Talk:Joseph Kony

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. TreveX^talk 9 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Right - out it goes! TreveX^talk 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 beliefs 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 2012 (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." [1]. 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 no one 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)

ambiguity

I don't understand the second 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 new. 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 not 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)

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)

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)

South Sudan on map?

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

Joseph Kony categorization

This section originally appeared on my talk page. CityOfSilver

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." CityOfSilver 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. CityOfSilver

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? CityOfSilver 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? CityOfSilver 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. CityOfSilver 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? CityOfSilver 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. CityOfSilver 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  | —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)

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. Basalisk ^{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  | —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 autoconfirmed flag, which he obviously does not, because if he did, he would have been able to edit the article and would not have needed to post an {{edit semi-protected}} request here. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

 Done 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]"

 Done 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)

 Not done Article is not protected. --Bmusician 02:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

THIS IS AN EXPERIMENT

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)

 Not done Article is not protected. --Bmusician 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)

"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)