Talk:Hope for Haiti Now

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hope for Haiti Now article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Earthquakes Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Haiti Low‑importance

	Haiti portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Haiti, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Haiti-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HaitiWikipedia:WikiProject HaitiTemplate:WikiProject HaitiHaiti articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assessment???

Why is this "high" importance for earthquakes, USA, or TV? 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High for television because it is set to be the most widely seen telethon in the world to date. Probably earthquakes because it is an enormous telethon for earthquake relief. USA is less obvious; maybe that should be lowered. --Closeapple (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point for TV, but I don't see a case for earthquakes or USA being high. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speakers

Perhaps worth noting the appearances separate of performances or working phones, like Bill Clinton or Ben Stiller, if there is a list to be found. Grsz¹¹ 02:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen:

This is a great addition to the overall article, I was just thinking about this.--Cooly123 02:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

There is a preliminary list hidden in text comments in their proper spaces between the musical performances in the article. It needs to have some people identified and can become part of the visible list. --Closeapple (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accompanying Performers

Is there any documentation of the choirs who performed with Stevie Wonder and Madonna?

I think Robert Randolph accompanied Emeline Michel. -- Crnk Mnky 02:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1630177/20100121/story.jhtml The Ministry (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Needs to Be Protected...

...so the legions of Internet scumbags and racists cannot vandalize it. As we all knew, there are very few decent human beings left today. Protect this article.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hosted"

One did not come away with the sense that Wyclef Jean and George Clooney were hosts of the program in L.A. and N.Y., though clearly Anderson Cooper did host the Haiti segments. Should that be changed? Abrazame (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd add that the source referenced for the hosting sentence does not in fact support that data point. Abrazame (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Performances

Why is so much detail being given in the Perfomances section? There isn't that much detail in the Performance sections of the America: A Tribute to Heroes atciele and the 2005 Shelter from the Storm: A Concert for the Gulf Coast article. --Mjrmtg (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think because it happened to be provided here on the fly. Perhaps the others should have similar information. Actually, America: A Tribute to Heroes#Performers seems to be more detailed about its musical numbers than this article so far, despite having fewer references. --Closeapple (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if so much detail is necessary. Just because we can provide such detailed information, does it really contribute to the article in a positive way? (no offense to anyone's efforts) --Mjrmtg (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the subject of the specific celebrity speeches or reports is as useful, but I think knowing who contributed what is. Explaining why a non-celebrity spoke seems relevant also — for example, the woman who gave a speech about her almost adopted daughter being lost. Perhaps the celebrity ones can be reduced to just "speech" at some point. --Closeapple (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception/Ratings

Can a combinded ratings be added to the article and more american stations be added which broadedcasted the show.--Cooly123 17:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2010/01/tv-ratings-hope-for-haiti-watched-most-on-abc.html

TV Ratings: 'Hope for Haiti Now' watched most on ABC By Andrea Reiher
January 23, 2010 8:57 AM
Fast national ratings for Friday, Jan. 22.
Friday was an interesting night, ratings-wise, because every channel was broadcasting the exact same thing for two hours. Apparently, ABC was the best place to watch the telethon, except for one half-hour (9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m.) when NBC won.
The telethon, coupled with a relatively new "20/20," helped ABC win the night with an average of 5.2 million viewers, 3.4/6 households. ABC and NBC tied for the 18-49 demo with a 1.3 share.
Friday hour by hour:
8 p.m.
ABC: "Hope for Haiti" series premiere (4.5 million, 3.0/5) CBS: "Hope for Haiti" reruns (4.4 million, 2.9/5) NBC: "Hope for Haiti" (4.3 million, 2.9/5) FOX: "Hope for Haiti" (1.7 million viewers, 1.1/2 households) The CW: "Hope for Haiti" (947K, 0.6/1)
18-49 leader: "Hope for Haiti," NBC (1.2)
9 p.m.
ABC: "Hope for Haiti" (4.7 million, 3.0/5) NBC: "Hope for Haiti" (4.6 million, 2.9/5) CBS: "Hope for Haiti" (4.1 million, 2.6/5) FOX: "Hope for Haiti" (1.7 million, 1.1/2) The CW: "Hope for Haiti" (761K, 0.5/1)
18-49 leader: "Hope for Haiti," NBC (1.3)
10 p.m.
ABC: "20/20" (6.3 million, 4.2/7) NBC: "Dateline" (4.9 million, 3.2/6) CBS: "Medium" rerun (4.0 million, 2.7/5)
18-49 leader: "20/20" (1.5)
By the way, if you are still interested in donating to the Haiti relief fund, visit www.hopeforhaitinow.org.
Ratings information includes live and same-day DVR viewing. All numbers are preliminary and subject to change. Source: The Nielsen Company.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny — I seem to have had the same idea: I started with ABC then switched to NBC halfway through because I was planning to watch the last Conan. NBC affiliates wanted a big lead-in for Conan? I guess they got it on the last day. --Closeapple (talk)

Comparison

Cmon be honest people.. this is a huge failure, so put something about that on the page. this world wide show only raised 57 million.. The Netherlands did a show for haiti and raised $117.87 million and you know how small the Netherlands is?

So Wikipedia is about facts or propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.175.23 (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol just now CNN reports that its a new historic record for how mutch they raised... the propaganda... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.175.23 (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to do my own fact-checking, since you didn't provide a source with your snide comments. The Netherlands program was 24 hours long, between radio and television, and raised 58 billion (the rest was from the government). Grsz¹¹ 06:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope for Haiti is a failure, so the page should tell you that.. or else its just like the rest of the propaganda out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.175.23 (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that it's a failure, or are you out for some anti-US propaganda of your own? We do have sources saying a record amount was raised, and no matter how you look at it (without some kind of twisted nationalistic POV in this case) raising any amount is a success. So, unless you have legitimate comments about the article, this page is not for general discussion. Grsz¹¹ 06:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much was raised? / Bias & Neutrality

Has everyone forgotten what this whole event is for??? We've got lists of celebrities, media outlets that covered it, speakers, celebrity phone operators, etc, etc. But no where does it give a tally of how much they have raised thus far! This is what it's all about, raising money to help re-build a country! It's not about celebrity or media or the event itself, it's about Haiti! Can we please iron out the bias in this article! Nick carson (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to source a few totals from Canada, the United States is "still counting" and has not provided any tallies (what the hell?). I've also included a criticisms section as there are a fair few running around the net and word of mouth. Nick carson (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you've countered you're own point. We can't be expected to produce a number overnight, especially when the website is still active. Grsz¹¹ 23:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And "around the net and word of mouth" are certainly not reliable sources. I have removed that section because it has no sources, and a few posts on message boards and the like are unenyclopedic. Grsz¹¹ 00:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that the Good Friday Appeal, held in Victoria, Australia, annually since 1931, raises over $10 million every year ($13.8 million in 2009). This is just for one hospital, not an entire country, and draws from a population of merely 5 million, as opposed to the 300 million that live in the United States. Despite these facts, the Good Friday Appeal is not widely publicised around the world in patriotic fashion, it's not about publicity, it's about raising money for a hospital. They are also able to offer running tallies! I live in Australia and there has been massive criticism of 'Hope for Haiti', such criticism is well founded, especially when you consider that a large portion of the donations came from a handful of wealthy celebrities.

I am under the impression that WP policies regarding verifiability and reliable sources are in need of amendment and despite such, are always open to questioning and suggestion. I am positive there are many sources that stand up to current WP policy, which I can use to cite my contributions if I had the time (I am only one person in a sea of nationalist partiotism) but I get the feeling this article is presented in a biased manner and such criticisms of the 'Hope for Haiti' fund raising is frowned upon, even within the WP community.

Swallow your pride and face up to the realities that the fundraiser has raised more in publicity and advertising for United States entities and individuals than it did for the victims of Haiti. The Black Saturday bushfires killed a mere 173 people and yet 22 million Australians were able to muster over $370 million! Present the article's subject matter in a neutral point of view and cite those sources that are out there. The bias within the article as it stands is totally pathetic.

Contribution from other editors to the discussion please! Nick carson (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, hello, I remember editing with you briefly on the oil spill article. I have reverted your edit pending further details. There are several reasons. Most importantly are two factors. 1.) The $58 million figure was for a single evening of donations based on a single, two-hour televised concert event. This is not about the Haiti disaster in general, nor is it about Americans, as this was a worldwide event. The people of the world had been donating to a myriad of sources for several days prior, and have continued to donate to a myriad of sources in the several days since. They have also continued to donate to this particular source since, and those figures are not yet computed. 2.) The $58 million figure does not include corporate or government donations. Again, there are several governmental and non-governmental organizations that have been raising money for this disaster, and indeed there were Haitian charities predating the earthquake.

There are several other lesser and/or related issues. For one, we're talking U.S. dollars, which are still as of this writing worth more than Aussie bucks. ;) More importantly, before we compare figures, there is nothing that says or implies that the figures you note as being donated to any other annual event does not include money raised and/or set aside on behalf of that charity all year long. To your side point, do you have any source that a large portion of these donations came from a handful of wealthy celebrities? (And what would be the problem with that? It sounds like more of a blessing than a curse.) Again, when we see that X or Y celebrity has donated N amount, much of that news predated this particular concert and may have gone to any one or several of a number of charities.

For yourself or interested editors that have not read the reference, the figure—posted less than 22 hours after the show's first airing ended and probably sourced to a figure given earlier than that posting—reads:

"As donations continue to pour in from around the world, "Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief" announced on Saturday (January 23) that it has raised more than $58 million to date — a new record for donations made by the general public through a disaster-relief telethon. The preliminary figure includes donations made via phone, online and mobile, and does does not include donations by corporations and large private donors, or iTunes sales figures, all of which are still being calculated"

Given the time frame, then obviously this is not only an incomplete figure, it's a figure from less than a single day. Additionally, it's not a figure of what the world in general or Americans in particular donated for Haitian relief efforts in that particular day. Please remember your initial point — what this event, and this article, is really for. If we are going to counter the factuality of the referenced record—much less attribute reasons like pride or patriotism—we need a thoroughly specific reference that satisfies all the factors/data points I've raised before we can place it into the article. Abrazame (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Given that user's location, it is evident the additional was merely a POV attempt. We have sources that say how much was raised, and that it was a record. Let whatever twisted nationalistic pride you're trying to get out of this go. Grsz¹¹ 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was reading my copy of TV Guide. I turned to a page. It surprised me to learn that $66 million was raised by Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief. Now that updated information should be edited into the article about the above event.24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article- SOS Help for Haiti

There was a special on BET SOS Help for Haiti which was a concert in similar style to Hope for Haiti. It should have a seperate page and be linked into the box for the 2010 Haiti quakes.--Cooly123 16:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

There is still nothing about this.--Cooly123 01:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.hopeforhaitinow.org/FAQ.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050417042033/http://www.irma.ie/aucharts.asp to http://www.irma.ie/aucharts.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721070100/http://norwegiancharts.com/ to http://norwegiancharts.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hope for Haiti Now. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]