Talk:Roger Waters/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Whitewashing of JewHatred

We currently live in an age where racism, bigotry, and prejudice are no longer excused or ignored because of one's accomplishments, and regardless of fame or fortune, people should be held accountable for their views. This article seems scrubbed of all mentions of Roger Waters' antisemtism and Jew Hatred, and the only references towards this subject are found under activism of the Israel Palestinian conflict. As far back as 2013 the ADL wrote an open letter warning that antisemitic tropes were abound within Roger Water's political stance against Israel. Is a PR firm being paid to scrub this page of negative coverage? Here is a very brief history of various prejudiced and offensive statements made by Roger Waters concerning Jews and Israel? This is what I have gathered in 1 hour of searching.

In a July 2012 OpED in the Pittsburg Post, Roger Waters complains of the "Israel lobby groups in the United States and elsewhere" targeting him.

In a 2012 Speech to the United Nations, he compared Israel's policies in Gaza to be the same as Nazi Germany's occupation of Europe. "“History tells us that the invasion and occupation of a land and the subjugation of its people almost always creates a resistance. Ask the French or the Dutch or the Poles or the Czechs, the list goes on. This crisis in Gaza is a crisis rooted in occupation.”

In a 2013 interview with Counterpunch, Roger Waters compares Israel to Nazi Germany stating "So for an artist to go and play in a country that occupies other people’s land and oppresses them the way Israel does, is plain wrong. They should say no. I would not have played for the Vichy government in occupied France in the Second World War, I would not have played in Berlin either during this time." After promoting controversial author Max Blumenthal, Roger Water claims that "This has been a very hard sell particularly where I live in the United States of America. The Jewish lobby is extraordinary powerful here and particularly in the industry that I work in, the music industry and in rock’n roll as they say. "

In a 2017 online interview with Omar Barghouti, Roger Waters he stated Israel's public diplomacy was on par with Nazi Germany “The thing about propaganda – again, it’s not hard to go back to Goebbels or the 1930s. You understand the tactic is to tell the big lie as often as possible over and over and over and over again. And people believe it.”

In 2017 investigative journalist, filmmaker, and New York Times best selling author Ian Halperin produced a documentary film titled "Wish You Weren't Here" shedding light on contemporary antisemitism and Roger Waters' obsessive hatred.

In a 2020 interview with Hamas affiliated Shehab News Agency, Roger Waters Stated: "Sheldon Adelson, who is the puppet master pulling the strings of Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, and what's his name... Sheldon Adelson is the puppet master pulling all of the strings... Sheldon Adelson believes that only Jews - only Jewish people - are completely human."

He goes on to state "The murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis last week was done with a technique invented by the IDF, by the occupation forces. The Israelis invested [the technique of] 'let's kill people by kneeling on their necks and cutting off the blood supply of the carotid artery to the brain.' that is an Israeli technique, taught to the militarized police forces of the U.S.A. by Israeli experts, who the Americans have been flying over to the United States, to teach them how to murder the blacks because they have seen how efficient the Israelis have been at murdering Palestinians in the occupied territories by using those techniques. And they are proud of it. They are proud of it. The Israelis are proud of it. They go: 'Look how good we are at this, you can learn...'"

In February of 2021, Roger Waters commented on Twitter in response to Oxford University accepting the IHRA definition of antisemitism :"“Don’t let the Israeli Lobby rewrite our dictionaries with this McCarthyite, racist, claptrap.” “We know what anti-Semitism is, and being anti-Israeli apartheid ain’t any part of it.”

In 2022 at an Online Event at McGill University, Roger Waters explained :“At the turn of the millennium, I had no idea really what was going on. I thought, Israel isn’t that people in sandals going around and you know farming, and aren’t they Socialists. … I was completely wrong. It’s not about that at all. It’s about a bunch of, you know, Europeans back in the middle of the 19th century deciding that they were going to take over this piece of land, and kick out anybody that lived there and take it over for themselves and for their own little cabal,” He then goes on to talk about B'nai B'rith, saying he remembers those "“a**holes from the last time I was in Canada, and they would be trying to get people to not come to my shows and to join them in the belief that I am an anti-Semite. … I pity them now because they are clinging to the last shreds of any attachment to their fascist belief in Jewish supremacy in the Holy Land, and it is fascist …The platform upon which B’nai Brith and the settler-colonialist Zionist movement and obviously the government stand... and it will no longer be there in spite despite rich donors to McGill University" Eframgoldberg (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

References

"Criticism of ethnic cleansing is anti-semitic you guys pls you have to support apartheid when we do it pls wikipedia pls don't think too hard about it pls" NotNotableArticle (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Response: calling Sheldon Adelson a "puppet master', repeatedly complaining about a "Jewish lobby" (rather than Israel Lobby - crucial difference), implicity blaming Israel for the murder of George Floyd, grotesquely trivializing the Holocaust by calling Israelis Nazis...this is just the tip of the iceberg with Waters, and this is not "criticism of ethnic cleansing" - this is all antisemitism, pure and simple, and the Wikipedia article should be more straightforward about it. It brushes over a lot of this stuff and smells like whitewashing.

Piano

Waters has been playing piano on his most recent tour and videos, would this been considered a notable instrument. 80s Sam (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

As far as instrumentation goes, Water is mainly known as the bassist for Pink Floyd, so not really. It could be worth mentioning somewhere in the article (just a sentence) if it has been covered by a reliable secondary source like Rolling Stone or a biography or something. Popcornfud (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Balance

Ukraine section needs an expanded and more balanced sample of reactions. 2600:8801:710E:7E00:F0E4:7CF3:9780:FA08 (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Views on Ukrainian war and Taiwan

Should this article include his views on those topics (Ukraine\Taiwan)? If so, could someone suggest wording and sourcing. https://www.newsweek.com/rogers-waters-pink-floyd-slammed-comments-taiwan-russia-1731581 –Daveout(talk) 21:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The end of Roger Waters' quote about the Russia/Ukraine War is inaccurate and misleading. He really says ". . . we don't know how many Ukrainians and Russians" https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/08/08/roger-waters-smerconish-intv-newday-sots-taiwan-ukraine-vpx.cnn

I completely agree. The citation of the quote is from a secondary source, which for some reason omits the word "Ukrainians", making it seem that he is not concerned with Ukrainian casualties but only Russian ones. In other words, while the quote in the Wikipedia article accurately quotes what it currently cites (the NME article), the NME article inaccurately quotes the primary source, which is the Smerconish interview, and thus, the quote in this Wikipedia article should be changed and the citation updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.164.177 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This section now includes the claim that Waters' views on the Ukraine war are 'similar to Russian propagana'. This is not substantiated in the text or by its citation, which is simply a transcript of his letter. Furthurmore, regardless of the narratives put forth by Russian government sources, his argument that NATO expansion within Ukraine led to the war and that there may be a diplomatic solution is not beyond the pale of political debate outside of Russia. The heavy and unsubstantiated implication that anyone who argues this must have been corrupted by Russian state influence is not suitable for Wikipedia. 81.129.190.173 (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. I have removed the OR interpretation from the sentence.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

PR Firm Sanitizing this page

Again, is a PR firm being paid to sanitize Roger Water's history of antisemitism? The ADL has an entire page dedicated to him, and someone has posted cited references. Is there a reason that Roger Water's antisemitism has been removed from the page? 2603:9001:3F00:BE42:D9C4:76E5:A20A:BE (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Very unlikely, though I see your point. Waters's anti-semitism is indeed sadly obvious and frequent but as a musician he also has lots of fans. It is rather common for articles on musicians (or athletes) to verge towards fan pages, with less positive aspects being challenged. That is still a problem, of course, and I agree this article is particularly unbalanced. Jeppiz (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Ironic that you should accuse a "PR firm" of having "sanitized" the page from defamatory accusations from pro-Israel activists, as the Israel lobby is a lot more likely to have access to PR firms than the Palestinian solidarity movement. The only basis for these anti-semitism allegations is that Waters criticizes the politics of Israel and defends the human rights of Palestinians, and pro-Israel activists (such as the ADL) considers all criticism of Israel to be antisemitism. The article already gives extremely undue weight to these baseless allegations, with a whole section devoted to these allegations from far-right lobby organizations who support the Israeli apartheid regime (this section was added by a persistent POV editor who has devoted most of his edits to pro-Israel vandalism and POV pushing, such as replacing "Palestine" with "Israel" in a lot of articles, btw). In fact, these ridiculous allegations against Waters deserves AT MOST a sentence in the article at all, for instance a remark such as "some pro-Israel organizations and activists, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), has accused Waters of antisemitism for his criticism of Israel and support for the BDS movement. Waters denies these allegations, arguing that criticism of Israel is not antisemitism". And actually, I would add that the article about Bill Clinton does not even mention the QAnon conspiracy theories about him - hence, to be consistent, there is no need to include these accusations from some extremist organizations against Waters either. It is about not giving undue weight to certain radical minority viewpoints (see WP:UNDUE), particularly when they are defamatory, obviously not fact-based, and target a living person. --Te og kaker (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attack blended with righting-great-wrongs comment from the IP. Ask at WP:Teahouse about the purpose of article talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

In response to a comment about the whitewashing of Roger Water's antisemitism, the poster first downplays it by ranting about "Israel Lobby", ignores the comments Roger Waters made about JEWS, calls the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the ADL "far right lobby groups", and suggesting that his record of antisemitism be reduced to a sentence, and then randomly provides Bill Clinton and QAnon as a template to follow.

There is so much wrong with this, and you think that calling it out is a personal attack? Not only does it smack itself of antisemitism by:

1. Bringing up the conspiracy theory and trope of all powerful Israel/Jewish Lobbies

2. Attempts to de-legitimize groups which are accepted my mainstream, and dedicated to fighting hate speech.

3. Attempting to downplay comments about Jews as valid criticism of Israel.

4. Attempts to downplay accusations y calling them "ridiculous", "defamatory" "not fact based" "targeted"

5. Attempts to deny justice to victims of hate speech by denying their experience, dictating what should and should not offend them.

6. Attempts to portray outrage as "radical minority viewpoints"

This is valid on a TALK Page? A valid response to someone pointing out that the page seems whitewashed of Roger Water's history of anti-Semitism? At the very least I expect Wikipedia to provide the same protections to Jews, as it would to any other persecuted minority group and to handle allegations of antisemitism, the same way it would handle allegations of racism. You want to look at BLP pages of people who have engaged in racist speech, Roseanne Barr, Michael Richards, MTG, Robert Sarver, Donald Sterling, Jon Gruden all provide examples of pages where their hate speech wasn't relegated to " a single sentence". Eframgoldberg (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Before replying this topic read this - WP:LEAD. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. And now read the Roger Waters#Political positions and Roger Waters#Antisemitism allegations. And then compare the content of these section to other meaningful sections of the article (Roger Waters#Live band members etc does not count). It is a problem and it needs to be fixed. The lead can not ignore a big part of the body. That is why I placed this tag - diff. Renat 12:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You're 100% right, and I had the same thought when I was looking at the controversy/political sections yesterday. Of course, those sections already have problems anyway... Popcornfud (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The usual procedure is to get the rest of the article right first. The Antisemitism section is a mess right now and needs to be greatly trimmed. Once that is done it may not belong in the lead anyway. Start by looking for good sources. I just took out something sourced to Facebook. Anything that doesn't have really good sourcing shouldn't be there. John (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

+1 to all that. Popcornfud (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You removed a primary source of his speech, just because he posted it on facebook, does not mean it can't be used. 2603:9001:3F00:BE42:D4FB:9AC6:D874:1219 (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree and this should be done ASAP. As a high visibility BLP, I think its content and sources have been vetted enough. Of course it'll never be 100% perfect but its possible to do a great job with what we already have. –Daveout(talk) 16:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've tagged this section accordingly. The next task will have to be trimming. Quotes can be summarised, for example. The section should be representative of how the very best real life sources depict this aspect of Waters's story. John (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This looks like it could be a useful new source: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/roger-waters-ukrainian-kill-list-1234604081/ Popcornfud (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that the lead could include a line like "Waters is also known for his political activism, particularly his criticism of Israel and support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement".

I agree that his political activism is prominent enough to be mentioned in the lead, but do it wisely. The sections about his political activism has been a source of POV editing and edit warring for quite some time, with clear agendas, which is probably not so surprising considering that some of his opinions are quite controversial, plus they have received widespread attention.

The "antisemitism allegations" section should itself be trimmed strongly - it is a clear example of undue weight and it's inclusion is obviously a result of an agenda. Yes, Waters has been accused of anti-semitism by certain pro-Israel organizations and activists for his support of the BDS movement, but I can't see that this is important enough to warrant more than a sentence in the section about his BDS activism, saying that "Some pro-Israel organizations, including the Anti Defamation League, has accused Waters of anti-semitism for his criticism of Israel and support for the BDS movement. Waters denies allegations of antisemitism, arguing that criticism of Israel is not antisemitism". It really doesn't warrant more weight than that, particularly because pro-Israel activists come with the same allegations to pretty much everyone who criticizes Israel. Even Jews who criticize Israel get the same allegations.

His statements about the Ukraine war has been the subject of similar POV editing. The section was obviously written with the intention to label Waters as pro-Russia in the first place, and the same IP editor has used Google Translate to insert the highly misleading original version of the section (which, among other things, falsely accused Waters of saying that "Ukraine should surrender", and blatantly accused Waters of "spreading Russian propaganda") on the articles about Waters on a lot of different Wikipedias, obviously intended as a smear campaign against Waters. While the section has later been edited here on enwiki, it still gives a misleading view of Waters' remarks on the conflict (it still does not even mention the fact that Waters condemned the invasion as "the act of a gangster" and called it a "heinous war of aggression", an omission which is obviously meant to serve an agenda).

Whether you share Waters' political views or not, it's still unacceptable to distort his actual views with the intent of making him fit a (derogatory) label. The parts of the article that concerns his political views needs a proper cleanup to fix such intentional distortions, and under no circumstances do these distortions of his views belong in the lead, neither the whole list of controversies which this article gives a lot of weight. --Te og kaker (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, it's pure hubris for you to think you have the authority to decide how much weight to give to someone's bigotry. You can't see how it warrants more than a sentence in the BDS section? The ADL among many other Jewish sources have deemed his comments hate speech, it is not up to you to whitewash it into a political section. As a matter of fact your comment itself on downplaying attacks on Jews as being a legitimate part of criticizing Israel deserves reporting to Wikipedia authorities. Shameful that people can be so upfront with their bias without any fear of consequences. 2603:9001:3F00:BE42:D4FB:9AC6:D874:1219 (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

No, the ADL and the Simon Weisenthal Center, groups which you describe as radical, accuse Roger Waters of antisemitism for his history of antisemitic remarks against Jews, not against Israel. 2603:9001:3F00:BE42:D4FB:9AC6:D874:1219 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Because there is a lot of coverage of this in reliable sources, it does merit its own section. Andre🚐 00:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems that Wiki admins might need to step in, as some of the viewpoints being expressed in the talk page border on hate speech. Eframgoldberg (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2022

In the past, Waters has been accused of antisemitism by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the Anti-Defamation League. [153][154] In 2017, the writer Ian Halperin produced a documentary film, Wish You Were'nt Here, accusing Waters of contemporary antisemitism and obsessive hatred. [155] In his July 2012 OpED in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Waters complained of the "Israeli lobby groups in the United States and elsewhere" targeting him. [156] In a 2012 speech to the United Nations, Waters compared Israel's policies in Gaza to Nazi Germany's occupation of Europe. "History tells us that the invasion and occupation of land and the subjugation of its people almost always create resistance. Ask the French, Dutch, Poles, or Czechs; the list goes on. This crisis in Gaza is a crisis rooted in occupation." [157] In 2013, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, an associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, accused Waters of antisemitism for including a giant pig balloon with a Star of David on its back at one of his concerts. [158][159] Waters defended his use of a "non-violent protest." [160] Later in a 2013 interview with Counterpunch, Waters compared Israel to Nazi Germany, stating, "So for an artist to go and play in a country that occupies other people's land and oppresses them the way Israel does, is just plain wrong. They should say no. "I would not have played for the Vichy government in occupied France during the Second World War, and I would not have played in Berlin either during that time." After promoting controversial author Max Blumenthal, Roger Waters said, "This has been a tough sell, particularly where I live in the United States of America. The Jewish Lobby is extraordinarily powerful here and particularly in the industry I work in, the music industry and in rock's roll, as they say." [119] In a 2017 online interview with Omar Barghouti, Waters stated Israel's public diplomacy was on par with Nazi Germany, claiming, "The thing about propaganda again, it is not hard to go back to Goebbels or the 1930s. "You understand the tactic is to tell the big lie as often as possible over and over and over again." After awhile, people believe it." [161][162] In a 2020 interview with the Hamas-affiliated Shehab News Agency, Waters stated: "Sheldon Adelson is the puppet master pulling the strings of Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, and what is his name? Sheldon Adelson is the puppet master pulling all of the strings. Sheldon Adelson believes that only Jews and Jewish people - are completely human." [163][164] In the same interview, he goes on to state, "The murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis last week was done with a technique invented by the IDF, by the occupation forces. The Israelis invented the technique of 'let us kill people by kneeling on their necks and cutting off the blood supply of the carotid artery to the brain. This is an Israeli technique taught to the militarized police forces of the U.S.A. by Israeli experts. The Americans have been flying them over to the United States to teach them how to murder the blacks because they have seen how efficient the Israelis have been at murdering Palestinians in the occupied territories by using those techniques. Moreover, they are proud of it. They are proud of it and the Israelis are proud of it. They go: "Look how good we are at this and you can learn" [165][166] Later in a 2020 interview with Al-Jazeera, Waters stated, "I have never done or spoken a single antisemitic word or act in my entire life, or had an antisemitic thought in my head in my entire life." [167] In February 2021, Waters commented on Twitter in response to Oxford University accepting the IHRA definition of antisemitism, "Don't let the Israeli Lobby rewrite our dictionaries with this McCarthyite, racist, claptrap. We know what antisemitism is, and being anti-Israeli apartheid ain't any part of it." [168] In 2022 at an online event at McGill University, Waters explained, "At the turn of the millennium, I had no idea what was going on. I thought, Israel is not that people in sandals going around and you know to farm, and are not the Socialists? I was completely wrong. It is not about that at all. It is about a bunch of, you know, Europeans back in the middle of the 19th century who decided that they were going to take over this piece of land and kick out anybody that lived there and take it over for themselves and for their little cabal," He then went on to talk about B'nai B'rith, saying he remembers those "a**holes from the last time I was in Canada. They would be trying to get people to not come to my shows and to join them in believing that I am an anti-Semite. I pity them now because they are clinging to the last shreds of any attachment to their fascist belief in Jewish supremacy in the Holy Land, which is fascist. The platform upon which B'nai Brith and the settler-colonialist Zionist movement and the government stand, and it will no longer be there despite rich donors to McGill University." [169] Zarahuen (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the poster is concerned that many of the more egregious examples are being edited out in order to protect the singer's image. You can compare what they poster above copied and pasted from the original edit, to how the page stands now.

Based on some of the comments above on the talk page, it might be best to have Admins address this and lock editing, since it seems to be devolving into political discussions on Israel and the spreading of antisemitic tropes. Eframgoldberg (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Well that's the case for the prosecution (presumably cited to sources with a pro-Israel bias)! Some points:

• Statements about "Nazi comparisons" should be written as accusations not as fact.
• Investigation will show that, contrary to the impression given, the pig-dirigible had more symbols painted on it than just a star of david.
• There's a curious tendentiousness about it. In effect it's a long list of cherry-picked factlets all intended to point in one direction. Presumably its a collection of stuff which is all supposed to be condemnable.

    ←   ZScarpia   10:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Jack Fletcher

Why is his son with Priscilla Phillips called Jack Fletcher? This source [1] does not say. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Waters listed in the Myrotvorets database as enemy of Ukraine

With regard to this revert [2], I believe the content is both verifiable and significant.

Apart from the quoted sources (Rolling Stone [3] and Deutsche Welle [4]), the info is reported also by RadioFreeEurope [5], Louder [6], ABC [7] (in Spanish), il Fatto Quotidiano [8] (in Italian) and Rio Times [9], The Times [10] and Aljazeera [11], plus the popular press/tabloids (Newsweek [12],Daily Mirror, etc.), leftist magazines (Canary Workesrs Co-op [13], World Socialist Web Site [14]), the Russian TASS [15] , the Ukrainian press (e.g., [16] [17]), and countless music blogs.

Roger Waters may be right or wrong in feeling threatened, but it's a fact that some people listed in the controversial Myrotvorets database of "enemies of Ukraine" have been killed (e.g., Oles Buzina, Oleg Kalashnikov and Darya Dugina).

I believe this content could be significant for those interested in music as well as those interested in politics. Given the good media coverage, it deserves to be included in this article per WP:WEIGHT. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it’s just not notable. Volunteer Marek 00:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with this. "Notable" is the word we use to decide if a topic deserves its own article per WP:N. Here the guiding policy is WP:DUE WEIGHT. In order to establish if something deservers inclusion in a Wikipedia article, we need to assess its significance based on coverage in reliable sources. I provided evidence that there's excellent coverage because, apart from music magazines such as Rolling Stone and Classic Rock, here we also have a variety of news outlets from several countries (The Times, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Il fatto quotidiano, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, etc.) Do you have a policy-based argument for not including this content? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

”Myrotvorets” is not even mentioned in the Rolling Stone article. The rest of your sources are either very brief mentions in passing or they’re straight up garbage sources like World Socialist Website and TASS. Keep in mind that this article covers the entirety of this dude’s career. Do you honestly think that the fact that some online website put him on some list is in any way significant in that long career? Should we add info on what websites every old rock star from the 60s has been mentioned on? Volunteer Marek 00:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we use TASS and tabloids to establish due weight. Some of the RS I mentioned above are entirely devoted to the Myrotvorets/Waters issue: Radio Free Europe, Louder/Classic Rock, Il fatto quotidiano, The Rio Times, ABC. Regarding the "significance in the long career" argument, a meaningful comparison can only be made with other info reported in the Political positions and Antisemitism allegations sections, paying particular attention to the reactions provoked by his activities. E.g.

• In 2020, Major League Baseball stopped advertising Waters' concert
• In his This Is Not a Drill shows ... The interviewer accused Waters of putting the responsibility on the country that was invaded
• Waters's concerts in Poland were subsequently cancelled
• the writer Ian Halperin produced a documentary film, Wish You Weren't Here, accusing Waters of contemporary antisemitism
• Rabbi Abraham Cooper ... accused Waters of antisemitism

and I stop here.

Yes, having been included in that list of enemies of Ukraine is more significant, and wide media coverage is not surprsing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly the ABC.es (is that related to ABC News or something entirely different?) just makes him seem... unhinged. RFE is like I said, a passing mention. The other ones I don't have opinion on since they're not in English. Volunteer Marek 02:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

and il Fatto Quotidiano? Seriously? Isn't that like a borderline fascist/neo-nazi rag? Are you sure you want to seriously propose such an outlet? Their headline and opening sentence doesn't inspire much confidence either ROGER WATERS IS ABOUT TO BE LIQUIDATED BY THE EVIL KIEV REGIME! Lol. Volunteer Marek 03:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh god, Rio Times not much better. "Curated Alternative Narratives" WTF is that? "Thus, it is a death list for politicians, journalists, entrepreneurs, and other public figures who have been “cleared for firing”." Yeah... we're not using this bullshit. Just no. Volunteer Marek 03:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, this in NOT a "list of enemies of Ukraine" in Mirotvorets. This is a list of people claimed to be enemies of Ukraine by a group of idiots who created Mirotvorets. The significance of such claim is indeed very much questionable, hence undue on this page, given how famous the subject of this page is. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: you have never edited this article before. How did you get on this talk page?

@Volunteer Marek: what you said about the sources is very inaccurate. Il Fatto Quotidiano is not borderline fascist/neo-nazi. It is centre-left and some say it is close to the Five Star Movement. It is one of the main Italian national newspapers with nearly 500,000 readers and 50,000 copies sold per day according to Audipress. You grossly mistransalted the title of their article, which is "Even Roger Waters on the blacklist of Kiev's 007s". ABC (newspaper) is the second or the third biggest Spanish newspaper, the others being El Mundo and El Pais. It has a conservative leaning. I don't know much about The Rio Times but it looks legit. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I could be wrong but doesn’t the second sentence of the il Fatto claim that “Roger Waters is about to be liquidated”? Also, I wouldn’t characterize either the outlet nor the “five star movement” as center left. Didn’t the editor claim that the Nazis were the “real liberators” of Italy during Ww2 rather than the Allies? Also described as “populist” and “Putinist” which are the obvious red flags.

Also size of circulation is irrelevant for reliability. Daily Mail has the largest circulation in Britain and it’s on our deprecated list. Lots of garbage gets lots of clicks. Volunteer Marek 05:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

We already have section Roger_Waters#Ukraine,_Russia_and_China on this page. That is more than enough for this page. Roger Waters openly declared his views on the Ukrainian subjects. They are included. Many would disagree with his views including creators of Mirotvorets. But who cares? My very best wishes (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek. The second sentence of Il fatto quotidiano translates as follows: "Enemy of Ukraine. Potentially to be 'liquidated'". So they share Waters's concerns. Would you not be concerned? Didn’t the editor claim that the Nazis were the “real liberators” of Italy during Ww2 rather than the Allies. I very much doubt it. Where did you read this? Anyway, this is all off topic. I'm not arguing we should quote Il fatto quotidiano or any other source apart from DW and Rolling Stone, not even The Times and ABC. But this bunch of RSs (and Il fatto quotidiano is a RS) proves that there's DUE WEIGHT.

@My very best wishes. I'd like to know if you followed my or Volunter Marek's edits here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It is Waters himself who has commented on the fact that he ended up on Myrotvorets' list. The National Post talks about it here:[18]

“I’m on a kill list that is supported by the Ukrainian government. I’m on the f****** list, and they’ve killed people recently… But when they kill you, they write ‘liquidated’ across your picture. Well, I’m one of those f****** pictures.”

How is it possible that this matter is considered to be of little importance? We have enough first-class sources who have spoken about it to argue that it is a very important issue. Mhorg (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I changed my view: The Times article looks quite a significant source (also for the purposes of due weight) and deserves to be quoted alongside Rolling Stone and Deutsche Welle - don't you agree? The big picture of Waters is impressive, plus the article is good-quality and informative, and we have an archived copy, so it's easily accessible:

Anthony, Loyd (2022-01-25). "Ukraine's blacklist: Killers, lawyers, writers and spies". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Archived from the original on 2022-01-25.

Do we need an RfC on this? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

He said a lot of things. Are they due on the page? Should they be included? It depends. His views about Ukraine and the war in general? Yes, maybe. They are included. His views about a Ukrainian website? No. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This is as WP:UNDUE as something could possibly be. Some individuals have created à website about people they dislike, and included Waters on it. OK, so what. It's not an official list, just an online list people put together. Jeppiz (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "official list" and why does it matter if it is official or not? People in the list have been killed and several journalists' [19] and human rights organisations, including the OHCHR [20], have raised concern about the website and called for an investigation on its activities - what does it matter whether it is "official" or not? The subject of this article is Roger Waters, not the Ukrainian government. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That's because anyone can create a website and put any information out there. This site is not even an WP:RS about anyone or anything. There is zero evidence that anyone was killed because of being listed on this site, even though it clearly seeks to defame people. Pushing content about it on multiple WP pages (and especially ones that belong to famous people) looks pretty much as an effort to unduly promote this site and defame their targets.My very best wishes (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Jeppiz, the advisor to the Interior Minister Anton Herashchenko literally asked Ukrainian authorities not to investigate the site.[21] In fact, it turns out that he himself is a promoter of the site. And, no, to speak of the Myrotvorets site is not to promote its content, but to report on the countless series of scandals it has generated by targeting many national and international figures who have been critical of the Ukrainian state. Mhorg (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hence this is all about Herashchenko and Myrotvorets, not about Roger Waters. Why it is significant for his biography? It is not. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see above Waters' own comment about being listed in Myrotvorets. He is completely shocked by the fact: "I’m on a kill list that is supported by the Ukrainian government. I’m on the f****** list, and they’ve killed people recently… But when they kill you, they write ‘liquidated’ across your picture. Well, I’m one of those f****** pictures." Mhorg (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that if anything reflects mostly on Waters. Like the other editor said, this is about as UNDUE as UNDUE gets. Volunteer Marek 15:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• UNDUE - No. trival to the article subject. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think we should include this. My understanding is that Myrotvorets is a list which includes everyone who has publicly criticised Ukraine, so the fact that this person, who has publicly criticised Ukraine is on the list is not really relevant to Waters. We would have this line on thousands of articles if it were. If it were an official government list (compare and contrast with the FBI Most Wanted list) OR, hypothetically, if the fact he was on the list has some later repercussions or effect, then that would be very different. His view that it is a 'Ukraine government kill list' also falls foul of WP:FRINGE JeffUK 00:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe what is significant and deserves inclusion is not so much the fact of being included on that list per se, but the fact that Waters spoke about it in an interview with Rolling Stone, saying that he felt threatened (a "kill list") and blaming the Ukrainian government for it. These statements are significant because they were published by Rolling Stone and were taken up by other publications - Lauder, ABC, Newsweek, etc. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, because that's a fringe theory. It's not a kill list, he's not got any reason to feel threatened (the article doesn't say he felt threatened) the article does say "Waters’ claim isn’t true". I just don't think we should include that a conspiracy theorist thinks any government 'is out to get him', especially in any terms that give any credit to his theories. 00:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC) JeffUK 00:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2023

X : He condemned Russia's invasion, but said it was "not unprovoked" and "condemned the provocateurs in the strongest possible terms"

should be changed to

Y : He condemned Russia's illegal invasion "in the strongest possible terms", and also said that it was "not unprovoked" and condemned also the provocateurs "in the strongest possible terms"[Roger Waters at the UN Security Council session on 08/02/2023] JWULTRABLIZZARDs (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Request expansion and edit on legal defense

I was just trying to add the new story on the legal defense by Roger Waters. I ask other editors to defend my entry. Osterluzei (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Since we're asking favors, I ask you not to vandalize my user page again. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Tear down

Tear down is the terminology used in the source. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Waters has used this terminology himself, as in this article "Tear down this Israel wall".

However, we don't have to simply slavishly reproduce the words used by subjects or sources. When using Wikipedia's voice, we should instead summarize things neutrally in plain English.

"Tear down this wall" simply means "remove this wall", but is stated in dramatic terms. I am sure Waters would be satisfied if the wall were instead carefully removed brick by brick in a safe and controlled manner. Popcornfud (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s not as dramatic as you claim it is. AP, the Guardian, Amnesty and Reuters have also used the term. [22], [23], [24] Makeandtoss (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but it just means "remove the wall". We're an encyclopedia, we should be simple and literal.

And all three of those sources also use the term "remove" or "removal". Popcornfud (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Waters is clearly invoking similarities with the Berlin wall and his activism in that regard, therefore, the least that we could do is to point out to this attempt, by using quotation marks, which again wouldn't be outrageous considering it is an oft-used term as proven above. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Roger Waters' May 20 2023 Facebook post (posted from Munich)

The article now states "Waters said he had been attacked at the behest of the "Israeli lobby" in Germany", referencing a BBC article. However, the original Facebook post (and the BBC article) actually says:

"The fact that some in power in Germany and some at the behest of The Israeli Lobby have attacked me, wrongly accusing me of being an anti Semite, and have tried to cancel my shows saddens me".

From a logic-based analysis of the sentence, the interpretation of that sentence can differ. Firstly, those that constitute "some in power" could be treated as a separate group to those "at the behest of The Israeli Lobby". But even if one assumes the people he refers to are exclusively those "in power", the claim is more of a Venn diagram than a direct jab at those influenced by the Israeli lobby, regardless of what one believes Roger Waters "actually" means. He says "some" in power (i.e. not all) in Germany have attacked him. He says "some" (a subset) of those were at the "behest" of the Israeli lobby. Though some may regard this non-specificity as a "carefully worded accusation" to avoid charges of baseless defamation against those individuals that brought up the issue, it should still be "presented as written" for historical accuracy (or better yet, clarified by questioning of Roger Waters). It doesn't necessarily weaken accusations against Roger Waters of the antisemitic trope of "Jewish control" (or in this case, a lobby at the "behest" of a "Jewish nation"), but it does leave room for a German politician to have their own opinions.

What's more surprising is that the BBC didn't mention the part of the post that some commenters online considered more controversial:

"But the whole experience of coming here to Germany these last five years fills me with sorrow. I feel sorry for you having to live, or at least live with, the lies we are all fed by The Powers That Be."

"The Powers That Be" is of course written in initial capitals in reference to his song of the same name. But it can be interpreted as a conspiracy-theorist code word for a "string-pulling Jewish cabal".

No offense to music/video fans editing Wikipedia, but reading some of the previous comments on controversial artists (not Roger Waters specifically) tells me the qualification for understanding the mindset and symbolism of "conspiracy theorists with ill intent" is beyond the scope of performance arts. Unless you've been down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory texts and videos or let people that have ingested these texts/videos openly speak their mind to you, you have no idea what some people actually think/mean or what's "in vogue". Most conspiracy theorists can and will hold back socially unacceptable/offensive things incessantly unless or until they feel comfortable. 49.180.218.254 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, we can only report what sources say. We cannot include our own analysis or opinions. That would be original research. Popcornfud (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

For an ambiguous sentence, does that mean quoting the entire sentence and letting the reader decide on meaning?

"The fact that some monkeys in the zoo and some at the behest of kangaroos have attacked me...".

"The fact that some accountants in the office and some at the behest of their doctors have attacked me...".

Based on his later quotes claiming the accusations are "politically motivated" and the fact a lobby can mean an "informal lobby" (i.e. including a random German politician or individual), some type of "pro-Israel lobby" is most likely what he meant regardless, if not his original "Israeli lobby"/"Israel lobby" (which in the US can be associated with "the pejorative connotation of manipulation" or dual loyalty).

The truth is that most people, including myself, don't always know when they're using loaded language. 49.181.135.185 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article reflects his statement pretty closely. Per the BBC article, Waters said:

some in power in Germany and some at the behest of the Israeli lobby have attacked me

the Wikipedia article says:

Waters said he had been attacked at the behest of the "Israeli lobby" in Germany

I think that is a fair reflection of what he said. We're not projecting any other meaning onto it. Popcornfud (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Youtube interview

He's done an interview for Double Down News on youtube about his recent controversy HERE. I don't know if this is useful to the article or not. G-13114 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The interview has received secondary coverage at Manchester Evening News[25] and the Jewish Chronicle[26]. It's definitely noteworthy enough to consider inclusion. G-13114 (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki is NOT the news, so I would only include this if "more" came of it. Will this be relevant 10 years from now? --Malerooster (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead sentence review.

I added back musician and added why he is notable to the lead sentence per MOSBIO. Is there consensus to remove musician? Thank you, Malerooster (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It's redundant to say he is both a musician and a singer-songwriter — like saying someone is a football player and a sportsperson. It doesn't help readers to include "musician".

If other articles use the language "singer-songwriter and musician" then they should be fixed too. Popcornfud (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, considering this [27], A singer-songwriter is a musician who writes, composes, and performs their own musical material, including lyrics and melodies. In the United States, the category is built on the folk-acoustic tradition, although this role has transmuted through different eras of popular music., I would tend to agree. --Malerooster (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed "musician" from the lead. So Popcornfud, you would support removing that from ALL articles like Ethan Ash, Kweku Aacht, Zak Abel, Mark Abis, Steve Adey...?--Malerooster (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

How would you treat Ian Anderson? Is singer-songwriter the same as singer, and songwriter?--Malerooster (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to discuss changes to those articles, but in each case I see "musician" as redundant. As for the distinction between "singer and songwriter" and "singer-songwriter", I think there is a difference — for example, Michael Jackson wrote songs and sang songs, but I don't think he would be described as a singer-songwriter, which has its own particular meaning.

Speaking of which, I'm not sure Waters really meets the criteria for "singer-songwriter" either, but it depends on what sources say. Just "musician" might be the safer choice. Popcornfud (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2023

I want to edit something about his marriage list real quick, his 3rd wife (Priscilla Phillips) needs a semicolon and a d. like the others. SillySandwichSnake (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. @SillySandwichSnake: your account is autoconfirmed. RudolfRed (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. SillySandwichSnake (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

"He is recognised" vs "He has drawn controversy"

There seems to be an edit war going on in the lead, moving between these two sentences:

• Long-standing text: Waters incorporates political themes in his work and has drawn controversy for his views on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
• New text: Waters incorporates political themes in his work and is recognised for his views on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

I don't have a strong view here but I lean towards the first one. "Is recognised" seems like slightly weaselly language to me — it is usually used for praise, as in "is recognised for their contributions to evolutionary biology" or "is recognised for their charity work". Whereas the article body details the criticisms he has received for his views, which seems to me to be closer to controversy. Popcornfud (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"has drawn controversy" only captures one side of the response. On the other hand "is recognised" sounds odd. What about removing both and saying something like: he "incorporates political themes in his work, including about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict"? Btw, the editors who have been trying to change the text to "has drawn controversy" are not qualified to edit the page because they do not have the required 500 edits. Burrobert (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"has drawn controversy" only captures one side of the response. Is that really true? Per dictionary.com, controversy is "prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion". Disagreement or discussion necessarily implies support and criticism, not just criticism. Popcornfud (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The definition does allow for support and criticism. What is the "controversy"? Afaict, the controversy is about whether some of his statements and inclusions in his shows are anti-Semitic. The views mentioned under the sentence under discussion - BDS, removal of the barrier, apartheid - have not been criticised. So what about first saying he is a prominent supporter of Palestine and give his views about the barrier, apartheid etc. Then, mention that some statements (which?) have been criticised as anti-Semitic. Then, give his response from the last sentence in the paragraph. Burrobert (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"Has drawn controversy" is perfectly correct and neutral. It does not take sides on whether it is true or not, only states that there has been controversy regarding this aspect. Jeppiz (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, afaict he has not "drawn controversy for his views on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". There is no mention that he has been criticised for saying the barrier should be removed, or for supporting BDS or for describing Israel as an apartheid regime. The lead needs to summarise the body. Burrobert (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

He has been widely and pulicly condemned, including by former band members. Cities have cancelled his concerts, evoking antisemitism. It's not like it would be a stretch to say there's been controversy. Jeppiz (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"has drawn controversy" is an unnecessary label. It conveys a negative connotation to many readers so the dictionary neutral definition does not apply here. An encyclopedia presents the information for the reader and several examples of his views are given. No need to lead the reader and introduce a latent bias with this label. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 15:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you suggest we write instead? "Has drawn criticism" would also be negative, but it's true. Popcornfud (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see "Is recognised" as "weaselly language". It works with praise because it is neutral. It allows what follows to stand on its own. Using it here acknowledges both views without a label. Some people take notice because they disagree, others respond because they agree but he is recognised by both. Controversy and criticism are both loaded words that should not be used unnecessarily on Wikipedia when there is a perfectly good alternative. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 16:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

A reminder that editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days to edit in relation to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Burrobert (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

MLB not MLS

MLB canceled him, not MLS 68.228.213.191 (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"Politics" vs. "Controversies and conspiracy theories"

The "Politics" section seems to be a bit of a misnomer. Most of the content in the section is of Waters' controversial opinions, conspiracy theories, or negative reactions to his opinions. Is it worth either relabeling this entire section, or separating out the more thought-out political stances vs. the provocative stuff? Butterdiplomat (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)