Talk:Uganda Martyrs

message: http://www.buganda.com/martyrs.htm
if this is so its noteworthy that a gay king killing christians because of their antohomosexuality.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its inaccurate to say that it is about homosexuality or antihomosexuality, per se.  My understanding is that the king required his subjects to perform a sexual act of homage and that the Uganda martyrs were put to death for not doing it.  Thus, it is about the institutionalization of sexual predation rather than about a particular sexual orientation.  Bob99 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  homosexuality 

message: So why were the martyrs killed? An explanation is given only for the English bishop, not for any of the natives. 02:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Power. And the new religions as sign of changing leadership. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 01:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

text: As noted above, the issue was, at least according to my understanding, that the king required his subjects to perform a sexual act of homage and that the Uganda martyrs were put to death for not doing it.  Thus, it is about the institutionalization of sexual predation (and not about a particular sexual orientation).  Bob99 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?

message: 1. That the former Kingdom of Buganda is now part of Uganda is noted in the 1<SUP>st</SUP> ¶, so it′s redundant in the 2<SUP>nd</SUP>.<BR>
2. Shouldn′t the Kingdom of Buganda have a capital K<B>?</B><BR><B>☺</B> Dick Kimball (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have acted on the first point.  The second, I think, is not so clear.  As it stands, it means "Buganda, which was a historical kingdom".  Capitalized, it would mean that the correct title was "Kingdom of Buganda", not just "Buganda".  Which is better?  Esoglou (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Grammar Issues 

message: I've made some amendments to the article to ensure it reads better as some of the material was repeating itself. If anyone has a problem with these changes then please state clearly what they are otherwise we can assume that they are fine. Reverting the material without engaging on the talk page will be seen as a disruptive act and will be referred to administrators. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "assuming" that edits are fine. You cannot make changes without gaining consensus first. 75.34.101.57 (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find that I can. But for the sake of being constructive I have now explained why I made the changes that I did. If you want to over-turn them then perhaps we can debate them line by line here. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tightening article

message: dey knew de wae  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dren5144 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ugandan bois 

message: I am a student studying Bugandan history. The article and claim in question are not related. There is nothing sexual in the demands of pages claim, it is purely a test of political nature, whether they hold the Kabaka or God first. Also, is it appropriate to use a heavily Muslim biased source? One that directly pulls from another secondary source with no citation? 69.80.87.58 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  revise claim for reference [11] 

message: Repentance 41.210.147.96 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are martyrs worthy to be emulated