Talk:John Allen Chau

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2020 and 3 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Evanleach33.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Rename

@Dreamanderson: as I understand from WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E it is prohibited to have a biography of a person known for a single event. Therefore the article title should be renamed, e.g. Death of John Chau and the article should be rewritten about the circumstances of his death rather than a biography. Comments? Elizium23 (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced that Chau meets the famous-for-only-one-thing criterion, which I think should be interpreted strictly. Most "death of" articles deal with people who were not doing notable things before they were killed. Chau, in fact, was doing something notable (visiting a prohibited island to make contact with barely-contacted people) even before he was killed. Srnec (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you're misusing WP:NOTABLE, but fine, where are the articles covering Chau's efforts to evangelize the natives prior to his death? Elizium23 (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Our article is at Chandra Levy because she is famous for an affair, a disappearance and her death (read the last RM). Our article is at Murder of Meredith Kercher because there is only her death and because her article is as much about other people (Rudy Guede) as her. Srnec (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Where are the articles covering Chau's efforts to evangelize the natives prior to his death? Elizium23 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Can you really not find such articles? Or do you think they only count if written before his death? Here is a Guardian article mostly about his life. Here is one from GQ. There are academic treatments too ([1][2]). Srnec (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not really see the point in having a separate article on Chau currently. The important information is covered equally well or better at Sentinelese#Death of a missionary (2018) and most of the remaining information is about Chau's father rather than Chau. Unless someone plans to drastically expand this article I think it should be a redirect to that section. Sizeofint (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

We've been through this and the result was overwhelmingly "keep". You've gutted the article, removing entire paragraphs of reliably sourced information about John Allen Chau, instead of adding to it. If you want to expand the article, there's a plethora of encyclopedia-worthy information that can always be included. –Sebanderson (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Very well, I had not seen the earlier deletion discussion. I commented out a single paragraph about Patrick Chau, who is not the subject of this article. Sizeofint (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding John Allen Chau reverts

I believe edits of John Chau were reverted without justification and request that this be reviewed by neutral parties.

1) Perceived recklessness. The word 'perceived' is not being neutral. The only people who do NOT view John's actions as reckless are a very small subset of Christians. By incorporating the word Perceived you are giving legitimacy to a very small group of people who believe that 'God protects' them whenever they try to preach the word. Please explain why you don't believe that given the facts that all other people who attempted to land on the island have been met with arrows, (including two fishermen who were killed when their boat drifted too close to the island) that his actions were not reckless? If I jump over a zoo fence into a lion den would you call that 'perceived' recklessness? If I try to cross the heavily militarized border between South Korea into North Korea without permission would that be 'perceived' recklessness?

2) Attempting to Preach. John Chau was first attempting to illegally land on the island. Once he landed on the island he would then attempt to preach to the natives. That he was trying to land on the island illegally is a fact. By not incorporating this fact, you are fundamentally altering what happened. John Chau was not invited on the island like Jim Elliot who was then killed. You have provided no evidence that John Chau preached anything to the Natives. John Chau was first attempting to set foot illegally on the island.

John Allen Chau was a Christian missionary who died while attempting to illegally set foot on North Sentinel Island to preach Christianity to the native Sentinelese, a remote Indian tribe. vs John Allen Chau was a Christian missionary who died while attempting to preach Christianity to the native Sentinelese, a remote Indian tribe.

Your reversion is a fundamental whitewashing of the events that occurred. A person reading your reversion may think that John was invited to the island to preach and then was killed (like what happened to Jim Elliot).

3) In preparation for the trip, Chau was vaccinated and quarantined,[8] and also undertook medical and linguistic training. vs In preparation for the trip, Chau was vaccinated and quarantined,[8] which experts say offers little protection to uncontacted peoples[9], and also undertook medical and linguistic training.

You have reverted this again without justification. I have provided a source yet you claim the source is not credible. My source clearly explains that since John made contact with the fisherman that the quarantine was useless and also the fact the vaccinations do nothing for the common cold which had killed many un-contacted peoples. By removing this line, you're basically accepting as fact that the quarantine(and then later contact with the non quarantined fishermen) was enough and that the vaccinations are effective defense. Please give a source that says this is true. I have provided by source that says it's false.

Additional Notes. Not all strains of the flu have vaccines developed for them. If John Chau carried the flu virus, he could have infected the tribe. In 1988 the Nukak people from Columbia made contact. Within 5 years close to 40% of the population died as a result of respiratory diseases that started as flu.

Source : https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-bulletin/section1/colombia-the-nukak-the-last-contacted-nomadic-people/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:77fd:400:a888:5be0:15f2:f060 (talk • contribs) 01:00 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The bias in this article proposes that John was a hero. Liftpaintdrink (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability

As noted above, the notability of John Allen Chau is based upon one event (Wikipedia:BIO1E). The event is notable only because it is the most recent attempt to contact the Sentinelese. I do not think there is any justification for this article, but it appears that a deletion discussion has already occurred with a decision to keep.

If the article remains, it should accurately define the event as an attack on an indigenous people who acted properly in their own defense per the Sasikumar article cited below. The details of Chau's life and preparation for his mission implies that he was something other than a misguided individual doing something those outside his religious community condemn as racist and the Indian government declared illegal. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I have place the notability tag because in addition to "one event", the article is not consistent with Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators, in that the one event was a crime in which the subject of the bio was either the perpetrator or victim. In this case Chau was the perpetrator in going to a place forbidden to outsiders and paying others to also break that law by taking him there. This crime was not mere trespass, but threatened the extinction of the entire tribe. If others think he was the victim in being killed, his lack of notability falls under the same guideline. Many people die unusual deaths, they don't have a WP article.

The event itself is adequately covered in the article about the tribe, however the title here could be changed back to "Death of..." and the "early life" section deleted to focus the topic on the event, which is notable.

• Sasikumar, M. (2019). "The Sentinelese of North Sentinel Island: A Reappraisal of Tribal Scenario in an Andaman Island in the Context of Killing of an American Preacher". Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India. 68 (1): 56–69. doi:10.1177/2277436X19844882.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Preaching was not the crime, so I have reverted your addition of "illegal" to the lead. The crime is mentioned further down in the article. I have also removed the notability tag because the article survived an AFD with only one vote for deletion (ignoring the nominator, who withdrew the request). I see this as consensus on notability. See also #Rename above and compare Chandra Levy. As was pointed out there, Chau is famous because of his death, but what he was trying to do before he died is notable and has been the subject of coverage. I suggest that if you are still not convinced, you try RM or AFD (again). Or perhaps put insert merge tag instead. Srnec (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The notability tag was not removed properly since there was no prior discussion. Although I personally think it appropriate, this is not another AfD. My proposal is that the article be redefined to reflect the notability of the event, not the one person involved. I have not asserted that preaching is a crime, but going there in full awareness of the danger of making contact with these people, and bribing others to assist him. If the article is about a person who has been mentioned in reliable sources only because of committing a crime, then the opening should state that fact.

Here is another academic source which among other issues addresses the media focus on a dead American while glossing over the inappropriateness of his actions. It also points out the bias in charging inhabitants with murder for defending themselves.

• SCHÖNHUTH, M. (2019). "Dead missionaries, wild Sentinelese: An anthropological review of a global media event". Anthropology Today. 35 (4): 3–6. doi:10.1111/1467-8322.12514.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The AFD was the prior discussion on notability. Frankly, I think a rename to Death of John Allen Chau (or something else) makes more sense than a merge, and you yourself seem to suggest that what you really want is a scope change. You have now cited two high-quality academic sources beyond those RS already in the article. Why do you think there is insufficient coverage to sustain an independent article? I don't think the Sentinelese articles needs more on this. Srnec (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I dropped into this because I was doing research that led me to read the article on the Sentinelese. I did some checking and I soon found two anthropological sources which each expressed among other things a disdain for the notoriety given to Chau by the media that they deem unwarranted compared to his behavior, which they see as a criminal attack on a vulnerable population. Yet there is much in the current article that supports a version of him as a Christian martyr, which I see reflected in the AfD discussion. There is an implication that martyr or criminal are equally valid, but a NPOV does not mean giving equal weight but appropriate weight; in this case the expert opinion is that Chau was unworthy of the attention he received. I could continue to build a care for deletion of this article, but it is a distraction from my current interests.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This is another way of putting it: Chau was newsworthy, but not notable at the level of having a bio; but only in the context of the article on the Sentinelese, thus the merge tag.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to see this moved to Death of John Allen Chau. Outside of this event, Chau did nothing notable. His biography is only important to give context to this event. The AfD did not substantially discuss if the article should be moved, though one person raised the idea. Sizeofint (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Since it appears that this article will remain, I have added content from the journal articles to provide a more balanced viewpoint, which I will also summarize in the introduction.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC, the proposed revision was well-sourced but had many problems with WP:NPOV so I have reverted it. Please try to rewrite it neutrally. Elizium23 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: - Your reversion implies that I misrepresented the content of these two journal articles. The authors do not shy away from characterizing Chau's actions as a threat to the Sentinelese that should be taken as a warning, with official action needing to be taken to prevent its re-occurrence. They specifically decry the murder charge, seeing it in the context of a history of colonialism. They also fault the media for romanticizing Chau as a martyr rather than as a misguided individual whose death was the inevitable and perhaps appropriate result of his illegal actions. The existence of this article in spite of WP:BIO1E is the neutrality issue that needs to be remedied, but in the face of the continued failure to merge or rename the biography, my edit was a first attempt to move towards a NPOV.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

While it is important to fairly represent the articles, it is also important not to state things in Wikipedia's voice:

anthropologists who?

sympathetic to the tragic nature of the event (editorializing)

the incident should renew the government protection of the Sentinelese Wikipedia calls for political action?

incidents that threaten their isolation (editorializing)

While some expert opinion whose?

this should only be done officially with due precautions Wikipedia calls for action

it is recognized by whom?

bringing them into the modern world, ending their culture speculation, editorializing.

Basically I would have loved to keep some portion of your edit, but it is absolutely riddled with NPOV errors. Elizium23 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

After almost 15 years of editing, this is the first time anyone has raised such objections to my wording, and I have worked on many controversial topics. The answer to who? : the authors of the cited sources. If they are editorializing or speculating, there would need to be an alternative, equally reliable source to say so. I have already posted an alternative version of the same content. One of the authors is now named and more closely paraphrased than before.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Second author named, will expand on this cite.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: - Now the article is biased in another direction, your rewording of my contributions implying that these are the opinions of two individuals rather that the professional position of anthropologists published in peer-reviewed journals. In addition, I do not understand the point of redlinking the names of the two scholars, given that they are unlikely to ever have sufficient notability to warrant their own articles.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC, that is the point, isn't it? They are not notable, and these are the opinions of two individuals. Peer-reviewed or not, we will observed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV where their opinions are injected in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: - ATTRIBUTEPOV states "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." The published statements of academics holding positions at recognized institutions of learning and published in peer-reviewed journals are nonetheless biased because you say so? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Redlinking of scholars names

WP:Redlink states: It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable.

Articles should not contain red links to ... topics that do not warrant an article.

Redlinking a name to indicate their not being notable is the opposite of this usage, and indicates POV. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Name of article: "John Chau" vs "John Allen Chau"?

Was Chau typically known by his full name while alive, or did the full name only get reported after he died? Does anyone have sources to his social media accounts, etc, about how he styled his name?

I am wondering if the title of this article should be renamed to simply "John Chau"? The same way that the primary title for the president's article is "Joe Biden", rather than "Joseph Robinette Biden Jr." The full name should be mentioned in the article, but the page name doesn't need to be the full name.

edit: here is his Instagram account, where his name is styled as "John Chau". I propose that the name of this page be changed to that.

Stuart mcmillen (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Stuart mcmillen: Secondary sources, which are preferred on Wikipedia, overwhelmingly use the subject's full name, so that's why we include his middle name here. Shoestringnomad (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Christian martyrs categorization

I noticed that this article was categorized under "Christian martyrs". I'm not sure if this is the correct location to bring this up, but I was considering removing this category, because this is a characterization of Chau that All Nations was criticized for making, per the Aftermath section, and Wikipedia categorizing him as such feels like a non-neutral stance and potentially a similarly controversial one to be taking. Additionally, the classification of "martyr" to me still feels speculative as to what the Sentinelese's motives may have actually been. I'm posting this here to get some input from anyone who might have thoughts on the matter. Thanks! ~Helicopter Llama~ 16:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Reference contains inaccurate info

Reference 34: https://rai.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8322.12514

Schönhuth describes the incident within its abstract as: "The trope of the violent ‘murder’ of a white missionary". Chau is not "white" but Chinese, leading me to question whether this source contains factual information or if it is perpetuating a biased point of view.

This source (Schönhuth) is used within the "Aftermath" section to explain Chau's motives as "bringing civilization to a primitive people". Where is he getting his information from? Chau's motives is never declared as bringing "civilization" but instead, his religion (see other sources on page). Again, there is evidence of a biased point of view on this incident through drawing a parallel from Chau to colonization, which goes beyond stating objective information. If Schönhuth will be used a source of a specific point of view, another should be offered, to avoid painting a specific perspective on Chau. Lcundiff2 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The source is a 4-page paper that's freely accessible. I agree that the bit about the evangelical groups bringing "civilization" in the passage you removed [3] wasn't supported by this source (the source talks of such perception, but not in the context of the groups that Chau was part of). The rest of the passage seems accurate though. As for the "white" bit, I don't see issue with it: this is about a trope, an archetype, rather than the specific individual whose death enacted the trope (and even if we weren't talking about the trope, I wouldn't find it inappropriate to describe Chau as white in this context: what matters is that in contrast to the indigenous Sentinelese, he is a citizen of a rich Western country: we're not interested here in his precise positioning within the American racial categories, where the fact that one of his parents was born in China may have been relevant). – Uanfala (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I checked out the source, and I agree the passage was the issue, not the source. The actual source also doesn't mention Chau being white (just the separate abstract, although I appreciate you for clarifying the trope. I read it as stating his racial demographic. I personally think describing him as western or American versus "white" to avoid confusion would be better, but I understand that can be considered subjective and outside the scope of this discussion.

I can work on adding a similar passage from the source that contains relevant information on the aftermath of Chau's death. 75.65.36.117 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, the above reply is me. Did not realize I was not logged in. Lcundiff2 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Christian martyr" category

I've decided to be bold and go ahead and remove him from the "Christian martyrs" category...

No evidence is cited in the article that he's widely considered a "Christian martyr" by most Churches. It does note that the group he worked with labeled him as such, and was criticized by doing so. Having him in the category suggests that Wikipedia is asserting that he is in fact one.

Personally, I don't think the label makes a lot of sense, as the people who killed him had no knowledge or understanding of Christianity and did not kill him for expressing his faith, but simply for being an outsider who persistently kept trying to intrude on their territory after they'd made it clear he wasn't wanted there. In any event though, regardless of what I or other editors might think, unless there's a broad consensus in RS that he is in fact a "Christian martyr" then Wikipedia shouldn't assert that he is one. -2003:CA:8707:CA5:659B:C2FA:86BE:8B46 (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)