Jump to content

Talk:Komagata Maru incident

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

Comment

[edit]

"The shore Committee raised $22,000 dollars as an installment on chartering the ship." and "the passengers did not have the required funds" It's too bad the two groups didn't talk to oneanother. =/ -- Sy / (talk)

British Subjects / British Protected Persons

[edit]

Why is there a section going into the details of the difference between British Subjects and British Protected Persons if all of the passengers were British Subjects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.103.86 (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

This article has a number of references, but they are not attached to any part of the article (they're more of a see also). Please can someone convert these to actual references / citations. Perhaps by looking through them and seeing which part of the article they go to. Also it would be helpful to have references to web sites, or books that are easier to get hold of it seems the best publisers (British Columbia Historical Quarterly, V and Oxford University Press) are for references that are now fairly dated (though still valid, it's a question of verifiability. Thanks Captainj 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Also, I've been looking and I'm not sure that the Canadian government has yet to actually apologized yet. They've been talking about it but haven't said sorry yet. Can someone provide a reference to that too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrythemaster (talk • contribs) 21:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ship data

[edit]

Because of its title, this article is properly about the vessel itself, and the Komagata Maru Incident, which probably redirects here, should be a separate article. Tonnage, construction dates, ownership, vessel history etc are standard fare on "ship pages". Please see WikiProject Ships for examples of format/content; for now the "Incident portion" can stay here, but this article, by normal Wiki conventions, should be about the vessel itself.Skookum1 07:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make the text clearer

[edit]

Can you make the text a little clearer because it kind of confusing to read.

Correcting page spelling

[edit]

This page should be spelled as "Komagata Maru Incident". The existing "Komagata Maru Incident" page, which directs back to this page, should be deleted.


Goingoveredge added wrong category

[edit]

Goingoveredge can you explain what is "AntiIndia" subject matter related to this event and the article? Why did you add "Category:Anti-Indian sentiment" to this article? You have earlier done the same at different articles like Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity. Please stop making wikipedia your vehicle of propaganda. --RoadAhead Discuss 00:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop Trolling and contribute constructively to wikipedia. Hatemongering , incitement, and revisionism are not tolerated here.Goingoveredge (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not take tangents to the topic and create confusion. Your reply above is as irrelevant as your replies always are to the topic at hand. What do my words above have to do with "Hatemongering" , "incitement", and "revisionism"? Stay on topic and do not incite edit-wars everywhere you go. I have noticed that you are involved in edit-wars on almost every topic that you have touched on Wikipedia. --RoadAhead Discuss 17:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The incident clearly targeted Indians for discrimination, and, as such, reflected anti-Indian sentiment as depicted in the article. Please stop Attacking editors, Disrupting wikipedia to make a point, Trolling and actively engouraging prejudice, bigotry and discrimination against certain ethnic groups. Actions like that are severely frowned upon here.Goingoveredge (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god!...do you have a list of tags and links that you just keeping adding in your replies? Perhaps you think that other wikipedia editors will get mislead and believe you if you keep alleging every possible way that you can, but FYI wikipedia is not a community of illiterate editor. This tactic will hurt you only. Nevertheless, I could not understand how this incident is "Anti India"; please explain appropriately, you seem to make no point once again.--RoadAhead Discuss 18:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don;t understand the obvious, it is not my job to explain it. If policy is motivated by targeted bigotry against a particular group, the sentiment in question is anti-That particular group. In this case, that group was Indians. Ergo, it is an "anti-Indian" sentiment. The exclusion laws targeted Indians by letter, as the cited documents clearly demonstrate.Goingoveredge (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here comes the misleading part. You are seemingly hinting that the reaction and action of concerned non-Indians towards this incident was "AntiIndia", however, if you add "AntiIndia" tag to the incident page that gives an impression that the incident itself (ie. the initiative of Komagata Maru) was "AntiIndia". And yes, its "the job" of every wikipedia editor to make things as clear as possible and not confusing for the readers. --RoadAhead Discuss 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the purpose of categorization. The purpose of adding a category is to illustrate relevance. The KM incident is clearly relevant to anti-Indian sentiment, since that was the primary motivator behind the exclusion of the passengers. Please don;t engage in ill-conceived obfuscatory rants and contribute constructively to the encyclopedia.Goingoveredge (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pot calling the kettle black? Try to focus on "constructiveness" yourself as well, just distributing "the wisdom" is not enough. The sentiment that you are now talking about may still not be "AntiIndia", Canadian sentiment was "Anti Immigrant" and the British sentiment was "Anti Colonists". Please get your facts right. --RoadAhead Discuss 18:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the generic motivator, but we are not talking about generic sentiments here. The exclusionary laws here targeted Indians, although the motivations may have been part of a broader xenophobia. Nonetheless, this particular case deals with a specific kind of xenophobia, the anti-Indian kind. So please stop with therevisionist edit-warring and trolling.Goingoveredge (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[undent]While it's a given that this incident is important in the history of discrmination in British Columbia and in the British Empire, it's NOT true that "The incident clearly targeted Indians for discrimination" - as in any complete history of the events the incident was planned to challenge British imperial legislation/policies, i.e. it was a deliberate provocation that played on anti-Indian sentiment in order to make a political point; resistance at hte British Columbian end was not Anti-Indian in essence, but anti-non-white, which is a different (though inclusive) matter/definition. The public response was indeed anti-Indian, but the official response had to do with legalities; and, I repeat, the incident was PLANNED and the vessel's charterers knew full well they could be stonewalled in the destination port. If you show up at a door you know is closed to you (for whatever reason), you have to accept the fact that the door may not, in fact, open simply because you want it to; and picking a fight with a bully, then complaining he bullied you, is just horse-wallop (but too typical of many such incidents). It all reminds me, tragic as these events were, of the bit from Monty Python and teh Holy Grail where the peasant insults King Arthur to the point of the latter hitting him - "Look! Look, I'm being oppressed!". Please note I don't mean to take sides here, only to point out hte logical/descriptive fallacies surrounding incidents such as these; and in this case the historical record is clear - the incident was planned as a provocation and wasn't expected to succeed. Who really was at fault for the starvation and hardships endured in Vancouver Harbour? I'd say the Indian politicos who organized the expedition knowing it didn't have a hope in hell of succeeding; easy to blame it on bad ol' whitey, but when "you" (I don't mean anyone here, using "you" in the egneral sense) use your own people by putting htme in a situation where you know they will suffer - well, you have to accept PART of the blame; if not all of it, which is really the case here.......Skookum1 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very nice and rhetorical. Unfortunately, it constitutes Original research and is largely irrelevant to the issue here. You seem to agree that, regardless of the white supremacist justifications, anti-Indian sentiment was involved in the process.Goingoveredge (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the issue is moot now that the revisionist bigot who started the edit-war stands blocked.Goingoveredge (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't patronize me, I know full well waht original research is, and the acdcount/interpretation I've provided is not my own; I'll come back with the book ref for it, as provided by a journalist-historian friend well versed in th histories of BC's racial-discrimination history. The issue is NOT moot simply because someone was blocked; the issue remains there to be honestly accounted for - that the voyage of the Komagata Maru was a DELIBERATE provocation of British imperial policies, and those organizing it knew it was a "voyage of the damned". What's rhetorical is all the spew that comes out of this event as if it were a spontaneous expression of discriminatory sentiment on the part of British Columbia/Canada - it was not spontaneous in the slightest, it was an organized effort whose organizers knew its success was unlikely. It's rhetorical - and original research - to pretend otherwise.Skookum1 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Palestinian Liberation Organization listen in the intro section. Of what relevance is a group that was found in 1964 to an incident that occurred in 1914. There is a lot of other stuff in that intro and the rest of this article that is highly questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.34.78 (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Komagata Maru incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Komagata Maru incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Komagata Maru incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory numbers

[edit]

The Lead reads Of these 376 passengers, 24 were admitted to Canada; in "Departure from Vancouver" is In the end, only twenty passengers were admitted to Canada; this source notes that there were 20 returning residents arriving at Vancouver, and 355 passengers were on board on departure (376-355=21). Also possible that there were one-way passengers departing.

The Lead has resulting in the deaths of 22 people; "Shooting on return to India" has Shots were fired and nineteen of the passengers were killed.; Infobox has Twenty in government records, 75 by witnesses present. I've tagged the second part as it doesn't even appear in the article. Can anyone with access to the book sources clarify these two issues? Davidships (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Komagata Maru(2010 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Komagata Maru(2010 film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 5 § Komagata Maru(2010 film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Harry Stevens' Name Removal Off-Topic?

[edit]

Recently the following paragraph was removed in the "Legacy:Canada" section for being off-topic:

Toor has also been active in holding those in power at the time responsible for their actions. Following Toor’s 2018 request to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Harry Stevens’ name was removed from a federal building in Vancouver.

But in the "Arrival in Vancouver" section, Harry Stevens (H.H. Stevens) is discussed in detail as being a key official responsible for the mistreatment of the passengers:

Conservative MP H. H. Stevens organized a public meeting against allowing the ship's passengers to disembark and urged the government to refuse to allow the ship to remain. Stevens worked with immigration official Malcolm R.J. Reid to keep the passengers offshore. Reid's intransigence, supported by Stevens, led to the mistreatment of the passengers on the ship and prolonged its departure date, which was not resolved until the intervention of the federal Minister of Agriculture, Martin Burrell, MP for Yale—Cariboo.

So is the problem that we should just change "Harry Stevens" to "H.H. Stevens" (to conform to the form of his name earlier in the article), or should we create another Wikilink to H.H. Stevens at this section of the article, or should we change the section to read something like:

Toor has also been active in holding those in power at the time responsible for their actions. Following Toor’s 2018 request to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, H.H. Stevens’ (one of the officials of the time responsible for the mistreatment of the passengers - see "Arrival in Canada" section above) name was removed from a federal building in Vancouver.

Please let me know what you think about this, and if you think the removal of H.H. Stevens name from a federal building is an important update to the Komagata Maru incident. UpDater (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that my assessment was wrong - the edit was in fact related to the article topic. My apologies for being to hasty. I will readd it to the article. Indefatigable (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Komagata_Maru_incident&oldid=1215511944"