Talk:Ethnos360

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:New Tribes Mission)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Florida (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida.
If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Numbers of Missionaries[edit]

Their web site states "more than 1,500 NTM missionaries" and lists 16 nations (15 with missionaries "assigned"). Their online database shows 1,690, a sampling of which shows many without recent entries or entries only from their training within the U.S. Not sure what better source there is for a count of active missionaries, or an average active in a given year. Samatva (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Criticism[edit]

Despite the best of intentions no contact between two widely differing cultures leaves either unchanged. If NTM is to be (justly) accused of transculturization, it must equally be acknowledged that it is impossible for this not to occur, within the stated purposes of the organization. Christianity, itself, is "western" and conservative evangelical doctrine adds a layer of cultural norms and practices upon scripture. Standards of hygiene, agricultural practices, medical care, the sanctity of human life, standards of discipline and punishment for offences as well as what constitutes an offense are all culturally-based practices that the individual missionary inevitably introduces to a foreign culture. It has been my privelege to live in several different countries, each having its own culture, and to have been affected them. Even though I was a NTM MK myself (in the 1950's) and have a sister and nephew as active NTM missionaries, I recognize that from a more liberal perspective there is much to be criticised about NTM practices. The fundamental criticisms differ little from those offered against any fundamentalist Christian organization - it is their expressed intent to impose a set of beliefs on the non-believer. Agilberttx (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agilberttx, what you are saying is very true, but, the NTM Wikipedia Article is not the place to discuss (Christian)(Muslim) (7th Day Adventis) (Whoever else) missionaries impact on the culture of the target group. According to Wikipedia's policies, we want to state the facts (SoandSo accused NTM, NTM Responded by...), not get into a discussion of why a reader should take a particular fact one way or another. This is why I am reverting your edits. This discussion is better said in a transculturization article, or something of the kind. Or, if we edit some of the more blatantly Non-NPOV / Un-Sourced content ("The history of NTM itself, particularly with regard to the need for the level of preparation of missionary prospects prior to their assignments, demonstrates a degree of self-criticism and recognition of a need for change."), maybe we can put it into a different section, but not under criticism. Thoughts? Anapologetos (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
My thinking is that when the criticism is specifically the impact on indigenous religion and culture, an NPOV requires a balanced presentation of the facts. While I am actually not a big fan of NTM, I recognize that their stated mission in fact is to have a cultural impact. Therefore criticism that they have such an impact is disingenuous. I have seen much good done by missionaries, and some not-so-good also, but fair is fair and if there is a measure wherein such a cultural impact is inherent in the "mission" it should appear somewhere in the article if the criticism is also included.Agilberttx (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

08/13 NEW TRIBES99.62.255.202 (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Kulture Klubber99.62.255.202 (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)We can't keep indigenous peoples like "pristine museum pieces" in the jungle forever. I used to live with them for many years in Panama jungle; know language and culture fluently. Well-liked by them, but I felt obligated to help them and share the good side of what civilization has; warmth, light, knowledge, science, hygiene literacy, etc. Taught them how to use money and the value of it, taught them to be wise in money dealings with outsiders. Yes, we also taught literacy in their language, upheld their language, brought in literature to read, including the Bible translated into THEIR language. I learned many good things from them, too. Went lots of places in their world with them as friends. I think the survivalists and anthropols can be the cruel ones in many ways; getting college degrees, trekking in the jungle for "five minutes", looking at what we were doing as they passed, and judging us as evil, writing distortions, outright lies about us, like they credible authority. We just keep on teaching literacy, healing sicknesses, getting warm clothes for them, etc. I think the indigenous people deserve knowledge and a choice.99.62.255.202 (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Kulture Klubber on New Tribes, etc.99.62.255.202 (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Obviously reducing a group of people _from_ being independent and self-supporting _to_ living on handouts and being wracked with disease is not in any meaning of the word that I'm aware of an 'improvement'. Every culture lives in a homeostasis which has been developed over a lengthy period of cultural evolution. Disrupting that homeostasis by importing western medicine or western concepts of law or western whatever will cause wide-spread harm and a world of unexpected and disastrous consequences. This is why a wise man knows that some things should not be done even when they seem like good ideas because they will cause bad things in the long run.-65.185.154.132 (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

OMG the "we cant keep [them] in a pristine condition" statement sums up exactly what a bunch of crackpots American evangelical christians are. How dare you presume to "know" what is best for so-called indigenous peoples? If they want contact let them seek it for themselves. Your statement about teaching them about fiat currency (aka 'money') speaks for itself. NTM is a disgusting organisation not too far removed from the likes of ISIS in terms of the death by disease and cultural vandalism it causes.81.107.245.123 (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(Random heading)[edit]

(Random heading inserted by Said: Rursus () 08:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

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

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

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


They are NOT located in Miami Florida. Obviously you don't know what you are talking about, but are just speculating from second hand sources. They are in Sanford Florida, about 5 hours north. And these other accusations you heard about are equally as ridiculous. Some research sho--66.185.252.134 04:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)uld be done first. Chadwick Meyer—June 14, 2006
I've added a note about the current news from Venezuela. Also (in the other direction...) amended the description of the eco-action.org link to something less POV. If anyone wants to rewrite the rest of the page in a less POVish style.. --Mpk 11:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
They also have a training camp near Durham Ontario Canada where the missionaries in training go for jungle training - learning the word, also how to build camp and some training on how to be accepted by the locals once they are abroad. [User:Terry] --207.188.66.161 (Pathway Communications, Markham, Ontario) 06:13, 1 August 2006

Paul Gifford's Criticism[edit]

First off, I am really not trying to delete all the criticism from this article--I am just trying to make sure that it is sourced accurately--As for the criticism from Paul Gifford, the source is "Gifford p. 202"--> which gives me no help at all trying to check the sources--Mr. Gifford has written several books, and after doing a Google book search, and am having trouble finding which book it is--Does anybody have any ideas? Thanks! Anapologetos (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Survival International's Claims[edit]

So I was poking the article today, and as I followed the sources for the Survival International claims, I read the source, [1], and as I looked at it, all I am seeing is that this organization, Survival International makes some pretty heinous claims about NTM, yet they have no sources that they reference--All it is is "At least five of the 'evangelised' Ayoreo died during these expeditions, as the uncontacted Indians tried to defend themselves from capture. " claims that this is a fact--But they dont quote any eyewitnesses, or anything--How can we use this as a valid source when they don't even have any sources that they quote-- Any thoughts or ideas? Anapologetos (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Anybody? Anapologetos (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could add a statement to the end reflecting that, such as "Survival International and other critics have accused New Tribes Mission of using criminal tactics in their zeal to convert indigenous populations, including armed manhunts, kidnappings, selling them into forced labour, imprisonment in Mission camps, and even genocide, though they have given no evidence for these assertions." That preserves the criticism, but it allows the reader to judge its value more accurately. SU Linguist (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, but it doesn't deal with the main issue: The fact that a Wikipedia article is quoting from a source that itself has no sources, no eyewitness reports, nothing to backup its claims?Anapologetos (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, if nobody has any other input, I might remove it completely, and see if that will get somebody else to discuss this issue? :) Anapologetos (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article from the New York Times that reports on an incident involving the New Tribes Mission and the deaths of Ayoreo Indians: [2]. There also is a relevant quote in the article from the Mission's director Fred E. Sammons. The Times article states "For the New Tribes Mission, on the other hand, integration is itself an objective. There are people who like to say that the Ayoreos are happy living in the jungle, Mr. Sammons wrote recently. Yet if you ask anyone who has had a taste of civilization if he wants to go back and live like he used to, the answer is always a very positive 'No'. " This quote also supports Survival International's claims about groups like New Tribes Mission threatening the cultural survival of indigenous groups. Lastly, the article states, "critics of the New Tribes Mission, including lay anthropologists and rival Roman Catholic missionaries, have cited the death of the five Indians as evidence that American evangelists hunt down primitive Indians and destroy their culture in the name of converting them to Christianity." This statement and a similar critique from Survival International should be sufficient to include the statement suggested above by SU Linguist that "Survival International and other critics have accused New Tribes Mission of using criminal tactics in their zeal to convert indigenous populations, including armed manhunts, kidnappings, selling them into forced labour, imprisonment in Mission camps, and even genocide, though they have given no evidence for these assertions." However, I think that given the New York Times article, I would omit the words, "though they have given no evidence for these assertions."Warbler713 (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Eco-action as a source[edit]

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

User 24.174.98.215, please stop deleting the Eco-Action.org blurb--let's talk about it and see if we can make it more NPOV, rather than just deleting it... I myself think that eco-action.org is a pretty extremist site to be citing (http://www.eco-action.org/mission/ntm.html) Esp. since they do not cite any references whatsoever! (?) Any thoughts on this anybody? Anapologetos 12:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep it. —Babelfisch 02:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm game for removing it if we can find something a little more neutral that represents the same viewpoint. However, I do not see an intrinsic problem with biased sources. The goal is to keep the article itself unbiased...not the sources that are cited within the article. If the source does not provide any credible backup, that would bring into question whether or not it is a legitimate source in the first place. However, this is a different issue than the source's point of view. I agree with Anapologetos. This viewpoint does merit recognition in the article, but a more credible source would be preferable.--Son of thunder 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we are looking at two different issues here: 1st, that the article source is quite biased--but I also agree that it is ok to quote biased sources (what source is really NOT biased) The 2nd Issue is the fact that the quoted article does not have ANY sources for it's article (even though it references quite a few different stories, ect) I believe this would be the real problem. According to Wikipedia Verifiablity and Reliable Sources policies, I belive that the quoting of the article to not be correct--Specifically the point that there is no citing of sources of the claims/editorial oversight/questionable reliablity of website(?). Thoughts? Anapologetos 01:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Anybody? I would like to try and get this resolved in a timely manner.Anapologetos 15:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It's been a long time since anyone else has weighed in. I'd say a more academically sound source is necessary. Go ahead and make the change. Eco-action does not hold water.--Son of thunder 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good--Removing now until we can figure something else out.Anapologetos 11:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Factualization[edit]

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

Any help is appreciated. As for the accreditation issue, I mistook other schools' policies of accepting credits for full-fledged accreditation. I have already corrected the error. Do you have any thoughts on the removal of the NPOV tag (see discussion below)?--Son of thunder 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
well, I have just made a few changes (all sourced) (changed associates to bachelors, for the 4 year training program), etc... I then reread the article in light of pov, and I think that it would be fine to take off the npov tag--I dont see any way-out-there npov, on either the critcal/non-critical stuff... but I may be missing some--anybody else?(Oh crap--I just realized I wasnt logged in when I did those changes! oh well--it was me! :) Anapologetos 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Ian, I think you can feel free to correct any factual errors you find. However, I do think it would diplomatic of you to hold off on any changes to the "criticism" section before discussing them here first, given your admitted bias. I think you'll be a valuable asset to this article.--Son of thunder 01:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

POV[edit]

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

I've started one. —Babelfisch 03:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
There's now an enormous Criticism section with lots of heavy language in it, so I don't really think that the NPOV tag should have been taken out. I've put it back in the meantime until things get a little more balanced. Yes, it's a controversial organisation, but the recent edits went too far in the other direction. --Mpk 19:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Extremely Non-NPOV--eg: 1) Blatent personal logical assumptions: "This last belief leads them to the position that..." (Does not quote New Tribes Mission, but extraplotes from out-of-context New Tribes Mission quotes) 2) No sources for critical statements: "We are not ecumenical, charismatic or neo-evangelical." (Where is that found?) 3) Finally, I would have no problem keeping critical statements about the New Tribes Mission, but only if we (Wikipedia) were able to present the other side: The true definition of NPOV
Based on the above points, I have edited out some of the blatentely Biased language, until we can get this article cleaned up a bit more. --69.216.28.106 07:39, 15 December 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jelly23 15:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I strongly disagree with some of these changes. Some critical remarks were removed, others were qualified and weakened without substance. Maybe that's because Son of thunder is actually from the Moody Bible Institute. —Babelfisch 08:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not intentionally remove any material, although I did reorganize it. The old format was nothing more than a bulleted list of unqualified criticisms (without the bullets). I simply placed them in context and tried to neutralize some of the overtly anti-missiological POV, which I think we can all agree was a necessary step towards the removal of the NPOV tag at the top of the page. If I was trying to "sanitize" the image of Christian missions, I would have removed the criticisms section completely. However, such revisionist history would get us nowhere. Some missionaries have committed great atrocities in the name of Christ. It is our perogative as human beings to learn from those mistakes so that they are not repeated again.--Son of thunder 00:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I've reverted some of the ridiculous attempts to neuter the criticism section and removed unsourced material in that section. —Babelfisch 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Why the wait? You will note that my changes to the criticism section were made two months ago, and you have made several revisions to the page since then. I didn't touch the section on my most recent edit. Why did you wait so long to delete my contributions? Furthermore, why call attempts at neutrality ridiculous? Isn't neutrality what we are going for here? I am not against a criticism section; I simply believe that these criticisms should be treated fairly and in their proper context. Please don't remove legitimate material without first consulting the talk page, especially in articles like this where the neutrality is disputed. Actions like these simply fuel the debate and do not lead to resolution. They put you in the same camp as those who delete the criticisms section altogether.--Son of thunder 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
“To neuter criticism” doesn't mean to get closer to a neutral point of view. A criticism section doesn't have to add unsourced comments to sourced criticisms to make the latter more palatable to apologists. —Babelfisch 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, now we have New Tribes Mission editing their own article ([3]), along with people from the Moody Bible Institute ([4] and [5]).

I've deleted an unsourced comment about Eco-Action.org. I've re-inserted two sources that were deleted. [6] I have deleted the following paragraph because it is not an answer to criticism and the last part ("are in full agreement ...") can't be found on the page given as the source:

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

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

It is interesting that anonymous users at the Moody Bible Institute know about the revenue[7] and the number of employees[8] of New Tribes Mission, but they should give their sources. —Babelfisch 06:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Is this an ad for New Tribes Mission or a Wikipedia article? What happened to this article? 216.66.108.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

Another Perspective[edit]

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

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

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

I agree completely. My girlfriend was an MK in Papua New Guinea as well for the first 10 years of her life. Not a day goes by that she doesn't talk about how much she and her family love the people there. My respect for the Wikipedia community has steadily diminished because of misinformed and biased articles like this one. It puzzles me that some self-proclaimed "intellectual" can sit in front of their computer, pick and choose an assortment of claims and allegations that represent 0.0000001% of an organization's operation and history, compile them into a so-called "Encyclopedia" article, pat themselves on the back, hit enter, and from that point forward whenever somebody types in "new tribes" in Google, it's the third link on the page. What a disaster. --Kellenwright 04:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
First intelligent comment I've read so far on this talk page. --anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.135.69.50 (talkcontribs) 00:51, 31 October 2006.
Though I sympathize, surely you understand that your personal experiences cannot be included within the article, and may not be representitive of the whole. If you see a way to improve the article and incorporate or more fully explain some of the positive aspects of NTM please do so using credible, sourced statements. If the work they do is overwhelmingly positive, it shouldn't be difficult to find good sources to balance the article out and see your perspective represented. Or you can just whine, complain, lament and cluck and never actually lift a finger to improve the article. Please, be bold! Detruncate 06:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ruthless treatment of students in UK[edit]

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

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

Advertizing Intro![edit]

Intro says that someone says:

"New Tribes Mission is in the vanguard of Christian missions. NTM sends out trained missionaries; they send them to the most needy peoples and places on earth; and they send them equipped with a missionary strategy that is second to none."

This is not fit for an intro, since it simply tell us nothing, but instead gives us the impression that a fanatic was here and scrawled. They (the mission) might be good, but in the intro it should be substantiated in what way (whether they prepare by learning language, whether they prepare their karate and levitation abilities...), the subjective evaluation indicating "second to none" is a recension, and should be moved to some Public reception or some such. Said: Rursus () 08:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see what your saying... The point of the quote (from what I can tell), was to quote a well-known guy (in Evangelical Missiology), to say what NTM does. If we can accomplish the same thing (an intro of NTM), without the quotation, I am all for it. Anapologetos (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It most certainly can be done without it. This is from their testimonials page. Testimonials pages are put to advertise the organisation in question. The quotation doesn't really contain much in they way of actual information anyway; it's just praise. Munci (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


More advertizing[edit]

First para in section Mission reads:

NTM's Purpose Statement reads "Motivated by the love of Christ, and empowered by the Holy Spirit, NTM exists to assist the ministry of the local church through the mobilizing, equipping, and coordinating of missionaries to evangelize unreached people groups, translate the Scriptures, and see indigenous New Testament churches established that truly glorify God."

And so?? The statement in itself is quite OK, but it must be followed by something about the method, otherwise it is just citation of a "boast". Said: Rursus () 09:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Retracted. Ignore me on this. Said: Rursus () 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Gromit7859 Edits[edit]

I have no problem with you taking out the unsourced statement about NTM being the 2nd largest, etc. The problem I have is that you also edited a direct quotation by David Hesselgrave, rendering the resulting quote very awkward, as well as not what he acutally said. If the article quotes somebody, we can't just go pulling out random parts of the quote. If you feel for some reason that we need to edit the Hesselgrave quote, by all means, let's hear it, but please don't just randomly edit quotes without written justification on the TP. Thanks! Anapologetos (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse Allegations Section Editing[edit]

I converted the GRACE report link to a standard Reference link. I also removed the links to the Forum posts/Allegations, per the No Original Research policy [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anapologetos (talkcontribs) 16:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Promotional article[edit]

This article reads like a promotion for the missionaries. The base sections of the article come straight from the organization's own promotional material, rather than third party sources. As such we are left with a very distorted and one-sided perspective on the Mission, and this needs to be resolved. Owen (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: nunak deisolation[edit]

I removed this because the referenced article from Smithsonian didn't talk about NTM at all, so essentially this section was original research Anapologetos (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please recheck. Look for the paragraph that begins like this:
Franco cites the tragic recent history of the Nukak tribe, 1,200 isolated Indians who inhabited the forests northwest of Río Puré National Park. In 1981, a U.S. evangelical group, New Tribes Mission, penetrated their territory without permission and, with gifts of machetes and axes, lured some Nukak families to their jungle camp.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ideas-innovations/The-Lost-Tribes-of-the-Amazon-192124351.html

I suspect pagination of the article is the problem. tedder (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, pagination was the issue! Ok, so I would suggest a couple edits... This type of activity and criticism is already documented under the Criticism & Controversy section.... I would suggest that we move it there. Also, I would suggest that it can be tweaked to be a little more NPOV... For instance, instead of stating this: "Gift-giving and interaction led to instability and disease." , state something like this: "According to Franco, this gift-giving and interaction led to instability and disease." Thoughts? Anapologetos (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
"According to" is sort of a scarequote way of handling it, see WP:YESPOV. I don't know if there is significant agreement/disagreement about NTM and Nunaks. And in reality the dated criticism should be moved into the article; if it's someone discussing NTM, that belongs in criticism with the current layout, but ideally it would all be integrated. See WP:CRITS. tedder (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Slavery Allegations not connected to this organization[edit]

The section added this year regarding allegations of two Brazilian men keeping nut harvesters in virtual slavery is not actually connected to this group. There is a national mission in Brazil of the same name, but it has existed as an independent entity for more than 40 years. I would submit that this information is therefore irrelevant to this page because one organization cannot be held responsible for another organization's personnel's actions. I propose that section be removed entirely. Thoughts? --RationalFacts (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, since I've gotten no replies in going to remove this section. Please feel free to dialogue if you disagree with the decision. RationalFacts (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Name Change[edit]

FYI, New Tribes Mission has changed its name to Ethnos360[2]. This page should probably be updated accordingly.

Full Disclosure: I am an employee of this organization. Therefore, I will stay out of the discussion to prevent conflicts of interest.

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Tribes Mission. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 10:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
  2. ^ Ethnos360 https://ethnos360.org. Retrieved 29 April 2017.  Missing or empty |title= (help)