Talk:New Tribes Mission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where is it located? Will they be sending missionarys to America?GangofOne 05:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Their "mission" is to translate the bible into every language of the world. So no, they don't "send" missionaries to America. We have too many bibles already. Chadwick Meyer—June 14, 2006

They are located at Miami, Florida US, and have been heavily accused of transculturization in native south and central american tribes and illegal activities such as gold and silver extraction employing underpayed natives, this article is extremely biased, i strongly recomend a complete reedit 200.35.231.172 6:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

They are NOT located in Miami Florida. Obviously you don't know what you are talking about, but are just speculating from second hand sources. They are in Sanford Florida, about 5 hours north. And these other accusations you heard about are equally as ridiculous. Some research sho--66.185.252.134 04:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)uld be done first. Chadwick Meyer—June 14, 2006

I've added a note about the current news from Venezuela. Also (in the other direction...) amended the description of the eco-action.org link to something less POV. If anyone wants to rewrite the rest of the page in a less POVish style.. --Mpk 11:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

They also have a training camp near Durham Ontario Canada where the missionaries in training go for jungle training - learning the word, also how to build camp and some training on how to be accepted by the locals once they are abroad. [User:Terry] --207.188.66.161 (Pathway Communications, Markham, Ontario) 06:13, 1 August 2006

Contents 1 Factualization 2 POV 3 Another Perspective 4 Ruthless treatment of students in UK

[edit] Factualization

Hello there! I have been lurking around for quite a while now, but I thought I would get involved. I am currently a student at one of NTM's training centers in MO. First up, I wanted to apologize for the NTM person who edited this article w/o logging in and discussing such changes. It was brought to the attention of NTM's leadership, and dealt with. I am not speaking for NTM, but I do know that they do not look kindly on that kind of stuff. We wish to be above reproach on everything we do. Having said that, I would like to take this opportunity over the next while to help provide factual, NPOV, sourced material for this article. I can point out many such errors right now (The article states that "this training is accredited" (speaking of the NTM training), when in fact, it is definitly NOT accredited. I have just graduated from one of the 2-year Bible schools this past may, and I have an associates degree that is accecpted at many major colleges (moody/CIU, etc), but it is not acredited. Things like this, I would like to help clean up--but, I am a firm believer in all that wikipedia stands for, and as such, I will be sourcing/verifying, and discussing all edits. I think that that is all I have to say! Hope ya'll have a great day! Anapologetos 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Any help is appreciated. As for the accreditation issue, I mistook other schools' policies of accepting credits for full-fledged accreditation. I have already corrected the error. Do you have any thoughts on the removal of the NPOV tag (see discussion below)?--Son of thunder 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

well, I have just made a few changes (all sourced) (changed associates to bachelors, for the 4 year training program), etc... I then reread the article in light of pov, and I think that it would be fine to take off the npov tag--I dont see any way-out-there npov, on either the critcal/non-critical stuff... but I may be missing some--anybody else?(Oh crap--I just realized I wasnt logged in when I did those changes! oh well--it was me! :) Anapologetos 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a full-time missionary with New Tribes Mission, serving in our Communications offices. There are still some factual errors, but in light of the issues that have arisen earlier, I'm going to simply introduce myself at this time and invite any questions or comments you'd like to throw my way. Ian fallis 21:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article still reads like a pamphlet for the New Tribes Mission. Can someone better informed of their activities write a "Criticism" section? --Zaxios 09:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've started one. —Babelfisch 03:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There's now an enormous Criticism section with lots of heavy language in it, so I don't really think that the NPOV tag should have been taken out. I've put it back in the meantime until things get a little more balanced. Yes, it's a controversial organisation, but the recent edits went too far in the other direction. --Mpk 19:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Extremely Non-NPOV--eg: 1) Blatent personal logical assumptions: "This last belief leads them to the position that..." (Does not quote New Tribes Mission, but extraplotes from out-of-context New Tribes Mission quotes) 2) No sources for critical statements: "We are not ecumenical, charismatic or neo-evangelical." (Where is that found?) 3) Finally, I would have no problem keeping critical statements about the New Tribes Mission, but only if we (Wikipedia) were able to present the other side: The true definition of NPOV

Based on the above points, I have edited out some of the blatentely Biased language, until we can get this article cleaned up a bit more. --69.216.28.106 07:39, 15 December 2005

The "critical statement" to which you refer comes directly from the New Tribes Mission's own home page "doctrinal statement."

I'm not sure why the statement was changed to this, and the link to a news artcicle was changed to NTM's site "According to NTM, on November 3rd, 2005, nearly 3,000 Venezuelan tribal people marched in Puerto Ayacucho protesting against the expulsion of NTM.[13]" Reverting changes unless there is a good reason not too-69.216.28.106 07:52, 21 December 2005

Check out the shocking book, "Thy Will Be Done" by Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett, on Rockefeller's co-opting of Rev. Cameron's Bible translating missionaries. These missionaries helped Rockefeller and the CIA rape and pillage Amazon villages, much like New Tribes Mission. --141.156.18.128 01:43, 14 April 2006

Cameron started Wycliff, this has nothing to do with NTM. And again, it stinks of conspiracy theory which is totally unconnected to reality. If the things people were saying were true, it would be horrible. But they just aren't. Chadwick Meyer —June, 14, 2006

Whether or not this information is correct, the general tone is not neutral.

"Some have criticized New Tribes Mission for their beliefs, methodology and for specific alleged actions. But much of the criticism is misguided, uniformed, and highly agenda driven. " "Many of those who criticize New Tribes Missions ignore the vast majority of good work which is carried on by thoughtful and committed Christian missionaries who live their lives day in and day out in the heart of the jungle, painstakingly learning the language and the cultures of indegenous tribal groups and slowly translating the Bible into their own language." "As with all large organizations, problems exist and mistakes have doubtlessly occurred, but by in large, those who characterize New Tribes Mission as "slave traders", "industrial espionagers", "murderers", and the like, have an agenda of their own and do not understand the commitment and appreciation these missionaries have for tribal peoples and their culture. "

Words like agenda and ignore, etc, make it appear that the person writing this was interjecting his own opinion of people's reasons. If there is a citing that states they believe for (x,y,z) reason that the critics act with an agenda, you can write "Many believe this criticism is misguided..." Intent cannot be stated as a complete fact unless the parties who criticize them say for themselves they are acting with that intent.

Jelly23 15:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed those sections. No sources, POV, apologetic propaganda pap. —Babelfisch 04:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I revamped the controversy & criticism section, since it was reading more like a list of accusations than a real encyclopedia article. I neutralized the POV and formed some cohesive paragraphs so it flows more as a whole. However, the controversy section still consumes the greater part of the article, so it is still in need of more revision before the NPOV tag can be removed. I also moved the "Beliefs" section out of criticism since it contained no real critique of the organization. Rather, it was simply a short statement of some of their beliefs. --Son of thunder 04:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with some of these changes. Some critical remarks were removed, others were qualified and weakened without substance. Maybe that's because Son of thunder is actually from the Moody Bible Institute. —Babelfisch 08:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not intentionally remove any material, although I did reorganize it. The old format was nothing more than a bulleted list of unqualified criticisms (without the bullets). I simply placed them in context and tried to neutralize some of the overtly anti-missiological POV, which I think we can all agree was a necessary step towards the removal of the NPOV tag at the top of the page. If I was trying to "sanitize" the image of Christian missions, I would have removed the criticisms section completely. However, such revisionist history would get us nowhere. Some missionaries have committed great atrocities in the name of Christ. It is our perogative as human beings to learn from those mistakes so that they are not repeated again.--Son of thunder 00:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a thought: Does this entire controversy section belong on this page, or should some of it be moved to the Mission (Christian) page? Many of these criticisms are of the same sort that are brought against many similar organizations, such as Wycliffe Bible Translators (see the earlier anonymous post earlier on this talk page). Furthermore, the Mission (Christian) article and the Wycliffe Bible Translators article both have severely lacking or nonexistent controversy sections. Perhaps it would be appropriate to have a central location for this sort of criticism, and we could link to that from these smaller organization-specific articles. As it is, NTM's controversy section consumes the bulk of the article. If we could relocate some of this material, I think we could finally remove the NPOV tag.--Son of thunder 00:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the NPOV tag back to the top of the article. It doesn't make sense to put it under the heading "criticism". How can a section with that title be "neutral"? If you think that the article is unbalanced because of this section, the way to change that is not to neuter or to remove the criticism section, but to expand the rest of the article to counter it. —Babelfisch 08:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The controversy section of this articel cites no credible sources and seems to be written with the sole intent to malign NTM without giving any evidence of the claims that are leveled against it. It is poor journalism. That is why I deleted the section, it doesn't belong.--Credicthus

The controversy section does cite sources. It is not our mandate to discredit their credibility. The fact is that NTM has been criticized, and other contributors feel this criticism is necessary to make note of. Similar criticism exist on the [[SIL International] page. It would be poor journalism if these criticisms were not presented in an unbiased manner (as they were in earlier versions of the page). However, I have tried to neutralize the POV as much as possible. I have also added a lot of other content to the article, explaining more of NTM's methods and procedures. Per Babelfisch's suggestion above, I think the article is now broad enough to remove the NPOV tag. The criticism section is in its rightful place, and it no longer dominates the article, nor does it treat either side unfairly. Thoughts? If no one expresses negative opinions on this, I will remove the NPOV tag after one week (on 12/5/2006).--Son of thunder 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted some of the ridiculous attempts to neuter the criticism section and removed unsourced material in that section. —Babelfisch 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why the wait? You will note that my changes to the criticism section were made two months ago, and you have made several revisions to the page since then. I didn't touch the section on my most recent edit. Why did you wait so long to delete my contributions? Furthermore, why call attempts at neutrality ridiculous? Isn't neutrality what we are going for here? I am not against a criticism section; I simply believe that these criticisms should be treated fairly and in their proper context. Please don't remove legitimate material without first consulting the talk page, especially in articles like this where the neutrality is disputed. Actions like these simply fuel the debate and do not lead to resolution. They put you in the same camp as those who delete the criticisms section altogether.--Son of thunder 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

“To neuter criticism” doesn't mean to get closer to a neutral point of view. A criticism section doesn't have to add unsourced comments to sourced criticisms to make the latter more palatable to apologists. —Babelfisch 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, now we have New Tribes Mission editing their own article ([1]), along with people from the Moody Bible Institute ([2] and [3]).

I've deleted an unsourced comment about Eco-Action.org. I've re-inserted two sources that were deleted. [4] I have deleted the following paragraph because it is not an answer to criticism and the last part ("are in full agreement ...") can't be found on the page given as the source:

However, NTM's purpose statement states that their sole goal is to "evangelize people groups who have had no access to the Gospel, translate the Scriptures into their language, and plant a church." Furthermore, they are held accountable for their actions by the International Foreign Missions Association and by MinistryWatch, and are in full agreement with these organizations' standards of conduct.

I've re-inserted the links to the critical articles the person from the New Tribes Mission deleted. What is this? Missionary vandalism in action?

It is interesting that anonymous users at the Moody Bible Institute know about the revenue[5] and the number of employees[6] of New Tribes Mission, but they should give their sources. —Babelfisch 06:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of Babelfisch's edits, so I did not revert him completely, but I did feel it necessary to replace the paragraph on accountability. However, I did add more clarification and cite the reference page directly, in response to his criticism of said paragraph. I think that a treatment of an organization's accountability is crucial to any fair controversy section. If you do not think it belongs in this specific location, please feel free to move it, but please do not remove it completely, as it is a valid point and thoroughly sourced. Also added a link directly to IFMA's standards.--Son of thunder 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The article has been greatly expanded and thoroughly rewritten since the neutrality dispute, accusing the article of being too negatively biased against NTM, was originally posted. References for the majority of the previously unsourced statements been cited. I propose the removal of the NPOV tag.--Son of thunder 03:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag has been removed based on Babelfisch's suggestion to expand the article to balance out the criticism. This has been done and Anapologetos and myself agree that the tag can now be removed. No one else has contributed to the discussion in weeks.--Son of thunder 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't react; I'm facing technical obstacles due to the Chinese government's blocking of Wikipedia and Wikipedia's collusion with the censorship attempt, the ban of open proxies. I agree with the removal of the tag. —Babelfisch 02:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing a POV statement and a dead-link source. Just look at eco-action's missionary page, nothing could be more POV.--24.174.98.215 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Perspective

Do any of you, the people editing this page, actually know anything about NTM from first hand experience or in depth reporting? I am not associated with NTM in any way, nor am I a huge fan of them (for other reasons) but the accusations that are being lobbed toward them are downright comical, or they would be if they weren't so horrible and viscious. Some people have a bone to pick, obviously, and the allegations are ridiculous. I was born and grew up in Papua New Guinea, my parents were Missionaries with NTM and so I've been around the organization for a long time. I lived in a tribe and nursed at the breasts of the village mothers... talk about missionaries integrating with the people and respecting them.

Anyways, of course they make mistakes and have some odd ideas but not on the scale that is being accused. They are not "slave traders", "genocidal" manics, "murderers", "gold diggers", "espionagers" etc. 95% of what they do is simply translate the Bible into native languages and present the stories to the people. Anyone who takes offense at that, should study history and note the benefits that this has brought society at large, let alone the benefits which come to the tribal people themselves as a result of the missionaries presence. Anyone who wants to preserve their "virgin" culture needs to first go live with them for a few years and see if these people really want to keep living in permeable grass huts on the mud floor with insects eating your children alive, with a life expectancy of 35 years, a horrible infant mortality rate, sickness, abuse, fear of the spiritual world around them, no ability to read or learn or understand the world around them, no law and order, no hope, etc. Trust me, most of them want to improve their condition. And most missionaries are very careful not to import their own culture, but preserve the local culture. Sure they get axes, so they don't have to use stone axes anymore. And they start wearing clothes. But have you ever tried to wear a grass skirt! It's itchy and not very nice. Nor is a Penis gourd. They are malnourished because they don't know how to farm well, and don't understand the importance of planning ahead, and as a result they are at the whim of nature. It's easy for western types to want to "preserve" these indigenous cultures, and I agree that's important. But we shouldn't treat them like animals and keep them in their "natural environment" like creatures in a zoo for our own pleasure so we can sleep at night just knowing that the "indians" still exist. It's often selfish on our part.

Also whoever is accusing NTM of this stuff needs to do their homework, because NTM doesn't work with tribes unless they are invited by the leaders of the tribe. Many tribes are begging for missionaries. Some because they just want fishing hooks, machetes, and malaria medicine, and some because they are living in fear daily, of the spirits around them, they are disillusioned and sick of their animism and they have heard that the missionaries have good news and they want to hear it. Anyways, anything else that they might be accused of, should be proven first. And then if any of it is TRUE, it should be noted how this doesn't represent 99.999% of the missionaries or the work they do. This is the worst article I've read on wikipedia to date. Chadwick Meyer —June, 14, 2006

I agree completely. My girlfriend was an MK in Papua New Guinea as well for the first 10 years of her life. Not a day goes by that she doesn't talk about how much she and her family love the people there. My respect for the Wikipedia community has steadily diminished because of misinformed and biased articles like this one. It puzzles me that some self-proclaimed "intellectual" can sit in front of their computer, pick and choose an assortment of claims and allegations that represent 0.0000001% of an organization's operation and history, compile them into a so-called "Encyclopedia" article, pat themselves on the back, hit enter, and from that point forward whenever somebody types in "new tribes" in Google, it's the third link on the page. What a disaster. --Kellenwright 04:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First intelligent comment I've read so far on this talk page. --anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.135.69.50 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 31 October 2006.

Though I sympathize, surely you understand that your personal experiences cannot be included within the article, and may not be representitive of the whole. If you see a way to improve the article and incorporate or more fully explain some of the positive aspects of NTM please do so using credible, sourced statements. If the work they do is overwhelmingly positive, it shouldn't be difficult to find good sources to balance the article out and see your perspective represented. Or you can just whine, complain, lament and cluck and never actually lift a finger to improve the article. Please, be bold! Detruncate 06:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruthless treatment of students in UK

To balance things a bit, may I tell of friends of mine were missionary students in the Matlock centre here in the UK some years back; it was I who transported them, their kids and all they owned, to the centre in my truck. They were a long-term married couple and had joined with their four young children, after much soul searching. Acting on his conscience, the man confessed, a few months in, to a brief, extra-marital gay relationship, long since over and never repeated, (I must point out that I was not involved in that in any way, I was merely told the details by the man concerned as a trusted friend). His intention was to confess it, put it behind him and be faithful to God. The NTM leadership ,on hearing his confession, phoned the USA and immediately and with no opportunity to revoke it, threw the whole family out onto the street! They had given up everything to join, so were forced to start their lives over. This put a *HUGE* strain on their marriage, obviously, and caused my friend to go through a prolonged period of awful depression which lasted many years; he never really got over it. The leaders of NTM acted heartlessly and ruthlessly against a 100% committed Christian couple, and almost wrecked a marriage with many young children involved. They were completely unable to see that the man involved had only been in a temporarily confused relationship which he had wholly renounced, but my main concern is that these people go into tribal cultures and force their objectionable blind puritanism, along with their famed cultural annihilation, on uneducated people. NTM is a dreadful organisation, in my experience, through watching this family be treated like dross by them, and NTM's "witness" seems to be based on appearing lily-white, whoever it damages. The leaders exhibited not even a scintilla of the "spirit of Christ" in this whole nasty incident, which played a most significant part in my own rejection of evangelical Christianity, lock, stock and barrel. To read the NTM-flattering propaganda on the Wikipedia entry here makes me feel nauseated, frankly. NTM is quite evidently nothing other than a dangerous, dictatorial cult. Trevor H. (UK) 03:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC

To put this a little bit in perspective: Whenever somebody wants to join NTM, as part of the application proccess, they say whether or not they have been, or are currently, in a homosexual relationship--They then sign an agreement that, among other things, say that they acknowledge that they can be asked to leave if such a thing happens, or has happened. I'm not sure what there is to get upset about(?) The couple knew the policy, and knew what was going to happen... Also, I ask you Trevor, if there is anything non-NPOV in this article, as you allude to ("NTM-flattering propaganda"), please by all means, start discussing it! Anapologetos 23:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)