Jump to content

Talk:Kony 2012/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Not enough criticism/ needs new section

Needs a new section called "Criticism" in my opinion, positive/negative is just silly. The main issue I have with the article is that it doesn't point out the larger role of making a film on Kony right now, sort of as a go ahead for the US to approve from its population deployment of troops (aimed at recently discovered Ugandan and Southern Sudan oil reserves) all part of the new battle for Africa in AFRICOM against Chinese investment. There is no mention of this anywhere. --JTBX (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism can be positive or negative, that even what professional film critics are for. Now, I'm sorry to disappoint you I guess, but those 100 U.S. Special Forces troops have been deployed already in October 2011 (joining the British troops who have been training Ugandans for the war in Somalia[1]), and the "recently discovered" (lol, confirmed 6 years ago) Ugandan oil extraction has been long ago already lisensed to the British and state-Chinese firms, who are working there together (unless you think them "the new battle" AFRICOM Green Berets are there to blow up this joint British-Chinese-French-Ugandan[2] refinery project and start WWIII or whatever). But thanks for sharing your uninformed opinion anyway, it was surely really valuable and all. --Niemti (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Also the article that you're looking for is Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act (the act from 2009-2010, troops deployed in 2011,[3] I think you mixed up something up a bit with your "sort of as a go ahead" chronology of this, lol). --Niemti (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok, a mere coincidence then. Uninformed? Don't be silly. I just didn't provide references, just a heads up to add this later. --JTBX (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC) And no mention of the Uganda Army which has committed similar crimes. LOL los angeles times, nice source. [4] Heres a pic of the creator posing with these criminals. Again mere coincidence that the United States sends troops to oil rich regions to secure contratcs but cannot spare for the deaths of Palestinians. You mind is extremely narrow, no different than a Soviet commissar who defends his own states crimes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB2Kk3i3NIg go to about 1:35.00 not a great source, but can be used, hes a noted scholar and academic. --JTBX (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, uninformed after reading some silly conspiracy theories somewhere, then demanding to "point out" imaginations, while apparently thinking it's actually Kony 2011 or something. :) But I'm always glad to help and correct any misconceptions like that. As for them bloodthirsty Green Berets, they're hardly "new battling" the Chinese-British-French investment at all, or even directly fighting anyone for that matter (unless in self-defense), instead just relying the LRA-tracking SAT and SIGINT intel to the local forces and also installing the communication systems in the endangered villages in the DRC/CAR so the civs can call for help if the LRA comes to terrorize them, and not securing "contratcs". And no, no "the US to approve from its population" was needed for it at all, because it was a simple presidential order after being called for action by the Congress one year prior to it. The IC were not posing with "these criminals" if you meant the Ugandans, because they were posing with the South Sudanese. I'm not sure what "spare for the deaths of Palestinians" means, but it's probably offtopic and it's not a forum. And now you're informed (you're welcome). As you see I'm a very friendly neighborhood "Soviet commisar", Herr Untersturmfuhrer or whatever. Bye. --Niemti (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally take insult to the fact that "its some silly conspiracy theory". Please do not be so foolish. Its obvious you didn watch or see what I posted. And its not off topic, I stated that it needs to be included in the article as part of the films negative response. Perhaps this will do [5] In a sentence, states do what is in their interest, they dont give a damn about some missing black murderer who hasnt been active in over 25 years. They would have deployed before to get him, hes nothing now. --JTBX (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And I guess I "personally take insult" to "You mind is extremely narrow", I think it will make me cry, can you give me a shoulder? Now, about "some missing black murderer" do I really have to inform you about such basics? Kony not only not "hant been active in over 25 years" but he in fact is active only since 1987/88, and he never stopped killing/kidnapping civs, since 2006 he has only relocated to the DCR, then CAR. Depleted and on the run as they are, the LRA continues to kill or abduct scores of people every month, and sometimes hundreds (like in the infamous Christmas massacres in 2008 and 2009[6]). Some basics are at Joseph Kony, Lord's Resistance Army and Lord's Resistance Army insurgency (not quite up to date, but you know literally nothing, so at least you may learn something). "Perhaps" come back when you're informed, and not laughably misinformed by some idiots on the Internet. And learn some proper NPOV attitude to the subject matters. Now bye again. --Niemti (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why you shouldn't add that some people think it's for oil. Just find some reliable sources and make it balanced. Crzyclarks (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What's "for oil"? "The people", as in the tinfoil hat crowd? (Speaking of "oil", NO OIL FOR TINFOIL.) --Niemti (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Except Alex Jones is the only conspiracy theorist guy out there that's discussing it. In fact, he's the one that made up the conspiracy theory in regards to this and it's one he's been pushing for a while, tacking on the Kony 2012 thing after it came out. No one else is reporting on it. No one actually cares about what Alex Jones has to say besides his rabid followers. SilverserenC 06:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Securing the oil flow is what is important. It doesn't matter what companies drill it, as long as it travels to America. There are plenty of news sources that've reported the Ugandan oil theory, so it deserves a mention if it hasn't got one already. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Crzylarks, I don't know where Alex Jones got into this, but I don't listen to that clown either. Its not a conspiracy that states use violence for control of resources. Its just out there. Again, the two users above have not even looked at the sources and video I provided. I started this talk as a heads up to include it. The reception section should focus on criticism/praise of movie production and criticism praise of movie content. As well as wider role and reaction of the US sending in soldiers. Thanks. Good bye. Sorry for my role in the insults but the assertion that somehow having a knowledge of Politics, Geopolitical struggles, History and economics is comparable to wearing a tinfoil hat is just outrageous. Its atleast backed up with some facts and is more realistic than the angelic Obama and his great heavenly army killing evil men to rescue the day. --JTBX (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That isn't accurate. Just because people saw the video, does not make it a popular movement. Turnout for Cover the Night shows that it is not a popular movement, but rather a popular/viral video. There are plenty of sources that call it a viral video, so just because the source used says 'movement', that does not make it so. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what does or does not make something a movement and it is not within my or your purview to decide what is or is not. We are only supposed to reflect what the sources say and the source says "Kony by the numbers still shows it to be among the most popular movements of all time". SilverserenC 19:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I also think it's very strangely worded and should be skipped, just reporting on the poll with no commentary. --Niemti (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Resolved

It seems that the criticism section is not opposed by any support section. There is "Culture and policy makers", but the section doesn't sum up the support for the campaign. I've tagged the article with {{undue}} in the meantime so I can get some other opinions on this. -- Luke (Talk) 13:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, but it seems to be that the official response does not cover the extent of the criticism. It would be great if someone could find a response outside of the official one, as well as some praise for the video which would balance out the article. Until then, the only solution I could think of would be limiting criticism. Bzweebl 14:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzweebl (talk • contribs)
I wanted to find stuff like that, but all the news sources are focusing on the criticism. :/ SilverserenC 23:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I was just finding out the same thing. This may fall under WP:NOTFORUM but is it possible that the campaign is flawed, or at least that the film is in its explanations and goals beyond awareness? (Jonathanfu (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC))

I would guess that as Wikipedia is supposed to value the opinions of scholars and academics above celebrities, and scholarly writing on this topic has been almost entirely negative, the opposite slant would be "undue weight". I personally believe that "undue weight" is a flawed policy, but I think this is how it would be applied. - filelakeshoe 16:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


I posted some sources in the "Well if a student says so...." section for alternative views and also a suggestion that the film is propoganda. Strontiumcat (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this issue has been addressed. -- Luke (Talk) 02:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


How about " the video is widely regarded as a scam, purely intended to keep Invisible Children with cash flow, not least because Russel is a psychotic who has no other job prospects". 124.184.106.210 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll get right on it. (Jonathanfu (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC))

Moved the recent Lord's Resistance Army insurgency related developments to the proper article

And the fact that almost nobody is reading it (as compared to this article) is not really my problem. This article is about a film. --Niemti (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Should we use a main article link in the Africa section then to that section of the LRA article? Seems like they're directly related, as the effects of the film in Africa regarding the LRA and the LRA's actions since then (and reports about them) are similar topics. Might give that other article a boost in readers as well. SilverserenC 00:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not "main", more like "see also" (it was in the "See also" section all along). --Niemti (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess i'll just add the film to the LRA template. --Niemti (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could move it from the See also section and do a see also link at the top of the Africa section. Better place for it and shows where it's directly relevant. SilverserenC 06:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Added the template, added to the template, added to the general LRA category because somehow it was not, added "see also" to the related section in the "insurgency" article too. --Niemti (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I think a general article about the international involvement (political and military, regional and global) would be nice. Maybe would even explain something to the tinfoil hatters, too. --Niemti (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. If you want to do it, that would be nice. :) Unfortunately, I have a fair amount going on with my Wikiproject, along with real life stuff, so i've been focusing on that for the past few months. SilverserenC 07:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Various date formats

This article violates MOS:DATEUNIFY as the lede (maybe other places) has day before month ("30 March") when WP:STRONGNAT says it should be month/date. --208.38.59.161 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Still locked?

This has died down, why would thisd need to be protected still?184.98.114.65 (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The expiration date when it was protected was set for August 24th. It'll expire naturally on that date. And considering the continued BLP issues on the Jason Russell and Invisible Children Inc pages, protections for this page is probably still needed. Any wanted changes can be requested on this talk page. SilverserenC 03:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone makes it B, I'm going to nominate it for GA

--Niemti (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Or not. --Niemti (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say go ahead and nominate it. At the very least, the reviewer will give you an idea of what needs to be improved to get it to that level. SilverserenC 16:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kony 2012/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 16:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do this review. I'll do a close readthrough at some point this week, noting any initial issues I find. After that, I'll move on to the checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

  • At first glance, the lead section doesn't seem to adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD; the lead doesn't appear to discuss various responses to the film at all, though this comprises most of the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "other viewing emanating from a central "Kony 2012" website operated by Invisible Children" -- this is a somewhat confusing phrase--I'm not sure how "viewing" can "emanate from" something. Maybe just say, "while still other viewers watched the film at... " -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • " the time when the campaign expires" -- Depending on your time zone, you'll need to update the verb tense in a few hours. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Other notes

  • "brutal guerrilla warfare tactics" -- While I think few would dispute that Kony uses brutal tactics, this loaded descriptor should be attributed in-text or removed. (Or better yet, these tactics could be detailed.)
  • Removed brutal. That should probably fix the sentence enough. Describing his tactics would probably be a bit too much detail for an article just on this film. SilverserenC 03:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "It was noted that..." it seems odd to list so many speakers in this section and have this sentence be anonymous.
  • "Ida Sawyer, a Congo LRA researcher with HRW currently based in Goma" -- the section is starting to feel a bit indiscriminate at this point. We've already gotten a statement from HRW, and the amount of background information about this person seems excessive.
  • "In November 2011, while Kony 2012 was in production, Foreign Affairs magazine published an article... " I'm confused by this-- did Foreign Affairs just criticize this type of portrayal generally? Or did they have advance knowledge of this specific movie? Unless FA criticized Kony 2012 directly and by name, I'd suggest removing this part as WP:SYNTH.
  • provide a quick definition of "slacktivism"
  • "Kony's followers are now thought to number only in the hundreds, and Kony himself is believed to be in the Central African Republic rather than Uganda" -- is this still true as of January 2013? Consider adding a date here and writing "as of", rather than saying "now", to avoid this going out of date.
  • "There has been growing criticism in Uganda of the film's failure" --is this still an ongoing process? Again, this language seems likely to go out of date fast (if it hasn't already).
  • " Radhika Coomaraswamy, the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and the special representative for children and armed conflict, called for the Kony2012 campaign to divert its donation funds from supporting military action to capture Kony to rehabilitation and reintegration programmes for former child soldiers." -- another example where the context of the individual could be radically shortened; we don't need both the titles (I'm not sure we need anything more than "UN representative"). The lengthy context for every individual makes this section exceptionally difficult to read.
  • I shortened it and a few other things. Though I do think it's important to note the importance of the people we're quoting. Otherwise, readers will wonder why we're including their quotes. SilverserenC 20:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "In response to concerns about working with the Ugandan government" -- this turns into a bit of a run-on sentence; consider breaking into two.
  • "The resolution has received" -- The tense is odd here. Is the vote on this resolution still ongoing? Again I think it would be better to rephrase as "as of [date], 37 senators had supported the resolution."
  • "bipartisan senators" -- unless you mean to praise the senators for their bipartisanship, probably better to say "37 senators, including both Republicans and Democrats"
  • "According to the statement, the mission commences on March 24, 2012" --clearly out-of-date

General: This looks reasonably good on a first pass--thanks for all your work on it! The biggest issue for any article like this is keeping it up to date. The best thing you can do here is add a lot of "as of September 2012"-type statements and try to keep it all in past tense. The positive/negative sections of the criticism are difficult to read due to their density and wordiness, though I'm not sure there's as easy a solution here. These sections feel rather indiscriminate, including nonnotable figures as well as notable, and including statements at great length and in seemingly random order (such as the two HRW spokespeople quoted in separate paragraphs). Consider shortening and streamlining these sections, aiming for including representative responses rather than a comprehensive catalog. Some nonnotable figures like Father Ernest Sugule could probably be cut entirely--especially as he has nothing new to say--and lengthy statements by others could be condensed to summary and a few key words. Let me know what you think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sawyer was included and specifically mentioned to be based in Goma, because the paragraph was about Goma and the DRC in general. And this article might tell you what kind of city Goma is, as compared to the now-peaceful Uganda (but also as compared to most of the world). --Niemti (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What's unfortunate, though, is that Sawyer doesn't have anything to say about Goma, but simply repeats that HRW supports the film and wants to see Kony brought to justice, which had already been stated. Couldn't it be safely assumed by a reader that if HRW supports the film, their representative in Goma also supports the film? -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sugule is notable as leading figure in his NGO, and as such he was asked for a comment by The Guardian. --Niemti (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely persuaded, but I see how it's useful to have someone speaking on Goma public opinion. Having long quotations from two HRW sources still seems to me excessive (not in POV sense, but simply in a readability sense), but by itself isn't enough to cause the article to fail. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Two more small action points:

  • "By July 2011, 90 percent of residents of Democratic Republic of the Congo areas influenced by the LRA continued to lived in constant fear of attacks and felt "completely abandoned", according to Oxfam survey." -- including this statistic appears to be a bit of WP:SYNTH, as the given source doesn't appear to mention Kony 2012 (or even directly mention Kony). It might be a better fit for the LRA article; I'd suggest removing it here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "After a public outburst and other questions as to the project's legitimacy, validity, and morality, interest in the movement waned, and 2012 ultimately passed with Russell's promise largely unfulfilled." --this newly added sentence appears to me to be original research. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's quite correct and can be sourced by a myriad of sources (for example, my own newest additions [7][8] stated pretty much just that while evaluating the whole thing from the end-of-the-year perspective). It should just be rephrased and placed in the lead. --Niemti (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And, obviously, a source should be added to the sentence. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I think this one's almost ready for GA status--thanks to you both for your work on this one! The only remaining issue I see is the Oxfam survey SYNTH point noted above if either of you would like to respond and/or change this in the article. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is good, and spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Article is excellently sourced on the whole.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The "responses" section could better summarize its information, but on the whole the article passes this criterion.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Has received a spike of interest with the campaign's expiration, but no edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The image of the Washington, D.C. posters is an excellent touch. A screenshot from the film could also be a useful addition, particularly one of Acaye.
7. Overall assessment. Pass--thanks to you both for your improvements to this one!

Thank you too. --Niemti (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Update needed?

From the lead: 'The film's purpose is to promote the charity's "Stop Kony" movement to make Ugandan cult and militia leader, indicted war criminal and the International Criminal Court fugitive Joseph Kony globally known in order to have him arrested by the end of 2012, the time when the campaign expires.' Well, it's 2013, and Kony remains at large. Would it be a fair assessment to say that, judged by its own standards, the campaign failed? Or would that be original research? Robofish (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be original research if we said it ourselves, but I bet that we can find a source somewhere that addresses this for us. The Kony 2012 site itself lists this goal as unachieved, so perhaps that's fair game. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course, they've been producing a number of documentaries toward this end for years. So it's not surprising. It's an ongoing thing, really. But, yes, would be original research. SilverserenC 11:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, could you edit the article to fix the issues raised in the review above? --Niemti (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What about these dates?

In the article (under the "Negative (Reception)" subtitle) we read the following: "Victor Ochen, founder and director of Ugandan rehabilitation NGO Ayinet, said that campaign "to promote [Kony] or make him famous" is "offensive", in part because of its date (an anniversary of the Atiak massacre by the LRA in Uganda in 2005 and the date of birth of Adolf Hitler)." Well, that information is simply wrong. The Kony 2012 video was launched on March 5 (2012) while Hitler's birthday was April 20 (1889). And so is the date of the Atiak massacre (April 20). If the Victor Ochen guy only found out about the video on April 20, or convinced himself that it was launched that day, that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't. I'm not editing the passage myself, because I rather hear a counter-opinion first (who knows? Maybe I'm the one convincing myself of stuff...), but if you end up agreeing with the point I'm making, then please erase or change that. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.5.218 (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The opinion from Ochen is actually about the Cover the Night campaign, which was scheduled for April 20. Perhaps this could be made more clear or moved to the Cover the Night sectionJonathanfu (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I clarified it in the text. SilverserenC 20:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A retrospective update, anyone?

--Niemti (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Kony"

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kony 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kony 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kony 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I propose to add a section to the Kony 2012 article regarding the movement's downfall. I feel that this is an important aspect to note about Kony 2012 because of the fact that it dissipated so quickly. Perhaps I will add an image of of a Google Trends search of "Kony 2012" to illustrate the drastic downfall in internet interest. The movement expanded exponentially after the viral video was released, and quickly died as a result of a collective loss of interest and the founders' blunders. These changes will serve to add important chronological details to the article. Huntersgordon (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Kony 2012 Search.png
Kony 2012 Search

source: ny times

Social Media Response

After doing some research into the Kony 2012 movement, I was surprised to see there wasn't a section designed specifically to the social media impact that was brought by Kony 2012. It is currently the number one YouTube video to reach over 70m views within six days. One of the key components of the Kony 2012 movement was to gain celebrity support, in order to bring awareness to what was occurring during the Kony 2012 period. Thus, I added the 'Social Media Response' section; without social media, the Kony 2012 movement may not have been able to become what it was during the short period it went on for. Let me know what you all think! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:201:261A:5D27:99FF:FC9F:5372 (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Unmentioned claims

There are serious claims online about the video being a covert op of the CIA, of USAID, or of evangelicals. Any suggestions? HEICOgel (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed "Social Media Response", "Virality of the Movement", and "Decline of the Movement" sections

I've removed the "Social Media Response", "Virality of the Movement", and "Decline of the Movement" sections because the quality of the content would have probably caused the article to lose its good article status if it were reassessed. Specifically, the sections were written in an unencyclopedic tone and cited some questionable sources.

For anyone who would like to use the removed sections, they are preserved in this diff. — Newslinger talk 05:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Huntersgordon, Gracemorgan192, Lentyski8. Peer reviewers: Jackyliang, Sofiariv10, Okhauger.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kony_2012/Archive_3&oldid=1241721386"