This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I don't understand the last sentence: "the Ugandan government has declared the Lord's Resistance Army has been defeated no less than three times since 1986". Has the government made the claim three times or has it defeated the LRA three times?
Sorry if this is in the wrong format, I'm old. The LRA is situated on the border between Uganda and Sudan, but is located on the Ugandan side of the border and is a primarily Ugandan group (see the LRA page for confirmation). For that reason, I changed the stated location of the group from Southern Sudan to northern Uganda. Frontleft 06:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
New article for reference: http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/060109roco03
"Though most often viewed through the prism of the LRA's religious positions, it should be forgotten that Kony's struggle began in the resentment among the Acholis at their relative loss of influence since the coming to power of Yoweri Museveni in 1986 through the defeat of Acholi President Tito Okello. "
This suggests Kony is acting with justification on legitimate grievances, rather than being a thuggish war criminal. We need a more fact-based account of both his background and methods, including kidnapping children and arming them as guerillas. - Reaverdrop 23:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
In a magazine article, I read Kony's exact location would be known, and that, although there is an international indictement, no one arrests him. I however have nothing else supporting this quote (it was made in an interview), and wanted to know if it was completely true before adding it to the article. Maybe someone else can confirm this? -- 80.201.230.33 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone made an edit to the Swedish version of this article which claims that Alice Auma is a cousin of Joseph Kony. Is this correct?/ Nicke L 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have highlighted a number of "facts" regarding his background which seem inconsistent:
1. His birth date at the top of the section is listed as "ca. 1962", but in the Biography section it lists "1964 or 1965". Furthermore, in the same paragraph under the Biography section, one finds the following line: "A high-school dropout, Kony first came to prominence in January 1987, at age 26", indicating Kony was born in 1961.
2. The Biography section states Kony was the "eldest son of farmers", but in the same paragraph, a few sentences later, there's a description of Kony apprenticing under his elder brother.
Such internal inconsistencies need to be fixed immediately, or else a {{ disputed}} tag should be placed in the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.63.221 ( talk • contribs)
I have provided some information about him from Jimmie Briggs. He tried to put together the best version of Kony's history with the information available but it isn't very good so it is no suprise that there are inconsistancies. This is typical in war zones. I'll review it when I get the chance and try to make it clear that his background is not entirely certain but that doesn't mean there is no information available. Peter W. Singer also provides some information about Kony. Good day Zacherystaylor ( talk) 17:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have changed it to make it clear that his age is uncertain. Uganda has been at war for at least 40 years and there may never have been a good system of tracking births there so this isn't suprising. Apparently there is a common tradition to take in children and refer to them as brothers and sisters in times of war confusing things even more. This may be the best I can do for now but it would help if some additional information from some one with cult expertise was provided. Good day Zacherystaylor ( talk) 14:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The entire biography section of this article reads like a children's book. It needs some serious revision, in my opinion. 130.160.232.242 ( talk) 00:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no picture of Kony here. I saw several on Google Images, like this one http://www.listzblog.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/joseph-kony.jpg We might want to put a picture like this in. 24.236.248.179 ( talk) 01:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
They've got to be licensed? What if someone got a shot of him without his knowing? Like a freelance reporter not working for anybody or publishing it? 24.236.248.179 ( talk) 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It says in the article that the video has been viewd over 75 million times, implying that people watched the entire 30mins. Hpwever, the majority of the views come from YouTube, When you watch the first second of the video it is considered a view of the entire video. It think this line should be reviewed, because I know many people who only watched up until they saw disturbing content (which is early on). What do you think we should do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylestewart98 ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC) The statement could be changed to say clicks rather than views, or maybe just say the video was accessed. I assume most people would know that many viewers did not watch the entire video. I knew many people would skip it because of the length, so I intentionally found a short clip that explained the video and posted it along with the longer one. (Comment added by Venus Brown, on March 21, 2012.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.4.244 ( talk) 13:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
can someone add koney religion in his profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.51.93.248 ( talk) 20:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "in keeping with the the basic beliefs of Christianity" is clearly subjective and biased agains christianity. That portion of the scentence should be removed. Star1701gazer ( talk) 04:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
How does the phrase "in keeping with the the basic beliefs of Christianity" relate to Kony's behavior? This is a profoundly subjective statement with no place in the article. #### — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.217.238 ( talk) 04:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
i just want to add in kony profile his belif religion simple: Spouse: Thought to have over 88 wives as of 2007[4] Children: Thought to have 42 children[5] Religion: whatever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.148.43.53 ( talk) 01:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Why does this article have a POV tag, but no discussion on the talk page? If noone responds here within 48 hours I'll remove this tag. TreveX talk 9 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)
Delirium added the term "cult-militia", and then an anonymous user put the POV tag back up again. While I can't imagine that any Wikipedian would seriously object to calling the LRA a "cult", I admit that this word is a value judegement. Therefore, I'm going to insert the more neutral term used in the LRA article, "rebel paramilitary group". The extremist, manipulative, and quasi-religious nature of the group that attracts the "cult" label is elaborated clearly by the details of the article. ***If anyone disagrees, please post to this discuss page before restoring the POV label.***-- Brian Z 04:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I removed the the strange The Plain Truth article apparently trying to cast Kony as a muslim. There was was no reference and a link the The Plain Truth which of course is far from it. -- Gregorx 18:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC) The phrase "in keeping with the basic actions of Christianity" is a wholly incorrect statement and should be removed entirely. What Kony is doing is a travesty that reflects nothing whatsoever consistent with Christian belief. Christianity does not in any way condone kidnapping, murder, rape, or any of the other crimes Kony is guilty of. Jhodonnelliii ( talk) 04:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It is absolutely true that the phrase "In keeping with the basic beliefs of Christianity" should be removed! There is no question at all that Christianity does not condone violence, and in fact contradicts most or all other doctrines of violence. It even goes back to the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament, of which Jesus said "Think not that I am come to abolish the law, or the Prophets. I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17, KJV) ... "Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater..." (Mark 12:31, NIV) ... and from the Old Testament: "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18) ... New Testament again: "Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor." (Romans 13:7) ... "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority.." (1 Peter 2:17, NIV) ... There are dozens or even hundreds of equivalent references to be made throughout any version of the Christian Bible that one can find. Kony's doctrines and actions are NOT "in keeping with" any meaningful part of Christianity. That leading statement is a clearly biased affront to anyone who follows or respects the Christian religion, and in many eyes it may discolor other premises that follow in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.65.124 ( talk) 21:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Follow-on from above: "In keeping with..." was removed while I was writing my Talk post. THANK YOU. However, there is still an errant reference to the "Ten Commandments" in the leading paragraph. Kony's methods and principles blatantly contradict at least one and are not supported at all by any other tenets of the Ten Commandments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.65.124 ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
All the other wikis claim 1961. Sources? Trondtr.
Shouldn't the map be updated to show South Sudan?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by CopperSquare ( talk • contribs) 06:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This section originally appeared on my talk page. CityO fSilver
On the 20th of October you undid my correction on the article about Joseph Kony regarding to his categorization. I didn't give the matter much thought then but now I believe it is a matter open for discussion. Joseph Kony's group has enough qualities that justify its categorization as a guerilla group rather than a terrorist group which in turn means that categorizing Joseph Kony as a guerilla group leader is more appropriate. It has the goal of overthrowing the legal government, it operates within a given country, it occupies land, it has armed forces, and it engages in guerilla warfare, that is it openly attacks the army under the command of the legal government. Without having the intention to belittle the group's attrocities I have to point out that these are employed by armies and guerilla groups in many cases and are not something distinctive of terrorist groups. The fact that it employs terror is not enough by itself to categorize it as a terrorist group. I think that calling Joseph Kony a guerilla group leader is valid and that the Joseph Kony article should be updated to reflect this. Nxavar ( talk) 15:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It simply will not be possible to balance Kony's article out with anything positive because he is an irredeemable criminal. No reliable source has ever published anything positive about him and unless the media's impression about him is wrong on the scale of a Richard Jewell, no reliable source ever will. Why try to be neutral when it's not possible?
I am under the impression that you approve of putting negative bias in some cases. Needless to say, this cannot happen in a Wikipedia article. I do make such an approval because otherwise, articles like this, the BNP, etc. would be blank. We report what's in reliable sources, and if reliable sources contain nothing but negative bias and negative bias isn't allowed, what can we report? CityO fSilver 15:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am here as a response to a third opinion request. I am neutral and uninvolved and hope to be able to give an opinion, based on the arguments presented so far, the facts of the subject, and the relevant Wikipedia policies. It seems to me that the word "terrorist" almost always causes problems. Unless is it a very clear-cut case ( Al Quaeda, for example), there will always be people to argue both sides (and there are even some who will refuse to accept that Al Quadea is a terrorist group). The term "terrorist" can be used as a peacock word, in that it is a very loaded term, with multiple layers of meaning. I would advise that the term "terrorist" is only applied in clear-cut cases, where there is unanimous or near-unanimous agreement that a person or organisation is terrorist. If there are any reliable dissenting voices, I would be cautious.
An acceptable compromise may be to note the organisations who have labels a group terrorists. I don't know the details of this case, but if the United States government has called them a terrorist group, you might want something to the tune of "The United States government has denounced Kony as a terrorist" (or whatever has actually been said), provided you have adequate sources. That will summarise the views of other organisations without Wikipedia having to make a value-judgement itself - it covers everything necessary without losing neutrality. Would that be an acceptable compromise? ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 21:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone have experience (or know anyone with experience) asking websites or organizations for pictures to use in WikiCommons?
I think we should ask
http://www.kony2012.com/ for some pictures of Joseph Kony.
-
Tesseract2
(talk)
00:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
How on earth is this at all notable? -- 78.150.166.118 ( talk) 03:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
For it to have attained notability it must be able to be verified by a third party source, which it was and would have been further had the section not been deleted as I was in the process of making it conform to the notability guidelines by adding references. This notability would then be enhanced by its exposure on social networking sites which is not itself a cause for notability under the guidelines but does enhance its notability. Nome3000 ( talk) 05:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's be civil and reasonable. If the movement resulting from the video becomes a little more widely reported on, which I predict it will, then I wholeheartedly endorse including the section. However, as of March 6th, Kony 2012 doesn't seem to have been in enough third party news to be notable. StatsMeDats ( talk) 07:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The video is now over 5 million views and climbing fast. It is presently not mentioned once in this article. Why? It has hit the newspapers. Wikipedia is completely missing the section that explains why I expect 10 or 20 million people will be searching Kony in the next week. This is notable, regardless of how it is but a viral video. To not mention it is daft beyond measure, and I do not say this because I believe in the cause - I just know that millions of people will be searching for why he has come to prominence. 144.82.196.179 ( talk) 12:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It now has over 78,000,000 views. I would call that notable. I think we can delete this discussion.
The mention of Kony 2012 was removed again, despite including references to reliable source covering the video. This was done on an "irrelevance" criterion, which I take to mean undue weight. I can't say I agree with that analysis at all: Kony2012 is proving to be a significant item in his biography, even if it (maybe) does not require a separate section. At the very least, it seems weird not to mention it at all, considering that tens of thousand of people are viewing the page every hour at the moment off the back of it. - Jarry1250 Deliberation needed 14:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It's already news - http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Ugandas-Joseph-Kony-Becomes-Unlikely-Trend-on-Twitter-141744083.html amongst others - but if this isn't good enough, there's a good way to kill two birds with one stone here! Spread the word that Wikipedia editors refuse to allow its inclusion. There's a reasonable chance that that itself will become news, which not only will suddenly make it noteworthy, but will also prove the point that the creators of the video are making, as well as generating more publicity for the cause. Tommurphy86 ( talk) 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The criteria for notability apply only to the subject of an article itself. For inclusion within the article information doesn't need to show notability in its own right, but merely in relation to the subject. Which makes a great deal of sense if you think about it, otherwise the majority of specific points would fail to be notable in their own right; For a made up example saying 'Lincoln left school at 14' merely needs to be sourced, it wouldn't need articles about that specific fact and citations showing notability for this specific fact itself to support its inclusion in an article about Lincoln. I'd say this qualifies. A documentary film about Kony and wide-ranging awareness campaign is notable in regards to Kony. It's being shown in a number of locations and received media attention, it clearly qualifies for inclusion. The discussion only needs to be on appropriate weight given in the article. Number36 ( talk) 20:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm the anonymous editor who kicked off this section, and while the video wasn't notable at the time, now that it is inexplicably all over the news I think it probably meets the criteria for notability - though it is still arguable. -- 2.98.188.13 ( talk) 14:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Include Photograph http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44530000/jpg/_44530072_afp_kony226b.jpg
Jos br ( talk) 03:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: If you would like to add an image to the article, you can upload it using the Upload file link in the Toolbox to the left. The photo must adhere to our image policy. After you have uploaded the picture, open a request detailing where you would like the picture added. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 04:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
autoconfirmed
flag, which he obviously does not, because if he did, he would have been able to edit the article and would not have needed to post an {{
edit semi-protected}} request here. --
Joshua Issac (
talk)
01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The play count for the video "KONY 2012" is already up to 2.2 million views and counting as of 11PM (EST) today (3/6/12).
PLease change "The film, Kony 2012, currently has over 1.3 million views on Vimeo,[19] and 50 thousand views on social media site YouTube,[20] with other viewing emanating from a central "Kony2012" website operated by Invisible Children."
To: "The film, Kony 2012, currently has over 2.2 million views on Vimeo,[19] and 50 thousand views on social media site YouTube,[20] with other viewing emanating from a central "Kony2012" website operated by Invisible Children." Dcoolification ( talk) 04:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
==
It's pretty clear that this extended information about the video is only in there for POV. This artcle reeks of POV the whole wayt through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.2.160 ( talk) 08:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the vandalism from the beginning of this section (i.e. hes gay gay gay gay)
I have also seen this vandalism (i.e. hes gay gay gay gay).
Given that Kony has begun to rightly attract a lot of attention from social and global media once again, this article at this time, i believe, will be getting a lot of hits. hence, the need to rectify this issue is immediate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.171.99 ( talk) 14:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, remove the 'sdfgsdfgdfsgsdfgdfsgsdfgdfsgdfsgdfsgdfsgdfsgsdfgsdfgdfg' from the start of the article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nookson (
talk •
contribs)
14:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there a place that would be appropriate to summarize and link the peace talk articles? Such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006-2008_Juba_talks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ennns ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a typing mistake in the section labeled: U.S. action against Kony, 2nd paragraph, last sentence.
Please replace: "Though the offensive may have pushed Kony from his jungle camp, it did did not succeed in capturing him."
With: "Though the offensive may have pushed Kony from his jungle camp, it did not succeed in capturing him."
Micahmic ( talk) 19:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should Invisible Children Inc be included in "See Also" section? Kentonh ( talk) 22:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Yo. I can't be arsed to read the whole article (and I think it'd be wise, 'cause I'm sure there's more), but just skimming it I found a line that needs changing. I'd have done it myself, but it's locked and I'm without an account, so I suppose I'll suggest it here.
"The film's aim is to make Joseph Kony famous, since fame would justify the United States getting involved in Kony's capture"
'since fame would justify'. Firstly, it's obviously POV, given that ideas of justification are innately subjective. Secondly, it's false. Nobody is thinking increased fame would justify an intervention, only that increased infamy is like to make an intervention more likely. Thirdly, from the shit I saw of it on facebook, I'm not sure they mentioned the U.S specifically, but I can't remember so somebody'll have to check.
I'd say a much better line would be something like "The film's aim is to make Joseph Kony infamous, since wider infamy is likely to facilitate *** intervention in Kony's capture". Replace *** with either U.S or international or whatever is most factually appropriate, and we've got a much better line. Obviously the current shit typed up is just something put down quickly to talk about the issue, but given that, it's naturally a bit shaky and needs touching up.
--Editorial voice--
This sentence is inconsistent with the editorial voice : "Personally, I have never seen an outpour of support from people on my Facebook news feed like this."[21] Since it is an unverifiable opinion it has little value unless the number of hits is posted or compared to other vidoes. You could say the same thing about "I Like Turtles" btw. Dzamula ( talk) 22:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)dzamula
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_shultz16yahoo/6960264835/sizes/m/in/photostream/
If the license is okay, then this should be used too. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I added it. If the license is bogus, well, I uploaded it taking the word of the owner. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please replace "syncretic Christianity" with "Judaistic", Judaism strictly follows the 10 commandments, Christians are freed from being under law therefore relating Christianity to the horrendous acts of Joseph Kony is incorrect and needs to be changed immediately.
sources: http://www.religionfacts.com Jason.m.hallowell ( talk) 07:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Jason Hallowell
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, correct the mistake displayed in CAPS in the quote. Thank you.
"In Uganda's latest attempt to track Kony down, former LRA combatants have BEEN TO ENLISTED TO search remote areas of the Central African Republic, the Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo where he was last seen.[15]"
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This sentence needs clarification: "Flock and The Toronto Star stated that Invisible Children hoped to raise Kony's notoriety enough to provoke a massive overnight poster campaign on April 20.[26][27]"
How could an "overnight" campaign have been "provoked" on some date more than a month in the future? Is the date incorrect, or is the sentence trying to say that some action was announced that will take place on April 20? 72.229.42.216 ( talk) 12:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2011, non-Invisible Children-affiliated, SPIN.com artist to watch Paul Avion released the song and video "Stop Joseph Kony," filmed in the slums of Kenya to bring attention to childhood poverty in East Africa.
Brikbob ( talk) 22:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Christian terrorism does not belong on this article per our categorisation standards. The article is a subcategory of Category:Lord's Resistance Army rebels, which itself is a subcategory of Category:Lord's Resistance Army. If LRA's activities aren't properly called both Christian and terrorism, neither the main category nor this article should be in the Christian terrorism category, and if they are properly so called, then the main category should be in Christian terrorism. If the latter case be true, WP:OVERCAT says that this article shouldn't be in it: if Article A is in Category B, Category B is in Category C, and Category C is in Category D, we shouldn't also have Article A in Category D. Nyttend ( talk) 19:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
This section of the article incorrectly cites Operation North or the link is incorrect as it links through to Operation North, an article detailing removal of Jehovahs Witness's in the former USSR in 1951, which clearly has nothing to do with activities in Uganda in the 1980's, please can someone correct? ---- Integrous
Where is the Interpol's part in this article ?!
Article of Lord's Resistance Army is mentioned to this. -- 111.251.201.28 ( talk) 18:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Following to the discussion on the Joseph Kony Categorization section, where the conclusion was that term "terrorist" is not appropriate in Joseph Cony's case, I suggest that we remove the terrorist categories/portal tags from the article. The previous discusion was about naming Joseph Kony a terrorist inside the article. Nxavar ( talk) 17:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't see to see a link to the talk page archives pre-March 2012. Where might it be? Thanks Span ( talk) 05:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
In this article we can find that: "Kony proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Holy Spirit, which the group believes can represent itself in many manifestations"
but this isn't true. Here's an interview with Kony http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWiF9hSgyoU
He is DIRECTLY asked about it (14:15), and he answers NO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.118.133 ( talk) 02:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
How many inconsistencies does Wikipedia suggest before having a conspiracy section for any article? There are glaring plausibility issues with "Kony" and widespread suspicions that this was a CIA campaign to justify our military in Africa (whether it's for oil or the 'War on Terror'). A lot of people aren't buying this story.....
Hello! I'm a foreign user and I AGREE WITH YOU. And Possibly Joseph Kony is dead five years ago. -- 190.187.37.238 ( talk) 07:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Many people do believe that Kony is dead, and has been dead for years (the number of years range from about 5-20 years), but it is difficult to find real proof, since many also suggest that the 'Kony 2012' video was filmed in the early 2000's. Kony is supposedly still at large, but a large number of Americans are skeptical. The war in Iraq is strongly believed to have been a scam, in order for America to get oil. What will become war and is war in Uganda is also suspected to be a cover-up for another oil scandal. However, it is, again, difficult to find solid evidence, without considerable research and efforts, that the war in Uganda is a scam, but this country has one of the largest oil deposits in the world. 64.188.219.176 ( talk) 22:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC) just an anti-war kind of gal.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add an image of Joseph Kony to this article.
Chrisj2004 ( talk) 20:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done for now: Which image? Take a look at wikimedia commons to see what we have available. Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it is misleading and biased to list Kony's religious affiliation as "Christian" in the upper right hand fact box. Even if he actually said he was keeping with Christianities views, that doesn't mean he is a Christian nor did he claim to be one to my understanding. Even if he claimed to be one, does one's declaration of being from Mars instantly make it true or do words have no meaning?
Could it be that Kony's alleged statements about Christianity are a tactic to avoid judgement of what he might view as powerful Christian Nations and not a personal set of beliefs?
I would like to suggest either leaving his religious status blank or perhaps listing what ever his personal brand of religion is, if known (possibly "Self-Proclaimed Christian" if that is what he really claims).
If he were Mormon, wouldn't his religion be listed as Mormon? Mormonism is a branch of Christianity that is different from other branches such as Protestant and Catholicism. Perhaps he could be listed as "self made religion" or what ever specific branch he claims to be from, if any. To my understanding, he is the head of his religious movement.
I need clearer definitions of the world around me.
Thank you for your consideration. ShyGirl7 ( talk) 22:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I found that the campaign Kony 2012 is meaningful and it has impact on government. All people around the world are against his behavior. I consider that the Religion of Joseph Kony is controversial, therefore I think it is not Christian.
Linuxos12 ( talk) 08:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The picture for Kony has been replaced by a poster for the KONY2012 campaign. As Wikipedia is about clear facts, I believe it would be expedient to remove it and put up a better picture; however I do not know how to do this. Could someone fix this? 64.134.97.144 ( talk) 03:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
We need a picture of his face; this is relatively easy to find online, but it is missing from Wikipedia. -- 96.242.163.228 ( talk) 23:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
It's just Christian. Like it or not, every version of a given faith makes its own interpretation of its holy text. Joseph Kony's interpretation of the bible is a lot closer to a direct reading than most versions and a lot less "pseudo-christian" than the mainstream interpretation. The text should simply say Christian, regardless of what specific interpretation he came up with. It's still based on the same root work and is therefore still Christian unless it's bent entirely out of proportion with the literal reading of the text.
First, our opinions mean nothing. We go with the sourcing. The sources say that his beliefs are "a syncretic mix of mysticism, Acholi nationalism and Christianity,". -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 23:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
But when some murderous thug kills thousands, rapes and murders woman and children, and tells how Jesus told him to do all these things, somehow their claims to be “Christ followers” are given an instant pass. Jesus is quoted as saying, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;” Mat.5:44 [3] KJV and in the Ten Commandments | Number 5, “honor thy father and thy mother”. So for someone to say they are a follower of Christ or Christian teaching and do things in extreme contradiction to the core tenants of that system of thought, is a technical absurdity.
What a fascinating (and chilling) document that is. Could I suggest that you move your comment to the bottom of the Talk Page here, into the last discussion thread, where it will be more easily found? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Calling into question, the bias of many references and attributions here. This QUESTIONS RAISED section is intended to call them out, contrasting the citations against the facts. Those who insist to attribute self-styled lables as actual affiliation are dishonest. They claim that Kony's LRA is a "Christian Fundamentalist" group, which is flatly false. I am only suggesting that this article state clearly and truthfully that Kony calls his group "Christian sounding names" to cloak his real deeds and intents. Several of the published academic articles cited in these references agree.
This is not opinion, this is refuting the rational that calling Kony a Christian, because Kony says he’s a Christian, is just an edit war on Wikipedia. Its not. Also…
This isn’t point of view, this is a cogent refutation of calling Kony a Christian, because he says he’s one. Why shouldn’t consensus be our reality? Because we then can tell ourselves Nien Juden and be perfectly justified in doing so, as long as we have an agreement between a larger group of people than those who decent. Go ahead, say Kony is a Christian. Ultimately, the bottom line: Is WP about truth, or concensus? -- Usgrant7 ( talk) 11:22, 23 April 2012(UTC)
How do people feel about not stating a religious affiliation as singularly as "Christian", nor going so far the other way as to label it "pseudo-Christianity", but to make reference to the fact that he describes himself as a Christian (indirectly, if not directly)? - Jarry1250 Deliberation needed 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Kony's brand of Christianity is certainly pseudo-Christianity as he also practices Voodoo mysticism and black magic, both of which are expressly forbidden in The Ten Commandments which he uses as justification for killing "witches." Also I'm pretty sure there's something in the Commandments about "thou shalt not kill." -- 2.102.55.76 ( talk) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has numeric name (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: |last=
has numeric name (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |name=
ignored (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check |authorlink=
value (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); External link in |authorlink=
(
help)No7
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No8
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No9
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No10
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No11
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No12
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No13
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No14
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No15
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No16
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I don't understand the last sentence: "the Ugandan government has declared the Lord's Resistance Army has been defeated no less than three times since 1986". Has the government made the claim three times or has it defeated the LRA three times?
Sorry if this is in the wrong format, I'm old. The LRA is situated on the border between Uganda and Sudan, but is located on the Ugandan side of the border and is a primarily Ugandan group (see the LRA page for confirmation). For that reason, I changed the stated location of the group from Southern Sudan to northern Uganda. Frontleft 06:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
New article for reference: http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/060109roco03
"Though most often viewed through the prism of the LRA's religious positions, it should be forgotten that Kony's struggle began in the resentment among the Acholis at their relative loss of influence since the coming to power of Yoweri Museveni in 1986 through the defeat of Acholi President Tito Okello. "
This suggests Kony is acting with justification on legitimate grievances, rather than being a thuggish war criminal. We need a more fact-based account of both his background and methods, including kidnapping children and arming them as guerillas. - Reaverdrop 23:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
In a magazine article, I read Kony's exact location would be known, and that, although there is an international indictement, no one arrests him. I however have nothing else supporting this quote (it was made in an interview), and wanted to know if it was completely true before adding it to the article. Maybe someone else can confirm this? -- 80.201.230.33 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone made an edit to the Swedish version of this article which claims that Alice Auma is a cousin of Joseph Kony. Is this correct?/ Nicke L 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have highlighted a number of "facts" regarding his background which seem inconsistent:
1. His birth date at the top of the section is listed as "ca. 1962", but in the Biography section it lists "1964 or 1965". Furthermore, in the same paragraph under the Biography section, one finds the following line: "A high-school dropout, Kony first came to prominence in January 1987, at age 26", indicating Kony was born in 1961.
2. The Biography section states Kony was the "eldest son of farmers", but in the same paragraph, a few sentences later, there's a description of Kony apprenticing under his elder brother.
Such internal inconsistencies need to be fixed immediately, or else a {{ disputed}} tag should be placed in the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.63.221 ( talk • contribs)
I have provided some information about him from Jimmie Briggs. He tried to put together the best version of Kony's history with the information available but it isn't very good so it is no suprise that there are inconsistancies. This is typical in war zones. I'll review it when I get the chance and try to make it clear that his background is not entirely certain but that doesn't mean there is no information available. Peter W. Singer also provides some information about Kony. Good day Zacherystaylor ( talk) 17:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have changed it to make it clear that his age is uncertain. Uganda has been at war for at least 40 years and there may never have been a good system of tracking births there so this isn't suprising. Apparently there is a common tradition to take in children and refer to them as brothers and sisters in times of war confusing things even more. This may be the best I can do for now but it would help if some additional information from some one with cult expertise was provided. Good day Zacherystaylor ( talk) 14:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The entire biography section of this article reads like a children's book. It needs some serious revision, in my opinion. 130.160.232.242 ( talk) 00:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no picture of Kony here. I saw several on Google Images, like this one http://www.listzblog.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/joseph-kony.jpg We might want to put a picture like this in. 24.236.248.179 ( talk) 01:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
They've got to be licensed? What if someone got a shot of him without his knowing? Like a freelance reporter not working for anybody or publishing it? 24.236.248.179 ( talk) 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It says in the article that the video has been viewd over 75 million times, implying that people watched the entire 30mins. Hpwever, the majority of the views come from YouTube, When you watch the first second of the video it is considered a view of the entire video. It think this line should be reviewed, because I know many people who only watched up until they saw disturbing content (which is early on). What do you think we should do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylestewart98 ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC) The statement could be changed to say clicks rather than views, or maybe just say the video was accessed. I assume most people would know that many viewers did not watch the entire video. I knew many people would skip it because of the length, so I intentionally found a short clip that explained the video and posted it along with the longer one. (Comment added by Venus Brown, on March 21, 2012.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.4.244 ( talk) 13:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
can someone add koney religion in his profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.51.93.248 ( talk) 20:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "in keeping with the the basic beliefs of Christianity" is clearly subjective and biased agains christianity. That portion of the scentence should be removed. Star1701gazer ( talk) 04:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
How does the phrase "in keeping with the the basic beliefs of Christianity" relate to Kony's behavior? This is a profoundly subjective statement with no place in the article. #### — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.217.238 ( talk) 04:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
i just want to add in kony profile his belif religion simple: Spouse: Thought to have over 88 wives as of 2007[4] Children: Thought to have 42 children[5] Religion: whatever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.148.43.53 ( talk) 01:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Why does this article have a POV tag, but no discussion on the talk page? If noone responds here within 48 hours I'll remove this tag. TreveX talk 9 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)
Delirium added the term "cult-militia", and then an anonymous user put the POV tag back up again. While I can't imagine that any Wikipedian would seriously object to calling the LRA a "cult", I admit that this word is a value judegement. Therefore, I'm going to insert the more neutral term used in the LRA article, "rebel paramilitary group". The extremist, manipulative, and quasi-religious nature of the group that attracts the "cult" label is elaborated clearly by the details of the article. ***If anyone disagrees, please post to this discuss page before restoring the POV label.***-- Brian Z 04:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I removed the the strange The Plain Truth article apparently trying to cast Kony as a muslim. There was was no reference and a link the The Plain Truth which of course is far from it. -- Gregorx 18:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC) The phrase "in keeping with the basic actions of Christianity" is a wholly incorrect statement and should be removed entirely. What Kony is doing is a travesty that reflects nothing whatsoever consistent with Christian belief. Christianity does not in any way condone kidnapping, murder, rape, or any of the other crimes Kony is guilty of. Jhodonnelliii ( talk) 04:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It is absolutely true that the phrase "In keeping with the basic beliefs of Christianity" should be removed! There is no question at all that Christianity does not condone violence, and in fact contradicts most or all other doctrines of violence. It even goes back to the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament, of which Jesus said "Think not that I am come to abolish the law, or the Prophets. I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17, KJV) ... "Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater..." (Mark 12:31, NIV) ... and from the Old Testament: "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18) ... New Testament again: "Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor." (Romans 13:7) ... "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority.." (1 Peter 2:17, NIV) ... There are dozens or even hundreds of equivalent references to be made throughout any version of the Christian Bible that one can find. Kony's doctrines and actions are NOT "in keeping with" any meaningful part of Christianity. That leading statement is a clearly biased affront to anyone who follows or respects the Christian religion, and in many eyes it may discolor other premises that follow in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.65.124 ( talk) 21:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Follow-on from above: "In keeping with..." was removed while I was writing my Talk post. THANK YOU. However, there is still an errant reference to the "Ten Commandments" in the leading paragraph. Kony's methods and principles blatantly contradict at least one and are not supported at all by any other tenets of the Ten Commandments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.65.124 ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
All the other wikis claim 1961. Sources? Trondtr.
Shouldn't the map be updated to show South Sudan?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by CopperSquare ( talk • contribs) 06:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This section originally appeared on my talk page. CityO fSilver
On the 20th of October you undid my correction on the article about Joseph Kony regarding to his categorization. I didn't give the matter much thought then but now I believe it is a matter open for discussion. Joseph Kony's group has enough qualities that justify its categorization as a guerilla group rather than a terrorist group which in turn means that categorizing Joseph Kony as a guerilla group leader is more appropriate. It has the goal of overthrowing the legal government, it operates within a given country, it occupies land, it has armed forces, and it engages in guerilla warfare, that is it openly attacks the army under the command of the legal government. Without having the intention to belittle the group's attrocities I have to point out that these are employed by armies and guerilla groups in many cases and are not something distinctive of terrorist groups. The fact that it employs terror is not enough by itself to categorize it as a terrorist group. I think that calling Joseph Kony a guerilla group leader is valid and that the Joseph Kony article should be updated to reflect this. Nxavar ( talk) 15:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It simply will not be possible to balance Kony's article out with anything positive because he is an irredeemable criminal. No reliable source has ever published anything positive about him and unless the media's impression about him is wrong on the scale of a Richard Jewell, no reliable source ever will. Why try to be neutral when it's not possible?
I am under the impression that you approve of putting negative bias in some cases. Needless to say, this cannot happen in a Wikipedia article. I do make such an approval because otherwise, articles like this, the BNP, etc. would be blank. We report what's in reliable sources, and if reliable sources contain nothing but negative bias and negative bias isn't allowed, what can we report? CityO fSilver 15:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am here as a response to a third opinion request. I am neutral and uninvolved and hope to be able to give an opinion, based on the arguments presented so far, the facts of the subject, and the relevant Wikipedia policies. It seems to me that the word "terrorist" almost always causes problems. Unless is it a very clear-cut case ( Al Quaeda, for example), there will always be people to argue both sides (and there are even some who will refuse to accept that Al Quadea is a terrorist group). The term "terrorist" can be used as a peacock word, in that it is a very loaded term, with multiple layers of meaning. I would advise that the term "terrorist" is only applied in clear-cut cases, where there is unanimous or near-unanimous agreement that a person or organisation is terrorist. If there are any reliable dissenting voices, I would be cautious.
An acceptable compromise may be to note the organisations who have labels a group terrorists. I don't know the details of this case, but if the United States government has called them a terrorist group, you might want something to the tune of "The United States government has denounced Kony as a terrorist" (or whatever has actually been said), provided you have adequate sources. That will summarise the views of other organisations without Wikipedia having to make a value-judgement itself - it covers everything necessary without losing neutrality. Would that be an acceptable compromise? ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 21:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone have experience (or know anyone with experience) asking websites or organizations for pictures to use in WikiCommons?
I think we should ask
http://www.kony2012.com/ for some pictures of Joseph Kony.
-
Tesseract2
(talk)
00:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
How on earth is this at all notable? -- 78.150.166.118 ( talk) 03:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
For it to have attained notability it must be able to be verified by a third party source, which it was and would have been further had the section not been deleted as I was in the process of making it conform to the notability guidelines by adding references. This notability would then be enhanced by its exposure on social networking sites which is not itself a cause for notability under the guidelines but does enhance its notability. Nome3000 ( talk) 05:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's be civil and reasonable. If the movement resulting from the video becomes a little more widely reported on, which I predict it will, then I wholeheartedly endorse including the section. However, as of March 6th, Kony 2012 doesn't seem to have been in enough third party news to be notable. StatsMeDats ( talk) 07:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The video is now over 5 million views and climbing fast. It is presently not mentioned once in this article. Why? It has hit the newspapers. Wikipedia is completely missing the section that explains why I expect 10 or 20 million people will be searching Kony in the next week. This is notable, regardless of how it is but a viral video. To not mention it is daft beyond measure, and I do not say this because I believe in the cause - I just know that millions of people will be searching for why he has come to prominence. 144.82.196.179 ( talk) 12:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It now has over 78,000,000 views. I would call that notable. I think we can delete this discussion.
The mention of Kony 2012 was removed again, despite including references to reliable source covering the video. This was done on an "irrelevance" criterion, which I take to mean undue weight. I can't say I agree with that analysis at all: Kony2012 is proving to be a significant item in his biography, even if it (maybe) does not require a separate section. At the very least, it seems weird not to mention it at all, considering that tens of thousand of people are viewing the page every hour at the moment off the back of it. - Jarry1250 Deliberation needed 14:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It's already news - http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Ugandas-Joseph-Kony-Becomes-Unlikely-Trend-on-Twitter-141744083.html amongst others - but if this isn't good enough, there's a good way to kill two birds with one stone here! Spread the word that Wikipedia editors refuse to allow its inclusion. There's a reasonable chance that that itself will become news, which not only will suddenly make it noteworthy, but will also prove the point that the creators of the video are making, as well as generating more publicity for the cause. Tommurphy86 ( talk) 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The criteria for notability apply only to the subject of an article itself. For inclusion within the article information doesn't need to show notability in its own right, but merely in relation to the subject. Which makes a great deal of sense if you think about it, otherwise the majority of specific points would fail to be notable in their own right; For a made up example saying 'Lincoln left school at 14' merely needs to be sourced, it wouldn't need articles about that specific fact and citations showing notability for this specific fact itself to support its inclusion in an article about Lincoln. I'd say this qualifies. A documentary film about Kony and wide-ranging awareness campaign is notable in regards to Kony. It's being shown in a number of locations and received media attention, it clearly qualifies for inclusion. The discussion only needs to be on appropriate weight given in the article. Number36 ( talk) 20:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm the anonymous editor who kicked off this section, and while the video wasn't notable at the time, now that it is inexplicably all over the news I think it probably meets the criteria for notability - though it is still arguable. -- 2.98.188.13 ( talk) 14:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Include Photograph http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44530000/jpg/_44530072_afp_kony226b.jpg
Jos br ( talk) 03:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: If you would like to add an image to the article, you can upload it using the Upload file link in the Toolbox to the left. The photo must adhere to our image policy. After you have uploaded the picture, open a request detailing where you would like the picture added. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 04:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
autoconfirmed
flag, which he obviously does not, because if he did, he would have been able to edit the article and would not have needed to post an {{
edit semi-protected}} request here. --
Joshua Issac (
talk)
01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The play count for the video "KONY 2012" is already up to 2.2 million views and counting as of 11PM (EST) today (3/6/12).
PLease change "The film, Kony 2012, currently has over 1.3 million views on Vimeo,[19] and 50 thousand views on social media site YouTube,[20] with other viewing emanating from a central "Kony2012" website operated by Invisible Children."
To: "The film, Kony 2012, currently has over 2.2 million views on Vimeo,[19] and 50 thousand views on social media site YouTube,[20] with other viewing emanating from a central "Kony2012" website operated by Invisible Children." Dcoolification ( talk) 04:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
==
It's pretty clear that this extended information about the video is only in there for POV. This artcle reeks of POV the whole wayt through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.2.160 ( talk) 08:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the vandalism from the beginning of this section (i.e. hes gay gay gay gay)
I have also seen this vandalism (i.e. hes gay gay gay gay).
Given that Kony has begun to rightly attract a lot of attention from social and global media once again, this article at this time, i believe, will be getting a lot of hits. hence, the need to rectify this issue is immediate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.171.99 ( talk) 14:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, remove the 'sdfgsdfgdfsgsdfgdfsgsdfgdfsgdfsgdfsgdfsgdfsgsdfgsdfgdfg' from the start of the article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nookson (
talk •
contribs)
14:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there a place that would be appropriate to summarize and link the peace talk articles? Such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006-2008_Juba_talks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ennns ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a typing mistake in the section labeled: U.S. action against Kony, 2nd paragraph, last sentence.
Please replace: "Though the offensive may have pushed Kony from his jungle camp, it did did not succeed in capturing him."
With: "Though the offensive may have pushed Kony from his jungle camp, it did not succeed in capturing him."
Micahmic ( talk) 19:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should Invisible Children Inc be included in "See Also" section? Kentonh ( talk) 22:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Yo. I can't be arsed to read the whole article (and I think it'd be wise, 'cause I'm sure there's more), but just skimming it I found a line that needs changing. I'd have done it myself, but it's locked and I'm without an account, so I suppose I'll suggest it here.
"The film's aim is to make Joseph Kony famous, since fame would justify the United States getting involved in Kony's capture"
'since fame would justify'. Firstly, it's obviously POV, given that ideas of justification are innately subjective. Secondly, it's false. Nobody is thinking increased fame would justify an intervention, only that increased infamy is like to make an intervention more likely. Thirdly, from the shit I saw of it on facebook, I'm not sure they mentioned the U.S specifically, but I can't remember so somebody'll have to check.
I'd say a much better line would be something like "The film's aim is to make Joseph Kony infamous, since wider infamy is likely to facilitate *** intervention in Kony's capture". Replace *** with either U.S or international or whatever is most factually appropriate, and we've got a much better line. Obviously the current shit typed up is just something put down quickly to talk about the issue, but given that, it's naturally a bit shaky and needs touching up.
--Editorial voice--
This sentence is inconsistent with the editorial voice : "Personally, I have never seen an outpour of support from people on my Facebook news feed like this."[21] Since it is an unverifiable opinion it has little value unless the number of hits is posted or compared to other vidoes. You could say the same thing about "I Like Turtles" btw. Dzamula ( talk) 22:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)dzamula
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_shultz16yahoo/6960264835/sizes/m/in/photostream/
If the license is okay, then this should be used too. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I added it. If the license is bogus, well, I uploaded it taking the word of the owner. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please replace "syncretic Christianity" with "Judaistic", Judaism strictly follows the 10 commandments, Christians are freed from being under law therefore relating Christianity to the horrendous acts of Joseph Kony is incorrect and needs to be changed immediately.
sources: http://www.religionfacts.com Jason.m.hallowell ( talk) 07:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Jason Hallowell
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, correct the mistake displayed in CAPS in the quote. Thank you.
"In Uganda's latest attempt to track Kony down, former LRA combatants have BEEN TO ENLISTED TO search remote areas of the Central African Republic, the Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo where he was last seen.[15]"
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This sentence needs clarification: "Flock and The Toronto Star stated that Invisible Children hoped to raise Kony's notoriety enough to provoke a massive overnight poster campaign on April 20.[26][27]"
How could an "overnight" campaign have been "provoked" on some date more than a month in the future? Is the date incorrect, or is the sentence trying to say that some action was announced that will take place on April 20? 72.229.42.216 ( talk) 12:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2011, non-Invisible Children-affiliated, SPIN.com artist to watch Paul Avion released the song and video "Stop Joseph Kony," filmed in the slums of Kenya to bring attention to childhood poverty in East Africa.
Brikbob ( talk) 22:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Christian terrorism does not belong on this article per our categorisation standards. The article is a subcategory of Category:Lord's Resistance Army rebels, which itself is a subcategory of Category:Lord's Resistance Army. If LRA's activities aren't properly called both Christian and terrorism, neither the main category nor this article should be in the Christian terrorism category, and if they are properly so called, then the main category should be in Christian terrorism. If the latter case be true, WP:OVERCAT says that this article shouldn't be in it: if Article A is in Category B, Category B is in Category C, and Category C is in Category D, we shouldn't also have Article A in Category D. Nyttend ( talk) 19:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
This section of the article incorrectly cites Operation North or the link is incorrect as it links through to Operation North, an article detailing removal of Jehovahs Witness's in the former USSR in 1951, which clearly has nothing to do with activities in Uganda in the 1980's, please can someone correct? ---- Integrous
Where is the Interpol's part in this article ?!
Article of Lord's Resistance Army is mentioned to this. -- 111.251.201.28 ( talk) 18:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Following to the discussion on the Joseph Kony Categorization section, where the conclusion was that term "terrorist" is not appropriate in Joseph Cony's case, I suggest that we remove the terrorist categories/portal tags from the article. The previous discusion was about naming Joseph Kony a terrorist inside the article. Nxavar ( talk) 17:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't see to see a link to the talk page archives pre-March 2012. Where might it be? Thanks Span ( talk) 05:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
In this article we can find that: "Kony proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Holy Spirit, which the group believes can represent itself in many manifestations"
but this isn't true. Here's an interview with Kony http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWiF9hSgyoU
He is DIRECTLY asked about it (14:15), and he answers NO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.118.133 ( talk) 02:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
How many inconsistencies does Wikipedia suggest before having a conspiracy section for any article? There are glaring plausibility issues with "Kony" and widespread suspicions that this was a CIA campaign to justify our military in Africa (whether it's for oil or the 'War on Terror'). A lot of people aren't buying this story.....
Hello! I'm a foreign user and I AGREE WITH YOU. And Possibly Joseph Kony is dead five years ago. -- 190.187.37.238 ( talk) 07:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Many people do believe that Kony is dead, and has been dead for years (the number of years range from about 5-20 years), but it is difficult to find real proof, since many also suggest that the 'Kony 2012' video was filmed in the early 2000's. Kony is supposedly still at large, but a large number of Americans are skeptical. The war in Iraq is strongly believed to have been a scam, in order for America to get oil. What will become war and is war in Uganda is also suspected to be a cover-up for another oil scandal. However, it is, again, difficult to find solid evidence, without considerable research and efforts, that the war in Uganda is a scam, but this country has one of the largest oil deposits in the world. 64.188.219.176 ( talk) 22:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC) just an anti-war kind of gal.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add an image of Joseph Kony to this article.
Chrisj2004 ( talk) 20:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done for now: Which image? Take a look at wikimedia commons to see what we have available. Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it is misleading and biased to list Kony's religious affiliation as "Christian" in the upper right hand fact box. Even if he actually said he was keeping with Christianities views, that doesn't mean he is a Christian nor did he claim to be one to my understanding. Even if he claimed to be one, does one's declaration of being from Mars instantly make it true or do words have no meaning?
Could it be that Kony's alleged statements about Christianity are a tactic to avoid judgement of what he might view as powerful Christian Nations and not a personal set of beliefs?
I would like to suggest either leaving his religious status blank or perhaps listing what ever his personal brand of religion is, if known (possibly "Self-Proclaimed Christian" if that is what he really claims).
If he were Mormon, wouldn't his religion be listed as Mormon? Mormonism is a branch of Christianity that is different from other branches such as Protestant and Catholicism. Perhaps he could be listed as "self made religion" or what ever specific branch he claims to be from, if any. To my understanding, he is the head of his religious movement.
I need clearer definitions of the world around me.
Thank you for your consideration. ShyGirl7 ( talk) 22:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I found that the campaign Kony 2012 is meaningful and it has impact on government. All people around the world are against his behavior. I consider that the Religion of Joseph Kony is controversial, therefore I think it is not Christian.
Linuxos12 ( talk) 08:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The picture for Kony has been replaced by a poster for the KONY2012 campaign. As Wikipedia is about clear facts, I believe it would be expedient to remove it and put up a better picture; however I do not know how to do this. Could someone fix this? 64.134.97.144 ( talk) 03:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
We need a picture of his face; this is relatively easy to find online, but it is missing from Wikipedia. -- 96.242.163.228 ( talk) 23:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
It's just Christian. Like it or not, every version of a given faith makes its own interpretation of its holy text. Joseph Kony's interpretation of the bible is a lot closer to a direct reading than most versions and a lot less "pseudo-christian" than the mainstream interpretation. The text should simply say Christian, regardless of what specific interpretation he came up with. It's still based on the same root work and is therefore still Christian unless it's bent entirely out of proportion with the literal reading of the text.
First, our opinions mean nothing. We go with the sourcing. The sources say that his beliefs are "a syncretic mix of mysticism, Acholi nationalism and Christianity,". -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 23:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
But when some murderous thug kills thousands, rapes and murders woman and children, and tells how Jesus told him to do all these things, somehow their claims to be “Christ followers” are given an instant pass. Jesus is quoted as saying, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;” Mat.5:44 [3] KJV and in the Ten Commandments | Number 5, “honor thy father and thy mother”. So for someone to say they are a follower of Christ or Christian teaching and do things in extreme contradiction to the core tenants of that system of thought, is a technical absurdity.
What a fascinating (and chilling) document that is. Could I suggest that you move your comment to the bottom of the Talk Page here, into the last discussion thread, where it will be more easily found? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Calling into question, the bias of many references and attributions here. This QUESTIONS RAISED section is intended to call them out, contrasting the citations against the facts. Those who insist to attribute self-styled lables as actual affiliation are dishonest. They claim that Kony's LRA is a "Christian Fundamentalist" group, which is flatly false. I am only suggesting that this article state clearly and truthfully that Kony calls his group "Christian sounding names" to cloak his real deeds and intents. Several of the published academic articles cited in these references agree.
This is not opinion, this is refuting the rational that calling Kony a Christian, because Kony says he’s a Christian, is just an edit war on Wikipedia. Its not. Also…
This isn’t point of view, this is a cogent refutation of calling Kony a Christian, because he says he’s one. Why shouldn’t consensus be our reality? Because we then can tell ourselves Nien Juden and be perfectly justified in doing so, as long as we have an agreement between a larger group of people than those who decent. Go ahead, say Kony is a Christian. Ultimately, the bottom line: Is WP about truth, or concensus? -- Usgrant7 ( talk) 11:22, 23 April 2012(UTC)
How do people feel about not stating a religious affiliation as singularly as "Christian", nor going so far the other way as to label it "pseudo-Christianity", but to make reference to the fact that he describes himself as a Christian (indirectly, if not directly)? - Jarry1250 Deliberation needed 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Kony's brand of Christianity is certainly pseudo-Christianity as he also practices Voodoo mysticism and black magic, both of which are expressly forbidden in The Ten Commandments which he uses as justification for killing "witches." Also I'm pretty sure there's something in the Commandments about "thou shalt not kill." -- 2.102.55.76 ( talk) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has numeric name (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: |last=
has numeric name (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |name=
ignored (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check |authorlink=
value (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); External link in |authorlink=
(
help)No7
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No8
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No9
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No10
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No11
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No12
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No13
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No14
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No15
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No16
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).