Talk:Sentinelese

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sentinelese. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/dchb/3500_PART_B_DCHB_ANDAMAN%20%26%20NICOBAR%20ISLANDS.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://censusindia.gov.in/Ad_Campaign/drop_in_articles/06-Enumeration_of_Primitive_Tribes_in_A%26N_Islands.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://andaman.org/BOOK/chapter8/text8.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://andaman.org/BOOK/chapter12/text12.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://andaman.org/BOOK/text-group-BodyChapters.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410011700/http://www.and.nic.in/C_charter/Dir_tw/pri_tri.htm to http://www.and.nic.in/C_charter/Dir_tw/pri_tri.htm

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) 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Negrito inter-relatedness

I removed the following recently-inserted para:

they don't even make fire. They are pygmy negritos, which means that they are related in race not to the modern day populations of Asia but closer to the Mbuti pygmies of the central African rainforests and the Khoisan peoples of southern Africa. They are assumed to be the descendants of the first modern homo sapiens sapiens to colonise the world, and most of whom have now been replaced elsewhere by later population migrations. Small negrito groups do exist in places such as Vietnam, leading us to the conclusion that these were the original populations of the area, later replaced by South Chinese settlers. The fact that only the Andaman Islanders have retained their own language, while other groups have been overrun by migrants at different stages of history, shows just how isolated these people are.

Apart from its awkward phrasing, while it has indeed been speculated that the Andamanese share some genetic heritage in common with various other widely-dispersed peoples who have been identified as negritos, and that they represent the remaining descendants of some "earlier wave" of migration, this has not yet been "proved". The idea does warrant mentioning, but IMO not in the form given above, needs to be more carefully portrayed (and also, referenced). I think it best that this text be reworked.--cjllw | TALK 22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"Negritos" are an apparently paraphyletic catchall, and any six-footer who waves a 4-foot barbed arrow at me with his flatbow surely does not qualify as "pygmy" in my book. Dysmorodrepanis 09:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a simple link to the Negrito article would suffice, which incidentally includes Andaman islanders within its definition. Kortoso (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Negrito" is a term that has no Anthropological or scientific validity, its an old word from the "Scientific racism" era of Anthropology that tried to stuff all 'black' folk into a common bucket or buckets without any regard to actual lineage or genetics creating absurdities like claiming Aboriginal Australians and Africans as closely related when its just not the case. Lets not use it! 2001:44B8:6117:B100:C0F9:7B48:AC7A:939C (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. Please refer to the well-referenced article on the subject. 50.111.51.207 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

John Allen Chau

Moved from Sentinelese

. His apparent desire to offer salvation to the tribe was poorly received, judging by the number of arrows in his corpse.

An IP had added the content above which I have removed, I have not seen any source stating the same. And it looks like original research to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention totally un-encyclopedic.50.111.51.207 (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree, but still a great attempt at humour. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning John's family's response regarding forgiving the sentelenese and the fishermen https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46300459. Also John was not just carryig a Bible, he had other gifts such as a soccer ball, fishing line and scissors https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/washington-state-man-is-killed-by-bow-and-arrow-on-remote-island-in-india/.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Death of John Allen Chau

Re: Death of John Allen Chau. Should this be a stand-alone article (with whatever appropriate title)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I was bold. I created the article. Here: Death of John Allen Chau. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

And I have reverted and redirected this per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E that also applies to recently died people. this is an invalid and controversial CFORK that should not have been made without a proper discussion. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing of John Chau as a missionary

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.--DBigXrayᗙ 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)

Washington man traveled to India to convert isolated tribe. (WaPo)

An American missionary trying to meet and convert one of the most isolated hunter-and-gatherer tribes in the world offered them fish and other small gifts before the tribesmen killed him and buried his body on the beach, journals and emails show. .(WaPo)

John Allen Chau... also led missionary trips abroad. .(WaPo)

Chau’s riveting journal of his last days, shared with The Washington Post by his mother. (WaPo)

Chau wrote — reacted angrily as he tried to attempt to speak their language and sing “worship songs” to them. (WaPo)

“You guys might think I’m crazy in all this but I think it’s worthwhile to declare Jesus to these people,” .(WaPo)

he led missionary trips for youth from Oral Roberts University in Oklahoma. (WaPo)

I hope this isn’t one of my last notes but if it is ‘to God be the Glory..(WaPo)

Chau wrote that he was “doing this to establish the kingdom of Jesus on the island … Do not blame the natives if I am killed.” ‘Why are they so angry’: US man John Allen Chau, killed by remote Sentinel Island tribe, was trying to convert them to Christianity SCMP 22 Nov

Based on his social media posts, Chau appears to have visited India multiple times in the last few years, exploring many parts of southern India and preaching in some places too. American missionary killed by tribe on remote Indian island Reuters 21 Nov

--DBigXrayᗙ 20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, please assume good faith.

American ‘adventure tourist’ killed by remote tribe after visiting India’s protected North Sentinel Island The Independent, 21 Nov

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.” Reuters, 21 Nov

Andaman Director of the General Police Dependra Pathak told the News Minute, an Indian news website, he was told that Chau lived in the US state of Alabama and was "some kind of paramedic". "People thought he is a missionary because he had mentioned his position on God and that he was a believer on social media or somewhere online. But in a strict sense, he was not a missionary. He was an adventurer. His intention was to meet the aborigines." BBC, 21 Nov

"I love to explore," he told the Outbound Collective four years ago. "So whether it's trekking through dense old growth forests near the Chilliwack River [on the US-Canada border], finding a rumoured waterfall in the jungles of the Andamans, or just wandering around a city to get a feel for the vibes, I'm an explorer at heart." BBC, 21 Nov

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. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

"The eternal lives of this [Sentinelese] tribe is at hand and I can't wait to see them around the throne of God worshipping in their own language as Revelation 7:9-10 states," Chau wrote, referring to the Bible's Book of Revelation.India Today

• Some more reported today by CNN. 'You guys might think I'm crazy': Diary of US 'missionary' reveals last days in remote island--DBigXrayᗙ 06:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

In pages his musings are a clear indication of his desire to convert the tribe. "Lord, is this island Satan's last stronghold where none have heard or even had the chance to hear your." CNN

His notes indicate that he knew the trip was illegal, describing how the small fishing vessel transported him to the isolated island under cover of darkness, evading patrols. "God Himself was hiding us from the Coast Guard and many patrols," he wrote. CNN

Chau’s family said in a social media post he was a Christian missionary and mountaineer.Reuters 23 Nov

• Fear and faith: Inside the last days of an American missionary killed by remote island tribe. washingtonpost 22 Nov

I‘m scared, wrote the 26-year-old, who had traveled to the island on a clandestine mission to convert its inhabitants to Christianity. WaPo 22 (See link above)

Chau’s diary reveals a portrait of a young man obsessed with the idea of taking Christianity to the Sentinelese SCMP 23 Nov

--DBigXrayᗙ 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)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 ?--DBigXrayᗙ 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 ".

• Officials in India said Chau was a missionary keen to convert the protected Sentinelese people on the Andaman and Nicobar islands. BBC 24 Nov

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

• Police say they believe they know where a remote island tribe buried US missionary John Chau.news.au Nov 25

• He had made several attempts to reach the Sentinelese to preach Christianity — knowing it was illegal to go within five kilometres of the island.news.au Nov 25

• Chau approached the island in a kayak with the intention of bringing the word of God to the world’s oldest tribe.news.au Nov 25

• Fears that 21st century diseases as mild as the common cold could kill off the tribe, or that experiencing electricity and the internet would devastate their lifestyle, has left them in a guarded bubble that Chau sought to burst with his “Jesus loves you” message.news.au Nov 25

• Twenty-six-year-old John Allen Chau was obsessed with converting fragile islanders to Christianity. ndtv 23 Nov

• he had traveled to the island on a clandestine mission to convert its inhabitants to Christianity.ndtv 23 Nov

• Indian authorities admit they will struggle to recover the body of American missionary John Allen Chau dailymail 22 Nov

• Killed American missionary paid Rs 25,000 to evade security, wanted to preach Christianity to the Sentinelese tribe Financial Express 22 Nov

• 'Jesus loves you' U.S. missionary killed by remote tribe on Indian island went there to convert locals.... An American missionary trying to meet and convert one of the most isolated hunter-and-gatherer tribes... Washington post 21 Nov

--DBigXrayᗙ 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." [1] 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".--DBigXrayᗙ 00:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• All Nations an international Christian missions training and sending organization, are mourning the reported death of one of its missionaries, 26-year-old John Allen Chau... Chau is understood to have died after being attacked by local tribesmen. He is a graduate of Oral Roberts University (ORU) who had studied, planned and trained rigorously since college to share the gospel with the North Sentinelese people. - All Nations.press release

--DBigXrayᗙ 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)

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 [2] [3] and several other parts of Mainland India and Andaman islands as well for preaching (Source NDTV). --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:53, 27 November 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)

Discussion to cut down the Content

Version currently in the article

Death of John Allen Chau (2018) In November 2018, John Allen Chau, a 26-year-old American Christian missionary from Vancouver, Washington, travelled illegally to the North Sentinel island with the help of local fishermen in the hopes of making contact with the Sentinelese and converting them to Christianity. According to First Post India, he had made several prior visits to the Andaman Islands. On 14 November, Chau hired a fishing boat and crew in Port Blair, South Andaman Island, for travelling to North Sentinel Island. He had reportedly paid the fishermen ₹25,000 to transport him to the prohibited island. According to police, he waited and started his journey in the cover of the darkness to avoid detection by the authorities. On 15 November, Chau attempted his first visit to North Sentinel island, and the fishing boat took him to around 500–700m from the shore. Chau was warned by the fishermen not to go further, but continued his journey to the shore alone in a kayak, carrying a Bible. The fishermen saw him getting attacked by the islanders with bows and arrows as he reached the shore, but reported that he kept walking despite the attack. After his visit, he returned to the boat later on the same day with arrow injuries on his body. He wrote about his visit on 15 November and stated that the islanders were angry with his visit while he had attempted to sing worship songs to them. On 16 November he made a second attempt to land in kayak. According to the local police, before leaving the boat for this second attempt, 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 and that "You guys might think I’m crazy in all this but I think it’s worthwhile to declare Jesus to these people." During this second attempt, his kayak was broken by the Sentinelese, after which he returned to the boat by swimming. Chau had told the fishermen that he did not plan to return from the island with them and instructed them to leave without him. On 17 November, Chau visited the island again but did not return that day. The fishermen who had transported him to the island reported that they later saw the islanders attaching a rope around his neck and dragging his body, whereupon the fishermen fled. They returned on 18 November and saw Chau's body on the shore. The fishermen who had taken Chau to the island then reported his death to a local preacher and friend, who called his family in the United States, and the family subsequently called the United States Embassy in New Delhi. Following this contact, Indian authorities arrested seven fishermen who, as of November 2018, may face a number of charges including being accessories to Chau's homicide. No charges can be brought by India against Sentinelese islanders. Human rights group Survival International said: "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." References

summmarized version by JezGrove

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)

Difference between the 2 above versions [4]

version by TSP

On 15 November 2018, John Allen Chau, a 27-year-old American[29][30] described variously as a Christian missionary and an 'adventure tourist',[31][32][33] travelled illegally to North Sentinel Island with the help of local fishermen to attempt to contact the Sentinelese.[34][35][36] He went from the fishing boat in a kayak to the shore,[29] where he was attacked by islanders with bows and arrows.[35] He returned to the boat later that day[37] and wrote that the islanders were angry with his visit while he had attempted to sing worship songs to them.[38] On a second attempt to land on 16th November, his kayak was broken by the Sentinelese, and he returned to the boat by swimming.[35] On 17 November, Chau visited the island again. The fishermen reported that they saw islanders attaching a rope around his neck and dragging his body. On 18 November the fishermen returned and saw Chau's body on the shore.[35] Indian authorities arrested seven fishermen for involvement with the contact attempt.[39][40][41] Human rights group Survival International linked the death to the 2018 lifting of some restrictions on foreigners visiting the islands,[42] and said "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."[43][44]

Version by User:Jay D. Easy

In November 2018, John Allen Chau, a 27-year-old American evangelist was attacked and killed after traveled to North Sentinel island.[29] Chau was illegally brought close to the island's shore by local fishermen.[30] They reported they later saw the islanders attached a rope around his neck and dragged his body, whereupon the fishermen fled. They returned the next day and spotted Chau's body on the shore.[31]

summmarized version by JezGrove, annotated by TSP

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)

Threaded discussion

User:TSP, yes, I believe the section on 1880 expedition, needs to be expanded. I feel that 1880 section leaves the reader with too many questions about the incident. Regarding your comments on SPINOFF, what exactly are you planning to write on the SPINOFF article that you can't write here ? Chau is already dead so he isn't going to do any more notable works. His life so far was not notable. His death is only in news because of the notability of the tribe.This incdent provides the reader an understanding of the hostile behavior of the Sentinelese, so it makes sense to have decent enough details about the incident.

I personally feel version by JezGrove is a good approximation, keeping together all the relevant information and provides the reader necessary details about the incident and behavior of sentinelese. My only edit major edit to JezGrove's version will be to remove the line that says "declaration as a sovereign state" because there is no such declaration. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

What I'd SPINOFF is the majority of content in this section.

Again, you seem to think I am proposing an article on John Allen Chau; I'm not, I'm proposing an article on the event of his death; therefore whether he is going to do any more notable works, and WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E which you have repeatedly cited, are irrelevant. (BLP1E is also irrelevant because he's dead.)

I've just added another section above where I've gone through JezGrove's proposal (disregarding for the moment the exact wording, some of which is no longer up to date with the current article), and struck out everything that is either not directly relevant to an article about the Sentinelese, or should be covered by general sections of the article, not one about this particular incident. It's about 60% of it.

I think that the reasonable amount of content in this article is probably somewhere between my draft above, and Jay D. Easy's - it my in truth be nearer to Jay's than mine.

If you think really anything at all needs to be said about Chau himself, his motivations or his actions or even the events surrounding his death, other than what they directly tell us about the Sentinelese, then that is inappropriate in the article on the Sentinelese and can only be done if we fork a separate article. TSP (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

(I didn't actually look at my own previous draft while doing this, but on comparing, the result is almost exactly the same.) TSP (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

User:TSP, Yes, please be assured that I understood your proposal of FORKING his death article, right when you mentioned it the first time.

I understand that you believe this incident of his death is notable, While I strongly believe this death is only in news due to the Notability of sentinelese. so the death event also fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Accordingly the standalone death article will not survive an AfD.

I feel JDE's version is just too short to make any sense out of it. that kind of summary can be included in the article lead, which needs to have a para on these incidents that are covered in the article body.

I went through your annotated version and I still have the same concerns, this version leaves out some very important plot details that may confuse the reader. for example the reader after reading your annotated version will probably think that he canoed all the way from the main Andaman island to the Sentinel island.

Chau's section is currently 3KB of readable text which is not really a lot, considering the chain of events. While we can obviously cut down a line or three but sumarising it to a 2 sentence para will be doing injustice to this event. Whether we have another article on this event or not, Sentinelese article must have a reasonably descriptive paragraph outlining the chain of events that led to his death. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. I can believe that you understood the proposal; but you keep giving arguments and citing policies which don't apply to an article about the event, so I keep telling you why they don't apply.

I think you're also misapplying WP:NOTINHERITED. That applies to arguments like, "All schools are notable", or "This song is by a notable band so is notable". The key phrase in it is, "Notability requires verifiable evidence." It is about cases where there are plenty of sources about something related to the subject, but not reliable sources establishing notability of the subject itself.

In this case, there are plenty of reliable sources about the event itself.

WP:NOTNEWS I think is the only policy that has been brought up that has any real relevance. But that is about giving too much detail about recent events, which applies at least as much here as it would in a separate article, because here there is also WP:PROPORTION to take in to account.

Regarding the cuts... for this article, I don't really care if people think Chau canoed all the way from Andaman to Sentinel Island. I think it's clear he didn't (as it says at the start he had help from local fishermen, and the fishing boat and fishermen are mentioned several times), but in either case it's not really relevant to the Sentinelese, who are the subject of this article. The only relevant things for this article are (a) the behaviour of the Sentinelese and (b) the enforcement of laws relating to the Sentinelese. TSP (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Somewhat condensed version of the original first version after edits by TSP and DBigXray

In November 2018, John Allen Chau, a 26-year-old American evangelist,[34][35][36] travelled illegally to North Sentinel Island with the help of local fishermen to attempt to make contact with the Sentinelese.[34][37][38] On 14 November, Chau hired a fishing boat and crew by paying them ₹25,000 (about USD384) in Port Blair, South Andaman Island, to ferry him to North Sentinel Island.[39] According to police, he waited until nightfall to start his journey to avoid detection by authorities.[35] On 15 November, Chau attempted his first visit to North Sentinel island, and the fishing boat took him around 500–700m from the shore.[40] The fishermen warned Chau not to go further, but he continued his journey to the shore alone in a kayak,[35] where islanders attacked him with bows and arrows.[41] He returned to the fishing boat later that day,[40] and wrote that the islanders were angry with his visit, while he had attempted to sing worship songs to them.[42] On a second visit the following day,[35] the Sentinelese broke his kayak, and he swam back to the boat.[41] On a third visit, on 17 November, before leaving the boat, Chau had told the fishermen he did not plan to return from the island with them and instructed them to leave without him.[43] Later the fishermen reported that they saw the islanders attaching a rope around his neck and dragging his body, whereupon the fishermen fled. On returning the following day, they saw Chau's body on the shore.[41] Subsequently the Police arrested seven fishermen for assisting Chau in reaching the illegal trip to the prohibited island.[44][45][46] Indigenous tribes human rights group Survival International said it was possible that Chau had infected the tribe with pathogens to which they have no genetic immunity, "with the potential to wipe out the entire tribe"

TSP lets finish the discussion first before touching the article. I do agree with some of your removals and disagree with some, here is the version that I finally left the article with. lets discuss more on this version. Please share your concerns if any with this version --DBigXrayᗙ 20:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I was previously thinking that, but the article including that section are constantly changing.... and also you already undid both my and Jay D Easy's previous condensing, so I'm not sure it's logical to say you can change the article to your preferred version, but other people need permission to change it to anything else.

I think this is at least a big improvement from previously. Some of it is just a bit wordy - he to the island went with the help of some fishermen, so he hired a fishing boat, so he paid the crew money, because he wanted them to take him to the island. That seems like it says the same thing three or four times. "In November 2018, John Allen Chau, a 26-year-old American evangelist,[34][35][36] travelled illegally to North Sentinel Island with the help of local fishermen to make contact with the Sentinelese.[34][37][38] He reportedly paid the fishing boat crew ₹25,000 (about USD384) to transport him, and travelled after nightfall to avoid detection by authorities.[35]" I still think most of what is in that second sentence is irrelevant to the article, but I'm not that bothered if it's a single brief sentence.

But as I say, I don't care about the "plot points", because this article isn't Death of John Allen Chau - it used to be, and I think it should be; but right now it is part of Sentinelese. Which means that the "plot" is irrelevant except insofar as it tells us interesting things about the Sentinelese who are the subject of the article. TSP (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Further copy edits based on feedback above

In November 2018, John Allen Chau, a 26-year-old American evangelist,[34][35][36] travelled illegally to North Sentinel Island with the help of local fishermen to attempt to make contact with the Sentinelese.[34][37][38] On 14 November, Chau hired a fishing boat and crew for ₹25,000 (about USD384) in Port Blair, South Andaman Island.[39] According to police, he waited until nightfall to start his journey to avoid detection by authorities.[35] On 15 November, Chau attempted his first visit to North Sentinel island, and the fishing boat took him around 500–700m from the shore.[40] The fishermen warned Chau not to go further, but he continued his journey to the shore alone in a kayak with a Bible and some gifts, and was attacked by the islanders with bows and arrows.[41][35] He returned to the fishing boat later that day,[40] and wrote that the islanders were angry with his visit, while he had attempted to sing worship songs to them.[42] On a second visit the following day,[35] the Sentinelese broke his kayak, and he swam back to the boat.[41] On a third visit, on 17 November, before leaving the boat, Chau had told the fishermen he did not plan to return from the island with them and instructed them to leave without him.[43] Later the fishermen reported that they saw the islanders attaching a rope around his neck and dragging his body, whereupon the fishermen fled. On returning the following day, they saw Chau's body on the shore.[41] Subsequently the Police arrested seven fishermen for assisting Chau in reaching the illegal trip to the prohibited island.[44][45][46] Indigenous tribes human rights group Survival International said it was possible that Chau had infected the tribe with pathogens to which they have no genetic immunity, "with the potential to wipe out the entire tribe.

TSP, appreciate your constructive feedback. I did some more copy edits so as to include some of your suggestions and made this version. We have successfully trimmed the readable text of this section from 3.2KB to 1.8KB and the content still makes decent sense and doesnt leave the reader with too many questions. 1.8KB is quite decent for a subsection and I feel we should now focus on improving the other section that clearly needs some expansion. let see what other editors have to say on this version.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

To say he was an "evangelist" is clearly a distortion. He WAS and IS a MISSIONARY! You're now removing all mention of it! WobInDisguise (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

On a bit of a tangent, This article has some quite interesting details about the Sentinelese from Chau's letter - they initially approached with unstrung arrows; there was a man apparently in a leadership role wearing a white crown; he seems to have communicated with them to some degree, with them laughing in response to his attempts to communicate; the arrow shaft that hit his bible was 'metal, thin but very sharp'. All that is really relevant stuff about the Sentinelese, that is currently being lost in the focus on Chau's actions.

I honestly think that a well-balanced section here would go something like "In 2018 American John Allen Chau travelled illegally to the island to try to contact the Sentinelese. He reported that...." and basically the whole of the rest of the section would be what he said in his letter about the Sentinelese, then their eventual killing of him. I think even now the amount of detail about Chau's actions is dwarfing the relevant content about what he was actually able to observe about the Sentinelese. TSP (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• TSP, yes, we can add these details you said above from Chau's notes, there is nothing that prevents you from adding them. The main point of disagreement here, is that you are removing vital lines that explain the sequence of events. Context is quite important here. "The plan to leave at night, to escape from the coastguard and navy" and "bribing the sailors", "ignoring the sailor's warning" goes on to show how determined Chau was to complete his goal to proselytize the tribals.All these go on to give an idea to the reader that he meticulously planned the illegal event. It is not as simple incident as you are trying to portray that anyone could take a canoe and reach the "off limits island" to meet the tribals. No one should get this wrong impression after reading this section. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Which would be very relevant in an article about John Allen Chau or his death. But this is not that article. This article is about the Sentinelese, and John Allen Chau was not Sentinelese, so his determination or otherwise is not relevant to this article. TSP (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove passage about cannibalism

"As the bodies of people the Sentinelese killed have been found, it has been suggested that they do not practise cannibalism. But as their culture remains unexplored, it is unknown whether they practise cannibalism within their tribal group(s)." does not have a citation and in my understanding does not add any meaningful information; it rather seems like a forced mention of cannibalism. Remove this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.46.137.15 (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Popcornduff (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Popcornduff, I have partially re-added that piece of information along with the citation. I think the first line is relevant to the subject. and is supported by reliable sources. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Age of Chau

Many sources mentions age of chau as 27. Providing [5] [6] Accesscrawl (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Accesscrawl, this piece of information is disputed and many sources I have seen also mention his age as 26. Not sure why that is happening. In any case whatever his age may be, not adding this information on his age does not harm the article in any way. Had this article been his WP:BIO then it could have been important, but on the sentinelese article, not so much. That said, I have no strong feelings about adding 26 or 27 or even skipping the mention of his age altogether.--DBigXrayᗙ 18:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Accesscrawl, see the video here [7] that states he was 2 months short of his 27th birthday, so technically he was still 26--DBigXrayᗙ 22:35, 24 November 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)

"who were more welcoming to outsiders and now interact with them regularly"

I removed the above words from "Unlike other tribes in the Andamanese Islands, who were more welcoming to outsiders and now interact with them regularly, the Sentinelese appear to have consistently refused any interaction with the outside world."

It mostly just seemed redundant - if the Sentinelese consistently refusing interaction with the outside world is "unlike other tribes", it seems to clearly follow from that that those other tribes must have been more welcoming and have interacted more with outsiders.

Any additional characterisation added by "who were more welcoming to outsiders and now interact with them regularly" is arguably misleading - some of the tribes have ceased to exist; and saying the Jarawa willingly interact with outsiders "regularly" is by my understanding something of an overstatement.

I feel like the important facts are there - the Sentinelese have consistently refused interaction; this is unlike the other Andamanese tribes. For more details, people can look on the pages about those other tribes. (Note that this text was in the lead - it might be OK in body text, but the lead should be concise and tightly focused on the topic.) TSP (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

TSP, thanks for sharing your detailed thoughts on this content. I agree with your justification. But understand that most of the Andaman tribes lead a secluded life, other tribes did not react so violently to contact by outsiders, I feel this should be clarified. I am open to further cpy edit of this phrase. altogether dropping this comparison is detrimental to the understanding of their peculiar behavior. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. Can you suggest a draft that would be more helpful and less misleading? Currently I think it adds nothing, so an improvement should not be difficult. Otherwise it will continue to be my position that this text should not be there.

I've removed it again for now. Feel free to suggest a better draft that would add something to the article and be less misleading. TSP (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Spears

@DBigXray: 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.

• In 2006, Sentinelese hurled arrows and spears at the chopper that Commandant Praveen Gaur flew to North Sentinel."[8]

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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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.

• They even rejected outside help after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, throwing spears and arrows at a rescue helicopter that flew above"[9]

trespass is what the reliable sources are using, dont blame me for rehashing what RS states.

• They are hostile to any external contact and are known for violently attacking, anyone who tresspasses, with their bows, arrows and spears [10]

• driving away uninvited guests — whether they arrive by boat or fly overhead — with spears and bow and arrows [11]

• It doesn't matter whether you are a friend or enemy, whether you arrived on purpose or by accident, the locals will greet you the same way with spears and arrows,' [12]

• Indian Coast Guard helicopter surveying the island for survivors encountered tribals trying to bring it down with spears and arrows [13]

• Chau’s death was the result of his foolhardy insistence on visiting the Sentinelese on their native island, despite the tribe’s reputation for welcoming visitors with a volley of arrows and spears [14]

• Police say Chau knew that the Sentinelese resisted all contact by outsiders, firing arrows and spears at passing helicopters [15]

• All these sources make their usage of spear against the helicopters abundantly clear--DBigXrayᗙ 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.--DBigXrayᗙ 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.--DBigXrayᗙ 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.--DBigXrayᗙ 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).--DBigXrayᗙ 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.

• Indian Coast Guard helicopter surveying the island for survivors encountered tribals trying to bring it down with spears and arrows [16]

Please see Commandant Gaur's interview with NDTV here talking about the 2006 incident

• more than 50 or 100 people are running towards you with spears, arrows and shooting towards you.- Gaur

• In 2006, Sentinelese hurled arrows and spears at the chopper that Commandant Praveen Gaur flew to North Sentinel."[17]

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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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)

• "They were just 200 metres away and were attacking my helicopter with everything they had - arrows were flying everywhere. I was on the ground on North Sentinel Island. The rotors of my chopper were running. In moments, my crew and I would have been captured and killed." - Gaur [18]

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

When the helicopter tried to retrieve them, it was attacked with spears and arrows by more than 50 tribesmen who shot arrows to a height of more than 100 feet.

• 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.

• Police say Chau knew that the Sentinelese resisted all contact by outsiders, firing arrows and spears at passing helicopters [19][20]

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.--DBigXrayᗙ 02:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Chau's motive of spreading Christianity

There are a number of references indicating Chau was trying to spread Christianity among the tribe, such as this , then why this is content is getting removed? CuriousPerson18375 (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

References

@TSP (talk · contribs), Why did you remove Chau was trying to spread Christianity despite a number of sources claim so? CuriousPerson18375 (talk)

Because this article is about the Sentinelese, not about him.

The article already described him as an evangelist (that is, someone who attempts to spread Christianity), as well as saying that he had a Bible and that he sang worship songs to them. I don't think it was left unclear what he was doing; but his motives are not all that relevant to this article, because this article is about the Sentinelese, not about him.

I've suggested above that this content could be split out into a separate article on his death (as it briefly was before), at which point all this content would be relevant; but while it remains in this article, the content needs to concentrate on the Sentinelese. Chau was not Sentinelese, so is really relevant to the article only in the context of the Sentinelese reaction to him. TSP (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

So if this article was not about him, then just remove his name. Its still valid source.101.178.163.19 (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree that this article is about the Sentinelese, but also note that this has a section about Contact. And Chau's contact with the Sentinelese is a notable contact which deserves its own section. @TSP I think you are going overboard here in removing the mention that Chau was "trying to spread Christianity" in the island. The article states that he was a missionary but that does not automatically imply that this trip was also for spreading Christianity. It has to be specifically mentioned as almost all the reliable source mention this fact. See the quotes and sources shared in the section Talk:Sentinelese#Whitewashing_of_John_Chau_as_a_missionary . A number of editors have tried to introduce this into the article and rightly so. This piece of information about "trying to convert the tribals" should stay in the article, regardless of the fact that we have a separate article on this event or not. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That Talk section is on a different question: whether it is OK to simply describe Chau as a 'missionary', despite some sources saying he was primarily an adventurer. Although I still think this is misleading, I've largely left it alone for now as it was simply a one-word description and his motivations are not all that relevant; but the more extensively we describe his motives, the more problematic it is to only show one side of the sources. TSP (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear TSP (talk · contribs):

* The referenced article from SCMP clearly states Chau's motive of spreading Christianity.

* An evangelist with Bible visiting different places does not necessarily imply that the person is trying to spread Christianity. Chau was an evangelist, had a copy of Bible and might have visited other places. But we do not know whether he was trying to spread Christianity there. On the other hand, when he visited the restricted zone of North Sentinel Island, the main objective should have been spreading Christianity among the tribe. Will a person from a modern society such as the US travel to remote place like North Sentinel Island and undertake a series of illegal acts just to establish contact with the Sentinelese? Chau was not an anthropologist or a scientist for that matter who is trying to study the tribe. His main motive seems to spread Christianity there.

* It is likely that Chau had detailed information about the place - how to "pay" (bribe?) the locals to get what he wants to do, travel in the night to avoid detection by the authorities. In fact, he had made four prior trips to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, starting in 2015.[21] He also must knew why the North Sentinel Island is prohibited to visitors and what risks the Sentinelese tribe can have upon contact with the pathogen brought by the tourists. Despite having all of these information, Chau traveled to the island to spread Christianity. What makes the story more remarkable is that nobody from the neighboring countries traveled to the island so far to spread the indigenous religions. CuriousPerson18375 (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Which is all very interesting, but:

a. Your reasoning about what is likely or what must have happened isn't relevant. See WP:OR. Only what is represented by the sources can be included.

b. Whether or not it is interesting information, it is not interesting information about the Sentinelese. "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." - WP:NOTEVERYTHING The subject of the article is the Sentinelese. TSP (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Tsunami

Does anyone wanna talk about the tsunami? 101.178.163.19 (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Good point, there is already an existing section the North Sentinel Island article, where it is discussed in Geography and North_Sentinel_Island#Modern_period. I think we can add a new section on Tsunami here, if we have some more content. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

“genetic immunity”

i’m confused by the line “may lack genetic immunity to common viruses like measles and influenza.” All humans lack this immunity unless vaccinated. And it’s not genetic, but rather vaccine-induced. The entry could use an editor with expertise on succeptibilty of isolated populations to infectious disease. Jeffreystringer (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It's becasue they had no exposure over the thousands of years to build up immunity. Look at Europeans and Africans of the early colonial period, they were immune more so to certain diseases that practically decimated the Native Americans.137.118.100.86 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• yes, We Humans catch cold, but rarely does anyone die due to common cold. our body takes time but fights off these virus, but it does succeed in that fight due to the immunity we have, and that exactly is the kind of immunity these Sentienlese lack. So even something as harmless as common cold or Flu can be fatal to them. (the experience with Jarawa and other Andaman tribe proves this)--DBigXrayᗙ 00:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Having had a quick look at the various articles, I believe this sort of immunity comes from the adaptive immune system; rather than from the Innate immune system which genetic immunity refers to. The Survival International statement, which is the only one sourced in any sentence containing "genetic immunity", itself simply says "immunity". I'd be inclined to simply change this to immunity (medical) until we can find a specific source, or perhaps an epidemiologist who understands this better. TSP (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible contact with pathogen and deterrent to poachers?

• As per Survival International on killing of American man John Allen Chau by Sentinelese tribe

“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.

is there any way to actually know whether the Sentinelese have been infected by pathogen?

• If such poachers are caught alive, should they be charged for serious crimes such as premeditated homicide to deter further poaching? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousPerson18375 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, there is one sure and certain way to know that, it is called death. Tribals who came in contact with Chau may die if infected. Jarawa tribe from Andaman had a similar large number of death, so now the access is greatly restricted to them, so as to save them from pathogens. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of Fire and Cooking

Currently states the Sentinelese do not know how to use fire, which contradicts this recent article 129.78.56.231 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Requesting comments on the line about the payment and plans to evade detection

Original content, restored here

On 14 November, Chau paid ₹25,000 (about USD 337) to local fishermen in Port Blair, South Andaman Island to take him to the island. According to police, he waited until nightfall to start his journey to avoid detection by authorities.

References

TSP seems to be removing this line. stating that this only belongs to a WP:CFORK and not here. TSP supports a CFORK, While there is clear consensus above that CFORK is not merited for death of Chau. There is a difference of opinion on keeping the above line in the article since I differ from TSP and I believe that this line is highly relevant in this article in Chau's section to give an idea to the reader about the meticulous planning that was done to undertake this illegal one man invasion of the island. I request comment (Support/Oppose) from other editors if this line is merited in this article or not. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Opppose. While the poll above opposes forking the article, it also strongly supports cutting down this section. (Every vote that does not specifically say to cut it down was cast during a period when it was already cut down; none says to expand it.) Giving an idea to the reader about "the meticulous planning that was done to undertake this illegal one man invasion of the island" is not relevant to an article about the Sentinelese, because that one man was not Sentinelese. TSP (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the poll was clearly outdated. While the poll was ongoing, the article had been cut down a lot (from 3.8KB to 1.8KB) since the discussion started.--DBigXrayᗙ 01:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The longest version I could spot is 520 words. The current version is 460 words - about 90% of the length. At least one of the Cut Down votes was cast when the article was significantly shorter than it is now. TSP (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Re-Expansion of the John Allen Chau section

• My latest draft (278 words) (1.8 KB)
• DBigXRray's current draft (460 words) (2.8 KB])

What can we do about the size and balance of the John Allen Chau section?

There is a poll above in which almost every response says to cut down this section; with the exception of User:DBigXray's, and a few which were submitted when the section was far shorter than it is now. So I cut it down, but now it is as long as ever again.

DBigXray in recent additions of content says, "Restore quotes by Chau that are highly relevant for this contact"; "restore bribe and plans to evade coast guard, this is highly relevant discuss on talk".

So here I am discussing on talk. Neither of these things is highly relevant to the Sentinelese. This article is about the Sentinelese; Chau is only significant to this article in the context of his interactions with the Sentinelese. Whether Chau got to the island by 'bribing' fishermen, or exactly when and how he hired the fishing boat, and exactly what he mused about in his diary regarding his own reasons for being there, do not have a bearing on the Sentinelese islanders.

None of the added information is about the Sentinelese (I think in fact some detail about the Sentinelese has actually been removed, in the section about the first contact which previously related them approaching with unstrung arrows). Yes, some context is useful; but at one point it got to the point where less than 10% of this section actually related to actions of the Sentinelese. I added some more information about the Sentinelese from Chau's observations, and I thought got it reasonably balanced, but it's now back to the point where less than a third of the section is about the Sentinelese, and two thirds about John Chau, his family, the fishermen, the police, and so on.

How can we address this? There seems to be a clear consensus above to cut down the section, but some editors don't seem persuaded by it? Or think we need to cut it down, but somehow not like this? TSP (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

TSP, Please post your preferred version of the subsection on top of this thread, so that we can understand what version you want --DBigXrayᗙ 01:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Update, TSP, thanks for adding the versions. The difference between the 2 versions can be seen here--DBigXrayᗙ 01:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's better to pare back unnecessary words rather than remove whole paragraphs, which can be contentious. For example, I removed Chau's words "you might think I'm crazy" and other extraneous stuff. I also think we can remove the amount of Chau's bribe as its size is not important. We can keep all of the important information but make the text more efficient. WWGB (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

That's what I've done in most cases - I noted that he travelled illegally with the help of local fishermen; I took out what he paid them and that they travelled at night. I think I left in the essential narrative, but avoided reaching the current state where over two thirds of the content is not about the Sentinelese.

But I just don't see what relevant information about the Sentinelese is contained in any part of, for example, the paragraph: 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?", "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 ..."[48][49] - noting that we have already mentioned his journal, and said that he was a missionary there to convert the tribe, and that he had travelled there illegally. TSP (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• User:WWGB I see that you have already trimmed this content, While I believe the amount is useful piece of information, I dont have very strong feelings against its removal. So I am still ok with the version that WWGB left.--DBigXrayᗙ 01:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph on Chau's motivations

The following paragraph has been re-added to the section Sentinelese#Death_of_John_Allen_Chau_(2018):

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 ..."

References

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.--DBigXrayᗙ 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)

"Unwittingly"

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

@Martinevans123:: 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)

Focus on Chau vs the Sentinelese People

I share the same concern @TSP: has with the expansion of the Chau section. It has a real chance of overwhelming this article. I also agree with @DBigXray: 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.--DBigXrayᗙ 02:28, 28 November 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)

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)

• Agree 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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 wikisource: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)

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)