Talk:Komagata Maru incident

message: Why is there a section going into the details of the difference between British Subjects and British Protected Persons if all of the passengers were British Subjects?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.103.86 (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: British Subjects / British Protected Persons

message: This article has a number of references, but they are not attached to any part of the article (they're more of a see also).  Please can someone convert these to actual references / citations.  Perhaps by looking through them and seeing which part of the article they go to.  Also it would be helpful to have references to web sites, or books that are easier to get hold of it seems the best publisers (British Columbia Historical Quarterly, V and Oxford University Press) are for references that are now fairly dated (though still valid, it's a question of verifiability.  Thanks Captainj 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Because of its title, this article is properly about the vessel itself, and the Komagata Maru Incident, which probably redirects here, should be a separate article.  Tonnage, construction dates, ownership, vessel history etc are standard fare on "ship pages".  Please see WikiProject Ships for examples of format/content; for now the "Incident portion" can stay here, but this article, by normal Wiki conventions, should be about the vessel itself.Skookum1 07:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ship data

message: Goingoveredge can you explain what is "AntiIndia" subject matter related to this event and the article? Why did you add "Category:Anti-Indian sentiment" to this article? You have earlier done the same at different articles like Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity. Please stop making wikipedia your vehicle of propaganda. --RoadAhead Discuss 00:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly stop Trolling and contribute constructively to wikipedia. Hatemongering , incitement, and revisionism are not tolerated here.Goingoveredge (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not take tangents to the topic and create confusion. Your reply above is as irrelevant as your replies always are to the topic at hand. What do my words above have to do with "Hatemongering" , "incitement", and "revisionism"? Stay on topic and do not incite edit-wars everywhere you go. I have noticed that you are involved in edit-wars on almost every topic that you have touched on Wikipedia. --RoadAhead Discuss 17:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The incident clearly targeted Indians for discrimination, and, as such, reflected anti-Indian sentiment as depicted in the article. Please stop Attacking editors, Disrupting wikipedia to make a point, Trolling and actively engouraging prejudice, bigotry and discrimination against certain ethnic groups. Actions like that are severely frowned upon here.Goingoveredge (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh god!...do you have a list of tags and links that you just keeping adding in your replies? Perhaps you think that other wikipedia editors will get mislead and believe you if you keep alleging every possible way that you can, but FYI wikipedia is not a community of illiterate editor. This tactic will hurt you only. Nevertheless, I could not understand how this incident is "Anti India"; please explain appropriately, you seem to make no point once again.--RoadAhead Discuss 18:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don;t understand the obvious, it is not my job to explain it. If policy is motivated by targeted bigotry against a particular group, the sentiment in question is anti-That particular group. In this case, that group was Indians. Ergo, it is an "anti-Indian" sentiment. The exclusion laws targeted Indians by letter, as the cited documents clearly demonstrate.Goingoveredge (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here comes the misleading part. You are seemingly hinting that the reaction and action of concerned non-Indians towards this incident was "AntiIndia", however, if you add "AntiIndia" tag to the incident page that gives an impression that the incident itself (ie. the initiative of Komagata Maru) was "AntiIndia".  And yes, its "the job" of every wikipedia editor to make things as clear as possible and not confusing for the readers. --RoadAhead Discuss 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the purpose of categorization. The purpose of adding a category is to illustrate relevance. The KM incident is clearly relevant to anti-Indian sentiment, since that was the primary motivator behind the exclusion of the passengers. Please don;t engage in ill-conceived obfuscatory rants and contribute constructively to the encyclopedia.Goingoveredge (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pot calling the kettle black? Try to focus on "constructiveness" yourself as well, just distributing "the wisdom" is not enough. The sentiment that you are now talking about may still not be "AntiIndia", Canadian sentiment was "Anti Immigrant" and the British sentiment was "Anti Colonists". Please get your facts right. --RoadAhead Discuss 18:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be the generic motivator, but we are not talking about generic sentiments here. The exclusionary laws here targeted Indians, although the motivations may have been part of a broader xenophobia. Nonetheless, this particular case deals with a specific kind of xenophobia, the anti-Indian kind. So please stop with therevisionist edit-warring and trolling.Goingoveredge (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

text: That's all very nice and rhetorical. Unfortunately, it constitutes Original research and is largely irrelevant to the issue here. You seem to agree that, regardless of the white supremacist justifications, anti-Indian sentiment was involved in the process.Goingoveredge (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, the issue is moot now that the revisionist bigot who started the edit-war stands blocked.Goingoveredge (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't patronize me, I know full well waht original research is, and the acdcount/interpretation I've provided is not my own; I'll come back with the book ref for it, as provided by a journalist-historian friend well versed in th histories of BC's racial-discrimination history.  The issue is NOT moot simply because someone was blocked; the issue remains there to be honestly accounted for - that the voyage of the Komagata Maru was a DELIBERATE provocation of British imperial policies, and those organizing it knew it was a "voyage of the damned".  What's rhetorical is all the spew that comes out of this event as if it were a spontaneous expression of discriminatory sentiment on the part of British Columbia/Canada - it was not spontaneous in the slightest, it was an organized effort whose organizers knew its success was unlikely.  It's rhetorical -  and original research - to pretend otherwise.Skookum1 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[user:Goingoveredge|Goingoveredge]] added wrong category 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Komagata Maru incident. 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/20080502054401/http://pch.gc.ca:80/newsroom/index_e.cfm?fuseaction=displayDocument&DocIDCd=CS060471 to http://pch.gc.ca/newsroom/index_e.cfm?fuseaction=displayDocument&DocIDCd=CS060471
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129040305/http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/multi/pubs/ichr/annexes_e.cfm to http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/multi/pubs/ichr/annexes_e.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081010204514/http://cnews.canoe.ca:80/CNEWS/Politics/2008/08/03/6345366-cp.html to http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/08/03/6345366-cp.html
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 13:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Komagata Maru incident. 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/20141129040258/http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/minstr/arc_disc-spch/kenney/2008/20080510-eng.cfm to http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/minstr/arc_disc-spch/kenney/2008/20080510-eng.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723090604/http://www.theindianstar.com/index.php?udn=2008-10-12&uan=8042 to http://www.theindianstar.com/index.php?udn=2008-10-12&uan=8042
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 01:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Komagata Maru incident. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222071738/http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=4&id=2205 to http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=4&id=2205
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Lead reads ; in "Departure from Vancouver" is ; this source notes that there were 20 returning residents arriving at Vancouver, and 355 passengers were on board on departure (376-355=21). Also possible that there were one-way passengers departing. 
The Lead has ; "Shooting on return to India" has ; Infobox has . I've tagged the second part as it doesn't even appear in the article.  Can anyone with access to the book sources clarify these two issues? Davidships (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory numbers 

message: The redirect Komagata Maru(2010 film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Komagata Maru(2010 film)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Recently the following paragraph was removed in the "Legacy:Canada" section for being off-topic:
But in the "Arrival in Vancouver" section, Harry Stevens (H.H. Stevens) is discussed in detail as being a key official responsible for the mistreatment of the passengers:
So is the problem that we should just change "Harry Stevens" to "H.H. Stevens" (to conform to the form of his name earlier in the article), or should we create another Wikilink to H.H. Stevens at this section of the article, or should we change the section to read something like:
Please let me know what you think about this, and if you think the removal of H.H. Stevens name from a federal building is an important update to the Komagata Maru incident. UpDater (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now that my assessment was wrong - the edit was in fact related to the article topic. My apologies for being to hasty. I will readd it to the article. Indefatigable (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Harry Stevens' Name Removal Off-Topic?