Talk:To Kill the Child/Leaving Beirut
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] "reliable sources"
Since when are left-wing tabloid op-eds considered better, more reliable sources for information on the reasoning behind concert cancellations than the concert promoter himself? If it's unfair to say that Yemini misquoted Waters then it's equally unfair to dismiss a primary source out of hand just because it contradicts the published opinion of a clearly biased individual. BotleySmith 00:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Where does it contradict what Yemini said? IronDuke 02:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yemini:
- Waters demonstrated against Israel, canceling his appearance here [in Tel Aviv]. His Majesty agreed to hold it only on condition that it take place in a "politically correct" location, only on condition that the show become a demonstration "against 'the Wall'."
- He specifically cites the cancellation as a protest against Israel. Turns out the over-excited 'journalist' didn't check his facts:
- One of the dates we considered was Israel’s 40th anniversary. And, for more than ten years [my emphasis] we have been talking about Neve Shalom as the location. [...] This was the original plan when we talked about the concert [in 2005]. But we thought it would be in 2007. Then, in January [2006] he decided to do a short tour this year instead, and said he could come to Israel in June. The problem was, the fields around Neve Shalom had already been planted, and it didn’t seem practical to do it there at such short notice, so we decided on Hayarkon Park [in Tel Aviv]. Instead of doing the performance in Neve Shalom, he said he would just give his press conference there. Then he looked at the matter more deeply and decided to move the concert to Neve Shalom after all.
- This is from Weiss, as quoted by Shippin. BotleySmith 15:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, Botley. I think the phrase "looked at the matter more deeply" is a clue as to what's going on, no? But if you read further in the interview, he says, "Many artists talk a lot about human rights issues - but when it comes to their wallet, they aren’t willing to give a penny. Waters isn’t a talker - he’s a doer - he doesn’t even intend to do interviews while in Israel." His political stance is clear. IronDuke 16:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- So we are to present, in this encyclopedia, the claim that his concert was a covert "demonstration against Israel"? All that Waters said during the concert was that Israelis should tear down the wall and make peace with their neighbours. He never called anything a "vestige of apartheid", as Bedein claims. Bedein misquoted the open letter to Waters from Palestinian artists in attributing that comment to him. Why should Bedein's interpretation (a charge of racism, against a man who single-handedly sponsored an entire impoverished village, no less) be given in this article without noting his bias? Furthermore, why must we put in block quotes the opinion of one tabloid journalist? It smacks of undue weight, particularly in an article on this subject. BotleySmith 18:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you can find someone saying Yemeni lied about Waters, please add it. Otherwise, it violates WP:OR. Remember, WP is not about truth, it's about verifiability. I don't see undue weight, when the reason this album is notable is the controversy it created. IronDuke 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- No real controversy emerged until the Neve Shalom performance, and even then it had little to do with the song "Leaving Beirut". The block-quote is a total non-sequitur in this article, coming as it does from Yemini, who does not even mention the song in question. As for the 'apartheid' comment, which is the source of Bedein's (not Yemini's) charge of racism (explicitly derived from "as if Israel was building a fence for racial reasons"), this concert review and plenty of others mention no "demonstration against Israel" but only Waters' plea to the crowd, never mentioning any "apartheid" comments. That is just one example of many. Surely we shouldn't have to stack dozens upon dozens of cited reviews that neglect to mention this supposed anti-Israeli comment against the only voice that claims Waters made it? BotleySmith 22:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree that it's a non-sequitur, I think it's part of the controversy, a big part. Please don't misunderstand me: you may well be right that Yemini misattributes a comment about aparthid and Israel to Waters. I have no trouble believing that. But in order to follow WP rules, what you'd need is a good source saying "Yemini blew it, Waters said no such thing." The reviews that "neglect to mention" any comments RW may or may not have made is not in and of itself evidence against, merely a lack of positive evidence for. See what I'm saying? IronDuke 23:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely; however, I don't feel the block-quote is necessary for the inclusion of a minority viewpoint drawn on questionable (at best) assertions. It needs some qualification to be NPOV. BotleySmith 23:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- If the block quote truly bothers you, you could change the format. As for NPOV, what we'd need is a balancing quote. Do you know of one? IronDuke 23:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I did change the format: I converted it into more encyclopedic prose. I also removed a spelling mistake and took out red links. Then, you reverted the page to your two week-old edit on the pretense that it was 'clearer and had more info'. I suppose it is clearer to preserve that typographical error, and more informative to retain red links (not to mention unverified text: I couldn't find a source that said the Jones Beach audience showed a predominantly 'negative reaction')? It's going to be hard to get this page towards a consensus if you keep automatically reverting it to your old edit. If you'd actually take the effort to fix that which you found objectionable, rather than immediately take out everything I try to put in, we wouldn't have this problem. BotleySmith 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- If the block quote truly bothers you, you could change the format. As for NPOV, what we'd need is a balancing quote. Do you know of one? IronDuke 23:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely; however, I don't feel the block-quote is necessary for the inclusion of a minority viewpoint drawn on questionable (at best) assertions. It needs some qualification to be NPOV. BotleySmith 23:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree that it's a non-sequitur, I think it's part of the controversy, a big part. Please don't misunderstand me: you may well be right that Yemini misattributes a comment about aparthid and Israel to Waters. I have no trouble believing that. But in order to follow WP rules, what you'd need is a good source saying "Yemini blew it, Waters said no such thing." The reviews that "neglect to mention" any comments RW may or may not have made is not in and of itself evidence against, merely a lack of positive evidence for. See what I'm saying? IronDuke 23:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- No real controversy emerged until the Neve Shalom performance, and even then it had little to do with the song "Leaving Beirut". The block-quote is a total non-sequitur in this article, coming as it does from Yemini, who does not even mention the song in question. As for the 'apartheid' comment, which is the source of Bedein's (not Yemini's) charge of racism (explicitly derived from "as if Israel was building a fence for racial reasons"), this concert review and plenty of others mention no "demonstration against Israel" but only Waters' plea to the crowd, never mentioning any "apartheid" comments. That is just one example of many. Surely we shouldn't have to stack dozens upon dozens of cited reviews that neglect to mention this supposed anti-Israeli comment against the only voice that claims Waters made it? BotleySmith 22:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you can find someone saying Yemeni lied about Waters, please add it. Otherwise, it violates WP:OR. Remember, WP is not about truth, it's about verifiability. I don't see undue weight, when the reason this album is notable is the controversy it created. IronDuke 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- So we are to present, in this encyclopedia, the claim that his concert was a covert "demonstration against Israel"? All that Waters said during the concert was that Israelis should tear down the wall and make peace with their neighbours. He never called anything a "vestige of apartheid", as Bedein claims. Bedein misquoted the open letter to Waters from Palestinian artists in attributing that comment to him. Why should Bedein's interpretation (a charge of racism, against a man who single-handedly sponsored an entire impoverished village, no less) be given in this article without noting his bias? Furthermore, why must we put in block quotes the opinion of one tabloid journalist? It smacks of undue weight, particularly in an article on this subject. BotleySmith 18:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, Botley. I think the phrase "looked at the matter more deeply" is a clue as to what's going on, no? But if you read further in the interview, he says, "Many artists talk a lot about human rights issues - but when it comes to their wallet, they aren’t willing to give a penny. Waters isn’t a talker - he’s a doer - he doesn’t even intend to do interviews while in Israel." His political stance is clear. IronDuke 16:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yemini:
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:KillTheChildBeirut.jpg
Image:KillTheChildBeirut.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Now resolved. BotleySmith (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
