Talk:Sentinelese/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

COPYVIO

Hello, I have just removed the WP:COPYVIO content for the second time. You need to write in your own words. Just rearranging a couple and throwing in a synonym is not sufficient. And Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) seems intent to undo even the minimal paraphrasing that was attempted. Not good. Elizium23 (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Elizium23, then fucking rewrite it rather than dole out generous advice. ∯WBG^converse 19:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This tool suggests my changes were sufficient to remove copyvio.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Lgeek, thanks:-) And, I see that Elizium has helped a lot.∯WBG^converse 19:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I am concerned this article is very much free of COPYVIO, per an impartial unbiased copyvio detecting tool which produces a result of “Violation Unlikely” - because it is summarised in multiple editor’s own words. Elizium, if we try to change it any more we will end up violating WP:NOR.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)--

Death of John Allen Chau - cut down or fork

The section on the death of John Allen Chau is now a quarter of the article by word count, and much of it is not all that relevant to the article topic (Chau was not Sentinelese, so questions of his motivations and actions are not necessarily relevant to this article).

I'd suggest it either needs to be forked, or cut down significantly to primarily the content that is relevant to the Sentinelese people.

(Regarding the motivations for the remerge: WP:BLP1E doesn't apply as the article was about his death, not about him; WP:NOTNEWS applies to extensive coverage in this article just as much as it applies to forking a new article; and I'm not convinced in either case it's in violation.) TSP (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The readable text as it stands right now is only 3.7KB checked this tool. Which is perfectly reasonable right now as it only reports the facts that are relevant to understanding of this section. Moreover this size does not fall into the category of bloated section.

There is no such policy that states a section has to be cut down drastically simply because the other sections need expansion.

The WP:CFORK is invalid, due to concerns of BLP1E and NOTNEWS. To give you an example in support of my argument, "Hanumanthappa Koppad" is another such subject who I know of and had received extensive and widespread publicity in the international media and yet his article had been deleted. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I did already address both BLP1E and NOTNEWS.

Hanumanthappa Koppad's article was deleted because information on him was properly dealt with in the article about the event for which he was notable: 2016 Siachen Glacier avalanche. The Sentinelese are not an event, so that does not apply to this article. The death of John Allen Chau is an event, and one which has received significant coverage; hence there was an article about the event, not about the person, in line with BLP1E.

NOTNEWS is about the amount of coverage that should be received by recent events; it applies exactly as much if the coverage is here as if it's in its own article. The difference is that in its own article it is relevant; here, a lot of it isn't - John Chau's biography and motivations do not directly relate to the Sentinelese. TSP (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why more detail has to be included here about Chai's attempt to contact the islanders than about the previous ones. The subsection on him could easily be edited down to the basic facts. JezGrove (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• John Chau's biography and motivations (other than those related to his death) are not notable and does not deserve any mention anywhere. Until we have a clear consensus here in the talk page that calls for a WP:CFORK, CFORK should not be created. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• JezGrove I think the content in the section so far is just about enough that is needed to give a clear understanding of the incident to the reader. The previous attempts were one day or short events this particular incident was spread over many days. That said, can you share your version of the section here in the talk page. and we can discuss about the appropriateness of that. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I think every previous contact except the 2006 one was more extensive than Chau's brief encounters - especially 1880 and the multiple 1990s contacts.

A proportionately-sized section for this article would probably look roughly like what was in the article between the fork and the re-merge. (Even that is probably more than it deserves by strict significance to the Sentinelese, but reflects the comparative abundance of sources.) TSP (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

TSP, so far from your comments you seem to believe that all sections should be short and concise. There is no such policy supporting that belief of yours. On the contrary, this death is an incident that deserves more space because AFAIK this was the first incident where an alien went as close to them so as to be able to sing worship songs to them. He had no dangerous intentions and must have tried hard to convey this to the tribals, but the tribals were angry due to his act of trespassing. They made their intentions clear by warning shots on day 1, followed by breaking his canoe on Day 2, and eventually killing him after he went there with intentions of not returning back and stay at the island. I think these chain of events throw a great amount of light on the thinking and acts of these tribals. As such all these incidents deserve the amount of detail it presents as of now. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the basic facts are: Chau bribed fishermen to illegally take him to the island on consecutive days, with the aim of proselytizing the Christian faith. Despite being struck by an arrow on one of these attempts he returned to the island and was killed. His attempts threatened the extinction of the tribe.

I think this could be expressed succinctly as:

summarized version

In November 2018, John Allen Chau, a 26-year-old American Christian missionary from Vancouver, Washington,[29][30][31] travelled illegally to the North Sentinel island by bribing local fishermen[36] in the hopes of making contact with the Sentinelese and converting them to Christianity.[29][32][33] On 15 November he was taken to around 500-700m from the shore [37] and was warned by the fishermen not to go further, but continued his journey to the shore alone in a kayak, carrying a Bible.[30] The fishermen saw him getting attacked by the islanders with bows and arrows but reported that he kept walking [35] and returned to the boat later on the same day with arrow injuries.[37] He wrote about his visit, noting he had sung hymns and that the islanders had been angry.[38] On his second attempt the following day, before leaving the fishing boat Chau gave the fisherman a long note addressed to his family, saying that he believed Jesus had given him the strength to go to the most forbidden places on Earth [30] and that "You guys might think I’m crazy in all this but I think it’s worthwhile to declare Jesus to these people."[38] His kayak was broken by the Sentinelese and he swam back to the boat,[35] despite having previously told the fishermen to leave the island without him.[39] On 17 November, Chau visited the island again but did not return. The fishermen later reported that they had fled after seeing the islanders attaching a rope around his neck and dragging his body. They returned the next day and saw Chau's body on the shore [35] and reported his death to a local preacher and friend, who called his family in the United States. Chau's family then called the United States Embassy in New Delhi [35] and the Indian authorities arrested seven fishermen who, as of November 2018, may face a number of charges including being culpable of Chau's homicide.[40][41][42] No charges can be brought by India against Sentinelese islanders following its declaration as a sovereign state by the Indian government. Furthermore, Chau was in direct violation of Indian law, which dictates that any passage within three miles of the coastline is illegal, and is enforced by the Indian Navy.[43][44] According to local officials the islanders have lived in isolation for approximately 60,000 years, so the tribe lack the immunities to common human illnesses like the measles and flu. Human rights group Survival International stated of Chau's visit and contact with the islanders: "It’s not impossible that the Sentinelese have just been infected by deadly pathogens to which they have no immunity, with the potential to wipe out the entire tribe."[45][46]

-JezGrove (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, in reply to User:DBigXray)

WP:PROPORTION - "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

WP:NOTEVERYTHING - "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." (Note that the subject here is the Sentinelese.)

In 1880, explorers, after a multi-day expedition onto Sentinel Island, captured six Sentinelese and took them back to Port Blair. In the early 1990s, after a prolonged series of contacts, boats from Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti were on several occasions allowed to approach the shore and were greeted by unarmed islanders. Both of these seem far more extensive and significant contacts, but even in the draft I propose above would be treated much more briefly than Chau's short encounters. TSP (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(Also relevant, WP:SPINOFF: "There are two situations where spinoff subarticles become necessary, and, when done properly, they create the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible: 1. Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem".) TSP (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi All, I created another section with the relevant versions to compare and continue this discussion. The Discussion to cut down and the discussion to Fork are seperate topics actually, so lets keep this thread as a FORK discussion thread and continue the summarizing discussion below. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

In a sense they're two questions, but they're also fairly intrinsically connected. I'm happy to either (a) keep a version here like the Jay D Easy version, or at the very most my version; or (b) to have a separate page more like what is currently in the article. I don't mind too much which of those is done; but I am pretty certain that leaving it in this article in anything like its current form is inappropriate. TSP (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey on Fork or No Fork

• Fork. – The original question was "cut down or fork?" I think we should fork into a new article, entitled "Death of John Allen Chau" (or some such). (I assume that "fork" means to branch off and create a separate, stand-alone article.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Fork or cut down – Not very strong feelings, but I'm inclined to think this is something that's received substantial enough coverage to have a page. My major position, though, is that there should not be extensive coverage of the incident on this page; I don't mind too much if it stays here at its current length (one paragraph) and isn't covered anywhere else. If it's going to get much longer, that should be somewhere that isn't here. TSP (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• NO FORK. Classic WP:BIO1E, Chau will be forgotten within 7 days, unless he is nomunated for a Darwin Award. WWGB (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

WWGB, he is nominated for that already and seems to be leading with Average Score: 9.4 / 10 (1763 Votes). What is the cut off score ? --DBigXrayᗙ 03:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• No Fork. per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. mention in the media for his death does not necessarily mean notability. Religious missionaries are killed in several parts of the world, they dont get so much mention. Chau is getting the coverage mainly due to the uncontacted tribals. The tribals are notable but this notability isn't passed to Chau to deserve his own BIO or seperate death article. see WP:NOTINHERITED. The content in this article on Chou should only talk about Chau and his trip and not about life of Chau or his hobbies. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Cut down and don't fork. The article, if created, is likely to not survive WP:AfD because it would violate WP:BIO1E. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Cut down and don't fork. This article doesn't need so much detail about Chau and his misguided visit, but he also doesn't merit his own article, as others have noted above. JezGrove (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Cut down and don't fork. I agree with JezGrove. People in USA and Australia are probably excited about this. The rest of the world isn't (I live in the rest of the world where other non issues are our headlines!). A few months later, something else will come by. If this were truly memorable, it will be spoken of 5-10 years later, though I doubt it, as it does not appear to be something heroic compared to what a few thousands of heroes do every day. However, do leave the references in the article as they are, as that is where the real meat of the matter is.Notthebestusername (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Your condescension is astounding. WWGB (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey since substantial revision/cut down

• Cut down and don't fork - WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS apply. The only thing that's relevant here is that it's an example of this group not wanting visitors. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• No fork and don’t cut down anymore: there is no need to cut down the current text, it is all concise, factual and interesting to our readers. Cutting down any further means creating gaps and losing important facts of the story. Almost everyone in the world has heard this story, it got global coverage so deserves a section covering it. It is not an every day event that a preacher gets taken down in a hail of arrows by Stone Age island tribe. It is probably going to be the most interesting part of this article, to our readers. We should not deprive our readership of the concise but complete set of information that they desire. WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS do not apply here because this is not a standalone article, rather it’s a relevant section in an appropriate article and the subject matter received massive, global attention in the media and was of great interest. It is not something that people will forget in a week. I certainly won’t.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with most of that, but if you think that this event is a significant one, that is "probably going to be the most interesting part of this article, to our readers", and will be of continued interest to readers of itself.... why don't you think we should have a standalone article on it? Coverage of the subject is inevitably going to be limited here, where we can only really include material relating directly to the Sentinelese - there is a lot more we could say (and editors clearly want to say) about Chau and his motivations, but can't really here.

I'm pretty confident that an article on the death of John Allen Chau would survive VFD; I'm not sure why so many editors have been keen to endorse the decision to unilaterally remove it, mostly citing policies that don't seem to me to have any relevance. TSP (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we have a nice concise summary of the case. I think it is getting close to the time for us editors to move on to other more important things on Wikipedia and our lives.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

....Perhaps so, as it stood. Unfortunately, despite the consensus above to condense the section, User:DBigXRay has now expanded it again, to nearly double its previous length. I do not believe a single word of the added content relates to the Sentinelese. TSP (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Vote summary

Looking at the responses above, we have:

• Two preferences for fork
• Two preferences just for No Fork - both of which were cast when the section was a single short paragraph so can't be taken as support for maintaining the content at its current length. (Though one is from the person who subsequently expanded the section, so can presumably be assumed to encompass that.)
• Three preferences for "cut down and don't fork"

While that is 5:2 for "don't fork", it is also 5:1 for either cutting down or forking. Meanwhile, the section has got still longer.

As I say, I don't really mind if we fork or not, but I do mind this much cruft about a non-Sentinelese individual being in this article. Currently, by my count, *less than 10%* of this section actually relates to actions of the Sentinelese. ("he was attacked by the islanders with arrows ... the islanders were angry with his visit ... the Sentinelese broke his kayak ... the islanders attaching a rope around his neck and dragging his body". That's it. All the rest is about Chau, the fishermen, his missionary organisation, his family, the police....) TSP (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• The problem is that the votes prior to Simonm223‘s were made when the section was very bloated and very wordy. It was since shrank down, improved upon. In other words, the vote would need to be started all over again because the votes are on two substantially different versions, or else just move on. The ship already sailed but I am casting my vote because Simonm223 posted to a stale discussion. The vote result should have been hatted a few days ago, in my opinion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• I added a section title because of confusion. People can post further.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've just revised it further. Unfortunately you're never going to get, at least with an article section on recent events like this, a set of votes on a fixed version, as it will always be changing while voting goes on. TSP (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Fork and give him his own page. We should show respect to both Sentinelese and Chau. It is a good self-reminder that we are self-destructive and dirtiest (clean outside but our oceans, air, water all are choking with toxic waste) savage (drugs, alcohol, smoking, addiction to food/obesity, selfish greed) control-freaks who are good at destroying others (colonize, crusades, jihad, terrorism, nuke, starwars, guns, high rate of homichide, etc). It is a reminder that iron-age brainwashing in 21st century (religion) kills the believers and non-belivers both. Sentinelese are victims of our aggression against them. Chau was victim too (of religious brainwashing). Wish the stone-age superior Sentinelese can colonise us with their rational humanism and sustainable practices. Having separate articles on both will remind us to leave Sentinelese alone and to leave the poor kid chau alone too. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Chau assassinated Chau, Having a fork on Chau does not violate WP:BIO1E, single event but his role was significant with such detailed planning, etc. "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. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." 222.164.212.168 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A standalone article would get voted to be deleted or merged back into this article, per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. If you want to waste your time building an article then go right ahead...--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I really don't think it would, or at least not justifiably. WP:BIO1E says not to have articles on people notable for involvement with an event when there is already an article on the event. It doesn't apply here as there is no article on the event - the Sentinelese are not an event. WP:NOTNEWS says not to give excessive bias in coverage to recent events - but that applies even more to coverage in this article than it would to an article on Chau's death.

WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." John Chau's death trivially passes this - it has been covered in multiple articles by pretty much every major news outlet in the world - and it doesn't violate any part of WP:NOT. Other deceased missionaries who died in similar circumstances, like Jim Elliot, Ed McCully, Nate Saint, Roger Youderian and Pete Fleming, whose story is in many ways fairly similar except in that it occurred 60 years ago, have extensive and well-established articles that as far as I can see have never come under threat of deletion.

The only reason it wouldn't survive is, I think, that editors from here would be likely to merge it back as they did previously. Which in a sense makes the arguments on here against a split true, but only insofar as they are self-fulfilling. TSP (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Images for the article

Andaman tribals fishing c. 1870 [ this image was in the section Appearance and genetics of this article]

User:ProjectHorizons has removed these 2 images from the article, lets discuss these images. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Appearance and genetics

images above from the article stating these are not Sentinelese. he has a valid point there but I personally feel the first image is a representative pic of the hunting ways of the Andaman tribes in general. and also shows the dressing which is almost the same as is shown in other non free pics of Sentinalese. So the pic 1 indeed adds up to the understanding of the article and should be restored in my opinion. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree, though I'd like a bit more clarity on which tribe this actually is - I can see an argument that it's confusing to include it without a tribe name when it is very unlikely to be the tribe this article is about. TSP (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did not look too hard for the tribe name, but the source doesnt mention the specific tribe name, just says An Andaman tribe. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Maurice Vidal Portman (1880)

M. V. Portman with Andamanese chiefs [This image was in the section "Maurice Vidal Portman (1880")]

The second pic is or Portman who was indeed involved with the sentinelese and has an entire section devoted to him. again this is a useful representative pic for the article.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree - it's here as a picture of Portman who had notable interactions with the Sentinelese, not a picture of the Sentinelese. It's a nice perk that he is in an Andamanese context. TSP (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if no other concerns from anyone, I would be replacing these 2 pics back into the article with a caption clarifying what it is. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I re-added Portman - I'm less sure about the value of the other picture so haven't re-added it for now, but don't object if someone else does. TSP (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree, good job. As a reader I love both pics included, easier to visualize, boats for comparison/indicative are good. Thanks for including. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Colonial Span

User:Winged Blades of Godric, Since the island was never under colonial rule, the subheading Sentinelese#Colonial_span appears misleading, because it gived an impression that it was under colonial rule which wasn't the case. It probably needs a better subheading. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, feel free to change/re-structure it, as you deem appropriate:-) ∯WBG^converse 18:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe the current heading is quite appropriate. Presidencies and provinces of British India indicates that India as a region was under colonial rule by the British for hundreds of years. Since the Sentinels remain administratively part of India, it is altogether fitting that we describe the period as "colonial", regardless of the actual status of the Sentinelese themselves. Elizium23 (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Elizium23. Current Republic of India inherited it from the former colonial masters, or else India would not be there today, though way back Chola Kingdom had contact or under their control (my guess, perhaps a staging place for them to launch their campaign on Srivijaya kingdom of Southeast Asia). Current heading is appropriate, there was a british penal colony to house the Indian freedom fighters, there was a colonial campaign (Battle of Aberdeen (Andaman Islands)) against the tribes which nearly wiped out the Andaman tribes. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Summary of my edits, please review

I made numerous incremental edits today. It will be time consuming for other editors to go through each individual edit. To make it easy for you to review, here is the summary of my edits. I have made changes to the following sections: (a) Lede, (b) Origin, (c) Cultural practice, (d) Threats. You can go through those sections again, repharse or enhance as you like. Thanks. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Madhumala

All-most all scholarly sources mention the 1991 event, deriving from the news that appeared on 8th January, 1991's edition of Port Blair's government-owned newspaper The Daily Telegrams. That does not mention Madhumala Chaterjee, in any manner. And, neither do the multitude of sources.

The news-entry mentions Dir. of Tribal Welfare (Mr. Awaradi) as the one of utmost significance who leapt from the boat into water ..... and handed coconuts to the tribesmen as they crowded around him. and the editorial board even proposed the government to confer some medal upon him!

Adam Goodheart further writes :--

The news did not create much of a stir. There was some back- slapping among the local officials and, later, a bit of internal squabbling over which one of them really deserved the credit......

Noted Andamanese Scholar Vishwajit Pandya writes:--

The contact party of 1991, lead by Mr. Awaradi had various representatives from diverse governmental departments who had competed to be the ‘chosen one’ to go to Sentinelese Islands. Those present in the defining moment of physical contact now wished to extract professional mileage from the fact of being actually “touched” by the Sentinelese during the gift giving exercise. Every participating member of the contact party wanted to take the credit of being the first to ‘touch the Sentinelese,’ as if it were a great mystical moment of transubstantiation wherein the savage hostile reciprocated a gesture of civilized friendship. Who touched and who was touched during the contact event became an emotionally charged issue within various sectors of the administration where claims and counter-claims were sought to be established with earnestness and vigor. In a bid to prove the singularity of her claim, Ms. Madhumala Chattopadhyay, then a biological anthropologist with Anthropological Survey of India at Port Blair, reported the incident (Chattopadhyay 1992a, 1992b) as marking the first occasion when a woman anthropologist had accomplished the deed of contacting and touching the Sentinelese. Although such claims were not false, it is interesting to note the range of political and cultural significance invested in this specific event of contact.

Thus, I have reasons to believe that a style of write-up, (present in many wiki-editions of this article) which potrays Madhumala in a phenomenal role, as to the success in the contact-expedition, is quite-exaggerating her role in the events and hence, we shall opt for a plain description of the timeline in the article, per current scholarly consensus which sources it from the news-report. She initially claimed something else, (which was probably true) but the media have now turned it into something else, of her being a loner in establishing contact with the tribe.

And, FWIW, opinion-pieces in quasi-reliable publications (this piece in Print and other interviews (the ET one)) can't be treated in an equivalent manner with scholarly sources.

I've extreme reasons to doubt the claims of Madhumala hearing and understanding the phrase of “Nariyali jaba jaba” and will expand shortly. Views are welcome, as always.∯WBG^converse 06:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Good write up by Vishwajit Pandya and a good post by you. Well done. I wrote the jaba jaba part based on her interview. Please go ahead and feel to change the writing style. I do realize NOW ... late realization after making my edits last night ... we must take extra care to not romantisize any outsider contact with Sentinelese. There is no such thing as "authorised contact" from their perspective, you may want to change hat writing style too. Its their land, resoruces, lifestyle that we are trying to screw. We are all unauthorised and unwelcome. How would we feel someone keeps ringing our doorbell and keeps running away. Compare them to Australian aborigines, Canadian natives or American Indians, we are doing the same to Jarawas and Sentinelese. I am a late arrival to this artical, only landed here last night. Those of you who have been here much longer, have read lot more sources and participated in more debates here. If you feel something strongly, please go ahead and rephrase, or delete, those parts of my edits. Thanks.

222.164.212.168 (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Painful to watch

This is what we did to Jarawas, watch here and here. No wonder Sentinelese want us no where near them. It is time our Indian govt and all of us tourist get out of Jarawas land too. We are destroyig their peaceful civilization based on sharing with community and they have no concept of "my personal belongings". Need to shut down that Trunk road which has ruined Jarawas land. We ae the invaders. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX --Muzilon (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Bizarre Orgy

NORTH SENTINEL ISLAND: A TIMELINE OF THE WORLD’S MOST ISOLATED TRIBE is a very detailed article on this topic and has an elaborate mention of many contacts that these tribals had with others.

One of the very bizarre incidents is mentioned there about 1970s which is sourced from the book Lonely Islands: The Andamanese; George Weber; 1998 Chapter 12. Of Matters Sexual

The contents of the article looks well sourced and based on its references we can expand the current article greatly. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Add it. My girlfriend read about this and she isn’t a big researcher, so seems to be well known incident. I then looked up the incident, after she told me about it, and it does seem to be well known and documented - and certainly interesting!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. I think there's probably a lot that could be added from reliable sources to many parts of this article - I already found a source on the Pandit visits which showed that our description of it here had been quite misleading. TSP (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric Please do look at these sources here, if you haven't yet. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, did not came across it. At a glance, seems fairly reliable but has mistakes.

For one, Portman's comment “in many ways they closely resemble the average lower class English country schoolboy.” wasn't based upon the Sentinelese, as they seem to imply.

Anyways, thanks:-) ∯WBG^converse 14:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Now I see that the actual source is George Weber's writings, which I was using very now:-) ∯WBG^converse 14:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

Please don't use media-sources other than to cover the aspects of Chau's death (which, FWIW, smacks of RECENTISM and something, that I don't plan to touch any-time soon or at-least until the euphoria recedes).

I have been going through the surge in reports over the last fortnight and FWIW, a lot of the time, they have either indulged in their own novel-research, (probably unknowingly) and have distorted or generated new facts.

There are ample high-quality scholarly sources (publication in reputed journals, books, dissertations et al) to cover every domain of the topic, in a far rigid manner. Please use them. ∯WBG^converse 06:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• The Sentinelese of the North Sentinel Island: Concerns and Perceptions, M. Sasikumar, Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India, 67(1) : (37-44), 2018

Dr. M. Sasikumar, Deputy Director, Anthropological Survey of India.

Looks like a good source to expand this and the Geo article.--DBigXrayᗙ 13:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, I've already used that in that article:-) ∯WBG^converse 11:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. Please review my edits from last night and feel free to take out the ones that do not go along with this approach you have suggested. Thanks in advance. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop glorifying outsider contacts with tribes

A good read here. I finished my edits last night. I came across this article this morning. All contacts puts them at risk, of disease, etc, even those 'so called authorised" contacts by Pandit and Madhumala, both of whom have accepted they regret their expeditions and that they have the respect for the tribes. I would have edited differently, had I read this article before my edits. Those who are going to review my edits, please read this first and rephrase/modify my edits accordingly.

Proposal: Pare down the contacts section, perhaps merge all subsections into one in very condensed manner. Also, we must provide a subsection on top of this section that shows their attitude to contact "which initially is nonviolent and peaceful" an they allow contact on their own terms, beyond a point they want us to stay out, they provide ample warnings with gestures, killing invaders is a very last desperate measure they undertake. There nothing savage, primitive or violent about them, and no headhunder phenomenons either. All these needs to be laid out. Though the misconception of being savages lends them unfair reputation but indirectly protects thems from our modern destructive world.

Thanks. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that including reports of outsider contact "glorifies" them in any way. If these visits are problematic (and they certainly appear to be) they should all be reported fully. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I definitely don't think we should remove encyclopedic information in the article, just because of this dubious and poorly argued opinion piece linked here. The previous contact missions are all important events in the history of these people and should remain.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 21:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree with this proposal. IP 222.164.212.168 if you feel there is a content in the article that glorifies something, you are free to suggests improvements for that on the talk page. removing the information is no solution. Even if you have positive thoughts for the sentinelese, the best way I can suggest is to mention these contacts and also note how that contact caused harm. So as to deter future Chaus. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliability

Is this source reliable? ∯WBG^converse 14:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a book published by a reputable publisher, I believe it fulfils WP:RS? TSP (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It's obviously reliable, at first glances but quite a lot of details are not any corroborated anywhere else. I will write my detailed opinion, a few hours later:-) ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Won't need the book at any case:-) ∯WBG^converse 08:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And, can anybody access the contents of this page? Even Wayback doesn't seem to work for me....... ∯WBG^converse 14:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be in Wayback Machine. TSP (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! ∯WBG^converse 10:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

2006 case

Did any source, from that span, mention about the retrieval of a lone body? All of the scholarly sources that I access mention that none was recovered and after the bodies were located by the helicopter, (buried in the sand), the administration did not pursue the issue ay further, despite pressure from certain quarters and the families.∯WBG^converse 10:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric Yes, The Coast Guard commandant Gaur who had gone with divers in a helicopter to get the 2 bodies. had mentioned in NDTV interview that they were only able to dig up the body but before they could remove all the ropes tied to his body attaching him with the second body (Still buried) the tribals came attacking, so they had to return empty handed. Further attempt was foiled by the tribals and the Coast guard gave up. To a direct question on how many bodies he retrieved, he said none. So I believe him and agree that this is what actually happened. Somehow there is a conflicting report from NDTV that they were able to retrieve 1 body and return it to the family, this I believe is not correct. Cuz the commandant himself said this, I would trust him more.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks:-) Shoddy journalism........ ∯WBG^converse 11:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Chau had planned for years to convert remote tribe

• Washington Post November 27, ‘He lost his mind’: Slain missionary John Allen Chau planned for years to convert remote tribe
• Scan of all 13 Journal pages from John Allen Chau --DBigXrayᗙ 05:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Christianity Today - Chau planned for 8 years to reach the Sentinelese, had had 14 immunizations against disease, and lived in quarantine to prevent infection. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It still feels like there are some unanswered questions in all this - Reuters says "Chau’s social media posts identify him as an adventurer and explorer. Responding to a travel blog query about what was on the top of his adventure list, Chau said: “Going back to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in India.”" So, if it had been his purpose for years to go and convert the North Sentinelese... was that all smoke and mirrors? Was he building an adventurer persona in public to hide his actual purpose? I guess that's not an encyclopedic question, but it still feels like we don't quite have the full picture.

(Incidentally - to continue to flog a dead horse - that podcast refers to Jim Elliot, a missionary killed under what seem to be fairly similar circumstances in Ecuador; who has his own article, and there doesn't seem to have been any suggestion he isn't sufficiently notable for one.) TSP (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric see here. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Chau's Diary

has any media yet uploaded John's diary? ∯WBG^converse 20:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, WaPost has published, See the section Talk:Sentinelese/Archive 3#Chau had planned for years to convert remote tribe, The handwriting is atrocious though. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Goodness. Atrocious is mildly put. ∯WBG^converse 20:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

LoL you were warned , But it was still interesting though, I was able to make a reasonable sense of the first 2-3 pages, after which my brain decided enough is enough and revolted against reading that torturous scroll any further. I just hope some media house will publish the transcript after which I will read that again. If you have any specific query, I may be able it help. Basically anything useful in those pages have already been reported by Washington Post and some popular media houses. So if you have followed WaPo's coverage of Chau (as I did), you wont find anything new in those scrolls. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Irist times have published a decent transcript [1] that added some new facts from the journal. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Photographs

Doesn't there exist any photo of the Sentinelese(s) qualify under the GODL criterion or our WP:NFCC criterion? ∯WBG^converse 20:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Ping User:Adamgerber80 and User:Gazoth for comments. There are a few images from coast guard and a few CC by SA images which I believe can be uploaded but I am not too sure if the images of coast guard fall under GODL, it should but as I said I am not sure.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of the problemetic text based on very old source which has since been disproved

In the Sentinelese#Practices section, I find the following text problemetic: "The Sentinelese are not believed to have evolved their practices beyond those of the Stone Age. Metalworking, agriculture, and even the ability to make fire are unknown to them."

Reasons why this is text problemetic:
1. The text seems to be based on the observations/writings of very old source Maurice Vidal Portman (1881), the naval officer who had kidnapped 6 Sentinelese. He was not a trained researcher. Other sources seems to be re-quoting him.
2. None of these 3 sources (likely based on portman) seem to be anthropologist (a cartographer and another one is bereaucrat, etc), none of these have actually researched Sentinelese ... using any modern scholarly methods.
3. Those anthropologists and scientists with PhDs (Madhumala and Pandit), who have actually researched Sentinelese for several years, they disagree with this text. And these experts' findings negate this text.

My action: I am deleting parts that are not correct (e.g. no firemaking or metalworking skills) and retaining only those parts are still correct (no agriculture). Thanks. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Remove the said content. IP 222.164.212.168 I am of the similar opinion and believe this content is misleading. Portman was only 20 years old naval officer. His observations should not be given undue importance in the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make the changes. Better if it is done by a person another than me. Benefit of iteration by others. Thanks. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read and update Sentinelese and jarawa articles

Please read this report, and read and update Sentinelese and jarawa articles accordingly specially the dangers of contact including the oft ignored dangers posed by the erratic badly managed and poorly documently anthropological missions and settlers e.g. alcohol, tobacco, drugs, commercial and sexual exploitation. Thanks. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

No mention of origins

This article is notable for the absence of any mention or even speculation about the origins of the Sentinelese of North Sentinel Island. I ask because in the wake of the recent killing of the American missionary during his attempted mission to the island, in several articles I read the natives were characterized as “descendants of stone age people who settled on the island from Africa many thousands of years ago.” Where does this assertion come from and what is its proof? I find it absolutely incredible that such a small population of a primitive people could have survived for millennia; survived national conquerors, pirates, slavers and other assorted marauders, not to mention natural disasters and inbred and other diseases. Should the article mention these assertions or at least state that the population’s origins are unknown due to the lack of investigation by anthropologists, archeologists and geneticists? According to the article, the earliest possible historical sighting of these people was in 1771.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. This article in the Guardian says "(the) tribe is thought to be at least 30,000 years old." Where is this from? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

(+1). These have been rebutted in some scholarly piece; let me relocate that. ∯WBG^converse 14:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Where

is Allen point? Is any ship wreck observable? ∯WBG^converse 14:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Located at the southern coast of the island; A. Justin mentions it to be the spot of the wreck of a ship which was made in Panama. Is not Primrose or Rusley.

And, Allen Chau is messing with my Gsearches:-( ∯WBG^converse 14:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It is vaguely mentioned in some book searches. Tribal Development in Andaman Islands by A. N. Sharma, page 67 [2] mentions that it is on the south-west part of North Sentinel.--DreamLinker (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

census 2011

Here 'Sentinelese 15 people http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/PCA/SC_ST/PCA-A11/ST-3500-PCA-A-11-ddw.xlsx --Kaiyr (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That was a count from the air of people in a forest or a wild guess. Several hundred people seems to be a better estimate. They would have a hard time sustaining a population with only 15 people. Legacypac (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of term 'Habitat' in context of modern humans is racist.

I have changed the sub-section titled 'Habitat' to 'Geography'. See A-class rated ethnic group article Iazyges and standard template.

While I acknowledge good faith, I strongly feel that the use of the term 'Habitat' in this context is racist. Please limit the use of this term to primatology, paleoanthropology and of course non-human ecology articles even if 19th and 20th century source texts use it in the context of modern humans; scientific racism was commonplace and unquestioned in this time period. Post-colonial academic literature sometimes uses the term for modern humans but with qualifiers such as 'food habitat' but terms like 'environment' and 'territory' are preferred.

Note: Modern humans = Homo sapiens; i.e. all extant humans (Unless this happens).

--94.142.77.80 (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Sentinelese Reverted Change

Moved from user talk:DBigXray

Hello DBigXray, my apologies for not including the change summary. I would have included the summary, as I normally try to do whenever possible, however I made the change on the Wikipedia mobile app, and it only gave me three options to choose from, none of which I felt reflected the change I made. There is no option on the mobile app to type out your own change summary (or at least I was unable to find that feature), so I marked it as a minor edit and figured that would be good enough. If you saw what I changed, I simply deleted two paragraphs in the Age section of the article as, for some reason, they had been directly copied and pasted from the opening section of the article. I'm going to make the change again and now that I'm at a desktop, I'll be able to include the change summary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leachyboy77 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Leachyboy77 thanks for the kind note. I have copied this content to the article talk page as it is the right place for this discussion. TSP, has already explained the reason in his edit summary, please take a look and comment here if you disagree. see MOS:LEAD for more. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

time spent in total isolation

Is there a consensus about how long the Sentinelese people have been living in complete isolation from other humans?

At least the upper border should be estimatable from the concept of mutational meltdown. There should be a maximum time span which a group of 100-200 humans can live isolated from all others, until critical mutations will render them unable to further reproduce. (Applying population genetics to humans always sounds somewhat racisistic, but that question would also be interesting in the field of long-term space missions. Any small population of humans in a dome building on Mars or in a large space ship would eventually get that problem too, unless perhaps if they take a large sperm bank with them.) The question is, how long will it take to get so far? Some thousand years? Some ten thousand years? Or even less than a millenium?

If one knows that number, and given the space that the Sentinelese can occupy (which puts a cap on their "population" size), and given that the Sentinelese are still alive, one could give an estimate of how long they could have been in isolation. Right? --130.83.182.66 (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe they haven't really ever lived in "total" isolation. Not all known contacts with outsiders were of a hostile nature. And we do not know if they really kill every intruder. It is well possible that they have already introduced one or the other shipwrecked outsider to their community in the past. If this is the case they are not totally isolated, and by carefully letting a few outsiders join over time, the Sentinelese tribe would "refresh their gene pool" and avoid the mutational meltdown trap. This way some of the tribe members alive today may even have a partial European descent, as most of the individuals shipwrecked in the world's oceans during the last centuries were of European descent.

I think why they are largely hostile toward the outside is because they fear being killed, colonialized or infected with dangerous pathogens when people of other cultures come on their island (although they will probably name it differently since they know nothing about bacteria etc). They don't necessarily want to be completely isolated from all other humans. --2003:E7:7727:B621:61C1:C094:6183:8232 (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Refs

• Savagery and Colonialism in the Indian Ocean\Satadru Sen

∯WBG^converse 11:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"Uncontacted" ?

The article may not accurately portray the isolation of these people. The lead states that the islanders are "one of the world's last uncontacted peoples ... Vulnerable Tribal Group ... Scheduled Tribe ... refused any interaction ... hostile ... killed people ... photography is prohibited."

Footage of the islanders is easy to find on YouTube, e.g. this 5 minute video of people throwing coconuts to naked islanders from an idling motorboat in 1991, and this one.

As for the Contact section, if we strip away the minutiae of the visits, it becomes more clear that there has been a long and regular history of contact. For brevity I've included the last 53 years:

• 1967 Pandit and a group of 20 people visit, leave gifts
• 1970s visits by Pandit with tour parties
• 1974 National Geographic attempts documentary, repelled
• 1977 shipwreck
• 1980s visits by Pandit with tour parties
• 1981 shipwreck, hostilities
• 1990s "series of contact expeditions continued until 1994"
• 1991 two expeditions by Indian anthropological team, on YouTube
• 2003 visit
• 2004 visits post tsunami
• 2005 visits post tsunami
• 2006 deaths of fishermen
• 2014 circumnavigation
• 2018 death of missionary

While it's true that regular Indian government visits are supposed to have stopped in the '90s, that is only one generation ago.

The Contact section could include an intro, or perhaps be reworked as something more chronological, to show how regular and long contact has been. The lead also could include more about this and put their "isolation" in context. --Cornellier (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This feels a lot like a request for us to do original research.--Jorm (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps "uncontacted" is less meant to be taken literally and more of a term of art for anthropologists. Perhaps there is a certain threshold which determines an uncontacted people, such as lack of enduring communications, cultural exchanges, immigration and emigration, etc. Elizium23 (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Survival International has an FAQ which gives a definition of "uncontacted". This or others if any could be referenced to give some context to statements in the lead which I'm suggesting per WP:MOSLEAD make the lead incongruous or incomplete, considering the lengthy history of contact that follows. Per WP:CALC, to summarize as "agents of the government visited the islands at least 14 times by from the 1970s to 2005" is not WP:SYNTHESIS. --Cornellier (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The link to Uncontacted peoples says "Uncontacted peoples, isolated peoples, or uncontacted tribes are groups of people living without ongoing peaceful contact with their neighbours and the world community. While some contact may have occurred, they live largely as they would have in pre-industrial times, though some may have acquired metal, for example." We could just paraphrase or summarize that. Bonewah (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate citation definitions

The book (Pandya, 2009) is defined and used inline both as a named ref (ref name=":02") and with an sfn template linked to the Bibliography, resulting in error message "sfn error: multiple targets" in the References section. This could be resolved by having a single citation scheme for the article or by having a consistent usage for books, sfn having the advantage of simplifying page references.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually I see now that there are two sources, a journal article and a book, but because they have the same author and year the sfn template links to them both. This could be resolved by adding a and b to the dates, so I will do that.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

foreignpolicy.com

foreignpolicy.com may have an editorial staff and oversight, but that article is written by a student! LOL! Elizium23 (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Not sure what your point is. The author of "The Not So Lost Tribe" is a "student of Evolutionary Anthropology". The article does not mention what level student; for all you know, he could be a PhD candidate. In any case, his studied expertise along with Foreign Policys editorial oversight, should serve as sufficient evidence that this is a reliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I dont think the fact that there was a wreck at that time is controversial, still, id like a better source as well. A blog cites this book [3] but google books wont show me the page. Ill keep looking. Bonewah (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)