually say definitively that Chau was a colonialist. Really, let’s be very careful to avoid finding shit on the internet to POV push into the article.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  09:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Literaturegeek The comment above was in response to the discussion and it should only be taken as such. Not as a way to push anything into the article. Nowhere did I say that we should include the colonialism or any related word into the article not sure why you are assuming this.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He's certainly following on the tradition of colonising: to use a definition of "to colonise" : "send settlers to (a place) and establish political control over it.". His intent was to go there and bring them under the dominion of god, but that's certainly my opinion and thinking about it, you're right that he did not express any intent of who would have gained control of this tribe had he "civilised" them (cringeworthy and risible term that it is).
 * In terms of TSP's nonsense, he keeps saying my criticism of him is the opposite of what it plainly is. But, my criticism is as it has always been: he's a pimp for his religion, and he is doing his level best to be dishonest and to try as much as possible, to obfuscate, confuse, and bludgeon this article until any mention of Chau's noxious proselytising is either watered down, or lacking.
 * I certainly take your points, Literaturegeek, and I was referring to Christian colonialism (i.e. Bringing those terrible savages under the dominion of god). WobInDisguise (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, okay, but that is your original researched opinion definition of Christianity that God is a akin to political power, but official definitions of colonialism is about worldly political governments exploiting poorer countries financially. There is evidence of a lot of time wasting by both TSP and yourself in POV pushing with pro-Christian versus anti-Christian talk page nonsensical pointless posts. Please remember Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or a place to WP:SOAPBOX, nor are the talk pages a WP:FORUM.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  10:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)