Talk:Kony 2012/Archive 2

Semi-protection
Just a suggestion as there been a bit of vandalism etc. Thought it should be considered.Nome3000 (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree until a decision is made. Nford24 (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2012 (AEST)
 * ✅  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 23:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

YouTube View counter
Ok before I start, I don't claim to know this for certain just some conclusions I have come to. It appears that because of the vast amount of traffic on the YouTube video that the view counter is giving different values to different users. It also seems that the view counter is not being particularly accurate also because of this traffic. I think that the constant edits on this value need to be slowed down a tad. I'm not saying don't update, just that perhaps if there was an edit of it a few hours ago maybe you don't need to change that figure up or down because the figure you have is different. I'm sure it will become more stable over time. Edits need to concentrate on making the rest of the article more accurate not just this one value. Oh by the way. If you want to contest deletion of this article just improve it, not just repeat many of the arguments already state in this section as it becoming very crowded in here with all these contest deletions.Nome3000 (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank God for Addshore :) Nome3000 (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

** 20 Policy Makers
The article should read 20 influential people in society as well as **12*** (not 20) policy makers--- 2012 (20/12) get it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by173.34.27.174 (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed on the article, for some reason the reference is wrong, just need to find another one now  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e !
 * ✅  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 02:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Move Suggestion
As per the suggestion here should Kony 2012 be moved to a more relevant and film related name..? i.e. Kony_2012_(film). This would stear the article more towards the film that it is meant to be about rather than the movement that was created from the films content. Opinions?  ·Add§hore· T alk T o M e ! 15:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose until there is another article for the Kony 2012 page. No need to disambiguate an unambiguous page. I.e., if there is no page at the unambiguated location we should not have an article at a disambiguated location.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: As above - I highly doubt there will ever be anything else call Kony 2012 that isn't related to this article.217.34.55.17 (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: For reasons above. No need to add anything to the title when it's the only item by that name. --azumanga (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: No real need for that. The page is already semi-protected and it is clear what the article is about. Osarius     Talk 17:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Not necessary to rename for this article  Jay Jay Talk to me 18:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, disambiguation isn't needed, so a rename is unnecessary. -- Peter (Talk page) 18:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose At this point, the film and the campaign are intertwined in the media's consciousness and if they don't differentiate, then neither should we. Both the film and the campaign should be covered in this article. Silver  seren C 18:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed (kurtz-like quote)
"manipulated facts for strategic purposes, exaggerating the scale of LRA abductions and murders" and was "portraying Kony — a brutal man, to be sure — as uniquely awful, a Kurtz-like embodiment of evil" citation comes from: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136673/mareike-schomerus-tim-allen-and-koen-vlassenroot/obama-takes-on-the-lra?page=show Twyn3161 (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That quote was also used by the Washington Post, which I was using to reference the section, but I guess whomever put those citation needed tags didn't read that. Silver  seren C 02:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Tables
Does this article need these huge tables? could they be cited for all the people mentioned that don't already have references (I think there is so far only for three of 20 in the cultural table)?

what does this add to the article other than a list that is already available on the video which is linked too?Nome3000 (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

They are entirely unnecessary but Distributor108 keeps putting them back. I would remove, again, but I'm tired of edit warring.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 00:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * These are 20 cultural and 12 political figures. http://s3.amazonaws.com/kony2012/kony_5.html Distributor108 (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is this important for this page? Why do we need to mention them?— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 00:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because purpose of KONY 2012 is to target 20 cultural figures and 12 political figures. the tables will reflect the success or failure of KONY 2012 Distributor108 (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So why do we need to include these two tables when none of them even support it? Why can we not say what the goal is and mention the people in prose? We don't need to give the status of who has and has not accepted it. This is not an extension of the Kony 2012 movement. It is an encyclopedic article that is discussing the movement.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 00:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thats good that you have found a place to cite their inclusion. Its a start. However why do we need to include it, much the detriment of the articles structure, when we could just have a link to it. As there is also no mention of this list already in the article it seems premature and confusing to add these substantial tables when they have not been explained in the slightest and appear mid way through the article with no relevance at all till that point.Nome3000 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * (4x edit conflict)I think we should probably wait for that to happen before these tables appear... This is not meant to be a place to advertise the campaign, simply a resource of information about the film.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 00:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The tables will reflect the extent of influence of KONY 2012, the 20 cultural and 12 political figures should also be added to the introduction as well as the info box. Distributor108 (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well we hardly need a hug table for that. If a policy maker or celebrity fails to endorse this campaign it can be added in prose. It could even be mentioned in the criticism section rather than two tables that are unexplained.Nome3000 (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Distributor108, if you are editing on behalf of promoting Kony 2012, I suggest you stop. We are seeking editors who are neutral to the coverage of the subject. My initial opposition to the page being retained was solely because I did not adequately predict this would happen. However, I have incorporated the "culturemakers" and "policymakers" content in two sentences. Let me remind you that we do not need to list everyone.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 00:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * finally something we can agree on Ryulong ;).Nome3000 (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The purpose of a [Table_(information)] is compliment that information and show it to the reader in a nice easy to understand format Distributor108 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But its anything but that. When I first saw I was simply confused by what it was there for. Its unnecessary.Nome3000 (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be true, Distributor108, but it is not necessary for us to present this information on Wikipedia. Multiple editors disagreed with your insertion of the table. We do not need something that shows the selective 32 people that this organization wants on its side. Let me remind you that is not meant to be an extension of the Kony 2012 movement nor is it a means to rally or organize supporters. It is a neutrally biased encyclopedia article to discuss anything regarding the film, the movement, and the reactions to both. — Ryulong  ( 竜龙 ) 00:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You should probably watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc) in order to understand why people are adamant about the table - it's a pretty central point - you could sub-section it to 'group's goals' or whatever if you don't want it riding solo. - @Distributor108 why don't you just save the table frame from the video and upload it to wikimedia rather than prefabbing a wikipedia table. You can still put it in the article that way without causing a ruckus :)Twyn3161 (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine keeping it in text form as it currently is in the article. There's no need to put it in table form. Silver seren C 02:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are keep in in text form, you should mention all the other culture and policy makers who have not yet endorsed the movement, just mentioning the ones that did, and others that are not even part of the 20 targeted culture makers is not an accurate reflection of the current time. ( 竜龙 ) If you continue to accuse me with allegation of counting the 2012 movement on here, without sufficient evidence to back your claims, be sure I will be filing a formal compliant through Wikipedia standard process. Don't assume things you have no evidence for Distributor108 (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Watch out, we got a badass over here.130.159.193.195 (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggested re-word of opening sentence
If this article is indeed about the film then the opening sentence of the article defiantly needs a re work.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 00:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, also changing the name to emphasis the film Distributor108 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Change the name to what? 'Kony 2012' is the name of the film.Nome3000 (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Name should stay as it is, but the focus of the article needs to be around the film. A section should be created for the movement.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 00:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The video is titled Kony 2012. If a separate article is made on the campaign, it should be titled Stop Kony, as that's the name of the campaign. Silver  seren C 01:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you get a link or ref for the name of the campaign being stop kony?  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 01:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop Kony Campaign Galvanized By Invisible Children Video Silver  seren C 01:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just what that website's calling the campaign, no? Mato (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what Invisible Children is calling the campaign. It's just that a lot of the news organizations are conflating the campaign with the title of this video. But there's still a fair amount using the right name, such as...


 * Invisible Children responds to criticism about ‘Stop Kony’ campaign
 * Stop Kony Campaign Gains International Momentum Through Social Media
 * Campaign to arrest Uganda rebel chief Joseph Kony goes viral


 * Ect. Silver  seren C 01:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggestion The article should be renamed to KONY 2012(film), the widely accepted term of the campaign is KONY 2012 Distributor108 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Kony_2012  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 15:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories
I continue to see Category:2012 films and Category:American films in the article although I do not see it in the code. Is it my cache?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they are imbedded into the article by (a) template(s). Of this is the impression I'm getting from WP:HotCat. Osarius     Talk 17:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These categories will be included in the infobox template Infobox film  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 18:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. I never noticed that it adds categories based on parameter inputs. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A few more sources for people that think the stats are being pulled out of someones *ahem* rear-end
Source (2007): http://www.worldvision.com.au/Libraries/3_1_1_-_Issues_-_Children/Child_soldiers_Uganda.pdf Source (2006): http://chrisblattman.com/documents/policy/sway/SWAY.Phase1.FinalReport.pdf?9d7bd4 Source (2010): http://ochaonline.un.org/ocha2010/uganda.html Source (2011): http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/map_1044.pdf
 * 30,000+ children abducted in Uganda by the LRA
 * 66,000 youth (interviewed when 14-30 years old) abducted by the LRA
 * 2.1 million people displaced in Uganda
 * 440,000 people displaced in DRC, CAR, and South Sudan:

Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't the raw data but rather the presentation - they made it seem as though there was an army of 30,000 children in remote Uganda. Kony isn't even in Uganda and the 30,000 is over decades - the numbers with him now are in the low hundreds. http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/07/guest_post_joseph_kony_is_not_in_uganda_and_other_complicated_things Twyn3161 (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What to do with the criticism section?
Considering the large amount of focus that has been made on certain criticisms of the Kony 2012 video and the Invisible children charity in general, it definitely needs to be covered in the article. And the fact that there are now responses and counter-arguments being published for those criticisms, we need to present both sides equally.

The issue is that this is going to make the Criticism and responses section freaking long. It's already really long. But all of the major criticisms and responses have received coverage, so we can't exactly pick and choose which ones to present. What's the best thing to do here? Silver seren C 01:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think most of the criticism is directed towards Invisible Children.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 02:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is then perhaps it shouldn't be here  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's rather both. I don't think it's easy to separate the two. What we could do is put the criticism section in the Invisible Children article and have a summary section here that discusses how the publication of the Kony 2012 film led to these questions being raised, and then link over to the criticism section in Invisible Children. The problem is that some of the criticism is directly about the film as well, but the criticism is generally presented as a whole. So it's a tricky situation. Silver  seren C 02:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an article about the film solely not the movement which it created. any criticism should be about the film only, anything other than that should be removed Distributor108 (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it is solely about the film, as per the "Move Suggestion" discussion further down. Though I think if there were to be a Kony 2012 movement article then we could differentiate between the (Film) and Movement articles and their respective criticisms. (Jonathanfu (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC))
 * We have to leave the criticism section in as a lot of it is aimed at the video. The reason that it seems that its not aimed at the video is because most of it is about what the film left out rather than what it said. For instance, it didn't mention in the film about the complicated political situation in the region that is one of the criticisms or the involvement of the Ugandan government in potentially fuelling these complications. It only gives the one reason for why the Obama administration sent in the 100 advisers and no other. I'm not siding one way or the other here, just demonstrating that the video is the focus of criticism as well as the organisation and campaign. The criticism section seems to reflect that in the whole.Nome3000 (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The video clearly stated that Kony is not in Uganda anymore, that's why I tried to erased that part. I'm sorry if anyone gets angry at this, but I watched the video a couple of times before that, and there's even a map tat shows he's not in Uganda anymore. How can someone fix that? --189.170.154.50 (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

kudos
I'm really impressed with the quality of this article given the short timeframe and the fast-changing subject. Keep it up! --Nstrauss (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

another view of organization
I'd like to point out http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/world/africa/online-joseph-kony-and-a-ugandan-conflict-soar-to-topic-no-1.html?_r=3&hp&pagewanted=all be included. Includes quotes from the films producers. Very good entry so far. ToriaURU (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Invisible Children response
http://s3.amazonaws.com/www.invisiblechildren.com/critiques.html

It's a primary source, yes, but it's a good source to quote as their response to the critiques. And we can slowly replace it where necessay if (hopefully when) each of the responses to each point is covered in a secondary source. But primary is what we have for now. Silver seren C 17:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like they've added more stuff on the Critiques page to address other criticisms. I'll be adding those in a moment. Silver  seren C 23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is where I should be mentioning this, but the current explanation of the photo given on the Wiki page seems misleading - it implies that the photo of them posing was taken by them and was just a joke for their friends and family. Reading this article and then following it to the website of the photographer who took the image, here I'm getting a very different story - that they got bored and decided it would be fun to pose with SPLA soldiers while holding weapons. Glenna Gordon, working for the AP at the time, was not a member of IC, snaps a photo of it, and later attempts to publish a story about Invisible Children's questionable practices. Should a note of this be added somewhere? Or am I reading this wrong?(Jonathanfu (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC))
 * Some information from the criticism and response section has been removed(03:08, 9 March 2012‎ Bzweebl) as it was not totally pertinent to this page and more to do with the invisible children organisation. Suggest not just removing it altogether but adding to the invisible children page instead.Nome3000 (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks. (Jonathanfu (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC))
 * Oh, should the reference on this Kony 2012 article to the photo and the defense that the organization gave be removed as well then? (Jonathanfu (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC))

Expand Section on Youtube Video
We should probably expand the section on the Youtube Video has it is one of the fastest trending YouTube videos of all time.--71.80.52.213 (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 March 2012
Under the viewing number title, only the views on YouTube are mentioned. I think views on vimeo.com must be mentioned espaecially because it was uploaded a day earlier than on YouTube - 4th March, compared to 5th March on Youtube. The views on vimeo.com are 15.8 Million as of 10th March.

PaulMrThe (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've actually removed the "viewing numbers" section, as this is a repeat of the introduction. thisisace (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Balance of the Article
Think its almost pointless to contest notability now as the article has many third party sources, what is far more important is that this article has balance to make it more encyclopaedic.Nome3000 (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping there's some news sources soon that oppose the criticism, since it's quite clear that a lot of it is BS. Per my own original research, the only valid criticism is the giving weapons to Uganda thing, but that's rather minor in comparison. The other stuff, like the financials, is all incorrect. The charity does have an independent accountant that audited its financials, it just doesn't have an audit oversight committee, which I don't view as necessary. Furthermore, I don't know where they're getting this only 31% spent on the program, the rest paid to their employees bit. The Charity Navigator breakdown of their financials clearly shows that more than 80% of their profit goes into the program, with the leftovers going to the employees. But, like I said, I hope some news organization covers these points soon. Silver  seren C 18:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there should be an Aims section (or something similar) that goes into the details of the campaign, before the criticisms section as this would create a more balanced article. Currently it seems it has gone perhaps a little bit to far to one side with just a criticism section which gives the impression that there is either little or no critical support for this campaign.Nome3000 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the 31% comes from the organization's published financial statement here on page 6, reads that of $8,894,632 total expenses, $2,810,681 was spent on Direct Services, which is just over 31%. Not sure if this is still pertinent to this talk and this article as I think the bulk of the criticism was moved to the page for the organization itself. (Jonathanfu (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC))

To make the article more factual and encyclopaedic, I believe it should mention two important facts: 1) Joseph Kony is not in Uganda and hasn't been for 6 years, and 2) Uganda's recently-discovered oil reserves coincided in time with Invisible Children's promotion of military intervention in Uganda. Credible sources have discussed this link (see Link2 and Link3). See: Link1, Link2, and Link3 --Desmore13 (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Desmore13 My motto is listen more to what's not being said and go from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.39.253 (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The video already states that Kony is no longer in Uganda, so that wouldn't be valid criticism because it is already addressed in the video how he is still at large outside Uganda. Bzweebl 14:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzweebl (talk • contribs)

'Obama did announce a kill-or-capture mission with "combat-equipped troops" to take out Kony in Uganda' If the video says Kony is not in Uganda, why does Obama hint at a military intervention in Uganga? Does the video offer an explanation? 117.198.154.162 (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism in the introduction
The article has a sizable criticism section that may be a bit hard to summarize, but we should have a couple of sentences in the introduction attempting to sum up this. Perhaps we could agree on a wording here before entering it into the lede section? __meco (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How does this sound: "The video has drawn criticism both in the U.S. and Uganda for misrepresenting the size and location of Kony's forces and for advocating a military intervention to stop Kony. Invisible Children released an official response to these criticisms and individuals in the organization have also rebutted them."


 * I didn't include the 'Criticisms of U.S. military assistance' section for reasons explained in the "Things to Change" section I added below. Nadhika99 (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Things to Change
I just reorganized the criticism section to make it clearer, but I'm not sure the information in the section I titled 'Criticisms of U.S. military assistance' belongs here- it seems like it should go on the LRA page. Unless anyone has any objections, I will move it tomorrow. Also, should someone add information about the criticisms of Invisible Children's finances or does that belong on the IC page?

Someone who has watched the video needs to rewrite the "Plot" section, it's extremely unclear. I think the 'Culture and policy makers' section should be turned into a 'Goals' section with an explanation of Invisible Children's aims in producing the video, including adding the goals of increasing public awareness and keeping the 100 U.S. military advisors in the region. We definitely need to add a section with support for the video, including celebrities and news articles, and a section for future plans like the April 20 poster promotion. Finally, all of this needs to be summarized cleanly in the introduction (see the "Criticism in the introduction" discussion above for a possible summary of criticisms).

What does everyone think? I will try to make these edits over the next week, but I will not have the time to make all of the edits by myself so I would appreciate it if others could help me. Nadhika99 (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2012
Kony is from CT

71.167.52.115 (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand the request. Where/what is CT? Also, any such biographical information should be addressed in the Joseph Kony article. (Jonathanfu (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC))
 * This is not how requesting edits works. You have to be very specific with regard to which part of the text should be changed to which suggested wording. --213.168.89.192 (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

IMDb
yea or nay for an external link in the article?
 * Seems reasonable to me (Jonathanfu (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

Aims/Goals
There needs to be an aims or goals section of the movement before the criticism as this would give balance to the article and make the introduction shorter and more concise.Nome3000 (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the guy that created this is mentally unstable and certifiable crazy. http://www.tmz.com/2012/03/16/kony-honcho-arrested-for-allegedly-masturbating-in-public/#.T2OmVnnhfP- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.102.130 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Critics are wrong sources
We should utilize some of these sources to respond to the criticism sections. We might need to copy some of the references over to the Invisible Children page too, since they seem to be responding to both kinds of criticisms. Here's a handy list to start with, feel free to suggest more reliable sources that counteract the criticisms:


 * 100 Million Viewers Can't Be Wrong - Foreign Policy
 * Kony Baloney: Why Invisible Children's Critics Are Wrong - Huffington Post
 * Joseph Kony 2012: child at centre of viral hit defends film - The Daily Telegraph
 * Child abductee featured in Kony 2012 defends film's maker against criticism - The Guardian
 * Guest Post: I've met Joseph Kony and Kony 2012 isn't that bad - Foreign Policy

Oh and this should definitely be used under a new Effects section!
 * Senate pushes measure condemning Kony - The Seattle Times

A lot of these sources can also be used to add to other parts of the article, like the plot section. Silver seren C 05:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent list, though I'd take the 100 Million Viewers Can't Be Wrong - Foreign Policy source with a grain of salt - it's written by Adam Finck - the director of programs at Invisible Children. Maybe anything new from this source should be added to the Invisible Children Response section. The Huffington Post one too, it apparently is the Huffington Post-based blog of an environmental activist - not sure how experienced he is in this area.

The Seattle Times thing is gold though(Jonathanfu (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC))


 * Some more:
 * Don’t dismiss the Kony video - Reuters, a good opinion piece we can probably use
 * Backlash Aside, Charities See Lessons in a Web Video - New York Times, a lot of good statistics info on the response, along with response videos, and responses from other charities on the video's success
 * A Video Campaign and the Power of Simplicity - New York Times, this is a good one discussing how the critics are missing the point
 * Joseph Kony captures Congress’ attention - Politico, more info on what Congress is doing, with some good responses by house representatives
 * Kony 2012: African Union ramps up hunt for Uganda rebel leader in wake of viral video - Toronto Star, more effects! The African Union has sent out 5000 troops to look for Kony in response to the popularity of the video.


 * We really need to get cracking on adding this info in. Silver  seren C 17:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Organization
How should the Support and Criticism sections be organized? Because a lack of organization is clearly a no-go, they are both too long for that and it cuts into the flow of the page by just having long amounts of text without section title breaks. The question is how to group things together within the Support and Criticism sections individually. We've got a lot of different responses from different people, groups, and governments in there. Silver seren C 07:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for more subsections. But I don't know if I should put this:

"The date was possibly chosen in relation with an anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler (an official Invisible Children poster juxtaposes Kony with Hitler and Osama bin Laden). "

I wanted at first but now I'm not so sure about it, because it's just guessing. Put it in if you want. --Niemti (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Or remove it if you want (one source there wonders about the date connection, other talks about the poster). --Niemti (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's really relevant and seems kind of like an unimportant connection. But there is a need for some sectioning. Having huge clumps of text does not work for the flow of the article. At the very least we should split up the supports into responses from governmental people and everyone else. The criticisms can then be split into Uganda and everything else, as it was before. Silver  seren C 20:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There would be a problem with naming of these sections, proper classification of various responses, and with the overall flow of the article (I'm trying to keep it a fine narration for reading from the beginning to the end). In any case, these sections are still smaller than most/all of the articles used as references (where there are usually no sections and yet people have no problems reading them). --Niemti (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And yeah, the Hitler connection is just an original research unless it's officially confirmed. --Niemti (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Big blocks of text don't really work with a fine narration though. It makes it harder to read. Breaking it up into section splits it into easily readable chunks. Silver  seren C 21:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I really disagree. For anyone who have troubles with reading there's Simple English Wikipedia, this one is a regular encyclopedia (I still remember paper book encyclopedias, these had "big blocks of text" for real). Go and give it a try, read it as it is, you'll see what I mean. --Niemti (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And I really would like it keep as a narrative prose where one thing leades to another, and not a random list of sorts. Also take look at this good article: Avatar (2009 film) and its "blocks of texts". It's normal for good/featured articles. --Niemti (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well if a student says so....
"After much response from the Internet, 'a Canadian student has spoken out against the Kony 2012 campaign[21] mainly questioning Invisible Children Inc's practices, citing their support for direct military intervention, deep affiliation with the Uganda People's Defence Force and the alleged crimes[22] of the UPDF.

In response to the criticism, an English student spoke out on the benefits of massing millions of people behind one cause regardless of the possible flaws in the campaign [23]"

Why should we care about what these two students have posted on their blogs? What makes them noteworthy? 31.185.129.83 (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. We need to select the sources more carefully.Nome3000 (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just removed some criticism cited to a couple of personal blogs. While they were genuinely meant, this article shouldn't include every random person's opinion on the campaign. Only criticisms from notable people or reliable sources should be included. Robofish (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/1257-ten-ways-to-tell-kony-2012-is-a-warmongering-hoax

is a notable source speaking out against the video's bias.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-state-press/kony-2012_b_1339081.html

also seems to be a reliable source.

http://www.greenewave.com/invisible-activists-how-to-fake-a-viral-video/

also tells us more; we may need to make a new entry on "Government manipulating opinions through new internet media"

I think references to this film should also point towards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_film

Strontiumcat (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

See Also Section?
There is a link at the bottom of the page directing you to a Wikipedia article titled "Kony internet scam". This page does not exist at all, and the page that the link sends you to does not mention the campaign, the organization, or even Kony himself. By linking this page to that one, (this other page is titled Advance-fee fraud)one is meant to imply that the campaign is a scam, which has not been proven to be. Furthermore, such a possibility is not even addressed in the linked article. This article is meant to be informative, not opinionated. Claims like this should be erased until they can be proven as fact. Jmanning38 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Where do you see such a link? --Niemti (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I and others were reverting the page where that info was being added. I guess I forgot to remove the link on here. Sorry about that. Looks like it's been taken care of already. Silver  seren C 18:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Be ready
Kony 2012 Part II is supposed to be released on Tuesday, so expect a burst of news surrounding it. We should probably give it its own section in the article and, if it becomes too long because of an excessive amount of news, we can spin it out into it's own article. It rather depends on if it's going to be as long as this one was and if it'll provoke as large of a response. Silver seren C 05:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So
Any comments on the article in its current form? --Niemti (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not from me. The article as it is right now seems fine. I can't seem to find any useful sources for reception on the second one though. But it might just be that the comments from important people will take a while to be made, like with the original one. Other than that, we should just look forward to April 20th and expanding the campaign section then. Silver  seren C 19:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked on YouTube
The video was blocked on YouTube on April 9. It's now unblocked. Haven't seen any news sources yet, so maybe keep an eye out if there are any soon. Even if there are some, since it lasted only a few hours, probably not worth a mention. Here's proof of it though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ndZE3y4was Crzyclarks (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow!
I would just like to mention that since I stopped tracking this page after it began to grow, I am amazed at how much work has been done to improve this article, and although it still needs work, I am very impressed. &mdash;Bzweebl&mdash; talk 00:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you think could still be improved? --Niemti (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I am glad that the neutrality issue has been settled, I still believe that the article may be excessively long for a single YouTube video which in the future may not be so notable compared to other significant historical events. &mdash;Bzweebl&mdash; talk 00:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, "Kony 2012" is not only "a single YouTube video which in the future may not be so notable compared to other significant historical events." It is also a movie, a nearly-thirty minute film that has a clear goal.  Now, the significance in the future will vary depending on the outcome of the movie's main objective.  If many people collaborate and Joseph Kony ends up being arrested, then the film will probably become a little more famous, and the history behind it will become even more important.  However, if Kony is not arrested because of a lack of collaboration in the world's population, the movie will absolutely lose its importance because the objective will not have been reached and the actual film will be outdated.  Point is, we need to wait to see the final outcome of this not only YouTube video, but also movie, which is sold in many stores on DVD and Blu-ray Disc. --MaxDawsonC (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If you got institutions such the White House AND Nigerian government making their official statements (and videos) in response within days, I guess it makes it pretty notable for the most successful awareness video in history. And the good article Angry Birds is much longer, so that's about it regarding "other significant historical events" from the Wikipedia category "Viral videos". --Niemti (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept the above points. I retract my statement. &mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 16:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would also say it's a little long... especially in the positive/negative sections. I guess it's just a matter of opinion, but I think the feelings of one or two people from each section could be removed. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

creator arrested
dont know how to add it in but thought this was interesting

http://rt.com/usa/news/kony-2012-arrested-masturbating-777/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.235.169 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't belong in the video article. The only possible place to add it would be on the Invisible Children page, though I don't think someone having a nervous breakdown is all that important in the scheme of things, unless it leads to him quitting the charity or something like that. Silver  seren C 00:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, going to remove it, doesn't seem directly relevant to the video or the campaign. It's already on Jason Russel's own page and the Invisible Children page so no need to move it now. (Jonathanfu (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC))

He is the 'main' person in the video. People looking up this video may not go on Invisible Children's or Jason Russell's page. The information being in a different article doesn't mean it shouldn't be in this one. Although there is a mention of him not being in Part II, the fact that he had a 'meltdown' due to the success and criticism of this film, means it should be featured in more detail, in the Kony 2012 part of the article, instead of just Part II. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Celebrity Endorsements?
It seems somewhat odd to see all of those uninspiring celebrities (Kim Kardashian? C'mon...) surrounding someone with actual distinction like Bill Gates. Really I don't think the celebrity supporters need to be specifically mentioned unless they have seriously participated in the movement and can be cited as such. Something tells me none of those people have done anything meaningful aside from a tweet or two. I also think that those celebrities cheapen the movement in general... would you want Christina Milian or Kim Kardashian to endorse a documentary that you made? Of course not because no one takes them seriously. (NBMATT (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC))
 * They are cited as such and it is these tweets that played a major factor in the number of views the film got. We can't pick and choose which celebrities we like and only use those, that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. We use the celebrities that are noted in reliable sources, that's all. Silver  seren C 06:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The climax of the video is
when all the Dudley Do-Rights cheer for the reading of Obama's letter. The video shows the letter (18:35) with the following text highlighted, "[I have authorized a] small number of combat equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield." Jason Russell reads these words while a crowd, including a serious looking African lady (18:42), look on in hushed reverence before breaking into estatic celebration. The musical crescendo carries to the resolution, asking you and all your friends to join the quest to get more Western policy-makers to bring UAV and Green Beret justice to these savages.

A synopsis is not complete without a quick overview of the climax and resolution of a video. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While your personal opinion of the film is nice, it is not proper for an encyclopedic article. It is original research. Silver  seren C 00:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not saying the above paragraph should be in the article. The edit I made, and that Blake Burba improved, was no more OR than the sentences that proceed it in the synopsis. It is appropriate to spoil the plot of a half-hour video. Don't you want to include information in this article?
 * Please assume good faith of me, my brother, as I assume good faith of you. I wish neither I nor you be made an ass, but neither you or me. So let's not assume anything, other than things from the subject of this article obviously have verifilibililitty! Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you need a reliable source for the addition. I was also, if you noticed, removing the son sentence because it was unsourced, though it is sourced now.


 * Furthermore, considering the wording of your earlier attempts, it seems quite clear that you're trying to emphasize a few short seconds of the film in order to make the film look negative. This is not proper. Silver  seren C 06:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To be more clear.

A. Watch the video, that is the verifiability. It is information readily available on the internet.

B. Assume good faith. You don't know why I do what fore. Making such accusations makes it seem like you have the agenda. I'm trying to improve and expand the synopsis. I thought it was fine when others edited out words like "white" and "climax." Please try to reach consensus with me and others, in a circle like we did for the white climax, and we'll all get off together on a better article, more filling than what we had before, sharing our assumtions of good faith and love for each other, just like Jason would want it, love all over everyones faces.

C. Smile at me brother, I love you. Let's improve the article instead of deleting content with little or no justification. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the film itself is a primary source. Normally, this wouldn't be an issue if you were using it for a quote of what someone said in the film, but using it to interpret what is happening in a scene is de facto original research. Silver  seren C 00:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So the current version is ok with you? It doesn't have any interpretation, just a synopsis. I don't want this situation to get furry. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I reworded it a little and added a reference. Silver  seren C 18:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good edit. Thanks for doing the source. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Small factual error on Dinaw Mengestu...
When citing the author Dinaw Mengestu, he is mistakenly identified as Nigerian (with a hyperlink to Nigeria). This needs to be corrected to ETHIOPIA. Thanks. Neologistocrat (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 April 2012
–

71.255.68.204 (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

instead of 180 millions it should be 80 millions - it is checkable directly on youtube website best regards
 * 180 million isn't talking about just Youtube, but also the 16.6 million on Vimeo, a couple million from other sites, and the rest from views directly on the Kony 2012 website. Silver  seren C 04:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/apr/20/kony-2012-facts-numbers?newsfeed=true would be a source for that *184 million views (Jonathanfu (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC))

Children of Gulu source
This seems like a good source we should use, as a counterpart to the negative viewpoints of the adults of Gulu. Though, for that matter, we should also cover the riot at a recent showing, I don't think we have that covered. We have the earlier incident in Lira covered, but not this recent one in Gulu. Silver seren C 20:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Update needed on 'Cover the Night'
Well, it's April 21; the 'Cover the Night' events were supposed to happen on April 20. Did they actually take place? Given that they were the original object of the campaign, I think this article needs an update to explain whether it succeeded in that respect, and how many of the video's views eventually translated into action. Robofish (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The coverage is actually pretty amazing. More than 300 articles in the past 24 hours. We might need to split off Cover the Night into its own article. It does appear from the sources that the amount of people that showed up was far less than expected, but that there was also still a number of groups around the world involved. Anyways, here's some starting sources:
 * 'Kony 2012' campaign's 'Cover the Night' takes to streets - USA Today
 * Area teens 'Cover the Night' for Kony 2012 - WLFI-TV
 * U.S. campaign to bring Uganda's Kony to justice heats up - Chicago Tribune
 * Kony 2012 Cover the Night - Radio Netherlands
 * We're gonna have to sift through what's there, since there's a lot. It might be best to put up some preliminary info and then wait a day or so, because some more organized sources will probably be made by then. Silver  seren C 20:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Did happen and around the world but in small numbers. But anyway the stated purpose was actually just informing people about Joseph Kony, which IC suddenly achieved with just the original Kony 2012 video and probably suprised even themselves (for many years, they kept attempting other awareness campaign videos like this for example). --Niemti (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as several news articles have noted, the 1.8 million views of Beyond Famous and even the turnout for Cover the Night would be enormously respectable and even envied by other charities in any other situation. But coming after the ridiculous popularity of the original video, anything less than it seems paltry by comparison. The downfall of having one big hit, I guess, even if your other work is still pretty successful. Silver  seren C 21:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've only been seeing reports of poultry turnouts. I haven't seen reports of more than 50 people together. Not at all respectable when comparing it to other protest/awareness events. Very few charities wouldn't envy the views 'Beyond Famous' got, but when it comes to 'Cover the Night', few charities would envy the turnout. Definitely doesn't need it's own article; a subsection will do. I can't think of anything to write except 'failure' lol. Crzyclarks (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * True, there aren't many large groups, but there seems to be a ton of smaller 10-20 people groups. To find any real number for the turnout, you would have to add all of those up. Which, hopefully, a reliable source will do at some point. Silver  seren C 01:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Cover the Night isn't generating much coverage, I wouldn't wait for a source to add them all up. A section with a general statement about how it went worldwide, then compare how many people said they would turn up for a specific location to how many actually did will be good. There has also been criticism on how it was organised (general supporters were expected to organise the rallies in their city, contributing to the confusion and inaction). All the news sources I've found haven't gone against that, so there are plenty of sources to quote that stuff. (I'm not going to be writing this btw). Crzyclarks (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not generating much coverage? There's been more than 300 news articles in the past 24 hours. That's plenty of coverage. There's quite a lot we need to cover, as it would be inappropriate to only discuss actions of groups in some cities and not others, so all places that got reliable source coverage should be covered, which would likely put too much weight onto the subject in this article, requiring it to be split out. Silver  seren C 04:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of those news articles were written before April 20. When less than half a dozen people turn up, (which happened in most cities) they don't always get coverage. If you can spin this into another article, then by all means, but it'll probably just be proposed to merge it into this article within a week. I think because it's April 22/23 and nobody has written anything about it on here shows how many people care. Can somebody write this subsection/new article soon? Crzyclarks (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There, did. Feel free to expand. Silver  seren C 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I followed the sources for the cities you said the effect was considered larger in and I don't think they were any different to the other cities where the effect was small. The sources don't seem to say that either. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the part that said the three cities had more success/larger turnouts because they didn't compared to other cities. Kelowna had just a few signs, Canberra had groups of 2 or 3 putting up posters, and Phoenix had small groups putting up posters. This is what most large cities had and was considered a dud. In its present form, with those sources, the article cannot say the success was greater in these cities. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In larger cities with so many people, it was considered a flop, yes. But in smaller cities like Kelowna and Canberra, the reliable sources covering them didn't consider them the flop, because they were able to cover more in the smaller area. And the fact that you waited until it was featured on DYK to do this is rather telling, in my opinion. Silver  seren C 20:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources mention what they did, not if it was a flop or not. A few signs/groups is not successful. It is as much a dud as any other city. The sources never mention if it was successful. I don't know what DYK is... and I did put my view in the discussion here before editing and didn't receive a reply. You would need to find at least one source that considers it successful. Those sources for the cities mentioned just say what they did. Based on other sources, that sort of turnout is considered a flop. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that turnout equates with success, which is not necessarily true at all. The point of Cover the Night was to put up posters and other things to raise awareness. If a small amount of people managed to put up a lot of posters and did raise awareness, then that's a success, regardless of the number of people involved. I'm just going to reword the sentence to stay away from numbers and just focus on what the sources specifically say happened. Oh, and you might want to look at this. Silver  seren C 22:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Small amounts of people did put up posters... nearly all news sources are saying that that is a flop. The link there doesn't mention those specific cities and the one person speaking on there who is saying the low turnout was expected but was still successful isn't good enough to go against the vast majority of sources. Crzyclarks (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Typo present in the article.
The second paragraph of the section 'Kony 2012 Part II', reads "Beyond Famous aims to address criticisms of the original film and to preesent..." Last word in the quote is misspelled, and 'present' is most likely the intended word. I do not have editing privileges for this page, and thus apologize for creating a seemingly frivolous section. Varietyworks (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Time to update the lede?
At this point, the most glaringly out of place thing in the article is the formatting of the lede. Generally, ledes are not supposed to have references (though we can make an exception for the view count one) and are supposed to be full summaries of the following article. It sorta is right now, but it's rather choppy and unfocused. I'm thinking four paragraphs. The first will explain what Kony 2012 is from the synopsis and will summarize the Stop Kony Campaign and Cover the Night. The second paragraph will summarize the Reception section. The last two paragraphs will probably be shorter than the preceding two. Paragraph three should cover Beyond Famous and its reception. And Paragraph 4 should cover the Impact section. As for paragraph length, i'm thinking something along the lines of Thomas Jefferson's lede, though probably slightly shorter and the last two paragraphs being shorter as well. But, overall, we want the lede to feel full and comprehensive, which it isn't at the moment. Silver seren C 07:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I should also add, so we don't lose content. I notice that a fair amount of the info in the lede with references isn't actually stated in the body. Along with updating the lede, we should probably just move those individual sentences somewhere into the rest of the article, so we don't lose any content. Silver  seren C 07:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we lose a bit of content? I'm sure we can trim this article down a bit. For example: A British writer of Ugandan Acholi descent, Musa Okwonga, criticized the film's simplistic approach, but added: "On the other hand, I am very happy – relieved, more than anything – that Invisible Children have raised worldwide awareness of this issue."[43] We don't need everybody under the sun to give their 2 cents. I think this article should be trimmed by at least a quarter. Mainly in the positive/negative sections. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the stuff in the lede is kinda more important info than the stuff in the Reception section, but I agree with you. The question is, how do we decide what to remove? I mean, we really don't want to be too subjective on this because it interferes with our editorial neutrality. Silver  seren C 00:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess we'll just need to decide. Going by how much coverage the particular person's opinion received might be good. Also some opinions which are mixed seem to have been put in the positive/negative sections arbitrarily. Mixed opinions in the positive/negative sections may be a good starting point for removal, or at the least, relocation (I prefer removal). Crzyclarks (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed
The article needed a good slash. I removed opinions that added nothing to the article or were from un-noteworthy people. This section can for debating this trim, or hopefully some future ones. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with you removing un-noteworthy people, but just make sure you do it from both the positive and negative sections and not just the positive section (and removing the one or two on the other hand positive comments in the negative section don't count). Silver  seren C 04:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And I'm not fine. But the article's fine, now. Also, I wonder who you meant to be "un-noteworthy people". --Niemti (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting before, because you were talking about it in the section titled "Time to update the lede?". (And I didn't even know what "the lede".) And for the lead, there's this tag:

But I think it's actually summarized prety well, except mentioning the subject quickly became very controversial and not just popular. --Niemti (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Except, per WP:LEDE, it is meant to be summarizing the rest of the article and it's not summarizing any of it at the moment. Silver  seren C 08:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it does, except mentioning an existance of a controversy. --Niemti (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Except it doesn't have information on the Stop Kony Campaign, Cover the Night (the effect, not just that it exists), the negative reception yes, the LRA's response, Invisible Children's response, or the reception to Beyond Famous. And, again, the lede is not supposed to have information that is not found in the rest of the article, besides the view counts. Everything in the lede besides that that has a reference needs to be moved down into the rest of the article. Ledes are supposed to not have any references at all if one can help it, since it is meant to be a summary. Silver  seren C 08:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This would need a total rewrite of the lead section, and to move much of its content elsewhere. In particular, discussion of the film's viral popularity, maybe into its own new section. --Niemti (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The positive/negative section are even in length now. While that's not the point of having them there, the positive section before had statements and opinions from people who were unknown or repeated what others said. Negative section had that, but not as much. What I mean by un-noteworthy is people who are unknown and received little, if any coverage concerning their views on the subject. Crzyclarks (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "unknown" for you (for someone else, every one of them might be "unknown"). It is actually necessary to "repeat" what AI Africa director says as opposed to "just" his chief researchers. And I don't know how Mr Patrick Loum, the project manager of Acholi Religious Leaders’ Peace Initiative, criticised the film for ignoring the Ugandan military's history of using child soldiers, saying "The film never talked of UPDF that was a direct party to the conflict, LRA is not the first military to use child soldiers and I hope Invisible Children will focus on pushing for peace talks,” can be considered "positive reception". --Niemti (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Well when you say it had a mixed response, you need to put the positive and negative of what the people in Gulu said. Also I think we should remove this in the negative section:  Margaret Aciro, whose picture appears in the video showing her face mutilated by the LRA, said she "became sad" after seeing it being "used to profit." Susan Anena, another war victim, said she excepts "the money they are using for making videos and organising for us to watch it, to be given to us for business." Father Ernest Sugule, national coordinator of the Congolese non-governmental organization SAIPD in Dungu, DRC, said that "not even 10 of the people here in Dungu have had the opportunity to watch KONY 2012 but the few who have succeeded in watching are very critical on the film."[14 Crzyclarks (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I can agree with more random Susan Anena, but not with Margaret Aciro, because she was actually in the film (her opinion might be misguided, and Ugandans overally seem to be a confused and easily impressable lot and not only regarding this (examples include the whole Holy Spirit Movement/LRA thing altogether, the unrelated Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God carnage, the recent nationwide anti-gay hysteria, and so on), but it's what she said). --Niemti (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And once again, what "Mr Patrick Loum" ("Mr", seriously?) said was NOT positive. --Niemti (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Well add Aciro in if you want. However the other stuff you've put back I think don't deserve to be in the article. It is too large and the people you've put back are not noteworthy. Patrick Loum and his feelings are negative, however it is from the Gulu gathering source. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you say it had mixed reactions, you can't just put the positive stuff in. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Bringing this up again as it has been added to the negative section again. Father Ernest Sugule's statement cannot be confirmed as factual. I don't think it should stay. Also got rid of some stuff that's been added again. I provided reasons for their removal, tell me why they are not good enough. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want Aciro, because she's randomly interviewed Ugandan, one of thousands like her. As opposed to the others (a professional film critic for a major newspaper, acclaimed foreign correspondents and writers on the issue) who are "un-noteworthy people" only accordin to your personal opinion. But a right opinion on Ernest Sugule, he's in no position to say things factually, and so it's only his claim. --Niemti (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I meant Anena, not Aciro. The content I removed was explained in the summary of the edit. It wasn't just for a lack of notability. The people added here such as war correspondent, is actually an author. The book of Kony and the President of Uganda is actually a woman that features her travels to Uganda as only part of the book. The biography of Kony is basically a travel log of a guy walking around Uganda and the jungle which he claimed was him searching for Kony. There are thousands of film critics, (him not being very notable), not sure why we'd even want one on here. Everything I removed, I researched. Just because somebody claimed on here that a book is about this, and the author is that, doesn't make it true. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"Actually an author" - award winning journalist and documentary film-maker, Gotham reported from countless warzones, His job took him to war zones throughout the world, etc. "A woman that features her travels to Uganda as only part of the book" (and lives in Kenya nowadays), so what? The "travel log" book is one of the best/most known on the subject, one of 7 excellent books about Kony and the LRA. "Thousands of film critics" either didn't review this film, or their reviews were not used yet, but you can add some of them if you want, and "we'd even want one on here" because IT'S A FILM. --Niemti (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Things such as "countless warzones" without any more information is of little use. I can't find any information concerning dates of where he has been as war correspondent. You can go to Iraq now and some might claim to be reporting from a war zone. Kashmir is not a war zone. Tourists go there lol. The woman wrote a book on her life in hollywood, followed by some travels in Uganda. The article is too long. If few people were commenting on this video, then you could add it. Right now we can't have everybody giving their 2 cents. The quote from Bradshaw's review doesn't add anything to the article. He doesn't comment on the conflict going on, or whether the film accurately portrays it. Saying that it an effective ad, adds nothing to the article. The huge view count already tells us that. As for Green's book, from the places I looked, I thought it was of him searching for Kony, which sounded useless. Other than his opinion, I don't think think they should be in this article. Crzyclarks (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? I think it was a war zone "lol" (also, international war). But yeah, idiot tourists sure defying Kashmir war, so what? Bradshaw looks at this as an essentially campaign video, and gives a positive note, even as it fails a documentary film. Find more rewiews if you want, and can. Greene's book is "is as good an account of Uganda's post-Idi Amin instability as there is" and before this he was a Reuters journalist there for many years. I hope you have no more stupid problems/questions. --Niemti (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't think I've said anything stupid... though I was wrong about Green's book. The others shouldn't be here however. The quote used here for Bradshaw's view doesn't add anything that isn't obvious to the article. Most deaths in the Kashmir region is from nature. Battles between India and Pakistan are far and in-between. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Obvious" for whom, the same crowd who believe that Bradshaw's one of "un-notable people"? "Most deaths in the Kashmir region is from nature." - talking about "anything stupid", that was VERY stupid. (Indian authorities revised up on Friday the death toll from nearly two decades of insurgency in Kashmir to more than 47,000 people. The figure does not include people who disappeared as a result of the conflict. - "Tourists go there lol.") --Niemti (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that Bradshaw's quote doesn't add anything to the article. I didn't say most people who died, disappeared. We also don't know when Chopra went there. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Don' you understand? The "disappeared" people are the victims of forced disappearance by the state or the rebels. That's not victims "of nature", that's the presumed-dead people whose bodies were never found. This practice is very old and widespread, and if pracited on a massive scale (as appears it in this case, up to 10,000 disappeared) it's a crime against humanity. Anyway gun, knife, bomb is not "nature". --Niemti (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of the casualties are from things like snow slides and the cold, not violence. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation very badly needed. Also, just stop questioning sources, it's just your original research to reject reliable sources while not presenting any sources stating to the contrary. And stop creating artifictial non-existing "problems" in general. But anyway, because you were intrested for some reason: he's been to Kashmir (Sri Lanka, Chechnya, etc.) before 2002. --Niemti (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"The conditions there are so extreme that the bitter cold claims more lives than the sporadic military skirmishes." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2739993.stm That's the border line. I know where he's been, just not if they were war zones when he visited. I'm not rejecting sources arbitrarily. The ones that I removed and you've put back in, have been edited to say what they should have said in the first place. They are now accurate, but doesn't mean they should be here. Unless a different quote from Bradshaw's review is used, then the current one should be removed. Jane Bussmann is in this article because wrote "The Worst Date Ever". Not good enough to be on here when they're are so many other opinions. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... It's about "sporadic military skirmishes" as compared to the dangerous guard/patrol duties in the Indian/Paki frontline (An estimated 3,000 Pakistani soldiers have died from the atrocious weather conditions since deployments on the Siachen glacier began in 1984. ... More soldiers have been killed by the atrocious weather conditions — temperatures plunge to 50 below zero — than by combat.), and the most of the conflict is the insurgency.

Now, regarding your latest artificitial problem, and "other opinions" - yes, indeed, Jane Bussmann is in this article PRECISELY because wrote The Worst Date Ever: and so on. And I'm seriously fed up with your continous bothering of me with some persistant POV / original research about who is allegedly "un-notable" or "not good enough" according to nothing but your neverending wild guessing and unfounded personal opinions without proper/any research. I'd be rather doing something else than engaging in silly discussions like that, so that's all, good night. --Niemti (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Worst Date Ever, the true story of the last six years of Jane Bussmann's life, is part romcom, part celebrity satire and part excoriating account of the failure to apprehend Joseph Kony, the Ugandan terrorist who has led his army of child soldiers on a 20-year campaign of hostage-taking, exploitation and murder in east Africa.
 * Bussmann deserves credit both for her bravery and for relaying the more disturbing details without mawkishness.
 * Still, even in this dangerous part of Africa, she chases her stories, observes minute details and harangues key players until she gets good quote.
 * The use of noire humour is a fairly common medium through which to do this, but I doubt anyone other than Jane Bussmann has managed to pull this off – on paper and on stage – when the object of humour is child kidnapping and genocide.
 * I haven't laid hands on a copy but the book, which tells the story of a British celebrity reporter on a love mission to Uganda who comes face to face with Ugandan corruption, Kony atrocities, poverty and torture, is getting rev reviews.
 * A small African war, headache of foreign editors and reluctant publishers, has never been captured to such hilarious and heart-wrenching effect. You go girl.
 * Sarah Silverman in khaki, Bussmann paints a vivid picture of LRA brutality, even if she fails to fully complicate the narrative.
 * In her book, The Worst Date, which is also a stage show and on its way to being a film, Bussmann makes the truth sound stranger than fiction. Using satire and an unflinching eye for the absurd, she picks out parallels between the body-obsessed vacuity of Hollywood and the brutal realities of life in Uganda. And while she's at it she gives contemporary journalism a good rabbit punch to the kidneys.

I never wanted to have this huge debate over a few lines... I haven't seen proof that the guy went to war zones. The link you gave me a little while back was a bio by him saying he's been to countless warzones. The whole Kashmir region isn't a war zone. This is from the first source you listed there, (first sentence too), "A comic novel about child soldiers is a difficult concept to grasp, particularly when it is written by a showbiz journalist based in Hollywood who travelled to Africa because she had a crush on an American peace negotiator." Maybe we should just leave it for now and see if some other editors show up. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

We need mention of the posters and T-shirts here
Also, why is everyone angry at the producer for trying to do something? Oh, wait, everyone on youtube doesn't want to trust someone with good intentions, don't you all on wikipedia agree?140.198.45.69 (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Already mention posters, I'll put T-shirts in. Good intentions aren't always good enough when running a charity. See negative section for specific reasons. Crzyclarks (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A bit too detailed?
Does "It was initially announced to be released on April 3, but was delayed for two days due to editing problems" really benefit the reader in a way that "Released in April" doesn't? There are a few more examples I could give, but in general the page could use a bit of copyediting and removal of trivial information. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We could always contact the Guild of Copy Editors. Silver  seren C 18:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

dinner
there was a dinner party relevant to the production in california, but it wasnt news worthy except for on a few blogs. we seem to have alot of unhappy bagels here :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.9.207 (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)