Talk:Roger Waters/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Falklands

I was in two minds whether to include this on The Final Cut, but if it's worth mentioning, it's probably worth mentioning here only. Parrot of Doom 11:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

PoD I think the recent Falkland comments could go well at either article, or both, what do you prefer, here, or at The Final Cut? — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Founder or founding member

The following discussion 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.

---

There has been some back and forth on this issue here, and at John Lennon. As I am not British, I'm unsure who is most correct here. Any thoughts or suggestions from someone who is either British, or well-informed about this particular usage. — GabeMc (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue is rather straightforward. WP:ENGVAR and its subsection on strong national ties to a topic covers the issue directly. This is a British topic and so British English should be followed. To the extent that "founder member" is proper British English, then, it is proper for use in the article (certainly there are tons of sources that use the phrase). I don't see that anyone has questioned that underlying issue—that it is proper British English—so I don't see much basis for discussion. For full disclosure, I am an American, and until coming upon this RFC I had never, to my recollection, heard the expression "founder member" before.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I also had never heard the phrase, despite living in the U.K. for several years and having a strong background in the comparative linguistics of English. That said, it's not so odd a variation that I'm surprised to learn of it. As Fugh says, WP:TIES clearly applies and provides a roadmap here. On a side note, I try to always avoid chastising on minor points of procedure, but I have to say on this occasion - was an RfC really necessary to resolve this? Snow (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and in such an obscure place. This should have been a normal discussion at the musicians wikiproject. As an aside, founder member sounds odd, but try breaking the term down. Founding is present tense, founder is past tense. There is the present "He is a member of the band" as well as the past "He was a founder of the band". If the band was being formed right now, then I believe the present tense is "founding", as in "He is founding the band" (but I could be wrong there). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As an American who reads several British media on a regular basis, I have never seen "founder member". I'm not saying it's incorrect by any means, but it sounds pedantic and certainly less-than-meliliflious. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a recent British newspaper piece; you can find many others like it. The wording is unambiguous.

Also, this appears in the "British English" version of the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, with the US equivalent in parentheses. Radiopathy •talk• 00:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:TIES cinches it for me. As near as I can tell, "founder" is the UK term, and per the aforementioned WP:TIES, it should be used in articles related to British subjects and the groups of which they're a part. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As a Brit 'Founding member' sounds more natural to me. A Google search of UK pages shows the terms being used almost equally. I do not see any important principle at stake here; either is fine. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Having been "the founder" of several groups and at least one regularly occurring event, the use of the term to me has to do with the source of the effort. I ONLY refer my self a "founder" when it was exclusively (or nearly so) my efforts that launched the group or event. Otherwise I am a "co-founder" or a "founding member" when its a group effort. I don't know how it applies in this situation, but that's my 2 cents worth of opinion. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I was going to write something like that but the argument seems to be between 'founding member' and 'founder member'. Perhaps one of the 'belligerents' could tell us exactly what the dispute is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC comment: Also from The Telegraph:

• "Founding member Mick Fleetwood..."
• "will remain as the only founding member."
• "Mick Fleetwood, the drummer and founding member..."

A quick search shows the Telegraph uses: "founder member" 835 times, "founding member" 574 times. So no overwhelming support either way. I as an American prefer "founding member" and "founder member" sounds really odd. If the Brits can go either way with it, let's use "founding member" as it has the widest common usage. Zad68 18:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither founder member and founding member is incorrect, and as is usual for such matters, proponents of either one or the other are passionate. Beyond issuing the advice "get a life", my suggestions are either (a) to put it to a vote, with the risk of what happened at Sgt. Pepper, or (b) to offer the matter up for discussion as a possible entry in the MoS, or (c) to embark upon a protracted and bitter war of attrition in which the entirety of the disk space upon which Wikipedia resides is filled with backbiting personal comments about grammatical inaccuracies and spelling mistakes by one or other of the protagonists, and who started what edit war and how the arbitration process is totally unfair because it resolved the dispute in the wrong direction. My vote's for (c) because that fits in best with what I have recently come to believe is the purpose of Wikipedia. --Matt Westwood 07:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

you say tomato I say tomato, I'm a brit and I say Founding member, never heard of Founder Member Webwidget (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm also British and Founder Member is slightly more common, as Founding Member is derived from the US Founding Fathers, at least according to the OED. As with all things, there has been a huge amount of erosion and sadly the BBC now uses the American version more commonly the the British. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:56, 20 July 2012 (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.

Section headers

Discussion

I consider this: 1965–1985: Pink Floyd, an improvement over: Pink Floyd (1965–1985). However, User:Radiopathy reverted me today with the edit summary "not an improvement". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll

Please indicate below which you support.

With a colon:

1965–1985: Pink Floyd

1. Support - Readability, professional looking, cleaner. Paul McCartney was recently promoted at FAC with the colon method. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Support - agree it looks better - brackets are not pretty.Moxy (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - Also, the bracket method could be taken to mean that 1965-1985 indicates the duration of Pink Floyd rather than that of Waters' time with them. Rothorpe (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Weak Support, as it's the technique I've been using on a completely different site (which I will not mention here because Wikipedians in general don't like it to the extent of posting negative reviews of it all over the web). But it's purely a matter of taste and not worth fighting over.
5. Support, just barely. One isn't objectively better than the other, as I see it, but this is stylistically better-looking to me than the other. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Support - It looks better, and Rothorpe makes a fine point on clarity. HellRaiser1974 (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Support. Not only do I prefer the aesthetics of this approach, I think the alternative is potentially misleading. In this article, for example, the header "Pink Floyd (1965-1985) could lead the reader to assume those are the dates Pink Floyd was active. The band actually lasted from 1965 to 1996, with a reunion in 2005. As for Radiopathy's revert itself, I have yet to see him justify it in any way. I have my suspicions this was just his way of picking a fight with GabeMc for the sake of picking a fight with GabeMc. szyslak (t) 01:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Support, per Rothorpe. Dismas|^(talk) 02:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Support as less ambiguous and looks cleaner. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

With brackets:

Pink Floyd (1965–1985)

Discography

We had this at Emerson Lake and Palmer. Had quite a barney over the inclusion or not of Pictures at an Exhibition, where a rules-lawyer got sniffy about it. Apparently the Discography section is only for "canonical" studio album releases. So In The Flesh is def'ly out, so is The Wall. When The Wind Blows is iffy. I'd include it myself as it's by Roger Waters and the Bleeding Heart Band or something, and he had a considerable amount of artistic control over it. As for the compilation, these generally don't get included. --Matt Westwood 23:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well, can you point me to the relevant guideline. I included them in Paul McCartney two months ago and no one complained. Is this a fairly new change? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the original argument that I got involved in: Talk:Emerson, Lake & Palmer#Pictures at an Exhibition. We could not find a ruling there, just some officious IP $h1thead who kept removing what we kept putting back. --Matt Westwood 07:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This came up recently at the Pink Floyd FAC. Here is the standard, which does support their removal. I'll self-revert. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The Pros and Cons of Hitchiking

Apparently when Roger Waters was 18 years old he hitchiked from Beirut back to England. Is this important enough to add? Also, what about Waterss religios views (or lack thereof)? Are they important enough to add? I know this is a featured article, but there is still much to add. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to say no to both, but of course I'm open to further discussion. The first point could possibly be worked into the section on TPaCoH, assuming it can be related to the work in a concrete way. On the second point, generally speaking, I don't think we should go into too much detail regarding a person's religious beliefs unless its particularly notable to the subject, per WP:UNDUE. In this case, although Waters is an out-spoken atheist, I don't see it as all that important to his bio, since he not an anti-religious activist or anything. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Founder/founding member

I realize that "founder member" may be correct in British English, but would anyone object to just calling him "a founder" or "one of the founders" of Pink Floyd? Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Kinda like this? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That works too. Thanks! Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Please add his recent speech to his activism: "Roger Waters, speaking on behalf of the Russell Tribunal, delivers a very nicely put speech in front of delegates on International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. This day also marks an important development in the Palestinians' bid to statehood as they are now recognized as a non-member observer state." Thanks.

Nothing about anti-semitism yet. LOL. I'll check back in a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.245.161 (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed some categories

Also, this bio is being discussed at the WP:BLPN board. --Malerooster (talk) 20:17, 27 July 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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".[176][nb 43] Loder viewed The Final Cut as 'essentially a Roger Waters solo album'.[178]" What's the point here Joe; I'm feeling a little policed by you these last few days. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:26, 5 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, according to Wikipedia: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

Heading 1	Heading 2
List with commas	Entry 1, entry 2, entry 3
List with {{Flatlist}}	Entry 1 entry 2 entry 3

"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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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)

I have stricken this statement if for no other reason than the one-editor WP:OWNership of this article needs to come to an end. Consider me part of the opposition from this point. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:22, 12 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 wikipedia 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" Wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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)

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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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)

This article is full of bias and it should be thoroughly checked, preferably at FA Review. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I was considering filing an FA review on it during the edit war phase. It seems to have settled under a consensus now so it would probably pass a review. I can understand both sides though. If a notable person sides with the boycott of Israel then they will get labeled and anti-Semite even though it is the policy they disagree with. The star of David concert was probably a protest signal against the policy and not the people. It is hard to send a clear message against one without being accused as being the other.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There's certainly no consensus here. This article is disgustingly biased. I would support and aid any editor's attempts to balance this article by removing the pro-Waters bias. I would also support an FA Review. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Pro-Waters bias"? You would think he is a politician or the Catholic church with statements like that. He is simply a musician that disagrees with the policy of another country. That country may decide to try and smear him as a total a**hole but that is no reason Wikipedia should. You seem to have a strong opinion about the subject yourself. That doesn't belong here either.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

My opinion about Waters is irrelevant. The article sucks. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Its not helpful to vaguely say the article sucks. This is a talk page and so we need specific examples of what is wrong with the article and where so those issues can be addressed, otherwise claims of pro-Waters bias will inevitably be ignored. I cant see it myself. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with the concept that anti-Israel ≠ anti semitic. There are many criticisms of the political institution of Israel and the way it conducts itself as a country that have no correlation with the Jewish religion. Building a section upon one op-ed piece in a notable paper is severe undue weight. As was mentioned, his father was killed by the Nazi's... I find it very disturbing that a paper would actually try and go with this as fact. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sure the papers covered it cos Waters sells newspapers, and of course it is those who bizarrely chose to attack Waters, as if somehow only Jewish ppl suffered Hitler's ravages, who need to be directly addressed re their anti-semitic claims, but this has nothing to do with wikipedia and so this isnt the place to do that. But Joefromrandb, to the contrary, is claiming pro-Waters bias in the article but not offering specific instances of where this occurs, and unless he does how can we address the issues, vague article sucks and pro-Waters bias comments are not helpful without specifics we can actually address here as this is a talk page and not a forum. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

For someone so keen to admonish others that this is not a forum you're quite the chatterbox. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In other words you are just trolling, you arent interested in saying why you think the article is biased. Why dont you go somewhere else and stop wasting everyone's time, in that case. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're still talking? This is not a forum kid. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, the article isnt biased and you are trolling, fine, I guess we all just ignore you from now on given you wont back up your false statement about this article being biased, and I say false cos if it were true and you were a genuine contributor you would explain the bias. If I am a kid what does that make you?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore anything you like. Unfortunately, your conduct here indicates otherwise. You are addicted to teh dramaz. If you ignore me from here on out I'll like that just fine. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:02, 14 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 ^{(talk|contribs)} 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, Joe! 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. Or just read MOS:CT. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Note I removed Gabe's personal attack directed at me. I speak Spanish fairly well and I'm sure others here speak it much better than I, lest he try to return it. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
        • We should avoid speaking in Spanish or any other language some may not understand though I think you didnt need ANY Spanish to figure out what the insult was in this case, though as insults go it was surely very mild, probably only required redacting BECAUSE it was in another language. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per GabeMc's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per GabeMc's reasoning. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Is there a guideline that the bands need to go in date or notability order? If we reverse the order they are listed then they would both have caps.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the general guideline is to go chronologically, though in this case I think it would make sense to reverse them. You're not the first to suggest that, BTW. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, the general rule-of-thumb is to list bands in chronological order and to be frank I strongly dislike solutions that involve breaking standard practice so as to avoid something that is perfectly acceptable and in no way a grammatical error. If the only reason to list them in a way other than chronological is to avoid the jarring effect of seeing a "t" in a list, then I think those jarred by mid-list "t"s need to get over it and to try to get used to the common widespread practice per WP:COMMONNAME. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Arrgh. We were making progress, Gabe. I hope you're not going to resume taking personal offense when someone politely disagrees with you. (If I make a proposal to drop all lowercase t's from Beatles-related articles, feel free to tell me to "get over it".) The images of gassed Syrians I saw on CNN today were "jarring". A proper noun beginning with a lowercase letter mid-list is not jarring; it just looks abnormal. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Joe, I took no personal offense. Please assume good-faith. According to our MoS and all others that I've read its not a grammatical error that needs correcting. I used the term jarring because that's the word User:Newyorkbrad used to describe the sensation one gets from seeing a lower-cased "t" where they don't except one. That's all Joe, no offense was taken or inferred. Hope all is well with you and yours! FWIW, "it just looks abnormal" is not a good reason to disregard all known style guides including our own. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Manning

Since I'll probably be blocked if I fix the article more than three times in 24 hours, could someone else please fix it? If anyone wants to join the debate as to what Manning should be called, it's over there. The source used in this article says "Bradley", and per WP:RS, that's what the article needs to say. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question has now compounded the felony by adding WP:SYNTH. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This shouldn't be discussed on every article talk page that has the person linked. Got edit other stuff until the main issue is resolved at other forums. I don't really care either way about which name is used.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You may not care, but please don't presume that 19 million others don't, as they may or may not. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think our readers are idiots. Most know by now that there was a name change. We had a similar case with Katherine Hull-Kirk when she married Kirk in 2012. We clarified it in the lead and refer to her as just Hull in the historic parts of the body to match sources. There is no harm with leaving it as Bradley to match sources until the dust settles at a main RfC somewhere. On the other hand if editors want to change it to Chelsea then I wouldn't bother edit warring over it. I have far better things to do with my wikitime.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What on earth does "Bradley Manning" have to do with "Roger Waters" and why are we discussing something that is strictly about the former article here? If we extend this practice, then every issue about a certain article will be getting posted on a dozen other articles' talk pages! -The Gnome (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume it has to do with this sentence which doesn't even use a gender based pronoun: In June 2013, Waters and numerous other celebrities appeared in a video showing support for Bradley Manning. Dismas|^(talk) 09:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking

Today I ran the overlinking script on the article and User:Joefromrandb reverted me with the edit summary: "please seek consensus for your edits". So, here I am seeking consensus that opera and bassist are common terms that do not need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Support removal of links to opera and bassist

1. These are common terms that should not be linked per WP:OVERLINK. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Support I work from this basis myself, wikipedia used to link more than it does, one of its improvements. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - This has nothing to do with the subject of the link, it has everything to do with Making links just because it can be, if the subject of the link is an item of "everyday knowledge" it shouldn't be linked just because it has a page. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Support per WP:OVERLINK. This article should not break wikipedia wide consensus. FurrySings (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Support per WP:OVERLINK. These are everyday words that will be understood by most readers in context. That's precisely what the policy says shouldn't be linked. But shouldn't "bassist" be "bass guitarist"? I think the latter is better, given that it more precisely describes him ("bassist" could refer to a player of the double bass or any other bass instrument). --Batard0 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
6. Support per WP:OVERLINK. Frankly, I am surprised at the number of opposing views below. These are common words and should not be linked. I also agree with Batard's suggestion regarding "bass guitarist" being a more accurate term in this context. Factchecker25 (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose removal of links to opera and bassist

1. I do agree with Joe below. Nothing wrong with linking his main role, and i don't see an issue with opera. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose since this is anything but "overlinking". It is a clear case of a need to have both attributes in the article, since each one of them constitutes a notable endeavor by the article's subject. And if both links are to be included, each one must certainly link to the respective Wikipedia articles. BTW, I disagree with the remark by Joefromrandb to the effect that the Wikipedia article on one of those attributes, i.e. "bassist", is "weak" and that, consequently, a link to it is not necessary. The quality of the linked article has nothing to do with the need to include a link to it inside another article. We should try to improve the content of "bassist". But, until we do, we should not avoid linking to it. -The Gnome (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose I find it hard to believe this requires an RFC, but such is the wikiworld...--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose I can kind of understand removing the link to "opera", but people outside of the opera world might not know what a "bassist" is. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose - What's the benefit, and what's the cost? The benefit of not Wiki-linking "opera" and "bassist" (or "bass guitar", whatever) is practically zero. And the cost of Wiki-linking the first occurrences in the article of those terms is also nearly zero. There is no worthwhile reason to de-wikify either of them. The benefit of Wiki-linking those terms is nearly infinite, in that it gives every bored surfer a chance to surf off in a whole new direction. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT USA TODAY! We are allowed to be thorough, completionist, and even risk being boring, by including all the facts. --Ben Culture (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I left most of the links you removed out. "Bassist", while a common term, is germane enough to be linked here as it's Waters' primary instrument. "Opera" needs to be linked, as many readers coming to this article may not know about opera and may be interested in it. Waters spent well over ten years composing his opera; it isn't merely a passing mention. Again, I left most of the links you removed out, and you're being intentionally petty. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing this, I have also removed "bassist", as the article to which it links is currently so weak that it does little, if any, good for this article. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

To address The Gnome's concerns, another issue that convinced me I was wrong is that the "bassist" article covers bass guitar, string bass, keyboard bass, tuba, ect. I wouldn't be opposed to linking "bass guitar". Joefromrandb (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Another RFC in the making. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Exaggeration

I know this just became a featured article, but I think it exaggerates Waters dominance in the band. It refers to the entire post-Barrett era as "Waters-led" and I don't see how he led any more than Gilmour. Gilmour also did considerably more singing. It also calls him the "principle songwriter" and I think a look at the credits shows that it was about even among the band until Animals. Atom Heart Mother, for instance, shows the first side as "Nick Mason, David Gilmour, Roger Waters, Richard Wright, Ron Geesin" and the second as all four of them. I think this article makes it sound like Pink Floyd was Rogers Waters and Band, and Waters may like to think so, but it wasn't. Carlo (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it didn't just become a featured article; it was promoted to FA in December 2010. FWIW, during the entire time that Waters and Gilmour were in Pink Floyd together, Gilmour wrote a grand total of three songs and absolutely zero lyrics. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, Gilmour wrote the lyrics to Fat Old Sun, The Narrow Way, and Childhood's End. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, he wrote lyrics for three songs in 15 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but you said "zero". Gilmour is also the sole writer of instrumentals such as "A Spanish Piece"; of the 11 Pink Floyd albums on which Waters and Gilmour both appear, Gilmour has some form of writing credit on all but The Final Cut. And even on that album, according to Schaffner, Gilmour had music credit on three songs, but was all too happy to allow sole credit to Waters, as he was so unhappy with the album. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Waters was certainly the principal lyricist and conceptual leader. I'm not sure he was the "principal songwriter", although I'm not sure he wasn't. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Joe, I meant that Gilmour wrote the lyrics to the three songs he wrote pre-1972, but contributed zero additional lyrics to any others until after Waters had left the group (from 1973–1983 100% of all Floyd lyrics were written solely by Waters). BTW, "A Spanish Piece" is one minute and four seconds of guitar playing, which is hardly an instrumental, IMO. At any rate, between 1972 and 1985 Gilmour wrote a grand total of zero songs (with lyrics) and IMO, Pink Floyd would not have made any significant commercial or critical impact as an instrumental band. If Waters wasn't the principle songwriter, then who was? Wright with 4 or 5, Gilmour with 4 or Mason with 4? Waters was the sole writer on approximately 65% of all Floyd songs and a co-writer on 85% of them. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldnt call Waters' led an exaggeration and nor does it diminish the unquestionable influence Gilmour had during those years though I would say the real Waters dominant years were from 73 till he left though obviously we need to base what we say on reliable sources♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying that the band was Waters led is pretty subjective. There is nothing lost in a readers understanding of Water's impact by omitting this. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think its nearly as subjective as you seem to suggest. From 1973 through 1983 every single lyric on every single Floyd song was penned by Waters. Also, the concept albums that the Floyd would become so well-known for were all Waters' concepts, from Dark Side through The Final Cut. After Waters left Floyd, Gilmour made an effort to produce a concept album using five outside songwriters, but he soon abandoned the idea. The resultant album, Momentary Lapse was not a concept album, but it did contain a grand total of two songs with Gilmour penned lyrics. For perspective, George Harrison wrote more songs for the White Album then Gilmour did during the 18 years from 1968 through 1986. Would anyone argue that Lennon-McCartney were not the primary songwriters on the White Album? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Gabe- I have no argument with your points about Waters leadership in the band. If it was a casual conversation I would have nothing to say. However, I think in an encyclopedia it is subjective to assert that. More important in my perspective is that I don't think anything is lost in the reader's understanding of Water's role in the band, by leaving it out. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If we left it out, we would be intentionally ignoring what the abundance of reliable sources explicitly state: why would we do this? See: Mason 2005, pp. 106–107, 160–161, 265, 278 and Blake 2008, pp. 3, 9, 113, 156, 242, 279, 320, 398. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Pink Floyd leader Roger Waters performs 1979 classics with oversized ‘Wall’" GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• "The singer/bassist helped found Pink Floyd in 1965, and went on to become the band’s driving creative force after original frontman Syd Barrett‘s struggle with drugs and mental illness forced his departure from the group. As Pink Floyd’s main songwriter and co-lead singer, Waters helped create some of the most enduring and successful albums in rock history, including 1973′s The Dark Side of the Moon, 1975′s Wish You Were Here and 1979′s The Wall." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• "After Barrett’s departure, Waters led the group, writing most of the songs on the band’s most successful albums ... After Barrett’s departure, Waters became the front man for the band, and exerted progressively more control over the band’s artistic direction. He wrote most of the songs on the albums The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals and The Wall, and all of the songs on The Final Cut." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it would detract from the article to not mention this, I trust we do so in the Pink Floyd article and also that Barrett was the first front man for the band at Syd Barrett, and then Gilmour from 83 onwards at David Gilmour. This is all part of the legend of the band's existence and so should be included with the relevant sources here, of which there are an abundance♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• From Allmusic: "Roger Waters was a primary creative force in Pink Floyd from 1965 to 1983 ... Pink Floyd's recordings were moderately successful through 1972, but The Dark Side of the Moon (March 1973), for which Waters wrote all the lyrics and some of the music, was a commercial breakthrough that became one of the most successful albums in rock history. (He was the sole author of the album's Top Ten hit, "Money.") He took an increasingly dominant role in the writing of subsequent Pink Floyd albums, writing all the lyrics and collaborating on the music for Wish You Were Here (September 1975), writing most of Animals (February 1977) and The Wall (November 1979), and writing all of The Final Cut (March 1983). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• From Rolling Stone, 2010: "The former Pink Floyd leader has just ducked his still-gangly six-foot-three-inch frame into a town car for a ride to a midtown Manhattan restaurant, and it is immediately clear that the driver is way too excited to see him." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is also worth remembering that Waters high degree of notability, his tremendous popularity, come from his yrs fronting Pink Floyd and not from his later works or his time not fronting Pink Floyd in the Barrett era. As the Rolling Stone article Gabe cites indicates, he is a real celeb♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Sorry, it's not at all too long per 15-20 FACs"

I don't understand this phrase (edit comment on a revert of my edit). What do you (GabeMc) mean by "FACs"? Do you mean WP:FAC, WP:FACR or something else entirely? Either way, I don't understand how there are 15-20 of them. The reason given (but I may very well have misunderstood, so I'm hoping for clarification) sounds like "this was not an issue in the FA nomination, so it can't be an issue now")?

I said that I felt that the lead was too long and too detailed (with detail being mentioned twice in my edit summary); there is only one template for both (and the revert comment didn't seem to address the "too detailed" part). Is it really necessary to include the exact date on every appearance and wikilink everything, and include detail such as when he last got engaged before he got married? On the other hand, there seem to be pieces missing from the lead that have their own sections in the main article, such as politics and activism.

WP:FACR: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections. Please clarify why the level of detail in the lead section is just right; preferably on topic rather than (what sounds like to me) "no one has objected ever since the article went FA 3 years ago". The main reason why I objected to the "exact" sales figures is also the level of detail. --Nczempin (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• My point was that in the 15 or 20 FACs that I have participated in NOT ONCE, has someone said an article I wrote had a lead that was too long. I have heard several times that my leads are not long enough, but never that they are too long. Yes, everything must be wikilinked, but I really don't feel as though I should be required to educate you on the FA criteria; why don't you nom an article or two yourself and see how it goes? Waters' career has spanned almost 50 years, but what would you remove in an effort to shorten the lead: his opera that he worked on for 16 years, his highest-grossing solo tour, one of the biggest concerts ever staged, or his solo career? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

So since no one has ever said that a lead section you wrote was too detailed, that basically makes all your future lead sections and articles exempt from any critique? And you're arguing that I cannot criticize any FA until I have successfully nominated FA articles? REALLY??? Although I pointed out that my main point is too much detail, you chose to ignore it once again. I would not necessarily remove any particular piece of information, but e. g. it doesn't have to include the exact dates on which concert x took place, and at the very least remove the detail about his engagement and marriage. Plus again, his success with Pink Floyd is already pointed out, no need to go into detailed figures in the lead section (I have pointed this out before). You seem awfully defensive about your articles (and awfully aggressive towards me); I'm just trying to give you some perspective; at least one reader unfamiliar with the subject is getting overwhelmed by all the details in the lead section. Please don't simply dismiss that. Nczempin (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

My point was that you don't seem to even know what the FA criteria are, and your suggestion to omit the summary paragraph of Waters' private life supports this assertion. The lead should summarize the entire article, and it would not pass FAC without a bit of detail on his marriages and family. I'm not trying to say that I know everything, but I know this much after 3+ years of FACs. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not suggest to remove the entire paragraph, just the bit about the engagement, and perhaps even the marriage date is not necessary (or the info could at least be folded into the first sentence). To me it seems sufficient to include that he is married and has children (even that is not particularly special and noteworthy, despite the fact that it is mentioned in the main article---BTW I am aware of the FA criteria for lead sections, which are the same criteria for any other lead sections, and I'm wondering why it is considered more important that he was married four times and the dates of his engagement and latest marriage than his political activism/views). Note that the bit about his current wife includes ALL the information about them that is also in the main article, not my idea of a summary. --Nczempin (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just really think that you don't know the first thing about FAC. BTW, the lead should NEVER contain ANY information that is NOT already in the article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop with these generic, unfounded accusations. What made you point out something I already knew; where am I saying anything about including anything that is NOT in the article??? --Nczempin (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Note that the bit about his current wife includes ALL the information about them that is also in the main article" GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, if you include ALL the details, it is not a summary. You somehow took that to mean my asking for more than what is in the article? Nczempin (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Trying to make this about the article again (you seem to prefer to talk about my [lack of] rights to have any opinion on the article based on what I know about FAC): I would consider his private relationship to wikilinked people to be more notable for the lead section than the year of his engagement and of his wedding. --Nczempin (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you certainly have a right, but generally people don't come along to a highly vetted FAs and demand wholesale changes to the lead as though you are peer reviewing the article. Is it okay that I disagree with you, or will you not stop until you get your way? Per "[the family stuff] could at least be folded into the first sentence", then we would be going back and forth between Floyd and his personal life, which is in no way an improvement. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant the first sentence OF THE PARAGRAPH (the one that talks about his 4 marriages), not of the lead section. Nczempin (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, but then we would have a one-sentence paragraph, which should be avoided. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it should be avoided, but 1) artificially extending it serves no purpose, 2) I gave you suggestions on how to extend it in a meaningful way. His son and several wives being notable enough for their own WP articles warrants at least a mention in the lead IMHO. -Nczempin (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding wikilinks in the lead section

WP:LEADLINK: Too many links can make the lead hard to read. I was giving you feedback that the lead section had this effect on me. You answered with "yes, everything needs to be wikilinked". Can we try and reduce the number of wikilinks in the lead section to those few that are really important? The less important ones surely have a home in the main article. Nczempin (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, IMO you are taking that bit out-of-context. The section you cited is primarily concerned with too many links to technical terms in technical articles. Per WP:UNDERLINK and WP:OVERLINK, which links do you think are unnecessary and why? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the section is concerned with too many links in lead sections, and it is giving technical articles (which may well have more jargon that needs to be explained) as an exception that may justify a higher-than-usual link density in the lead (and then gives suggestions on how to reduce this link density). As to specific links, it may very well be that once the number of of details is reduced that the remaining wikilinks will be fine. -Nczempin (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

So, you think the lead is too detailed, but you also think we should mention his four wives and three children by name? Or it may well be that every wikilink currently in the lead is absolutely fine as it is. Also, if we mention his three children and three ex-wives by name that would add 4 more links, because we can't mention a person in the lead with their own Wiki article without linking to it. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I said that those who have their own WP article could be mentioned if the paragraph feels too short (and I think they are more pertinent than the engagement date or even his marriage date). Yes, it could possibly lead to more wikilinks; I am not against them per se; please WP:AGF and assume that I am capable of common sense. Nczempin (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• You really need to be more specific, because you have still not suggested anything in particular for removal. Which details do you think are excessive and should be removed? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

One particular detail that I've mentioned (independent of any wikilink issues) are the details of Pink Floyd's international success. Other than that, you seem to be improving the lead section quite a bit already, so perhaps I'll wait until you're done, to see if anything else immediately comes to mind. Nczempin (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would also leave out the 200,000 figure part; it is fine IMHO to be vague with one of the largest and most extravagant rock concerts in history. I am torn about the French Revolution; it could be sufficient to find the link in the article on the opera itself (BTW I would consider the tidbit about how long he worked on it to be notable for inclusion in the lead, how about you? Is it more important that it was an opera that he had worked on for a long time, or what the opera was about?). If we can mention his band mates earlier (also closer to the Syd Barrett mention) that would give a little more balance (not that that is an important "official" criterion, but I'm sure it helps aesthetically if not 90 % of the wikilinks are in one paragraph---as long as it makes actual sense to e. g. mention the names earlier). Other than that, I don't really see how we can leave out any of the remaining wikilinks. And on another note, I would put his Dark Side tour in the chronologically proper place, unless there is a good reason not to, which I can't see at the moment. Apart from these things, I think the lead section is fine now. Nczempin (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

1) The 200,000 figure is fine; that you don't like it is a subjective irrelevancy. 2) It only takes four more words to inform the reader what the opera is about, and I don't see how long he worked on it as more important than the actual subject matter. 3) How could we mention his other bandmates in the first paragraph? They don't come-up in the chronology until 2005? 4) I moved the Dark Side material per your suggestion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

1) So to leave it in is objective? 2) The question is whether it is necessary to inform the reader what the opera is about; this is not the article about the opera, but that about its creator, and in that context it is more relevant that he took an apparently long time for it (at least judging by the fact that you mentioned this when arguing its notability). 3) The members of Pink Floyd can be mentioned in the paragraph that first mentions Pink Floyd "he co-founded Pink Floyd _with_ ..." or even in the second paragraph. It feels odd that they are first mentioned in conjunction with the reunion in 2005. --Nczempin (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

See, this is badgering, IMO. I like including the figure; you don't, but since the current consensus is to include it, you are out of luck until you gain a consensus to the contrary. 2) It isn't necessary, but then what is? IMO, it's better left in, so until you gain a consensus that it needs to be removed it will stay in. 3) Gilmour wasn't a founder member, so how could we mention him in the first graph, and why does this even matter? The other Floyd's don't come-up until 2005, so that's fine the way it is. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it's an obviously rhetorical question pointing out that your argument is flawed. That the figure is fine is just as subjective as my opinion that is irrelevant detail for the lead. And I don't think we have the same understanding of the word "consensus". You seem to think it means that everything that is in the article right now is there because of consensus. I think consensus can only be established when an issue has been brought up before and discussed sufficiently widely. Apparently none of the issues I raised were discussed before, but that doesn't mean there is consensus that they are not issues. 2) It is a detail that is fine to include in the main article and in the article about the opera. The "overly detailed" is/was my main concern, and I have given specifics as to why I think this particular bit falls under that category. About consensus, see the previous. 3) Straw man argument; I didn't demand his name to be included among the founders, but it is possible to include all the names before 2005. No, obviously they don't "come up until 2005", and that's a mistake IMHO; they should be mentioned earlier. Nczempin (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, look at it this way, Nczempin. If you remove the information you mentioned above I will revert you pending a discussion on this talk page that shows a clear consensus for the removals. So, in that way, yes, material currently in the article is safe from your arbitrary removals pending discussion. Maybe it's not a consensus IYO, but you can't remove any of it without a prior consensus in your favour. Anyway, do you realize that we have been going and back and forth over this for several hours now? (Please don't answer that, just leave me alone, PLEASE!) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I am done; the lead is fine as it is. We are absolutely not going to agree on that point about Floyd, and to be honest I find it more than a bit bizarre that you think we shouldn't mention the massive success of Pink Floyd. Without the Floyd's success we would not be talking about Waters now; it's his greatest life accomplishment to have written the songs for such enormously popular albums. It's also a good deal of the article, so the lead needs to summarize that period of Waters' life. Honestly, it's so far off point that I am really struggling to take any of your advice seriously. Look at John Lennon, does the article's lead go into too much detail about the Beatles' success for your taste? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Again you're putting words into my mouth. I didn't mean you should not mention the international success, I said that it is unnecessary to say it twice, once generically and once with detailed figures (those should be fine in the main article). Nczempin (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I did in fact have a look at the John Lennon lead section, and the amount of detail on the band's success is just as I wish it were on Roger Waters' band's success in this article's lead section: "Generically describes" that it was a big success, without getting too detailed about how many copies were sold. The section on his solo career does have some figures of copies sold, but it is not like here, where both the interpretation (success) and the evidence (number of copies) are bunched together in the lead section. Nczempin (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

FTR, the extent to which the lead summarizes Floyd's success is two sentences of less than 50 words. I will say that to badger me to this extent all day long (eating up my editing time) within 24 hours of my reverting you is not the best practice, and it can give the impression of revenge hounding. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

How did I badger you? I wanted to point something out, hence the template, you reverted summarily, I took it to the discussion page, we discussed, you made changes. Of course I could have made those changes myself, asking you to do them was out of courtesy to you, and not for any type of revenge that you're interpreting into my behaviour. Nczempin (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, in the end, you didn't suggest one single link that could be removed, so did you change your mind, or were you just looking for stuff to hound me about? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you removed the ones I had the biggest trouble with. Is it somehow important to the quality of this article how many links I suggested be removed? Please stop trying to make this about me rather than about the article. Nczempin (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I just meant that you started this section to discuss that there were too many Wikilinks, but you never mentioned a single link that you thought should be removed. Anyway, are we done here, because I am feeling trolled? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

And you said Which details do you think are excessive and should be removed? in this section, and I replied to that. I did in fact mention a single link that should be removed. Do you expect me to go back to the page in the original state and dig out the wikilinks that you since removed? Is this now really your main concern? How am I trolling if I am voicing concrete issues (some of which you have since repaired for some reason) and asking you to stop making this discussion about a person (which you did from the beginning) rather than the article? Nczempin (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition, when I saw the lead section improve, with some details removed and some wikilinks, I [tried to be constructive about the issue and] realized that one way to solve the "too many wikilinks in one place" problem was to move some wikilinked pieces of information to places where currently much less is wikilinked, so that even though that doesn't remove the links entirely, it spreads them out more evenly; there was no reason to stick to some kind of mechanical "these links need to be removed" idea. Nczempin (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

More general points on the lead section

• nearly eighteen years passed before he performed with Pink Floyd again. and then it was the group's first appearance with Waters in 24 years. Do these refer to the same event?

The dispute was settled in 1987, which was 18 years before Live 8, which was 24 years after Waters last performed with Floyd, which was in 1981. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I see that you have started to clarify this. --Nczempin (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• In 2010, he began The Wall Live, ..., then two sentences on other projects, then "As of 2013, The Wall Live is...". That feels a bit incoherent.

The sentences following The Wall tour introduction are about the Wall tour. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, right, my bad. But if I (who should have remembered that Comfortably Numb is obviously part of The Wall) got confused, perhaps people who don't even know what I should have remembered can get confused? I wouldn't know offhand how to phrase it without making it sound awkward. But perhaps the info about the success could be put right next to the first mention of the tour (in brackets). I'll have a look again later if I get any better ideas. --Nczempin (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• The big paragraph seems to be about his solo career, but it jumbles in his later appearances with Pink Floyd. Is that still considered to be part of his solo career; was he not technically a member of the group (I guess so, because the main article seems to reflect this viewpoint as well).

--Nczempin (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, during Waters' solo career he twice played with some Floyds, what's confusing about that? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I am just giving you feedback. It seems incoherent; do with that what you want. --Nczempin (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just want to point out that this article was on the main page two months ago and nobody complained about the lead. Further, it's gotten about 1.5 million hits since it passed FAC in 2010, and nobody ever said the lead was too detailed and/or long. So, your opinion in that regard would seem to be in the minority. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not "complain". By your logic, we shouldn't make ANY changes to the article, since nobody brought them up two months ago or any time in the past three years. --Nczempin (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that I do not agree with your concerns and that nobody else has either, which should mean something. Like I said, get an article or two thrugh FAC and you will realize that it's quite difficult, and most if not all concerns are raised during that process. Also, when an article in on the main page it gets picked apart, sometime rather ruthlessly. That didn't happen with this article, and with that many eyes on it, nobody else thought there were so many problems with the lead. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop meta-arguing; it is pointless. Do continue to argue the actual points that I'm voicing (once you've understood them; you seem to be misunderstanding them quite a bit) and leave my credentials, your credentials or the FA process out of it. It is your prerogative to say "I disagree" without giving any reasons (after I tried to explain the reasons for my concerns), and I guess I'll have to accept it (you seem to be very attached to this article; I will not get into an ownership debate). But you could also just try to take a step back, WP:AGF and let me offer a fresh perspective (regardless of how many people had no problems with the issues I am bringing up; perhaps there were bigger issues at the time and now everything is quieter we can hear the subtler sound?). Nczempin (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

More general points on the lead section

• nearly eighteen years passed before he performed with Pink Floyd again. and then it was the group's first appearance with Waters in 24 years. Do these refer to the same event?

The dispute was settled in 1987, which was 18 years before Live 8, which was 24 years after Waters last performed with Floyd, which was in 1981. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I see that you have started to clarify this. --Nczempin (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• In 2010, he began The Wall Live, ..., then two sentences on other projects, then "As of 2013, The Wall Live is...". That feels a bit incoherent.

The sentences following The Wall tour introduction are about the Wall tour. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, right, my bad. But if I (who should have remembered that Comfortably Numb is obviously part of The Wall) got confused, perhaps people who don't even know what I should have remembered can get confused? I wouldn't know offhand how to phrase it without making it sound awkward. But perhaps the info about the success could be put right next to the first mention of the tour (in brackets). I'll have a look again later if I get any better ideas. --Nczempin (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• The big paragraph seems to be about his solo career, but it jumbles in his later appearances with Pink Floyd. Is that still considered to be part of his solo career; was he not technically a member of the group (I guess so, because the main article seems to reflect this viewpoint as well).

--Nczempin (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, during Waters' solo career he twice played with some Floyds, what's confusing about that? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I am just giving you feedback. It seems incoherent; do with that what you want. --Nczempin (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just want to point out that this article was on the main page two months ago and nobody complained about the lead. Further, it's gotten about 1.5 million hits since it passed FAC in 2010, and nobody ever said the lead was too detailed and/or long. So, your opinion in that regard would seem to be in the minority. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not "complain". By your logic, we shouldn't make ANY changes to the article, since nobody brought them up two months ago or any time in the past three years. --Nczempin (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that I do not agree with your concerns and that nobody else has either, which should mean something. Like I said, get an article or two thrugh FAC and you will realize that it's quite difficult, and most if not all concerns are raised during that process. Also, when an article in on the main page it gets picked apart, sometime rather ruthlessly. That didn't happen with this article, and with that many eyes on it, nobody else thought there were so many problems with the lead. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop meta-arguing; it is pointless. Do continue to argue the actual points that I'm voicing (once you've understood them; you seem to be misunderstanding them quite a bit) and leave my credentials, your credentials or the FA process out of it. It is your prerogative to say "I disagree" without giving any reasons (after I tried to explain the reasons for my concerns), and I guess I'll have to accept it (you seem to be very attached to this article; I will not get into an ownership debate). But you could also just try to take a step back, WP:AGF and let me offer a fresh perspective (regardless of how many people had no problems with the issues I am bringing up; perhaps there were bigger issues at the time and now everything is quieter we can hear the subtler sound?). Nczempin (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Sorry, it's not at all too long per 15-20 FACs"

I don't understand this phrase (edit comment on a revert of my edit). What do you (GabeMc) mean by "FACs"? Do you mean WP:FAC, WP:FACR or something else entirely? Either way, I don't understand how there are 15-20 of them. The reason given (but I may very well have misunderstood, so I'm hoping for clarification) sounds like "this was not an issue in the FA nomination, so it can't be an issue now")?

I said that I felt that the lead was too long and too detailed (with detail being mentioned twice in my edit summary); there is only one template for both (and the revert comment didn't seem to address the "too detailed" part). Is it really necessary to include the exact date on every appearance and wikilink everything, and include detail such as when he last got engaged before he got married? On the other hand, there seem to be pieces missing from the lead that have their own sections in the main article, such as politics and activism.

WP:FACR: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections. Please clarify why the level of detail in the lead section is just right; preferably on topic rather than (what sounds like to me) "no one has objected ever since the article went FA 3 years ago". The main reason why I objected to the "exact" sales figures is also the level of detail. --Nczempin (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• My point was that in the 15 or 20 FACs that I have participated in NOT ONCE, has someone said an article I wrote had a lead that was too long. I have heard several times that my leads are not long enough, but never that they are too long. Yes, everything must be wikilinked, but I really don't feel as though I should be required to educate you on the FA criteria; why don't you nom an article or two yourself and see how it goes? Waters' career has spanned almost 50 years, but what would you remove in an effort to shorten the lead: his opera that he worked on for 16 years, his highest-grossing solo tour, one of the biggest concerts ever staged, or his solo career? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

So since no one has ever said that a lead section you wrote was too detailed, that basically makes all your future lead sections and articles exempt from any critique? And you're arguing that I cannot criticize any FA until I have successfully nominated FA articles? REALLY??? Although I pointed out that my main point is too much detail, you chose to ignore it once again. I would not necessarily remove any particular piece of information, but e. g. it doesn't have to include the exact dates on which concert x took place, and at the very least remove the detail about his engagement and marriage. Plus again, his success with Pink Floyd is already pointed out, no need to go into detailed figures in the lead section (I have pointed this out before). You seem awfully defensive about your articles (and awfully aggressive towards me); I'm just trying to give you some perspective; at least one reader unfamiliar with the subject is getting overwhelmed by all the details in the lead section. Please don't simply dismiss that. Nczempin (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

My point was that you don't seem to even know what the FA criteria are, and your suggestion to omit the summary paragraph of Waters' private life supports this assertion. The lead should summarize the entire article, and it would not pass FAC without a bit of detail on his marriages and family. I'm not trying to say that I know everything, but I know this much after 3+ years of FACs. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not suggest to remove the entire paragraph, just the bit about the engagement, and perhaps even the marriage date is not necessary (or the info could at least be folded into the first sentence). To me it seems sufficient to include that he is married and has children (even that is not particularly special and noteworthy, despite the fact that it is mentioned in the main article---BTW I am aware of the FA criteria for lead sections, which are the same criteria for any other lead sections, and I'm wondering why it is considered more important that he was married four times and the dates of his engagement and latest marriage than his political activism/views). Note that the bit about his current wife includes ALL the information about them that is also in the main article, not my idea of a summary. --Nczempin (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just really think that you don't know the first thing about FAC. BTW, the lead should NEVER contain ANY information that is NOT already in the article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop with these generic, unfounded accusations. What made you point out something I already knew; where am I saying anything about including anything that is NOT in the article??? --Nczempin (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Note that the bit about his current wife includes ALL the information about them that is also in the main article" GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, if you include ALL the details, it is not a summary. You somehow took that to mean my asking for more than what is in the article? Nczempin (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Trying to make this about the article again (you seem to prefer to talk about my [lack of] rights to have any opinion on the article based on what I know about FAC): I would consider his private relationship to wikilinked people to be more notable for the lead section than the year of his engagement and of his wedding. --Nczempin (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you certainly have a right, but generally people don't come along to a highly vetted FAs and demand wholesale changes to the lead as though you are peer reviewing the article. Is it okay that I disagree with you, or will you not stop until you get your way? Per "[the family stuff] could at least be folded into the first sentence", then we would be going back and forth between Floyd and his personal life, which is in no way an improvement. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant the first sentence OF THE PARAGRAPH (the one that talks about his 4 marriages), not of the lead section. Nczempin (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, but then we would have a one-sentence paragraph, which should be avoided. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it should be avoided, but 1) artificially extending it serves no purpose, 2) I gave you suggestions on how to extend it in a meaningful way. His son and several wives being notable enough for their own WP articles warrants at least a mention in the lead IMHO. -Nczempin (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding wikilinks in the lead section

WP:LEADLINK: Too many links can make the lead hard to read. I was giving you feedback that the lead section had this effect on me. You answered with "yes, everything needs to be wikilinked". Can we try and reduce the number of wikilinks in the lead section to those few that are really important? The less important ones surely have a home in the main article. Nczempin (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, IMO you are taking that bit out-of-context. The section you cited is primarily concerned with too many links to technical terms in technical articles. Per WP:UNDERLINK and WP:OVERLINK, which links do you think are unnecessary and why? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the section is concerned with too many links in lead sections, and it is giving technical articles (which may well have more jargon that needs to be explained) as an exception that may justify a higher-than-usual link density in the lead (and then gives suggestions on how to reduce this link density). As to specific links, it may very well be that once the number of of details is reduced that the remaining wikilinks will be fine. -Nczempin (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

So, you think the lead is too detailed, but you also think we should mention his four wives and three children by name? Or it may well be that every wikilink currently in the lead is absolutely fine as it is. Also, if we mention his three children and three ex-wives by name that would add 4 more links, because we can't mention a person in the lead with their own Wiki article without linking to it. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I said that those who have their own WP article could be mentioned if the paragraph feels too short (and I think they are more pertinent than the engagement date or even his marriage date). Yes, it could possibly lead to more wikilinks; I am not against them per se; please WP:AGF and assume that I am capable of common sense. Nczempin (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• You really need to be more specific, because you have still not suggested anything in particular for removal. Which details do you think are excessive and should be removed? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

One particular detail that I've mentioned (independent of any wikilink issues) are the details of Pink Floyd's international success. Other than that, you seem to be improving the lead section quite a bit already, so perhaps I'll wait until you're done, to see if anything else immediately comes to mind. Nczempin (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would also leave out the 200,000 figure part; it is fine IMHO to be vague with one of the largest and most extravagant rock concerts in history. I am torn about the French Revolution; it could be sufficient to find the link in the article on the opera itself (BTW I would consider the tidbit about how long he worked on it to be notable for inclusion in the lead, how about you? Is it more important that it was an opera that he had worked on for a long time, or what the opera was about?). If we can mention his band mates earlier (also closer to the Syd Barrett mention) that would give a little more balance (not that that is an important "official" criterion, but I'm sure it helps aesthetically if not 90 % of the wikilinks are in one paragraph---as long as it makes actual sense to e. g. mention the names earlier). Other than that, I don't really see how we can leave out any of the remaining wikilinks. And on another note, I would put his Dark Side tour in the chronologically proper place, unless there is a good reason not to, which I can't see at the moment. Apart from these things, I think the lead section is fine now. Nczempin (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

1) The 200,000 figure is fine; that you don't like it is a subjective irrelevancy. 2) It only takes four more words to inform the reader what the opera is about, and I don't see how long he worked on it as more important than the actual subject matter. 3) How could we mention his other bandmates in the first paragraph? They don't come-up in the chronology until 2005? 4) I moved the Dark Side material per your suggestion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

1) So to leave it in is objective? 2) The question is whether it is necessary to inform the reader what the opera is about; this is not the article about the opera, but that about its creator, and in that context it is more relevant that he took an apparently long time for it (at least judging by the fact that you mentioned this when arguing its notability). 3) The members of Pink Floyd can be mentioned in the paragraph that first mentions Pink Floyd "he co-founded Pink Floyd _with_ ..." or even in the second paragraph. It feels odd that they are first mentioned in conjunction with the reunion in 2005. --Nczempin (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

See, this is badgering, IMO. I like including the figure; you don't, but since the current consensus is to include it, you are out of luck until you gain a consensus to the contrary. 2) It isn't necessary, but then what is? IMO, it's better left in, so until you gain a consensus that it needs to be removed it will stay in. 3) Gilmour wasn't a founder member, so how could we mention him in the first graph, and why does this even matter? The other Floyd's don't come-up until 2005, so that's fine the way it is. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it's an obviously rhetorical question pointing out that your argument is flawed. That the figure is fine is just as subjective as my opinion that is irrelevant detail for the lead. And I don't think we have the same understanding of the word "consensus". You seem to think it means that everything that is in the article right now is there because of consensus. I think consensus can only be established when an issue has been brought up before and discussed sufficiently widely. Apparently none of the issues I raised were discussed before, but that doesn't mean there is consensus that they are not issues. 2) It is a detail that is fine to include in the main article and in the article about the opera. The "overly detailed" is/was my main concern, and I have given specifics as to why I think this particular bit falls under that category. About consensus, see the previous. 3) Straw man argument; I didn't demand his name to be included among the founders, but it is possible to include all the names before 2005. No, obviously they don't "come up until 2005", and that's a mistake IMHO; they should be mentioned earlier. Nczempin (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, look at it this way, Nczempin. If you remove the information you mentioned above I will revert you pending a discussion on this talk page that shows a clear consensus for the removals. So, in that way, yes, material currently in the article is safe from your arbitrary removals pending discussion. Maybe it's not a consensus IYO, but you can't remove any of it without a prior consensus in your favour. Anyway, do you realize that we have been going and back and forth over this for several hours now? (Please don't answer that, just leave me alone, PLEASE!) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I am done; the lead is fine as it is. We are absolutely not going to agree on that point about Floyd, and to be honest I find it more than a bit bizarre that you think we shouldn't mention the massive success of Pink Floyd. Without the Floyd's success we would not be talking about Waters now; it's his greatest life accomplishment to have written the songs for such enormously popular albums. It's also a good deal of the article, so the lead needs to summarize that period of Waters' life. Honestly, it's so far off point that I am really struggling to take any of your advice seriously. Look at John Lennon, does the article's lead go into too much detail about the Beatles' success for your taste? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Again you're putting words into my mouth. I didn't mean you should not mention the international success, I said that it is unnecessary to say it twice, once generically and once with detailed figures (those should be fine in the main article). Nczempin (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I did in fact have a look at the John Lennon lead section, and the amount of detail on the band's success is just as I wish it were on Roger Waters' band's success in this article's lead section: "Generically describes" that it was a big success, without getting too detailed about how many copies were sold. The section on his solo career does have some figures of copies sold, but it is not like here, where both the interpretation (success) and the evidence (number of copies) are bunched together in the lead section. Nczempin (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

FTR, the extent to which the lead summarizes Floyd's success is two sentences of less than 50 words. I will say that to badger me to this extent all day long (eating up my editing time) within 24 hours of my reverting you is not the best practice, and it can give the impression of revenge hounding. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

How did I badger you? I wanted to point something out, hence the template, you reverted summarily, I took it to the discussion page, we discussed, you made changes. Of course I could have made those changes myself, asking you to do them was out of courtesy to you, and not for any type of revenge that you're interpreting into my behaviour. Nczempin (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, in the end, you didn't suggest one single link that could be removed, so did you change your mind, or were you just looking for stuff to hound me about? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you removed the ones I had the biggest trouble with. Is it somehow important to the quality of this article how many links I suggested be removed? Please stop trying to make this about me rather than about the article. Nczempin (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I just meant that you started this section to discuss that there were too many Wikilinks, but you never mentioned a single link that you thought should be removed. Anyway, are we done here, because I am feeling trolled? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

And you said Which details do you think are excessive and should be removed? in this section, and I replied to that. I did in fact mention a single link that should be removed. Do you expect me to go back to the page in the original state and dig out the wikilinks that you since removed? Is this now really your main concern? How am I trolling if I am voicing concrete issues (some of which you have since repaired for some reason) and asking you to stop making this discussion about a person (which you did from the beginning) rather than the article? Nczempin (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition, when I saw the lead section improve, with some details removed and some wikilinks, I [tried to be constructive about the issue and] realized that one way to solve the "too many wikilinks in one place" problem was to move some wikilinked pieces of information to places where currently much less is wikilinked, so that even though that doesn't remove the links entirely, it spreads them out more evenly; there was no reason to stick to some kind of mechanical "these links need to be removed" idea. Nczempin (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

lead is great now; all my original issues have been addressed

Thanks. All the issues that I meant to point out with my inadequate lead template have been addressed; the section feels very fluid and coherent now (not that it was terrible before; of course when dealing with a FA, any change request will be about minor issues unless the article has been left to rot after achieving FA, which clearly is not the case here). Even the part about the band's success fits well into the rest of the text. I only have two minor suggestions left, both of which I've mentioned before, but perhaps they got lost amid the heated argument: 1) I already mentioned (only repeating it here for completeness' sake), but if consensus is against it I'm fine with it: I still feel the "private life" section could actually be expanded to include those people that are notable for their own articles. I've already given my reasons, and I guess they have been considered and rejected, which is fine by me. 2) The main article spends a lot of text on Waters' political views and activism, but they are completely missing from the lead section. Perhaps a little summary could be added to the last paragraph; it would not be out of place there IMHO, it would solve the issue of that paragraph being a bit on the short side, and it would give a more compelling ending to the lead section than his marriage, especially in the context of lead sections being used instead of whole articles in some contexts. Again, thank you for your work, and I apologize for any negativity that I may have projected. --Nczempin (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that, and to be fair I admit that I didn't handle yesterday very well at all, so I'm also sorry for my part in the negativity. This was a good reminder for me to be patient with people I don't know. I think that in the end, the lead is much better today then it was before our discussion, and that's all I should be concerned about, so thanks for that! Once I got passed my ego I saw that your suggestions did indeed improve the readability of the article, I realized that I was too hasty in dismissing your ideas; I'm sorry. I'll take your above advice and expand the lead regarding his politics and maybe even slip-in a detail or two about his family. Thanks for being patient; I pledge to be much more civil to you should our paths cross in the future. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

to User:GabeMc (15-12-2013)

Could you please explain why you deleted a sentence with two references without even giving a reason?

"In December 2013, Waters was again accused of antisemitism after an online interview in which he compared the treatment of Palestinians by Israelis to the treatment of Jews by Nazi Germany.[123][124]"

Nikosgreencookie (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe this to be WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACK type stuff that really does not belong in a bio on Waters at this point, but lest someone accuse me of ownership I'll step back and let others decide. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I dont object to adding about the latest anti semite allegations but only when our way of doing this fits WP:NPOV which the current insertion absolutely FAILS to do, we must be balanced and not take one side or another (in this case the side of those attacking Waters was taken as the only side of the controversy we reported)♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

In the process you deleted 2 references/citations one of them was his interview. What kind of "balance" are you looking for when people are not able to read Waters? Could you please bring back the references? Personally i just added the link to his interview. Beside that everything in the sentence was true. You could easily re-write the sentence and leave the citations there. No. You just deleted everything. AND the citations. Unacceptable. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a BLP bio and so what I did was in no way unacceptable but if you want to re-frame what you wrote in an NPOV way why not do so here on this page first, you need to write in a balanced way as an editor and not rail against others cos you didnt do so♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Nikosgreencookie, if you are going to accuse me of horrible and unacceptable things, could you please provide the diff of the edit which you are so upset about? User:John, made this edit, which is vastly superior to yours, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I was talking to User:GabeMc. In reality my problem is that you deleted the reference to his original interview. You could do it in a better way. In any case the citation is back. And should be back. In reality i don't disagree with Waters except that i favor a one-state solution. In any case wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia but a war/propaganda machine. You can use it only as a very very very general reference. so I'm not gonna fight with anyone for every single phrase. :) Nikosgreencookie (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Its properly sourced now, so there is no need to pile up cites per WP:CITECLUTTER. Also, I'll remind you about WP:NOTAFORUM. This is absolutely WP:COATRACK/WP:NOTNEWS material, IMO. We aren't here to follow Waters' every comment regarding Israel. Is this notable enough for a bio? Not likely, maybe, but we are already in WP:UNDUE territory regarding this controversy, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

John's edit is exactly what I mean by a neutral take on the issue. Nikosgreencookie, it is your responsibility as editor to get this NPOV right, and in all your edits, its not the responsibility of any editor who may revert you♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The best source and the best citation is his own words. If you read the interview Waters says "(...) if you believe artists should be mute, emasculated, nodding dogs dangling aimlessly over the dashboard of life, you might be well advised to fuck off to the bar now (...)". If you like to eliminate his political views and see him "only" as artist you don't have idea what are you talking about. So yes we have to follow all his political views as well. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting we ignore his political views but your edit just gave the viewpoint of his detractors and failed to include his viewpoint even though this is widely reported in secondary sources as well. John's edit gave the viewpoint of both sides and that is what we are asking that you do, nobody is asking you not to include his political views♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Nikosgreencookie's edit made it seem as though the article was attempting to prove that Waters is an anti-Semite; John's edit neutrally summarized the latest in this ongoing WP:COATRACK. FTR, I actually think that its not really place of Wikipedia to "keep tabs" on a subject's political statements; the article makes it quite clear what Waters' position on Israeli foreign policy is, so I'm not in agreement that this is an ongoing story that we need to include regular updates about. Our job here is to judge what is notable to a person's bio, long-term. IMO, this stuff really isn't notable at all, since it's all old news by about 33 years, really. For a comparable example, the Cranbrook hate-crime story was kept out of Mitt Romney's article, and WP:COATRACK/WP:NOTNEWS were the main reasons. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the props guys! I had no idea I was intervening in a dispute but I am glad if you liked my edit. --John (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's:

• Frank Barat's interview with Roger Waters in Counterpunch.
• Rabbi Shmuley Boteach piece in the New York Observer.

In my opinion, Boteach's piece is fairly ridiculous and not worth reporting. For one thing, it's packed full of gross historical errors and distortions. If mention of it has to be included in the article, what Waters said in the interview should be fairly represented, meaning a neutral description of what he did say given, rather than what headlines based on what Boteach says he said say.     ←   ZScarpia   03:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

British people are disgusting anti-Semites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.102.83.53 (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

But at least they know how to sign their comments in Wikipedia.     ←   ZScarpia   14:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's why Roger's wrote several albums based on his experiences with the totalitarianism of Nazi's and the brutality of the war they caused - because he hates Jews. This is rediculous, the opinion of the interviewer is irrelevant and in this case a BLP violation. Roger's own opinion that he himself provides may be expressed, but I don't see him referring to himself in that manner. Don't put it in the article, end of story. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Floydian. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It has been said that an antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews, now it's someone who Jews don't like. If the comment has truth behind it, and I think that the sweeping negative generalisation about a whole nationality made in this case is worth noting in that regard, it implies that Britophobia lies somewhere behind 202.102.83.53's comment.     ←   ZScarpia   12:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement on support for BDS

Salon - Roger Waters - Roger Waters: Why I must speak out on Israel, Palestine and BDS, 17 March 2014.     ←   ZScarpia   15:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Errors?

The article says that Waters was inducted (with Pink Floyd) into the U.S. and UK Rock and Roll Halls of Fame in 1996. If my (admittedly feeble) memory serves me correctly, Pink Floyd was enshrined in the UK Hall of Fame much later; 2005 or 2006? Also, it says that The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking deals with his failed marriage to Judy Trim. I've always thought that those songs dealt with Carolyne Christie. This is evidenced by the time-period of the recording, the fictionalized versions of Harry and India who appear in the songs (while Waters and Trim had no children together), and the liner-notes of the album, which say: "For Carolyne". Joefromrandb (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice catches, Joe. The UK induction was in 2005 and the cited source does not mention Trim or Christie. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP vio

The change I made to the article corrected a grossly out of date section. Its reversion is a serious BLP vio. I hope it's obvious why, but I can explain further if need be. No further reversions to the old version can be made--this is as close to an absolute as WP policy gets. IronDuke 02:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. You're introducing inflammatory, negative partisan allegations about a living person into that living person's biography. It is blindingly obvious that you would be the one potentially violating BLP here. You need to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It would help if you would read the source material before reverting. I’ll recap for those who don’t wish to bother: Mr. Waters, in July of 2013, employed a pig balloon with a Star of David painted on it. This was viewed as controversial. The ADL at that time appeared uncomfortable with Mr. Waters’ actions, but did not condemn them. After Waters' subsequent letter re divestment, the ADL issued an extraordinarily strong condemnation of Mr. Waters’ views. To leave the page as it was grossly misstates the current—I’ll repeat that: the current—position of the ADL—unless you have something yet fresher, in which case please do post it.

I could see how it might be fairly said that this section is a bit long, but then again, this is an issue that Mr. Waters feels very strongly about and has advocated for. That said, even if this section were pared down to the very bone, two things would remain—the ADL’s (the premiere organization on issues of anti-Semitism in the world) current views on Mr. Waters’ beliefs, as well as, of course, Mr. Waters’ own.

I’ll also add that reversion in cases of gross BLP violations are not subject to 3rr. I should absolutely revert this on sight, but as a gesture of good faith, I’ll invite you to either do so yourself, or say why outdated (and highly slanted) information should remain. IronDuke 03:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The ADL is not a living person. Their later position may be relevant to the article, but that is a subject for talk page discussion. The ADL's views are controlling of nothing — they are likely a significant viewpoint, but hardly the only valid viewpoint.

The only thing here that could possibly be a BLP violation is inserting negative material into a biography, which you are unquestionably doing. Your reversions are not in any way protected by BLP.

I quote from the exemptions policy:

Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

You are *adding* contentious and potentially-biased material to an article about a living person, not removing it. The exemption cannot be said to apply in any way to your actions if you initiate a revert-war on this matter.

Your bold changes have been reverted. It is now time for you to discuss them on this page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Editors are obliged to treat materially neutrally and perhaps solely quoting what Abraham Foxman has said about Waters isn't neutral.     ←   ZScarpia   11:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The ADL is a top quality source. Indeed, your reversions restore part of that source. Your exemptions to BLP do not apply -- at all. And it isn't a BLP vio for the ADL (though come to think of it, it actually is a bit, since this is a highly misleading construance of their views,) but of Waters' position vis-à-vis the premeiere watchdog organization on these matters. Yes, the information is negative ,but that's bound to happen with a contentious subject. If you have any substantive reason this does not belong, and that older, out of date information is preferable (and it being more positive does not, of course, in any way make it more preferable), please let me know. Otherwise this has to be restored, post-haste. IronDuke 12:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as the inflatable pig goes, the ADL open letter from Abraham Foxman merely confirms that: "We took you at your word, and defended your actions as artistic expression void of anti-Semitic intent."     ←   ZScarpia   14:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement that we post anything. Please initiate a good-faith discussion and gain consensus for your proposed addition. You have been reverted several times by several editors, which should tell you that your insertions are controversial and do not have consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Presumably, that last comment was aimed at IronDuke? IronDuke, I made an attempt to add the material you wanted but was reverted, citing WP:COATRACK. Perhaps the reverter would explain the last.     ←   ZScarpia   16:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It was directed at both of you. Your proposed insertion is obviously contentious - it has been removed by three separate editors who view it as inappropriate. Your responsibility now is to open a discussion about your proposed edits. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You may like to note that the material I added was different from IronDuke's in one major aspect: it mentioned a letter written by Waters to the music community (which has not been otherwise mentioned) and related the ADL open letter to that rather than the inflatable pig affair.

It's proper to mention attacks made on Waters by Zionist-lobby-type figures and Abraham Foxman's views are of more significance than some of the others already mentioned in the article. Personally, I think that Foxman is a first-class, despicable shite and what he says is utter bollocks, but, obviously, you can't censor something just because you don't agree with it and, also, you have to give those opposed to Waters' views some leeway over selecting whose criticisms they would most like to include. At the end of the day, just because you've quoted Foxman doesn't mean that the reader is going to agree with his views.

    ←   ZScarpia   18:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP:NOTNEWS there is no convention that requires we maintain up-to-date information regarding this on-going controversy. Waters' last tour has ended, so this is quickly becoming old news anyway. There is currently too much info regarding this point, which has taken on a life of its own in the article, growing into a pretty serious WP:UNDUE situation. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• There are currently 1,300 words used to summarise Waters' 18 years in Pink Floyd and 900 words used to "summarise" the anti-Semitic claims. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have no problem with condensation being done on the 'political' material, though it's probably worth noting that a large part of the 900 words mentioned are defences given by Waters against the accusations.     ←   ZScarpia   18:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The defenses are only there to balance the undue weight of the accusations, which editors continue to expand upon well past the point of proper balance. If we removed some of the excess accusations we could also remove some of the defenses. This is beyond ridiculous at this point, as Wikipedia is not a database of ADL claims and complaints, nor are we an up-to-the-minute news source for them. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not make a formal proposal about the removal of material?     ←   ZScarpia   00:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree the section has gotten bloated, though I would hazard a guess that Waters is mentioned in the news these days more for his ant-Israel views than for his music. However the paring is done, I think it's crucial that 1) Waters' own ideas about what he's doing be present and 2) the ADL conclusion about Waters be included. I have seen no reason at all given why it should not, other than casual hand-waving at a vague misinterpretation of BLP. IronDuke 03:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll bet the most talked about thing relating to Michael Jackson for the last 20 years has been the accusations of child molestation, but that's not how we balance his biography. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

IronDuke, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BRD is not "casual hand-waving". Editors are not obligated to convince you why something shouldn't be included; it is you who must convince them. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe, not sure why it is I who must convince, but assuming that is the case, I advanced substantive arguments as to why it should be included, and was met with an undigested grab bag of links, not arguments. Gabe, I have not looked at the MJ bio in a long time. I would be deeply (and happily) shocked if the people who love him and guard his page had allowed a proper discussion of those charges. Also, I believe that MJ's music was (and is) several orders of magnitude more known/popular than anything Waters has written in the last 20 years.

I ask again, does anyone have anything substantive to say about why it is, for example, that the ADL may be quoted saying something positive (and out of date) about Waters but may not be quoted saying something negative (and more current) about him? Please note that an offhand link to, say coatrack is about as unpersuasive an argument as possible. Oh, and apologies for delayed response here. IronDuke 01:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you think we should keep up-to-date information on how the ADL views Waters and his work, so that if they released another statement next week you would want to add that as well. That is incorrect, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia:Coatrack is relevant here, because with each addition of ADL related accusations this article becomes less and less about its subject – George Roger Waters – and more and more about the ADL and their campaign to label him an anti-Semite. FTR, "A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject", which is what we are in danger of doing here, since by most rational accounts Waters is not anti-Semitic; he is anti-Israeli foreign policy, which is radically different than the reputation that the ADL would like for him to have. After this has blown over I intend to copyedit the section for brevity and focus, but there is little point to do that now because of editors like yourself, who would turn any attempt at balance into an edit war and content dispute. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"Songwriter" AND "composer"?

Is it necessary to define someone as both a "songwriter" and a "composer"? By definition, writing a song by yourself requires composing music.

This is not to take away from Roger Waters' talents, and in fact, I just added "multi-instrumentalist" to his initial description (it's in David Gilmour's, and Waters plays almost as many instruments).

I am also wondering why piano or keyboards are not mentioned; the man does write on piano/keyboards, although he does not play them on final recordings (to my knowledge, that is. Who played which keyboards on The Wall is hard to sort out, as Waters, Gilmour, and Bob Ezrin all played when Rick was unavailable or ousted.)

--Ben Culture (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well all song writers are composers but not all composers are song writers. I think the author just meant to point out that he's written songs and instrumentals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.112.17.203 (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Misleading information in the lede

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".

Thoughts? FillsHerTease (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I've continued reading the article discovered that 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) 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)