Jump to content

Talk:Roger Waters/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Anti-Semitism

This guy has been accused of it quite a few times. Should add "controversies" to the article instead of just "political views". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.56.225.210 (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The latest controversy with Bon Jovi shows that this issue is ongoing with Mr. Waters. At the very least, the section should be titled "Accusations of anti-Semitism."--Scaleshombre (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with both users above. It's a well-sourced fact that Walters has been accused of anti-semitism. It has happened several times, by several high-profile individuals, and it is covered WP:RS reliable sources. Removing it looks very much like censorship. Of course we cannot and shouldn't say he is an snti-semite, and we don't. We use established sources to say that the accusations are frequent, as they are. Jeppiz (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the concept of undue weight? The addition of a wall of text citing those who are paid to be offended is a WP:BLP issue as well. It's clear he's no fan of Israel, but that doesn't mean he's an anti-Semite and nor does it mean we include such contentious claims. Calidum 00:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
We don't make that claim, we report that others have made it, which is how Wikipedia works. And an issue for which a person is frequently in the news is certainly not undue in an article about that person. Jeppiz (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
It's UNDUE. Really, there is too much in the BLP as it is. Adding more isn't due weight or neutral. Dave Dial (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
"Frequently in the news?" I see four incidents over the course of a 50-year career, attributed to a handful of reliable sources (Jerusalem, Rolling Stone and Salon). I also don't think it's appropriate to use a shock jock as a source of criticism. Calidum 00:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
This seems to boil down to, is it undue weight? Given the number of reliable sources who have raised this topic, it's a legitimate issue that has a place in Waters' Wikipedia entry. Questions of anti-semitism (or at least the appearance of it) have become an essential consideration by mainstream media in regards to his activism. The new controversy with Bon Jovi and Howard Stern are but the latest indication. Is it alright to reinstate my initial edit?--Scaleshombre (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I also have a hard time seeing how it would be undue and have to ask if some users are not confusing 'undue' with 'I don't like it'. I see Waters in the new more often in relation to anti-semitism than to music these days. That a topic is uncomfortable does not make it undue. (And a bit concerned about the users who just keep reverting without bothering to discuss). Jeppiz (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
There have been almost no accusations of antisemitism, when you are taking his whole life and the accumulation of reliably sourced material about Waters into account. Add that to the fact that the ADL has stated that Waters is not anti-Semitic(although they wish he wouldn't use the Star of David to represent Israel), the material that is already in the article(without the AS heading) is more than enough. Dave Dial (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
"the fact that the ADL has stated that Waters is not anti-Semitic"? I'm seeing ADL sadly concludes that Roger Waters is an anti-Semite (Times of Israel) and Your Animosity Towards Israel Colored by Anti-Semitism (Open letter to Roger Waters, ADL press release) zzz (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I was going by the source that was in the accusations in the article, in which the ADL stated in late July 2013

The Anti-Defamation League said that Waters has a long history using these symbols in his concerts. “While we wish that Mr. Waters would have avoided using the Star of David, we believe there is no anti-Semitic intent here,” an ADL spokesman said.

If someone wants to create a better section that isn't so one-sided, I am open to considering it. But still, this is a BLP, and there is nothing I've read so far that doesn't fall into Waters being critical of Israeli policies, and not Jewish people in general. Dave Dial (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Dave Dial, that newspaper quote/misquote is from July 2013, whereas the ADL press release "ADL Open Letter to Roger Waters - Your Animosity Towards Israel Colored by Anti-Semitism" is from August 2013. zzz (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC) At the moment you have no mention whatsoever of the 2013 ADL press release linked above, but masses of space devoted to Waters protesting his non-antisemitism, eg we learn that:

Waters explained that his father had died fighting Nazis and that he grew up in post-war England...

It is a whitewash, which is not the purpose of BLP. I don't see why anyone would edit-war to keep it this way. zzz (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right, especially about the abundance of quotes from Waters protesting his non-antisemitism. That whole section is essentially a soapbox for him to declare his innocence (from an accusation, ironically, that others have suggested isn't even an issue).--Scaleshombre (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Dave, with all due respect, as editors we're not here to interpret his motives, only to reflect what RS say about the controversy.--Scaleshombre (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It's Undue Weight and POV. If you search Google News results, it's obvious. Even more so if you search UK results. Also, there were 3 sources from Israeli sources, none from any Palestinian sources. So if we want to keep things neutral, we will have to start a RfC. The amount in the article is already overloaded, it may have to be cut down even more after a RfC. Either way, don't edit war over inserting this until there is Talk page consensus. Dave Dial (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I was going to point out the ADL's position on this, but zzz beat me to it! Waters' activities have generated accusations of anti-Semitism from influential mainstream organizations that have been reported by major media outlets. It's sad when a huge icon becomes identified with controversies that have nothing to do with his original contribution to culture. But Wikipedia isn't here to whitewash anyone, no matter how beloved they are. I don't think the accusations merit a separate article, but they've become a prominent part of his public persona and should be given due weight in his WP entry.--Scaleshombre (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Having looked at the material that was being edit-warred over, I can say that this particular wording is a non-starter. Also, as arguably valid BLP concerns have been raised, nobody should be edit-warring it into the article. BLP is a defence against 3RR, but thinking you are right in a content dispute isn't. If this behaviour was to continue, there would likely have to be blocks enacted. Let's avoid that by discussing and agreeing what mention of this story, if any, there ought to be on this article. It's a real shame this article has had to be protected over this dispute. --John (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The article is protected now, so edit-warring is no longer the main concern. What still needs to be resolved is how to incorporate the accusations of anti-Semitism against Waters, including this latest incident with Bon Jovi and the denunciation -- well-covered by reliable sources like Rolling Stone and Salon -- from Howard Stern.--Scaleshombre (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure the disputed section of the article could be improved. However, this incident with Bon Jovi and Howard Stern looks a lot like tabloid news to me and adds too much focus on recent events.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
If this is re-instated in any form, it needs to be done via an RfC and very carefully worded by someone uninvolved. I notice that at least two of the people edit warring to keep this is in has a history of pushing views like this. I am sure these is an ArbCom sanction regarding edits like that somewhere. Nymf (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's rationalize

First, thanks to NeilN for protecting the article, the edit warring was out of hand. The discussion seems to be a bit confused about what the issue is. A few users try to explain that they don't think Roger Waters is an anti-semite. That is beside the point (and violates both WP:OR and WP:POV) as nobody has suggested we should write Waters is an anti-semite. Any further argument along that line could probably be removed as per WP:SOAP. This is not intended to silence people who disagree; I don't agree with those who say this is WP:UNDUE, but their raising UNDUE is perfectly valid. This is the situation:

  • We know that Waters has been accused of anti-semitism.
  • We know these accusations are recurrent, not just an isolated incident.
  • We have good WP:RS sources that these accusations have been made.

The points above are facts, and not much to discuss about. So my understanding is that the discussion boils down to whether this is DUE or UNDUE, and it would be helpful if people from both camps would try to focus their arguments on that aspect. Jeppiz (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As to my personal opinion, attempting a compromise: I think these accusations should be mentioned in the article, based on the points above, but I also think they should be reduced in length. The topic is DUE, the current length of it is UNDUE.Jeppiz (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you're on the right track. Several editors have mentioned initiating an RfC. Given the importance of the issue, the prominence of the individual, and the attention his activism/views have generated, I think we do need broad input on this article so I'm creating an RfC. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

So is the debate over and has it been decided that no section or subsection regarding allegations of anti-Semitism will be added? If so, then I wish to offer a new proposal that seems amazingly simple in light of the mountain of metaphorical ink that was spilled in the late discussion. After reading once again the subsection “Israel Palestine Conflict” under the section “Activism,” wouldn’t it be appropriate to change the subsection title to “Israel Palestine Conflict and Allegations of anti-Semitism”? I find it difficult to believe that anyone would object to this simple and expedient change in light of the fact that such a large portion of the subsection is already devoted to the subject. No one can justly argue that the subject’s denials of such allegations are not given prominent space within the subsection. Just think, we could have saved all of this rancor by simply adding a few words to the title. Any comments?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Quotefarm

Quite apart from the arguments about how much weight to give to Waters's involvement in the Israel-Palestine issue, we cannot have a section that is mainly made up of quotes. Better to summarise the quotes. --John (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've summarised the quotes and I think it looks a lot better now. What do others think? --John (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I admire your effort to make the article more concise. But I think you've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. You've left very little of the substance regarding Waters anti-Israel activities and the various allegations of anti-Semitism. Much of the substance will need to be restored. Also, you removed the subhead "Israel-Palestine Conflict," which deals directly with the ongoing RfC above about creating a new heading "Accusations of Anti-Semitism." The former heading seems to have emerged as a de facto compromise, and should be left in place for now. Overall, whatever content ends up remaining in this section -- regardless of the heading -- needs to reflect several significant themes that have been increasingly addressed by RS in recent years: 1) Roger Waters has become a prominent activist in the BDS movement. 2) His actions and statements have generated significant controversy, including accusations of anti-Semitism from prominent commentators that have been covered by RS. If the section doesn't give these two key points their due, then it's deficient. Scaleshombre (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought John's edit improved the section, but went too far, making it completely impossible to tell what the accusations were about; the section is undeniably much clearer now, with the allegations explained. The euphemistic heading about the IP Conflict is better than none. zzz (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I would have supported the change John made, but definitely not the subsequent changes made by Scaleshombre and Signedzzz. First, Scaleshombre, the fact you inserted the Bon Jovi bs after being reverted by multiple editors and starting the RfC is beyond disruptive. Secondly, inserting quotes from one side and not Waters himself is completely unacceptable. This is an article about Roger Waters, not the ADL or Israel or Palestine. Dave Dial (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

dave dial, there was never a consensus that the Bon Jovi incident should be removed. Calling it "BS" doesn't make it any less notable in the view of reliable journalists and commentators. Hence, it meets the standard of inclusion in this article. If you have specific, concrete reasons why it doesn't belong here, please discuss. I agree with you that the article should be balanced in terms of Waters' arguments and his critics. But the Bon Jovi controversy is a legitimate, well-sourced incident that merits inclusion. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I removed the Howard Stern quote, and a pointless Waters quote. I've now restored the Waters quote (unnecessary in my view) after your objection. zzz (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems pretty clear from reading the discussion above that there is no consensus for a separate section on this matter; as many have said, it is undue weight on this article. Neither do we enhance the article by larding it with multiple quotes. There is a BLP element to this discussion and the assumption should be to leave out material unless there is a consensus to include it. I have therefore removed it for the second time. --John (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The "separate section" -- particularly the substance of it -- has existed under one form or another for some time now. The onus is on you to get a consensus before you make radical changes to it. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
      • The consensus seems pretty clear above that there is no need for a separate section. The substance of it is untouched by summarising the quotes, and Wikipedia does not do long sections of quotes, though Wikiquote may be able to use the material you wish to include. On a BLP matter it can be dangerous to one's editing privileges to repeatedly revert against consensus. I see a couple of people above supporting my edits. I don't see anybody other than you wishing to include all the quotes and the section heading. --John (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Count me as being in general in favour of Scaleshombre's approach. I would also like to point out for consideration the requirement to edit neutrally, part of which is embodied in the principle of writing for the opponent ("Editors must either create edits for the opposing point of view themselves, or at least allow it"). Ideally editors should be striving to present different points of view as fairly as possible. Failing that, they should, without unreasonable hindrance, allow others to present the 'disliked' viewpoint as well as they can. Editors who dislike Waters's position on the IP conflict should not be removing text if it materially weakens the case for the 'defence'. I'd also like to point out that consensus isn't established by ballots.     ←   ZScarpia   10:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
"Writing for the Opponent" is an essay–nothing more than one user's opinion. "Biographies of Living Persons" is a set-in-stone, non-negotiable policy–one of the very few that not even community consensus may overrule or ignore. There is both long-standing, and current consensus that giving undue weight to these accusations is inappropriate for this article about a musician, and runs afoul of WP:BLP. Case closed. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Joe. If you oppose BLP, leave the project and start your own. Here it trumps everything. --John (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me make myself clear. I would be quite happy if the accusations and refutations was reduced to a simple statement along the lines, "accusations of anti-Semitism have been made against Waters, which he has rejected." What I'm against is a detailed list of accusations being included with Waters's response being reduced, as editors have tried, to a rump, "Waters said that he is not an anti-Semite." If you can manage to summarise Waters's defence of himself without substantially weakening it, fine, otherwise I think the quotes should be left (until, in any case, the detail about the accusations is also reduced). I hope that nobody is trying to claim that detailing Waters's defence of himself is a breach of the WP:BLP policy.     ←   ZScarpia   10:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Roger Waters is a professional musician, yes. And Ronald Reagan had been a professional actor. What is the point here regarding undue weight? The subject has inserted himself into politics and there are numerous valid news references to the controversy he has engendered by placing himself squarely within this most bitter political conflict. How then is it undue weight by noting this with some substance? I am just responding to some of the comments made here recently. I think the section as it has been edited recently is fine, and I think Howard Stern’s diatribe should be retained as he is prominent and probably has greater name recognition than does the subject among the general public. It serves to highlight for the reader here the degree of controversy and bitterness that the subject has engendered. A brief mention is fine.
I was involved here recently over an argument about adding “and Allegations of anti-Semitism” to the title of the then subsection. My argument had been that it was patently absurd not to call a section or subsection by what it is primarily about. At the time, about eighty-eight percent of its substance was about allegations of anti-Semitism and the subject’s denials. However, as the section is written now—with BDS advocacy and resulting charges of anti-Semitism merely being a part of the broader now section heading “Activism”— that objection has been removed, and I think we should leave well enough alone. It bewildered me then as now as to why many editors here objected to the proposed title addition but not the substance. This discussion makes rather more sense.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. One thing maybe worth mentioning is that the article reports that, "In July 2013, the Israeli media complained about the symbolism," but it doesn't say that the complaints were based on the incorrect claim that the Star of David was the only religious symbol displayed.     ←   ZScarpia   21:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image

I don't have an account and I've not edited the article (but it's great BTW). I just kinda dislike the infobox image, because it's a full body picture of Waters and his face can be barely seen. I've found these here on Commons: [1] [2] [3] I think these are much better and were taken closer to his face, so the likeness is better. Any chance it could be changed? Best regards, 189.68.157.114 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Misleading information in the lede...

The article is clearly wrong and needs to be updated. Please do not archive my section until the article has been changed.

The lede states that...

"Waters initially served as the group's bassist, but following the departure of Barrett in 1968, he also became their lyricist, conceptual leader and co-lead vocalist".

While that is true, strictly speaking, the implication is that it happened immediately after Barret's departure in 1968; which is patently false. For a while - at least a few years and several albums - they all wrote lyrics, some more successfully than others (though that's beside the point), and Waters was by no means considered the leader until a fair while later (some time around Wish You Were Here and Animals, and definitely by the The Wall). All four of them, in numerous interviews, have stated that up until Dark Side Of The Moon they were a cohesive unit, with Dark Side being the last time they all felt as though they were contributing equally and getting along together. By that time Waters had become the lyricist - 4 years after Barrett's departure - but it was still several years yet before he took full control of the band. I think a better sentence would be along the lines of...

"Waters initially served as the group's bassist, but following the departure of Barrett 1968, his influence steadily grew until he eventually became their lyricist, conceptual leader and co-lead vocalist".

The false information continues in the "Waters-led period", where it states... "Filling the void left by Barrett's departure in March 1968, Waters began to chart Pink Floyd's artistic direction. He became the principal songwriter, lyricist and co-lead vocalist (along with Gilmour, and at times, Wright), and would remain the band's dominant creative figure until his departure in 1985". Once again this is clearly implying that Waters became the "...principal songwriter, [and] lyricist..." immediately after Barrett's departure, which is flat out wrong. I mean ... just take Ummagumma for example. That album contains 4 pieces, each one being written by one of the four individual members of the band. Atom Heart Mother, the next album, contains the Atom Heart Mother Suite which was written by all 4 of them (with Ron Geesin), as was "Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast" (without Ron Geesin). The song Echoes, from the next album, Meddle, was also written by all 4 of them, as was One Of These Days. The point is that it's simply wrong to say that Waters became the lyricist and leader immediately after Barrett's departure so the article definitely needs to change... FillsHerTease (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"After" does not always need to mean "instantly after" AFAICT, and "counting lyrics" is a useless exercise unless this were a "Pinkfloydpedia" - as soon as Waters wrote a lyric he became a lyricist - and if no one else was "more the lyricist" then parsing how many songs were officially written by whom is not utile. By the way, crediting a song to four people at once is most usually done for royalty concerns than for "actual writer" concerns. Collect (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Addition of instruments

The MOS for infoboxes says "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using." Considering that Roger has played the acoustic guitar prominently in dozens of songs, both in studio and live (including If, Grantchester Meadows, Free Four, Pigs on the Wing and Mother) and that this is a fact known to all Roger fans, both as a PF member and as a solo artist, I vote for the addition of that instrument to the infobox. I think just a mention at the end of the article is not enough, unlike the mentions to keyboards and trumpet, which are, indeed, minor instruments in his career. Also, let's remember that he started in PF as a guitarist, not as a bassist. Opinions ? Clausgroi (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Secondary instruments can and should be brought up in prose. If Jimmy Page played spoons on one song, every performance, I don't think that spoons should be listed in the infobox but, would certainly mention it on the song's page and in prose on Jimmy's page. Mlpearc (open channel) 13:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
That's really a dreadful argument. The comparison you made was so farfetched that I don't even think it's necessary to comment about it. However, I'd like to point out that you began your reply by saying "secondary instruments", when what I'm arguing is the exact opposite: that the guitar (more specifically, the acoustic guitar) was not a secondary instrument, but a primary one in dozens of songs, both live and in studio. The importance of an instrument is not measured by the number of times (frequency) it is used, but by the relevance the artist gives to it and the role it plays (pardon the pun) on the songs. Saying Roger's acoustic guitar was a secondary instrument is the same as saying the piano was a secondary instrument for Rick Wright because he played the electric organ or the synthesiser in most songs, that is, more often. Clausgroi (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Nobody wants to share an opinion about adding the acoustic guitar to the instrument section of the infobox in this article ? Make your voice heard, people. Clausgroi (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem arose from people making all sorts of ridiculous additions, listing "keyboards", "trumpet", and "clarinet", among others. Now that sanity and stability seem to have prevailed, I don't think it should be a problem to add "guitar"; you've made a decent argument for it. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, more or less verbatim. It doesn't fit the summary purpose of the infobox to cram in every instrument a musician may be proficient with, but some truly ionic work by Rogers has featured contributions via guitar, so I too am won over by Claus' argument. Snow let's rap 03:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for you opinions. Clausgroi (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus against including or renaming a section to "Accusations of anti-Semitism". The majority opinion is that it is WP:UNDUE and possibly a BLP violation. AlbinoFerret 21:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Should this article include a section, "Accusations of anti-Semitism"? Scaleshombre (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - If it would be only one incident, I'd say no; but the situation is very different. There have been a number of incidents (at least three high-profile incidents) in which Waters have been accused of anti-semitism, including the ADL concluding that Waters is anti-semitic. This is covered in a large number of WP:RS sources, including The Guardian[4] [5], The Independent [6] Times of Israel [7], Spiegel [8], Verdens Gang [9], showing that the coverage is wide and international in leading media in different countries. Just leaving it out smells of white-washing, as there is no dispute that the accusations are there and that they are numerous. Jeppiz (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree for the reasons cited by Jeppiz. Nothing more needs to be added IMO.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Though voluminous in masthead, articles all primarily co-reference a single news report of incidental character that originated from a single side in a political dispute. In the absence of broader commentary, and taken within the full scope of this bio, this is undue. LavaBaron (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • No, that is factually incorrect. There have been three different well-publicized high-profile accusations of anti-semitism during the last three years. Nothing wrong with opposing the inclusion, but let's be correct about the facts. Jeppiz (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I reject the factuality of the claim of "three ... well-publicized accusations" and maintain there has only been one. I see no RS or editor consensus establishing that there have been "three ... well-publicized accusations" - deducing that a certain threshold of accusations has risen to the level of "well-publicized" is OR. LavaBaron (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Strikes me that coverage of the "accusation" is already pretty extensive under the section that describes his Israel Palestine position. That said, I don't really see harm in creating a subsection with a paragraph or two addressing the claim. There seems like there might be enough RS to justify it. NickCT (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Detail about the accusations is properly part of the material about Waters's Israel-Palestine related views and acts. Perhaps there could be a subsection in the section containing that material, but it's hard to see how it would be cleanly done and I doubt that doing so would be desirable.     ←   ZScarpia   15:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is far too much Weight already given to this issue, on a musicians BLP. A whole section with 8 paragraphs and almost 800 words should not be added to with more, especially from an American shock jock. Most of the sourcing prior to the 'Nazi' comparisons seemed to agree that while Waters is passionate about the IP issue, he had not crossed the line into antisemitism. After the 'Nazi' comparison, there were accusations from reliable sources that he had crossed that line, with others stating that perhaps not, but invoking Goodwin's law. The article should take great care about these type of accusations for living people, and if we expanded the article to make more claims we would need to expand further giving Weight to the Palestinian side of the issue. Most sources(especially in Europe and the UK) are critical of the current conditions in Israel and the occupied territories. It has been compared by serious sourcing to Apartheid in South Africa. We should not have to deal with these types of issue on the BLP of a musician. It's a small part of his overall life, and deserves less, not more, space in this article. Dave Dial (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This issue has had wide coverage in the international press in many different countries. I don't think it should be a subsection of the Israel-Palestine related stuff because some of these accusations relate specifically to his act rather than his activism. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I agree, the criticisms of his act are serious. It is a longrunning issue. zzz (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Controversy surrounding Waters' activism has become a huge part of his public life/persona. The article should acknowledge this. Also -- and this is very telling -- most of the article's material dealing with Waters and Israel already focuses on either someone accusing Waters of anti-Semitism, or Waters refuting the charge. The anti-Semitism question has been the key theme of that section since at least the beginning of this year. It only makes sense for the heading to reflect what's already there.--Scaleshombre (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - there is ample coverage of this in reliable sources, which is the standard used for inclusion. How much weight such a section needs can be discussed separately. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • You are already putting more weight on it than the section on Pink Floyd. By adding another section, you are making it even bigger. That's not FA quality. Nymf (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, you're confusing two completely different things. The question here is whether the accusations should be mentioned in a subsection, not how long that section should be. These are not the same; in my support two days ago, I suggested to include a subsection as there is plenty of WP:RS coverage, but also to reduce its length from the current version. Jeppiz (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
        • No, it has very much to do with this. Quoting WP:UNDUE: "including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.". The question of the RfC is not whether we should include anything regarding the accusations in the article, but rather if it should be given more weight by being placed in a subsection. Nymf (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but you argue against yourself. First you say exclude it based on arguments length, now you change to arguments about sections. Which is it? Because they are not the same, the same material could be put in a subsection but be shortened, just as it could remain without a subsection and be lengthened. The discussion here is about the subsection. Jeppiz (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
          • WP:BALASPS is also of interest here. "criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.". The lead states "... is an English musician, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, and composer". It doesn't say "activist". The section and coverage is disproportionate. Nymf (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
          • If it was an isolated incident, I'd agree with you that a subsection is unwarranted. But questions of anti-Semitism have been raised on multiple occasions, and are well-documented in RS. (On a related note, perhaps the lead should be revised to include "activist.")--Scaleshombre (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
            • This RfC, as well as your and some other supporters comments, are misleading. There is already plenty of this issue in the article. Too much, in fact. You want to change the section(now titled Israel Palestine conflict, and name it "Accusations of anti-Semitism". Which is outside the scope of this article. There is already too much in the article already. And no matter how many of the usual IP, agenda driven, POV editors, come over here, your suggestions will still be a BLP violation and add too much Weight and POV to an article that is already too tilted towards that issue. Dave Dial (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the sort of expansion attempted by Scaleshombre, who wanted to make an anti-Semitic paragraph out of a purely political incident, the letter by Waters against Bon Jovi performing in Israel, the letter describing Waters' political opposition to Israeli harassment and displacement of Palestinians. We should not misrepresent this political discourse by calling Waters racist or anti-Jewish, and we should not give so much weight to those who make the connection, as they are misreading Waters. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not the letter itself, but the coverage of Howard Stern's reaction to the letter in the mainstream press (including music giants Billboard and Rolling Stone) that make the incident relevant to the anti-Semitism accusations section. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • In fact, I think we should roll back some of the text which was already in the article, which gives too much weight to this issue. We should remove the quoted lyrics from "In the Flesh" which talk about a Jew and "coon". It would be ample to say Waters was taking the role of a Nazi in the song, to get his anti-Nazi theme across. The FA version of this article from 2010 does not have this anti-Semitic stuff in it; rather, it tells about Waters' political opposition to Israel's practice of walling off Palestinians. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It is rather unsurprising that the 2010 version of this article does not contain any of the antisemitic allegation which surfaced in 2011 and 2013, don't you think? Bad Dryer (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
All the more reason to prune this stuff back, it being but a recent part of Waters' story, a very minor issue, the issue invented by Haaretz and Jpost, both of which regularly equate antisemitism and political opposition to Israel's policies. Those two things are quite different, as Waters has explained repeatedly. Most of the world understands this, but in Israel they are overly sensitive. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Bink, why don't you tell us how you *really* feel about Israel? Actually, I appreciate your candor, using loaded terms like "invented" and "overly sensitive." Or maybe it's just an inability to conceal bias. In any event, rest assured that all your future contributions to Wikipedia will get the appropriate level of scrutiny. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
        • "...rather, it tells about Waters' political opposition to Israel's practice of walling off Palestinians." Ah, so much for strict adherence to the Wiki reg about the "Soapbox" thingy. Something about a goose and a gander, don't you know. Wherefore art thou, Dave Dial?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
What's your problem? I have registered my opposition and explained my position. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
As suggested, it is the line that you wrote and I quoted. “Walling off Palestinians” is as much “soapbox” as a comment I made that editor Dave Dial removed (thus the reference) as a quid pro quo to one that he made (which, of course, he doesn’t consider such albeit another editor did). You are referring to the separation barrier that Israel has constructed, only a relatively small portion of such is an actual wall. The main problem, of course, is you take it entirely out of context as if the Israeli leadership woke up one day and asked themselves: “What can we do today with our time and our money?; and capriciously responded: “I know, let's build separation barriers and establish checkpoints. That should take care of our excess wealth and time.” Since the separation barrier has been in place, suicide bombings have declined to a fraction of their former level. Taking Israeli reactions out of context of Palestinian actions is a favorite ploy of anti-Israel propagandists. I'm making this response because you asked me to.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see that it is your soapbox. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
What part of "I'm making this response because you asked me to" did you not understand?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per Dave Dial's argument, this is a BLP about a musician – inclusion would be undue. There is already too much coverage on this topic. Meatsgains (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Question - I am unclear as to the actual proposal here, and editors appear to be arguing different points. Is this about retaining the existing section on Waters's views on the IP conflict? Or is it about simply changing the name to "Accusations of anti-Semitism"? There is a lot of argument, but very little focus on what we are actually arguing about.--Mojo Hand (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mojo Hand:Yea, the RfC is poorly worded and the arguments from the 'Supporters' are vague. I think purposely. But as anyone can see, the article already has a section about this issue. The proposer wants to rename the section "Accusations of anti-Semitism" and then add more, along with adding a list of accusations. So I don't know what the closer would even state in their close if this RfC was 'passed'(which it obviously should not be). One can see that there was a sudden appearance of agenda driven accounts that had never edited this article or Talk page before, but are well known in the IP area of editing. I am more or less a Zionist and supporter of many Israeli policies, but these accusations as well as the insistence from some editors that being critical of Israel or it's policies is tied to Antisemitism is complete overreach. Dave Dial (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Dave Dial, you've already been informed (repeatedly, and by several users) of WP:AGF and WP:SOAP. For the umpteenth time, this has nothing at all to do with any wiki-user accusing Waters of anything, and the irrelevant comment about criticism of Israel or it's [sic!] policies is tied to Antisemitism" is neither here not there. The purpose of this RfC and the proposed subsection is not to establish whether Waters is anti-semitic or not, that would be WP:OR. It's about whether the article should mention the several high-profile accusations others (such as ADL) have made and which have been reported in media around the world. Jeppiz (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • The article already mentions those accusations, and I don't see anybody arguing that this information should be removed (though some pruning might be in order).--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I also think the RfC is a bit out of proportion. The question is basically just whether we should do a slight restructuring of the article so that these accusations are under a different sub-header. I think it makes sense, as the idea surely is to make it as easy as possible for readers to find information. Jeppiz (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Listen Jeppiz, I am discussing the article and the sourcing. If you think I've stepped outside the bounds of that, take it to the appropriate venue. I will be more than happy to explain myself there, and point to this RfC and the comments made here. Dave Dial (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Agree with Dave Dial; this is not the appropriate venue to impinge his motivations. His comment was a frank, but reasonable and relevant, observation about the nature of the discussion. If someone legitimately believes he crossed the line, it should be raised at ANI, otherwise these type of comments can only serve to cow editors into silence. LavaBaron (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If there was a list of his main accusers with the detail of their accusation, followed by a brief denial/explanation, with the proposed sub-heading under "Activism", the issue would be dealt with more concisely. zzz (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose renaming the section to "Accusations of anti-Semitism", as that rubs too close to WP:BLP and doesn't accurately describe what the section covers. The existing section does strike me as overlong - seems like it should boil down to his views and activism, criticism of his views (including accusations of anti-Semitism), and his response to those criticisms.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I was suggesting adding a sub-section "Accusations of anti-Semitism", not renaming one. (This would disappoint both varieties of "agenda driven accounts" equally, in my view.) zzz (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the sub-section idea makes sense. Scaleshombre (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree as a judicious compromise with a closely divided opinion. It is assumed that the subsection will only be noting the many accusations of such against the subject and the subject’s denials and make absolutely no judgmental remarks regarding the validity of the accusations or denials. The subject has been a lightning rod for such and thus the subsection is warranted as he is one of the most prominent of the BDS advocates.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That is beyond the scope of this RfC. The fact is these edits by Scaleshombre, Jeppiz and Signedzzz(1,2,3,4,5,6) are all the same. The naming of the section to "Accusations of anti-Semitism" and adding more accusations. This whole RfC is a mess. Dave Dial (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • And I criticized the length in my edit summary. "Listen Jeppiz, I am discussing the article and the sourcing." Yeah, right. Sure you are. zzz (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Some editors have noted concerns about violating WP:BLP and WP:Undue. Take a look at the Michael Richards article to see how it addresses the Laugh Factory incident. The incident has its own subsection under "Career"; it's even mentioned in the lead. Given the persistence of the accusations against Waters, perhaps we should consider giving them more weight, not less. Scaleshombre (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • While Michael Richards or said article is completely unrelated to this RfC, that section is also WP:UNDUE and I doubt it would be close to even passing a GA. Mind you that the Waters article is a featured one. Nymf (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Nymf, you've raised the point about undue several times. Just what is "undue" about something that has been reported several times in leading media all around the world? It's not just one incident, and it's not limited to coverage in just a few sources. Several incidents, widely reported. That is what we call "due". WP:UNDUE is a not a synonym of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jeppiz (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Jeppiz, it's the scale and weight you are trying to put on it compared to other aspects of the subject's life (see WP:BALASPS). Since you're throwing around the AGF card repeatedly above, might I remind you as well and stop throwing aspersions around? I have no feelings whatsoever regarding the controversy. If anyone is biased, it's clearly the supporters above (looking at their previous edit history). Nymf (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Nymf, if you have problems with other edits I've made that have nothing to do with this article, please bring it up on the appropriate page. Injecting it into the conversation here is a very sleazy tactic, and a clear violation of AGF. Scaleshombre (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
            • I was accused of having a biased POV, when it's really the other way around. You'll find no edits in my edit history (except for this one) regarding Israel, Judaism, Jewish people, the Palestina conflict or anti-Semitism. This whole topic might even be under the sanctions of WP:ARBPIA, so tread carefully. Nymf (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Joefromrandb (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as undue per WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASPS. Too much weight is put on this already. The section is as large as the one on Waters' Pink Floyd years (the main topic of the article), and expanding it would push the weight on this issue even further. This is a featured article, and needs to be held to a higher standard than other articles. Other than that, there is also the obvious BLP issues with implying that someone is an anti-Semite, even if the accusations is sourced to Howard Stern. It's a delicate issue which needs to be covered in prose, not as a list or via a title. Nymf (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Subject is already covered in Roger Waters#Israel Palestine conflict. Piriczki (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: summoned by bot. This would be a particularly egregious WP:BLP violation, and an accusations of anti-semitism biography subsection would only serve to smear Waters with the term. Even the weight given to the subject now is WP:UNDUE and should be examined. This whole discussion would greatly benefit from some WP:COMMONSENSE: Waters obviously has nothing to do with the right-wing, nationalist fanaticism that characterizes 99% of anti-semitism in Europe. There are many left-wing Jews who oppose Israeli policy, and Waters does too. Labeling people in this way cheapens the meaning of anti-semitism and disrupts the Wikipedia project. -Darouet (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    • How exactly would this violate BLP? Obviously, the section/heading would upset you as an individual. But that's not our concern as Wikipedia editors. You need to back up your assertion with specific references to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As far as Waters being right-wing or left-wing, again, that's irrelevant to the current discussion. (BTW, your suggestion that left-wing activists can't be anti-Semitic is about as logical as saying that black people can't be racist.) Scaleshombre (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:BLP states that "BLPs" must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." In this case, editorial judgment would demand that incongruous and/or tenuous allegations of antisemitism, even mentioned without endorsement in high quality newspapers, should not become a vehicle for destroying someone's reputation in an online wikipedia page.
      • I acknowledge that WP:PUBLICFIGURE allows the introduction of some of this material into this biography, with appropriate editorial control. However, to create an article subheading using the words "Allegations of anti-semitism" would distort the fundamental character of this issue - Waters' opposition to Israeli policy on the Palestinian question. Editorially, it would declare that the issue is instead Waters' own possible, personal prejudice, something that reliable sources haven't endorsed, and that doesn't pass the test of WP:COMMONSENSE. It would also, somewhat insidiously, manage to associate Waters' name with antisemitism via something of a headline that has no appropriate context and conjures up connotations very far from Waters' declared political views. -Darouet (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose (summoned by bot). Nowadays any criticism of the politics of the right wing Israeli government is labeled anti-antisemitism, which is an aberration. His positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are well known, let these be the fact reported and let readers make up their mind. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dave Dial and WP:UNDUE. BMK (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's overly obvious that these accusations tie directly into his activism related to the Palestine-Israel conflict. Creating a special section for accusations of antisemitism would be completely undue. While there is room in the article for weight to be given to the mention of this, it is not in a new special section.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as others have mentioned it would be WP:Undue. AIRcorn (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Three weeks into this it is apparent that there is a strong consensus that this does not deserve its own section. The edits I made to reduce the WP:QUOTEFARM have therefore included removing the section heading. I hope you agree this is an improvement. --John (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Any discussion of this topic is best contextualized within the 'Israel-Palestine conflict' section, as all of the accusations of antisemitism seem to arise from his activism in this area (there seem to be no reported incidents of his attacking any Jewish individual or group on the basis of their faith or ancestry, for example). Just as we have to include some reference to these accusations to be consistent with policy and to avoid white-washing matters, we also have a responsibility to frame said accusations within the circumstances under which they arose. My !vote could be swayed on this matter if additional sourcing ever represents acts of clear bigotry, but with the material we have now, I think creating a subsection titled 'Accusations of antisemitism' would be WP:Undue and prejudicial in the extreme. Snow let's rap 00:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

That is no doubt true, but I expect the same thing will happen unless the antisemitism allegations are dealt with separately. zzz (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is there such a rush to cut down the section? Not only is the Israel Palestine conflict a huge issue on the world stage, but it's hugely important to Roger Waters. That's why he invests so much time and energy into his activism. I'll bet if someone were to ask him, he'd say his activism means more to him than his art. (That of course is speculation; I'm not saying we should include that in the article.) There's no denying that Pink Floyd is the cornerstone of Waters' career and his major contribution to popular culture. But his activism is also highly significant, especially in this part of his career/life story. If his work in the political realm is increasingly notable to RS, then we shouldn't impose artificial limits on it in his Wikipedia entry. As long as we maintain neutrality and stick to RS, it's perfectly appropriate to give his activism the space it deserves. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So is the debate over and has it been decided that no section or subsection regarding allegations of anti-Semitism will be added? If so, then I wish to offer a new proposal that seems amazingly simple in light of the mountain of metaphorical ink that was spilled in the late discussion. After reading once again the subsection “Israel Palestine Conflict” under the section “Activism,” wouldn’t it be appropriate to change the subsection title to “Israel Palestine Conflict and Allegations of anti-Semitism”? I find it difficult to believe that anyone would object to this simple and expedient change in light of the fact that such a large portion of the subsection is already devoted to the subject. No one can justly argue that the subject’s denials of such allegations are not given prominent space within the subsection. Just think, we could have saved all of this rancor by simply adding a few words to the title. Any comments?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

To add to my point, since seven of the eight paragraphs in the subsection “Israel Palestine Conflict" deal with allegations against the subject of anti-Semitism and (not counting the title) 716 of 811 words deal with the same, then it seems a “no brainier” to change the subsection title as I suggested.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with it. But I get the feeling it won't go over as easy as we'd think. Maybe wait a bit to see how others respond. (Or be bold and make the change. It's not major. If the loyal opposition in this friendly debate wants to revert it, it only takes a few mouse strokes.) Scaleshombre (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
In retrospect, I’m not sure what we were arguing about all this time as, as I just noted, we already have in effect a subsection regarding allegations of anti-Semitism. What is controversial about calling a spade a spade? No one but you has yet weighed in so perhaps I shall make the suggested change if by tomorrow no one else does. I’m sure you’re more savvy in the ways of Wikipedia than I am. As I understand it, if I make the change and someone reverts it then I’m “edit warring” if I revert back (thought the one who reverts is not?). Then what’s the next step? What’s the process to contest the reversion? I’ve never been involved with something like this before. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
What are you guys talking about? That's almost exactly what this RfC is about, and there is no way there is consensus to add that. Dave Dial (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
You are objecting to mentioning in the subsection title what approxiamtely 88% of its content is about? HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
88%, eh? Is that an official figure? It's not a neutral heading. Once again, this is an article about a musician, there has been some controversy about some of his political positions, that covered in the article(overcovered in many editors opinion). You cannot subvert this RfC and make a runaround in the middle of it. This is a poorly worded RfC, and the arguments from editors that state 'Support' either haven't read the article and just came here out of instinct, or do understand Wikipedia policies. Dave Dial (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Official? Well, one doesn’t need MS Outlook word count to ascertain in a matter of moments that there are eight paragraphs in all, and all but one of them deal with allegations and denials of anti-Semitism. Therefore, 87.5 %. (The convention is to round up at .5.) The word count is slightly over 88%. It wouldn’t surprise me if you were the first editor in the history of Wiki to make an undue weight or neutrality argument against simply calling a section by what the section is largely about! You’d make far more sense if you contested the section itself in its entirety. If you want to, then I doubt you can form a consensus to remove it (though I personally wouldn’t object if you tweeked it some; I think there is too much emphasis on the rather insipid inflatable pig incident). Since the subsection is currently present, I doubt you have a leg to stand on merely regarding its title.in light of what I have stated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
As Dave Dial says, that change would seem to go around the very inconclusive RfC. After a few days pause, I also agree with Dave that the RfC was not well worded, as it was not clear if the discussion was about (A) The content of a section about anti-semitism or rather (B) Sticking with the same content, but changing the title of a subsection. I assumed (B) and supported a title I felt would reflect the current content, but it's obvious that others made other interpretations. An RfC should always be as simple an unambiguous as possible. Jeppiz (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
JeppizWhat are you talking about? “Should this article include a section, ‘Accusations of anti-Semitism?’” seems clear enough to me. Unequivocally, there is no section regarding allegations and denials of anti-Semitism as the article is presently written. Therefore, the proposal was clearly to add one as an embellishment of the already present (in all but name) subsection. As another editor commented above, what I am proposing is a minor change and I am prepared to make that change and go through whatever process is warranted to defend it. I simply cannot believe that you or anyone could make a case that it is a violation of any Wiki reg to entitle a subsection by what it is largely about!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Clarification A number of editors have noted that my wording of the RfC is ambiguous. I agree, and I apologize. When I wrote it, the meaning seemed clear in my head, and I failed to think through the very real possibility that my wording could mean different things to different people. My original intent was to focus on the section's heading, not the section's content. I'd like to revise the RfC to tidy it up, but I can't find much info on the protocol for revising existing RfCs. If anyone can advise on this, I'd be really grateful. Here's how I believe I should have worded it:

    For some time now, this article has included reliably sourced information regarding accusations of anti-Semitism against Roger Waters. Should this information come under a heading (or subheading) entitled, "Accusations of Anti-Semitism"?

    Scaleshombre (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, that pretty much takes the wind out of my sails. Although I admire your integrity in admitting ambiguity in your original proposal where I saw none at all, I would have liked to simply change the title of the existing subsection fully expecting it to be reverted and then go to ANI for arbitration where I think I had an excellent chance to prevail. (If I did not, I would have accepted such graciously in recognition that someone has to decide such matters.) Now that you want a new RfC, If that happens I fully expect the same result as I think we all understand what the subtext is here. I can’t very well go to arbitration in the wake of having lost the RfC and claim the change is minor and obvious (even though I honestly believe it is). You have just made it otherwise. If others want to go through this again, that’s fine. But I have nothing more to add other than to point one and all to the wisdom of the immortal bard: something about roses and names. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
You haven't lost the RfC. All I've done is clarify the language. Stay in this! The issue we've raised is an important one. This is a debate worth having, even if it drags on a bit and oscillates back and forth. Stay in this! It's worth it. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to get into more arguments here, but you can't change the wording of a RfC after it's been going on for 7 days and !voted on by multiple editors. I suppose you could close this RfC and start a new one, if there are no objections from the editors who have !voted in this one so far. I have none. But I suspect we would be right back where we are now, with no consensus to implement the changes you wish for. But you never know, and if you feel that strongly about it, you could ask the participants and try again. My recommendation is to just let this RfC end naturally and leave the article as is for now. Then after a time come back and discuss ways to improve the article. Dave Dial (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Dave Dial For my edification and perhaps others, can you please explain what "!voted" means. I assume it was not a typo as you used it twice. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
!vote Dave Dial (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. That page is very informative and important. Thank you for pointing it out to me.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem, Hoss. Dave Dial (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hoss? I beg your pardon. I look even less like Hoss Cartwright (the only Hoss I ever heard of) than I do Robert Redford. At least I share my first name with the latter!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Meh, no offense, Hoss. Dave Dial (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The fact that no one here agrees with the allegations, which simply relate to Waters jumping on a political bandwagon, is irrelevant to how the info should be presented. Editors seem to believe that their opinion of the validity of the allegations should affect this decision, which is plainly wrong. The section discussing the allegations should be called what it actually is about, "Allegations of anti-semitism". It makes literally no difference, in terms of WP policy, that he is not (as far as we know) a swastika-waving avowed neo-Nazi. zzz (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh since you're not calling him a swastika waving Neo-Nazi it must be ok. Undue weight be damned! Sarcasm aside, The "political bandwagon" is covered as are the allegations of antisemitism. There's really no common sense reason to IAR and ignore the Undue weight policy to place a scarlet letter on this biography.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
(Please, spare me your "sarcasm") Is there a policy that equates an undeniably succinct and accurate section heading with an "undue" "Scarlet letter", or is that just your WP:POV? zzz (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
There is but it may not apply when Israel related discussion is happening considering the special status of Israel in wikipedia policy and all. Wait no can't find any special status for Israel. Since there is an accurate and succinct subsection heading "Israel–Palestine conflict" there's no need for your scarlet letter. But all in all WP:UNDUE is just another brick in the wall or what ever.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
No. "Israel–Palestine conflict" is neither succinct nor accurate. So WP:NPOV is out the window then, in favour of WP:scarlet letter (which concerns user talk pages, apparently), to appease fans. Using WP:Undue to argue against the correct section heading is pure Wikilawyering. zzz (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, So even though the allegations are in relation to his activism within the Israel–Palestine conflict, they should be broken up and separated to achieve NPOV. That's definitely interesting and suggests that you don't understand what NPOV is. BTW the link to the essay on scarlet letter that you posted doesn't relate to this discussion. Your use of the phrase scarlet letter is also inappropriately used. I'm also not much of a fan, I know one song by the band that the majority of the English speaking world knows. I was summoned by the Bot to this RFC which you can see on my talk page or by click this conveniently placed diff.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikilawyering? Absolutely, it must be. Good idea to apply and misuse an ad hominem when you can't make a competent case for your proposed change.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
My last comment contains the statement "which concerns user talk pages, apparently" regarding "scarlet letter", a phrase you insist on repeating. I guess you don't always read comments you are replying to. "Wkilawyering" refers to your "WP:UNDUE" argument (not, therefore, remotely "ad hominem"). There was no support for separating the allegations from the activism, presumably because there is so little to say about the activism per se. With regard to the use of a title to describe what a section is about, the correct application of WP:NPOV is plainly obvious. It is about "Accusations of anti-semitism". So that is the correct title. zzz (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Scarlet letter is a well known phrase from a well known book written in 1850 by Nathaniel Hawthorne called The Scarlet letter. It predates obscure wikipedia essays by more than a century. This is not a user talk page. Aside from your link there was no suggestion that this essay applied. It's more than obvious my use of the phrase scarlet letter ties to Mr Hawthorns work. That whole lack of me linking any scarlet letter related wikipedia policy also suggests this. Don't you you hate when obvious uses of common phrases are used in a obvious and competent manner? The allegations are related to his Activism (as the main section suggests) and specifically his activism in the Israel–Palestine conflict (strangely as the sub-section would suggest). This is unambiguous. But obviously this is all "wikilawyering". -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware that you don't understand what wikilawyering, there's no need to go out of your way to prove this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
What is immediately obvious is that your comment has little or nothing to do with this discussion, and you are now purely focussing on ad hominem remarks and petty point-scoring. Perhaps you now agree that the case you were previously arguing is wrong, I don't know, but there's clearly no point in continuing. zzz (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
It has alot to do with the discussion. In the discussion I use the phrase "Scarlet letter" and confuse the living hell out of you. I don't like having to give the etymology of a common and widely known phrase. In response to, "My last comment contains the statement "which concerns user talk pages, apparently" regarding "scarlet letter", a phrase you insist on repeating." My response was to [10] before your subsequent and multiple edits. You aren't here for NPOV, that much shines thru clearly.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
How pathetic. Your response was to the comment exactly as it appears. You should strike through your puerile assertion that I edit my comments after they have been replied to. By resorting to blatantly lying, you merely make it abundantly clear that you know you are wrong, but lack the maturity (or intellectual capacity) to admit it. Please don't bother to respond further. Thank you. zzz (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing anything to strike thru or anything that is a lie. I said, "In response to, "My last comment contains the statement "which concerns user talk pages, apparently" regarding "scarlet letter", a phrase you insist on repeating." My response was to [11] before your subsequent and multiple edits." It's above. You can read it. Would you like me to provide you a diff? Seems unnecessary though. What this means is my reply was written in response to your original comments and not your subsequent edits. That may not be clear enough for you. That is to say that I was writing my response before you had changed your original comments. There where edit conflicts. I don't wish to confuse you about complicated wiki processes so you can just take your time and read about it at Help:Edit conflict. There is no secret coded message, no implications, and (even though you have found one) no straws to grasp at. It means literally what it says. It doesn't mean that you have edited your comments after someone has responded, which strangely enough is why it doesn't say that. This is long and pretty much a waste of time my time but I do feel it will help you.
Roger Water's has been straight forward about his activism. Certainly been public about it. What is the possible effect and the intended effect of "allegations" in the title? What it looks like is that the intent is to give more weight to the allegations and offer an affirmation to them. This certainly would not be NPOV. As the article stands now the heading is NPOV. Everything relates specifically to his activism specifically in the Israel–Palestine conflict as the heading suggests. This is both unambiguous and clear. This doesn't help anyone push that he actually is an anti-Semite but that's not actually a problem. But of course you want the undue weight and this is all obviously wikilawyering by some fanboy[12] or what ever your bullshit argument was.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
You know perfectly well what you were saying when you criticised me for adding to my comment. The edit history shows that you have been adding to your own comments, by the way. As for the discussion that you deviated from several comments ago, I can only repeat that the section should be called what it is - obviously - in line with WP:NPOV, which the current, deliberately euphemistic title equally obviously is not. But clearly, there's little point in this debate, since Waters' many fans have made their minds up, and few others are interested. Note that, if editors agreed (POV) that Waters was an antisemite, there would be little if any opposition to the logical title. zzz (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Drop the stick and walk away, Signedzzz. Nymf (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
What the hell is that diff supposed to imply? I stand by it, obviously - I subsequently edited it for unnecessary verbosity. Anyhow, before your helpful advice, I was just about to add (EC), I really don't care so please don't reply. Thanks zzz (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes correcting format errors[13] is the same as adding more content and grasping a straws is the same as adding an actual argument. Pigs fly and Santa Claus is real. And you aren't here because you think Roger Waters actually is an antisemite and you are concerned with NPOV.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I despise him for other reasons. zzz (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@Signedzzz: WP:DROPTHESTICK. It means that the discussion has come to an end and you are flogging a dead horse. Calling everyone "fanboys" and Waters an "extreme anti-semite" is not going to change the consensus; it's just going to annoy people. Nymf (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
"If editors agreed (POV) that Waters was an antisemite, there would be little if any opposition to the logical title." Seems clear enough zzz (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conflict with VIctims of November 2015 Paris attacks

I recently added the following content to the article. RolandR removed it.Ronreisman (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)(This post was edited by DD2K because of Talk page and other violations. Dave Dial (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Do not cut and paste responses from Talk pages and material add in the article here. Make your points with diffs and links. This will not be in this article though, for various reasons. Which RolandR has give you some of them. Dave Dial (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This is POV, synthesis, and an egregious breach of BLP. Ronreisman, This is the reason that he provided for removing it. Your addition is highly unencyclopedic. It's a horrible POV character assassination. It is highly nonsensical original research or synthesis. It's not acceptable under the BLP policy. If this wasn't a BLP it would still be unacceptable. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I thank my fellow editors for their replies, though I cannot understand their logic.

The content in question is on-topic (Roger Waters Activism). It covers his efforts to prevent a band from playing in Israel, and notes that that the band responded in a confrontational manner. There is no synthesis or OR in this content, and the facts it presents are covered in multiple reliable sources, including a newspaper's concert review and a video (posted on YouTube) of the concert that documents and illustrates statements made in this source.

This same band played at a venue in Paris that has been the subject of multiple threats due to the many pro-Israel events staged there by the theater's Jewish owners. Multiple reliable sources (eg New York Times) reported these threats, which are also documented and illustrated by videos posted on YouTube. There is no SYNTH or OR in reporting these facts; they are all fully documented in the cited sources.

The edits do not attribute any responsibility to Roger Waters for the attacks on that venue when the band was playing. The band's frontman verbally responded to Waters with strong profane language. The content accurately quotes the frontman's provocative language. There is no defamation of Mr. Waters in these edits, merely accurate quotes of the frontman's provocative language.

Most importantly, the comments of the editors who have 'undone' the edits have been uncivil and insulting, replete with false accusations that have not been explained or substantiated. In the future let's discuss this issue rationally without such incivility, please.

Looking forward to reading the explanations of my fellow-editors' logic in this matter.

All the best.

Ronreisman (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that Roger Waters is a xxxxxxx, the users are right that your edit is WP:SYNT, it looks a bit like guilt by association. There is absolutely nothing connecting Waters with the attacks in Paris, neither directly nor indirectly, and bringing it up here is entirely undue. Jeppiz (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If you say this is not WP:SYNTH, then please point out which of these sources connects Waters in any way with the Paris ISIS attacks, because I'm not seeing it. Unless I'm missing something, you are combining two sources and making your own associations between them. It couldn't be a more clear-cut example of synthesis. Have you read the policy file WP:SYNTH and feel that you grasp what it's saying? --SubSeven (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Clearly Waters was not 'connected' to the Attacks in the sense that he was a perpetrator or supporter (heaven forfend!), and there should never be any edits which imply such a horrible thing. There are several reliable sources, however, that document his conflict with Eagles of Death Metal, and their very strong statements against BDS in general and Waters in particular, and several of these articles also note this in connection with the attacks on the Balaclan without any implication that Waters was actually involved in the attacks themselves. Here are a few:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/europe/before-paris-attack-concert-hall-had-long-history-in-music-and-politics.html
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/paris-attacks-eagles-death-metal-defied-pro-palestine-boycott-movement-roger-waters-play-israel-1529643
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=82a_1448026737
http://adarapress.com/2015/11/18/jesse-hughes-of-eagles-of-death-had-just-two-words-for-roger-waters-video-from-tel-aviv-performance/
http://www.huffingtonpost.it/2015/11/17/eagles-roger-waters-israele_n_8581404.html
http://www.taz.de/!5251354/
http://forward.com/news/world/324759/paris-bataclan-theater-recieved-threats-over-pro-israel-events-before-the-a/
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/paris-attacks-eagles-death-metal-095111626.html#TJ4ZwCU
http://www.br.de/radio/bayern2/sendungen/zuendfunk/politik-gesellschaft/eagles-of-death-metal-bei-den-anschlaegen-in-paris-100.html
Since there are obviously multiple reliable sources that mention both the EDOM/Waters Conflict and the Paris Attacks (including the New York Times), it is certainly not OR:SYNTH to cite the content of these sources. Nevertheless, I'm personally fine if the Waters article just mentions the public conflict with EDOM, just as it currently mentions the public conflict with Bon Jovi. Neglecting to mention this increasingly famous conflict (with EDOM) appears to be an attempt to actually suppress information that is interesting to the public and certainly relevant to the history of Waters' activism. Ronreisman (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
You're on solid ground adding material about Waters and his fight with The Eagles of Death Metal because it directly relates to his activism. But you can't bring in the Paris attacks unless Waters himself was clearly involved or made statements about it in RS. It's too many degrees of separation. Scaleshombre (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
No, the The Eagles of Death Metal part does not belong in the article. The section is fairly stable now and we should not start stuffing it with "he said this, they said that" quotes yet again. WP:NOTNEWS. Nymf (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Stability? Does that take precedence over accuracy and comprehensiveness in Wikipedia? Scaleshombre (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Not going into this with you or your buddies again. Read the policy that I linked above. Nymf (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Since some of the editors have indicated they will not under any circumstances 'allow' the sourced material to be added to that article, perhaps it's best to submit this to the Dispute Resolution Board before getting into an edit war or uncivil arguments where we must suffer more ad hominem attacks (e.g. RolandR's insults, repeated false accusations of "egregious breach of BLP" etc. ). Ronreisman (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I think you have a misunderstanding what 'Dispute Resolution' is. It's something to settle disputes between a couple of editors, whereas this is you trying to insert material with multiple editors against it. And it's voluntary. I for one, would not be willing to enter into any kind of dispute resolution, as the desired content that you wish to insert is synthesis and BLP sensitive material. There is no dispute resolution that would rectify those concerns. Dave Dial (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

At The O2 Arena in London on 12 May 2011, Gilmour and Mason once again appeared with Waters and Gilmour performing "Comfortably Numb", and Gilmour and Mason joining Waters for "Outside the Wall".

This seems a bit of a jumble. I tried to do an edit, but was unable due to what I presume is protection of the article itself. I feel it would be beneficial if someone, who agrees with the lack of clarity, could do an edit to clear this up. Either way, the article, as a whole, is quite well written. Thanks to all who have contributed.THX1136 (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roger Waters. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Instruments

Presently Waters is only listed as singing and playing bass. He also plays guitar and piano and has performed on both in the studio as well in concert. Guitar and piano/keyboards should be added.

Preservedmoose (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Preservedmoose: You're correct, Waters does play other instruments, but only primary instruments go in the infobox, secondary instruments should be mentioned here. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

lead and infobox

The lead sentence and infobox are not consistent, they have different lists of professions. Also songwriter and composer are redundant. I propose "English singer, songwriter, and bassist", and to make it consistent between lead and infobox. LK (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

They're not redundant at all. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Grammy

Dear Joefromrandb, I'm so tired of your vandalism! Waters NEVER, NEVER, NEVER won a Grammy!! Look this and stop your vandalism! Progenie (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, you can't be that daft. See Pink Floyd. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
They won for "Marooned", but Waters left the band in 1987 and that song was recorded in 1994. PD: What means "daft"? Daft Punk? Progenie (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should inform Mr. Waters that he isn't a member of the R&RHoF either. The article has become a complete sow's ear since Gabe retired anyway. There's little point in attempting to police it at this point. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Roger Waters has not won a Grammy Award and the article was corrected by removing the Grammy Award winner category. Piriczki (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
If that's what you need to feel better about yourself, sure. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
After Progenie and Piriczki have pointed out that you have made a mistake, it would have been good manners to acknowledge the mistake and move on. LK (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It also would have been foolish. It's neither "good manners" nor "moving on" to restart a seven-months-stale conversation with faux ass-kissing intended solely to stir the pot. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Roger Waters. 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) 17:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Roger Waters Documentary

Investigative journalist Ian Halperin is making a documentary, Wish You Weren't Here, that's critical of Waters' BDS activism. RS discuss the film, which is slated for release later this summer. I tried to add a sentence about the film to the Activism section, but was repeatedly reverted by Joefromrandb. How do other editors feel about the article including a sentence on the film in the Activism section? Scaleshombre (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I find that rather reasonable. Ian Halperin is a notable journalist, and a documentary about Waters by him is certainly also notable. However, I would not add it before the documentary is actually out. That someone is in the process of making a documentary is borderline gossip. So yes to including it, but only when/if it is out, not before. Jeppiz (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It has nothing to do with whether it's out or not. As Johnuniq noted, it can be included if a secondary source reports it having an impact on Waters. Otherwise, it's coat-racking, something which Scaleshombre has a long history of unsuccessfully attempting at this page. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Joefromrandb, are you able to AGF and stick to the topic? Scaleshombre (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, then you're in willful violation of one of Wikipedia's Five Pillars. Perhaps the time has come when WP would benefit more from your absence than your participation. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Scaleshombre: That's a pretty arrogant statement considering your talk page warnings. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Eric Waters and pacifism

The article states:

“Waters was born on 6 September 1943, the younger of two boys, to Mary (née Whyte; 1913–2009) and Eric Fletcher Waters (1914–1944), in Great Bookham, Surrey.[2] His father, the son of a coal miner and Labour Party activist, was a schoolteacher, a devout Christian, and a Communist Party member.[3] In the early years of the Second World War, his father was a conscientious objector who drove an ambulance during the Blitz.[3]

“He later changed his stance on pacifism, joined the Territorial Army and was commissioned into the 8th Battalion, Royal Fusiliers as a Second Lieutenant on 11 September 1943.[4] He was killed five months later on 18 February 1944 at Aprilia, during the Battle of Anzio, when Roger was five months old.[5] He is commemorated at the Cassino War Cemetery.[6] On 18 February 2014, Waters unveiled a monument to his father and other war casualties in Aprilia, and was made an honorary citizen of Anzio.[7]”

Is there any information available as to when Eric Waters dropped his conscientious objector status? By any chance, was this shortly after the German invasion of the Soviet Union?

Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Before anyone replies that the answer to my question is contained in the quote from the article:
“He later changed his stance on pacifism, joined the Territorial Army and was commissioned into the 8th Battalion, Royal Fusiliers as a :Second Lieutenant on 11 September 1943,”
that does not necessarily answer it. Eric Waters might have enlisted prior to his commission as an officer as an enlisted man and later became an officer candidate.
Thank you, again.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Roger Waters. 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) 04:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roger Waters. 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) 05:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roger Waters. 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) 04:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018

I would like to request that Roger Waters be put in the following categories: "English atheists" and "Progressive rock musicians". 173.62.249.171 (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sakura CarteletTalk 22:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Per our policy on writing about living people we generally do not include categories for sexual orientation, religious affilation or like unless it is both relevant to the article, and sourced. See this page for more details. No opinion on the progressive rock musicians category though. Sakura CarteletTalk 22:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Oxford comma

Why is use of the the Oxford comma preferred here? The subject of this article is British. The Oxford comma is typically not used in British English. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I mean, what the hell would The Oxford Manual of Style possibly know about British English? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
You're claiming that this one single style guide dictates that we must the use of the serial comma in all British English? Or that it's the only source that must be followed? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Neither. I'm "claiming" that it was good enough to get the article to FA status, and it was good enough to stand for many years, unchallenged. There's simply no reason to change it, especially since it's good enough for The Oxford Manual of Style. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018


MarcusGargiuloi (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I want to suggest to add the wild orchid that has been named after Roger Waters and it was discovered in Salento by the researchers Marco Gargiulo, Roberto Gennaio e Francesco S. Chetta. Here is the link of the pubblication https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321756950_Serapias_watersii_nothosubsp_watersii_S_politisii_S_vomeracea_subsp_longipetala_nuovo_ibrido_naturale_del_Salento_Puglia

Thanks a lot --MarcusGargiuloi (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)MarcusGargiuloi

Not sure where this could go. Personal life? Activism? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe could be created a section named "honors and recognitions" what do you think about it? --MarcusGargiuloi —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: ResearchGate is a portal for scientific publications and a networking site, so it does not fulfill the independence criteria of our General notability guideline. Strictly speaking, this guideline applies to whether a subject is notable enough for an article but it is also a useful metric for whether a significant new section should be added, as this change requests. I see no wider news coverage that has picked up on this naming in independent sources so I would be disinclined to add this. This appears to be an attempt to promote your research by generating wider coverage, but that's working backwards. We see if the wider coverage exists first, then reflect that. We don't try to provoke such wider coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

White Helmets position

We have two major media sources, from both the left and right (Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post respectively), who find this newsworthy. And the Max Blumenthal article draws from interviews and materials provided by Waters himself, so this is not a fleeting position. 100 percent notable.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC) GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The comment is definitely newsworthy; the key here is whether it is something that merits inclusion in a biography that takes a broad view of the subject's life. My personal internal test is to imagine the article 20 years after the guys is dead and gone - is this item still something that would be worth a paragraph in the biography. To me, the answer is a pretty clear no.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Tend to agree. I'm not sure if that 2-minute speech from his concert stage in Spain three weeks ago counts as "activism" or just a bit of crowd-pleasing political observation. We don't really know who Pascal Something-or-other is, do we? The main message there seems to be that we should "do everything before dropping bombs." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
It most likely will be in his biography. Virtually every biography of Jimi Hendrix mentions his relationship with the Black Panthers, even though the relationship was fleeting. Most bios of David Bowie mention him giving a Nazi salute, even though it only happened once. Political controversies stick to artists most stubbornly.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
To be written by whom? And to be published when? Maybe that Mr Mabbett has been approached already? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
This is a significant position as attested by the wide international coverage (which, for the most part, Waters does not receive anymore for his politics) - a position we can certainly mention in a sentence or two.Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Rogers is known for his music and as one of the members of Pink Floyd, not so much for his politics. We don't have mentions of every song he's ever performed in a concert, we surely shouldn't have a mention of every political utterance he makes during those concerts. It's Undue Weight for a BLP. Dave Dial (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is exactly what I wanted to say. Actually, some other parts of "Activism" section might also be "undue", but this needs to be checked. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
That was my concern, too—but given that this is a Featured Article, maybe some of us should take a step back and let the more experienced page watchers, who presumably know the subject better, make a final determination.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, including new info ("White Helmets") in a Featured Article must be done with care and only by consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No, this is dumb. So what if there are "two sources". This is a very very very minor non event in the man's career. Can we stop being ridiculous? This is sorta common sense and has nothing to do with politics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

More like over 100 sources, in multiple languages.Icewhiz (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Content seems well-sourced and revelant. I don't think Water's political opinions about Assad and the conflict in Syria are any less relevant than his opinions about Israel, which are covered in this article. This seems a clear case of WP:I don't like it.--יניב הורון (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Israel is a much more significant entity than the White Helmets, no? So it makes sense that that gets coverage while this doesn't. But even the whole Israel section is probably a bit too detailed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not think any cases when he simply expressed his opinion about something belong to the page. However, when he made an action (and the "activism" is about action, including creating a song in his case) which resulted in a controversy, that must be included. Most, but not all content in this section belongs to the latter category. My very best wishes (talk)
I would agree. That needs to be sorted first. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz is correct, there are many more sources covering this, not only in Israel, but in England[1] and Australia [2]. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/blog/2018/4/15/pink-floyds-co-founder-roger-waters-says-white-helmets-fake
  2. ^ http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/roger-waters-says-syrian-white-helmets-are-fake-organization-at-barcelona-concert/video/824cf96cf3bf742c3c85dfea5b9392f0

Lost Boys Calling

There is no mention in the article of "Lost Boys Calling", the song he contributed to the soundtrack of the film The Legend of 1900. Can this be added to the article? --Viennese Waltz 09:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Long-term POV problems

Having followed this article for years (I like Pink Floyd) I have become increasingly concerned by how any criticism is immediately removed, no matter how well sourced it is. While WP:BLP is an important policy, it does not mean we can only say positive things about persons and that any criticism should be silenced. It means we must have sources for what we say, and it must be relevant. In the case of Roger Waters, he is not an artist who has made some off-hand political remark. Quite the contrary, he is a person who has used his celebrity status to actively comment and engage in political matters, often in a highly controversial way. The fact that he made great music (in my view) does not mean he cannot be criticized. It is a simple fact that Waters has repeatedly been accused of being an anti-Semite. Whether he is or not is not something that is for us to decide (see WP:OR), but the accusations against him have been frequent, notable and published in reliable sources. It is also a matter of fact that he has made several wildly inaccurate claims about Venezuela, and supported its dictator. Again, this has been published in reliable sources. However, whenever someone tries to mention the accusations of anti-semitism, or put Waters's support for the Venezuelan regime in context by providing good, reliable sources about the kind of regime it is, they are reverted on the spot. Regardless of how reliable the sources are. This is starting to be a real POV issue, where apparent fans of Waters (either of his music or his politics) appear to remove or water down any criticism. That is exactly what POV is all about. Again, Waters himself has chosen to become heavily engaged in political campaigning and to take the political positions he has taken. He has every right to do, it is called freedom of speech. That same freedom of speech also extends to those who criticize him. Faced with the stonewall of reverts on this page, I am tagging it for POV for the time being. The idea here is to make an article about Waters, not make a fan page for him. Jeppiz (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this will help. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
FlightTime, it is helpful to some extent but does not really go to the root of the problem. Several of the apparent gate keepers of this article are regular users, not IPs. A look at the edits just today confirms this [14], [15], [16], [17]. Could I also point out that the POV tag I have placed concerns the article as a whole, not just a section. For a very controversial character, the criticism is far below due weight in the article as a whole. Jeppiz (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: Thanks for pointing that out, didn't notice, just knew there's been a lot of activity on the article. Thanks, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Changing "Venezuelan government" to "Venezuelan dictatorship" diff is off-topic partisanship (the three sources do not mention the subject of this article). This is not the place to point out Venezuela's problems. Find a secondary source with an analysis of comments by Waters about Venezuela and paraphrase the source's criticism (if any) of the comments. For an NPOV tag to be retained it is necessary that precise text be identified with an explanation and sources justifying the tag. Johnuniq (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Of course it's not off-topic. Had that change been made in a sentence about Waters visiting Venezuela or similar, then I agree it would be off-topic. That's not the case. The controversy is because Waters himself explicitly denied Venezuela being a dictatorship and claiming it to be a democracy. Then it's certainly not off-topic to point out the facts, using good reliable sources like Human Rights Watch or Washington Post. Keep in mind that Venezuela is only part of the story. It's also surprising that some of the more well-reported controversies are missing, such as the city of Munich stating that it's "unequivocally clear that Waters' anti-Semitic rabble-rousing is not welcome in Munich and will not go unchallenged." The reason is the same. Every time someone tries to report on these issues, they are instantly reverted by some gate-keeper users. It doesn't matter how well sourced the controversy is, it's either completely removed (as in the case with Waters and Munich) or so watered down as to lose all meaning (such as claiming it's "off-topic" to point out that Waters called a dictatorship a democracy). Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
For Wikipedia, the only thing that matters is who says? Using three sources that do not mention Waters is not acceptable in this article. That would be quickly confirmed at WP:BLPN or WP:HELPDESK. What text in the article justifies the NPOV tag? Why? What text is missing that justifies the NPOV tag? Why? In both cases, sources are needed. Otherwise, there is no reason for the tag to remain. Waffle about gatekeepers is not useful at Wikipedia: details of an actionable proposal are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

The sentence, "according to RIAA," should probably be, "according to THE RIAA." There should be a "the" there. 98.0.33.169 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2019

In a recent interview Roger expressed a) hatred towards the state of Israel, and b) support for the violent gang called "Black Lives Matter". 71.246.223.194 (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also please be aware of WP:NPOV. NiciVampireHeart 04:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2019

I request permission to add the following fact which is absent in this article. In 1970, Roger Waters composed, in collaboration with Ron Geesin, Music from The Body, the soundtrack album to Roy Battersby's documentary film The Body. Articles about "Ron Geesin", "Music from The Body", “Roy Battersby”, and “The Body”, already exist on Wikipedia. So, I propose the following text: “In 1970, he composed, in collaboration with Ron Geesin, Music from The Body, the soundtrack album to Roy Battersby's documentary film The Body”. This text should be inserted at the beginning of the third paragraph, before “Waters’ solo work includes…”, so that the chronological sequence is not altered. I suggest the inclusion of the following four links: from "Ron Geesin", "Music from the body", “Roy Battersby”, and “The Body”, to their corresponding articles in Wikipedia. In addition, the following two sources should be incorporated as a reference: - http://www.roger-waters.com/musicfromthebody.php - https://www.headheritage.co.uk/unsung/thebookofseth/ron-geesin-roger-waters-music-from-the-body Fernando Fábez (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your contribution. Fish+Karate 10:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

Please change {{cite news|last=Freedland|first=Jonathan|authorlink=Jonathan Freedland|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/20/trump-us-syria-truth-tribal-robert-mueller-white-helmets-factse|title=The great divide of our times is not left v right, but true v false|work=The Guardian|date=20 April 2018|date=8 November 2019}}

to

{{cite news|last=Freedland|first=Jonathan|authorlink=Jonathan Freedland|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/20/trump-us-syria-truth-tribal-robert-mueller-white-helmets-factse|title=The great divide of our times is not left v right, but true v false|work=The Guardian|date=20 April 2018|accessdate=8 November 2019}}

which corrects the duplicate date= parameter (the second is clearly not the date of the article, but probably the accessdate since the article is dated 20 April 2018). This will remove the page from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. 198.102.155.111 (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

also, @Philip Cross: who introduced the duplicate parameter. 198.102.155.111 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 Done You could've just said "access-date needed in Ref 153". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Activist

The opening sentence of this article needs to include Water's career as a political activist as well as a musician. It is possible that the public is now much more familiar with Waters as an activist than as a musician or for his association with Pink Floyd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.252.210 (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Resolved
See Special:Diff/393987147 - FlightTime (open channel) 23:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

the February 22 event in london was for supporting freedom request for Julian Assange

about Roger_Waters#Other_activism, the reported February 22 event in london - where Waters speak against Citizenship (Amendment) Act - was in support to Julian Assange (as reported on the quoted source ndtv.com):

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-extradition-protest-london-wikileaks-parliament-embassy-vivienne-westwood-a9352831.html
rogerwaters.com/assange-london-speech/

...why has not been said? even on Julian Assange article, this fact is not present (even if reported in talk: Talk:Julian_Assange#add_new_section_-_something_like_"Assange_supporter")

there is some opinion against Assange leading wikipedia, that put under silence the worldwide support he still receive? --5.170.47.176 (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

A subsection called "Criticism" was recently created in the "Activism" section. It is unclear what this subsection is meant to include. Is it criticism by Waters, criticism of Waters or both? It currently includes mention of a documentary he narrated which doesn't fit either category. I also believe, though I haven't seen it in writing, that we are encouraged not to create separate criticism sections. Any thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, I agree. I mean, the first paragraph of this section is 'Waters narrated the 2016 documentary The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel’s Public Relations War in the United States about the methods used by Israel to shape American public opinion.' Nothing to do with the purported subject of this section. It should be merged into other sections, but anything to do with Israel-Palestine requires a delicate hand. Popcornfud (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
That’s good to hear. I’ll give it a few days to see if there are any objections, then gently put it back into the Israel and Palestine section. Burrobert (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Burrobert, I'd say just be WP:BOLD and do it now. It can be reversed if anyone disagrees. Popcornfud (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Right-o thanks Popcornfud. I have followed your suggestion. Burrobert (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The section should be called criticism as there are several publications and authors calling out Waters' anti-Semitic behaviour in recent years. Glucken123 (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at wp:criticism. Some excerpts:
“In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias, whether positive or negative”.
“Integrate negative material into sections that cover all viewpoints of the event, product, or policy that is being criticized, rather than in a dedicated "criticism" section”.
Burrobert (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It may be best to place this under a "controversy" section. This would avoid any bias being seen within a section called "criticism" whilst allowing it to be a sub-section considering its significance within his public life. "Contoversy" simply notes the opposition to his activism without implying he was objectivly in the wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by That Drunk Monkey 12 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggested alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments". Also, best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. Burrobert (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr Waters is in the news today June 16, 2021. Zuckerberg requested Mr. Waters accept an offer to join his censorship drive with a large sum of money, which Waters didn't accept the operation in any measure regardless of amount. Obviously Waters angrily supports freedom for Julian Assange. [1]

Just as I thought, socialism hasn't solved how to reveal the significance of a story when a direct conflict erupts between two political stars.
"Thought" is not always a synonym for "reacted". YouCanDoBetter (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, my nonsequitur friend. Here's the video.... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yLJeyBk9kIY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.239.100 (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I might not understand - what is meant by "hasn't solved how to reveal the significance of a story"? Are you just saying you want the story posted? YouCanDoBetter (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Look at the start of this page here, one can't post Roger Waters own criticism he encounters and responds to. The page is locked.

Associated acts

Should Ron Geesin be added as an associated act? They worked together on Pink Floyd'd "Atom Heart Mother", and made a collaborative album called "Music From The Body". Notarussianspy69 (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Instruments

Waters is definitely know for playing guitars and synthesizers, keyboards could also possibly be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80s Sam (talk • contribs) 14:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Engagement/Marriage

Haven't found "reputable source" media coverage yet, but Roger just posted this on Instagram (seemingly wedding pictures) and this article (not sure if it counts as reputable) talks about him getting engaged-- I assume with the same woman in the post. Suffice it to say watch out for when a citeable article comes out and add it to his Personal Life section! Eggventura (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Activism Section vs Controversies

I think Roger Water's history with Antisemitisim should be included in a separate controversy section, rather than as part of his general activism section. When reading as is, one expects to learn of his activism but instead is informed predominately of his history of antisemitism — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManU2482 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I made a few changes to your edits. The reasons are in the edit summaries. The article should be under Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement due to Waters involvement in the Palestinian rights movement. I have added the template to this page. Burrobert (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Pig stuff

OK, this pig stuff is excessive. I agree with the recent merge (we never needed an article about it) but do we really need all this data? Popcornfud (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it. Popcornfud (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The reference to Gaza as "virtual prison" in the context of the West Bank barrier in inaccurate. The barrier does not border Gaza. Walters Guardian article (referenced) does not state so. 159.196.247.54 (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to publish Waters is a know Communist

Personal Life

Waters followed in his father's footsteps and is a believer and follower of Communism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:DDA0:A60:F4D6:C7C2:E86E:C551 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

I am reviewing this (old or very old) FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. The original FAC nominator has not edited for years, and the article has not been maintained to FA standards. A sampling (incomplete) of issues from this version includes:

  • Sources red-flagged by User:Headbomb/unreliable.
  • Incomplete citations: Roger Waters Weighs In On Politics, Religion, & Money | On The Table Ep. 5 Full | Reserve Channel
  • A WP:PROSELINE mess in both sections of Activism
  • Inconsistent section headings, eg ...
    • 3.4 2005–2015: Pink Floyd reunion, Ça Ira, and further touring
    • 3.5 2010–present: The Wall Live and Is This the Life We Really Want?
  • Datedness; he's currently on tour (2022); where's that ?
  • Overquoting, eg activism sections.
  • WP:CITATION OVERKILL, sample: Several publications described Waters comment about Adelson as antisemitic.[144][145][146][147][148]
  • There are many sources used in Activism that probably aren't high-quality as required for an FA.
  • Datedness, review needed throughout, sample: Having sold over 23 million RIAA certified units in the US as of 2013, is tied for sixth-most certified album of all time in America.

A complete rewrite of Activism is needed, to reduce the excess detail and proseline. An overall update is needed, and a MOS review will probably be needed. As this article is a BLP, I am listing it at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes - it's not FA quality imo. Popcornfud (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, it would struggle to make GA as it is now. --Ef80 (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Two to three weeks after FARGIVEN, unless significant improvements happen anyone may nominate the article at WP:FAR; I am always at my five-nom limit. Please see instructions at WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Could someone (one of the privileged few) include Water's involvement in the run-up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Here's a sample from the Guradian:

Prior to the band’s unexpected reconvening, Pink Floyd’s post-1987 output – and the solo work of their late founder, Syd Barrett – was removed from streaming services in Russia and Belarus as part of a cultural boycott. Their most famous work, from the 1960s and 70s, was not removed, leading to rumours that moves to do so had been blocked by former Pink Floyd member Roger Waters, whose relations with his former bandmates are legendarily strained. A week before Russia invaded Ukraine, Waters told an interviewer on Russia Today that talk of a Russian invasion was “bullshit ... anybody with an IQ above room temperature knows [an invasion] is nonsense”; he has subsequently condemned the invasion calling it “the act of a gangster”, while also condemning “propaganda to demonise Russia”. It’s a subject on which Gilmour won’t be drawn. “Let’s just say I was disappointed and let’s move on. Read into that what you will.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.206.150 (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

forced to resign like Wright had been years earlier (should say Barrett, not Wright) 2601:245:4202:1F70:0:0:0:3B1C (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Anti-Israel rhetoric" from the NY Post

Looks like there's been a bit of an edit war over describing some of Waters' speech as "anti-Israel rhetoric". The original language apparently comes from story in the NY Post quoting an unnamed source at American Express. The actual spokesperson for American Express does not make this characterization. The NY Post is generally not a reliable source, so I don't think we should be using them to make a controversial point in a BLP article. The unnamed source is obviously not authorized to speak on behalf of the company, so all we know is that they are some random person who works there. Haaretz is generally a better source, but scrubbing a NY Post story through them doesn't take off the stink.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian views

His views of Ukrainian policy are notable and terrible enough to be included in a controversy section. 70.106.197.78 (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/roger-waters-tells-mark-zuckerberg-fyou-wanting-pink-floyd-song-1600234
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Waters/Archive_15&oldid=1137162023"