Jump to content

Talk:David Kato: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Orrin Knox (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 34: Line 34:


Does this mean that the court ruling somehow closed down the newspaper, driving it out of business? Or do you mean that the court ruling went against the paper (the defendant) in favor of the plaintif (Kato et al)? [[User:Wordreader|Wordreader]] ([[User talk:Wordreader|talk]]) 05:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Does this mean that the court ruling somehow closed down the newspaper, driving it out of business? Or do you mean that the court ruling went against the paper (the defendant) in favor of the plaintif (Kato et al)? [[User:Wordreader|Wordreader]] ([[User talk:Wordreader|talk]]) 05:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
:: The text and references were transplanted from the newspaper's article. My reading of the sources doesn't support the conclusion that the paper went out of business, only that it could no longer print lists of gay peoples' names. [[User:Orrin Knox|Orrin Knox]] ([[User talk:Orrin Knox|talk]]) 20:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:35, 2 February 2011

Explanations

How is Kato related to his being the brother? Not explained Jademushroom (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by the gayuganda blogger that Kato was "the second twin" and that he met Kato's older brother after Kato died. I can't tell if he means that Kato has a big brother (2 separate pregnancies) or was born second of a pair of twins (1 pregnancy). Wordreader (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reward Available

I have posted at the reward board an offer for any editor who can provide a free or suitably licensed (not fair use) photo of David. Time is short as I would like to use the photo with the present DYK nomination. EdChem (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "DYK" award? Wordreader (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth

ATTENTION: raw language follows! David's date of birth remains a mystery. This article states, that he was born February 15, 1964. This is backed up by two references (http://www.blogcdn.com/www.politicsdaily.com/media/2011/01/katodavid.jpg and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12299786). The first reference is a photograph which just shows the year of his birt - there is no mention of February 15 whatsoever. The second one just states that he was 42, which simply doesn't add up: 1964 + 42 = 2006. So, this Wiki article claims to display the correct day and month of birth, yet it tries to back that up with two sources that contradict each other. Pardon my French, people, but WTF? Who put "February 15" here in the first place? And what brings my piss to a boil is that all the different language versions of this article show different dates of birth!!! White rotten rabbit (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mailed to the organisation for which he worked, SMUG. The Program Officer from there, Pepe Julian Onziema, mailed to me: Date of birth: Feb 15, 1964. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I contacted the gayunganda blog, the blogger claiming to a friend and former schoolmate of Mr. Kato's (and is quoted in one of BBC items), who told me that he believes the man was born in 1968 and that was supposedly on the T-shirts people wore at the funeral. The BBC reported that he was 42 and in another place 43 years old, making his birth year 1968 or 1969.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12299786
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9379495.stm -- listen to video
White rotten rabbit: Your link, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12299786 , the copy says "42" while the video says "43". Dang!
Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rolling Stone" case

The petition was granted on November 2, 2010, effectively ruling for the end of Rolling Stone.[6][7]

Does this mean that the court ruling somehow closed down the newspaper, driving it out of business? Or do you mean that the court ruling went against the paper (the defendant) in favor of the plaintif (Kato et al)? Wordreader (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text and references were transplanted from the newspaper's article. My reading of the sources doesn't support the conclusion that the paper went out of business, only that it could no longer print lists of gay peoples' names. Orrin Knox (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]