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)

John Allen Chau, a male native of Scottsboro, Alabama, was killed by Uncontacted Sentinelese people, after illegally travelling to North Sentinel Island and a failed attempt to introduce them with Christianity. His body was there in the inside world around the country of India. 142.113.186.38 (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2025 (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)

Requested move 9 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

---

John Allen Chau → Killing of John Allen Chau – Per WP:BIO1E and WP:DEATHS, Chau is primarily known for his killing. मल्ल (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is some previous discussion on this, see above on the talkpage. Although his misguided foray to North Sentinel Island resulted in his killing, this is not WP:BIO1E. 162 etc. (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think coverage in RS focuses as much on what Chau was trying to do before he was killed as on the immediate circumstances of his killing. I think changing the focus of the article would not improve it. Srnec (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biracial?

Was he biracial person or not? @मल्ल 182.253.54.105 (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Location and date of photo?

Chau is mainly notable for one event, I was wondering if the photo was from that one event? He was a missionary in several different places and times before his death. I am aware his diary was recovered or otherwise left on the boat and recovered. I was just wondering if the photo in the infobox was a selfie taken on North Sentinel Island? and the camera/phone was recovered like his diary, (or he somehow posted online, not sure if possible from the island?). Or is the photo of him from another time and place long before he went to North Sentinel Island? if there are no photos of him on his last trip, an earlier one is obviously better than none. I read the photo is not free, it is under copyright so it's use in other articles would be limited or not allowed. But I imagine close up photos of the island are rare, so it would be interesting to know if the image is or is not of the island. Plus it is common for a person's photo to state the time and place regardless. It is common for people that are notable for one event to have a photo of them, during or shortly before/after said event. People may be unintentionally misled and have the wrong impression that the photo is of the island when it is not.  Carlwev  05:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

NPOV: "murdered"

I am going to change the word "murdered" in the introduction to "killed", since 1) that is the neutral term, 2) the cited secondary sources all use "killed" not "murdered", and 3) none of the cited sources appear to suggest that he was murdered (aside from a note that the Andaman police opening a murder investigation, but the opening of an investigation obviously does not imply that anyone was murdered).

The article's note concerning the murder investigation should probably also be updated with a clarification that Indian authorities do not prosecute the Sentinelese. Torbjörn Björkman (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Allen Chau/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: OpalYosutebito (talk · contribs) 19:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Johnson524 (talk · contribs) 10:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Initial comments

Hello! I'll get to reviewing this article in the coming days, cheers! 🙂 Johnson524 10:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. A user reverted my edits and I'm working to resolve the situation with them. Could the review wait a while? - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely! Thank you for letting me know, I won't review until you're comfortable with the state of the article. Johnson524 22:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we should be good. I removed some redundancies and merged some smaller paragraphs. Just so everyone's on the same page here, I didn't include reactions to his death in the lead just yet, since I'd like some guidance on how to neutrally summarize them. As of right now, the user hasn't pinged me back... :( - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 00:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Waited about a week and half to mark as stable. It might look like a lot, but there's nothing too major to do before I believe this article passes. Thank you again for all your work! Johnson524 11:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome! Also, I've started to expand the lead again, but it's late in my area. I added potential prose in hidden text, since I'm still not sure how to word the responses to his death neutrally... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 04:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See Prose section below.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Truly above-and-beyond by archiving almost all 40 and even including author wikilinks like with Ed Stetzer!

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   See Spot check section below.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Waited a little bit of time for things to cool down, looks good now!

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The infobox image of Chau needs to include Alt text. Additionally (and this is completely optional) I think an image of the island like this one would look good in the "Contact with Sentinelese and death" section as there's only the one image on the page now. This might interfere with the infobox though, so I'll leave that up to you.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Prose

Lead

• Remove citations 2 and 3 (as they're cited later in the body) and move citation 1 to it's respective place in the body. Per MOS:LEADCITE, noncontroversial information described and cited in the body shouldn't be cited in the lead/infobox.  Done
• Lead needs to be expanded to include information from the early life and aftermath sections so that each section of the page is represented. (Up to you, but I can make an example if you'd like! 😀)
• Before making his way to → Before travelling to  Done
• Wikilink boot camp with Training camp  Done
• by evangelical organization All Nations → by the evangelical organization All Nations  Done
• missonary staff, who → missonary staff who  Done

Early life

• in Scottsboro, Alabama, as the third → in Scottsboro, Alabama.^[citation] He was the third  Done
• organizer for Chi Alpha → organizer for the Christian student organization Chi Alpha  Done
• Add a citation after Vancouver Christian High School.  Done
• attended Chinese Evangelical Church → attended the Chinese Evangelical Church  Done
• He attended Oral Roberts University → He later attended Oral Roberts University  Done

Contact with Sentinelese and death

• The second and third sentences could use a citation at the end.  Done
• He first traveled to the Andaman Islands in 2015 and 2016 as part of his missionary trips, but he did not → As part of these trips, Chau traveled to the Andaman Islands in 2015 and 2016, but did not  Done
• "boot camp" → "boot camp"-style (per the lead, also add it's wikilink)  Done
• Chau traveled to and established his residence → Chau established a residence  Done
• In August 2018, → Earlier that year in August, (This one is more optional, but it feels like the dates read out of order if left as-is)  Done
• the Indian Home Ministry had removed → the Indian Ministry Of Home Affairs removed and add wikilink to Ministry of Home Affairs (India)  Done
• Remove (RAP), no need if the abbreviation isn't later used.  Done
• Chau embarked on a journey to → Chau began his travel to  Done
• which he thought could be → which he referred to as  Done
• with the aim of contacting and living among the Sentinelese. → with the aim of contacting and living among the Sentinelese in an attempt to convert them to Christianity.  Done
• In preparation for the trip, he was → In preparation for the trip he was  Done
• he attempted to communicate with the islanders and to offer gifts, but he retreated → he attempted to communicate with the Sentinelese and offer gifts, but retreated  Done
• However the citations are rearranged after these changes, be sure they're listed in numerical order (i.e. [26][20][2] → [2][20][26])  Done
• (Further prose corrections in this section are described in the Spot check section below)

Aftermath

• residing in the capital city → residing in the city  Done
• Remove the sentence Despite efforts by Indian authorities, which involved a tense encounter with the tribe, Chau's body was not recovered. as all of this information is repeated in the new-next sentences (see the Spot check section below)  Done
• on the missionary community for inculcating an extreme Christian vision in Chau. → on the missionary community for instilling what he believed was an extreme Christian vision in Chau.  Done
• The sentence with Sasikumar's quote needs a citation at the end of it.  Done
• Same goes for the first sentence with Schönhuth's remarks.  Done
• Is there a reason why Reflist set at 25em instead of the normal 30em?  Done

Spot check

Original research

Spot checked: 1   2   3   6 his visit to South Africa is not described as a mission trip, removed 7   23 The "–700" is not included in the citation, removed 30   31 (now 24)  Used also to replace what was previously ref 24 from the New York Post, which is not preferred per WP:NYPOST.

Plagiarism

Mostly false positives after running the page through Copyvio as usual with two notable exceptions, the main one being from The Mirror UK which returned a 47.1% match. The citation isn't even currently on the page and I wouldn't have been shocked if The Mirror had plagiarized Wikipedia when writing their piece, but their article is from February 2019 when the Wikipedia article wasn't started until March 2020, so I'm going to take the plagiarism threat at face value.

• From The Mirror UK
  • On another visit, Chau recorded that the islanders reacted to him with a mixture of amusement, bewilderment, and hostility. He attempted to sing worship songs to them, and spoke to them in Xhosa, after which they often fell silent. → On another visit, Chau remarked the Sentinelese had again acted hostile, but in addition had shown amusement and curiosity.^[citation] From his canoe he sung them Christian hymns and tried communicating in Xhosa, after which, they often became quiet.^[citation]  Done
    • Please still implement the part: "and tried communicating in Xhosa, after which, they often became quiet." This still shows up on copyvio. Johnson524 17:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Eventually, according to Chau's last letter, when he tried to hand over fish and gifts, a boy shot a metal-headed arrow that pierced the Bible he was holding in front of his chest, after which he retreated again. → In what would be his last letter, Chau described a later attempt at contact, during which, a Sentinelese boy had fired a metal-tipped arrow which pieced the Bible he was holding against his chest, forcing him to withdraw once more.^[citation]  Done
  • On his final visit, on November 17, Chau instructed the fishermen to abandon him; afterwards, he was shot by the tribesmen's arrows, killing him. The fishermen later saw the islanders dragging Chau's body, which they saw the Sentinelese bury on the shore the following day. → On what became his final visit on November 17, Chau told the fishermen once again bringing him to the island to leave without him.^[citation] Sometime during this visit, Chau was fatally struck Sentinelese arrows.^[citation] The fishermen later reported seeing the Sentinelese drag his body and, the next day, bury him on the beach.^[citation]  Done
  • Indian officials made several attempts to recover the body but eventually abandoned those efforts. An anthropologist involved in the case told The Guardian that the risk of a dangerous clash between investigators and the islanders was too great to justify any further attempts. → Indian authorities tried several times to retrieve Chau's body but were ultimately unsuccessful.^[citation] An anthropologist involved in the attempts remarked the likelihood of a violent confrontation between recovery teams and the Sentinelese was too high to justify continuing the effort.^[citation]  Done
    • You didn't fix this last sentence at all, please do that. Johnson524 17:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 18:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• From The Guardian
  • An anthropologist involved in the case told the Guardian that the risk → [fixed in the corrections above]  Done

Final comments

@OpalYosutebito: Sorry for the bit of delay! There's just a few more things that weren't fully fixed above that are needed before the final spot check (See the two new comments in the plagiarism section, and add alt text to the infobox image). Also, and this one could be significant, but can you find a source other than The Mirror? At least for a Good Article, I think it'd extremely beneficial to use a non-tabloid paper for these claims if possible (see WP:DAILYMIRROR). Once these are done we we'll be almost gtg 🙂 Johnson524 17:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I'm at my computer right now :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 17:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

A lot of the claims by the Mirror were in the New York Times article - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 18:14, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito: Thank you for your time and patience! The spot check came back without major issue, so I think we're GTG 😀 I'll do the little remaining clean-up still needed as to not take up more of your time (i.e. there are some categories that aren't supported in the body that should be removed, etc.) And, while not required as part of the GA review process, I added two more visual aids to the article, expanded the lead, and split analysis and legacy into its own section as per the format of other articles. What do you think? Congrats on another GA and God bless! Johnson524 08:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV concerns?

Hi, @Praxidicae. I noticed that you reverted my edits to the page, even though I also tried to expand the lead and flesh out some sources. So we're on the same page here, could you please tell me which parts I added were specifically lacking in terms of neutrality? Thanks! - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 20:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, I didn't intend to remove any citations from the article itself, just the lead. It's important to know that sources are typically not allowed in the lead unless if they're repeated in the body and they add evidence to a rather contentious claim. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

"Satan's Last Stronghold" claims

At various times this page has said that John Allen Chau believed that the island was "Satan's last stronghold" on earth, and there are media sources claiming that as well. However I do not think that claim is accurate, based on our best sources.

NPR has a page, linked below, where you can read Chau's diary. On page 10, he says "Lord is this island Satan's last stronghold where none have heard or even had a chance to hear your name?"

NPR Source

He is clearly expressing uncertainty and I think it is inaccurate to say that he thought the island was Satan's last stronghold.

This is a significant point of discussion because in many Evangelical fundamentalist Christian theologies, it is believed that Jesus will not return to earth until every "people group" or culture has had a chance to hear the gospel. Motorizedtrees (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito, thank you for your many quality edits on this page! I reverted your edit on this topic, please let me know your thoughts. Motorizedtrees (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito , thank you for your many quality edits on this page! I reverted your edit on this topic, please let me know your thoughts. Motorizedtrees (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Instead of saying "believing it could be "Satan's last stronghold on Earth"", I believe "asking in his diary if it was "Satan's last stronghold on Earth"" would be a bit clearer. What do you think, @Johnson524? - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Or what about asking in his diary if it could be "Satan's last stronghold on Earth" instead? (PS I might not respond to messages right away) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 22:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito, option two seems closest to the source material so I'd go with that one. Good catch! Johnson524 02:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Done! :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 03:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Good edit, thanks! Motorizedtrees (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

You're so welcome! :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 14:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that John Allen Chau illegally travelled to North Sentinel Island in an attempt to convert the Sentinelese to Christianity? Source: Conroy, J. Oliver (February 3, 2019). "The life and death of John Chau, the man who tried to convert his killers". The Guardian. Archived from the original on June 18, 2020. Retrieved July 1, 2020.
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by OpalYosutebito (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

- OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 13:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article was promoted to GA status and is long enough. QPQ not required. The hook fact is interesting and is mostly verified by the provided source (the "illegally" part can be verified with this source from the article). I didn't find any copyvio (Earwig flags [4] which is WP:BACKWARDSCOPY), and the article appears to be adequately sourced. My only concern is this source, which does not appear to be an RS as far as I can see? But it doesn't seem necessary to the article anyway, so if that is removed then this should be good to go. MCE89 (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

MCE89 does the article look better now, or should I also remove "illegally" from the DYK hook? - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 13:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me! The "illegally" should be fine as it's mentioned in the article and verified by the ABC source, I was just flagging for the promoter that I'd verified it since it's not mentioned in the Guardian article within the nom. MCE89 (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Category 2018 murders...or deaths?

Myself and one or two other editors have kept the text of the article stating Chau was "killed" not murdered. Everyone agrees he was killed, and it is a neutral term and includes but is not limited to official murder. To say he was murdered some will say he was some will say he wasn't, could be said to be a POV, articles details there was a murder investigation suggested or started no matter how small, and that in general the Indian government in this case and others do not plan to investigate or prosecute the Sentinelese for killings and other incidents on the island. That being said should we alter the category to the broader deaths in 2018 as opposed to murders in 2018 to match? deaths is the more neutral term and cannot be argued with. We do not know the islanders culture and rules. At a push one could guess the Sentinelese were protecting themselves or island could view landings as an act of aggression and killing in this way is allowed and justified to them in their and not murder, if they have that concept at all, but it would be a guess. Killing or death remains the more neutral and correct term and by extension category? no? thoughts?? The death was still an act of aggression so I'm willing to listen to arguments.  Carlwev  10:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)