Talk:Lord's Resistance Army

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

Symbols[edit]

Have you encountered any symbols of the LRA?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't. - BanyanTree 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See here.--Pharos (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a catalan magazime will be published in january 2012 the correct flag and the arms. Try in catalan viquipedia about spring 2012.--79.145.172.65 (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The flag that show in the article was based in a photo, but later was know that wasn't the LRA flag.--83.56.236.10 (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity or synchretism[edit]

I have read a few articles in Swedish papers saying that LRA should rather be seen as a synchretistic movement, than a Christian one. Their ideas are highly unorthodox (to say the least) and a mixture of Christianity, Islam and Paganism. I will try to find a good source.--itpastorn (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, please do - only animism would probably be a more accurate word than paganism, which has never really meant anything more than "thing we don't approve of." 147.9.226.163 (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some people have apparently called this a kind of christian islam ; it would be interesting to source scientific information about eventual comparisons between the resistance army and the early form of islam under muhammad. 69.157.229.153 (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the LRA's Ten Commandments are the same as the ones that everyone else knows about. I believe that part of their's refer to not eating a chicken with certain colored feathers, not using trails or roads and not ridding bicycles. I am not sure of this however and can not find any references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.217.128 (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animism and paganism are distinct. Each has a distinct meaning. Animism doesn't even come close to explaining the LRA. The main indicators of paganism (drunkenness, sex-with-children, bestiality) are not demonstrated to date. Of the three suggestions, synchretistic is the best match so far, but more info needed. The LRA needs a PR department. Bushcutter (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


PAGANISM DOES NOT MEAN DRUNKENNESS, SEX WITH CHILDREN OR BESTIALITY. I SUGGEST THAT YOU CHECK THE FACTS BEFORE YOU GO MOUTHING OFF LIKE THAT ON SUCH A FOURM. ASK YOURSELF HOW YOU ARE PROMOTING PEACE IN YOUR OWN HEAD.

You're never going to get Wikipedia to change the label from "Christian" it goes along perfectly with their bias. You'll notice they ask for "credible" sources that do not label the LRA as Christian. That's all well and good, but who defines "credible"? Wikipedia does and it's all rather subjective isn't it? They can't call Islamic terrorists, Islamic terrorists but they can call a group thats clearly multi-religious "Christian". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.74.117 (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia, paranoia, everybody's tryin'a get me. See Islamic terrorism. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. Just misrepresentation. That view of pagansim is equally misinformed and offensive. Martinevans123 (talk)

I cannot abide by the practice of defining a group in an encyclopedia by what they call themselves. That is an utterly incoherent approach to knowledge. If I call myself the President of the United States, my wikipedia page shouldn't call me "The President of the United States". Adding the qualifier "self proclaimed..." is acceptable, but rather pointless as a characterization. Such a statement would be a fact of the matter. State the facts of the matter in the body of the subject. "Such n such stated they are Christian...". That's a fact. But do not apply the label Christian in the opening description, as it would be more appropriate to use a hundred different adjectives. The use of "Christian" does not help the cause of knowledge, it distracts from it by hopelessly splintering a subject. A better approach would be to construct an adjective that inheres the most predominant aspects of group behaviour in the LRA. If we look at the behaviour of Christ, we don't see atrocities. I am sorry that people feel strongly that they should get to conveniently use self-identification when it suits a personal or political agenda of smearing a group of people like Muslims or Christians. A useful approach to knowledge is to classify by type, not to identify with whatever a person wants to call themselves. As of this writing, the opening description says "sectarian, guerrilla army". That is a very factual description. ...though the use of "sectarian" is rather redundant, since it doesn't seem to indicate what kind of sect is referred to and most human behaviour can be identified as "sectarian". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.79.196 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not calling the LRA Christians simply because that's what they choose to call themselves. We're using the word Christian because plenty of reliable sources use it.[1] If we only used the word to refer to people who behaved like Christ, there'd be precious few Christians in our articles. In any case, it's not our business to decide who's a Christian and who's not: our business is to summarise what our sources say.
If you want to argue that the LRA aren't a Christian group, find a reliable, published source that says so and we can work it into the article. But it would be absurd to remove all mention of Christianity, since the LRA's stated aim is to impose a Christian theocracy in Uganda (albeit an ugly, fringe version of Christianity).
I don't see how anyone here is trying to smear Christianity. I think most of our readers are mature enough to understand that every large religion has its share of psychopaths. It's ridiculous to suggest that fundamentalist Christians never commit atrocities, or that we should only use the word to refer to people we like. Polemarchus (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are using a completely different standard for knowledge than I am. I never said we don't discuss the connotations of Christianity in regards to the LRA. I said that using it as a primary adjective is misleading. Since these primary adjectives are a strong measure of how we relate subjects in terms of our broader knowledge, they should hopefully provide meaningful markers. The use of "Christian" to primarily describe the LRA is inappropriate, because the facet of "Christianity" that it represents is so marginal.

This is an extremely important aspect of epistemology and I could care less if a lot of people would rather see "Christianity" used as a primary adjective for the simple reason that lots of other people share that preference. This isn't a popularity contest. That kind of knowledge is incoherent, emotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.136.62 (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a source would be the bible a christian is some one who follows Christ the lra is no way christian i can call myself a monkey and doesnt make it true just cause i said it i would have to have attributes that a monkey has to make it true lra is no way christian no matter what they say ...........................
By that argument, Wikipedia couldn't say that George W. Bush is a Christian, since after 9/11 he didn't "turn the other cheek" as Jesus instructed, but instead launched two wars that resulted in thousands of deaths. Is that what Jesus would have done?
Anyway, there are plenty of reliable sources that refer to the LRA as being Christian:
  • "In order to explain the concept of the Holy Trinity, Christian priests introduced a new concept, tipu maleng, the Christian version of the Holy Spirit." and "his church is decorated with an eclectic gathering of Christian and Acholi symbols" and "Kony can be defined as an amalgamation of social functions. He defines himself as the mouthpiece of God, reinforcing the Ten Commandments and acting as a political oracle in a time of profound crisis introduced by foreign forces. He is not only the spokesman of the Christian God..." Kony's message: A new Koine? The Lord's Resistance Army in northern Uganda, African Affairs
  • "Kony's LRA is an outgrowth of the Holy Spirit Movement, a Christian cult that ravaged northern Uganda in the late 1980s." Los Angeles Times
  • "An extreme and violent Christian cult, the Holy Spirit Movement, sprang up in poor northern Uganda in the late 1980s. Many hundreds of believers died in suicidal attacks, convinced that magic oil would protect them from the soldiers' bullets. Its successor, the Lord's Resistance Army, is still pursuing a guerrilla war. It claims it wants to rule the country on the basis of the Biblical Ten Commandments" Center for studies on new religions
  • "The former Catholic altar boy Joseph Kony, head of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), is generally seen as a Christian madman who communicates with spirits and wants to turn Uganda into a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments." The Times
  • "The Christian guerrilla army's aim is to establish a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments" The Guardian
  • "More than 25,000 children have been abducted to serve the rebel army -- motivated by a fanatical Christian doctrine -- as foot soldiers and sex slaves." The Washington Post
Robert Tyson (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "Christian" to describe this group is HIGHLY misleading. For naive readers, they can't innately know the incredible unorthodoxy of this terrorist group. Put the politics aside people and get back to helpful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.240.185 (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the unqualified and pervasive use of "Christian" to describe this group is somewhat misleading. It would be more accurate to use a term like "Christian Fundamentalist" "Christian Extremist" as is used in many of the sources cited above. I also find it odd that "See Also" section has a Christianity Portal link and graphic. Note that entries for other extremist groups, such as Al Qaeda, do not contain similar portal links to their "corresponding" religions. As other commenters have noted, these seemingly minor but highly visible factors may skew the article significant for the cursory reader so common on Wikipedia.

I agree with the paragraph immediately above that simply using "Christian" for the LRA is misleading. However, I do not think "Christian fundamentalist" is an appropriate moniker as well, because while "Christian fundamentalism" properly conveys the general connotation of religious extremism, it also exclusively refers to Christian groups who base their beliefs on an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible. The LRA, by their own admission and by outside observations, is definitely synchretistic, and therefore by definition not fundamentalist. I think "synchretistic Christian extremists" would be very appropriate. It does not ignore the LRA's obviously Christian influences, but it qualifies them to show that the LRA also exhibits many practices that are non-Christian if not anti-Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.108.194 (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Himself said, "A new commandment I give to you, love one another, as I have loved you." biblecc.com john 13:34 Christianity has a specific "range of meaning" to say the least,.. ALL directly opposed to what KONY practices -- a "Christian Extremist" is Mother Teresa,... Paul of the Bible.... Christianity is a journey, a road moving in the direction of peace, healing, love, stability, purpose, choice,... my reference is the book of John. Before anyone thinks they understand the word CHRISTIAN, they must read the book of John. Jesus Christ is (was, for non-believers) a servant-leader who took humiliation, torture and death upon Himself, so that WE might have peace and life. There is not one scripture of Jesus ever doing or inciting harm to a person, yet many where he healed and He: gave, created and inspired, mercy. It is all in the Book of John - a 1st party reliable source. ---- you know, there are many shades of Christianity, just as beef in many forms, may be kosher,... but once you add any coercion of choice or violence to cause harm, or any fear based coercion,. it is no longer Christianity,.. just as cheese added to any kosher meat,.. disqualifies from being called kosher. -- there is only ONE true reliable source of what it is to be Christian, and that is the New Testament of the Bible. How others may have misused the term along the way does not change the fact that Jesus Himself never allowed any of His disciples to harm anyone(John 18:4-14.) Jesus talked specifically about: protecting children and never misleading children. He did not say, kill for me,.. but He said, I will die for you. --- The new Testament of the Bible is the foundation of what is is to be Christian,... not the Ten Commandments.

perhaps Wikipedia would do well to correct misuse of words, especially important labels such as "Christianity" rather than perpetuate their perversion. In the case of any religion, the ONLY reliable source of what defines it, is its OWN original Holy Book. ByStander2 (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, at last. An actual discussion. Tend to agree with Bystander2. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for you all to go on the Al-Qaeda talk page and say they aren't really islamic. But in America, you defend Christianity and Demonize islam. Crusades: Totally political, not true christianity. 9/11: "ERMAHGERD! Muslims are attackin! Ima get my shotgun and go attack that mosque over there!"(It's actually a sikh temple but hey, they wear turbans so appearently they're muslims.

Islam[edit]

The LRA identifies itself as a Christian organization, as do the overwhelming majority of reputable information sources. Whether they're perceived as following the true tenets of Christianity or not is irrelevant. The claim that the LRA incorporates "Islamic" elements into its philosophy is a bit ridiculous (hence my edit), as I've yet to see a reliable source make this claim and specify exactly which Islamic teachings the group espouses. Some Christians here seem to be interested in making it seem as if the LRA is not ostensibly Christian simply because they disagree with the LRA. I believe that al-Qaeda's philosophy violates the tenets of Islam, but I accept that they're an ostensibly Islamic terrorist group. Christians need to learn to do the same with the LRA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.0.71 (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THE BIBLE SAYS: in Matthew 7:15-16, 20 to WATCH OUT for false prophets,.. and that we will know them by thier fruit,.. by the way they act. New Living Translation (©2007) 15 Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves 16 You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?...20 Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions. ByStander2 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Kony blended together Christianity, Islam, and witchcraft into a bizarre mystical foundation for his movement."[1]
"[Joseph Kony's] paymasters and armorers are the cynical Muslims of the Sudanese regime, who use him to make trouble for the government of Uganda, which has in turn supported rebel groups in Sudan. In an apparent reward for this support, Kony at one stage began denouncing the keeping and feeding of pigs."[2]
"After peace talks between the LRA and the government collapsed at the end of 1993, the Sudanese government in Khartoum embraced Kony's band as a proxy force, prompting him to add a smattering of Islam to his mysticism to please his new allies."[3]
"At one stage, its leader and prophet Joseph Kony was said to have converted to Islam: he forbade his fighters to eat pork and to work on Friday."[4] (note: according to other sources, Kony reportedly denies converting)
"A report by World Vision International says Kony's spiritualism blends elements of Christianity, Islam and traditional Acholi beliefs to psychologically enslave abducted children and instil fear in local villagers."[5]
"Kony, an enigmatic, unschooled man from the regional town of Gulu, Uganda, simultaneously believes in Christianity, Islam, witchcraft and magic."[6]
"Any resemblance to these religions is superficial: While the army observes rituals such as praying the rosary and bowing toward Mecca, there is no prescribed theology in the conventional sense. Kony's beliefs are a haphazard mix from the Bible and the Qur'an, tailored around his wishful thinking, personal desires, and practical needs of the moment."[7]
"Like Muhammad, Kony was also a polygamist. He prayed to the God of the Christians on Sundays reciting the Rosary and quoting the Bible; but on Fridays he performed the Islamic Al-Jummah prayer. He celebrated Christmas, but he also fasted for 30 days during Ramadan and prohibited the consumption of pork."[8]
There appears to be a substantial number of reliable sources that establish some form of an Islamic connection. The most prominent concrete claims that I have seen so far are the observation of Qiblah, Jumu'ah, and Ramadan; contempt for swine; and ceremonial adornment of traditional Islamic vestments. Several articles attribute these beliefs to the LRA-Sudanese alliance. Kony was rumored to have converted to Islam during this time period, but has apparently denied any such conversion.   — C M B J   04:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for response by CMBJ[edit]

  1. ^ Martin, Gus (2006). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. SAGE. pp. 196–197. ISBN 978-1412927222. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Spencer, Robert (2007). Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Regnery Publishing. pp. 108–108. ISBN 978-1596985155. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ Green, Matthew (2006-06-27). "Uganda: Demystifying Kony". Retrieved 2009-03-19. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ "Conversion to Islam and Modernity in Nigeria: A View from the Underworld". Africa Today. 54 (4). Summer 2008. doi:10.1353/at.0.0014. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  5. ^ "Uganda violence". Thomas Reuters Foundation. AlertNet. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
  6. ^ Lobban, Richard (2009-01-23). "A strategy to fight Lord's Resistance Army". Retrieved 2009-03-19. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Johnson, J. Carter (January 2006). "Deliver Us from Kony". Christianity Today. 50 (1). Retrieved 2009-02-28. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  8. ^ Sina, Ali (2007). Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allâh's Prophet. Lulu.com. p. 169. ISBN 978-1430329923. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
All of those references seem to be referring to the man, not the group (with one exception making a vague remark about the group as a whole). I don't think we can automatically translate a comment regarding a man to indicative of the whole group, even an influential leader. Additionally, several of them seem questionable in terms of being reliable sources. I am in now way suggesting anything but good faith! But some of the sources seem to be POV oriented and may want to be reconsidered (e.g. Religion of Peace? Christianity Today, etc). Their inclusion gives this the appearance of a deflection toward Islam to spare Christianity.204.65.34.246 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not allow personal bias to influence Wikipedia articles. It is clear that CMBJ is a Christian user who feels offended by the LRA's claims to Christianity - I can assure you many Muslims feel as offended by Al Qaeda's claims to Islam; however; to charge Al Qaeda with being "influenced by Christianity" simply because certain beliefs they hold can be traced to Christianity (eg, the prohibition on pork - the bible prohibits pork, see the book of Leviticus, ch 11, v. 7) is as preposterous as charging the LRA as having been influenced by Islam.

This debate should not be happening on a Wikipedia article. Citing extremely biased sources, such as Religion Of Peace and Christianity today - both known for extremely controversial views and bias, should not be tolerated in the least. Rather than trying to blame a certain faith for all the world's problems like how an ideology (communism) was once blamed for all the world's problems, please keep the discussion civil. Read George Orweill's 1984 - it's not a new idea to the United States' political ideology that a nation needs an enemy to be united, no matter how fake that enemy is.

SayNoToPropaganda (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Bashir of Sudan attempted to convert Kony's cult to Islam while sponsoring him, but he was rejected. --Niemti (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of personal bias, and asserting 'it is clear CMBJ is a Christian' isn't an argument, it's an inappropriate ad hominem. I'm not Christian and couldn't give two tosses for any offence felt (especially since any offence based on it either way is rather silly). The LRA's ideology is discussed in detail here, mentioning this minor influence in the context of a syncretic mix is not the huge propoganda attempt SayNo attempts to paint it as, the Christian aspect is clearly identified as the primary basis within the article with appropriate due weight. References have been provided, and it's disingenuous to insinuate that they're all 'extremely biased sources'.Number36 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


SayNoToPropaganda says they "went through all the references; only one mentioned Islam - some of the child soldiers were Muslim. The group's ideology is not affected by Islam whatsoever." But Ref 9 (The Scars of Death: Children Abducted by the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. Human Rights Watch. 1997. pp. 32, 72. ISBN 1-56431-221-1. Retrieved 6 May 2012. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)) clearly says this: “..in practice the rebels perform an ecclectic mix of rituals some drawn from Christianity, some from the indiginous Acholi religion, and, increasingly, some from Islam…. Many children aslo reported rebel practices that appear to have been adopted from Islam: for instance the rebels pray while facing Mecca, respect Friday as a holydDay and forbid the keeping of pigs [84]”. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans - yes, that reference is the only one that mentioned Islam; and it states the rituals performed by the LRA (i.e, its members) rather than the beliefs and ideology of the group as a whole. The rebels praying towards Mecca and respecting Friday as a holy day - this is restricted to these child soldiers rather than the group as a whole (according to other sources mentioned; which I would cite if I had more time).

So the conclusion martinevans makes is that one source justifies this bias. I don't think that's fair and objective. SayNoToPropaganda (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how people deny that these terror groups are "True Christians" but the minute a muslim bombs a bus, they flip out and if there name is Michael Wade, they massacre a sikh temple. This group is in no way islamic. And elements of witchcraft? They blend foke culture with christianity but Islamists do that too. If anything, they oppose witchcraft and islam. Face it, Christianity can be scary too

Casino Royale (2006 Film)[edit]

The LRA was featured in the beginning of the film. Should we mention that on this page? Risico001 (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kony 2012 YouTube should be listed in Popular Culture section[edit]

The LRA is the subject of the most viral video of all time, Kony 2012. It should be listed. (Side note: I spent 10 minutes trying to figure out how to turn in a properly formatted request to edit a semi-protected page. I am only sure that I am NOT getting it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.151.245 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose the merging of Lord's Resistance Army and Lord's Resistance Army insurgency. Although I don't see any discussions on these talk pages preceding the splitting of those two articles, I can understand the reason why it was done. Splitting the army from their activities is a good idea in many cases, especially in such cases where there is ample information on the structure of the army, its leaders, ideologies, strategies, logistics, etc.

We (and the references we source, and unless we are personally acquainted with Kony) know almost nothing about the LRA except their activities. The article on the insurgency needs the information about the army to be coherent. Information about the insurgency will constantly be added to the article about the army, because that is the first article people access – as, unless one is acquainted with the structure of these LRA articles on Wikipedia, one will certainly not figure out that the main article on the subject (the insurgency) is a sub-article (as is the case is now). There are already a number of sub-articles on LRA pertaining to particular issues, further complicating it for the reader. The main article could contain what is known about the LRA, with a chronology of their activities – organised as it was when this became a featured article (things do not necessarily get better because one changes them).

If we are not to maintain two near-duplicate articles, there will almost always be a tag of war about what information belongs to which article (that we have not had a serious edit war here is merely because few people edit these articles). I am willing to merge the two articles without loosing any substantial information from either.

Please give your opinion. I prefer not to spend time copyediting and merging, to then having to quarrel and edit war with someone. --Ezeu (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:BanyanTree/Archive 14#Question and Talk:Lord's Resistance Army insurgency#Conflict page for background discussion on the split. TheFEARgod and Nightstallion came up with the split and are therefore the most likely to object, if you want to run it by them.
I've been worn down by years of dealing with editors whose only interest in the article is arguing if the LRA is Christian or Muslim, and how Christian or Muslim it is, and if it is also therefore a Christian or Muslim terrorist organization, and what categories should apply in those cases, so I don't care enough to get involved. It wouldn't be so bad if these didn't comprise the majority of editors making content changes to the article. I had broken out the time period subpages many years ago in the interests of keeping the main page pithy, but which had the unintended effect of raising of the profile of the 'Christian v Muslim' debate. I am fine with all of the changes you propose.
Let me know if you need me to track down refs or something as you merge. Also, I have started a draft for Acholi religion at a user subpage, which will be helpful in explaining the whole spirit possession/religious syncretism thing and will, at my current rate of work, be ready in a month or two. ;) - BanyanTree 04:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we cannot merge a war article with a group article, the conflict would lose visibility with the merger. I would like to leave it as it's now. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure I like the idea, either, but I see why you propose this; nonetheless, I'd prefer to have separate articles on the group and its activities, even if that would leave the group with a very small article. —Nightstallion 14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Obita[edit]

I am trying to get Dr Obitas contacts for an old friend of his please contact or show his contacts on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.200.46 (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Comboni Missionaries today called upon the governments of the United States and Canada to take action that will encourage an end to the warfare that has ravaged the lives of the Christian population of northern Uganda. In this war, an insurgent group calling itself the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) killed and disfigured innocent people by the tens of thousands, caused the displacement of 1.5 million refugees, and abducted more than 20,000 children for use as child soldiers and sex slaves. “For the past two decades,” the resolution stated, the LRA has employed “hellishly barbaric tactics against the civilian population of northern Uganda, principally the Acholi people.” Using statistics cited by the United Nations News Service, the resolution said, “This insurgency has driven approximately 1.5 million people into displacement camps where they live in extreme deprivation, entirely dependent upon relief for survival ... “In its oppression of this almost uniformly Christian population, the LRA has received support from the ruling National Islamic Front in Sudan; and the LRA has abducted as many as 20,000 children for use as child soldiers and sex slaves, with children making up at least 80 percent of its insurgent force.”.... http://allafrica.com/stories/200404260285.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.202.109.28 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist vs. Military[edit]

Should the page read "military group" or "terrorist group"? What's the guideline on these sort of topics? GranolaB (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They generally fight conventionally, and have a military structure. They are bascially the modern version of ancient barbarians than anything else, sacking villages and carrying off the women and children ect.XavierGreen (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's lead currently calls the group a "terrorist group". Per WP:TERRORIST, Wikipedia is not supposed to call organizations "terrorist" in its own voice, but rather should indicate who has called the organization "terrorist". See, for example, the last sentence of the first paragraph of Al Qaeda, Hamas, or Hezbollah, or the third paragraph of ETA. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It is currently listed as a terrorist organization by the United States.[5][6]"
This is not true! Here is the actual list: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
80.231.220.128 (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123086.htm -- Alyas Grey : talk 14:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian group? Not.[edit]

Change

Army/Movement, its stated goals include establishment of multi-party democracy,[11] ruling Uganda according to the Ten Commandments,[12] and Acholi nationalism.[13]

To

Army/Movement based on Acholi nationalism [13], its stated goals include establishment of multi-party democracy [11]. The Lord’s Resistance Army use their own definition of the Ten Commandments as they were presented and linked to the concept of ‘Ten Commandments’ by their leader Kony as a guideline for its members.[2]

Rogan Raccoon (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Re the opening sentence of the lede, "The Lord's Resistance Army is a Christian... group" -- I don't see this, at all. Later on it says "The group is based on a number of different beliefs including local religious rituals, mysticism, traditional religion, Acholi nationalism and Christianity" and this is supported by nine refs, and I'll assume that's accurate. Granted that ledes need to be succinct, I would say that see reducing that sentence to "Christian" for the lede is misleading at best.

Christianity is a recognized movement, divided into various sections (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Nestorian, etc.) There are some splinters that are still part of the Christian movement, but the Lord's Resistance Army isn't one of them -- they are not affiliated with any church recognized by the National Council of Churches of any country, for instance.

Indeed, here we have an editor of Foreign Policy saying "[T]o call the LRA 'Christians' is to abase the English language", and that sounds about right.

Anyone can wrap themselves in the cross, but self-descriptions count for little. We'd need, at the very least, some notable neutral sources describing how the entity is part of the Christian movement. Better would be a notable recognized Christian organization, such as the Methodist Church of Great Britain or whomever, saying something like "We accept the LRA as co-religionists". Absent that, we need to not be saying this ourselves. Herostratus (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint sounds like the no true scotsman fallacy. Reliable secondary sources call them a christian group. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree per the last comment...it is not up for us to decide what they are called using our own reasoning or feelings on the subject. We use only reliable secondary sources.204.65.34.246 (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have a point. It depends on the sources, and we'd want good sources, is all I'm saying. Besides reliability, I'd like to see sources with standing to address the issue. If it's the National Council of Churches for a country listing them as a member in good standing, that'd be good. If it's Joe Blow Reporter on a deadline, maybe he's not really versed in theology and the structure of the Christian movement, so maybe not so good. Their own self-description carries little weight, I think. It looks like many good sources describe their theology as sort of a mishmash, and some good sources say they're not Christians, so I'd be leery of describing them as such. Herostratus (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does someone have to be a member of a church to be a christian? (see Non-denominational Christianity) IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing the description to "heterodox Christian", using the article on the Taiping Rebellion as a baseline (another example of a rebellion led by a "Christian" messiah figure); I believe that this best sums up the situation. 68.42.243.198 (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be anti-Christian group, considering it goes against virtually every teaching of the religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.227.186 (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Absolutely not. They are a Christian terrorist group, hellbent on imposing the ten commandments on all people. They are the DEFINITION of Christian terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.180.114 (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Christians, rewriting the History as they like since 70 A.D. or so. And now doing the same on Wikipedia... 95.16.154.209 (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

There are several areas in the article that have way too many references to the point it's confusing. Perhaps someone more versed on the subject and the history of the article could clear some of the unnecessary references out. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 21 October 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Under the "United States congressional action" section the bill actually passed the Senate on Mar 10, 2010 and it was passed with unanimous consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanimous_consent) which is different from an unanimous vote. The bill passed the House or Representatives by voice vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_vote) with no record kept of yes/no votes. The source for this information can be found at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1067 Mipoleon (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It currently says, The bill passed unanimously in the Senate on March 11, 2010 - it doesn't say 'consent'. If I'm missing something, please re-request and please make it clear exactly what needs changing. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  08:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted removal of a noteworthy point from the Rush Limbaugh paragraph[edit]

I have reverted an edit by Beland, which I felt weakened and subtly distorted an important aspect of the Rush Limbaugh paragraph in the "In popular culture" section.

My original edit made the paragraph end:

"Later, Limbaugh stated that he would research the group as he was made aware of accusations of their atrocities. Contrary to this assertion, however, he later allowed the show's written transcript to be posted on his website under the title "Obama Invades Uganda, Targets Christians"."

The (now reverted) edit removed an important fact taken directly from the sources cited, namely, that his claimed due diligence was apparently not undertaken, as evidenced by the fact that the tone of the original broadcast is reflected, unchanged, in the title of the official transcript, which by simple logic had to have been posted after his "research" statement. This point is clearly made in the sources cited, and is of central importance to the story.

Here is the way it stood after the edit I have just reverted:

"Later, Limbaugh stated that he would research the group as he was made aware of accusations of their atrocities. The show's written transcript is posted on his website under the title "Obama Invades Uganda, Targets Christians""

This clearly muddles and downplays the fact, made clear in the sources cited, of Limbaugh's partisan political motivations.

What is the purpose of this paragraph to begin with, if not to describe a bizarre political attack gone awry?

Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to elimnate Rush entirely from this page. --65.51.209.126 (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... an anonymous poster would apparently love to see the whole (absolutely noteworthy) matter disappear... [cough:"dittohead"] Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)][reply]

As the section is about the Resistance Army in popular culture, there is no reason to delete the notable information about Rush Limbaugh's treatment of this topic. And in any case, why would the Limbaugh item be any less noteworthy than the movie item that precedes it? Odds are more people listen to Rush Limbaugh's show daily than have ever seen that film. Nihola (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Now someone has simply removed the entire item, while leaving in place other items about James Bond and a music video! This is obviously ideologically-motivated vandalism! Will anyone else here step in and help me put a stop to these continued attempts to whitewash the subject by removing factual, pertinent, amply-cited material? Heavenlyblue (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the material back. It appears to have been removed by Niemti on 18 March. His comment: "that's not popculture". According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs, Rush has 15 million plus listeners per week! Heavenlyblue (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material has once again been substantially altered, this time by Snori, still with no discussion on the talk page! Snori's stated reason (in his edit comment) is: "He deserves *credit*, not censure, for leaving the transcript up". This shows obvious political bias, and is a statement of opinion, not fact! In any case, the point of the original statement was that, AFTER the broadcast, AFTER he had been corrected on the facts, he STILL posted the transcript with the extremely misleading TITLE "Obama Invades Uganda, Targets Christians". There can be, in my view, no reasonable claim made that this was accidental. Limbaugh clearly stated that he would research the group's activities, yet later posted the transcript with a title that absolutely reflects his earlier, incorrect statements. There are only two logical possibilities here: 1) Limbaugh did the research, verified that he had been mistaken, and failed to correct that false information when titling the transcript, or 2) Limbaugh never bothered to do the research he had promised. Either way, he is undeserving of praise for his actions. And most importantly, either way my original formulation (backed up by citations) still stands as a factually correct statement : Contrary to this assertion, however, he later allowed the show's written transcript to be posted on his website under the title "Obama Invades Uganda, Targets Christians". Therefor, I am going to add it back. If anyone disagrees, let him or her discuss it here first before taking any action! I see what has been going on here as an underhanded form of politically-motivated vandalism. If it continues, I am going to request that some admins step in. In the meantime, I am requesting help from other editors. The paragraph in question is factual, neutrally-phrased without obscuring the facts, of interest to many, and backed up by solid citations. There is NO reason for it to be further tampered with! If you have additional information, by all means add it, but please cease attempts to remove or "creatively interpret" the existing information. Thank you. Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's uninformed (stupid) opinion is not really that important in context of this article. If this is somehow super-important in relation with Mr. Limbaugh, feel free to take it to his article. --Niemti (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And don't get me wrong: the "Obama Invades Uganda, Targets Christians" thing was really pretty damn retarded. But it's mentioned and you're just beating a dead horse now. --Niemti (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree, the further comment about being made aware of the atrocities, and indicating that he would research further, sets the context for his earlier assertions about the LRA, in that they were made without reference to those aspects of the group. The phrasing 'however contrary to this' sounded a bit POV though, and could've been taken to suggest he was being deceptive about the assertion that he would research further; The posting of the transcript without retraction, while relevant to show these points weren't subsequently addressed, doesn't necessarily imply this, it may very well just be intended as a record of the show as it aired.Number36 (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the title, which would almost certainly have been chosen AFTER the episode was aired, is strongly misleading. And since the accusations had been raised, and the promise made by Limbaugh to look into them, the choice of this misleading title MUST have been deliberate. Heavenlyblue (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re recent edit, good call on replacing 'however' with 'but' Niemti, I should've considered that as well, could carry the same connotation of dishonesty. Darn but we have a subtle language :)Number36 (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this item has simply been quietly and unjustifiably removed!!! I'm putting it back. Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The complete deletion, with no discussion here, seems to have been done by Lihaas. Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


AGAIN, the paragraph has been altered in a way that entirely removes the central point, that Limbaugh allowed to be posted information that he knew to be misleading or untrue! I'm adding it back. Heavenlyblue (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History ---?[edit]

I challenge this sentence (the first in the History section) and its reference.

In the 1800s Great Britain colonized Uganda. While the people of the South were treated fairly, the people of the North, or the Acholi, were treated as slaves. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda</ref>

Please review. Neither the word "slave" or "Acholi" are on the Uganda page which supposedly is the source. Thanks --65.51.209.126 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalism[edit]

Cannibalism is a standard practice of the LRA, they have committed several well-documented cases of cannibalism and it is a major failing to not mention this, so I have added "cannibalistic" to their description and referenced the Royal African Society which calles them a "cannibal cult". Refer also:

http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/?p2=/modules/liu/news/view.jsp&id=323 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.75.113 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/child-soldiers-sex-slaves-and-cannibalism-at-gunpoint-the-horrors-of-ugandas-north-6159396.html

http://english.pravda.ru/world/africa/20-10-2011/119391-africa_usa-0/

http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2009/s09100045.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79816#.TwR25IHhfvI

http://www.mosaicpeace.org/pages/about/about.php

http://allafrica.com/stories/200309080177.html

114.76.75.113 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added brief description of major incident of forced cannibalism in history section. 114.76.75.113 (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question the veracity of the cannibalism sources, but should that somewhat non sequitur-ish reference to cannibalism in the opening sentence of the article perhaps be moved somewhere else? Considering cannibalism is by no means a distinguishing characteristic of the LRA (although their practice of it is quite remarkable), it seems out-of-place to have it referenced so early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.108.194 (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, but you have contributed to wikipedia a lot. Have you considered getting an account? ♪♫19maxx♪♫ 22:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19maxx (talk • contribs)

Peace talks[edit]

Where would an appropriate place to summarize and link the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006-2008_Juba_talks be? Ennns (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Peace Talks began in July 2006, so maybe in the 2000s History section, as appropriate? Or else maybe in "See also"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect?[edit]

Just spotted a bit of vandalism. While this is such a hot topic, wouldn't it make sense to semi-protect it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.162.98 (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum in the "In popular culture" section[edit]

The link to Quantum should be replaced with a piped link to Quantum (James Bond). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk)

Done with this edit. Thank you for pointing it out. Begoon talk 03:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology .... Christian? I think no[edit]

It seems this has been added to the sidebar as a smear-tactic, rather than to having any academic merit. The LRA (aside from using tactics that are completely anti-Christian) served to further the interests of the Acholi tribes and Joseph Kong, and merges virtually every religious affiliation in the region to gain support. It's ludicrous to have their ideology listed as Christian and in all probably is simply a very cheap smear tactic by people wishing to exploit the victims of the LRA to promote some warped anti-Christian agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.227.186 (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's an intended smear or not, I agree. The article says:
"The group is based on a number of different beliefs including local religious rituals, mysticism, traditional religion, Acholi nationalism, and Christianity... and claims to be establishing a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and local Acholi tradition." So surely "ideology" if any should be given in the info box as "Synchretic". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's synchretic to be sure, but doesn't that make Christian fundamentalism an inappropriate description in their ideology? Synchretism and fundamentalism (generally meaning a purification of outside influences) are necessarily at odds. Gtbob12 (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the citation used in the lead para to assert that LRA is "Christian" was provided with no URI. I found the article, added the URI, and read it. The article very clearly states that although some media have called LRA "Christian", this is a "gross oversimplification" and very "misleading". The article quotes locals who assert that there is nothing Christian about the group. For example:

  • "They prayed a lot, but they didn't pray like normal Christians. Sometimes they would use rosaries, but sometimes they would bow down like Muslims. They said they had a malaika [spirit, angel]. They said the malaika said there would be a terrible fight, and that the government would be overthrown. After that, they said, we would be released. Sometimes they would gather us together and try to convince us to believe them. They believed in their local gods, and they didn't want us to learn about their malaika. They discouraged us from asking questions about them or their beliefs. If you asked too many questions they would become cruel."

Therefore I have tagged that claim as a verification fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sderose (talk • contribs) 00:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright - special forces intervention[edit]

The paragraph in the "ICC arrest warrants" section regarding the 2006 Guatemalan special forces intervention contains phrases and sentences directly copied from the following article - http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/05/15/hard-target.html Hack (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been replaced by a bunch of pictures and stories about the people in them- can you find the original article? I don't know what the contents were. Nadhika99 (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The cached version is here. Hack (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy in special forces description[edit]

The article describes how when the guatemalan special forces engaged the LRA, none of them survived. The link they cite does not support this, upon further investigation, this claim appears to be untrue. Other sources I have found consistently claim 8 killed and 5 wounded, as such I strongly feel that this section should be either deleted or rewritten. I am leaning towards deletion as I fail to see why this specific incident is particularly significant for the LRA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.135.65 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the actions of the Guatemalan special forces should be included because they represent the first military attempt by the international community to enforce the ICC warrant. However, any factual inaccuracies should certainly be corrected. Did you already delete it? Nadhika99 (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not delete it, but it appears someone else has removed the section in question. I agree that it could be considered relevant, but if added back in, care must be taken to remove the factual inaccuracies.

Edit Request: Fighting Strength[edit]

I suggest that the fighting strength list "300–400" alongside the old "500-3,000" figure.

IRIN 2007: "According to the Ugandan government, there are only 500-1,000 soldiers in total... Military sources and international observers in Southern Sudan estimate that there could be as many as 3,000 LRA fighters, with about 1,500 women and children in tow... However, these figures are disputed." http://www.irinnews.org/InDepthMain.aspx?InDepthId=58&ReportId=72446

Enough Project 2010: "Based on Enough interviews with former LRA fighters, there are about 400 LRA fighters operating in three countries. This number does not include women, children, and abductees who are used solely to carry food and other looted materials." http://www.enoughproject.org/files/lra_today.pdf
NDU 2011: "At present, numerous unofficial reports estimate that the overall strength of the LRA is only 300–400 combatants. More than half of these are believed to be abductees." http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/StrForum/SF-270.pdf

~TrickSpoon0 173.58.233.95 (talk)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-quoted text, possibly propaganda?[edit]

"In 2006, the United Nations mounted a covert operation to capture or kill Joseph Kony. A squad of U.S.-trained Guatemalan Special Ops soldiers set out into Congo's Garamba National Park, a longtime LRA refuge and the scene of the 2008–2009 Garamba offensive. Trained in jungle warfare and accustomed to surviving in the bush for long stretches, the Guatemalans were equipped with M-16s and the latest special-operations technology. Five LRA soldiers were killed and none of the Special Ops soldiers survived. According to one account, the commander of the Special Ops soldiers was beheaded. The battle, which lasted for several hours, included hand to hand combat. Reports put the U.N. dead at eight to forty. The LRA left the corpses in the jungle but took the weapons—including heavy machine guns and grenade launchers.[69]"

I removed this from the article (someone else saw that this was there, but no one deleted it). The source doesn't say anything about Guatemalan troops, or mention the battle. It's a series of six pictures with stories from individuals who were in some way affected by the LRA, but not even the word "Guatemalan" is present. Much less a description of a battle.

It read to me like it was propaganda. I guess its possible that the LRA has the internet too. Scryer_360 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2867&Itemid=59 -- Alyas Grey : talk 16:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened: 8 Guatemalan UN commandos and at least 15 LRA were killed in an ambush in Garamba National Park,[3][4] by this guy among others, like this guy. --Niemti (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of resources[edit]

A documentary by Sorious Samoura says that the main issues preventing the capture of Joseph Kony have been corruption within the military (a much larger army being present on paper than what actually existed in actuality, allowing the siphoning of of funds to military units, the non-existant troops being called "ghost soldiers")

Another issue is the lack of resources of the Ugandan army. Appearantly, no actual tools are present to aid the army in tracking the LRA. Drones equipped with thermal imaging for example should allow the 450-people strong LRA army to be detected quite easily, but foreign armies have never issued use of these tools, or used them themselves to assist the Ugandan army.

Mention in text. See Sorious Samoura's docu 91.182.135.126 (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Limbaugh[edit]

I've removed the following sentence re. Rush Limbaugh's defense of LRA (or rather, his use of LRA to attack the Obama administration): "The list of LRA objectives as cited by Limbaugh appeared to have come from Wikipedia, but was then used without sufficient research and without due diligence." The statement was sourced to this Christian Science Monitor article.

The assertion that Limbaugh didn't do sufficient research or due diligence is a statement of opinion. We can't present it as a statement of fact, even if we cite the publication in which it appeared. We can only say, "According to X, Limbaugh used the list without sufficient research..." or "Critics have suggested that Limbaugh..."

The same is true of the statement that Limbaugh appeared to have got his list from Wikipedia. This is the writer's opinion; and if it's presented in the article at all, it must be presented in language that makes it clear that it's someone's opinion, and not an indisputable fact or an editorial insertion by a WP editor.

I don't see the need for the insertion of this statement, or a variant thereof, in this article: the article's about the LRA, and not about what a buffoon Limbaugh can be in his effort to anathematize all things non-conservative. If we include it, then NPOV seems to require that we insert a countervailing statement presenting Limbaugh's defense of his position. That seems to be moving away from the real subject of the article. Ammodramus (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New National Resistance Army[edit]

Is the LRA a new National Resistance Army'?

Flag[edit]

The flag commonly associated with the LRA is actually not their flag, but likely that of another guerrilla group. Their real flag is a red over yellow (or yellow over red) bicolor. Unfortunately I don't have a source for this at this time, but it's been pointed out in multiple places. Can anyone find a reliable source? 130.64.31.232 (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. [5], [6] 71.184.147.211 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs to be addressed. The current flag was nominated for deletion ([7]), and the only defense given was an archived version of the above-linked World Statesmen website. The current site has the red-and-yellow flag. 130.64.98.69 (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GROSS Bias[edit]

'The LRA has been accused of widespread human rights violations, including murder, abduction, mutilation, child-sex slavery, and forcing children to participate in hostilities.[7][8]'

Does this mean that I can add similar charges to the Unites States' and its allies' Wikipedia pages (torture, drone strikes, false flag terror attacks, indefinite detention without trial, Sir Jimmy Saville etc) ? Beingsshepherd (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd Absolutely. And there are several sources you could use to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.180.114 (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

>> Uganda captures LRA rebels (Lihaas (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Introduction[edit]

The original sentence read as "The Lord's Resistance army is a militant movement which has is "Christianist," extremist Christian, or as a new religious movement or a cult which operated in northern Uganda and South Sedan." I changed deleted 'has' and changed 'or' to 'acting.'

An interesting analysis of LRA from late 2014[edit]

AN LRA FOR EVERYONE: HOW DIFFERENT ACTORS FRAME THE LORD'S RESISTANCE ARMY

by Kristof Titeca and Theophile Costeur

http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/12/15/afraf.adu081.full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.154.126.113 (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

originated as Christian army movement.[edit]

Originally known as the United Holy Salvation Army and Uganda Christian Army/Movement. Can we add this in the sidebar under existing heading "originated as" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.180.114 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this information have been there before, but removed for no reason. It seems Christians are still rewriting History. 95.16.154.209 (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ideology[edit]

Al Qaeda for example has a sidebar heading for ideology. Perhaps this article should have a similar section highlighting the ten commandments and Christian ideology of the LRA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.180.114 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unknown word[edit]

The article read

In 1986, the armed rebellion waged by Museveni's NRA National Resistance Army, took over power through military means. They sought vengeance against the ethnic groups in the North of Uganda. Their activities included Operation Simsim which consisted of burning, looting, killings and "kambanakamba" a three-piece tying of the locals to death. Their acts of terrorism led to formation of rebel groups from the previous Ugandan army UNLA. Many of those groups made peace with Museveni. However, the southern-dominated army did not stop attacking civilians in the north of the country.

I can't find this word kambanakamba anywhere else but in wikipedia copy sites. It's not in English (this is the English wikipedia) and the grammar is wrong, so I'm fixing up the sentence best I can. If somebody knows what this word is, please amend my edit. Anniepoo (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the term, but it looks to me from the morphology that it is agglutinative or polysynthetic word/idiom. Kamba appears to be a common morpheme in the region that variously serves as an ethnonym, toponym, glossonym, and surname; I wouldn't be surprised if it serves in non-proper noun contexts as well. In this case, I suspect it is a metaphorical extension, naming the practice after a group that practiced it or some similar association, but that's pure speculation. I've next to no knowledge Bantu languages, but I'll see what I can find out. Snow let's rap 08:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lord's Resistance Army. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Lord's Resistance Army. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear writing in 'Causes of the LRA conflic' section[edit]

Thanks everyone for writing the article, but a lot of this section as written is sort of confusing. It needs to be in plainer English. As it is I can't even tell what it is trying to say, so I can't do this myself.

"Part of the structural causes of the LRA conflict has been explained as rooted in the "diversity of ethnic groups which were at different levels of socio-economic development and political organization".[54] This has led to ethnic strife. Enemy images have instilled insensitivity to the extent that people perceived as enemies can be construed and ignored as inconsequential"

What exactly is the "diversity of ethnic groups etc etc?" Why is it in quotes? Is this supposed to be common knowledge? what are "enemy images"? How does an enemy image instill insensitivity? In whom? I'm imagining some effigy given life, stalking around making racist remarks. This seems like it was lifted from some obtuse UN report or roughly translated from another language. The structure of these clauses is not so coherent.

"The strong imbalance in the level of development and investment between Eastern & Northern Uganda on the one side, and Central & Western Uganda on the other perceived as the land of milk and honey, is a clear manifestation of economic marginalisation of the region, in spite of the fact that most top leadership in Uganda hailed from the north between 1962 and 1985."

Milk and honey? huh? Not very encyclopedic. Even from a grammatical level I'm having trouble understanding this. This really could be plainer and clearer. Grandiose phrasing ≠ Better Article.

--66.44.25.25 (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2016[edit]

The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), also known as the Lord's Resistance Movement, is a rebel group and heterodox Christian cult

The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), also known as the Lord's Resistance Movement, is a rebel group and heterodox Charlatan-Christian cult


Thehcc (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lord's Resistance Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lord's Resistance Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

The LRA is also featured in a Twilight 2000 RPG module - the East Africa/Kenya Sourcebook - which details an alternate history of the time period 1995-2001 where the LRA comes to power in Uganda during WWIII. Sourcebook is a pdf publication at drivethrurpg.com and is an official canon release for the game. https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/208889/T2000-v2--East-Africa-Sourcebook

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref></ref>== Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2021 ==

Change

Army/Movement, its stated goals include establishment of multi-party democracy,[11] ruling Uganda according to the Ten Commandments,[12] and Acholi nationalism.[13]

To

Army/Movement based on Acholi nationalism [13], its stated goals include establishment of multi-party democracy [11]. The Lord’s Resistance Army use their own definition of the Ten Commandments as they were presented and linked to the concept of ‘Ten Commandments’ by their leader Kony as a guideline for its members.[8]

Rogan Raccoon (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Please format your edit requests in a clear Change X to Y format. Loafiewa (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Rogan Raccoon (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion theology[edit]

Currently the article wiki links the LRA's oft repeated claim to seek to rule Uganda according to the Ten Commandments with dominion theology / dominionism. While ruling according to the Ten Commandments sounds like dominionism, I cannot find any citation in the article that asserts that the LRA are dominionists. A quick google for the two terms did not seem to reveal any reliable sources (RS) making the claim (but I did not look long and hard for a RS on this point). Without such a reference, the link is simply original research and should be removed. Of course, I am not here to defend dominionism but I would suggest that given the way that the LRA use the term "Ten Commandments" to mean things other than the actual Ten Commandments, there is at least some question in my mind as to whether they might properly be considered dominionists anyway. Greenshed (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lord%27s_Resistance_Army&oldid=1208586324"