Talk:Lord's Resistance Army

Symbols

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

I haven't. - BanyanTree 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See here.--Pharos (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Christianity or synchretism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Paranoia, paranoia, everybody's tryin'a get me. See Islamic terrorism. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• " the Lord's Resistance Army is a group of militant Christian fundamentalists" The scars of death: children abducted by the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda‎ - Page 61
• "the cuting off of people's lips, ears, or arms by the Christian fundamentalist Lord's Resistance Army represent either a return to exceptionally medieval violence or something new" The arms dynamic in world politics page 148p

• "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

• "Christian Rebels Wage a War of Terror in Uganda" The New York 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)

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)

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)

Islam

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)

"Kony blended together Christianity, Islam, and witchcraft into a bizarre mystical foundation for his movement."

"[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."

"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."

"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." (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."

"Kony, an enigmatic, unschooled man from the regional town of Gulu, Uganda, simultaneously believes in Christianity, Islam, witchcraft and magic."

"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."

"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."

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)

Sources for response by CMBJ

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)

Casino Royale (2006 Film)

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)

Merger proposal

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dr. Obita

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)

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)

Terrorist vs. Military

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)

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)

• 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)

"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)

Christian group? Not.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References

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)

Edit request from , 21 October 2011

{{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)

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)

Attempted removal of a noteworthy point from the Rush Limbaugh paragraph

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)

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

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)]

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)

History ---?

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)

Cannibalism

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)

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)

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

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)

---

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

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)

Semi-protect?

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)

Quantum in the "In popular culture" section

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)

Ideology .... Christian? I think no

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)

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)

Copyright - special forces intervention

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)