Talk:Roger Waters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

His Sole Compositions

I am considering the idea of fixing up the list of Pink Floyd songs he wrote by himself. For albums where he solely wrote multiple songs, we could put a bullet of

• From (album) (year)
  • "Song 1"
  • "Song 2"

etc., etc., etc.

So, for example, A Saucerful of Secrets

• From A Saucerful of Secrets (1968)
  • "Let There Be More Light"
  • "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun"
  • "Corporal Clegg"

I was about to make this kind of change a moment ago, but I figured that I should ask before editing and then having it reverted. Does anyone else think this is a good idea? Krobertj (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a fine idea. GabeMc (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mason's book, Inside Out Proper Citation date

This work was first copywrited in the UK in 2004, but was first published in the US in 2005, it's my understanding that we use the publication date for citations not the copywrite date. GabeMc (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it was first published in the UK in 2004. When it was published in the US is irrelevant. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Right on, the first publisher was Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 7th October 2004 in the UK, question, since my copy is the 10th edition, from Chronicle Books (US), how can I assure consistent page citations? GabeMc (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Fred said: "When it was published in the US is irrelevant"

Well Fred, it's relevant to the 500,000 million people in North America, who might have a book marked 2005 like I do. GabeMc (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion, maybe we should use chapters as locations instead of pages, which can change with different editions. GabeMc (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The first edition was published in 2004, then there were two editions released in 2005, the one I have and one with a Live 8 update, then there was one in 2008 with a Wright update. That makes 4 editions with 3 different years to go by, could muck up the references list fast. Which one is preferred? GabeMc (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors seem to prefer 2005 on the Pink Floyd page. GabeMc (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a preference, it's merely the fact that that is the edition they had in their hands when finding the page number. If you go changing all the dates in all of the citations wholesale (the mistake I made yesterday on the PF page) then there's a good chance that all the page numbers will be wrong, unless you want to go through every citation and double check the page numbers with the edition you are using. After all you don't know what edition was used when the citation was placed in the article, the exception being, of course, the ones you personally placed there. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that EVERY editor on the Pink Floyd page uses the same copy I do, the United States copy? For a Brit band! How dare they! GabeMc (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that EVERY editor left a citation? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that I am saying that EVERY editor left a citation? GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There would be no ambiguity issues with editors who don't leave citations, because there would be no citatons to contradict. GabeMc (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonplussed?

I read this:

"Ça Ira went to the top of the classical music charts, and Waters appeared on television to discuss the album, but the interviews were mostly taken up by conversation about his relationship with Pink Floyd. Waters however was nonplussed about this, a sign that Mark Blake believes to be "a testament to his mellower old age or twenty years of dedicated psychotherapy."

I don't understand the usage of the word "nonplussed". According to my understanding, backed up by: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonplussed ... it means something like "bewildered, confused, not sure how to respond" - but I feel that the sense of the sentence quoted is intended to mean "He didn't respond with anger or irritation (as he would have done in the past)", in which case the word "equanimous" might be the word you want. --WestwoodMatt (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In British English it's an expression that means "confusion", "didn't understand", and that's exactly how it's used in the above quote. "Equanimous" is not an accurate or appropriate replacement. Just imagine a shrug with an associated hand movement. That's what nonplussed means. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's what I thought it meant, but I'm confused about its context. His being "nonplussed" being "a testament to mellower old age"? No, not to worry, it's probably just me, but I don't understand the (underlying) meaning of the entire paragraph - I can't work out what it's trying to actually say. --WestwoodMatt (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I edited the section to remove the ambiguity and more closely reflect the original author's (Blake) point.--GabeMc (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sfn

I converted the pages citations to sfn, as in {{sfn|Mason|2005|p=26}} GabeMc (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Relationships With the Other Band Members

Significant portions of the Pink Floyd or related articles mention something about the relationships between the members of the band. On this page, for instance, a whole paragraph is donated to his attempts to repair things in the "Later Solo Years" section. And I am sure that there is a plethora of documents, sources, and interviews where each band member has discussed his relationship with one of the other members. Considering that Waters triggered a lot of animosity that began to tear the band apart in the late '70s and early '80s, I think that, first and foremost, this addition should be undertaken on his page first.

In my mind, what affirms that this would be beneficial is a paragraph I found in a short written documentary about The Dark Side of the Moon.

"After his acrimonious departure from the band over a decade later, Waters was given to scornful dismissals of his colleagues' lack of lyrical input on Pink Floyd's most successful album. For instance, in a 1993 interview with the Washington Post's Richard Harrington he scoffed: 'Nobody else in the band could write lyrics, there were no other lyricists after Syd left. David's written a couple of songs, but they were nothing special. I don't think Nick ever tried to write a lyric, and Rick probably did in the early days but they were awful.'"

This quote can be found here: (http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/ptr/pfloyd/interview/dark4.html)

This clearly describes Waters' relationship with the band members for at least a short period of time. Given how his views have changed over the years, a separate section would be effective to highlight this important aspect on this page. A similar section can be applied to each member on their page, with a brief overview with links on the main Pink Floyd page. Does anyone else agree with this proposal? Krobertj (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't about Waters "relationship with the band members ", through The Final Cut, Wright has 5 tracks credited to him soley, Mason has 2, Gilmour has 5 tracks with sole writing credit counting Wish You Were Here, with lyrics by Waters, and a one minute five second instrumental from the soundtrack to the film More. Gilmour, the second most "prolific" Floyd songwriter had written a total of 3 Pink Floyd songs the entire time Waters was in a band with him, "The Narrow Way", "Fat Old Sun" and the last being 1972s "Childhood's End". The numbers don't lie, everything Waters said above is true, you can count on one hand EVERY track credited to Gilmour soely pre-1983. In the 11 years after Waters left Floyd Glimour had 5 tracks credited soley to him. 10 total Pink Floyd tracks to Gilmour from 1968-1994, 26 years. GabeMc (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

I added more pics and rotated out some poor ones, gave the page more color. The lead one is much, much better. All are appropriately licsensed. I may have over done it, and would welcome any input on whether there are too many pics now, or if some pics seem to add little etc... There is a rather large one at the bottom that may need to be thumbed, moved or deleted, but since the space was blank white to begin with, it seemed alright, I may change my mind later.--GabeMc (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, too many pictures. I took out a couple in the Albums section, in particular because one was big and crammed the discography down on some resolutions. Feel free to undo me if anyone takes issue with the change. --Tenticle (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm partly in agreement, but I reverted and reformatted the images into a much more conventional format. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work Fred, I like what you did with the place! GabeMc (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Source for UK chart history

Does anyone know of a reliable source for Waters' UK chart history? GabeMc (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal life

Why is there no mention (quick text search for things like "child", "marr"ied, "India") of Waters' personal life? He's been married a few times and has had a few kids but none of this seems to be mentioned. Dismas|^(talk) 08:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

one reason i think is because he is a very private person and there are so few reliable sources out there to verify such facts. For example i read that "Roger enjoys hunting and fishing, and has been an avid fly-fisherman for 20 years and he has previously supported the UK Labour Party, often describing himself as a socialist, but has lately disagreed with Tony Blair's New Labour policies" personal life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliviateacher (talk • contribs) 12:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there are no reliable sources on anything personal about Waters' at this time. Perhaps he, or one of his ex-wives will one day write a book. GabeMc (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I too found it strange that this information was missing but managed to source the basics. dissolve^talk 16:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice work Dissolve, you did indeed improve the article.--GabeMc (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Tone deaf

Is there any reliable evidence for the oft-repeated assertion that Waters is either tone deaf or very close, and is unable to tune his own bass? He's certainly not a great singer in technical terms. Horripilation (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"He's certainly not a great singer in technical terms."

That's your opinion. Listen to "The Final Cut", Waters does a fine job singing some technically challenging parts. GabeMc (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The only source I know of for the tone-deaf/bass tuning claim is from Wright. GabeMc (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Atheism

Roger Waters is an atheist, identifies as such in this article "I'm an atheist so maybe I shouldn't be asking God - but let Barack Obama finally win the Democratic nomination" and expresses his beliefs about God and the existence of the soul in this promo for his upcoming tour. He is also listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists_%28music%29. Should he be added the the English atheists category? --Robnubis (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he should be added, and I think Waters would agree.--GabeMc (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Anyone Object to using the phrase "Principal Songwriter"?

I propose the term principal songwriter replace the phrase "Waters was heavily involved with Pink Floyd's songwriting. He wrote almost half of their songs, and co-wrote all but one."

This is not only wordy, but it is inaccurate original-research, as there is more than one PF track he did not write or co-write.

Of 120 PF tracks during Waters tenure with the band he has SOLE credit on 59 tracks.

Through The Final Cut there are 23 PF tracks that Waters is not credited as a writer or co-writer (there are 8 tracks on Piper which Waters did not write, 3 tracks on Saucerful, 2 tracks on Music from the Film More, 4 tracks on Ummagumma, 2 tracks on Atom Heart Mother, 2 tracks on Obscured by Clouds, 2 tracks on The Dark Side of the Moon).--GabeMc (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I object. The correct word is "principal". Piriczki (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, correct you are, I always brain art that word.--GabeMc (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

From Merriam-Webster: -"Principal": most important, consequential, or influential.

Does anyone argue that Waters was not the most important, consequential, or influential songwriter in Pink Floyd?--GabeMc (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If Waters is not PF's Principal Songwriter, then who is? The next most prolific writer in Pink Floyd is Gilmour with four tracks TOTAL to his credit through 1983:

1) A Spanish Piece 2) The Narrow Way 3) Fat Old Sun 4) Childhood's End

--GabeMc (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is this, of 120 PF tracks during Waters tenure with the band, he is a writer or co-writer on 97 tracks, or about 80% of all PF tracks from 1967-1983 were written or co-written by Waters. He has sole writing credit on 59 of 120. --GabeMc (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Either Waters was the "principal songwriter" or Pink Floyd did not have a principal songwriter, as Gilmour's lack of writing credit (4 total tracks 1968-1983) precludes him entirely from that title. How could someone credited on 80% of PF tracks (59 with sole credit) not be the principal songwriter? --GabeMc (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"Most important, consequential, or influential", is a matter of opinion. Declaring Waters the "principal songwriter" is still original research, and needs a source.Mk5384 (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

How about the New York Times? "The singer, bassist and principal songwriter for Pink Floyd, Mr. Waters...." http://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/23/arts/rock-by-roger-waters.htmlObjective3000 (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Support, definitely not a weasel word in this usage. It was recently removed with that argument, I see no reason not to replace it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's sourced now, so it's fine. I still think that it may be a bit of a stretch to say that he "gained fame" as such.Mk5384 (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What did Waters gain fame for, if not for his contribution to Pink Floyd? --GabeMc (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, that's ambiguous. His persona at the forefront of Pink Floyd gained him more fame than his behind the scenes contributions as a lyricyst, and composer.Mk5384 (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I always thought he was famous for inventing the intermittent windshield wiper. But, I'll accept principal songwriter, lyricist, bass player, co-lead vocalist, and one of the founding members.Objective3000 (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Preparation for GAN

I'm not sure this article is ready for a Good Article nomination. The lead makes no mention of his career with Pink Floyd and only mentions them in passing. This is not sufficient, as a significant portion of his musical career was spent with the band, and his struggle over control of Pink Floyd is very notable. Furthermore, this article is overwhelmed by pictures - there's absolutely way too many. Some are shrunk to the point of not being able to identify the subject. In many places, text is crammed between images on both the left and right sides. This is a definite no-no. I would look at WP:IMAGE for a little more direction. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The lead makes no mention of his career with Pink Floyd"

The second line of the lede specifies his contribution to Pink Floyd.

It only says his role. It doesn't summarize his contributions to the band over a 20 year period the way the rest of the lead summarizes his solo career of 25 years. It completely skips this part of his musical career. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we list every Pink Floyd album from Piper through The Final Cut? Or a detailed list of Pink Floyd concerts? I am confused, what do you think it needs? --GabeMc (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• "his struggle over control of Pink Floyd is very notable"

To my knowledge Waters never struggled to control Pink Floyd, he wanted out of the band and his contract to Steve O'Rourke, and attempted to stop Gilmour and Mason from using the name, all of which are covered in detail in the article.

So you're not familiar with the conflict between band members over his increasingly dominant role as the songwriter of the group when he was with them? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's you who is not as familiar with the history as you think you are. By Gilmour's own admission, it was not until The Final Cut when control was an issue, then Waters left Floyd. His control lasted one album. --GabeMc (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Furthermore, this article is overwhelmed by pictures - there's absolutely way too many."

That is an opinion, and removing them an arbitrary choice, WP:IMAGE specifies no limit to the number of pics that can be used in an article. Further, this topic was discussed some time ago and consensus was reached on the discussion page that numerous pics were okay.

• "Some are shrunk to the point of not being able to identify the subject."

Water's live show is the most significant aspect of his history post 1999, pics are the best way to convey what his shows are like. The shrunken pics enlarge when clicked upon, and the "object" is not only Roger Waters, but also the band, staging, and visual effects.

That's not what I'm talking about. You are using the upright property on 4x3 images, which really is not the intended use. Why do the Pink Floyd live pictures differ in size from the Roger Waters live pictures? There doesn't appear to be any rationale for doing so. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

One Wiki page is not a standard for another, so whatever is done on Pink Floyd does not have bearing on Roger Waters. As far as "using the upright property on 4x3 images", I am using the best quality free content pics I can find, not all are the ideal dimension. --GabeMc (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The pic in question, which you have now fixed, and thank you for that, was not added by me. --GabeMc (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• "In many places, text is crammed between images on both the left and right sides. This is a definite no-no."

While WP:IMAGE says: "In most cases, images should be right justified" it also allows for left-justified pics, with the preference being no more weighty than pic size preference. Nowhere does WP:IMAGE state that text should not be "crammed between images on both the left and right sides".GabeMc (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Images says "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." It reduces the width of readable prose by half, compared to areas where there are no pictures. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does say that, but is this "written in stone" and a policy that cannot be changed, ever, for any reason? --GabeMc (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• 'Avoid sandwiching text...' "It reduces the width of readable prose by half, compared to areas where there are no pictures".

True, but to what consequence? Text sandwiched between pics is not more difficult to read or comprehend. --GabeMc (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Y2kcrazyjoker4, I like what you did with the lede, it was similar a while back and someone else changed it, so thanks for resoring it and making it more inclusive of Waters entire career. --GabeMc (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Following tensions over his increasingly dominant role in the group, Waters left Pink Floyd in 1984..."

This statement, it seems to me, is a contentious unsourced one about a living person.

--GabeMc (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

Waters live show is the most significant thing he has done in the past 11+ years, pictures tell the story better then words. Do any editors object to using this many pics? --GabeMc (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No one is going to object to his impact as a live performer, but you need to pick the most important/best photos available. Right now, you have 4 photos to illustrate one concert in Berlin. That just seems completely unnecessary. Why two different photos of the moon backdrop? Like I said, not every photo of Roger Waters and his live show that is available on Wikicommons needs to be used. The way the article is now, the photos detract from everything else because there are too many and they are haphazardly organized. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removing redundant moon shots. Berlin was his most significant concert EVER, and perhaps his most significant solo accomplishment to date, so the four different shots seem to go well bookending the text about the concert. All four shots show different aspects of the show. As far as "the photos detract from everything else because there are too many and they are haphazardly organized" that is your aesthetic opinion that does not have bearing on Wiki policy. --GabeMc (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, and help, assuming it does not involve wholsale deetion of 1/2 the pics. The visual nature of Roger's show is only conveyed visually. So I think this article justifes an above average pic count. Let's work together on the details. --GabeMc (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how important any one concert was (as the Berlin concert may be), this is an article about Roger Waters, not the Berlin concert. You should use summary style not only in your prose but in any accompanying elements (quotes, images). If you want to create a separate article about the concert and put all those photos in there, be my guest. But like I said, 4 photos for a single concert is total overkill. Create a gallery for photos, link to Roger Water's Wikicommons category, or create a separate article for that specific concert. WP:Layout#Images says: You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can. Since it's impossible to create a guideline about image use that is universal across all articles, best judgement needs to be exercised. Something else to consider is that pictures shouldn't really be used just for decorative purposes. They should be relevant to the prose they reside next to. Only about half the pictures in the article really fit that bill. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As of now only four of the pics are not directly related to the text that surrounds them. --GabeMc (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images..."

General, vague, and open to personal opinion. --GabeMc (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's open to judgment, as are many of the guidelines. But if you keep looking for reasons to ignore the Wikipedia guidelines I'm referencing, then heck, you could pretty much just dispense with following anything in the Manual of Style. It may be a personal opinion that I find it hard to read sandwiched text between 4 separate pictures, but I'm willing to bet someone else will completely agree. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• "if you keep looking for reasons to ignore the Wikipedia guidelines I'm referencing"

Quite to the contrary, I have listened with open ears, and removed several pics based on guidlines you have referenced. I appreciate your input and help getting the article to GA, and prefer to work with you, not against you. I think we have the same goal. I am sure you are not the only one who finds "it hard to read sandwiched text between 4 separate pictures", but you might agree that I am not the only one who does not have an issue with it. May I ask, why is the text harder for you to read when "sandwiched"? The font size is not changed. --GabeMc (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no longer any sandwiched text in the article. --GabeMc (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is certainly much improved, and Gabe should be commended for his work. I would tend to concur, that there seems to be an overabundence of pictures. I don't know that we need the one of Gilmour's houseboat, for instance, or that we need two different pics of Waters in Philadelphia in June 2007. Also, I think that the bulleted lists of guitars and basses played by Waters may be better in a condensed form of prose. Just my 2 cents.Mk5384 (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Per your suggestions, I swapped out one of the Phili pics. The Astoria pic is good because it allowed me to remove a wordy explanation of what the Astoria is that was in the prose itself. Now with a pic to the right of the "settlement" paragraph, readers have a visual on where it took place without jamming the prose with an explanation. As it stands now, there is not an overabundance of pics IMHO, all but four of the pics are directly related to the adjacent prose. As far as the equipment list, I don't see why a list should be in prose form, or how it would improve the article --GabeMc (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384, per your suggestions, I condensed the equipment list into prose, referencing how it relates to some specific pink floyd tracks, and wiki linked the Astoria to removes the need for the pic. Those were good suggestions, thanks it improved the article. --GabeMc (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Astoria

The Astoria is where "Pink Floyd" recorded A Momentary Lapse of Reason. As such, it seems to me, to be out of place in an article about Waters. (That's just me, of course.) As far as the guitars, it just seems a bit lengthy to include what seems to be almost every insturment Waters has used. Just as take key songs that he wrote, and discuss them, whilst perhaps touching on others, I think that it would make for better reading if the equipment list was condensed, in prose form. But either way, the article is certainly much improved as a result of your work.Mk5384 (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The pic of the Astoria is adjacent to the paragraph about the Pink Floyd settlement, which took place with Gilmour and Waters on the Astoria. So the Astoria is the exact location where Waters agreed to leave Pink Floyd, and as such a place he entered as a member of Pink Floyd and left as a non-member, and therefore relevant to Waters article, IMHO. --GabeMc (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as the list of equipment, I am not married to it, but I am unsure how it is a factor in GAN. --GabeMc (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Astoria pic relieves the need to describe what "the houseboat" is in Mason's quote about the settlement. --GabeMc (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not too big a deal, although I hope the article gets everything right. (I haven't had time to read everything yet.) Waters didn't "agree to leave Pink Floyd", nor did he "enter as a member and leave a non-member". Waters left Pink Floyd long before the meeting, claiming he had "dissolved the band by decree". When it became apparent to him that the high courts were giving creedence to Gilmour's attempt to continue, he attended the meeting to hammer out the details under which Gilmour and Mason would have the rights to use the name. And Waters, for all intents and purposes, remained a "member", although he generally conducted his business with the band by proxy from that point on. Waters had no say (nor was he interested) in the forthcoming studio albums, but he remained involved in just about everything else.Mk5384 (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

“ That's not too big a deal, although I hope the article gets everything right. (I haven't had time to read everything yet.) ”

• "I hope the article gets everything right"

I hope you actually use several reliable sources when you fact check then edit and not just disagree based on your memory, because a good editor will produce multiple sources for their claims and do all the leg-work to back them up, versus simply contradicting sourced statements and forcing more work for other editors who would rather spend the time improving articles.

• "Waters didn't "agree to leave Pink Floyd"

In December 1985 Water sent a letter to Colombia and EMI telling them he "was leaving Pink Floyd"[1], and invoked his "leaving member clause"[2] which contractually allowed him to pursue a solo career, since this way he was "officially 'leaving' the band"[3] and had "withdrew his services"[4] and "dismissed himself from Pink Floyd". In 2004 Waters said, "They forced me to resign from the band"[5]. "EMI made him (Waters) sign a piece of paper...saying...not to interfere with Pink Floyd being Pink Floyd, or pursue any activities in the name of Pink Floyd-which Roger signed and agreed to."[6]{Blake, 2008, pp.156, 312-313}{Mason, 2005, p.280}{Povey, 2008, pp.185, 240-241}{Schaffner, 1991 p.283}

• "nor did he "enter as a member and leave a non-member", "Waters, for all intents and purposes, remained a "member", "Waters had no say (nor was he interested) in the forthcoming studio albums, but he remained involved in just about everything else".

Waters was a shareholder in the company Pink Floyd Music who was under contract to Steve O'Rourke. Waters wanted out of his contract with O'Rourke so he "traded" Gilmour and Mason the "Pink Floyd" name in exchange for getting out of his contract with O'Rourke, among other things, and as such remained a shareholder in Pink Floyd Music (retaining his royalties and voting rights), but not a member of the band Pink Floyd. That is a major distinction here Hk5384, Waters no longer had any input into the activities of the band Pink Floyd, just the company who owns their music. To say Waters "remained in Pink Floyd" is like saying Michael Jackson "joined" The Beatles when he bought their catalog. As far as "enter as a member and leave a non-member", I was just using plain-speak to you, it's not language from the article. Onboard the Astoria, Waters agreed to relinquish his rights to use the name "Pink Floyd", that's all I meant.{Mason, 2005, pp.274-280}{Blake, 2008, p.333}{Povey, 2008, pp.240-241}{Schaffner, 1991 p.283}

These uninformed contradictions will no doubt hold up GA status for Roger Waters, but no worries, it will get there eventually. --GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You're going to get contradictions on this subject. Roger, himself, has given different accountings over the years. As I said, Waters had no input on any new music. He had, more or less, a standing invitation to rejoin the band. He was involved, along with the other members, in the compilation and release of Is There Anybody Out There: The Wall Live, and Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd. The band had to get his permissions to release PULSE, as it contained a performance of DSOTM. He continued to be involved with decision making, as far as the remasters were concerned. (Which he generally did by proxy.) This is an example of a situation where you can find multiple publications, all of which meet WP:RS, that don't say exactly the same thing.Mk5384 (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Your claims may well be valid, but you have not provided any sources to back them up. --GabeMc (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Wait, I must be confused, are you claiming that Roger Waters "never left" the English rock group Pink Floyd, and that "Waters, for all intents and purposes, remained a "member"? Remained a member, of Pink Floyd? Like I said before, you are confusing his position as a primary shareholder in the music publishing company Pink Floyd Music with his status as a member of the band Pink Floyd, and you continue to make erroneous edits and claims without citing any sources. Please read all of WP:DISRUPT.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." WP:SOURCE

Do you have any sources that support YOUR claim?

• Here are 25 WP:RSs that support the assertion, "Roger Waters left Pink Floyd":

[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]

There are some from Billboard, Spin, The New York Times, etc... --GabeMc (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roger Waters/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 14, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing appears pretty good, at least, good enough for GA at this time. Would strongly suggest a peer review prior to going forward with other steps, where editors should enlist the help of previously-uninvolved-copyeditors.

That's good advice, I will most definately request a peer review or two before FAC.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. Per WP:LEADCITE, citations can be moved out of the lede/intro, and defaulted down to the main body text of the article itself. Note: I have added a few {{fact}} tags, these must be addressed.

I removed the cites from the lede.

I addressed the cite tags, and added proper citations.

3. Broad in coverage?: Roger_Waters#Achievements seems a tad bit odd, unless this can be shown to have been used at a few WP:FAs, I would suggest something like a table such as at the FA article, Cillian Murphy, working it into the main body text, like at the FA, Maynard James Keenan, and Kylie Minogue, or better yet, a different table, like at the FA John Mayer.

I worked the achievements section into text.

4. Neutral point of view?: See above, regarding Achievements sect, for different style presentation.

5. Article stability? No recent issues upon inspection of article edit history, aside from some IPs to keep an eye on. Question: Please state here a brief description of the talk page conflict I spotted which was commented on in the prior GA Review, and if this has been resolved to satisfaction of the parties?

"Please state here a brief description of the talk page conflict", the party that was making the arguement that Waters never left Floyd was soon banned for similar reasons. The last comment on the article's talk page was July 21, 2010.

6. Images?:

• File:Roger Waters Grenada Spain 9 May 2008.jpg - OTRS issue tagged as unresolved, this image must be removed, or the issue resolved.

Removed image, replaced it with one from commons.

• File:Roger Waters 18 May 2008 London O2 Arena.jpg - This image should be moved to Wikimedia Commons.

It is already there, I just cropped it to fit. Should I still upload a redundant image already on commons? — GabeMc (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• File:Coachella pigstage.jpg - Image missing verification of permission. This image must be removed, and/or the permission issue resolved.

Removed image, replaced it with one from commons.

• File:Roger Waters Milwaukee Wisconsin 2 July 2007 5.jpg - This one is also missing permission via OTRS confirmation. Same issue as above, remove it, or resolve/confirm it.

Removed image, replaced it with one from commons.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Passed, thanks for the quick responses! -- Cirt (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, for the insightful and speedy review! — GabeMc (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issue in "Views and advocacy"

The section "Views and advocacy" lends undue weight to his view on the Hunting Act of 2004. It takes about half of the section while Waters certainly didn't spend half of his life caring about this. He is not particularly notable for this view either - most likely, he just briefly talked about it in an interview. So I think this part of the section could be either reduced or removed. Also in order to make the section neutral and more comprehensive, perhaps it could be expanded by mentioning his opinion on war, politics, modern society, etc. Laurent (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The section has been worked into the article body per previous FAC suggestions. — GabeMc (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Waters' brother

I'm fairly certain that Waters' elder brother was/is a London cab driver. I recall this from some interview about The Wall, where by chance Bob Geldof was slagging Pink Floyd off, in the back of his cab - and ignorant of the relationship. The interview was with Waters himself, I don't recall anything more about it. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's in Mason, p.259. — GabeMc (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wallpaper

There is video, "What God Wants", with interviews which to me are true revelations for music and theatre. If the news sounded more like interviews, it sure would seem to help the economy. In the song, "Bike", is the old mouse Gerald Gardner? There seems to be a necessary boundary in Astrophysics which includes the right to claim Atheism, as also written in Wikipedia concerning Carl Sagan. There are now images that were created by a computer that are interpretable, and discression has to be taken in releasing them. Photos are clearly some type of communications of an unidentified source, or electronic impulses that created pictures. HOPE75.202.55.12 (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Date mismatch (solved)

"George Roger Waters (born 6 September 1943)" and in the infobox "9 September 1941 (age 69)"

It seems that 6 September 1943 is the right date according to google.

Iulian-Nicu Șerbănoiu 19:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I think Schaffner is the only source that says 9 September. — GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Roger supports BDS

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/03/my-journey-to-bds.html

In 1980, a song I wrote, "Another Brick in the Wall Part 2," was banned by the government of South Africa because it was being used by Black South African children to advocate their right to equal education. That apartheid government imposed a cultural blockade, so-to-speak, on certain songs, including mine.

Twenty-five years later, in 2005, Palestinian children participating in a West Bank festival used the song to protest Israel's apartheid wall. They sang "We don't need no occupation! We don't need no racist wall!" At the time, I hadn't seen first-hand what they were singing about.

A year later in 2006, I contracted to perform in Tel Aviv.

Palestinians from the movement advocating an academic and cultural boycott of Israel urged me to reconsider. I had already spoken out against the wall, but I was unsure whether a cultural boycott was the right way to go. The Palestinian advocates of a boycott asked that I visit the occupied Palestinian territory, to see the Wall for myself before I made up my mind. I agreed.

Under the protection of the UN I visited Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Nothing could have prepared me for what I saw that day. The Wall is an appalling edifice to behold. It is policed by young Israeli Soldiers who treated me, a casual observer from another world with disdainful aggression. If it could be like that for me, a foreigner, a visitor, imagine what it must be like for the Palestinians, for the underclass, for the passbook carriers. I knew then that my conscience would not allow me to walk away from that Wall, from the fate of the Palestinians I met, people whose lives are crushed daily in a multitude of ways by Israel's occupation. In solidarity, and somewhat impotently, I wrote on their wall that day: "We don't need no thought control."

Realizing at that point that my presence on a Tel Aviv stage would inadvertently legitimize the oppression I was witnessing, I canceled my gig at the football stadium in Tel Aviv and moved it to Neve Shalom an agricultural community devoted to growing chick peas and also, admirably, to cooperation between people of different faiths, where Muslim, Christian and Jew live and work side by side in harmony.

Against all expectations, it was to become the biggest music event in the short history of Israel. 60,000 fans battled traffic jams to attend. It was extraordinarily moving for me and my band, and at the end of the gig I was moved to exhort the young people gathered there to demand of their government that they attempt to make peace with their neighbors and respect the civil rights of Palestinians living in Israel.

Sadly in the intervening years, the Israeli government has made no attempt to implement legislation that would grant civil rights to Israeli Arabs equal to those enjoyed by Israeli Jews, and The Wall has grown, inexorably, illegally annexing more and more of The West Bank.

I had learned that day in Bethlehem in 2006 something of what it means to live under occupation, imprisoned behind a Wall. It means that a Palestinian farmer must watch olive groves centuries old, uprooted. It means that a Palestinian student cannot get to school because the checkpoint is closed. It means a woman may give birth in a car, because the soldier won't let her pass to the hospital that’s a ten minute drive away. It means a Palestinian artist cannot travel abroad to exhibit work, or to show a film in an international film festival.

For the people of Gaza, locked in a virtual prison behind the wall of Israel's illegal blockade, it means another set of injustices. It means that children go to sleep hungry, many chronically malnourished. It means that fathers and mothers, unable to work in a decimated economy, have no means to support their families. It means that university students with scholarships to study abroad must watch the opportunity of a lifetime slip away because they are not allowed travel.

In my view, the abhorrent and draconian control that Israel wields over the besieged Palestinians in Gaza, and the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem), coupled with its denial of the rights of refugees to return to their homes in Israel, demands that fair minded people around the world support the Palestinians in their civil, nonviolent resistance.

Where governments refuse to act, people must, with whatever peaceful means are at their disposal. For some that meant joining the Gaza Freedom March, for others it meant joining the humanitarian flotilla that tried to bring much needed humanitarian aid to Gaza.

For me it means declaring my intention to stand in solidarity, not only with the people of Palestine, but also with the many thousands of Israelis who disagree with their governments racist and colonial policies, by joining a campaign of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, until it satisfies three basic human rights demanded in international law.

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands [occupied since 1967] and dismantling the Wall; 2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

My conviction is born in the idea that all people deserve basic human rights. My position is not anti Semitic. This is not an attack on the people of Israel. This is, however, a plea to my colleagues in the music industry, and also to artists in other disciplines, to join this cultural boycott.

Artists were right to refuse to play in South Africa's Sun City resort until apartheid fell and whites and blacks enjoyed equal rights. And we are right to refuse to play in Israel until the day comes -- and it surely will come -- when The Wall of occupation falls and Palestinians live alongside Israelis in the peace, freedom, justice and dignity that they all deserve.

Roger Waters is a founding member of the rock group Pink Floyd. This article originally appeared on the website of the Alternative Information Center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.102.253 (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Technical error and joke during show in Oslo, May 5th 2011

During the 2nd show in Oslo, there was a technical problem with the folding Hotel Room set for "Nobody Home" in act 2, resulting in a substantial delay waiting for the problem to be fixed. Roger Waters came on stage twice during the techincal problems. The first was to explain the problem, and the second was to amuse the audience with a joke. The crew did not manage to get the problem fixed, so after the joke Roger preformed the act sitting on a chair on stage.

Terjero (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC) President Gorbachev is on a flight to somewhere, Greenland or somewhere, and have to stop at London to refuel his plane. This is when he still was president of Russia, and the Soviet republics. So he is shown into a small room, and with about 20 or 30 young English diplomats who all stand round trying to look useful and he’s standing there with an aid in the corner while they refuel the plane. And the diplomats are all starring at their shoes or whatever. But anyway – eventually Gorbachev turns to his aid and says something in Russian. I’ve no idea what he said, but it sounds something like …”Speaking in funny Russian”… So the aid, the aid says to the diplomats. “President Gorbachev would like your opinion on certain matter” And so, uhm..They all look rather eager and they all say “Jolly good, President Gorbachev wants to know our opinion that’s marvellous; they all lean forward a bit. Gorbachev goes…”Speaking in funny Russian”… "President Gorbachev would like to know your opinion. How you think history of world would have been changed if president Khrushchev was assassinated rather then President Kennedy?" This is too difficult for our English diplomats who start to shuffle around and look around, trying not to be in the spotlight, not being noticed. So Gorbachev lets them stew for a minute or two and then he turns to the aid:…..speaking in funny Russian…… And the aid says: "President Gorbachev believes it very unlikely that Mr Onassis would have married Mrs Khrushchev."

So anyway, many years go by - until a couple of years ago. I'm at the berlin film festival. And it's an adjunct to the main festival. It’s called "Cinema for Peace". And they're honouring a number of people; two of them are me and President Gorbachev. So I get to meet the great man. I'm having a glass of champagne before the press conference and there he is - with his extremely attractive granddaughter. And I thought I have to find out if this story is true or not. So I go and you know say hello. The granddaughter speaks very very very good English. And so I say "listen, I have to tell your grandfather a story, cause i want to know if it is true or not. She says "I'd be delighted to translate for you". So I say "good". So I tell him that whole story. As you can imagine being translated it took forever. And he stands there going like this occasionally (looking down, seriously). And when I finished, he turns to his granddaughter and he goes "speaking in funny Russian". And she says to me "My grandfather says - story completely untrue, but my grandfather like very much Intel"

Some interesting information from an interview a few days ago to a Greek journalist as he is playing in Greece in July. That he has been to Greece many times and spoke Greek to the journalist (maybe broken Greek). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.144.132 (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Live 8: Benefit or charity?

This has been changed to be described as a "benefit concert" on the grounds that this is more "precise". I disagree. As I understand it, a "benefit concert" is a concert in memory of, or dedicated (possibly financially) to a specific person, frequently another musician etc. A charity concert is in aid of the needy in general, the unspoken assumption being that you are not directly acquainted with those who receive (either directly or indirectly) the money raised. Live 8, from what I understand, was in the latter category. Thoughts? --Matt Westwood 07:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If you feel strongly, by all means, change it back. It seemed to me that "charity" was the anthesis of what Geldof was trying to do. (i.e. "We don't want your money, we want your awareness.") That is just my opinion, of course. "Charity" was the long-standing version before I changed it, and if you feel it needs to be changed back, I don't have any strong objections. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Povey calls it a "global awareness event,(2008|p=287), while Mason refers to it as a charity concert.(Povey|2008|p=266) Blake calls it a charity concert,(2008|p=394) Fitch calls the 1985 event a charity concert(2005|p=182). Joe does make a good point in regards to how Geldorf views the event, saying, "LIVE 8 is about justice not charity" and "it is your voice we are after, not your money."[33] On the other hand, I agree in general that "benefit concert" implies the event is staged for a person or group, though it was for Africa, so the intent was to benefit Africans. Maybe this is semantics, we could avoid both "charity" and "benefit" and call it a "global awareness concert" ala Povey. — GabeMc (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Joefromrandb (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Instruments and Equipment

Just a thought about this section: Waters has played both clarinet and trumpet during live performances of "Outside the Wall". Not sure if this is notable enough to mention, but I figured I'd bring it up. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge he started the tour playing a clarinet then soon switched to trumpet, and hasn't switched back. Indeed the shows I saw he played a trumpet. Although, I don't see the harm in mentioning that he can play the clarinet and the trumpet, albeit in a rudementary way, if Joe and/or others feel that would improve the articles comprehensivness. — GabeMc (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

He played clarinet on the 1980 tour. Whether his playing is rudimentary or skilled, I don't know. We should probably try to find a source if we're going to include it, especially since this is a featured article. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll see what I can dig up. — GabeMc (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You were correct Joe, according to Fitch, (2005|p=232 & 2006|p=185), Waters played the clarinet when Floyd performed "Outside the Wall" live. So if you'd like to add it, we can source it. — GabeMc (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it. In my ineptness, it took me several tries to insert the cite correctly. Feel free to tweak as necessary. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the best way to learn, well done Joe! — GabeMc (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL; thanks, Gabe. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)