Talk:Live Aid/Archive 1

Comment

Re: Dylan's comment. "Insensitive" is a personal characterization that goes to the state of mind and intent of the speaker, which cannot be known, and is therefore POV. It's verifiable that the statement was made, and there is no reason not to include it in the article; it's also verifiable that the statement was controversial (as stated), but reasonable people might not find the characterization "insensitive" accurate. As the article existed for some time without the word "insensitive" before it was changed, please leave it out and discuss here until a consensus is reached. Jgm 14:52, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The original text with the word insensitive was added in December of 2002 and was removed by you in January of this year. So if you want to retain the the status quo, then the word should remain whilst we have a debate about it. I think reasonable people, would find the suggestion that money intended to be given to Africans who were dieing of starvation, should instead be given to American farmers who couldn't pay their mortgage, more than a little insensitive. Insensitive means without thinking about other people's feelings. Whether he thought about what he said before he said it or not, there is no way you could reasonably expect to not upset people by these words. So if he didn't think it through, he was insensitive for not doing so and if he did think it through he was insenstive for not thinking it through properly. Mintguy (T) 15:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No reply. so it goes back in. Mintguy (T) 14:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I guess I've never heard of the "whoever gets the last word in" rule. My view on this is unchanged, and, I think, more in keeping with the NPOV standards of Wikipedia than yours; why should I keep restating it? Jgm 15:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is what I call NPOV madness. It's a form of newspeak where words with that have a potential emotional context are expunged under the excuse that it shows a POV. It is not a point of view that Dylan's comments were insenstivie. Insensitiveness implies failing to give due regard to the feelings of others, and this is clearly the case. Mintguy (T) 15:49, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The fact that you have a cute term for it isn't an argument. Encyclopedias deal in facts, not characterizations (yes, I understand, you may feel that it's a fact that the comments were insensitive; if that is the case I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "fact"). Moreover, it's unnecessary;

the quotation is there, as well as enough context for a reader to form his own opinion about the nature of the comment. The comment is already documented as being controversial, and the offended are well-represented by Geldof's response. Jgm 16:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It was previously already documented as being 'insensitive', which is more accurate than controversial. The reason the controversy arose was because it was insensitive. If I was stating my POV I would have said ignorant rather than insensitive. In is not in the mind of the person reacting to the comment to decide whether it is insensitive or not. It is in the hearer's mind to decide (perhaps unconsciously) whether they are affected by it or not. Mintguy (T)

Sigh. I've re-read all your arguments carefully, and they basically boil down to "I think it was insensitive, therefore it was". You win: I've argued all I will over a one-word deletion, and I'd rather have it stay as it is than put in weasel words. Consider this, though: inclusion of such a characterization weakens rather than strengthens the impact of the section (and by extension the article and the whole project), as readers sense when they are being manipulated towards a particular view rather than being allowed to make up their own mind, and start to take a more cautious, jaundiced view.

---

Can anybody who was actually there add a little gem from their memory of this historic day? were you behind the scenes? in the audience?

Too bad I was less than 2 years old at the time. :-P --Madchester 23:56, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

---

It would be nice if someone could add to the list of artists where they played Dan100 19:00, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

I highly doubt this is an accurate claim: "As a charity fundraiser, the concert far exceeded its goals: on a television programme in 19000 bc, one of the organisers stated that while initially it had been hoped that Live Aid would raise £1 million, the final figure was £1(approx. $0.2). "

Photo

Is there a photo of higher quality and greater resolution that is PD *anywhere*? Or were you there on that day with a camera? The current picture really doesn't do the concert justice - Estel (talk) 14:06, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

References to "military time"

The references to "military time" seem out of place. Moreover they might even be wrong. Is military time equal to British Summer Time in summer? Pcb21| Pete 23:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't like this word, there are no other word in English for this term?Vorash 23:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What exactly does it mean? I think military time usually means the 24 hour clock (as opposed to the 12 hour clock with AM and PM) rather than a specific time zone. As it is, it is just confusing so I have removed the references. Pcb21| Pete 00:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Meaning Zulu time, GMT? Trekphiler 08:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Queries

• Let's source the £150m figure. Seems higher than most people say.
• Where does only expected to raise £1m come from. In a recent BBC documentary they made it seemed like Geldof flew off the handle in his famous interview because "only £1.2m" has been pledged.

Pcb21| Pete 00:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Are the figures on money donated in 1985 currency or current currency? User:Anon 15:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me add; Fundraising tells 150 million, Legacy tells 127 million as a figure. Jasperwillem (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources

"After the outburst, giving increased to £300 per second. Later in the evening, following David Bowie's set, a video shot by CBS was shown to the audiences in London and Philadelphia as well as on televisions around the world, showing starving and diseased Ethopian children."

• I believe I heard recently this was a video shot by the CBC Television, not CBS. Can anyone confirm? SD6-Agent 30 June 2005 02:42 (UTC)

• • You are absolutely right. Sorry about that of the finger when typing. Pcb21| Pete 30 June 2005 07:25 (UTC)

Bootleg info taken out

I had to modify/edit out some information on a bootleg video/DVD of Live Aid since the article would have ended up promoting bootlegs. Promoting bootlegs of Live Aid is entirely against the original purpose of the concert...this was for charity, so therefore we should not even try to destroy its spirit by promoting bootlegs.

Bootlegs are the very thing Bob Geldof fought against, and what led to us seeing an official DVD release in the first place. Hiphats 02:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposedly an encyclopedia, which shouldn't take a position before or against bootlegs, cocaine addiction, or child pornography. State the facts. Relate your opinions to your friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:CB81:3770:B1A7:6B84:9DAD:83A4 (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what we are doing here. Where is the "opinion" of Wikipedia? Richard3120 (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Appeal for Brits and for Live Aid/Band Aid supporters

Please contribute to Claire Bertschinger article and support its removal from the deletion list.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   21:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

live aid live 8

it should be stated that live aid is not live 8 with a link to live 8

Stevie Wonder's Live Aid at Wembley

Why is there no mention of Stevie Wonder performing at Wembley and his set being limited to one song, without his band, the result of a combindation of having all his equipment being stolen and of Whitney Houston refusing to cut her act or change the running order to allow Stevie more time?

---

Because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! The official website does not mention his performance; the unofficial websites do not mention his performance; you are the first person who has ever brought this to my attention. He was no more there than Chuck Berry, who has been miscredited with performing in Philadelphia. In fact, if you read the Rolling Stone issue that directly proceeded Live Aid, you will find that Wonder declined to perform at either venue due to his concerns regarding the monies that had been raised and were about to be raised. True, he is listed on the Live Aid program inside the DVD, but he was not there. I hate to further perhaps add salt to your wounds, but there is no way Whitney Huston could have been involved with any of this. You see, according to the Wikipedia, her self-titled début album was released in early 1985, but the album would not explode until the turn of 85-6. There is also no mention of her anywhere on any Live Aid performers list. Perhaps you have mistaken her with Sade, who did perform at Wembley. (207.81.164.238 05:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

Wow - anybody confusing Whitney with Sade has obviously been hittin' Whitney's crack pipe!

It was at the Nelson Mandela concert in 1988 that the Stevie Wonder stolen equipment incident happened. Swaddon1903 (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Other "Missing" Performances

I have a theory regarding the omission of certain clips from the official Live Aid DVD. These were brought to my attention by clips now being posted on Youtube. It regards the omission of certain Bryan Adams and Madonna tracks. Firstly is Adams’ ‘Cuts Like A Knife’, coming after the transmission problems which interfered with ‘Tears Are Not Enough’ and had been solved by the commencement of ‘Knife’. In the Rolling Stone issue that immediately proceeded the concerts, Geldof was quoted as expressing open dismay with the fact that one of the first images broadcast from the United States (and around the world) was that of a woman’s naked breasts. If I am not mistaken, such an image can be seen during ‘Cuts Like A Knife’ (at 2:38 in the copy I found). Secondly, just before Madonna begins to sing ‘Love Makes the World Go Round’ she comments on having noticed the audience’s discomfort with the heat. Madonna tells them that she sympathizes; she too is hot and will keep her clothing on to swelter with the masses. She then makes a comment to the affect of, “I’m not taking shit off.” To me, these two pieces suggest that Geldof, or someone working on the DVD, had the clips purposely omitted from the package, in order to provide a rating which would have ensured the widest possible distribution.

The DVD ends with a documentary, Food, Trucks, and Rock ‘n Roll. This includes clips from the Live Aid performance at Wembley. The majority come from a single motion picture camera placed in the photographer’s box below the stage. From the variety of clips shown, it appears this camera filmed all of the performers that day; including The Who. We can see Townshed whipping his arms during ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again’. But wait: if the camera was rolling, independent of the power outage mind you, would it not have caught the lost performances of ‘My Generation’ and Pinball Wizard’? If the film still exists, could we not see what only the crowd at Wembley saw? (207.81.164.238 19:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

The 'Other Notable Absenses' section of the article states that Huey Lewis and the News and Kris Kristofferson were included in the initial publicity for the Philadelphoa concert but failed to appear at the concert itself. This claim is unsourced and from my own personal recollection I am sure they did appear. Hughenden (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, guess what? You recollect wrongly. They didn't. Next! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.254.140 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with this article

In the "memorable moments" section, I'm not fond of the comments about Geldof. They seem extremely biased. I'm referring to this paragraph: "At the conclusion of the Wembley performances, Bob Geldof was raised heroically onto the shoulders of The Who's guitarist Pete Townshend and McCartney — symbolising his great achievement in unifying the world for one day, in the spirit of music and charity." There has been a great deal of dispute about Geldof's motives and the results of the concert itself, therefore I feel this bias should be removed and moved to a state of objectivity.

• WRT objectivity, "Fox News television host Bill O'Reilly has been critical of the Live Aid producer's oversight of the money raised for starving Ethiopian people, claiming (in June 2005) that much of the funds were siphoned off by Mengistu Haile Mariam and his army. O'Reilly believes that charity organizations, operating in aid-receiving countries, should control donations, rather than possibly corrupt governments"
  • Seriously? Bill O'Reilly, a man that spouts nothing but lies, claims something? Whatever he says, the opposite is usually the truth. -- 80.223.147.182 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly foind of the way this is written. There seems to be an awful lot of PoV. There are also some parts that don't make sense such as the use of, "The biggest caveat of the syndicated/ABC coverage is that ...". Why is this a caveat? surely it's a manipulation/change?

The Big Yin's statements is mentioned, "At one point midway through the concert, Billy Connolly announced he had just been informed that 95% of the television sets in the world were tuned to the event." but there is no detail as to whether this is a joke, speculation or accurate. It seems out of context otherwise.

The section "Inspiration" with songs inspired by Live Aids seems to be misleading. Perhaps when I see the title inspiration I expect to see what inspired Live Aid. Otherwise, if it means what did it inspire? then there is a plethora of things to be added. Was live aid an inpiration to Waters here really? It's used in the lyrics and title but the song has little to do with live aid. It just seems to be a handy metaphor for change and maybe the idea of global change by positive communication. Any references to Waters actually crediting Live Aid?

The whole of memorable moments is very PoV. Whose most memorable moments. Certainly not mine! To call U2 preeminent is very misleading here. U2 were known for their excellent live performances in the UK before Live Aid!

I could go on but maybe I will come back and do some editing when I have time. Does anyone else feel the same way? Candy 13:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This has to do in particular with Bob Dylan's comments. According to http://liveaid.free.fr/ [1] in addition to Geldof being upset with Dylan’s comments, he was further antagonized by an additional factor: Dylan, Richards, and Wood were all stoned. Note, this site has proven otherwise reliable, so the condition of the trio at the time is a distinct possibility (although with Dylan and Richards you cannot often tell). I think the wiki-community should decide on the legitimacy of this info. (207.81.164.238 19:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

"Just give us the fucking money" was never said by Geldof, nor anyone else on the day - it's odd how this myth has grown and become indisputable fact. What Geldof did say to the BBC presenter (David Hepworth) was "I'm a banana.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.233.151.132 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It was used on a comedy programme with a caricature of Geldof at Live Aid saying "Just give us the fucking money" - it may have been his puppet on Spitting Image but it could have been on something else. The word 'fucking' may have been bleeped-out, but I distinctly remember the phrase.

He didn't say 'Just give us the fucking money.' What he did say was 'Fuck the address.' This was in response to a Tv announcer starting to give the Live Aid postal address where people could send their moeny. Geldof wanted people to ring up and pledge their money by phone. Hughenden (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In the section "notable absences," the first paragraph on Bruce Springsteen states "If he had appeared he would have been the only American artist on an otherwise UK-centric bill." When I last checked, Tom Petty and Madonna are American and did appear. I am sure the author meant something by that statement, but I am not sure what it was supposed to be. Smrj (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps they meant at the Wembley concert; none of the acts that played at Wembley were American. Swaddon1903 (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Text Restored

I restored the first part of the article without reference to any ongoing discussion. It appears that the text was removed by accident, although it may have been vandalism. Bear475 14:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

C$

I've read Canadians! gave more per capita than anybody... Captain Canuck 08:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (OK, I'm a bit biased...)

Ethiopia Border

What does that have to do with Live Aid? It would make more sense to have the DVD cover or the logo. WestJet 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin to Plant, Page, and Jones

I changed the name Led Zeppelin to Plant, Page, and Jones because they agreed not use that name after John Bonham's death in 1980. If anyone feels it should be changed back, it would be nice to discuss it. Thedefenceman 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

They are Led Zeppelin you cant get any more Zeppelin than that AND they preformed LZ songs so your gay.

Must we really devalue ourselves to using such an anarchonic term as 'gay' in the context of this argument? Could you not have mastered your hold of the english langauge to such a profitable extent in order to expouse some cerebral yet defeating argument? (154.5.194.215 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

Moreover, couldn't he have at least spelled "you're" correctly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.138.235.243 (talk) 21:07, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

More Led Zeppelin

The claim that Led Zeppelin felt Phil Collins hindered their performance in the "Memorable Moments at Wembley Stadium" section needs a citation. 74.77.208.52 15:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the scope of Live Aid performers and setlists section

Joan Baez is listed as having been introduced by Jack Nicholson. It would be of benefit if someone noted who introduced the other bands.--Ottre (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Money

Shouldn't the basic entry include some account of which organizations received the money, how much to each and for what specific purposes? I was looking to see if a particular charity benefited or not and was surprised to find no list (unless I missed it somewhere). Also, were the charities part of the organizing effort in any way? This seems to be an important part of the historical record that ought to be here. Omangj (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

'Soul Stage' at Wembley?

I vaguely remember that towards the end of the Wembley concert there was a 'soul stage'. Can anyone verify that? I remember thinking 'ah, so that's where the black performers are' at the time ;) Brightonjon (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reception

The viewing audience and the networks it aired on, along with the money raised should be noted.--Cooly123 01:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

heading for setlist section changed

This was a simple correction. The heading of the setlist for the Philadelphia concert was given as Veterans Stadium, which is wrong. I changed it to JFK Stadium. Elsquared (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing in: Aid money used by rebel groups to buy weapons

There is written only the BBC Version. Also Geldof said things after the reportage, this is important to add here. See news on google about what he said. --KurtR (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a short version, Geldof dismiss the things. See here. Would be nice if someone could extand this. Thanks. --KurtR (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

bbc retracted. i have edited to show this in great detail and removed a lot of the BBC material. imho it is very notable and interesting and important incident, ie the BBC doesnt go around apologizing every day,,, so i do not believe complete removal of this section is warranted. Decora (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The BBC has made many, many retractions throughout their history, as all good news sources do when they are challenged to correct an error. Please do a little research. The incident is neither notable, important, nor interesting. Any interest in retaining this material belongs in the BBC controversy and criticism articles below, if at all. Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the retracted claims in their entirety. There is no credence to these claims and they were propagated without any factual basis. The material belongs in our article on BBC controversies or in Criticism of the BBC, but not here. The way you've restored the material is erroneous, and it gives false credence to retracted claims. They do not belong here. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

i erased 95% of what i wrote, and i simply modified what other people wrote to be more precise. the article as it stood when you erased the entire section, had almost none of my writing in it. you should probably go after the guys who put 3 paragraphs on bill oreilly etc etc. now if you want to disuss the article fine, but dont say i wrote stuff that i didnt write, please. Decora (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize. Let's start over. Do you maintain that we need to add something about the BBC retraction? Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

look i think its important (see below) but you obviously dont, so just leave it as a tie and wait for someone else to come along and edit it instead. Decora (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we use the talk page to discuss it. You and I haven't discussed anything yet. If you think it is important, could you tell me why and which sources we should use to cover it? I don't see how or why it is important to this article, but would be interested in looking at your sources. We generally try to avoid WP:RECENTISM and go with what the sources say are important rather than asserting the importance of a subject based on our own editorial interpretations. All we know so far, is that the BBC retracted the story about Live Aid. Can you explain, in your own words, why we should we give credence to this story in this article, rather than in an article about charity group donations or the BBC? If a news outlet reports false information about the subject and then retracts it, we generally don't repeat that information (and the retraction) unless it is important in some way, such as being followed by a lawsuit or incident. I am open to compromise on covering this topic here, but you need to work with me and explain your view so I can best understand it. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

lol ok there was a bunch of redundant stuff in there, i tried to break it down and clean it up a little. oh well. the o'reilly section is still a mess imho Decora (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Retracted content not based on facts

Other critics have likewise argued that donations to charity organisations often end up being used by corrupt governments. Martin Plaut made a BBC report implying money had been taken by the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front for weapons., and that other NGOs were under the influence or control of the Derg military junta. Some journalists have suggested that the Derg was able to use Live Aid and Oxfam money to fund its enforced resettlement and "villagification" programmes, under which at least 3 million people are said to have been displaced and between 50,000 and 100,000 killed. These reports were later refuted by the Band Aid Trust and after a seven-month investigation, the BBC found it's reporting had been misleading regarding Band Aid's money and had also contained numerous errors of fact and misstatements of evidence:Following a complaint from the Band Aid Trust the BBC has investigated these statements and concluded that there was no evidence for them, and they should not have been broadcast. The BBC wishes to apologise unreservedly to the Band Aid Trust for the misleading and unfair impression which was created.

its pretty blatant fact that the BBC wrote a bunch of stories about this, and then they retracted the story, and other news outlets reported on this kerfuffle over the months of 2010, Just do a google search. Sudan Tribune, the Guardian, the Telegraph, Jimma Times, the Ethiopian Governent, Bob Geldof himself commented on it, everywhere except on wikipedia this is being talked about, harming the credibility of wikipedia as a NPOV source of facts about important topics. The article as it stands is completely POV by omission Decora (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. In fact, this subject, the misuse of donations from charity groups, is pretty much outside the scope of this article. It either belongs in one of two articles about BBC controversies and criticisms or in another article about donor groups and corrupt governments. The retracted claims about Live Aid were false and have no merit, and we should not be giving them credence here. Please remember, we are not a secondary source. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

no the subject is whether or not Live Aid money wound up buying guns for rebels, and Bob Geldof specifically addressed the topic, and so did the BBC stories, and so did the BBC apology, which was directed directly at Geldof and at Band Aid, the whole point of this mess is BBC not being a verifiable, reliable source, on the topic of Band Aid and Geldof. like i said i think this is a tie, im going to bow out of this article. Decora (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We are not in a position to cover the "point of this mess is BBC not being a verifiable, reliable source, on the topic of Band Aid and Geldof". That's way outside the scope here. The claims were retracted. Now, you feel that we should cover this retraction here, right? Why don't you give me an example of how you would do it? I'm not happy with the previous content. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the content would best go in Development_aid#Corruption. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Strike that, this isn't development. I think your edits to 1984–1985_famine_in_Ethiopia#Live_Aid were probably ideal, and I'll move the entire thing over there. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Content moved to 1984–1985_famine_in_Ethiopia#Aid_money_and_rebel_groups, which appears to be on-topic and relevant. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Origins

The section starts with "The concert was conceived as a follow-on to another Geldof/Gold,smith project, the successful charity single "Do They Know It's Christmas?"," yet there is nothing about the two of them working together on the "Do They Khow its Christmas" Project in any other article on Bob, Harvey, Midge, or the Charity single. This needs to be be changed. sherpajohn (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)