Talk:Live Earth (2007 concert)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Millenium Development Goals

And in 2007 also 7 years after the in 2000 by the United Nations and its member states adopted Millennium Development Goals (MDG):

• 0 - Promote a Hippie Nutty crunchy fictitious atmosphere for a fictitious lost cause.
• 1 - Stop extrame hunger en poverty
• 2 - All boys and girls go to school
• 3 - Men and women have equal rights
• 4 - Childdeath has decreased
• 5 - Less women die during pregnanacy
• 6 - Spreading of diseases like Aids, maleria has stopped
• 7 - More people life in a sustainable environment
• 8 - More honest trade, reduction of debts and more aid

In 2007 it is also halfway the 2000-2015 period to implement these goals worldwide.

Are these all the locations?

There was a Live Earth concert in Romania where Robert Plant had a concert. Blakut

-It was probalbly a "friend of live earth" concert.

The Live Earth event in DC wasn't officially on the National Mall It was at the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian. which is on the mall. But the event was Not a Park service event ( Runs things on the mall) but a Smithsonian event that spilled over onto the mall

plant-to-headline-romanian-live-earth live-earth-in-romania-bucharest It sais here there was a live earth in Bucharest...

It was, as mentioned before, a Friends of Live Earth event. It was not an official event sponsored by SOS, but it ran in the same time frame. There were many of them across the world. --Aremith ^Talk 01:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Concept

Early 2007 Al Gore among others came up with the concept of Live Earth. But other organisations and people had adopted earlier likewise idea's/concept to organise worldwide something on July 7th 2007.

Well, I say give credit where credit's due. AH, HA HA HA HA HA! But seriously. In the spirit of NPOV, it seems that mentioning who thought of concepts for other similar events is a bit obscure, and the relevance to this article questionable. Only related events that've had provable influence in the architecture of this event should warrant mention. Also, if you could, please sign your post. Zebraic 06:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

21World Festival

21World Festival (' to one world '): concept originally of 21World, which had already in 2005/2006 the idea to organise a worldwide festival on July 7th, 2007 in 7 stadiums on 7 continents for One World without Poverty and Prosperity problems: 21World Festival. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Trivia

"One should spend 7% of one's money or of one's time on sustainable development and/or international co-operation!"

Live Earth Alert (NL)

Live Earth Alert: in the Netherlands had a unique character because of its length and total concept and in addtion to 'Live Earth'. They presented and broadcasted live a 24hour program Live Earth Alert ca. saturday-morning 08:00-08:00hrs sunday-morning (local time, W.E.T.) including live-streams from all 7 continents and stadiums (in sequential other) on Nederland 3 (='public television station TV Netherlands 3') by BNN, NOS, LLink and 3FM (='public radio station Radio 3FM') < ref > BNN: Live Earth on Nederland 3 (TV) and Radio 3FM (in Dutch), partly in English < /ref >. It has been included worldwide reports from Dutch correspondents stationed in all 7 seven continents and also from the home-location Westerpark in Amsterdam (capital of the Netherlands): (Live Earth Alert) < ref > Live Earth Alert.nl (in Dutch), partly in English < /ref >, where as part of the total concept, a parallel concert-program on stage produced by the Dutch run from 12:00-23:00hrs (W.E.T) as well as various side-events. - ( Wereld 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

I'm confused :-s Should the Westerpark location in Amsterdam to be, or not to be included on this page? It wasn't one of the official locations at first, but it became during the concerts. This article doesn't make things easier; the Westerpark isn't included in the list above on this article's page (in the right), but it is included in the location's section (number 2) in the article itself. What would be the best thing to do? --Robster1983 17:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed every mention of it. It seemed the best thing to do, since the official Live Earth page never mentioned it - or the events in Montreal and Portugal, for that matter. If you went there yesterday, you saw links for Australia, China, Japan, Hamburg, London, South Africa, Brazil, DC and New York. Therefore, I think these should be considered Live Earth events, not any of the others. Having the others mentioned is confusing, so I took the liberty of removing those mentions. Cheers. JimboB 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that indeed is the best thing to do. However, perhaps it is an idea to include a section in this article about the concerts not part of Live Earth, but very much inspired by the concept? The only one I knew was the one in Amsterdam, I didn't even know that there were also comparable concerts in Montreal and Portugal (in which city?). Perhaps, if more people agree with me, that someone who knows about these concerts, could create a modest section about it? --Robster1983 21:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

N.B. a few things come together in the topics above:

• originally there was in 2005/2006 the idea for a 21World Festival on 07/07/07 with concerts in 7 stadiums in 7 continents for 'One World without Poverty and Prosperity'. This concept had connenctions with the Netherlands and the stadium in Rotterdam (NL) should have been one of the event-locations.
• as Live Earth came up in 2007 with a likewise concept, but climate as main-theme; the 21World-Festival had been cancelled
• as alternative Live Earth Alert had been the Dutch contribution to the real Live Earth on 07/07/07. Therefore in Amsterdam (NL) a parallel-event had been organised which included almost 24hour-live-broadcastprogram of live-streams from Live Earth-events and reports from 7 continents as well as an almost 12hour-side-event with performances, artists and side-activities. Some parts of this Dutch program have been taken over by the official Live Earth-streams and broadcasted worldwide.

- ( Wereld 23:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC) )

To make it even more complicated a 'Dutch rock-group' called Seven got also a record according to/in the new Guiness Book of Records. On 07/07/07 they have performed 7 times in 7 different locations in 24hrs; on 7 stages they song each time 7 songs.

So Live Earth Alert is a bit of a total-concept / Dutch alternative + contribution / includes Live Earth as well had its own dynamic. Solution can be perhaps: Make a remark/section on the official Live Earth-wikipage about the concept and/or history. Include there a remark + reference on the 'Live Earth Alert'-event as well give a sign like 'see also or see further' to and let it have its own wiki-page (Live Earth Alert) for more information/background.

- ( Wereld 00:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC) )

Nuclear

I saw on tv today that "Blue King Brown" appeared wearing tshirts with large block lettering: "SAY NO TO NUCLEAR POWER" (or something along those lines.) I think that's highly controversial (and upsetting at a venue that claims to be anti global warming... sigh...). Anyone care to follow up?

One of the performers did talk about nuclear energy in a negative light in the middle of their set

Other bands displayed the same message when they performed so it was surely not controversial? Farsouth 13:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Because other bands displayed the same know-nothing message, that makes it non-controversial? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, I suppose that it's too much to ask for 1) a logical argument from a envirofanatic who believes that the carbon footprint from these concerts is not as important as the message they send and 2) an understanding of nuclear power before bashing it as a way out of the perceived "global warming crisis." Get2djnow 05:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No one cares whether you found it controversial & this is not the place to soapbox. Unless you can find a reliable source which mentions the controversy surrounding the tshirt then there is no call to mention it in the article Nil Einne 07:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian foxtel broadcast

What i saw on foxtel was coverage on V and MAX from 11 am and coverage on Fox8 from 6pm. so it's not quite accurate what is there now. But I am not sure how I would rewrite it. Farsouth 12:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nunatak info

The performance can be found at http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/indepth/nunatak/video/index.php .

Website

Is it worth mentioning that the official websites are run by MSN? Whether intentional or not, they're not usable under any non-Internet Explorer browser. Try and see any running orders in Firefox - it doesn't work. Cpc464 14:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Works fine here. Farsouth 14:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me too, and I'm running Camino on a Mac no less.--RobNS 18:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I had an article on the main page at the begining of the concert. I could not get anything to work with Opera and only limited video for Firefox and less capabilities. A screen would come up telling me to use Internet Explorer.

yes the live streams were IE/MS biased. firefox only had quicktime streams, and not the "fancy" all-in-one deal IE had. I could not access anything from my ubuntu box, had to switch over to XP, This is worth mentioning. --espo111 04:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Live Earth Category

Suggest that a new category be formed linking all the performers and venues. --Hourick 14:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe good idea for the venues, but it'll def. be deleted as overcat. if performers are added. Lugnuts 19:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it might prove relevant if the performers and presenters were put in there as well. Especially now that it's ongoing, it'll be easier to update. --Hourick 00:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See also section

Why has the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle been included in Live Earth#See also? While it would be relevant in an article on global warming and climate change, I don't see how it pertains to Live Earth. And why have Bon Jovi and The Eagles been included in the See also? Bon Jovi will perform at one gig, but that would mean we would have to include each and every single band and singer. The Eagles aren't mentioned anywhere else in the article. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aecis, why on earth is 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' listed here at all? The site is not meant as a debate forum. It should be listed in the Global Warming Sceptics or some area.--RobNS 18:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

cleaned up--Svetovid 20:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section edits and edit conflicts

Statement that Republicans criticized Gore as using event to furter presidential ambitions, is undocumented. But since it is included, Gore's response needs to be as well, which includes his statement that he's involved in a campaign to solve the climate crisis, not a presidential campaign. Also, I can only find instances in which "Gore Aid" is used as a headline, including in the article cited in Wikipedia. Since writers frequently do not write their own headlines, and there is no citation to a place where a person actually referred to Gore Aid, the reference was deleted as it is not accurate. Atsiki 00:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the lack of citation -- I believe some of the original sources were removed in the cleanup after the first day's frenzied (and fun) editing. Both the AP and the Washington Post articles referenced the Republican actions: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/06/arts/NA-A-E-MUS-Live-Earth.php and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/06/AR2007070600684.htm (which is no longer available without registration and/or subscription). As to "GoreAid", I think your point may getting lost in this section, and I know it's been discussed several times (but perhaps the point you raise has not). You might want to start another topic at the bottom to stimulate conversation. Flowanda | Talk 02:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I got caught up in an edit conflict and wasn't able to salvage my extensive edits to the presidential and celebrity sections. With so many edits going on and previous comments about cleaning up after the rush, I decided to leave the links here for consideration or come back when things calm down and see if they add anything.

Per the connection between live earth and presidential ambitions: Gore was in the media a lot this past week, and questions about the 2008 race came up a lot (especially since another Tennessean is a potential candidate). Here's the link to the transcript of the Larry King show where Gore says he's "fallen out of love with politics" and found something he likes better (i.e. Live Earth+ projects)

"I'm involved in a different kind of campaign not for myself, not as a candidate, but to change people's minds about the most dangerous crisis we've ever faced and the greatest set of opportunities we've ever confronted to solve this climate crisis," Gore said. "And it feels to me like that's the right thing for me to be doing."

Gore also addresses some of the criticisms--he clearly states the goals, discusses his footprint, commercial flights, and the decision to hold a concert in China.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/05/lkl.01.html

Patrick Michaels: Yahoo news links sometimes don't stay up long, and if the source is just a distribution copy of a press release and not a real article (I had not checked it yet), here's the original press release of the quote at the Cato website: http://www.cato.org/new/pressrelease.php?id=103

If the Daily Mail is a reliable source, this article at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=466775&in_page_id=1879&ICO=FEMAIL&ICL=TOPART is a better source for Madonna's footprint than the blog, and has a great deal of statistics the paper compiled with the help of experts (I had been checking them out)...the Madonna bit in the article is snarky, but my edit just to get the link in ended up just looking mean. My people will be sending her people flowers and a hybrid Hummer tomorrow, I guess.

Could we also dump some of the overly long quotes (i.e. Geldof) and the block quote styles? The Daily Mail quote of the Muse singer was more succinct...and more coherent. Flowanda 00:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the London phase plus the criticism thereat. --Florentino floro 12:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The main authors of this page should be doing a better job of negotiating where criticisms should be included and where not; you could make 5 full wikipedia articles on the criticisms of any major event such as this. The key is finding criticisms relevant to the article - i.e. in this case, more wide spread criticisms than simply this person or group said this and this person or group said that. For example, stating that this event caused more harm (according to sources) than it did good is relavent, whereas issues facing certain venues (e.g. London/Washington) is not. --65.92.16.66 03:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC) (Gregorof - Shared IP address but too lazy to log in)

I totally agree...I thought the Washington venue issues would be covered in later articles, but they have not, and I thought the publicity-for-president angle would be quickly dismissed, but, duh, have not. Stop being lazy :), log in and have at it, why don't you? Flowanda | Talk 02:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Carbon footprint discussion

It seems to me that there should be more nuanced discussion in the carbon footprint criticism section. Simply stating the amount of carbon released by the event, or by event participants is not a criticism in and of itself. The unstated assumption (which I happen to disagree with) is that an event to raise awareness of climate change must emit low or no carbon (to not be hypocritical). Unfortunately, given the current state of the economy, any event of this magnitude is going to have GHG emissions associated with it, and no climate change activists seriously present "no carbon" as a viable solution in the short term. This section should therefore be deleted, or appended to elucidate the assumptions. If no one takes this on, I'll do it after work today. -- Autumninjersey 17:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sugar coating the conservative estimates on the environmental impact of the Live Earth Participants is slanting the section contrary to the manner in which it should be presented. There are plenty of adolations within this article, allowing a relatively small section to somewhat balance the discussion seems merited. I know that some liberal progressives will disagree, but that is beside the problem.Mister Fax 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my comment at all? I certainly didn't suggest any "sugar coating." I merely stated that listing the carbon emissions associated with various Live Earth related activities is not in and of itself a criticism. Can you respond to this?-- Autumninjersey 03:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a point of view obviously not shared by all. Why exactly would it not be a criticism? An old adage "practice what you preach" seems to be appropriate to interject into the discussion. "Physician, heal thyself"? I could go on. Mister Fax 17:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as stating concerns about "environmental" harm is not a criticism, stating trite adages is not a refutation. I stand by my comments. -- Autumninjersey 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey I heard the admission fee went to a good cause, so I added it.

I saw it on t.v. Zephead999 03:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't believe most of what you see on television. sean.ridgeley 20:42, 10 July 2007 (GMT)

Other Key Players

I added information on what I thought were the other key players in the production of Live Earth (Other than Wall and Gore). Aaron grosky was in charge of all Talent and Programming worldwide, and Lily sobhani was head of all events worldwide (both of these are from the official program credits).

Trivia

None of the items in the Trivia section seem relevant. Are there any arguments for keeping the section? Gdarklighter 07:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is a trivia section itself requires removal. If the material is of any use it could be moved elsewhere or the section renamed. 130.216.191.182 07:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Date in first line

Is there any relevance in the 07/07/07 date in the first line to this event? Seems pretty pointless to have this up just because it was on July 7th, 2007.Smoothy 12:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Gore said in an interview with Billboard that essentially it was just easy to remember. sean.ridgeley 20:44, 10 July 2007 (GMT)

However the 07 and the 07 should be reversed because it is common to list the month first and then the day of the month in the US.

In fact in the source it is July 7. What is displayed will depend on your preferences if you're logged in Nil Einne 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Figures

"The concerts brought together more than 150 of the world's most popular music acts and drew an estimated worldwide audience of 2 billion people, making it one of the largest global events in history."

2 Billion people seems like a heavily overestimated amount of viewers and listeners. This would mean that alomost 1 out of 3 people on earth must have seen it! 194.78.199.56 13:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not even 5 million out of 50 in the UK watched it, so i doubt it. Cm619 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be wise to make the distinction that it was made available to 2 billion people, but not viewed by anywhere near that many. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

US BROADCAST

Can someone add a criticism to the article. What I am talking about is during the US BROADCAST on Bravo(BRAVO CHANNEL) I didnt have a clue what act was live or what. I think the US BROADCAST of Live Earth was tape delayed by at least 20 min/per act I think. I think THE following should be added to the article

Criticism-

The US BROADCAST of LIVE EARTH 2007 was not "live" but tape delayed by a few minutes then shown on the television channel BRAVO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.254.71.26 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

...and a source to back that up is where? (→vishwin60 - review) 17:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When I watched the US feed on Bravo Channel I didnt know if it was live or not.

It is now the general opinion of most of the World that Live Earth sucked.

Thanks, anon, for telling us what the opinion of the world was. Anyway, I watched the Bravo broadcast and I will eat my hat if it was live. But some of it was shown live on NBC, right? Tempshill 15:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No the verison shown on NBC was not live it was taped. The US Verison shown on TV was not properly organized right. It didnt have a "live" symbol on screen. It would have been a little helpful for the guy watching at home to know that the band was playing was live or not.

Source of electricity for the concerts

Where did the electricity come from to power the concerts? From some sort of combustable energy? I think if the source of the electricity wasn't from a "clean" source, then there's a sort of double-standard there. -- 12.116.162.162 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because the positive benefit of raising awareness to several million people outweighed the negative environmental impact of doing so for one day. Nice "gotcha" try, though. KyuzoGator 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Antarctic first being ignored?

I have noticed that the Antarctic section has no mention of the fact that this was the first time ever that a concert was broadcast worldwide from that location. Trivial, but it should be mentioned somehow. It is also overall the first event to utilize all 7 continents as "venues."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.221.234 (talk • contribs) 10 July 2007

NPOV

Not only is the Antarctic concert ignored, but all of the unofficial concerts are given short shrift, as is the fact that it was a major multimedia event, worldwide. The second sentence of the lead states:

The actual numbers were disappointing in many cases, with serious disappointments in Brazil[2] , the UK[3], South Africa[4], Germany[5] [6], and in Washington D.C...

No mention of the venues in which the concert was successful? This is not an accurate portrayal of the event IMHO. The lead needs to be completely re-written from a neutral point of view. Let's get our act together folks, many people have already checked to see what Wikipedia says about the concert. Many more will do so. We need a balanced article. Sunray 15:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Then do it. Tempshill 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As I had to be away from my computer for several hours, I thought I would just raise the issue in the hope that someone might address it. Little did I suspect that it would be so easily and effectively dealt with. Many thanks to Tempshill and Turtlescrubber for being so bold! Sunray 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

AL HAIL! --Esmerelda Querida 04:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Map link removed

I removed a misleading map that was trying to show the cities that had Live Earth concerts. Good idea, but that particular map had highlighted the entire country of China, the entire country of Brazil, the entire USA, etc., which was very strange because it implied that these entire countries somehow participated in the concerts. Tempshill 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be paranoid.--Svetovid 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously...That's really dumb, no offence...Rabrams20 06:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources don't match

I removed this paragraph from the lead:

Television ratings and attendance were disappointing in some cases, with serious disappointments in Washington D.C., where attendance ran into the low hundreds. Istanbul's concert was cancelled, while the main three-hour American TV broadcast on NBC averaged a meager 2.7 million viewers, ranking as the least-watched U.S. program on Saturday night and falling below NBC's summer prime-time Saturday average.

The sources don't even come close to matching the text, the only part that is sourced is "Washington D.C., where attendance ran into the low hundreds." but there is no indication that this was a disappointment for the live earth organizers. Please find sources for this paragraph before putting it back in. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about! Sunray 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the sources not matching the text. Here are the claims: Disappointment in the UK.

Source: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,2122158,00.html This source, the Guardian, states "BBC1's audience for the event at Wembley stadium peaked between 10.15pm and 10.30pm with 4.5 million viewers and 25% share, according to unofficial overnights. That compared with the 14.8 million and 60% peak for the Diana concert at 10pm last Sunday." It was headlined "Live Earth a ratings flop" and only discussed the UK.

Claim: Disappointment in South Africa: http://www.nme.com/news/live-earth/29539 Source NME:"Fans shy away from freezing Joburg Live Earth". Perhaps this does not seem disappointing to you, but if you wish to rebut the claim, I'd appreciate more than a claim that the source does not come close to matching the text.

Claim: Disappointment in Germany: Two sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6269840.stm is a BBC story that includes the slow ticket sales for the Hamburg concert, with the local tourist authority resorting to giving them away. http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKN0930495920070709 is a story including the German broadcast ratings of 1 million viewers. Germany's population is around 82 million people. Live Earth was hoped to reach around half of the world's population with access to a television. Maybe getting 1.2% instead of over 50% (since Germany is a more environmentally concerned nation than most) was not a disappointment, but if this is the case, the cynicism of the claim that over 50% was likely is worth noting. Since it seems that the estimates were made in good faith, by good people, the wide difference must have been a disappointment.

The Washington venue is described elsewhere in the article. It had not occured to me that the 200 figure might be considered a success, but I will agree that I cannot cite anything demonstrating that more was hoped for. It did succeed in adding useful symbolism.

Istanbul's cancellation is dealt with elsewhere in the article.

Claim: US Television ratings were a disappointment: Source http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070707/ts_alt_afp/entertainmentmusic_070707182408, containing the claim that the ratings were below average for NBC Saturday night programming. As in Germany, the number are around 1% of the population.

Please offer me an argument as to why the viewing figures and attendance figures are not of central significance to an article on an event that included its large broadcast ratings as a central achievement in every press release, or an argument that the sources I included were not closely related to the data indicated.Jamesofengland 22:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For something to be a disappointment or a controversey, there has to be some evidence it was actually a disapppoinment or a controversy. Your opinion that it's a disappointment or controversy because ratings are below average is not sufficient Nil Einne 00:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They did not just get "below average" ratings for an event of this kind, they got around 1/50th, 2% of what they had claimed they would get. The show got lower ratings than "Cops" and "America's Favourite Home Videos". To "disappoint" is to "to fail to fulfill the expectations or wishes of: His gross ingratitude disappointed us." Live Earth claimed that its expectations were 2 billion viewers. The actual results appear to have been well under 2% of that figure. Missing a target by 98$ is not a "below average" performance, it's a complete failure. I speak as someone who had high hopes of it going well, and had thought that Al had a chance of getting the Democratic nomination. When the newspaper headlines say tha it was a "flop", do you think that the expectations had been of it being a flop? Do you think that "flop" might be, to a large extent, synonymous with "disappointment"? 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Who are you responding to? Turtlescrubber 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to your claims that the text and the souces did not come close to matching.Jamesofengland 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I find this all very strange. Those sources need to be integrated with the text above, because as it stands, the text is not adequately sourced. I never said that those sources don't exist, only that they don't share the same space with the paragraph's text. Turtlescrubber 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with James, pre-concert estimates said the event was going to be watched by billions of people around the world.[1] But figures published by ratings agencies showed the concerts received only a meager viewership. Intangible2.0 16:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That would definitely merit "disappointment" if not controversy. However, since controversy is defined as "disputation concerning a matter of opinion" and the projected viewership is contrary to the actual viewership without acknowledgement from the event's backers, this would qualify as a dispute of their initial opinion to the actual facts.Mister Fax 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

conspiracy

i rekon the live earth logo lok sjust like Macquarie Bank, therefore mac bank is recieving all the benefits of LE!

i don't understand, there was also a concert in tel aviv, why don't they mention it anyware?

Do you have proof of this? Ever thought it could be just a coincidence? --Esmerelda Querida 04:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What was that?

Excuse me... I would like to point out the terrible slags against Macy Gray when the article was first being formulated... as in while the Live Earth Concerts were happening. It was a disgusting smear against her and the person responsible should be ashamed of themselves. Not everyone shares your thoughts and opinions, so please... KEEP THEM TO YOURSELVES!!!!!! --Esmerelda Querida 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris Rock said the N word.

The article claims that Chris Rock called the crowd motheruckers, but actually he referred to them as Niggers because they had become confusingly tanned due to the glorious British sunshine, apparently appearing black to him.

This section should be amended once I (or anyone else) has found a copy of the program knocking around on the internet or VHS if anyone recorded it.

86.132.36.127 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Melsaran (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of original research

The previous content in the "Inspiration for the style of concerts" section was original research. The sources cited did not support the assertion that these concerts inspired Live Earth. Lea Faka 22:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, it may be better to tag the statements with {{fact}} than to remove them altogether. They make sense to me, they just don't have a source. Melsaran (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Different Live Earth

I'm watching a 1987 video downloaded via BitTorrent from conspiracycentral's torrent tracker, featuring George Hunt talking about world banking and the NWO. In it a document is shown with the title

LIVE EARTH
THE WORLD BROADCAST ON OUR COMMON FUTURE
A program of the ORBIT PRODUCTIONS INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION

At the bottom of the title page it reads "A SUMMARY OF THE EARTH FUND PROGRAMS". The logo has some similarities with the Live Earth logo being a very thick circle, although not as thick as the present Live Earth logo, with the earth in its hollow. Can anyone bring out any information on this organization? __meco (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)