Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:09, 12 August 2013

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 10 days

	Roger Waters is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 15, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed September 15, 2010 Good article nominee Listed October 1, 2010 Peer review Reviewed November 4, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 15, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pink Floyd Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pink Floyd on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pink FloydWikipedia:WikiProject Pink FloydTemplate:WikiProject Pink FloydPink Floyd Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was a past project collaboration. To-do list: Fair use Add fair use rationale to all images and sound samples (all except images already labeled free use). Re-size large images around to 300 pixels (all "fair use" images), other than album covers (already done). Articles Expand all articles to at least Start class. Some song stubs can't be expanded and should be redirected to the relevant album article. Use the "Interstellar Overdrive" article as an example when editing a song stub. Expand all of the Floyd's studio album articles to at least GA status. See COTM for monthly collabs. Project building Add WikiProject Pink Floyd banner {{WPFloyd}} to all appropriate Talk pages. Personally invite quality editors working on Pink Floyd articles to join the project. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list. This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one? Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Accusations of anti-Semitism and material concerning same

Can what title and what material that should be added here please be discussed by all users since there seems to be a clear slow motion edit war going on? I don't really care what title is used, but I did revert it and I also removed some material that seemed ORish and not sure how notable or RS the citation was. I would much prefer to add material that has been very widely covered and discussed by multiple RS. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I brought this to the BLP board. The more eyes the better. --Malerooster (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

it seems like the erasing issue is motivated not from "making the article better" point but from subjective bias. the section is clearly about 2 subjects. you can't say that critizism of israel is the same as antisemitism. moreover- the erases are made mostly without any explenation whereas i gave alredy couple of explenations. also, it seems that there are some usere eager to erase the antisemitism thing, although it is well recorded and a provided enough references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyNolan (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we actually have secondary sources as sources from ppl who accuse him of anti-semitism isnt the same at all. You are giving undue weight to these accusations, esp turning a header into an accusation, it isnt acceptable, nor is edit warring against multiple editors and you are in danger of being blocked for violating the WP:3RR rule. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Only one or two named persons have actually accused Waters of anti-semtitism. So this is absolutely WP:UNDUE and as such I will change it back to a more neutral header per WP:BLP. GabeMc 19:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

you don't even refer to the points i wrote before- critisizm of israel is not the same as antisemitism and putting those subjects together without appropriate reference to them both is wrong. i suggested before that the antisemitism section will be seperated but it was put together so at least we can make the headlige right without the feeling that it's a try to "erase" the antisemitism issue.

Waters was accused in antisemitism by more tham 2 people as i presented in the references. moreover, he was accused by notanle people in the local community and in Wiesenthal Center. i don't see who dismissing a whole section in the article is "neutral".

i gave a lot of sources- both from newspapers and ADL ( i dont see anyone disputing ADL to be an unreliabe source), moreover- Water's reaction is presented in the article with a reference to facebook, is facebook is a reliable sourse? are all those users erasing without explenation don't violate the rules? thet are, but i dont see you blocking them.

therefore my conclusion on the whole issue that it's full of subjective bias and not objective contribution to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyNolan (talk • contribs) 19:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Scotty Nolan. IMO, you are pushing a nasty POV that violates WP:BLP. You've been edit warring and agenda pushing at this article. Waters is not anti-Semitic, he is anti-colonialism: he is against the illegal settlements that Israel is building; he is not anti-semitic. Just because one or two people have said this we don't add it as a fact to a WP:BLP (BTW, the pig balloon has been used since 2010). As the article now reads its fairly neutral and balanced. The most notable criticisms are highlighted and Waters' responses noted. IMO, you are trying to slant the tone of the article to prove or imply that Waters is in fact a known anti-semite, which is highly inappropriate. Do you really think that a guy whose father died fighting Nazis would grow-up to be pro-Nazi? GabeMc 19:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Waters has gone out of his way to refute a small handful of baseless accusations of anti-Semitism, even going as far as to rearrange the animated sequence in his show because someone felt the dollar signs and Stars of David were too close to each other. WP:FRINGE opinions that give undue WP:WEIGHT to clear nonsense have no place in any article, let alone a featured one. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wall was one of the most anti fascist albums I have ever listened to, parodying fascism in places but never promoting it even slightly, and Waters clearly hasn't changed his point of view over the years. It is always dangerous to accuse someone ofracism when they firmly deny such accusations, it isnt the same as someone who self-identifies as anti-semitic and some of the weight placed on these unnotable accusations has already put[REDACTED] in a bad light. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

" It is always dangerous to accuse someone ofracism when they firmly deny such accusations" Misplaced Pages articles should be guided by policy, not by what you personally consider "dangerous". There are many examples of Dog-whistle politics even David Duke says he's not racist. The article should follow Wiki policy. Drsmoo (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Be assured[REDACTED] policy is NOT to accuse someone of racism when they deny it, that much I thought was obvious, sigh. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I noted the same thing maybe a week ago on the ANI board, and wanted to use that face to palm image thingy. Its probably time that ScottyNolan is blocked or topic banned due to this continued disruption and accusations that boarder on personal attacks. We have seen way to many agenda pushing editors like this come and go on this project. If this editor can't work with others toward some kind of consensus, and accept that, then he should not be part of the project, period. I guess time will tell.--Malerooster (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I partially agree. I haven't edited this article much but did discuss it at BLPN. It may not warrant a block/ban but the continuous addition of contentious material should stop. If there is no solid consensus then the material should be left out until there is one. ScottyNolan may end up at the short end of the stick because of the 3RR BLP exemption that others can use to keep the material out of the article until RfC/drama boards find a consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

3RR BLP exemption? Don't kid yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the talk page of the policy. If you wish to redact your statement then I will redact my response to keep the focus on this article and not policy nor other editors. "Don't kid yourself." I consider uncivil and in bad faith. I do have thick skin so I won't respond by commenting on your parents, ancestry, and personal habits.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your statement is just plain bizarre. I wrote that response as a caveat to those editors who have put in much hard work on this article. WP:3RRNO, at least as far as the WP:BLP exemption goes is an outright lie and I don't want anyone here to be fooled into believing it will cover them. That you've chosen to find it "uncivil and in bad faith" is beyond my power to control. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail now have an article on the subject. The way it is presented, though, in no way marks Waters as racist, IMO. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

BRD

I don't dispute that The Final Cut is a cemented piece of Waters' legacy. I removed it because it says: "Pink Floyd achieved international success with...". I don't see how TFC contributed to the international success of Pink Floyd in the way the other albums mentioned did. There was no tour in support of this album and it spawned one censored single. While it's inarguably a major success of Waters', it did very little to advance the Pink Floyd brand. If it's to stay in the lede I think the wording should be tweaked to reflect this. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: "While it's inarguably a major success of Waters', it did very little to advance the Pink Floyd brand." This article is about Waters, not Pink Floyd. GabeMc 21:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That was more-or-less my point. The sentence says: "Pink Floyd achieved international success...", not: "Waters achieved...". The difference is not semantics. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see here. The article currently reads: "The band subsequently achieved international success with the concept albums The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, The Wall and The Final Cut." Are you suggesting that TFC wasn't successful? It sold more than 3 million copies and Rolling Stone called it: "a superlative achievement ... art rock's crowning masterpiece". Loder viewed The Final Cut as 'essentially a Roger Waters solo album'." What's the point here Joe; I'm feeling a little policed by you these last few days. GabeMc 21:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My point was that is, as you noted, essentially a Waters album and 3 million copies is not a lot compared to the other albums listed. It did much to bring success and acclaim to Waters but very little for Pink Floyd. I've been discussing things politely and following BRD; I'm both surprised and troubled that you feel "policed" by me. Seeing as you accomplish more in an average day here than I have in 3 years, you're the last editor I would attempt to police. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Joe, TFC does not need to equal the sales of the other albums to be listed among them. WYWH sold less then DSOTM and Animals sold less then WYWH. Only The Wall outsold all the others. I think TFC was a critical and commercial success and so do several other Floyd editors. Frankly, this is a huge waste of my time that I should have spent improving an article. GabeMc 22:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Biased Headline

Placing the Star of David controversy under "Criticism of Israel" is biased in that it implicitly sides with Waters' viewpoint. The Neutral headline would be "Controversy over use of Star of David" or "Political Views" or something similar. Drsmoo (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally I dont think the star of David issue is notable enough for inclusion in a header, certainly not in the same league as the criticism of Israel as a concept, the anti semitic accusations lack weight not solely because Waters disagrees with them, they are bordering on fringe so a simple inclusion is enough, IMO, they have ample coverage. I wouldnt object, though, to Political views as a header. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's notable enough to take up four of the five paragraphs in the section. As it stands, openly siding with Waters' is biased. The section should be changed to "Political Views." Drsmoo (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• The article in no way openly sides with Waters. The most notable criticisms are included along with Waters' responses. IMO, there is some inappropriate agenda pushing going on here. Two people making some outlandish claims does not an anti-Semite make. His grandchildren are Jewish and his father died fighting Nazis. As Waters told Cooper, you guys should really see the show, because you would see how absolutely ridiculous these allegations are if you did. As Waters asked: is someone who is anti-US foreign policy also anti-Christian? I strongly disapprove of the treatment of woman in many Arab countries, so am I now anti-Arab? Stop agenda pushing. The article is neutrally worded as it now reads. GabeMc 23:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The headline does, and your opinion on the charges is irrelevant. All that matters is notability. And as they've been published in notable sources, they are notable. By calling his use of the Star of David (the symbol of Judaism) a criticism of Israel, the article headline is agreeing with Waters, which is non neutral. "As Waters asked: is someone who is anti-US foreign policy also anti-Christian?" No, but pissing on a Cross and then claiming you're just criticizing the British government would be considered ridiculous. Your opinion on Waters' use of the Star of David does not mean the headline should agree with your opinion. Drsmoo (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The publishing of these claims by the Mail is because Waters is notable and is no evidence that the Rabbi's claims are notable. I suspect we are giving too much weight to these claims already and that to change the header because of these claims is giving them even greater weight. The idea that we are siding with Waters is frankly as absurd as the claims themselves. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's not notable, then it shouldn't be in the article. If it's in the article, the headline shouldn't agree with one side. I'm fine with it being removed from the article. Drsmoo (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with it being removed too, once removed I would also support changing the name to Political views just cos that is a broader headline. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

T/t

Apparently there is "longstanding consensus" that the info box is supposed to say "the Bleeding Heart Band", rather than "The Bleeding Heart Band". I don't know when this discussion took place (unless it's in reference to the debate at "The Beatles", which a.) has no bearing on other articles and b.) wouldn't apply to standalone items in a list anyway). I obviously know how Gabe feels; I'm curious what others think about this. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If I didn't know better I'd say that you are trolling for arguments; nobody has debated this time-waster for 9 months! Why not cap every entry after the first under Genre: Progressive rock, psychedelic rock, opera? Or Occupations: Musician, singer, songwriter, composer, producer, or Instruments: Vocals, bass guitar, guitar, synthesiser, clarinet? GabeMc 20:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Well then I'm glad you know better. Before I ask at the MoS talk page, could you please tell me where the "longstanding consensus" is for this most unusual convention? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

TMK, the MoS does not say that an editor must cap items in a list. I think it says that it may be preferable. Is there any good reason why the leading contributor has no input on this minutia-based argument? Why would we cap band names and not the other items I listed above, e.g Musician, Singer, Songwriter, Composer, Producer? GabeMc 23:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Because none of the items you listed is a proper noun. "The Bleeding Heart Band" is. When you reverted me, you said there was "longstanding consensus" about this. I'd still like to know where it is. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Or is the argument now "the leading contributor gets to do whatever he wants"? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Joe, IDK what your deal is lately, but to me you are being intentionally antagonistic. Nobody has argued this most minutia-based position for 9 months, so why now and why YOU? GabeMc 23:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Because it's bizarre and because I noticed it. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"the" is not a proper noun, its a definite article. The proper noun in question, Bleeding Heart Band, is capped and now you are edit-warring per WP:BRD, here and here. Also, do you have a source for trumpet? GabeMc 23:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You're asinkg me about "trumpet"? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

And you would be correct if the band was called "Bleeding Heart Band". It is not. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You would be correct if you weren't so incorrect, here and here. GabeMc 03:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, according to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lists#Horizontal lists:

In situations such as infoboxes, a single-line list may be useful—in this case:

List type

entry one, entry two, entry three

"Note the capitalization of only the first word in this list (but words that are normally capitalized would still be capitalized). This applies regardless of the separator used between the list type and the entries themselves—whether it is a comma (as in the first example above), or even an infobox divider (as in the second example above)." GabeMc 23:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Fine. We can continue this at WT:MOS. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Or here's an idea:

Since listing them horizontally causes a line-break anyway, we could list them vertically:

• Pink Floyd
• The Bleeding Heart Band

This would eliminate the awkwardness of both the line-break and the capitalization. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. - We don't list two items vertically, we list them horizontally. GabeMc 03:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course. No matter how silly it looks. I assume I should begin correcting all of the uppercase T's in this article now? "the Wall", "the Dark Side of the Moon", "the Final Cut", "the Wall Live Tour", ect., ect., ect...? This is what you're arguing for at WT:MOS, correct? I suppose if the article is going to look silly, we may as well make it look downright fucking ridiculous. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The only one who looks ridiculous here is you, Joey! The titles of works have a different set of grammatical rules then do the names of bands, but I don't feel like wasting anymore time attempting to teach you what you could learn from any decent style guide. Adiós patético niño duende! GabeMc 03:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Pink Floyd articles
• Top-importance Pink Floyd articles
• FA-Class Roger Waters articles
• WikiProject Pink Floyd articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Low-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles