Talk:Joseph Kony/Archive 1

ambiguity
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?
 * I modified it. Better? -   BanyanTree 01:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

LRA base
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)
 * That sentence dates from late 2004 when most of the LRA was still in southern Sudan after years of Sudanese sponsorship, though it was of course primarily a northern Ugandan insurgency. Since the LRA is so dispersed now, even to the DRC, an update was definitely in order. - BanyanTree 09:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Vanity Fair article
New article for reference: http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/060109roco03
 * There doesn't seem to have a lot of new information on Kony, and I can't figure out where he's drawing he's conclusions about multiple personalities. I am not particularly keen on adding this to the article, though won't protest if somebody else does. - BanyanTree 20:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
"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)


 * That is strange wording. I have tried to rephrase; what do you think?
 * This article could definitely do with some work. The rationale of Kony is better expressed at Lord's Resistance Army, while Yoweri Museveni, Uganda People's Democratic Army and Alice Auma all provide more context... - BanyanTree 23:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Location would be known - any quotes supporting this?
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)

Interview with Koney

 * Africa's most wanted man tiptoes into the spotlight --Paul E. Ester 15:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Relation to Alice Auma?
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)
 * There are a couple of sources like the BBC that say that it is a possibility, while I vaguely recall something else saying that they were second cousins, rather than first, but I wouldn't state it as a definite. - BanyanTree 04:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer!/Nicke L 14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
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)

Inconsistencies in his background
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)
 * "Disputed" is a bit of an overstatement, as no editor has tried to take the lead on this article, so it includes pretty much every random bit of information and random thought of anyone who has dropped by. Also, Kony's early history is so hazy that I wouldn't be surprised if you can reference 1961, 1962, 1964 and 1965 to various outside sources, so I don't even see those dates as evidence of a dispute.  You are totally free to pick whatever date looks the best referenced, if you wish, rather than slap large useless tags on article.
 * Is there a no editor really cares about this article tag? - BanyanTree 23:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The description of him in this article is quite at odds with the description of him in the BBC's profile. It also doesn't sit too well with some of Matthew Green's description, eg in this FT article. Pbhj (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * @ BanyanTree, so what are you saying? Just because the actual dates aren't very clear, we should just make stuff up and put it up on Wikipedia? Not keeping with the quality required for an encyclopaedia, is it? And I couldn't find a more appropriate tag, but if you're aware of a tag better than disputed, then please feel free to update it. Or do you not care enough? UpturnedCollar (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * Thank you! UpturnedCollar (talk) 03:28, 4 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)
 * Cheers, mate!UpturnedCollar (talk) 03:03, 13 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)

How about a photo of the guy?
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)


 * The problem is that there are no photos of Kony around that are licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL. -- Thaths (talk) 23:40, 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)

In the Media views
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)

POV
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)
 * Agreed, the sentence needs to be rephrased. The statement that his actions are in keeping with Christianity is not supported by the source given for that sentence. The statement is anti-Christianity for no reason.--68.63.139.125 (talk) 18:43, 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 agree, someone with ability to edit protected pages should fix it. Sean.mcbeth (talk) 04:17, 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. TreveXtalk 9 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)
 * Right - out it goes! TreveXtalk 20:29, 11 July 2005 (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)
 * The cited souce says this:
 * "While initially enjoying strong public support, Kony's group, the Lord's Resistance Army, turned on its own supporters in an increasingly brutal and incoherent campaign, supposedly bent on "purifying" the Acholi people and turning Uganda into a theocracy ruled by the Ten Commandments." . Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion at the Talk Page for Lord's Resistance Army about the use of the term "Christian" to describe the ideology of this group. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As well, "The LRA is a militant group with a syncretic pseudo-Christian extreme religious ideology, known for the atrocities they commit against civilians, including murder, mutilations, rape, and in some accounts even cannibalism." Everything looks fine there, except 'syncretic pseudo-Christian'. The citation doesn't say that. Syncretic Christian extreme religious ideology/ Syncretic extreme Christian ideology/ etc. would be more correct. Not sure how someone would word it, but from experience with articles relating to religious extremism, we don't normally say 'pseudo -insert religion here' ideology. I understand everyone wants someone to assume that a majority of Christians agree with what's going on, but there are better ways to word this. 65.0.136.228 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording in the intro to that article is now:
 * "Ideologically, the group is a syncretic mix of of traditional African religion, Acholi nationalism, and Christianity," - supported by nine separate citations. Perhaps this article should just follow suit? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

1961 OR 1962?
All the other wikis claim 1961. Sources? Trondtr.
 * This often happens with when people work backwards from articles which list a person of interests age, in many foreign countries a persons age at birth is considered to be 1 year old rather than 0 as is the case with age in most western countries. Just my 2c Troll-Life (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

South Sudan on map?
Shouldn't the map be updated to show South Sudan?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CopperSquare (talk • contribs) 06:16, 12 December 2011‎ (UTC)

Joseph Kony categorization
This section originally appeared on my talk page.  City O f Silver 

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)


 * If I recall correctly, and I might not because it's been awhile, I initially inserted the word "terrorist" because of then-recent news that the U.S. State Department had declared Kony a terrorist. Whether or not it's true that Kony is a terrorist isn't relevant because Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. Is State not a reliable source? I think it is. But maybe not. State has a stake in this, since anyone who captures or kills Kony stands to benefit from the "terrorist" designation. That's totally fair. I don't feel that is enough to take away State's reliability because I don't see any reason they would say such a thing without very, very good reason. That was my initial take on it.


 * But that was my first edit. If I recall correctly, which (again) I might not, I reverted you per WP:OBVIOUS. The LRA meets all the "guerrilla group" standards you've laid out, true, and I agree with you that they are guerrillas. But there's more to it than the guerrilla standards. They have, under orders from Kony, committed atrocities, including murder, rape, and forced conscription. I feel that it goes to motivation. Why did Kony order, and the LRA commit, those crimes? Religious and political beliefs. If religion or politics motivates someone to commit crimes against people, that person is a terrorist, full stop. I strongly disagree that such actions "are not...distinctive of terrorist groups." Every army that has ever engaged in any prolonged conflict has contained murderers and rapists. That does not reflect on the army's legitimacy. The difference is, no true army in the world, guerrilla or not, compels its members to rape and deliberately kill civilians.


 * The problem is, WP:OBVIOUS is picky and this definitely doesn't fit that guideline's "Jimbo Wales is male" standard. And I admit I can't find a reliable source like the New York Times or the BBC that has specifically called Kony a "terrorist." This is the closest I can come, and that writer, apparently a college student, seems awfully biased. (Here's the search that took me to that paper.) Plenty of reliable sources used the "T" word to refer to Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden, and maybe there's a good reason they haven't used it to refer to Kony. It's not wishy-washy, though, on whether his group reflects on him. If he knowingly orders people to commit acts of terrorism, we can call him a terrorist per WP:OBVIOUS.


 * So it's definitely not a black-or-white thing. The gray area is huge. Maybe we should change it to something like, "guerrilla leader who has been designated a terrorist by the State Department of the United States of America for crimes against humanity including murder, rape, and forced conscription."  City O f Silver  21:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My original motivation for changing the categorization of Joseph Kony as a terrorist was that I'm sick of "terrorist-label" abuse and it really makes Wikipedia look less credible when it succumbs to that. I believe that the current form of the article is more balanced and closer to a neutral point of view. Regarding the extreme attrocities of the guerilla group I think that it's unfair to examine them out of context. Sub-saharian African conflicts are long-known for their extreme brutality. The group is acting whithin a certain greater "tradition of warfare" and when this is taken into account the acts that are too extreme for the Western Civilization cannot be characterized as too extreme, as far as judging whether the group is a terrorist group or not goes. It should also be pointed out that the U.S. government didn't designate Joseph Kony a terrorist up until 2008, while Joseph Kony was acting like a terrorist for many years before that. Having said that, I wish to thank you for accepting the correctment this time. Nxavar (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Moved from my talk page.  City O f Silver 
 * That the LRA is acting whithin a certain greater "tradition of warfare" is probably the key to this whole thing. Neither of us disputes that the group is motivated by religion. Their intent be damned, large-scale commission of rape and murder in the name of religion (or tradition, kind of) is terrorism. Isn't it?
 * As for abuse of the word, I'm not sure how that's relevant. Worrying about how other articles reflect on this one kind of violates the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Our treatment of others doesn't change the fact that Kony is a leader of a terrorist group. Is Kony himself a terrorist? We've established that the LRA is a terrorist group. We don't have a reliable source calling Kony a terrorist. Is he one? If he is a terrorist, how is calling him a terrorist relevant to another location mistakenly calling someone else a terrorist when that person isn't one?  City O f Silver  19:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In refering to "terrorist-label" abuse I wasn't using it as an argument, it really is not. I was just trying to say that the issue has special importance. Whether or not we have such a case at hand is a different matter, I agree to that. That's why in my first comment I didn't mention anything about "terrorist-label" abuse. As for the apparent religious motivation of the group, this is something that has been around in warfare since the Middle Ages. That is not to say that the group's acts are justified by any means or that they are not terrorist acts. But terrorist acts alone are not enough for categorizing someone a terrorist. I think that the editors of the LRA article have taken that into account since the group is not categorized as a terrorist group in the article's introductory part and when it is characterized as such in the main body it is in refering to what others say about the group. I think that we can reach a conclusion from the above and all of what has already been mentioned that changing from "terrorist" to "guerilla group leader" is valid.
 * Nxavar (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "[T]errorist acts alone are not enough for categorizing someone a terrorist" I believe, literally, that this is exactly incorrect, and so does Wikipedia, which defines the word as "one who participates in terrorism". This definition is shared by reference.com, thefreedictionary.com, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the expert-written Citizendium, etc., etc. I'm trying to glean a concrete answer here. Do you believe that Kony is not a terrorist?  City O f Silver  15:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing is, there's a differece between categorizing and characterizing someone as a terrorist. Collections of human beings have been called terrorist groups starting from the 20th century as far as I know but everybody knows very well that acts of terror aren't a new thing in human history. Joseph Kony is a terrorist and LRA is a terrorist group in the strict sense but there are more appropriate terms for describing both. I don't think we're hiding anything from the public with the guerilla group term. Historically, terrorism has very often been part of warfare and one suspects that it might be present in those persons or groups that practice war. The terrorist aspects are better left as details. If you check the LRA article, you will see that its editors go to great lenghts to make sure that the reader is informed about the group's mischiefs. I don't think that anyone reading either article (Joseph Kony's or LRA's) is left with anything but a very negative impression about them.
 * Nxavar (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all terrorists are guerrillas and definitely not all guerrillas are terrorists. We're allowed to hurt bad guys' feelings; it's why, for example, our article on the neofascist British National Party is so biased against them.
 * Does "guerrilla leader who has been designated a terrorist by the State Department of the United States of America for crimes against humanity including murder, rape, and forced conscription" work? I almost think people might get an incorrect impression that we're worried about what to call Kony. Like, "we can't call the guy a terrorist unless he's convicted," even though we certainly can.  City O f Silver  21:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the "incorrect impression" problem is a neutral point of view argument, that is you are practically saying that not calling Joseph Kony a terrorist creates a positive bias. This is equivalent to saying that Joseph Kony should be categorized as a terrorist. I disagree to that and I have already explained why. Regarding whether U.S.'s official designation of Joseph Kony is a credible statement that counts towards categorizing him as a terrorist, I think it is not. The belated designation counts against its credibility and, as you have admitted, U.S. have a stake on this. If we put these two next to each other, the credibility of this statement becomes too low. One immediately wonders: "Why did the U.S. decide that after so many years have passed, not only since Joseph Kony started behaving like a terrorist but also since the world became more sensitive about terrorism following the incidents of 9/11?"


 * 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. Practically, some articles do stay biased because for example there is a silent consensus about it, but you cannot use this as an argument as per WP:OTHERSTUFF, except that is the fact that it violates WP:NEUTRAL. As for being able to call someone a criminal without a conviction, this can happen but in referring to those that do it. I don't think it can happen anonymously, that is from Wikipedia editors.
 * Nxavar (talk) 18:19, 29 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?  City O f Silver  15:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * From WP:NEUTRAL: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This definition of neutrality, by which the WP:NEUTRAL policy is enforced, does not deal with the impression that will be created about the subject of the article, let it be a person, a country, a soccer team or anything else. If there are a lot of negative things to be said about the subject of an article a negative impression will be created and if there are a lot of positive things to be said about the subject of an article a positive impression will be created. The WP:NEUTRAL policy does not forbid that, as a matter of fact this is natural, otherwise we would have to make things up and/or hide things so that a neutral impression will be created. As long as all available information is represented it is OK for an article to end up creating a positive or negative impression. I think you are confusing the terms "impression" and "bias".


 * As for Joseph Kony's article, it does report a lot of negative things about him and I think it does create a negative impression about him to the reader. Still, we, as Wikipedia editors, cannot infer that he is a terrorist and name him one. I should also remind you that it can be supported that he is not a terrorist on the grounds that he is acting within a greater "tradition of warfare" and that the group he leads has a lot of guerilla group qualities.
 * Nxavar (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We're kind of at a standstill. I'm not convincing you, you're not convincing me, now what? I'm trying something new.  City O f Silver  22:57, 2 February 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)


 * ItsZippy summarized in simple English the points I have already made. It should be repeated here that the article does mention "the organizations who have labels a group terrorists (sic)". I wouldn't disagree to add more if more exist. He also brought into the equation that it is common practice to be very careful when using the word terrorist. He mentioned the WP:PEACOCK policy but I would say that the WP:LABEL policy is supportive of this practice too.


 * I think that ItsZippy agrees that the article should remain as it is.
 * Nxavar (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture experience?
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)
 * See WP:COPYREQ. --damiens.rf 18:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

KONY 2012
How on earth is this at all notable? --78.150.166.118 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the million odd people who have watch the video makes it notable. Nome3000 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On the view count on YouTube it has two values. If you search the video but do not click it is stated as having around 100,000 views. If you click the video(that is, it starts to play) it has 54,117. The second value can be seen to be incorrect as there are comments coming in every few seconds and the value has not changed for at least an hour (since 2am at least), I assume this error is due to the large volume of traffic for that video at this time though I'm not an expert so don't know this for certain. The first value stated also has stopped increasing however it is probable that it is much closer to the actual total. If this is incorrect please say so. Nome3000 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kony 2012 is not notable yet. Wikipedia does not need to report on every single viral video, no matter how altruistic its message may be. I've proposed deletion of the Kony 2012 article and removed its section from this article.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 05:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely it is notable enough? I mean, how much more does it need to be classed as "notable"? It's all over social media, and is just spreading by the second. It's more than just a normal viral video. Sentra246 (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has strict guidelines on notability. Something that's been watched a million times twice over does not automatically get a pass for being mentioned on Wikipedia. Even though its message is important, Wikipedia is not the place to promote it by any means.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 05:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so if the guidelines are so strict, what exactly qualifies it as notable? Also if I recall correctly, Vimeo doesn't update the amount of times a video is watched like Youtube does, it updates after a while (maybe a day), meaning the 2.5 million views is quite old, especially when statistics say it has been shared 3.5million times on Facebook. I doubt everyone that has watched it, plus another 1 million others who haven't watched it, have shared it. I'd also hardly say this would be promoting it much, as it is being promoted all over social media anyway. Sentra246 (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Kony 2012" movement is not notable. It does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. The number of times a video is viewed is not a metric by which to merit inclusion. It does not matter that the Kony 2012 movement is altruistic. Wikipedia does not yet have to report on it. Please read WP:Notability, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:NOTNEWS.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 05:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can't be bothered arguing with you any more, but I'd just like to point out you are the only person on Talk:Kony 2012 who is saying it should be deleted to all the people that are contesting the deletion. Sentra246 (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "but I'd just like to point out you are the only person" - well you can add two people now. It's not notable. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Wikipedia is based on policy, and is not a democracy; arguing numbers is pointless here anyway. Until you can justify inclusion per Wikipedia policy, and not via appeal to emotion or "we have more numbers", you're beating a dying horse. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 05:43, 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)
 * You are wrong on all counts, it seems. It being a noble cause is not enough of a reason to mention it. This article already shows that Kony is an internationally wanted monster. A single video making the rounds on Facebook and Twitter is not good enough to mention.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 05:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is an article by By Philippa Lees and Martin Zavan on ninemsn that is third party. There is also an article on enoughproject.org although this would be considered less distanced as it is a site about promoting an end to war crimes. There is an article on altoona.psu.edu also.Nome3000 (talk) 06:17, 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)
 * The video is not relevant to this article. And for all we know the video will be a flash in the pan. It's already garnered criticism because Invisible Children is a bad organization. Wikipedia cannot jump on every social justice activist bandwagon.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 20:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It now has over 78,000,000 views. I would call that notable. I think we can delete this discussion.

Consensus for inclusion?
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)
 * Just an aside, I've left a request at the guild of copyeditors talk page for an urgent copy edit as the prose is in a bad state. I started the job myself but can't continue because I'm on holiday. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 14:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant to the discussion of Kony. It may be relevant to the discussion of other items, but we are not a means to disseminate information for the purpose of getting people to know social activist movements.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 20:41, 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)
 * "Spread the word that Wikipedia editors refuse to allow its inclusion." - Get a load of this guy. Are you specifically advocating off-wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry? I'm not sure what your perception of this website is, but here on Wikipedia we have policies regarding things like these, and meatpuppetry (or advocating for it) is an offense that can get you potentially blocked as it constitutes disruptive behaviour. Wikipedia isn't an anarchy where you can do whatever you want; there are policies and procedures that are followed, and if things aren't going your way, I'd advise against garnering off-site support to bolster your point and seeking your personal army via whatever online networking you utilise. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 17:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Wikipedia is not required to report on the video here.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 20:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not required to report on any topic in any article? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 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 see nothing wrong whatsoever in its current content or position in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry wasn't clear, I agree with that position, I only meant if there is argument on its inclusion that's the context it should take, not a discussion of whether it has notability in its own right. I'm in favour of its inclusion.Number36 (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your postion was quite clear to me, thanks. And I think your argument is also perfectly valid. This one video has probably already re-defined Kony's "notability" on a world-wide scale. As intended. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 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)
 * IMHO this whole "KONY 2012" campaign was created to divert / feed off the interest garnered by the film Machine Gun Preacher. I also note that all donations made to the Angels of East Africa organisation (the recipient of all donations made via the main movie page) claimed to use "Every cent of the money you donate will go straight to the front lines: helping to provide clean water, food, shelter, education, infrastructure, counselling or rescue." this is in start contrast to the fraction of the proceeds being used for the same purposes from donations to the KONY 2012 organisation. Ultimately I think it would be more appropriate if the "in the media" section of the article listed concise sections on both the KONY 2012 campaign and the Machine Gun Preacher / Angels of East Africa campaigns. Troll-Life (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You may well be right. Maybe Machine Gun Preacher deserves equal coverage in that section, possibly more. if there is a reliable soure for this "fraction of the proceeds" then I guess that could be added too. But any attempt to argue in the article that " .. "KONY 2012" campaign was created to divert / feed off the interest garnered by the film Machine Gun Preacher.. " is likely to be seen as WP:OR. The KONY 2012 video still seems to be all about the man who is subject of this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a relevant link regarding the distribution of proceeds from KONY2012 / Invisible Children - http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/post/19134664367/show-me-the-money Troll-Life (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2012
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)


 * This reply was unhelpful. To upload images, the user would need have the  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)

Edit request on 7 March 2012
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).

http://vimeo.com/37119711

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)
 * Wikipedia does not need to report on the latest viral video, no matter how altruistic the message may be.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 04:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that this has enough momentum (at least temporarily) to be at least briefly mentioned on a Wikipedia article. When I watched the video, my first instinct was to check what Wikipedia mentioned of it. 75.36.161.162 (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No it has not.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 05:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, as with all viral videos, it's momentum means it's moving too fast to track. It's a waste of editors' time just updating te total. If a reader needs to to know - just look at that website! If and when it levels off, it may have reached a notable peak. But, until then - who knows. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 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)

Edit Request March 7, 2012: Indictment Section
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)

Peace talks
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)

Edit request on 7 March 2012: Typo.
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)
 * ✅ Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2012
Should Invisible Children Inc be included in "See Also" section?

Kentonh (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Have added a link and usually if an article is linked in the text it does not need to appear in "See Also". But what do other editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SEEALSO we should tend not to link to articles that are already linked in the main text of the article. As it is linked in the media section, I don't see the point of a see also as well. SmartSE (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Problematic Line
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


 * That first sentence previously read:
 * "The film's stated aim is to make Joseph Kony famous (explaining that his fame would enable the United States to justify getting involved in Kony's capture)."
 * Was that any better? I'm also unhappy that the current sentence sounds slightly tautologous.


 * The second sentence is just a quote from Michael Geheren. It's his personal view. It's normal to have quotes in full, regardless of any editorial voice. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Another image
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)


 * Oh well it got zapped. I even checked with tineye, but still... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2012
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


 * So you think that Kony's murderous acts are less the fault of liberal Christianity and more the fault of conservative Judaism? I'm not sure that many Christians or Jews actually base the conduct of their lives on religionfacts.com, and certainly not any decision as to whether they should casually discard the Ten Commandments. Jesus Christ taught those commandments and added two more. But surely the Commandments themsleves are still fundamentally common to both Christianity and Judaism? The fact that Kody has subverted and twisted the basic tenets of two world religions to suit his own murderous agenda does not really mean we need to associate him more with Judaism than with Christianity in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia's policy on original research. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, however, the "Religious beliefs" section makes no mention of Jesus Christ or his teachings at all. Kony seems to take his inspiration from "spirits" and to see himself as directly answerable only to God. So the current category for this article of "Category:Christian terrorism" seems a little inappropriate (not that this whole Category itself isn't a bizarre self-contradiction.) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say that the term "Christian Terrorism" is self contradictory? History has shown that certain segments of Christianity has been just as capable and guilty of grand acts of terrorism as other religions, consider for example the Crusades and the creation, focus and subsiquent disbandment of the Knights Templar. The LRA started as part of the Holy Spirit Movement which had obvious Christian motives for its activities. Note: Please don't take this as an endorsement of LRA or Holy Spirit Movement methods or acts, rather, I just wish to clarify LRA and Joseph Konys extremist Christian motivationsTroll-Life (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am trying to say that the term "Christian Terrorism" is self contradictory. In so far as acts of terrorism were not part of the teachings of Jesus and in so far as terrorism is not generally regarded as a fundamental or necessary part of the practice of that faith today. No-one can argue that wars and atrocities have not been committed throughout the ages "in the name of Christianity". But that's slightly different. Similarly with Islam, I'm sure. I'm arguing that by linking to Christianity or by giving a category of "Christian terrorism" the article maybe, in some way, endorsing Kony's subversion of that religion and projecting the view that he is, in some way, "a Christian". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No true scotsman fallacy. Just because you define Christians as people who do not commit acts of terrorism, does not have any effect on whether they are actually Christian. The exact same thing can be said of the 9/11 hijackers. Many, if not most muslims see Islam as a peaceful religion. Does that make the hijackers suddenly not muslims anymore? Omegastar (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly not true Muslims, yes. But my point is this. Exactly what makes Kony's terrorism "Christian Terrorism"? Kony himself justifies his atrocities with reference to The Ten Commandments. Does that supposed "espousal" of those ethical principles suddenly make him a Christian? Is there even a suggestion that he describes himself as such? In fact, where is the WP:RS for this categorisation? Surely his "use" of the Commandments is not a religious or moral position, but just a twisted travesty based on sick inhuman delusions? Perhaps Hitler was a Christian, yes? His destrunction of a few million Jews didn't stop him being one? I find even the link to the Holy Spirit in this article a bit doubtful. It should really just be in quotes. Take a look at that article - you think we should add ".. has inspired Joseph Kony to commit genocide"? But perhaps I am just being "non neutral" here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion at the Talk Page for Lord's Resistance Army about the use of the term "Christian" to describe the ideology of this group, from which article this description has been taken. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request, March 8, 2012: Typo I guess...
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]"


 * ✅ Juniper4589 (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request, March 8, 2012
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)
 * As far as I know, the date is accurate. So yes, the sentence is indeed saying that an action was announced that will take place on April 20. It's just a long period of "provocation". But do you have any proposal of what you would replace and how you would replace it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ Article is not protected. -- B  music  ian  02:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

THIS IS AN EXPERIMENT
Joseph Kony does not exist. This is all fictional, an experiment, and we are the test subjects. This is merely a media and social networking study; conformity, obedience, individuation and internalisation are all being tested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.110.221 (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2012
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)


 * Do you have any source to support this? Where are you proposing that a new sentence be placed? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ Article is not protected. -- B  music  ian  02:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Christian terrorism category
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)
 * Totally agree. I also have a problem with the general use of that Category. But WP:OVERCAT seems sufficient here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Lord's Resistance Army section error
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
 * ✅ Un-linked for now. But this page needs amendment. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

About Interpol (ICPO)
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)

About Terrorist Categories/Portal
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)

Talk page archives?
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)
 * I can't even see when the earlier sections were "moved" or lost, presumably before 14 March 2012. What has happened here? Did the article change it's name or something? All archives should still have moved with it? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Lies in the article
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)
 * Not necessarily "lies", but you do have a point. He does indeed clearly say that in the video, but YouTube videos themselves can't be used as references. The source currently given in the article, The Independent, says "He has nurtured a cult of personality, claiming he is visited by a multinational host of 13 spirits, including a Chinese phantom." But that source does not in fact say "Kony proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Holy Spirit" so I think another source may need to be found for that. If this was something he once believed, then maybe the article should say "Kony has proclaimed himself.. " or "Kony at one time proclaimed himself.. ". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
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)


 * I'm sure that any reliable source that Kony is dead would very quickly find its way here. But do you have any actual sources which argue that Kony's notoriety has been manufactured by the CIA? The USA's involvement in African conflicts to date, has appeared to be somewhat reluctant? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 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.


 * Even "without considerable research and efforts" you'll soon find out the LRA (nor the ADF for that matter) are absolutely not in position to threaten the joint British, French and state Chinese oil project in Uganda in any way (and even the al-Shabab infiltrators are unlikely to do more than explode in a crowd of random people). And you should also discover that America didn't got any oil in Iraq, taken once again by the Brits, French and Chinese, and also Russians. I'm not sure what "the war in Uganda is a scam" was supposed to mean. The more you know... --Niemti (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2012
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! &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The only image we have available appears to be one from invisible children. I'm not convinced it's a really good one for this article. It seems to me it's better than nothing, so I've added it... but, we could really do with a better (direct) image. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the Christian Statement for Kony's religion
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).


 * I think we should get rid of the edit that's similar to your suggestion. Why is there "self-identified" next to Christianity? Again going back to al-Qaeda. We don't have self-proclaimed in al-Qaeda's infobox; the same goes for bin Laden. Could someone tell me why this is? The change happened about a month ago with seemingly no discussion. I deleted the phrase and then undid it so there's a better chance that other editors will notice it. (I think more people pay attention to page edits than talk edits, but that's just a hunch)Redsxfenway (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

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)


 * You are probably wise to doubt the integrity of Kony's claim to be concerned with upholding the true teachings of Christianity. However, the fact that his professed ideology is Christian (regardless of whether or not that claim is accurate) means that it's probably best to keep it in the article. For example, at al-Qaeda, muslim editors regularly show up and demand that references to Islam be removed from the article because al-Qaeda's interpretation of Islamic teachings varies from their own. It wouldn't be appropriate to do that there, and it isn't here either. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 23:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this well articulated voice of reason. Usgrant7 (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Where is the source that claims that "his professed ideology is Christian"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read the rest of the article? Anyway, here's one. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 17:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That source says: "His so-called Christian movement, the Lord’s Resistance Army, has.. " Where is there any statement about Kony himself? Did I read the rest of which article? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Mr. Kony started out in a village in northern Uganda more than 25 years ago as a Catholic altar boy who spoke in tongues." What I meant was, there are dozens of other citations referring to how Christian-oriented hie / at the very least the organisation he personally led, was. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 21:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Being an altar boy 25 years ago does not make one a Christian. Leading an organisation that has been carefully brainwashed into espousal of (selected) Old Testament Biblical traditions does not make one a Christian. Or do you think that Kony has actually accepted Jesus as his personal Saviour? Have you read the eleven sources currently provided to suport the cliam that "Ideologically, the group is a syncretic mix of mysticism, Acholi nationalism, Islam, and Christian fundamentalism"? I have to admit that I have not read the Times source, as it is pay-for-view. But I have read the other ten and there is as much, if not more, journalistc support for a Muslim basis for the "beliefs" of the LRA. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 April 2012
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)
 * Not done; the only thing we can do is report what religion he claims to be, since arguments about whether or not X is a real christian always boil down to original research. - file lake  shoe  08:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur, if he says he is one, then he is one and we have no better source. I note that X is a cross. --Pete (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about this, so I'll just try to inform:
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 Kony's face
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)
 * Images may be abundant online, but on Wikipedia we can only use images that are in the public domain, under a free license compatible with ours, or, in some cases, under the doctrine of fair use. However, fair use is rarely applicable if the person is living because it is potentially possible to obtain a free equivalent in the future. The vast majority of images you see in cyberspace are copyrighted and non-free. This does not mean there isn't a good free image out there of Kony that can be used, but I just wanted to explain some of the relevant issues on this. People are sometimes amazed that articles on some of the most famous people in the world here have no image. This is the reason.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Pseudo-Christianity"
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.


 * Well I'd question how direct a reading is used but the broad point is correct. mergers between Christianity (specifically catholicism) and traditional Acholi beliefs are pretty common in that area.©Geni 21:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see, so "Joseph Kony's interpretation of the bible is a lot closer to a direct reading than most versions". That sounds a bit like WP:OR to me. But how exactly does his interpretation fit with any Christian teaching? And if we step back into the Old Testament for a moment, how exactly does Mr Kony's ideology accommodate Number 6, not to mention most of the others? The LRA article says this: ".. the group is a syncretic mix of of mysticism, Acholi nationalism, and Christianity", so surely that's what should be included here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well going by reports from those who've been part of the LRA he cites those parts of the bible when the armies of Israel kill people or god kills people.©Geni 00:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Still not sure how a selective reading of divine punishment from the Old Testament chroniclers and prophets, in order to justify sadistic barbarism and genocide, equates to any kind Christianity, even pseudo-Christianity. Or even to Judaism, for that matter. But the last word has, thankfully, already been usefuly posted by Barizotoh9 below. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * The definition of “Christian” with a capital letter: “one who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ” 2012.  The definition of “fundamentalist” is one who believes in a literal adherence to a set of basic principles or “the belief in old and traditional forms of religion, or the belief that what is written in a holy book, such as the Christian Bible, is completely true”. The definition of pseudo is, “not real or pretend” .  The literal meaning of the phrase “pseudo-Christian” is someone pretending to be a Christian.
 * The logic problem – if a person called themself a secular progressive and didn’t support any causes even remotely connected to what secular progressives believe, it stands to reason that person would be promptly repudiated. If a person called themself a Muslim, but used the pages of his Quran to line a pig’s cage, and named the swine Muhammad, that person would be summarily discredited and not allowed in any Mosque.

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 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.
 * I am removing the reference of Christian Fundamentalist, because its dishonest and I am putting the proper factual truth of Mr. Kony’s terroristic views as; “he uses a pseudo-christian theology” to further his documented legacy of inflicting human suffering and genocide on a significant scale. --Usgrant7 (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a case of WP:POV, and WP:OR, it is not appropriate to edit this without a reliable source WP:RS, that supports the claim and uses the term 'pseudo-christian', as it is a referenced. It is not 'truth' but verifiability that counts, as per WP:VNT.Number36 (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, just because you say, "clearly", does not mean its clear at all. What is clear to me, is that you don't know English very well.  And recognized sourced dictionaries and the centuries old English Bible are all recognized sources for what a word means, and what Jesus stated.  If Kony called himself a CAR, would you argue that HE IS A CAR because he SAID HE'S a CAR, or would you allow someone to say, HE THINKS HE'S A CAR? I refuse to allow this. Am escalating this problem. -- Usgrant7 (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly the basis of my argument wasn't the word 'clearly', so stop that nonsense; I've linked all the supporting wikipedia policy which explicitly state what I've said. Your proposed edit is simply not appropriate for the article based on the rationale you've presented, and no amount of all-caps posturing will make it so. Your personal arguments like the car example given above are original research WP:OR and represent your personal point of view WP:POV; Only reliable sources that directly assert a point are relevant and admissible. The referencing dictionaries, the Bible, and even, rather audaciously, Jesus himself, etc amounts to WP:SYNTH; 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources'. Also, these policies are applied with utmost strictness in the case of a biography of a living person as per WP:BLP.Number36 (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Number36, I think you are wrong. And the CAR example was a perfectly good analogy. That's not original research at all. And neither is looking up the meaning of a word in a dictionary. People ought to know the meaning of any word before using it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry you think that, I think an honest review of the policies I've cited would convince you. Looking up a word in a dictionary is explicitly original research, in fact 'looking up' in that context is synonymous with research, making analogies is also original research as you yourself are personally orginating these analogies, not a reliable source. You should also look at the meaning of the word syncretic and its context in the sentence. Threatening to escalate problems and edit war are not conducive to the improvement of this page, please review WP:EDITWAR.Number36 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My reversion of your edit does not constitute "an edit war". Oh dear, so editors are not permitted to consult a dictionary to check on the meaning of a word they intend to use? or to dispute? Or are they simply not permitted to report this fact? How utterly ridiculous. Are they permited to use Wiktionary? Ot is that WP:OR too? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Usgrant's statement that he was 'escalating this problem' and would 'refuse to allow this'. However your edit is in violation of WP:BLP and you should revert it. As you yourself say above, Harizotoh9 stated the last word on the matter above, that only what reliable sources report is admissible; The sources say that his beliefs are "a syncretic mix of mysticism, Acholi nationalism and Christianity,". Which you agreed with. Also yes, looking up a word in a dictionary is research, I believe that's been explained fully with supporting policy being explicit, and of course wikitionary is not by any definition a reliable source.Number36 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to someone else's intended course of action, don't accuse me of an edit war. How will you police the prohibition of dictionary use exactly? But before I make any further edits, could you explain when and how the term "fundamentalist" came to appear here? I also think a slightly wider consensus might be called for. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no accusation, I was making a valid statement, and it still stands.
 * I've just reviewed the texts of all the supporting references from reliable sources, all of them explicitly refer to Christianity, the references also use the term fundamentalist in relation to this. Also the arguments about what constitutes Christianity are moot, since it states it's a 'syncretic mix of those things' it isn't even asserting what you appear to believe it is. Consensus isn't applicable when the edit violates WP:BLP and WP:OR. As it stands your edit contradicts the supporting references, as this is a biography of a living person where policies have to be strictly adherred to it needs to be reverted.Number36 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The layout and timing of your comment suggested that you were addressing my contribution, not that of the previous editor. Perhaps you could tell us which one, or more, of those 10 sources uses the phrase "christian fundamentalism". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you can't review the references yourself, 10 is not a large number, but here's a few just to illustrate the point; here, explictly uses the term, here uses 'extremist Christian sect', 'Syncretic Christian religious sect' and 'extremist Christian cult', here also explicitly uses 'Christian fundamentalist', here states 'The Christian guerrilla army's aim is to establish a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and on the local Acholi tradition'. Here states 'motivated by a fanatical Christian doctrine'. None of the refs add any qualifier to the term Christian in these or any other of its many uses. The argument being forwarded to qualify Christian with the prefix 'pseudo' is OR/SYNTH and POV, and even more relevantly ironically misses the point that the context is merely that it's a syncretic mix of those things. Policy is explicit here, and in a BLP article they have to be strictly adherred to, it's even stated in the box at the top of this page.Number36 (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's another couple;
 * " the Lord's Resistance Army is a group of militant Christian fundamentalists" The scars of death: children abducted by the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda‎ - Page 61
 * "the cutting off of people's lips, ears, or arms by the Christian fundamentalist Lord's Resistance Army represent either a return to exceptionally medieval violence or something new" The arms dynamic in world politics page 148p
 * Which you should already be aware of since they were posted over on the Talk page for the Lord's Resistance Army in a thread you yourself posted to on this very subject. I also note that that article contains exactly the same text supported by the same refs. Also, 'pseudo' hasn't even been spelled correctly. Number36 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Christian attribution in most of the mainstream news sources is not in question and Wikipedia is based on citation. He defines himself as a Christian. Most sources define him as a Christian. Span (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "None of the refs add any qualifier to the term Christian in these or any other of its many uses." So what are the words "extremist", "militant" and "fanatical"? Do these sources suggest or state that he is a typical "Christian". I still have a problem with being told that editors should not use a dictionary if they wish to, to chedk what words actually ean. I have a much bigger problem with the argument that "he describes himself as an X, therefore he is an X". This should be be reported as "He has described himself as an X". The CAR analogy seemed 100% valid to me and not WP:OR at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry, but you haven't presented any valid rationale that supports your position for this particular edit, and policy doesn't just support reverting the article it actually strictly necessitates it in the case of a WP:BLP. The context of 'qualifier' is implicitly in the sense of 'limits or modifies' the meaning of a word, in the same way that the prefix 'pseudo-' does so, which reverses the meaning, whereas none of those words above modify the meaning of the word Christian in context but are rather descriptive adjectives, and are all synonymous with 'fundamentalist', which you wanted to know which references supported. The car analogy fails for the very simple reasons that it is both WP:OR, explicitly and inarguably so; it's an original argument i.e. not from a reliable source, so 100% irrelevant, and secondly a straw man because the inclusion is supported by reliable citations which use the term, in fact all the reliable sources that use the term, they are in point of fact completely unanimous. Also finally it's a comletely ludicrous analogy, you find me a reliable source that describes Kony as a car then we'll talk. The reasons and policy behind the inappropriateness of trying to use a dictionary definition as a reference here have been explained and linked.Number36 (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your very useful summary of the content of the 10 sources. I'm sorry if you thought I was too lazy to produce that myself. I had also read them all but had not seen the phrase "christian fundamentalism". How does one decide which of the 10 sources one gives more weight to? In my view the word "fundamentalist” is a qualifier. In fact, I think all adjectives are qualifiers. But it seems that none of the sources have “pseudo”, whether spelled correctly or not.
 * That CAR analogy was an analogy, not an argument of fact over whether or not Joseph is actually a car. As far as I understood it, it was simply making the point that it would be foolish for us to use the descriptions that living people make of themselves verbatim, as if that was the entire truth.
 * I would agree that dictionaries can't be quoted here in deciding whether or not Joseph Kony is a Christian; but you seemed to be suggesting that use of a dictionary per se, in preparation of any edit, was WP:OR. I have a personal problem, it seems, with the legitimacy of describing the LRA as a partly "Christian" organisation (and can that word ever be used with a small c?) But, as we all know, wikipedia is concerned, not with truth, but with reliability. I think the bottom line is that the description here must be the same as that used in the LRA article itself. I'm afraid that I will personally continue to see the description of the LRA as "pseudo-Christian" as about 99% accurate. That's just my personal view. I wouldn't want wikipedia to offend poor Mr Kony and his army. They might even sue.
 * But, is this a WP:RS? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well good I'm glad we've finally reached consensus, though policy is actually clear in this matter anyway. You're unfortunately still missing the wider point that the sentence under discussion doesn't even make the assertion which is being objected to, but is merely describing the ideology as a syncretic mix which includes Christian fundamentalism as one element. Your link is problematic for a few reasons, 1. The use of the term is not actually in the article but in a subheading. 2. It's describing the organisation, rather than any element of their ideology, and 3. in fact mentions later in the article their use of the Ten Commandments, which actually supports the assertion that their ideology is syncretic mix which includes Christian elements. 4. Undue weight, especially given that some of the above sources are academic and the large number of other detailed sources. Your question above about which of the ten references to give more weight to is moot when their facts are all in concord, including the link you've just provided.Number36 (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We seem to have almost reached some kind of partial agreement between the two of us. I don't think that's necessarily a wider "consensus". However, I already suggested that ".. the bottom line is that the description here must be the same as that used in the LRA article itself." Why do you assume that I am "still missing the wider point"? But starting with your problem No 1 - why is a sub-heading in an article "problematic"? Is it less reliable, and if so why? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sub-headings, headlines/titles of articles, etc, are usually added by and decided by a copy editor responsible for layout, design, tone, etc, rather than the writer of the piece themself. The reason I suggested you might still be missing the wider point is because you still seemed to be talking about the edit in terms of whether or not Kony/LRA should be described as Christian, whereas actually the assertion is that their ideology is a syncretic mix which includes Christian fundamentalism as one element.Number36 talk) 01:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is your assertion about sub-headings supported itself by any WP:RS or by any statement in wikipedia policy/ MOS? As to my supposed missing the point, I said two paragraphs above "I will personally continue to see the description of the LRA as "pseudo-Christian" as about 99% accurate" The last mention of the views of Kony himself was by Span, three paragraphs before that. Your problem No 2 was "It's describing the organisation, rather than any element of their ideology". I beg to differ. I think that the phrase "pseudo-Christian terror cult" is a pretty clear summary of its ideology. My problem with describing the LRA as a "Christian" organisation, without the pseudo-, was that a reader might wrongly assume that, since Kony was a member, he was "a Christian". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be supported by a WP:RS I'm not proposing putting it into the article, that policy applies to additions to articles not discussion on the talk page. You can go look it up yourself if you want; it's what copy-editers do. It doesn't really matter though, the point is it's only one of a number of problematic aspects. It seems far more like personal POV pushing to try and insist on this modification of the text. The description is well-referenced with numerous reliable sources, including academic, there's nowhere else this discussion has to go from there. This is getting a bit head against a brick-wall and I'm not interested in going over and over this, especially as it's not relevant to the article, but you're still asserting the same misunderstanding; this specific sentence does not describe the LRA as a "Christian organisation". It says "Ideologically, the group is a syncretic mix of mysticism, Acholi nationalism, and Christian fundamentalism". Time to move on.Number36 (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, time to move on from accusing other editors of "pushing a POV", or of engaging an "edit war" and of "missing the wider point". You raised two further "problems" which you do not permit me to address. Even with such a marvellously robust consensus, I'm afraid I'm still left wondering exactly which aspects of Christianity the writers of those 10 sources think are espoused by the LRA, or by Kony himself. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Martinevans123 in that while the given sources cite Kony and his organization as Christian, his choices obviously do not reflect the known teachings of Christ. However, aren't all Christians "self described"? shouldn't we use a more descriptive term to highlight the controversy here?  I understand both sides of the argument, that Kony is described by multiple reputable sources as Christian, yet if we were described as Christian on this page, some readers might get the wrong idea about Christianity as a religion. I feel like there is a better description than "self described" or simply "Christian" here.  A report by Lt. Col. Richard W. Skow an American defense attaché shows a definite move away from traditional Christianity. A hybrid of religious ideas should be considered as an accurate label. Shanepusz (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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)


 * "A copy editor responsible for layout, design, tone..." I think you have the wrong end of the stick. We hold collective responsibility. That's what Wikipedia is founded on. See WP:Who writes Wikipedia Span (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, no, I'm talking about in magazines, newspapers, news media sites, etc, as in the reference Martin was asking about, not wikipedia :)Number36 (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions Raised
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.
 * 1) Ref No. 7 states that Kony is accused of committing crimes against humanity, including child rape, kidnapping, killing, neglect, slavery, and genocide. No where does it ever say that Kony IS a Christian.  The author repeatedly states that Kony claims to be one. The author also puts in quotes, Kony’s self-identification as having a ‘biblical’ vision of his group.
 * 2) Ref No. 8 is written by Bob Drogin of the L.A.Times. This article is journalistically unsound and is replete with the author’s bias against Christianity. The start of his article states, “A CHRISTIAN fundamentalist army is rampaging in Uganda…”, then uses the word “cult” in all subsequent references. Never does the author once tell us why he is able to call the group, “Christian”, other than the LRA’s own pronouncements.  A cult is far from an established religion.
 * 3) Ref No. 9 only mentions Kony, once. Quoting from the article, “Kony, took up the insurgency and called it the Lord's Resistance Army and said it was based on the Ten Commandments.” This is a claim of affiliation, but not one other citation of any recognized Christian Religious leader is ever found to agree with Kony.
 * 4) Ref No. 10 is missing entirely, a dead end link.
 * 5) Ref No. 11 is written by James C. McKinley Jr. and was published in 1997. NYT. “Christian fundamentalist” is only used once without ever stating any reason why Kony or anyone else uses that terminology. There is a reference to being “self styled”, but nothing pertaining to the religion itself. No mention of any peer group coming close to agreeing that Kony is a Christian, much less a fundamentalist.
 * 6) Reference No. 12 Written by Chris McGreal, African correspondent for the Guardian, UK writes an entire article and uses the word Christian only once. Again, no other Christian organization on the planet says that he’s a Christian or runs a Christian group.
 * 7) Reference No. 13 Written by Nora Boustany, Washington Post Foreign Service. “Christian” only appears once in this article, and again, no other Christian group on the planet, is quoted as agreeing with Kony that his group or his ideas even remotely come close to agreeing with the Bible or Jesus Christ. Not one PHD, not one THD, not one higher critic or peer quoted.  Its just as if the author stuck it in the article because they were told to.
 * 8) Reference No. 14 The section entitled “Religious and Ethnic Conflict” specifically states that Syncretistic groups in Africa deliberately use religious themes to attract peasants into their causes. Which would also indicate that Kony is using religious themes and terminology to cloak his true purpose. Again, not a single reference to any published theologian saying that anyone other than Kony actually thinks Kony is a Christian.
 * 9) Reference No. 15 This article doesn’t even have the world Christian in it. However it does say that the groups religious orientations are “self-styled”.
 * 10) Reference No. 16 This 134 page book written by Rachel L. Muth, George Nason University, 2008 is also a dead link. However, if you Google the title, a copy of her “thesis” can be found at: http://digilib.gmu.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/1920/3005/1/Muth_Rachel.pdf.  If you search her document, you will find that on page 17 RUTH to write, “Kony created a doctrine based on Christian ideology and Ugandan traditional religion.” Again, KONY created this.  Kony calls himself a Christian.  Kony used Christian ideology.  However, not one citation in this paper ever handles the question as to why, and what tenants make his group Christian.  Her “works cited” NEVER address the question, “Why should the rest of us consider Kony a Christian?”.
 * So, in summary, this list of 10 references is pseudo research and was lifted to hang a “Christian” moniker on a ruthless criminal for a political and ideological reason that has nothing to do with the truth. Therefore, because this gratuitous defamation of our faith is blatantly obvious to everyone not on George Soros’s payroll (strictly metaphor), I ask the editor-collective to rule on every inference in this article that Kony “IS A CHRISTIAN” and change these references to, refers to himself as a; calls himself a; considers themselves to be; “CHRISTIAN”, with a special section devoted to delusional megalomaniacs and the psychology of narcissism and transference as it relates to identification with something good, to cloak the evil intents of someone bad.
 * If you all insist on keeping these references in, then the honesty of WP and the integrity of this process is a joke, and if the blood of one “real” Christian is spilled because of these careless associations for some political purpose, then their blood is on your hands.
 * Anyone want to join in and call for more references to narcissism, transference, and megalomania, it would be appreciated. --Usgrant7 (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This has already been sufficiently addressed and consensus formed, what you are describing here is WP:OR, your personal opinions about what constitutes a 'real' christian, and disagreement with the reliable sources quoted just isn't relevant. Also as I pointed out numerous times, the specific edit you're making doesn't even assert what it is you're objecting to.Number36 (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This has NOT been sufficiently addressed and no consensus exists. This is NOT WP:OR. And these are not my opinions. Find me one accadmeically recognized theologian or published author who will collaborate that Kony IS a Christian, and not a pseudo-christian mystic, and I will stop editing the article back to its more accurate rendering. (Not editorials from the Daily Kos or Politico, or the NY Times) --Usgrant7 (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2012(UTC)
 * And if you're mystified as to why we object to Kony being recognized as a Christian, do you know that when he calls himself a Christian and he is able to point to a Western Article to legitimize his standing, that causes innocent missionaries who are in fact Christians, to be in grave mortal danger? Would you like their blood on your hands?  Lets see, who is modeling Christ more, the missionaries who come and feed the hungry, dig water wells, help the sick, teach the illiterate to read, and show genuine love and compassion, or the gang of murdering rapists?  Are you being paid to keep Kony a Christian?  Or are you just plain ignorant? Ask one of Kony's slaves or one of the orphans who's parents he murdered, if he is a psuedo-christian or a real Christian? --Usgrant7 (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2012(UTC)


 * Appeal to emotion. Have a look at the diagram I've posted on the right - try to aim towards the top within your reasoning. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 13:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:RFCNot an Appeal to emotion. Here's my rational.

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)
 * IF references already cited show Kony uses Christianity to dupe people to trust the minions he uses to kidnap children.
 * IF Kony has shown himself to murder, rape and enslave children.
 * IF murder, rape, child enslavement, and extortion are against every core belief system of Christianity.
 * IF a person who does not understand Christianity and only knows Kony as a Christian by these unsound, unlearned, non-scholarly associations with Kony and Christianity.
 * IF they judge real Christians as equally capable of these crimes based on Kony’s well understood behavior.
 * THEN, a real Christian (who only wants to love and care for the welfare of the people in the name of charity) is in danger of being judged by Kony’s self styled interpretation of Christianity, instead of by its true followers.
 * AND THEREFORE, a real Christian missionary, coming into the region, trying to show what true Christianity is, would be in mortal danger.
 * IF Kony is the only person who truly believes he is a Christian, and all others are either forced to say that or are advancing a political agenda to link him to Christianity…
 * THEN the use of the term Christian, as it relates to Joseph Kony is we can call anyone anything, as long as we have a body of consensus that its true. We could say that Hitler was a humanitarian, or that the Jews were never really murdered.  We could gather a group of Klansmen and agree that black people are an aberrant species of animal.


 * It would make your side your arguments look a bit better if you aren't edit warring diff1 diff2 diff3. As per Wikipedia policy, edit warring is disruptive and can potentially (and usually, if continued) will lead to a block. May I remind all parties of the three revert rule as well. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not the WP:TRUTH. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 15:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Referring to "sides" is also displaying a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I should add. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Scratch that then. I seem to be looking for the wrong words. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 16:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In addition, I would like to point out one of your fallacies. Quote: "a real Christian (who only wants to love and care for the welfare of the people in the name of charity) is in danger of being judged by Kony’s self styled interpretation of Christianity, instead of by its true followers." What is a "real Christian"? What defines a real Christian? Are the crusaders who massacred Muslims during the Crusades not "real Christians"? When European powers bombarded port cities in Asia during the 17th century under the argument that they should "bring the word of the Lord to these heathen barbarian lands" (as something various British and American commodores have written in their memos), are these people not "real Christians"? I think you're attempting on twisting the definition of "Christian" here. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 15:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right, Ben. The examples you give are of people who liked to call themselves Christians. Not real Christians. I don't think Usgrant7 is twisting anything. Take a look at Christian - or try and re-write it? I don't think killing people is compatible with Christianity. That's really not what Jesus taught, was it? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what makes Kony any different from the crusaders, or the captains of European gunboats in Asia? What makes him any more different to the Christian charity missionary groups that abducted children in Haiti after the earthquake, or the Catholic priests in Sydney that sodomised young boys? They claim to be Christians. It's not a question of whether they follow religious rites and teachings to the bone; rather, it's how these individuals self-identify, and how they are identified by others. A Christian can be a sinner, a Buddhist can ignore the middle path, a Muslim can reject the Shahadah, but they are still Christians, Buddhists and Muslims. What can be argued is that they are not good Christians, good Buddhists or good Muslims. Osama bin Laden was a Muslim, however Islam places significant emphasis on peace, and tolerance of people of the book. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 04:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to know a great definition of what a Christian is, read the Bible. If you want to hear the leading practitioners of Christianity, respected around the world, then go to the iTunes University of Dallas Theological Seminary. Listen to a dozen or so pod casts, and you will have a pretty good idea what Christianity is, and why Joseph Kony is NOT a Christian.USGrant7 (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's very easy. I see that this man has been classed as a Christian, and indeed one of a particular denomination, whereas this man just gets a slightly more detailed analysis (although I'm not too sure he went to confession very often). Maybe we're just supposed to read a label and attach some blame to somebody else? But I certainly see Kony as something very different to The Crusaders, who saw themslves as staunch defenders of a single faith. Or to your Sydney priets who were hiding their abuse under the cloak of religious respectability. Kony seems to have just espoused the bits of various religions that suit his evil purposes. Rather like a entomologist picks a few beautiful specimens of vaious species, to put, dead, into his display case. Else he has had these labels conveniently pinned on him by the world's press (and wikipedia) and chooses, very conveniently, to ignore them. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Compromise proposal
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)
 * That seems far more in line with the sources quoted. (I think that Times source, which is pay-for-view should be removed). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no need to remove pay-per-view sources; the more the merrier. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 21:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware that WP:PAYWALL says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." But I don't see that the more will be the merrier here, apart from for those who can afford an on-line subscription to The Times. Wouldn't a reference to the newsprint edition be preferred, since that is, at least in theory, available free from a library? What does that source actually say about Kony's religious views? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The dates for each of the current 11 references is as follows: [7] - 1997, [8] - 1999, [9] - 1996, [10] - 2000, [11] - 2008, [12] - 1997, [13] - 2008, [14] 2008, [15] - 2002, [16] - 2004 and [17] - 2008. So the most recent are 4 years old, but most are over 11 years old. The oldest is 16 years old. Can Kony's religious beliefs really be assumed to have stayed the same in that time? He may have called himself a Christian four years ago, does that mean he still does? The most recent references (11, 13, 14 and 17) have no explanation or rationale for their use of the word "Christian". And what are the sources for these references themselves? They certainly have no requiements to show any kind of "reliablilty" and "verifiabilty". Just because a statement is published does not make it true. But journalistic statements are presented here (and of course all over Wikipedia) as if they were simple, everlasting and incontrovertable "facts". So a Wikipedia article appears to be very sturdy and strongly supported, but is in fact merely a house of cards, often built on very reliable and verifiable sand. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The oldest source (The Scars of Death, 1997) seems to be the best in terms of having traceable sources, although those sources are obviously older still. But with regard to Christianity it says this: "To the extent that the conflict has received foreign press coverage, the media has tended to present the Lord's Resistance Army in straightforward, if disapproving, terms: to the media the Lord's Resistance Army is a group of militant Christian fundamentalists who seek to restore a government based upon the Ten Commandments. The New York Times calls them "blood-thirsty ... self-styled revolutionaries and Christian fundamentalist rebels." [47] CNN calls them "a Christian cult .. led by a former Catholic named Kony." [48] The Guardian calls Kony a "Christian" fanatic." [49]" So the emphasis is clear - this is the way Kony and the LRA are reported by the press, not necessarily how they truly are. Also, there seems to be quite a bit of duplication between this reference and the others quoted, which are the basis for the claims in this reference itself, but which are used in this artitle as if they were separate entities. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 26 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)
 * Rather paradoxical, isn't it. I don't really see it as "pseudo-Christianity", nor even "pseudo-Judaism", it's perhaps "pseudo-Ten Commandment-ism". But for the moment we seem to be stuck with the current journalistic sources which, for some reason, are to be respected as "reliable". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)