Talk:We Are the World 25 for Haiti/Archive 1

Other artists

Regarding "Soloists (in order of appearance)". It appears incorrect.

An Asian looking girl singing "we are the world" appears after Fergie but before Nick Jonas.

I am unable to recognize her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.238.151 (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was Nicole Scherzinger of the Pussycat Dolls. She appears earlier with Jennifer Hudson and then shows up several more times. Ducold (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also a skinny male appearing between T-Pain and LL Cool J, sort of Snoop Dogg looking. He is does not seem mentioned either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.238.151 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The guy who sounded like Ray Charles and standing beside Jennifer Hudson? If so, that was Jamie Foxx. Ducold (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Notations on individual artists' pages?

I am curious as to the best way to handle charting and digital sales information for this song on the discography pages of the individual artists who participated. What is the Wiki consensus on this kind of thing when it comes to charity singles? Is it not noted at all, the song just noted in a Misc or Charity section, or is the charting information included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducold (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Usually on the artists discography pages it's listed under "Guest singles" and/or "other charted songs". "We are the World 25 for Haiti" would, presumably, be listed as a "charity single" or "non-album single" and credited on the artist(s) discography page as "Artist for Haiit" (I've created an example below)

Guest singles

Year	Single	Artist(s)	Peak chart positions	Album
			NZ
2010	"We Are the World 25 for Haiti"	Artist for Haiti	17	non-album single

This is how the chart should be formated. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty ridiculous to include charity singles at all in an artist's discography listing. These are not collaborations or songs on which someone is "featured" - they are usually recorded by large groups of artists coming together under a specific name (Band Aid, USA for Africa, Help for Haiti, etc.)... Mentioning in the artist's main page, "so-and-so participated in USA for Africa" is one thing, but it is totally not needed in their regular singles listing. I think people just want to pad the totals of their favorite artists rather than using common sense... are we supposed to add a "Guest singles" table to Dan Akroyd, Vince Vaughn or all of the individual members of the Jackson family? Come on. - eo (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you do not like the way discography pages are regularly formatted, I think you should leave your opinion/suggestion on its talk page. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 04:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not about formatting, I have no problem with that. My issue is with the inclusion of charity singles, as if it was a part of the artist's discography. - eo (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing names from the chorus list

{{editsemiprotected}} Chris Brown appears in the video at 4:38 in the very back row behind Katharine McPhee. Just thought he should be added to the chorus. Also, Tyrese Beckford and Keri Hilson are there too in the same spot if they already aren't on the list.

The lists from the foundations press releases pertaining to the artist involved in the song do not show Chris Brown had any involvement in the song or music video. I checked the longer version of music video, I think you confused Brown with Trey Songz or Iyaz, and Tyrese and Keri Hilson are included in the musician credits in the chorus section. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my changes at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=We_Are_the_World_25_for_Haiti&diff=344554953&oldid=344543572 : First of all, Crystal Clear x3, you are doing an excellent job of keeping watch over this page. Keep up the good work! I added "Il Trio" and "Plain Pat" because their names were credited just like all the other artists in the chorus in the video that I referenced (the long version on Hulu). Googling "Plain Pat" seems to return a number of references to a music producer. I know that Googling "Il Trio" doesn't seem to return much of anything useful, but still, they were listed in the credits, and I am kind of wondering if they are the three kids on the back left-hand side. There are three kind of dorky looking guys, one behind Jamie Foxx, and the other two next to the Wilson Sisters (not Josh Groban, but the other side of them). I was Googling the names listed so far to try to figure how who they might be, but nobody seemed to match their image. Could they be the mysterious "Il Trio"? I'm not sure, but it's also necessary to keep in mind that not having a Wikipedia presence doesn't make somebody unreal or some fact untrue. For the sake of full disclosure, a "Keith Harris" was also credited in the video, and I added him in, and he has a Wikipedia presence, but as a British ventriloquist, so it's highly probably that it's really another Keith Harris who doesn't yet have Wikipedia presence either.OmarGosh (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've de-linked Keith Harris - I would have bet he was not there, and I fail to see him in the video (or his puppet - a large green duck).  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The request to add names appears to be controversial at best, so I'm deactivating the request template without making any edits. If a consensus develops later to add these names, any auto-confirmed user is welcome to make the edit. --RL0919 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Navigation boxes

I added the navigation boxes at the bottom of the page for all conductors and soloists who have their own individual naviboxes. I wanted other opinions as to whether navigation boxes for artists featured in the chorus should be added or not. Any thoughts? --Spence The Chef (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This article makes excessive use of navboxes. According to WP:CLN, "all the articles in a template should substantially deal with the subject of the box. Ask yourself, is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in it? If the answer is "no", a category or list is probably more appropriate." That guideline also lists eight disadvantages of templates, four of which apply in this case:

• Take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related
• Include the full list of links in every article, even though often many of the links are not useful in some of the articles.
• Due to size, the use of multiple templates may take up too much space on one article, which could lead to a POV-tainted choice as to which to include.
• Sometimes do not give the reader enough clues as to which links are most relevant or important.

I'd like to suggest that we follow guidelines and remove all these artist-specific navboxes. Categories could be added for those artists that have them. Thanks. 67.101.7.65 (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's put it another way: can anyone make a case for not removing the artist navboxes? 67.101.6.174 (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The artist navigation boxes should be kept because they are notable. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTE begins with what is meant by "notability": "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." In other words, topics are notable, not navigation boxes. Navigation boxes, like categories, are one way of moving from article to article. The case being made above is that there are at least four reasons in the WP:CLN guideline that argue against using artist navigation boxes in this case. Thanks. 67.101.7.149 (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Artist-specific navoboxes removed for reasons discussed above. 67.101.6.203 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I think it needs to be emphasized for this article that words and phrases like "abomination", "unholy piece of garbage", "pathetic, self-important attempt to usurp", and "why, dear god, why", among others, do not generally conform to wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point of view in its articles. - Gwopy 05:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

I just looked at this version of the article and did not find anything that you claimed was in the article. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 09:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Somos El Mundo

A spanish version of the song "We Are The World" was released today. It follows the same premise as the english language version, with famous Latin American artists. A section should be added about this song, or it should at least be mentioned. You can find more information [ http://www.billboard.com/column/viralvideos/somos-el-mundo-video-premieres-stars-pitbull-1004071970.story#/column/viralvideos/somos-el-mundo-video-premieres-stars-pitbull-1004071970.story here] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.214.120 (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You could add a line or two and cite it. Somos El Mundo has its own article.--Morenooso (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

It says he wrote it but...he is dead

He wrote the original song which is correct. The Spanish version is a translation. This is the equivalent of watching a play by Tennessee Williams. Just because he is dead doesn't mean he didn't write the play.--Morenooso (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SNL Parody

Should be a note somewhere mentioning the recent SNL parody of the song.

It would need to be citeable by reliable sources and then meaningful add to this article.--Morenooso (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User Crystal Clear xx says there is consensus regarding the SNL parody, and that this information is "irrelevant", no matter if the source is reliable. Where is the consensus, by the way? --Boutros Boutros Boutros (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

YouTube Version

What about the youtube version singing by "youtube artists" [1]. Can it be mentionned in this article ? Noritaka666 (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Noritaka666, I agree: the YouTube version has attained substantial notability (appearing on CNN, and on ABC World News where Diane Sawyer named the YouTube participants "Persons of the Week"). I've put a link at the very top of the present (celebrity) article, but I'm having trouble finding a "good place" in the existing version of this celebrity article, to mention the YouTube version--maybe at the end of the "Release, reception, and promotion" section? I ask other editors to weigh in with their opinions and ideas! RCraig09 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a one-paragraph description of the YouTube video response, which I add not for competition, but because of its notability despite (and because of) its non-celebrity roots. I hope Wikipedia editors do not unfairly look down on a given YouTube video because of YouTube's "othercrap". Further discussion welcome. RCraig09 (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed part of the information about the cover because it's sourced by Youtube accounts, a CNN link that redirects to the CNN homepage for videos, etc. The cover deserves to be mention because it got a good amount of media coverage, but it does not need to be detailed, and if ever was to be detailed, it would need reliable sources. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 10:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• I understand what you (Crystal Clear x3) are saying, but there are a few subtler issues about about (A) source reliability, and about (B) the YouTube version itself, that you need to understand, especially before making such broad deletions. RCraig09 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(A) The reliability of a source inherently depends on what it is being sourced for. Here, I sourced CNN and ABC World News features (and the YouTube videos presenting those features) as direct proof of the the YouTube video's notability, so those references (yes, even YouTube videos) are inherently reliable for the purposes they are cited under these circumstances. And there shouldn't be any reliability issues with what you call "a CNN link that redirects to the CNN homepage for videos" especially when Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable." If you have specific reasons you think the references in my earlier paragraph are unreliable under these circumstances, please express your careful reasoning below this paragraph. RCraig09 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(B) I fully appreciate your edit summary's comment that "This article is about WATW25 not a youtube cover". But I cited the YouTube version under the "reception and response" section--with the specific relevant comparative issues of: (1) non-celebrity creation ("We are the world too"), and its critical success, (2) exclusion of the rap segment, (3) non-use of Auto-tune, and (4) "video response" and "favorite" relationship of the Celeb and YT-Collab videos on the YouTube website. All these issues are properly included here as relevant comparisons and responses to this celebrity version, and are of relevant analytical interest here, but you have deleted them and left a bare description that doesn't even reflect the relation of the celebrity and YouTube collab versions. Furthermore, just as this 2010 Celebrity remake version has its own section in the 1985 original's article, the YouTube collaboration has earned enough notability to constitute a single paragraph's analysis here. I think my earlier paragraph should be re-introduced, but I welcome carefully reasoned discussion here first. RCraig09 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. --Morenooso (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Pertaining to the Youtube cover, the article states "February 20, 2010, eight days after the Artists for Haiti 2010 celebrity remake was released, a non-celebrity "video response" to the song's official YouTube video was posted by Internet personality and singer-songwriter Lisa Lavie as a collaboration of 57 unsigned or independent YouTube musicians geographically distributed around the world. Lavie's non-celebrity Haiti charity video received repeated coverage on CNN." - that's all the article needs to state about the cover. The reason why I removed info sourced by the CNN link was because the link was a redirect link; it brought me to the news homepage for videos. Another reason the information was removed (the main reason was for lack of notability) was because nearly all the reference were from Youtube, which is a self published source, regardless of whether of not its from the artists official account. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 19:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Crystal Clear x3. It's "crystal clear" that you're making a good faith attempt to improve this article. I have rewritten my contribution to eliminate some footnotes (including all YouTube links) while re-introducing the above items (1) through (4) that (very importantly) express the relation of the two songs/videos. However, I want to point out several important general principles that you're still missing. Notability "does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." Notability "determines whether a topic merits its own article" and "do(es) not directly limit the content of articles" (see Wikipedia:Notability). Also, even "self-published" sources (such as YouTube pages) can be 100% reliable if, as here, they are verifiable (that's what I was talking about before, in paragraph (A) above--Example: where a YouTube video is cited for its showing a CNN feature). Also, the first half of your paragraph repeats your own write-up and says that's all the article "needs" to state, which makes it sound like you don't know the difference between your personal conclusion versus objective reasoning--and that can be a sign of an ownership attitude that no one should have, especially if you've put yourself in the above template that says you're "actively involved with this article, and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources". That template makes others think you've mastered or are at least extremely familiar with the details of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I hope you take the time to really study those policy pages, especially the various content criteria. By the way, the CNN links were not and are not redirect links (you can tell because the URL doesn't change to any general "news homepage"--you may have been fooled by the CNN logo at the top or the commercial that shows before the video itself starts playing). P.S. I divided the section so that similar concepts are in the same section, different concepts ("release" vs. "response") in different sections. Also I inserted some paragraph breaks so they're easier to read. RCraig09 (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well now that you've added the information with reliable sources, the info can stay in WATW25. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 11:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How Much it Raised.

anyone having source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.24.49 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

User:Boutros Boutros Boutros wants unneeded, trivial and unsoured information added to the article. Me, and another editor, told them the information should not be in the article, so the editor re-added the information saying "even if you don't like it...". Soon after, they began edit warring and re-adding the information without providing any actual reason for the information to be in the article. Honestly, I'm sick of being harassed by this editor on an all most daily basis, so I've brought this conflict to the article's talk page so other editors can weight in on the issue of whether unneeded, trivial and unsourced information should be included in a article that is of Good Article status. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 19:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please Crystal, be civil. I didn't know that two editors meant consensus. Stop ad-hominem attacks and try real arguments for a change. A SNL spoof is a good signal of how this remake badly misfired. I put it in the adequate section. It is not trivial or unneeded; on the contrary, it gives a good perspective of the public's reaction. --Boutros Boutros Boutros (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? You were the one not being civil towards me. I left a message on your talk page simply saying if you continued to edit war then you would be blocked from editing. Then you replied on my talk page making false accusations and insulting me. You are the one who needs try real arguments and stop making the ad-hominem attacks on my talk page. Crystal Clear x3 21:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this as far as I can see. Let's put it this way: serious info about Somos El Mundo used to be in this article and vice-versa. Somos El Mundo concerns the same relief effort but in Spanish, is reliably sourced but yet got editted out for some unknown reason. Maybe it was because Somos El Mundo has its own article but yet We Are the World 25 for Haiti exists within it. If the rationale is the same, then the parody belongs in the SNL article but *only* if it is verifiable through reliable sources. The SNL pardody does not belong here and would not contribute to understanding this article. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is no consensus on this. But I don't understand why on earth the parody belongs to the SNL article. It belongs here, and it *would* contribute to understand the negative reaction the song received. The SNL parody --for those who actually has seen it-- is an excellent example of the reaction to a completely miscalculated endeavor, like this song.

Regarding Crystal, it wasn't me who made a block threat in the first place, and that is something very serious in a website like this. Besides, you deleted the information based on an alleged consensus, and that, my friend, is a glaringly conspicuous lie. And I never SHOUT like you. --Boutros Boutros Boutros (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You were editing warring and not giving a reason for why the information should have been in the article, which could, and usually would, result in a blocking. Also, do not put words in my mouth, I never said it was agreed on that the information be removed, I said that another editor had also removed the information for a similar reason to mine, hence I never said a "conspicuous lie". To be completely honest, I no longer want to continue this conversation with you. Crystal Clear x3 03:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

But you *did* delete the information, and without giving solid reasons. Then you put this "note" on the page: Please do not add information that pertains to the SNL parody, because the information, regardless of whether or not it has reliable sources that are not gossip blogs or self published sources, is trivial and unneeded. As a note to editors, this information has been repeatedly added against consensus, so if an editor were to ignore this message and re-add the information it would be considered edit-warring which could result in being blocked from editing.

See? For some reason, you don't want the bit about SNL. You wrote that it was added against consensus, which is a lie. Then you warn about a possible block for anyone who would dare to contradict you. Who on earth do you think you are? Again, here you haven't given a single argument, only adjectives, which do not substitute debate. I have no choice but to delete that warning and put the information back, with a reliable source, of course. Good day, --Boutros Boutros Boutros (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I found these links. I would like your opinions because I don't like to act arbitrarily.

• http://www.rollingstone.com/music/rsstaffblog/%3Bkw=%5Bblogs,rsstaffblogpost_2013,116865,98169%5D
• http://www.newsgates.com/celebrity-latest-newswe-are-the-world%E2%80%9D-on-saturday-night-life-center-on-jennifer-lopez/
• http://mygloss.com/buzz/2010/02/28/jennifer-lopez-snl-funny-we-are-the-world/
• http://www.cliqueclack.com/tv/2010/02/28/saturday-night-live-jennifer-lopez/

--Boutros Boutros Boutros (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No opinions here. --Boutros Boutros Boutros (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)