Talk:Make Some Noise (campaign)

POV Article[edit]

This article is totally POV. It is totally taken from some press release by Amnesty. Just a few sentences:

It is a mix of music, celebration and action, designed to engage a new generation in Amnesty International’s human rights work
Make Some Noise and Amnesty International are harnessing the power of music to stand up for human rights
As a solo artist, John Lennon’s unique talent and passionate campaign for world peace made him one of the most influential activists the world has ever seen
Make Some Noise is here to make a positive impact on our world and collectively raise our voices to make as much noise as we can for human rights
The Make Some Noise campaign is literally asking people to make some noise in any way they feel comfortable, in support of human rights. It is about making noise on behalf of individuals that have been silenced through injustice and making enough noise so that all those fighting against injustice and inequality know that we are on their side. It is about letting those who oppose individual liberties know that we shall not be silenced and will continue to speak out for human rights.

--87.18.185.91 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? This is the most POV article I have ever seen. It needs to be revamped immediately!

I have rephrased. As much as I value the cause of AI, this wording in utterly unacceptable, and might even by a copyvio. Rama 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the name of the single purpose account that started the article I think it's more likely that they wrote this too ;) --kingboyk 19:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading?[edit]

This article would have us believe that Ono has donated the "recording rights" to many famous Lennon compositions to Amnesty International. I find this very hard to believe for multiple reasons (e.g.: AFAIK she cares for Lennon's estate in trust, with Julian and Sean being ultimate beneficiaries; such a charitable gesture would have made massive news and I would have heard more about it by now). I imagine, then, that what the article should be saying is that she allowed the charity to use these compositions without paying any publishing royalty. That is very very different to the impression we are giving (that she gave the songs away!). I haven't changed anything as I don't know for sure what the case is (although I am looking into it).

I also echo the above comment about neutrality. --kingboyk 19:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]