Talk:Hola massacre

Current Version

2010 Improvements

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

Comments on Earlier versions

Ammended

Yes I am the interfering individual who ammended this article!!

I rather nasty period in British history bu this article does highlight the danger of this period in history turning into an anti british tirad.

- Firstly deal with the colonial and British govts as two seperate entities, both thought differently and worked differently.

- I feel a distinction needs to be drawn between army police and homeguard units.

- I feel maybe the need to delete cowan being given an MBE in this article probalbly give him an article to himself and place it there, was an obvious dig at britian.

- always refer to the KIkuyu when dealing with this period in history, to say africans is to general and implies that all africans were treated in this way, which contary to popular beleif was not so. - include extracts from both sides in this case cowan has shown himself to be a very nasty creature, and the prisoner the victim, this makes it more proffessional and shows that you are not making it up.

- this is my first ammended article so slate it if you want, i just happen to have had a relative who was in Kenya at the time and happen to now some things others don't.

regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rory Marshall (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 June 2006.

what the hell

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).

A very tendentious article

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)

---

You just love to erase history you dont like. There is a detailed version here: http://www.ogiek.org/indepth/special-report-3.htm The other Wikipedia article you refer to is definitely distorted & pro British. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.33.106 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 January 2007.

revert war

User:ScottPAnderson has changed the numbers of involved persons very substantially, without changing the citation. The large scale nature of the changes to the article make it hard to discuss. I am going to revert again, please introduce new changes slowly, one at a time, after providing sources. Thanks. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we got off on a bad start. Ok the article is now fully cited, verifiable and NPOV. It now Quotes a broad array of sources (not just the 1959 Times newspaper as in the original).ScottPAnderson (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this article due to my membership in the Africa project. Unfortunately I'm not too familiar with the subject, but I will ask that you please reach consensus here for the content before making what seem to be controversial changes, and continually reverting other editors. If edit warring continues, the article may end up being fully protected so that only administrators can edit it. Please try to come to an agreement here. I notice that a discussion has started here, but clearly no consensus has been reached. If you need more opinions, you can try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, as well as Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Failing that, there is Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

I'm sorry that I can't be of too much help re: the content, as it's not something I know too much about. I do notice that British colonial rule has been changed to British Colonial Invasion of Kenya; this is not necessarily neutral, whatever your feelings on the subject. This is one reason that I think it may be worth contacting the Military History project as they will have experience in writing articles about this era and similarly sensitive topics. Please stop edit warring though, it's just more disruptive for both readers and other editors.--BelovedFreak 10:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi all,

The 2010 changes are well referenced from *high quality sources*... and all the sources are listed for verification. What exactly is the issue? Is there a limit to the amount of changes that can be made by one person?:-(
ScottPAnderson (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My reversion

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)

Confusion

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)

Alleged hastening

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) Ghana and the Sudan became independent in 1957 and 1956. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.51.100 (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Most parts of Ireland became independent in 1922, in effect, and legally in the 1940's. This was before 1959. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.254.83 (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hola massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Galole and Hola

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)

Problem with Footnote 5

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)