Talk:Invisible Children

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] proposed deletion

As the maker of this article I'd like to address its proposed deletion. This page certainly is promotional (although neither I nor anyone I know has anything to do with it. I simply feel that it's a good thing in a world with such suffering) but that doesn't make it uninformative or lacking notoriety. I don't feel that I know how to improve it other than by expanding it. Being about a documentary of this nature this article doesn't really have any source material other than the documentary itself. A Hollywood film might fit into genres or take elements from this story or that one, but this wasn't made up. As for style it seems to fit the typical stub. Again, I don't particularly know how to improve this page, but I don't think that it's something that should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by af1218 (talk • contribs).

Details of the war should be covered (even if the only source is the documentary). The short text here gives no insight into the evcent. Possibly, the information could be merged into the article on civil war, if the number of artistic depictions isn't too high already. Pavel Vozenilek 20:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no desire to start an argument, and only bring this up because I feel that the cause is important enough to preserve this article. Details of the war do not appropriately fit into this article. The war is important to the film, but Invisible Children is about the effects of the war on the children of Uganda. This article is not about the Ugandan civil war, and other articles provide information on that already. Regarding a merger into another article I would call that appropriate from the limitted information the article currently provides, but this film is noteworthy and so the better thing would be for it to be filled in by myself or someone else. This is true of pretty much all stubs; they contain too little information to be useful articles themselves, but the subject of that article has the potential to be expanded on. - af1218

OK, hopefully someone will add more information. Pavel Vozenilek 21:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking into this project for the last 2 hours, and for what it's worth, I feel it is a more than worthy cause. If there is still a possible deletion of this article, I whole-heartedly vote against the deletion. Those involved in this film are now traveling around the US screening the movie to all those who are willing to watch. Great cause, great organization. Streetsabre 05:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is just my opinion but I think we should leave it and possibly get more information about what was going on when these 3 students went there. That could help the readers get a better understanding of this crisis and add support to this thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Churro Kradd (talk • contribs).

I added the year of 2003 based off the website. By looking at Lord's Resistance Army, you should be able to fit it into the timeline of events, though I admit that more detail on methodology, location, etc would be useful. - BanyanTree 02:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but you can watch the documentary for free online at http://video.google.com by searching for "invisible children". There is some background information in the film that might be useful. They have since gone back with 20 or so volunteers for additional footage and are planning a main theater release in "a year" (this is their best estimate so far). The three students who started this are Bobby Bailey, Laren Poole, and Ben Keesey, and they should probably be named in the article. I think they know this cause is bigger than them (this is the impression I got from the IC reps I spoke with from their national tour), but quite a lot of people have been inspired to act because of their efforts, and that makes them important enough to be mentioned by name. - DWM 02:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

We have one film made in 2003, another one in planing to come out in 2006 or so, and also the related NPO (which already has a seperate article), and we need to find a way to distinguish between all of these --T-rex 04:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Easy, keep one org page and a single film page, as the primary advocacy tool of the org. Whether that requires turning this article into a disambiguation page or some other rearrangement, I'll leave up to you. I would oppose creating a second film page, as I find the fact that the org and the film have two different pages, given that the article on the film is all about how the org uses it, questionable. If anything, the articles should be merged. - BanyanTree 17:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that we should go with a film and organization page. I don't think we need a disambiguation page; in my opinion, the little phrase at the top is sufficient. The content of the two pages may be similar now, but I think the hope is that it will all be expanded. The organization page was only created a day or two ago. As for the two films, I think they should fit nicely together because I think the first film is just a rough draft of sorts. It would deserve its own section, and the new, full-length film would become the primary film of the article. --Basar 18:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IMDB

Why isn't this on IMDB.com? That site has everything, and this is certainly more notable than a lot of the entries they have on there. --Basar 01:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)