| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-balaka article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
POV
editGiven that the Seleka persecuted non-Muslims with anti-apostasy laws, one needs to be unbiased in assessing the nature of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrohoundy (talk • contribs) 15:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- It would still be orginal research which is not accepted here. AcidSnow (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that Djotodia's declaration of Sharia Law to the government of Saudi Arabia threatened the executions of millions of Christians for apostasy is not original research or point of view. It is well-established from cited sources that apostasy-trials are an integral part of Sharia Law. Either cite evidence to refute the evidence cited here, or risk being blocked.Astrohoundy (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- "not original research", you must be joking since Wikipedia is not research. I will give you one more warning before I report you for your disruptive edits and your original research. Anyways, I doubt I will be blocked for doing nothing wrong. AcidSnow (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like synthesis which is simple enough to solve. You need a source stating Djotodia's declaration threatened the executions of millions of Christians for apostasy. --NeilN talk to me 23:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that Djotodia's declaration of Sharia Law to the government of Saudi Arabia threatened the executions of millions of Christians for apostasy is not original research or point of view. It is well-established from cited sources that apostasy-trials are an integral part of Sharia Law. Either cite evidence to refute the evidence cited here, or risk being blocked.Astrohoundy (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Recent edits
editHey 88.224.114.238, can you please come to the talk page so we can understand why you want this removed? AcidSnow (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Ideology: Christian Radicalism?
editThe link to this article (http://nyulocal.com/national/2014/02/19/ethno-religious-cleansing-plagues-the-central-african-republic/) calling the anti-balaka radical Christians does not provide enough of a ideological link to the group to any fundamental doctrine of Christianity. The article seems to be calling them radical in their actions, not radical in their Christianity.
Regardless, more investigation needs to be taken into their ideology before such a link can be made. Although evidence seems to suggest the anti-balaka are non-organised vigilantes rather than a group or groups geared towards establishing "Radical Christianity".
Sourcing
editPlease ensure that what is written is actually in the source. This is a minimum requirement for sourced statements.
In the context of this article, almost everything should be sourced.
For example, in the lead there was a statement that the Anti-balaka were targeting women in anti-witchcraft kidnappings. The source does not say "women", it mentions "13 people from 45-70" and "a man". The source does go on to discuss women locked up by the government for witchcraft. This has no direct relevance to the statement.
Further the source also says (referring to it's source') "The report identifies three leaders of the anti-balaka faction in Nana-Mambere present" at some of the "alleged torture sessions" - and that they have not been able to contact these three. So we need to be careful about saying that it is Anti-balaka, per se.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC).
- An addition to the above. Since it appears Congolese soldiers working for the UN were guilty of war crimes, we need to be very careful of UN sources. This doesn't mean that they can't be used, but they should be carefully examined. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC).
Context
editThere is a good backgrounder" here.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC).