Talk:Hola massacre

message: ==2010 Improvements==
Hi all, please discuss the current version of this article here. Thank you!
ScottPAnderson (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Version

message: Hi all, please discuss the current version of this article here. Thank you!
ScottPAnderson (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2010 Improvements

message: what are you saying? it doesnt make any sense  — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.213.116 (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: what the hell

message: This article only reflects the views of one section of opinion on this episode.
It lacks references. maybe it should be deleted. The other Wikipedia article on Hola is somewhat more balanced.Pabailie 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A very tendentious article

message: 1. The lead summarises the article. If Hola was considered Nazi style, and I'm not disputing this, the discussion needs to be in the article.
2. Sources must directly back the statements they cite. Encyclopedia of African history, Volume 1 , for instance, doesn't mention Hola but was used to source a statement about Hola.
3.  [http://www.historywiz.com/africa.htm isn't a reliable source.
4. Phrases like "colonial aliens" are pov and unless they are in quotes don't belong in any article (exactly what does http://www.jstor.org/pss/1009503 say to back this up?). There were quite a few violations, I think, of WP:NPOV, eg 'colonialists' and 'invaders', turning the article into a political tract. No matter how sympathetic I am to the concepts or how repugnant I find the events, the article needs to follow our NPOV policy.
5. The editor who added all the capital letters needs to read WP:MOSCAPS. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  My reversion 

message: There seems to be some confusion between the American magazine "Time"
and the British newspaper "The Times".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.51.100 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: India was given independence in the late 1940's, well before 1959.
So were Indonesia and the Philipines, admittedly not in Africa and not British.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.51.100 (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged hastening 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hola massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928150239/http://www.jmss.org/2006/2006spring/articles/MauMau.pdf to http://www.jmss.org/2006/2006spring/articles/MauMau.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article claimed that Colonial Government attempted  to change the name Hola to Galole so that this very nasty episode would be forgotten. Actually this was done by the Colonial Government  in 1959. In 1971, after meeting with a big delegation from Tana River,  Kenyatta ordered that   Galole should revert to its original name. I have entered these changes in the article. See the Daily Nation of 24 August, 1971  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome KL (talk • contribs) 14:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Galole and Hola

message: This links to: << Wild, Rose (4 April 2011). "No redeeming feature: The Times on the Mau Mau deaths cover-up
The link leads only to a main Times/Sunday Times page.  It does not lead to an archived The Times article.  Neither Rose Wild, nor anyone else, appears to have written any article on the Mau Mau in The Times on 4 Apr 2011.  
"No Redeeming Feature" (no by-line) appeared in The Times of Thursday,  May 7, 1959, Issue: 54454, pg. 13.  But the quote given under present footnote no. 5 does not appear in that article in the stated form.  What does appear is this:
<< Without waiting to investigate the facts the Gernment issued an announcement to the Press that the men had died "after" drinking from a certain water-cart, and will now have difficulty in disclaiming that the inference post hoc ergo propter hoc should be drawn. >>
Publication: The Times (London, England)Issue: 54454 G2345 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Footnote 5