Talk:Live Earth (2007 concert)/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Are these all the locations?

message: 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)
thread_title: Concept

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nuclear 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Australian foxtel broadcast 

message: 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)
replies: text: Works fine here. Farsouth 14:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me too, and I'm running Camino on a Mac no less.--RobNS 18:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website 

message: Suggest that a new category be formed linking all the performers and venues. --Hourick 14:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Live Earth Category 

message: 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. AecisBrievenbus 18:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: cleaned up--Svetovid 20:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section edits  and edit conflicts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Carbon footprint discussion

message: I saw it on t.v. Zephead999 03:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey I heard the admission fee went to a good cause, so I added it. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Trivia

message: "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)
thread_title: Figures

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  US BROADCAST 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Source of electricity for the concerts 

message: 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)
replies: text: Then do it.  Tempshill 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: Don't be paranoid.--Svetovid 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously...That's really dumb, no offence...Rabrams20 06:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map link removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  conspiracy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What was that? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chris Rock said the N word. 

message: 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)
replies: text: In this case, it may be better to tag the statements with  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)
thread_title:  Removal of original research 

message: 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 EARTHTHE WORLD BROADCAST ON OUR COMMON FUTUREA 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)
thread_title:  Different Live Earth