Talk:Leaving Beirut

I would suggest classifying this release as an EP and adding the appropriate infobox; changing the name to "To Kill the Child/Leaving Beirut" and fixing all links accordingly. 142.151.162.179 20:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now redirecting to "To Kill the Child/Leaving Beirut". BotleySmith 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much an EP as it is a single, with a B-Side. But, with current music distribution techniques, it's hard to describe what it really is. I'm pretty sure iTunes classifies it as a single, but I could be wrong. --Vazor20X6 20:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Also, was the editor you cited the actual author of the article or just an editor on the website? A name would be nice. --Vazor20X6 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

His name is David Bedein and here is a collection of his opinions. lots of proof that the neutrality of this article is now in doubt64.122.188.18 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC) (sorry, I was logged out)Snakespeare 21:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I re-read my edits seeking the neutral point of view and I may have gone a step or two the other way. I hope the original contributor will submit edits to my edits to balance it out. And I wonder if this topic is being given "undue weight".Snakespeare 23:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I continue to feel that the "anti-semitism" charge is being given undue weight here. The song has sparked several controversies. Perhaps a section on Waters and controversy on the main Roger Waters page is more appropriate, featuring this editorial among others. On close examination of the editorial, one can plainly see that the real issue disturbing the pundit is Waters' visit to Israel to scrawl "tear down the wall" and "we don't need no thought control" on the wall near Abu Dis. The exception he takes to a story about unsought kindness from a Lebanese couple (with its stated parallel with the Good Samaritan of the New Testament), and the "reaching" after threads of supposed evidence of anti-semitism such as the exclusion of Hitler from a short list of modern world leaders, are really just a cover for the real complaint, which is that he, the pundit, is angry at Waters for opposing the wall. In Waters rock opera, "The Wall", a fascist dictator filled with self-hate lashes out at the world around and especially at gays, Jews, and blacks. There is no doubt in anyone's minds all over the world that this is a condemnation of Adolf Hitler, Nazism, fascism, and above all racism. And the fact is that Waters stated objective is to encourage peace between the Arabs and the Jews. "I believe we need this generation of Israelis to tear down the walls and make peace with their neighbours," he said after scrawling his grafitti. Therefore, I believe this anti-semitism charge is entirely polemical and should not be allowed to continue to pollute the message of this song here. thanks Snakespeare 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. His support of a nation that lets its people routinely lob bombs into Israel must mean that he wants peace. How could I have been so stupid? Listen, there's ample evidence on both sides of this argument. Hence, we give both sides presence in the article. That's what NPOV is. --Vazor20X6 21:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That "no Hitler in the 'Fletcher Memorial Home' video" argument is pure bullocks - anyone can go to www.pinkfloyd.co.uk, watch the official video for the song and see Hitler prancing around with Thatcher and Napoleon etc. BotleySmith 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The video on the website (which portrays Hitler with whimsy rather than scorn) is not the same one he used as a backdrop during the tour. The backdrop at his shows did not have Hitler in it. I was there. It was a completely different video. I was waiting for Hitler to show up the whole time. He seemed like a logical inclusion. It's not that he supports Hitler; it's just that he doesn't give enough of a rats' ass about the Jews to include him. Same reason he's at all capable of sympathizing with Lebanon. --Vazor20X6 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is even more obvious now that the inclusion of a minor pundit with a personal axe to grind is given undue weight by a writer here who agrees with him. It seems abundantly clear to me that the intent of that paragraph in this article is solely to express a personal political opinion. It is true that the song is sparking some controversial rhetorical debate. I believe all discussion of that sort, including previously deleted material in this article, should be put into a special section detailing the controversies from an objective point of view. Snakespeare 16:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but the Hitler 'omission' isn't in any of the sources cited and is thus original research, anyway. Also, the Hezbollah comment is ill-timed, as their recent media coverage came long after the song's debut. BotleySmith 02:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I recorded it in Seattle. You can hear one person say, after the song, "Look all the Republicans are leaving." (Only about 6 people were walking down the aisle and they may have been going to the bathroom.) Followed by the response, "Yeah, that's why he's playing sheep." And the sound of sheep baa-ing can be heard from someone in the audience. So, in fact, there was more response to the possibility of a negative response than any actual negative response. There was no review in the Seattle Times. By the way, the article looks a lot better now.Snakespeare 20:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a review in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, but they only refered to Leaving Beirut as "...a gripping new solo song that, in keeping with the Floyd tradition, heavily criticizes the current political climate." Pink Floyd Alumnus...Snakespeare 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)