Talk:Roger Waters: Difference between revisions
→BLP: Reply |
Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
:::::[[Haaretz]] is an independent source with no vested interest in the topic. I see you are repeating this claim in multiple articles, wherever Israeli newspapers are concerned - As I have suggested elsewhere, you should take this baseless claim to [[WP:RSN]], where some experienced editor will set you straight [[User:Kentucky Rain24|Kentucky Rain24]] ([[User talk:Kentucky Rain24|talk]]) 16:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
:::::[[Haaretz]] is an independent source with no vested interest in the topic. I see you are repeating this claim in multiple articles, wherever Israeli newspapers are concerned - As I have suggested elsewhere, you should take this baseless claim to [[WP:RSN]], where some experienced editor will set you straight [[User:Kentucky Rain24|Kentucky Rain24]] ([[User talk:Kentucky Rain24|talk]]) 16:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::@[[User:Kentucky Rain24|Kentucky Rain24]] I don't know if you've noticed, but Makeandtoss has been an editor of Wikipedia for 10 years longer than you have and has nearly 10 times the amount of edits than you. I don't know under what definition that wouldn't count as being an experienced editor. [[User:Daemonspudguy|Daemonspudguy]] ([[User talk:Daemonspudguy|talk]]) 20:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
::::::@[[User:Kentucky Rain24|Kentucky Rain24]] I don't know if you've noticed, but Makeandtoss has been an editor of Wikipedia for 10 years longer than you have and has nearly 10 times the amount of edits than you. I don't know under what definition that wouldn't count as being an experienced editor. [[User:Daemonspudguy|Daemonspudguy]] ([[User talk:Daemonspudguy|talk]]) 20:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::::I |
:::::::I think an experienced editor would not claim that a mainstream newspaper with an editorial board and a reputation for fact checking that is listed ([[Wikipedia:HAARETZ|'green' and generally reliable]]) on [[WP:RSNP]] is not independent and shouldn't be used here, apparently due to its country of incorporation. |
||
:::::::I could be wrong, and the place to check it out is [[WP:RSN]], which Makeandtoss refuses to do, for some reason. [[User:Kentucky Rain24|Kentucky Rain24]] ([[User talk:Kentucky Rain24|talk]]) 20:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
:::::::I could be wrong, and the place to check it out is [[WP:RSN]], which Makeandtoss refuses to do, for some reason. [[User:Kentucky Rain24|Kentucky Rain24]] ([[User talk:Kentucky Rain24|talk]]) 20:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:53, 8 July 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roger Waters article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Roger Waters is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 6, 2013. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Inflatable pigs on Roger Waters' tours was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 December 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Roger Waters. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Other talk page banners | |||
|
BLP
@GidiD: The content you re-added was clearly challenged, so why did you do that? This is a BLP and an Israeli source is suboptimal for misleading claims which are also undue to lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss: Well, Haaretz is indeed an Israeli newspaper, but it is still a reliable one, frequently criticizing Israeli policy. But you have also other sources, e.g. The Algemeiner.
- Most importantly Roger Waters declares, in his own voice, that there is no evidence for rape of women on 7 October: "No they weren't [raped] ...There was no evidence. You can say anything that you want, but there is no evidence.” here 35:01. As he himself denies that rapes were committed on Oct 7th - this cannot be considered a "misleading" claim, BLP or no BLP. GidiD (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @GidiD: Sexual violence includes many things other than rape, he specifically refuted the occurrence of rape, which Patten’s UN report also said it was unsubstantiated; therefore this is not a controversial claim. I did not question reliability of Haaretz, I just pointed out to the conflict of interest being an Israeli source (we all heard of the Israeli government pressure on Haaretz not to publish reports of its intimidation campaign against the ICC prosecutor, to cite one example). Algemeiner is not a reliable source per WP. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Makeandtoss. Section 12 of the UN mission report clearly states {{xt|"there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred during the 7 October attacks in multiple locations across Gaza periphery, including rape and gang rape, in at least three locations"}}.
- Indeed there is a great deal of evidence for rapes, including testimonies of survivors, forensic evidence, confessions of Hamas militants and many more, reported in RS - I would not repeat the citation in the article's body. Waters says on the interview more than once that there is no evidence - citing this is not a misleading claim. GidiD (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- "reasonable grounds to believe" and "The absence of comprehensive forensic evidence limited the mission team’s ability to draw definitive forensic conclusions in many instances." Not my point anyway, my point is his remarks could be interpreted in a number of ways, the most controversial of which shouldn't be linked to a non-independent source with a vested interest in the topic, and certainly not in the lede as a highlight of his 80 year existence. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Haaretz is an independent source with no vested interest in the topic. I see you are repeating this claim in multiple articles, wherever Israeli newspapers are concerned - As I have suggested elsewhere, you should take this baseless claim to WP:RSN, where some experienced editor will set you straight Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Kentucky Rain24 I don't know if you've noticed, but Makeandtoss has been an editor of Wikipedia for 10 years longer than you have and has nearly 10 times the amount of edits than you. I don't know under what definition that wouldn't count as being an experienced editor. Daemonspudguy (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think an experienced editor would not claim that a mainstream newspaper with an editorial board and a reputation for fact checking that is listed ('green' and generally reliable) on WP:RSNP is not independent and shouldn't be used here, apparently due to its country of incorporation.
- I could be wrong, and the place to check it out is WP:RSN, which Makeandtoss refuses to do, for some reason. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Kentucky Rain24 I don't know if you've noticed, but Makeandtoss has been an editor of Wikipedia for 10 years longer than you have and has nearly 10 times the amount of edits than you. I don't know under what definition that wouldn't count as being an experienced editor. Daemonspudguy (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Haaretz is an independent source with no vested interest in the topic. I see you are repeating this claim in multiple articles, wherever Israeli newspapers are concerned - As I have suggested elsewhere, you should take this baseless claim to WP:RSN, where some experienced editor will set you straight Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- "reasonable grounds to believe" and "The absence of comprehensive forensic evidence limited the mission team’s ability to draw definitive forensic conclusions in many instances." Not my point anyway, my point is his remarks could be interpreted in a number of ways, the most controversial of which shouldn't be linked to a non-independent source with a vested interest in the topic, and certainly not in the lede as a highlight of his 80 year existence. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @GidiD: Sexual violence includes many things other than rape, he specifically refuted the occurrence of rape, which Patten’s UN report also said it was unsubstantiated; therefore this is not a controversial claim. I did not question reliability of Haaretz, I just pointed out to the conflict of interest being an Israeli source (we all heard of the Israeli government pressure on Haaretz not to publish reports of its intimidation campaign against the ICC prosecutor, to cite one example). Algemeiner is not a reliable source per WP. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in People
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (musicians) articles
- Top-importance biography (musicians) articles
- Musicians work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Pink Floyd articles
- Top-importance Pink Floyd articles
- B-Class Roger Waters articles
- WikiProject Pink Floyd articles
- B-Class East Anglia articles
- Low-importance East Anglia articles
- WikiProject East Anglia articles
- B-Class United Kingdom articles
- High-importance United Kingdom articles
- Unknown-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- B-Class socialism articles
- Top-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles