Talk:Lord's Resistance Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Templates

Featured article star Lord's Resistance Army is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Lord's Resistance Army appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 26, 2005.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
More information...
P:WAR This article has been selected for the War Portal featured article queue.
Related task forces...
 African military history task force
Peer review Lord's Resistance Army has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Lord's Resistance Army as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Swedish language Wikipedia.
Maintained The following users are active in maintaining and improving this article. If you have questions regarding verification and sources, they may be able to help:
BanyanTree
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.


[edit] Mirrored site

Take a look at this page: [1].

It appears that the contents are identical to the Wikipedia article. Is it common for The Free Dictionary and Wikipedia to share articles?

Have a look at the bottom of the freedictionary page and you'll see that they take much of their content from Wikipedia, as they are allowed to do under the GFDL. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. --ALargeElk | Talk 14:58, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Map

This article could use a map. If someone could provide me with some sources, I could draw one. — mark ✎ 12:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and you're a saint if you can make one! I'm not sure what you would find useful, but I think the two maps at the end of this report of ethnic groups and districts affected by the fighting are really useful. Ideally, the border region of Sudan would be included as well, but I don't think I've ever seen a map that includes both. Let me know if there's some specific info that I can help you find. BanyanTree 16:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Those are great. Expect a beta version soon! As a matter of fact, I would like Wikipedia to have things that are not included elsewhere :), so if you have sources that show the border region of Sudan and if you can explain what you want exactly, I could combine the two. — mark ✎ 16:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I just found an online resource for the maps in the report here. There's an ethnographic map of Sudan at the bottom of this page that shows the area of the Sudanese Acholi that might be useful. A map of the south more on the scale of the Uganda maps here doesn't have the LRA bases, but if their general former location could indicated in the Eastern Equatoria along Uganda's northeast border in a "Here be dragons" sort of way it might be useful to readers. To give you an idea, some of the LRA's other bases were near the towns of Lubanga-tek, Bin-Rwot, Lala, Nisitu and N. The "red line" which Sudan has set as the limit to UPDF advances is the Juba-Nisitu-Torit highway, though Sudan waived the limit in July 2004 to allow the UPDF to attack a new base at Bileniang, about 8km east of Juba, 200km north of the Ugandan border. The seven civilians killed recently were also near Juba. You can put as much detail in as you desire, though the Sudanese Acholi and "LRA rear forces" just east of Juba would probably be most useful. BanyanTree 18:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First rough draft can be found here. Some minor layout things are to be fixed, of course. Please provide me with comments and suggestions, and don't hesitate to point out any problems. This is the first map I draw of a situation like this; tell me if I'm off track entirely or if I'm doing right. — mark ✎ 00:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oooooh! Wow, I was expecting a couple lines and text on a rough map, not a multimedia presentation. That's incredible. OK, comments:
      • "Kenya" is mispelled
      • Iteso and Langi are the "individual" conjugations of the root words Teso and Lango. So "An Iteso lives in Teso." The big all-caps titles are thus not needed.
      • The small all-caps titles are district names
      • Is it just me or does the dotted line territory in Acholi look odd? My suggestion, having no experience with map making, is to draw the dotted line around the Acholi territory in Uganda, and list it as such in the legend and drop the diagonal Acholi titles OR get rid of the dotted line altogether. Whatever you feel is best and easiest.
      • The yellow areas should be listed as "conflict-affected districts"
      • I'm not sure my previous suggestion about including a mention of LRA locations in Sudan was a good one taking a look at the map. I can include a line about LRA near Juba in the text so people can look on the map without fixing anything on the graphic.
Thanks for all of your work. It'll be great in the article. BanyanTree 04:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've reworked it according to your suggestions: here it is. The dotted line was there to indicate the boundary of the Acholi territory in Sudan — but I agree that it didn't look good. Since it was based on a 1980 or so ethnolinguistic map I left it out anyway. I enlarged the city names a bit, added the names of the lakes and adjusted some lines to make it look better. Any more comments? Could you suggest a sensible filename? — mark ✎ 11:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I stand in awe of the wonder that is mapmaking. I'm all out of suggestions. I'm not sure about how sensible my own filenames are (they tend to be sentences), but "Ugandan districts affected by Lords Resistance Army" or something similar would cover all bases I think. This will really help the article out. BanyanTree 16:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's a very sensible filename. Here it is! I'm not sure where to put it in the article, I'll leave that to you :). Since it contains a lot of detail, I guess readers will have to click on the image for a bigger version to read most city names — unless you want an image that is 500px wide. Another solution might be to get rid of most irrelevant cities, and to enlarge the remaining ones. — mark ✎ 16:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...which I have done recently (lose your browser cache if you didn't see the slightly improved version). — mark ✎ 23:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again. 01:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article?

I saw this article linked in the front page, and it is very nice, detailed, informative, and all-around a good read. It's amazing the depth of knowledge it has, and I think it would make a great candidate for showing off the best of Wikipedia's work. Unfortunately, I don't know how to start the process. =/ Mtrisk 02:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. Apparently people are getting the same idea. User:Mark Dingemanse has just put the article up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review#Lord's Resistance Army so people can offer critiques and point out problems. Once peer review has finished, it should make its way over to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for another gauntlet of criticism. Please offer any suggestions on how to make the article better at Wikipedia:Peer review for now. Cheers, BanyanTree 03:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review Process

I've only helped a little, but I hope it's a start. I changed the wording of the opening sentence around, changed the "Ugandan government" to link to Politics of Uganda, fixed some grammar, and changed the heading "Chronological List of Reported Incidents" to "Recent incidents involving the LRA," it's more descriptive. Mtrisk 03:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "Ten Commandments" reference is almost certainly incorrect. While often quoted in the media (I guess because it makes for interesting reading), it seems to come from a line in an Amnesty Internation report published in 1997: "Breaking God's Commandments", which states "Neither the Holy Spirit Movement of Alice Lakwena nor the LRA of Joseph Kony have presented political programs that are readily understandable to outsiders, beyond calling for Uganda to be ruled according to the biblical Ten Commandments". HSM certainly presented political programs, for example Alice (or Lakwena) gave an interview with reporters just before the battle at Jinja where she said that they were "fighting to depose the Museveni government and unite all the people in Uganda" (source: Behrend). Since the first half of the statement is wrong, the second half probably is too. (Amnesty do not know who their source was, or whether the source for the first half of the statement is the same as the second, or whether the second half refers to HSM or the LRA). The 'Ten Commandments' stuff is probably confusion with HSM's 'Holy Spirit Safety Rules'. The article should probably reflect some of this, but exactly how much needs to go into it is difficult to answer. Alun Harford 22:48, 14 Jan 2005

Yeah, I've been cautiously changing the intro. The "based on the Ten Commandments" line found in nearly every news article about the LRA is a pet peeve. The 1997 Amnesty report appears to oversimplify the syncretism of Acholi religion, e.g. the melding of spirit medium and Christian prophet in the figure of the nebbi, as opposed to the ajwaka. And I don't agree that the HSM had a clear political program. The UPDA was the only Acholi rebel group that was clearly led by people who thought in political rather than religious terms, which is why they realized that the insurgency was hopeless and negotiated a peace on favorable terms. An escaped abductee stated that Kony "always told us that he spoke with the angel who told him that he would one day be president of Uganda and the young people he has abducted and the children born in captivity would take over the country." (HRW), which appears to be about as political as the Auma quote above. Insane, but still vaguely political. I'm sure that the article has some of my personal bias on what is important and what is not, so additions by others to it and the related pages can only help. Cheers, BanyanTree 00:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand that "Lakwena Two" doesn't make a lot of sense in Lwo, and given that Kony left HSM when he got laughed out of the room by 'Lakwena' (source: Mike Ocan and Behrend) this seems like old (NRA?) propoganda to assosiate the popular HSM with the attrocities of the LRA. Alun Harford 22:48, 14 Jan 2005

It's very well might be an anachronism. The first source that I remember mentioning "Lakwena Part Two" is Allen, T. 1991. “Understanding Alice: Uganda’s Holy Spirit Movement in Context.” Africa 61 (3). I also vaguely recall it being mentioned in another more recent article, possibly Doom and Vlassenroot. Since the first reference is from 1991, when the LRA still had a decent amount of popular support (at least compared to post-1994), I don't know why the NRA would have used it as propaganda. However, Allen makes a couple of mistakes that are later mentioned and corrected by Behrend, and this appears to be the only work he published on the LRA, so I'm a little leery of his work. I have modified the relevant sentence in the article. Tell me what you think. BanyanTree

[edit] Dating and structure

I've read the article through and it has great material, including some brilliant maps. But I was really confused by the structure and the dating of the article. Its very difficult to understand the order of events and the inter-relationships. My honest opinion would be that something is wrong with the dating; but I might have been confused by the structure. :ChrisG 17:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Can you give me an example? The bit on the UN Security Council and ICC is slightly out of order since I figured that since they were both recent and thematically similar they should be grouped together (tell me if I'm wrong), but otherwise the dates in the section headers are supposed to focus what is admittedly a complex subject. BanyanTree 18:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By the way, do you think there's an issue with the structure/dating? I did a complete read through, which I haven't done in a while. The recent sections do get a bit choppier, and reference different times. For example the paragraph on estimated rebel strength has a bunch of dates. I'm just not sure how to make the chronology clearer, without turning it into a bulleted list with everything in strict chronological order. BanyanTree 18:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the structure or the dating (never had). I think it's OK this way. (Sorry for dragging your comments around). — mark ✎ 18:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Read through it again and this time it made sense. Must have been too tired. On a more constructive note I think you need a summary of the organisation as it now stands. I noticed some stuff on current numbers; but could do with a summary of current policy and practise in one combined section. :ChrisG 18:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh, good - I was getting a bit paranoid. I'll try to reform the second intro paragraph to give a better picture. Thanks, BanyanTree 20:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

I'd call the 'Other sources' section References. Or maybe make 'References' a main section, with 'Bibliography' and 'External links' as subsections. What do you think? — mark ✎ 09:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I still consider myself a newcomer, but isn't the term "references" used for the (rarely done) footnotes that direct to the bottom of the page, rather than externally? I may be completely wrong about this. Feel free to change stuff around to whatever seems most logical.
As I take it, 'References' are the sources (printed and online) referred to in the article and/or used in writing the article. 'Bibliography' can be the same, but can sometimes mean something like 'Further reading' (i.e. related things you should read that haven't necessarily been used in the article). I have never seen 'References' referring to footnotes. What you see mostly in academic works is a Notes section (footnotes/endnotes) followed by a References section (sources used). But I must admit that my own Wikipractice is not consistent either; compare Gbe languages and Force Dynamics. — mark ✎ 18:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
After browsing through Wikipedia:Cite sources, I think you're right. I'll go change it. BanyanTree 20:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looks good! — mark ✎ 21:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Recent incidents involving the LRA"

This section is sort of dangling on the rest of the article right now, I think it needs some work. What defines an incident involving the LRA? News coverage? Victims? Something else? At present, it's a little stubby — only two items, both dating from February 2004. If it's unstubbyfied (i.e. updated to include all recent events), will it add to the quality of the article? Or would it be so big that it would have to split off to List of recent incidents involving the LRA? In short, what is it's purpose? — mark ✎ 21:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you look at an older version of the article, the two incidents make up a significant part of its length. I assume that's from someone who read about the attacks, found the article, and added them in. When I inserted the historical sections, I threw the incidents into their own section as it didn't make sense to leave them in the intro section. Frankly, I always skip over it when I skim the article.
Since so many attacks are on isolated villages, I would be surprised if the majority had been documented. Acholipeace.org (which is incredibly badly structured) has some historical month-by-month accounts that are mind-blowing in illustrating how many raids, ambushes, abductions and attacks are carried out. Even an attempt to document them all would require a separate page. And I'm not sure that lists like "1 January: UPDF supply truck ambushed, three soldiers injured, 3 January: Village X looted, 6 civilians reported abducted but 4 released two days later" would add something significant that would be worth the effort of trying to find all that info. Even the Ugandan national newspapers put LRA attacks on inside pages because they are/were so commmon.
So the easy solution, as far as I can see, is to just add the incidents into the relevant section of the text body. What might be useful is to make a list of major incidents, using the "signal events" list in the Gersony PDF link as a baseline. Comments? BanyanTree 22:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See this and this for some recent AcholiPeace lists. And this is just one local NGO operating in the north. Like I said, mindblowing. Looking at these actually makes me thinks I'm not emphasizing the violence of the insurgency enough... BanyanTree 22:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Bad Things. I hadn't realized it was that violent. Comments: I think adding relevant incidents to the text body is the best way to do it — for the most part it's already done that way. I agree with you that a list of major incidents makes more sense than a list of recent incidents. — mark ✎ 01:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IDP map

Currently looking for a map of Uganda that includes all of the places mentioned in 'Prominent incidents', in order to create another map, marking the locations of those incidents (red stars or something). Or maybe you know a better purpose for yet another map; or maybe you think it's enough already; or that pictures would be better. (I tend to agree with that last one — I'm inclined to draw another map just because there's so much text, but some pictures would solve that problem as well). Let me hear your thoughts! — mark ✎ 19:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another map couldn't hurt, but I think we may be running into diminishing marginal returns at this point. The distances are so small that a rebel band can move from the Sudanese border to central Pader, for instance, in one day, so pointing out a couple locations in e.g. Kitgum district may give the false impression that the other regions are safe. What might be more useful, perhaps as a replacement for the "districts affected" map, would be a map with the number of displaced as a raw number and percentage of the total district population such as this one, possibly updated with more recent figures from September on the 87th page of this CAP. I'm definitely keeping my eyes open for pictures at this point. Otherwise, what do you think of putting the nitty-gritty details of attacks at the end of the article? I'm wary of getting into details of attacks in the middle of the article as they are so disturbing it may throw people's train of thought off, but that may just be my perception... -- BanyanTree 03:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, I agree with you there. I think keeping a list at the end is a good idea. As for the map, I'll look into it. Haven't got much time this week, so I shouldn't be working on these things — but I'm addicted... — mark ✎ 10:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can't find the right figures in the PDF referred to above. The map on page 87 reports the number of IDP's benefiting from relief food as of September 2004, and omits the number of IDPs in some districts that lack food assistance. I'll use the figures of the older map to draft a map, as they can easily be changed; from the filename I guess those are numbers from a year ago. — mark ✎ 13:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Draft, using the old figures: [2]. Comments? — mark ✎ 14:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It appears that Adjumani district, northwest of Gulu, also counts as "affected" but has no IDP count. Perhaps both Adjumani and Apac could be "affected with unreported IDP populations" or something similar. I can't figure out the source of the older map. If it was done by the World Food Program or something similar, it's probably an estimate of people they are providing aid to, rather than an estimate of absolute numbers. So it's not that Adjumani and Apac are "affected with no IDPs". The lines between districts appear a bit faint. Throw on a legend and label Sudan and it looks good to go. Great job!
It looks like the article is about to fall off the edge of peer review... - BanyanTree 15:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the directions! New draft, including Adjumani, less faint district borders and a legend: [3]. Districts borders are still not too dark because otherwise district names that cross borders look messy. The Sept 2004 WFP CAP doesn't include figures for Katakwi and Soroti, what do you think of my solution for that?
Do you think this map should replace the earlier Ugandan districts affected by...-map, or should I rather update that one to include Adjumani? The drawback of this new one is that the figures are unreadable at a width of 400 px or less. So maybe we should go for both, the old one serving to give a quick impression of affected districts and the new one providing detailed figures.
As for Peer Review — well, this article is on my soon-to-submit-to-FAC-list anyway, so I guess it's about time :). On a more serious note, I don't think you will get much more comments there. Peer Review doesn't seem to work well these days for articles from the csb-corner. — mark ✎ 17:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I like it, and your solution for the two different sources. The only thing I can see now is to make explicit the meaning of the numbers and percentages. Maybe in the title of the legend? - "Number of IDPs, and IDPs as a percentage of total population". There must be a less awkward way of phrasing it...
We should keep both maps. The mention of the Juba-Torit red-line is only useful when the towns are on the accompanying large map; and the article certainly isn't crowded with images. - BanyanTree 19:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Here it is! As for the meaning of the numbers, I think the caption of the image is the best place for that (just like the other maps), although I agree that we should find a less awkward wording. I'll update the other map to include Adjumani. — mark ✎ 19:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And the older map is updated, lose your browser cache if you don't see it. — mark ✎ 20:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Looks good! Do you want to do the honors of inserting somewhere into the latter part of the article? - BanyanTree 21:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 :) I inserted it. Don't hesitate to reposition it though if you see a better place. — mark ✎ 21:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist

  • Given their numerous attacks on civilians, I would assume they are officially considered a terrorist organisation by the EU, US etc. Can some on confirm somewhere and add this information Nil Einne 09:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • They are listed by the U.S. government as a terrorist group [4]. EU countries usually have their own views on these issues, and most of them don't make a big deal about the label "terrorists" as the U.S. does. I do not know the UN position, but I assume they avoid the label as well, because it would be difficult to come to a consensus. Take Hamas: freedom fighters or terrorists? Take that to the security council and someone will probably throw you out through the window.--Ezeu 15:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I was consciously avoiding the word "terrorist" in the article because I find that it is overly loaded with other meanings besides the one referring to techniques. (And even as a description of the tactic, it is very broad.) However, the US listing is encylopedic and I have added it in at the appropriate spot. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BanyanTree (talk • contribs).
I agree that the word "terrorist" is close to meaningless. But I think it's important to point out in the beginning of the article that they are using tactics which can be considered terrorist, because some people (esp. in the USA) often claim that Islam is the only violent religion, and that there are no christian terrorism etc. For a muslim it may be important that christian "terrorists" are viewed with the same lens as muslim "terrorists" are. What do you think? --Merat 13:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Two points on this. One: the lead currently states "mutilation, torture, rape, the abduction of civilians, the use of child soldiers and a number of massacres". Given how politically loaded the term "terrorism" is, it seems wise to state the tactics and let the reader decide whether they think it is a terrorist organization, which in our current world is apparently somehow different from an organization that utilizes terror as a weapon. Two: the LRA has certainly stated something about ruling according to the Ten Commandments but the spirit possession by which Kony is 'inspired' certainly has its roots within traditional Acholi spirit mediumship. (See Alice Auma for Kony's predecessor.) Certainly any mainstream Christian movement, whether in the West or I imagine even in Uganda, would deny that the LRA is in any way representative of the Christianity that they practice. While not entirely incorrect, "Christian terrorist group" is very misleading when applied to the LRA. I realize that this argument can be made for Muslim terrorist groups; this seems like a problem with those pages rather this one. - BT 20:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article is totally POV. For example, the USMC has a very bloody history of violations against civilians, on a large scale, yet here's the intro in that article:

The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is a branch of the U.S. military. While concerned almost exclusively with shipboard security service and amphibious warfare in its formative years, the Marine Corps has evolved to fill a unique, multi-purpose role within the modern United States military. The Marine Corps is the second smallest of the five branches (Navy, Marine Corps, Army, Air Force, Coast Guard) of the U.S. military, with 176,000 active and 40,000 reserve Marines as of 2005. Only the United States Coast Guard, part of the Department of Homeland Security, is smaller. In absolute terms, the US Marine Corps is nonetheless larger than the armed forces of many major nations; for example, it is larger than the British Army.

versus

The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), formed in 1987, is a rebel paramilitary group operating mainly in northern Uganda. The group is engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government in what is now one of Africa's longest-running conflicts. It is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself a spirit medium, and apparently wishes to establish a state based on his unique interpretation of Biblical millenarianism. The LRA have been accused of widespread human rights violations, including the abduction of civilians, the use of child soldiers and a number of massacres. It is estimated that around 20,000 children have been kidnapped by the group since 1987 for use as soldiers and sex slaves. The group performs abductions primarily from the Acholi people, who have borne the brunt of the 18 year LRA campaign. The insurgency has been mainly contained to the region known as Acholiland, consisting of the districts of Kitgum, Gulu, and Pader, though since 2002 violence has overflowed into other districts. The LRA has also operated across the porous border region with Southern Sudan, subjecting Sudanese civilians to its horrific tactics.

Is this an encylopedia or a propaganda rag?

I have removed the {{NPOV}} tag you added, because you seem to dispute the POV of the USMC article, not this one. — mark ✎ 09:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
But he IS disputing the POV of this article. It does seem like there is some POV in favor of labelling them as evil terrorists. I dont understand why this article got a FA status, it is not indepth like the other FAs and i believe that getting this issue promoted was a motivating factor. The guy was right saying theres a POV; even though he is challenging the US Marines Intro's POV, he was also challenging this Article's POV. I dont condone what the LRA has been doing, but also wikipedia is not a soapbox or promotional platform either (link?). Xlegiofalco 05:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You say it is not "indepth". Is there some information in particular that you were expecting to see that is not available in the article or its subpages? - BanyanTree 13:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sub-articles

Why are there three other articles for the different eras of this organization?

i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army_%281986-1994%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army_%281994-2002%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army_%282002-2005%29

It seems to me that these articles should all be combined. What am I missing? --Thalia42 09:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I had actually broken out those pages in an attempt to keep the article size down. While I would like to think that readers have 40-minute chunks to devote to indepth accounts, I know they don't and prefer summary style to give them the option of delving. That page also notes, Articles longer than 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) take longer to read than the upper limit of the average adult's attention span—20 minutes. Of the range given in the guideline Wikipedia:Article size, I definitely favor the lower end. - BT 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Suggestion regarding chronology of events

I suggest that the section "Events since 2005" be moved to after "Prominent incidents", or at least after the "Effects" section. For better chronology, the section on Juba peace talks, which narrate the latest developments, should be somewhere towards the end of the page. Perhaps we should also rename "Events since 2005" to "Latest developments". --Ezeu 13:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me.
I've also been thinking of breaking out "prominent incidents" to a subpage, both to keep the length below the legendary 20 minutes and in the hopes that someone would actually start compiling a comprehensive list of the more mid-level incidents. If anyone agrees and is feeling eager... - BT 16:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, creating a subpage for "prominent incidents" has also occured to me. In the mean time I will be bold and implement my above suggestion. Later, we could break out "prominent incidents" into its own page. There are certainly more incidents to add to that section. --Ezeu 16:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Rereading the article, "Prominent incidents" still looks odd. Would people object if I simply merged this info into the chronological subpages? I don't think I've even mentioned Aboke abductions in the appropriate subarticle. Cheers, BT 00:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
No objections from me. Just be bold and do it. --Ezeu 08:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
And done. - BT 14:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious orientation?

I've heard this group be refered to as Christian, but this article seems very vague about their religious beliefs. Obviously most Christians would denounce this group - but most Muslims denounce al-Qaeda and wikipedia refers to them as an Islamic group. Are people shying away from calling them Christians (they do cite the bible)? Damburger 13:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See #Terrorist above for earlier related discussion. - BT 13:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
They define themselves as Christian, but have ties to the Muslim Sudanese government. I edited the intro paragraph (and added a citation) to make this more clear.CClio333 23:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Your cited source is nine years old and a cursory scan of the article would inform you that a lot has changed since then. For the most recent relevant report, see the Crisis Group report that came out on 13 September. Note the complete lack of mention of religious ideology for the LRA in that report. I have reverted. - BT 01:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your logic. Just because that article does not mention their religious affiliation does not mean that they lack religious affiliation. The Human Rights Watch article might be behind on events, but nothing has been published since to indicate that Kony's religious beliefs have changed. In fact, a mere two years before the article that you reference, Crisis Group International did discuss the LRA in another article and identify them as Christian. Additionally, South African newspaper and CNN International identified them as Christian just today. I have put their Christian ties back.CClio333 02:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
LRA does not identify itself as a fundamentalist movement. The Sudanese government of the National Islamic Front did in the past support LRA (which is mentioned in the article), but as early as 1997 Sudan begun to back away from LRA, and eventually allowed Uganda to pursue LRA into Sudanese territory. The information you added in the lead paragraph regarding Sudanese support for LRA, while not erroneous, is misleading because it does not give the right context, and it is in the present tense.--Ezeu 06:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit conflict] OK, this is a somber challenge and I'll give a complete answer. There are four points related to your edit: (1) media characterization of the LRA as Christian, (2) religious nature of the LRA, (3) pertinence of religion in ties with the Sudanese government, and (4) structural issues within the article.
  1. Media articles always include a line about the Ten Commandments. They will sometimes include the word "prophet". I've read a lot of reports on the LRA and they are clearly parroting each other. The interesting bit is how hard it is to find a credible origin linking them to the LRA in a definitive manner.
  2. The LRA, formerly named the Uganda People's Democratic Christian Army, is ideologically founded from the Holy Spirit Movement. Alice Auma did make a point of encouraging followers to go to Sunday Mass and outlined the Ten Commandments as guidelines. That's all given, though the link between the LRA and the Ten Commandments is much fuzzier. The Acholi word that is being used as "prophet" is nebbi, a spirit medium that is also a figure along the lines of an Hebrew Bible prophet. The concept of the nebbi emerged after the Christian missionaries arrived in Acholiland and tried to convince everyone that the spirits that had formed the core of their religious beliefs were actually minions of Satan. The nebbi therefore used their claimed link to Christianity to claim that the spirits they contact are emanations of the Holy Spirit or angels. Auma, and subsequently Kony, made some major adjustments to this syncretic religion, channeling multiple spirits (in Kony's case, including a Muslim spirit that forced him to wear the white robes of a Muslim holy man). Kony's cadre of spirits included a female Sudanese chief of staff, Chinese military officer who commands an imaginary battalion of jeeps, and the spirit of Juma Oris, who at the time was alive and commanding another rebel group. You might be able to call the "religion" of the LRA "an extreme break from the pre-conflict religious syncretism of the Acholi" without too much of a strain on accuracy. "A cult of personality without internal rules or core beliefs considered by informed observers to be both protean and insane" would also be a fair assessment, which may need to be reworded for POV. The label "Christian" tells you nothing about the LRA. Worse, it makes the reader think they have learned something when they haven't.
  3. You wrote "Although the LRA identifies itself as a Christian fundamentalist movement, the organization also receives aid from the militantly Islamist Sudanese government." The first part of the sentence is wrong (see Fundamentalist Christianity for a definition that does not apply), which may be why the second part doesn't seem apropos of anything. Let me state this again, the LRA does not have a core belief system. It therefore cannot be accused of hypocrisy for betraying beliefs it does not have.
  4. This is just bad structure if you want to keep this article out of WP:FARC. Items in the lead are all thoroughly supported and expanded upon within the body of the article and its subpages per Wikipedia:Lead section. All except the line you just re-added, which is not backed up because it's unsupportable once you start digging into the literature.
Back when I had sources with me, I intended to write an article on religion among the Acholi. I may have to reassemble my sources and write the article just so I can stop having this argument over and over. - BT 06:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like you have done a lot more research on this than me, so I will bow to your expertise! :). I get on my students' case for refering to "Catholics and Christians," as if their disapproval of Catholic beliefs that meant that Catholics didn't count as Christians, and I had thought maybe the same kind of thing was going on here. I think it would be an excellent and very useful thing to do if you would at some point assemble your sources and write up a proper explanation of the LRA's beliefs and how they have evolved. One last thing, there is another wikipedia article called Christian Terrorism that lists the LRA as an example of a Christian terrorist organization. You might was to put your two cents in on that discussion page, too. CClio333 12:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I know this is unlikely to convince the (mostly christian, what a shock) editors here, but that al-qaeda article describes the group as Sunni in the first sentence. I think that they are about as true to Sunni Islam as the LRA are to Christianity. Oh, but I forgot. Only Muslims can be terrorists, right? Damburger 07:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/r/Talk%7ELord%27s_Resistance_Army_7101.html"