Talk:Roger Waters

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

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)

@GidiD: "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)

@GidiD: pinging one more time, and noting that Kentucky has been banned as a sockpuppet. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: I would accept your suggestion not to put it in the lede. But the interview with Piers Morgan should certainly be included in the body for the following reasons:

1. The interview is very relevant to the section about his political viewpoints.
2. It gained considerable attention in the media and in social media networks.
3. The interview is well documented.
4. Waters did claim there is no evidence that rapes were committed;

GidiD (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

NME covered the interview, so I've added a single sentence attempting to summarise their coverage. Popcornfud (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide RS demonstrating how it got considerable attention in the media? Makeandtoss (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: No need to include the "considerable attention" in the text.

Just between us, as editors, there was a dramatic increase (around 5 fold) in Google searches of "Roger Waters" at the day of the interview. Hence not a marginal interview. GidiD (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

WP should reflect RS, and not what we as editors think.. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, WP is all about consensus which is basically what we, editors think (alongside RS of course). ScottyNolan (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Roger Waters: 2023

Roger Waters has 2 new singles out. The Bar Parts 1 & 2. Will there be a new album? Kaos419 (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe.... ScottyNolan (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2026

Change “Gaza Genocide” to “Gaza Conflict” as it is not proven to be a genocide. Various attempts were made to preserve human life via warnings made by the IDF for the evacuation of areas to be targeted for the removal of Hamas who initiated and instigated the conflict while holding Israeli hostages in Gaza within the areas targeted by the IDF. This alone is enough to make invalid the opinion that Gaza’s population is facing direct intent by the IDF to commit genocide. I feel the original wording is bias and not factual regarding the situation in Gaza. It is a conflict not a genocide. ~2026-56638-1 (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Waters

 Not done: "Gaza genocide" is the title of the Wikipedia article on the subject. Day Creature (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Appearance on Tucker Carlson, comments on JFK and 9/11

Waters’s recent comments on the Tucker Carlson podcast (https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-roger-waters-071726) seem like new and significant details about his political views. Proposed wording:

”In a July 17, 2026 appearance on American right-wing podcast ‘’The Tucker Carlson Show’’, Waters endorsed conspiracy theories regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. He asserted that the World Trade Center did not collapse “because an aeroplane flew into it” but “because it was demolished” by “nano-thermite” explosives, adding that “every physicist or engineer or architect in the world” agrees with this assessment. He detailed his suspicion that “neocons”, “Israel”, and “elements within the US government” may be the responsible parties and demanded a “legitimate” criminal investigation into the attacks.” ~2026-40596-68 (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It would be good to cover this, but we can't add it until it's covered by a reliable secondary source. Just citing it to Tucker Carlson's podcast wouldn't be ideal. Popcornfud (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)