Talk:North Sentinel Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:INDIA Banner/Andaman and Nicobar Islands workgroup Addition[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Andaman and Nicobar Islands workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Andaman and Nicobar Islands or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 05:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

M.V. Primrose wreck location.[edit]

AFAIKS the location is...longitude=92.21251567730313, latitude=11.59355821041891 I used the photos of the crew rescue at http://www.eternalidol.com/?p=8593 to confirm what I see with Google Earth. http://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=North_Sentinel_Island:M.V._Primrose&params=11_35_36_N_92_12_45_E_type:wreck Fromthehill (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I got two photograph in my photo album of “salvage” in my website and also in my facebook. I was employed on board MT.MISSISIPPI, a salvage Tug, as a chief officer, with a Dutch Master and Thais + Phillipino crew, owned by Smit International BV, from my log-book shown that on 3rd of August 1981, while on stationed at Ao Tub-lamu, Phang-nga province Thailand, at midnight, we heard the signal SOS from mv.Primrose aground at North Sentinel Island and get ready to sail. I myself took the helm as per Dutch’s rule bound to N.Sentinel Island, after 410 N.miles, on early morning of 5th August 1981, and found mv.Primrose was in the lagoon, and we could not send the line because it was the reef. You can see the photograph, while communicated by VHF, the ship requested to run from the ship as soon as possible because the inhabitants was building the boat by log-wood and fired the stone by wooden gun to the ship, and they are ugly and hungry to fight, and of course we cannot do any things too much because cannot go by rubber-boat, until an Indian warship was seen in the pictures, came to the ground for assistant and the naval officers told us that they will use the helicopter to pick up those crew. Mississippi was standby there until 21st August 1981,and returned to our base at Penang, Malaysia. I learned later that, later after Cyclone season our Smit Salvage had work for take her out,and Primrose been scrapped not too long times ago. I have TWO photographs on that date,and will try to post to you on somewhere which if find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omccthailand (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taluk[edit]

What taluk?--Kaiyr (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Port Blair Tehsil.Goustien (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Indian Ocean Island[edit]

The two articles are about the same island. This one may have useful details for the other one, so this is in lieu of A10 speedy deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted Indian Ocean Island per A10. A redirect or merge seemed inappropriate, as I can find no evidence that the title has ever been used as an alternative name of North Sentinel. In addition, most of the sources cited in that article appeared to be unreliable, and even the reliably sourced information was duplicative or trivial. If anyone thinks that there may have been usable information there, a request on my talk page will get the deleted article userfied for you. Deor (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has this island has settlements?[edit]

--46.130.139.84 (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong island in maps[edit]

The map links redirect to the South Sentinel Island — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:46:378F:1:557E:6CEF:2B08:913F (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two more wrecks[edit]

Interestingly, there are two more wrecks visible on the southern coast of the island: 11°31'14.40"N 92°13'23.57"E. Satellite-Imagery taken in 2009 and 2011 suggests that these wrecks appeared within this timeframe which also makes it impossible that these wrecks have any connection to the 2006 incident. Has anybody got information on these ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C36:8300:64BB:8D25:8216:6699 (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to get to the bottom of this, perhaps the Andaman and Nicobar newspapers have information. Otherwise, maybe Lloyds of London (Lloyds List) or another maritime authority? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Political status[edit]

User:Filpro- instead of reverting without explanation (deeply offensive and unconstructive) and removing references with no explanation (vandalism), can you clarify how political status is not encyclopedic? You don't think this is going to help readers understand the subject? Wikipedia is not the place to battle for India's territorial sovereignty- which isn't even disputed. Ribbet32 (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that these "scholars" are referring to the political status of the island and not the social status of these people as "autonomous" and "independent"? Until we get more people to pitch in on the issue, it's best that it isn't included. Filpro (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"these people" - charming attitude. The Sentinelese are the only ones inhabiting the territory. Also, please don't put "scholars" in quotes. I wouldn't have put that in there if I hadn't checked the sources. And please don't post on my talk page again. Keep the discussion of the article on this talk page. Ribbet32 (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing offensive by the using the term "these people" in the context that was used. Don't go looking for trouble where none exists.50.111.51.207 (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bizarre argument. The Indian government could change their view tomorrow and no one on the planet could interfere or obstruct that, legally or in any other way. The island is firmly and completely under Indian sovereignty. Even more, it is LESS autonomous than other parts of India, as A&N Islands are legally a Union Territory and not a State. It is under direct Union Government rule. Indian states have the right to tell the Union government to take a hike on certain areas (guaranteed by the Constitution), but ANI has no such right. By your definition, any protected zone where access is administratively limited (e.g. one person manning a nuclear waste site) is a sovereign entity. Your assertion is WP:OR or, at best, WP:SYNTH. From Sovereignty - Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. Supreme authority over this island is unquestionably with the Indian government. --Hunnjazal (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What might happen tomorrow via speculation has no basis for this article. These islands and these people are under India's protection, which has stated by law they consider them a sovereign nation. Their role is basically to keep people away, and to render assistance if they can in case of natural disasters.50.111.51.207 (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply incorrect and definitely amounts to WP:OR when used as a basis to edit an article. Please share credible references that prove your assertion that "these people are under India's protection, which has stated by law they consider them a sovereign nation." Where exactly in Indian law are they considered a sovereign nation? This is just blatantly untrue. --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have received no response to this in 1.5 years. I am going to delete this sovereignity reference. We can bring it back if you can substantiate your assertion that India "has stated by law they consider them a sovereign nation." (This is nonsense, so I don't think you can). --Hunnjazal (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, what India says is completely irrelevant there. The Sentinelese control North Sentinel Island, without interference from the Indian government, thus are a sovereign nation. This is what the word mean, as says the definition you quoted. The feasibility of an invasion is also completely irrelevant, as i the manner in which India organize its legal system. I don't see how that needs any arguing. I anything, a totally isolated tribe is the most straightforward case of sovereignty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.193.107 (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha Navy[edit]

This is really ridiculous. If I delete a section claiming that Napoleon had base in Antarctica would I need to present a source denying that? How would I even be able to produce a source saying that "Napoleon didn’t travel to Antarctica” The onus is on the claimant to provide a reliable source, which it doesn't. Anyone with cursory knowledge of Maratha navy would know it didn’t and reliably couldn’t have travelled to Andaman Islands. It was a COASTAL force not a deep water navy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.187.146 (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they could have - the aborigines of these islands got there in craft far, far, far smaller and more primitive than the Maratha navy had. The point is, are there reliable sources (scholarly research) that states whether or not they did. (Have a peek at Kon-Tiki some time.)50.111.51.207 (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@27.56.187.146, thanks for bringing your concerns to the talk page. The problem is, you see, that atm the section you deleted is sourced. That means that it is verifiable information. Now, how reliable that source is is a different discussion (although equally important). But in the meantime, have a look at WP:VNT- it might make surprising reading, but it kind of sums up the situation right now! Incidentally, if what you say is true re. a coastal fleet, then we should look at the source currently in use, as your argument is not unconvincing. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry since when is a tourism related e-portal a reliable source? And the other "source" is an local ecards site. I do not believe they would meet wikipedia's definition of "reliable source". This is nothing but crass and petty nationalistism. Good luck encouraging that. BTW you could read wikipedia article on the Maratha navy "However, one of the main weakness of the navy of the Mahrattas was that, it was primarily a coastal water navy as against a blue water navy. Their ships were dependent of land/sea breezes.The Marathas did not build ships large enough to engage the British out at sea far off from the coastal waters.[13]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.187.146 (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources
General discussion of the MH: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
And mentioning the MN in Andaman Ils specifically, [6], [7], [8], [9]. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ M. R. Kantak (1 January 1993). The First Anglo-Maratha War, 1774-1783: A Military Study of Major Battles. Popular Prakashan. pp. 20–. ISBN 978-81-7154-696-1.
  2. ^ M. S. Naravane (1 January 2006). Battles of the Honourable East India Company: Making of the Raj. APH Publishing. pp. 99–. ISBN 978-81-313-0034-3.
  3. ^ Kaushik Roy (30 March 2011). War, Culture and Society in Early Modern South Asia, 1740-1849. Taylor & Francis. pp. 23–. ISBN 978-1-136-79087-4.
  4. ^ Indian Navy (1989). Maritime Heritage of India. Notion Press. pp. 164–. ISBN 978-93-5206-917-0.
  5. ^ Satyindra Singh (1992). Blueprint to Bluewater, the Indian Navy, 1951-65. Lancer Publishers. pp. 16–. ISBN 978-81-7062-148-5.
  6. ^ Dr. Sidda Goud; Manisha Mookherjee (28 February 2015). CHINA IN INDIAN OCEAN REGION. Allied Publishers. pp. 143–. ISBN 978-81-8424-977-4.
  7. ^ Prakash Chander (1 January 2003). India: Past and Present. APH Publishing. pp. 236–. ISBN 978-81-7648-455-8.
  8. ^ Dr Saji Abraham (1 August 2015). China's Role in the Indian Ocean: Its Implications on India's National Security. Vij Books India Pvt Ltd. pp. 135–. ISBN 978-93-84464-71-4.
  9. ^ Bharat Verma (1 September 2013). Indian Defence Review 28. 1: Jan-Mar 2013. Lancer Publishers. pp. 81–. ISBN 978-81-7062-183-6.
Wow! Kudos to you. You came up with a list of books in less time than it took me to read though them. All the accounts from books by reliable publisher endorse point that Maratha Navy was a COASTAL FORCE that confined it's operations to the western India, and only a part of western coast around Konkan. All the the books that specifically talk about MN in the isles are Indian publishers propagating, as I said, crass petty nationalism.They present no evidence and provide no source. A cursory look a Maratha area of operations, their ships, and location of the islands on the map would show that for them to have base in Andaman and Nicobars, would be logistically improbable. A one line statement saying that "Angre made the Islands part of India" is complete non-sense not a evidence. It wouldn't meet Wikipedia's or anyone's definition of reliable source. But you win. Good luck propagating myths and legends. Well done! but I wouldn't be able to respond too frequently. I have a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.187.146 (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on North Sentinel Island. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2018[edit]

Addition about the Missionary that was killed by a tribe in the island this week. Hermano El Grande (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 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. DBigXrayᗙ 20:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Why did someone remove the references???101.178.163.19 (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been removed. I added {{reflist-talk}} to the Maratha Navy section so that they appear there where they are being discussed. -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was talking about the people that were attacked on sentinel island when they attempted to communicate with the natives. And someone deleted the references at 01.33 on 22nd November. 101.178.163.19 (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear what reference or content you are talking about. Clarify it first then we can talk about it. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, someone removed a reference. I dont know why. 101.178.163.19 (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are referring to this change. But the section has been rewritten with better references. Goustien (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there are references, thank you.101.178.163.19 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture with Maurice Vidal Portman[edit]

Violent, really??

If they are Violent people, then how come they are all posing for photographs with this man..

Are you sure this is a correct picture, because they dont look Indian at all, but Aboriginal Australian or African.. 101.178.163.19 (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

they aren't Sentinelese to be precise. The people in the picture are other Andaman tribes that are comparatively more friendly. And yes, they have migrated from africa, thousands of years ago, hence the appearance. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami[edit]

Does anyone wanna talk about the tsunami? 101.178.163.19 (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Geography and North_Sentinel_Island#Modern_period already talk about it. what addition are you suggesting ? --DBigXrayᗙ 05:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error fix[edit]

"Entering the region with a 5 mile radius from teh island is illegal as per Indian law." is written in the article, spelling "the" as "teh", and using a faulty sentence structure. This should be changed to "Entering a region of 5 miles from the island is illegal per Indian law.".

 Already done @OliviaEljest: the edit was already completed see here. Also according to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Polo's alleged description[edit]

According to the article:

In the 13th Century, explorer Marco Polo described the island's residents as "most violent and cruel generation" and indicated that they were cannibals.

The source cited in the Wikipedia article is a 22-Nov-2018 Times of India article titled "Ten Indian families world knows nothing about". A tabloid-ish article like this is hardly a reliable source. Such lists on ToI often source content from other sources (including Wikipedia) without any serious verification.

The oldest source that I can find for Marco Polo's alleged description of the North Sentinel island is a 2006 article in The Guardian:

Describing the Sentinelese tribe of India's remote Andaman islands in his travel journals, the notoriously trite 13th-century explorer Marco Polo wrote: 'They are a most violent and cruel generation who seem to eat everybody they catch.'

However, The Travels of Marco Polo does not describe the residents of the North Sentinel island in particular, and there is no evidence that Marco Polo every visited this particular island. The book only talks about Andaman ("Angamanain") in general, which it describes as "a very large island" (obviously not the North Sentinel Island). From Concerning the Island of Angamanain:

Angamanain is a very large Island. The people are without a king and are Idolaters, and no better than wild beasts. And I assure you all the men of this Island of Angamanain have heads like dogs, and teeth and eyes likewise; in fact, in the face they are all just like big mastiff dogs! They have a quantity of spices; but they are a most cruel generation, and eat everybody that they can catch, if not of their own race. They live on flesh and rice and milk, and have fruits different from any of ours."

The author of The Guardian article, Dan McDougall, is not an authority on Marco Polo, the Age of Exploration, or the islands: as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, his claim should not be regarded as reliable. All subsequent sources seem to have repeated this claim without any verification whatsoever. utcursch | talk 16:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He never visited the island and his opinions were based on hearsay - see this discussion. I think it should be deleted, especially as it got deleted from the Sentinelese article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I've removed all mention of Marco Polo. TSP (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Gov’t Policy[edit]

A concern often expressed is that this savage tribe might catch some fatal disease or other if there is outside contact. Has there been any discussion by India about immunizing these people who are supposedly under their protection? 73.189.13.57 (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It shows you are are not aware of the situation.
  1. They are not willing to talk with the outside world, let alone be vaccinated.
  2. Talking to people in outside world will expose them to pathogens and then all of them may die, so there will not be anyone left to vaccinate.
  3. see the fate of other tribes in these articles at Category:Ethnic groups in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands--DBigXrayᗙ 09:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife and edible vegetation[edit]

Is it known from aerial observation or reports from the British what wildlife exists on the island that the inhalants might eat in addition to fish and what edible vegetation exists there? It seems unlikely that they originally developed bows and arrows for defense purposes, or at least for defense from outsiders as such a need was presumably rare for many years. Food supply considerations would seem to have come first.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date[edit]

Hi. Just need to clarify. According to this source, T Pandit visited the islands in 1967. And it was a friendly visit. But the Wikipedia article states 1991. Which one is correct? https://www.boredpanda.com/north-sentinel-island-untouched-modern-civilization-people/ 180.150.115.31 (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1967 was the year T Pandit visited the island and made friendly contact with the sentinelese. In 1991 friendly contact was made by the 27-year old female anthropologist Madhumala Chattopadhyay. https://www.demilked.com/contacting-sentinelese-madhumala-chattopadhyay/ (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.88.73 (talk) [reply]

Chau murder charge vs. non-prosecution policy?[edit]

At John Allen Chau § Aftermath ¶4, it says "In response to Chau's death, M. Sasikumar of the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies questioned the legal charge of murder ...", cited to [1], which does indeed say "... Andaman police have registered a criminal case for murder against the unknown tribesmen." This seems contradictory to ¶3 of this article's lead "... the Indian government will not prosecute the Sentinelese for killing people in the event that an outsider ventures ashore." —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Sentinel_Island&oldid=1214141730"