Wikipedia

Talk:Lord's Resistance Army insurgency/Archive 1

< Talk:Lord's Resistance Army insurgency
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Terrorist

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
  • Given their numerous attacks on civilians, I would assume they are officially considered a terrorist organisation by the EU, US etc. Can some on confirm somewhere and add this information Nil Einne 09:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • They are listed by the U.S. government as a terrorist group [1]. EU countries usually have their own views on these issues, and most of them don't make a big deal about the label "terrorists" as the U.S. does. I do not know the UN position, but I assume they avoid the label as well, because it would be difficult to come to a consensus. Take Hamas: freedom fighters or terrorists? Take that to the security council and someone will probably throw you out through the window.--Ezeu 15:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I was consciously avoiding the word "terrorist" in the article because I find that it is overly loaded with other meanings besides the one referring to techniques. (And even as a description of the tactic, it is very broad.) However, the US listing is encylopedic and I have added it in at the appropriate spot. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by BanyanTree (talk • contribs)
I agree that the word "terrorist" is close to meaningless. But I think it's important to point out in the beginning of the article that they are using tactics which can be considered terrorist, because some people (esp. in the USA) often claim that Islam is the only violent religion, and that there are no christian terrorism etc. For a muslim it may be important that christian "terrorists" are viewed with the same lens as muslim "terrorists" are. What do you think? --Merat 13:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Two points on this. One: the lead currently states "mutilation, torture, rape, the abduction of civilians, the use of child soldiers and a number of massacres". Given how politically loaded the term "terrorism" is, it seems wise to state the tactics and let the reader decide whether they think it is a terrorist organization, which in our current world is apparently somehow different from an organization that utilizes terror as a weapon. Two: the LRA has certainly stated something about ruling according to the Ten Commandments but the spirit possession by which Kony is 'inspired' certainly has its roots within traditional Acholi spirit mediumship. (See Alice Auma for Kony's predecessor.) Certainly any mainstream Christian movement, whether in the West or I imagine even in Uganda, would deny that the LRA is in any way representative of the Christianity that they practice. While not entirely incorrect, "Christian terrorist group" is very misleading when applied to the LRA. I realize that this argument can be made for Muslim terrorist groups; this seems like a problem with those pages rather this one. - BT 20:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding chronology of events

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Earthward.org

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Good, detailed entry on the LRA! Do you think it might be helpful to mention that my organization is trying to help a family who fled the LRA to Kenya? I didn't want to add anything myself because it might come off too self-promotion-y, but I thought maybe a Wikipedia regular could check out us and add whatever information you think might be useful to readers? (Of course, it would really help the family too!)

Our site is http://earthward.org. Our email server is having problems, but I can be reached at lynne. godlessheathen @ gmail . com. Our PR guy has an alternative email listed on the front page of our site as well.

Thanks in advance!

24.136.37.77 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Lynne

Hi Lynne, While I empathize with the family, it seems very unlikely that the circumstances of a single family would fall under the Wikipedia policy of Notability. Even better covered events, such as 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, don't go much below the district/municipal level. Thanks for posting to the talk page to check first. If you think you may continue to edit Wikipedia in an official capacity, I suggest the essay User:Jmabel/PR as being particularly well-thought out. - BanyanTree 16:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

versus

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

Is this an encylopedia or a propaganda rag?

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

Personal [and i know that people {some} will care what i say] but they are just writting down what really has happened and i think there is nothing wrong with it. it's not like there calling them terrist [sorry i'm not sure how to spell it which really hurts my feeling behind it]24.113.251.213 01:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Andrea Day

sub-articles

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

i.e.

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

I had actually broken out those pages in an attempt to keep the article size down. While I would like to think that readers have 40-minute chunks to devote to indepth accounts, I know they don't and prefer summary style to give them the option of delving. That page also notes, Articles longer than 12 to 15 printed pages (more than 30 to 35 KB of readable text) take longer to read than the upper limit of the average adult's attention span—20 minutes. Of the range given in the guideline Wikipedia:Article size, I definitely favor the lower end. - BT 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Banyan, what you've done here is remarkably good. One comment: I've just put in 'merge' text (and will remove it, now that I've seen this discussion). I also added comments to the LRA-2002-2005 article; the first one still stands, IMHO: I came to the site because of mention of Night Commuters, but the linked page (2nd on the results page when I googled 'Uganda night-commuter wiki') never mentions or links to night commuters except as an image caption. ArtDent (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything pro-LRA on the net?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Anything at all? If only because it'd be interesting to see those who defend the LRA. Political reasons more than religious. --Mrdie (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone purporting to be the external affairs secretary of the Lord's Resistance Movement (aka the political wing of the LRA) presented "A Case for National Reconcilation, Peace, Democracy and Economic Prosperity for All Ugandans", a conference paper on behalf of the LRM/A, in 1997. I say "purport" because it's never been clear that those claiming to represent the LRM are actually in contact with the leadership of the LRA and, in any case, Kony has never abided by political compacts, either out of choice or because he simply doesn't understand the concept. It's probably the closest you'll get to a political rationale. Cheers, BanyanTree 00:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

npov?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"The moral ambiguity of this situation, in which abducted young rebels are both the victims and perpetrators of brutal acts, is vital to understanding the current conflict."

Particularly the last part. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which doesn't presume to tell the reader how to understand something. That's the readers job. I would have just deleted this straight away, but found that it was a featured article. Is there any reason why this sentence was allowed to stay here? Harley peters (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sentence has always stuck out for me as well, since I hate sentences that start, "Importantly..." But people weren't nearly as picky back when this was FAed and nobody has ever pointed it out before. I tried to reword.
Also, you've made a case that the sentence isn't written according to the MOS, but that's different from being biased. The use of "NPOV" to refer to anything questionable about an article is as big a pet peeve for me as sentences that tell me how important they are. - BanyanTree 21:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict page

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

Why do we not have two different articles on the LRA ind LRA insurgency, like all other conflicts? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea. —Nightstallion 23:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
(Copied from User talk:BanyanTree#Question - BanyanTree 06:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Y'know, I came across a stub for Second Ugandan Civil War once that seemed to be an attempt to break out the conflict and recommended a merge it into the LRA article. (That seems to be a term used entirely by some activists.) I suppose that it's largely a function that the conflict is peculiarly configured by the idiosyncrasies of the LRA and I can't think of the conflict without thinking of the LRA, in particularly Kony. It seems to me that a conflict article would seem nonsensical without a thorough understanding of the wackiness of the LRA, so it makes sense that they are one article. I'm not against separate articles, but I'm not sure what the value added is to taking that step. What do you think? - BanyanTree 01:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've heard that Uganda, Congo and S.Sudan are preparing an offensive against the LRA. Since I'm going probably to work on it I will be against naming it Lord's Resistance Army (2008-present) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That's understandable. Do you just want to add to the Lord's Resistance Army#Developments since 2005 section or do you want a separate article to play with? If you want, I could move Lord's Resistance Army (2002-2005) to Lord's Resistance Army (2002-2007) and merge the info from Developments since 2005 in, leaving you the LRA article to yourself for the most recent events. I've gotten worn down by the slow motion edit warring over if the LRA is "Christian" or not, which is apparently the only thing most editors find interesting, so don't give that article nearly the attention I should, and would be OK with any solution you feel warranted. Thanks, BanyanTree 09:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer to have an article on the LRA and articles on the LRA insurgency separately, but whatever you do is fine. One small thing, though -- please use – and not - for the dash between the years. —Nightstallion 11:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to move anything or split pages, as long as the article is FA status. However, a separate article on the insurgency could be made by not touching this article, and using the articles Lord's Resistance Army (2002-2005), Lord's Resistance Army (1994-2002)... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC) That would, however, create problems as the info in the 2 articles would be similar, and could get merged again in the future... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
there's another option (much easier): renaming this article to LRA insurgency (because the article currently has more info on the events than on the movoment itself), creating a new article about the LRA (with a shorter history of events). This article would keep the FA status. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a very good idea to me, let's do that. —Nightstallion 16:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
here's the new intro: User:TheFEARgod/Lord's Resistance Army insurgency--TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Do the change whenever you want. —Nightstallion 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
done. The new imminent period of warfare may bear the name Lord's Resistance Army insurgency (2008-present), with the longer dash I don't know where to find it--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The longer dash is the first of the special characters below the editting window. Shouldn't we also be moving the other parts, like Lord's Resistance Army (2002-2005) to Lord's Resistance Army insurgency (2002–2005)? —Nightstallion 15:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

make it so--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Consider it done. —Nightstallion 08:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's been nearly four years since this article was promoted to featured status, and I think it's time for a review. Our FA standards are a lot higher now than they used to be, and the article has changed beyond recognition.[2] If people want time to beef up the references, etc., I'm happy to wait a few weeks before nominating it. Polemarchus (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Annoyance

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it possible to remove that large gap in the first section? ★ QuackOfaThousandSuns (Talk) ★ 00:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Religious orientation?

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

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

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

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

Look, the LRA is a fundamentalist Christian terrorist organization. They are not in any way representative of normal Christian people. They are led by a power hungry madman who thinks he is a prophet or some such nonsense. However, just because they are not an example of good Christians, it would be wrong to edit out their religious affiliation. As much as the al queda freaks are not good Muslims, the LRA are not good Christians. Neither side should be seen as representative of the religions they claim to represent. HOWEVER, people seem to have absolutely no problem in labelling someone as an 'Islamic Terrorist" so why is there such a bias against calling the LRA Christian Terrorists. That is what they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.48.19.93 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In VOX (Belgian Military Weekly : journalist Koen Vidal) Nr 9322 of june 1993 : exercice of the Belgian Army called " evacuation in Ancong". The army becomes help from the New Visionary Movement (NVM) of Ogala.. and this in a way that is very similar to the future evacuation in april 1994.( Death of the Belgian King Boudouin on 31/07/1993. Arusha-signing on 04/08/1993). The New Vision is... also the Newspaper of Uganda and the Belgian Christian Journaliste Els De Temmerman (married with the ex-President Johan Vanhecke of the Belgian Christian Party) will work for it.Vandermeeren (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Timing in religious affaires : End 2008 there came activity of LRA in Nord-East-Congo. Els De Temmerman decides to stop her work for "The New Vision" in Uganda. Kagamé captured his friend Nkunda. Els D. T. works again for Museveni. Kagamé renews his old friendship with Kabilla and Clinton comes to their coffe-table at Goma in july 2009 near "the Heart of Darkness" of the Protestant Conrad.They still need "victimology" there. Time comes to take the Garden of Leopold II, our necessary Bad Man in the tactical book of the USA-writer Hochchild in 1993.Vandermeeren (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Result

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey guys... this question may seem kind of odd... but is this war necessarily over? Has there been an actual end? I didn't think there was, so I was pretty confused. Any response and answer would help. 70.64.214.124 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


possible source

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADI241.pdf

Report commissioned by various agencies but independent of them.©Geni 22:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lord's Resistance Army insurgency. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 15:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lord's Resistance Army insurgency. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 04:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lord's Resistance Army insurgency. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 20:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Lord's Resistance Army insurgency. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Lord's Resistance Army insurgency. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord's Resistance Army insurgency. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord's Resistance Army insurgency. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Mirrored site

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Take a look at this page: [3].

It appears that the contents are identical to the Wikipedia article. Is it common for The Free Dictionary and Wikipedia to share articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avlund (talk • contribs) 14:44, 2 August 2004 (UTC)


Have a look at the bottom of the freedictionary page and you'll see that they take much of their content from Wikipedia, as they are allowed to do under the GFDL. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. --ALargeElk | Talk 14:58, 2 August 2004 (UTC)
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Map

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dating and structure

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

References

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

I still consider myself a newcomer, but isn't the term "references" used for the (rarely done) footnotes that direct to the bottom of the page, rather than externally? I may be completely wrong about this. Feel free to change stuff around to whatever seems most logical.
As I take it, 'References' are the sources (printed and online) referred to in the article and/or used in writing the article. 'Bibliography' can be the same, but can sometimes mean something like 'Further reading' (i.e. related things you should read that haven't necessarily been used in the article). I have never seen 'References' referring to footnotes. What you see mostly in academic works is a Notes section (footnotes/endnotes) followed by a References section (sources used). But I must admit that my own Wikipractice is not consistent either; compare Gbe languages and Force Dynamics. — mark ✎ 18:45, 8 January 2005 (UTC)
After browsing through Wikipedia:Cite sources, I think you're right. I'll go change it. BanyanTree 20:26, 8 January 2005 (UTC)
Looks good! — mark ✎ 21:51, 8 January 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lord%27s_Resistance_Army_insurgency/Archive_1&oldid=1178007105"