Talk:Joseph Kony/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

"So the emphasis is clear - this is the way Kony and the LRA are reported by the press, not necessarily how they truly are."

Yes, of course! Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. --Niemti (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you want to make emphasis of him allegedly being substantially influenced by Islam. But I agree on "self-made religion" thing, aka just a cult (not even a sect), and a terrorist group. It's like the emphasis in the case of Shoko Asahara are on being a murderous cult leader and a weapons-of-mass-destruction terrorist, and not "a Buddhist". --Niemti (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the phrase "substantially influenced by" in the article? Just because the press describe the LRA as having Christian elements in its religious ethos, does not really mean we can conveniently ignore the reports, made in the same sources, of elements of Islam. Indeed, to leave that out suggests that it is more influenced by Christianity, which is equally wrong. In fact, I think the whole notion of any real "religion" in the LRA, and by extension for Kony, may be misleading. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not half truth. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, can you cite here exactly "the experts" are talking about "elements of Islam"? That's besides these reports of General al-Bashir trying to convert him to Islam (and failing). Does he ever cite the Koran or something to justify his actions? Ever called himself a "part" Muslim? Well, anthing? Because I don't think so. I think he should be called just "a cult leader", and a wanted terrorist / war-criminal (in the lead). Like Jim Jones is not called "a Christian" (or "a communist") in the lead, but "the founder and leader of the Peoples Temple" (and a mass murderer). --Niemti (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am basing my edits purely on the references already provided in the article. I'm not sure that many of them include analysis by "experts", certainly not experts in theology. I don't think he's ever called himself "part Christian". His allegedly espoused Ten Commandments are a fundamental part of Judaism (perhaps a more fundamantal part than for Christianity), but he have no mention of Judaism. My point is simple - either we should mention all the component sources of this synchretic mix, or we should just say "synchetic mix" and provide the sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you understand what I wrote? The lead should be about him being the founder and leader of a violent cult calling itsef the Lord's Resistance Army, internationally wanted for a variety of war crimes committed in several countries. That's all. --Niemti (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Something like Q&A: Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army. --Niemti (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidently not. I was discussing whether or not the single word "Islam" should appear in the lead. I think it should. You and User:Pass a Method seem to think it should not. But that's not such a bad idea - I'm not sure why all this slightly misleading detail about "religion" belongs in the lead. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Christian, self described?

"Self described" really? Do we have some people here who are a wee bit upset to see their religion be put next to a warlord's name? "Self described" needs to vanish ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.218.252.203 (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't even called himself a Christian, or at least we have no sources. We are dealing with the press who have described the LRA, not even him, as having "Christian elements". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Exemption request

I made a request for exemption from the non-free content criteria for the picture of Kony's face. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 20:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 November 2012

PLEASE EDIT JOSEPH KONY PAGE - in the box where it has "religion" and states christian - it should read: Spiritist.

Baogirl (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to change to spiritualist at this time because you did not provide a source, but there is not a source for Christianity either, so I have removed that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC) kony is alauws albusaidi

Dead?

Some people say he has been dead for a while... why isn't this mentioned?74.215.63.3 (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"some people" are not reliable sources and we dont participate in the rumor mill. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Kony easter egg

Joseph Kony will be available as an easter egg in the videogame asylum from senscape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quesl45asd (talk • contribs) 19:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Bold textkony is alaws85.154.161.25 (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)ğ₡€

Request for comment

Is it appropriate to use this source "Invisible Children's "Kony 2012" viral video stirs emotion and controversy". CBS News. 8 March 2012. to describe the film Kony 2012 as " controversial" in Wikipedia's voice in this article?

Note: additional discussion can be seen User_talk:Zzsignup#claims of "controversial" must be attributed -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

YES. Per your policy link "(labels) are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". As Niemti have pointed out, there are MULTIPLE reliable sources describing the video as controversial, and it is rather self-evident (see Wikipedia:You_don't_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue) to anyone who followed the video. As I have pointed out, the Wiki Kony 2012 article even called the video 'controversial' multiple times without challenge. This simply reflects/summarize the events and is NOT a personal/pejorative label. Zzsignup (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • RfC comment. I came here from the RfC notice, and I otherwise have been uninvolved with the page. Just reading what it says here, I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom. I don't know if there have been any other discussions of the issue, however. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
per your comment, I have added a link above to the previous discussion on the user's talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I've read the discussion at that link, and considered the arguments expressed by both editors. My opinion remains the same: I agree with RedPen. I think it would be very easy to say something like "According to (source or sources), the film has generated controversy." First, it's really obligatory to attribute the characterization of "controversial" to someone other than Wikipedia. To do otherwise risks being POV-pushing. And it's easy, no big deal, to do that. Also, there's a difference between "generating controversy" and "being controversial". They are not the same thing. What you say here has to be faithful to what the sources actually say. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Generating controversy is not being controversial? Dictionary definition of 'controversial' - "1. Of, producing, or marked by controversy" We are really debating this? Please don't argue 'generating' is not the same as 'producing'. This discussion is pointless if we have to argue semantics. Zzsignup (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It's controversial "according to" EVERYONE. Including Invisible Children Inc, who spent a lot of time and effort trying to explain themselves - and their boss went literally crazy, precisely due to the controversy (btw, AP while reporting on his psychotic breakdown calls him "The director of a controversial video",[1] OF COURSE). And who used this very word, as repeated after the BBC, on their blog[2] (BBC wrote "a controversial US film" and IC cited it). Seriously, stop this weird original research according to which "it's a controversial film" is somehow not a truism of Earth-is-not-flat variety. --Niemti (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Similarly uninvolved: I'm going to go point by point here: 1. I agree that the CBS source is quite poor for the claim and so think that it should not be used for this claim and the claim removed until a better source can be found. I agree with Typtofish and TRPoD that fidelity to sources is of utmost importance here. 2. However, I'm unsure about whether the word absolutely needs written attribution ("According to CBS..."). There seems to be a difference between A) Source says film generated controversy, B) Source says we think this is controversial, C) Source says film is generally held as controversial. A should not be used (as it is now), B should include written attribution, C should include regular endnotes. In my opinion. 3. It would be possible then to use the word controversial and not attribute it in written form ("According to X...", but that is only if a reliable source makes that specific claim. Hence, for me: 4. In current form with current source, the word "controversial" should be omitted from the sentence in which it is used in the article. The source does not support that the video is controversial, just that the video started controversy. Other sources could justify calling the video controversial but should be attributed until a reliable source says that the video was widely considered controversial. Conclusion: No AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify what I said before, I agree that there's a case to be made for eliminating the "controversial" descriptor entirely, in which case it becomes moot to attribute it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
"Just to clarify what I said before," E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E says its controversial. Try your favored reliable source, whatever it might be, and you can bet the issue will be described in at least 1 article as 'controversial', matter-of-fact (not even 'controversy', just 'controversial').[3] Because it is a truism, it's a FACT accepted by literally everyone, except some people on Wikipedia it seems. It's weird I even have to tell you about it. --Niemti (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I responded to the RfC in good faith, and finding you mocking my comments ("Just to clarify"), does not win me over to your case. If there are other sources, cite them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify - you are wrong. even the CBS source above that is supposed to verify that the film is controversial, doesnt. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
What "even the CBS source"? This CBS source: "The controversial video"? Or maybe this one: "the controversial documentary Kony 2012...a controversial film called Kony 2012"? Stop your stupid original research, please. (I seriously can't believe I even have to point such incredibly obvious truisms, but it appears that with you everything is possible.) --Niemti (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
the CBS source that you have been edit warring to include -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Stop lying. ([4]) --Niemti (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not lying. the closest that the source you have been editwarring to include comes is to state " but it [the film]'s also sparked controversy." The source is NOT calling the film "controversial" and in cases of POV labels, we need to absolutely accurately report what is in the sources and you have been determined to fudge and fuzz what this source says to promote your personal opinion. That is NOT acceptable. (neither is calling someone a liar.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
No, but you are blatantly ignoring provided evidence (again and again) and claiming they do not say what they say. I've already pointed out the title of the source to you - "Invisible Children's "Kony 2012" viral video stirs emotion and controversy" yet you continue to claim the source DID NOT call the video controversial. Amazing. Zzsignup (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The answer to the RFC question remains No for me at this point. Either the claim needs to be attributed to a source or removed entirely based on the evidence at this point. (My opinion would change if there were a source that answered the key question "controversial to whom?"). I still don't see, either, what the films controversy adds to a discussion of Joseph Kony. Evidence is the way out of this situation: it isn't there yet, and dropping random links of throw-away modifiers isn't going to help us out. Assertions that it is a "truism"--or dropping random links that say "controversial Kony 2012" with no context or awareness of 1. controversial to whom or 2. the connection to the subject of this article (and not to the article about Kony 2012)--are not helpful in resolving this situation. Tryptofish and I both came to the page through RFCs and just to try and improve the page. Reflection on how to convince us (and both of us have been quite transparent about our evidential requirements for changing our minds) is probably a better strategy than dogmatic assertions. I'll be waiting for some quality sources to be added or discussed. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Controversial to: everyone who reported about the controversy (yes, a controversy, in fact one of the biggest media controversies of 2012 - of course, and you know it very well, because you could hardly miss it). As noted by probably every single English-language news service/outlet in existence, as an obvious fact it is. Just as I already said. I don't even actually care for "controversial" in the case of this article, I just cant't stand this kind of senseless obstructionism even in face of such a perfectly clear fact that is backed by easily accessible hundreds of different reliable sources (and many thousands in total) and was never questioned by even one reliable source (because you won't find anyone labeling the video "non-controversial"). So stop doing it. --Niemti (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The question isn't whether there are sources labeling it non-controversial (indeed, I would describe the video personally as controversial)--but whether that is the best descriptor to use for the video on the Joseph Kony page? And if it is the best descriptor, should it be attributed in text? My answer to the first question is NO, my answer to the second is YES. Far more common descriptors in RSs appear to be "viral" or "popular". If we include non-RS sources, more common descriptors are "stupid", "emotional", and "racist". The preference for "controversial" over all other possible descriptors and over no descriptor is not clear despite the assertions otherwise. Maybe there has been lots of obstructionism on this page for a while, but I didn't come here to be obstructionist, I came here to help figure this out quickly based on sources provided. There is a dispute, we should try to reach consensus. In that spirit, it seems like adding attribution in text "according to CBS..." seems like a second-best alternative which may deserve consideration (or maybe considering another descriptor that everyone can agree on--I assume stupid and racist are out). But "controversial" with a source cited that uses that phrasing but without any real context about the controversy just doesn't cut it. If you want to change my mind: 1. Show me the source that actually talks about the controversy of the film with context, not just a source that uses "controversial" as a throw-away descriptor or 2. propose an alternative word which may be more likely to get consensus. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
You can extrmely easily find any source you want. But anyway, let me show you my GA: Kony 2012. Most of this article is precisely about the controversies. The arguments pro and against the campaign, by all kinds of public figures, researchers and activists (and I wasn't even trying to make too negative). OK? --Niemti (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I've said my bit on here. The answer remains: No in answer to the question. Dislike that answer as much as you want, but that's my answer based upon looking at the sources available (and yeah, I looked through the main page before I made my first comment and after you proded and the best use for "controversial" is to be replaced with another word or cited in the voice of who is ascribing it). Peace. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The consensus appears pretty clear that whether or not it may under some circumstance be appropriate to label the film, the CBS reference is not appropriate/sufficient to support the unattributed label of "controversial" in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ - consensus has NOT been reached. Previously TWO editors disagreed with yet you still unilaterally reverted based on your own personal interpretation/opinions. Also interestingly that I was left out of the RfC notice, even though I am the editor whose edits you keep reverting in bad faith. Canvassing perhaps? I agree with Niemti on this. The video is FACTUALLY controversial, as documented by MULTIPLE RELIABLE sources and even the main video article itself. It is not a preoperative or debatable opinion. Avoiding the description of controversial is not being factual about the events/impact of the video. As both Niemti and I have pointed out, the Kony 2012 article already consensually agreed the video is controversial. Neutrality does not mean that negatives should not be used, only that both positives and negatives be provided.
Please note TheRedPenOfDoom's opposition to the description changes as supporting material for each argument is provided (no source->claim not attributed->source does not say what source say). This isn't about Wikipedia policy as much as personal 'ownership' of the article.
I also note that in the article, only the positive impact of the video is mentioned, while anything negative is quickly removed. This isn't about 'neutrality' as much as trying to whitewash the video in a positive light in regards to Kony. Zzsignup (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
negative content about the film is quickly removed because this is the article about KONY and reactions strictly about the FILM are not appropriate for THIS article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Your logic is spurious. Reactions about the film are not appropriate, so only POSITIVE reactions are retained?Zzsignup (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
And my reasoning for each attempted inclusion has changed because the circumstances have changed. When I order a steak and I am given an apple, it is appropriate to state "That is an apple not a steak." When then served an orange, it is completely appropriate to say "That is an orange not a steak". And when then served a banana it is clearly appropriate to state "That is a banana not a steak." My request itself has not changed: that the proposed content be an accurate reflection of what a reliably published source says. The offerings have changed, and the specific reasons those offering have not met basic Wikipedia sourcing requirements may have changed, but my request has not. 18:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The circumstances changed because you keep changing your reason for opposing the edits! First you claimed it was not sourced. When a source is provided you claimed it was not cited properly. When it is cited you amazingly claimed to say the source does not say what it says when it is obvious. It's akin to you ordering a steak, then when a steak is given, claimed to have ordered chicken, then when chicken is brought, claimed to have ordered fish. And how many times do we have to point out that CBS News IS a reliable source, and it (among MANY reliable sources) called the video 'controversial'? Give me a break. Zzsignup (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
first i claimed it was unsourced because - it was unsourced. When a "source" was provided, i claimed it did not support the content in the article that it was supposed to be a source for - because it did not actually support the content as it was added to the article. you can continue to rail at me because the content you wanted to add did not meet the policies, but that is not my fault. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow, you are really amazing. You removed my edit again, because you claimed the fallout from the video is not relevant to Joseph Kony. Then in the very next edit you added positive outcome from the video, I suppose because they are now somehow relevent. Is there any consistency to your editing logic? Zzsignup (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Material on the reactions to the video (if correctly supported by sources) has been included, by consensus since 2012, and is perfectly relevant, as far as I can see. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
the reactions from the film are ABOUT KONY the subject of this article and hence eminently relevant to THIS ARTICLE. The negative reactions are to an organization that is NOT the subject of THIS ARTICLE and hence not at all relevant to THIS article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm really not sure that I understand your logc there. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The negative reactions have nothing to do with Kony himself or views about Kony or anything actually relevant to the subject of THIS encyclopedia article. The negative reactions are about the organization [edited to add: that put out the film] and film itself. If there is any source saying "After the viral Kony 2012 video, people decided he was a good guy because the film was obviously propaganda" or "The controversy that arose around the film is cited as a reason that congress/the president/the UN failed to take action" then there would be rationale for including something about the negative reaction. BUT that is not the case. the negative reaction is all solely about the films' methods, which Kony had nothing to do with. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The distinction between Jospeh Kony and the LRA is one that I am finding increasingly difficult to make. I think that's also the case for public perceptiion generally. That's just my opiniion. But I would wholly agree, of course, that material should only be added if it is directly supported by the sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
By "organization" i meant "invisible children" the organization that put out the film and whose actions are the actual subject of any controversy related to the film. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I am with TRPoD on this one. There is no need in this article for the cbsnews.com "viral video stirs emotion and controversy" cite, because it isn't about Kony; It is about something that is about Kony. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Then I think we have been talking at cross-purposes. I entirely agree with that approach. There is another dedicated article for that sort of material. Apologies for any confusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2012

Please edit Joseph Kony page - In first paragraph where his ideology has mentioned to have Islam, but he claims to be establishing a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and local Acholi tradition so it seams it has nothing to do with Islamic tradition, Ideology AND/OR Islamic Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.136.25.82 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. At least one of the many sources in the footnote say the religion is "increasingly" integrating elements of Islam. Do you have reliable sources that counter the claim? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
It's BS, the only (pseudo) Islamic influence came when his fellow ICC fugitive General Bashir forced him to adopt some things but the Sudanese backing is long over. AND the religion (and the politics) plays a very small role nowadays, when they're reduced to very small bands of unideological pillagers (bandits, literally) hiding in the remote jungles and fighting for mere survival and generally not even in contact with Kony. The Japanese holdouts were more much more ideological than them, and only little less desperate (the LRA is degraded to this level: "Two LRA fighters were killed on Sunday by the Congolese army near the Congolese town of Dungu, but neither were found to have ammunition on them, (General Jean Claude) Kifwa said, adding that much insecurity in the region that has been blamed on the LRA has actually been carried out by local bandits." - and yes, it's true: "U.S. officials said that the intelligence picture is improving but that it is difficult to distinguish bogus reports from rare legitimate LRA sightings. They said villagers tend to blame Kony’s gang for all forms of banditry and crime, whether or not it was really responsible."). To say that the LRA remnants are "increasingly" anything more than tiny (and insignificant) gangs of unideological bandits dispersed over a huge territory and generally with no contact with their "command" (Kony even ceased using any radio communications, now when he's being hunted so much) and the other bands - it's ridiculous. The bottom line is that Joseph Kony today is only a literal bogeyman figure for the local people and the foreigners alike, while the real problems (and the real rebels) in the region are more or less ignored by the outside world (and the UN, and the U.S.). --Niemti (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
your analysis is all well and good for discussion on the talk page. however, none of the links you provided actually counter the claims we have by reliable sources nor calls the reliability of their analysis into question. We go by what the sources actually say WP:V / WP:OR -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The "Muslim" thing was a reaction by the American Christians to Kony's self-made messianistic religion / personality cult being branded as a fundamentalist Christian. For the same reason, an issue of his former beliefs was skipped altogether by the IC in the Kony 2012 video (Russell is a born-again Christian). There was even some solidarity with the LRA for being "Christians" who "are fighting the Muslims in Sudan". Today, the pathetic remnant of Kony's group (which began as "Uganda People's Democratic Christian Army" and the "United Holy Salvation Army") is a relatively very small and extremely dispersed gang of pillagers (die-hard at their remaining core, but even they would probably surrender if offered an amnesty), looking mostly just for food, mostly not in contact with him at all, and not subscribing to neither any religion nor any real political ideology (that's including the Acholi nationalism, and they're not even mostly Acholis anymore). No, they're not "increasingly" adopting Islam, or anything else for that matter. --Niemti (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
You are citing Rush Limbaugh? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it's this idiots's name. --Niemti (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Niemti, your arguments above are as TheRedPenOfDoom said all well and good, but they constitute OR and synth. The cites provided support the text, which is a referring to the LRA not specifically Kony, and only in the context of elements of a syncretic mix. I note you also removed it without providing an edit summary when the conversation here had not created a consensus.Number36 (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.125.177 (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Biography - Rebel Leader

At the end of the second paragraph of Biography/Rebel Leader, the text doesn't seem to be entirely neutral or written from a proper perspective: "..but there is still much to be done." Also the citation after that text seems to use a completely different style from what I've observed to be the norm. Apologies if this is all very unspecific; it's actually my first attempted contribution to the site.

Centreti (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think it's supposed to be a quote, but it's not formatted properly nor is its referenced book. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2015

the religious movement that Joseph Kony follows may have roots in a Christian movement, but in truth is using the basis of Christianity and applying it to their local religion. The movement he believes is in no way linked to Protestant Christianity in which should be removed from the page 75.91.32.226 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Health rumors

Claims that Kony has hepatitis, AIDS, or some other kind of blood-borne disease seem to pop up on blogs and such, but I'm not aware of the issue receiving genuinely serious news coverage. Has anyone seen anything that's not tabloid-like but appears reliable to put such things to rest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeWithMarkets (talk • contribs) 04:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Fix small typo

I found a small typo in the "Religious Beliefs" section. The sentence beginning with "He is thought of have had many wives" should be changed to "He is thought to have had many wives". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohr22 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Another small typo was "culmunated" instead of "culminated" in the section titled "Rebel leader". Skulla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"Kony"

The usage and topic of Kony is under discussion, see talk:Kony, Inc. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Kony in Kafia Kingi?

See https://www.yahoo.com/news/joseph-konys-rebels-sell-ivory-minerals-report-144348753.html.--Chianti (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Kony a Protestant?

This article lists Joseph Kony's cult as 'Protestant'. 'Protestant' refers to the churches which separated from Rome over her heresies in the 16th century, and those which descend from the same, along with (albeit inaccurately) the Baptists/Anabaptists. - These 'denominations', movements and churches generally believe in the inspiration of the 66 books of the holy scriptures, that these 66 scriptures, (39 of the Old Testament, 27 of the New) are the Christian's ONLY authority for faith and practice, that the believer is saved and justified by grace through faith in the blood of the Lamb, wholly separated from the works of his hands.

Joseph Kony's cult is not based upon the bible, and it's doctrine in the vaguest sense of the term, it certainly is not 'protestant'. I would propose that this slur be removed. -Eli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.30.23 (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Cult, which some may consider a derogatory naming of it, is described as syncretic in the article, sort of multicultural. I'd consider that another set of Negro beliefs emerging after the period of Africa's "colonization", which should rather be called hegemony of European powers in Africa.--197.228.39.77 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This is getting a bit too specific Eli. All that is required to be a protestant is to be of the Christian faith and to formally reject papal authority over the church. Specifically, this would take the form of an absolute rejection of Paragraph 937 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And that is about it - in fact, there is virtually no other completely common ground to be found between *all* of the groups which could make a claim to Protestantism, well, beyond the interpretation of the sacrament of the Eucharist that is... (so two requirements - or maybe one requirement and one universality? - rejection of Para. 937 and transubstantiation) Anyway, being a protestant is not like getting ISO certified, it is rather abstract. :S. So yeah, in the strictest sense of the word, Kony would be a protestant, although it really is a pointless distinction since I am reasonably certainly that his rejection of Rome has very little bearing on the day to day operations of his organisation. And I can assure you that there are just as many murderers, thugs and rapists in Africa who defer to Vatican authority as there are those who reject it, perhaps more.
In the end, dogmatism and the rejection of reason are arguably the most wicked agents of destruction and mayhem in the history of man. As we find ourselves hurling headlong into the 21st century, we would do well to finally put aside all of this archaic mysticism, magic and superstition. It is about time that we as a species get up off of our knees and in the light of science and reason, embrace a future where we reach out for the stars. 208.103.255.182 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2016

Change his age to 55. 86.84.146.243 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done! Thanks for pointing that out. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC).

"be unable to evade capture for much longer"

11 months later....I think it's time to change that to "it was thought he'd be unable to evade capture for an extended period in early 2016."-74.116.240.2 (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Kony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Kony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Kony/Archive_2&oldid=1088778463"