Talk:Coldplay: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:24, 7 May 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Coldplay article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Coldplay has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 15, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
December 4, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 6, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Musicians GA‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as High-importance).

Coldplay ARE/IS

There is only one band called Coldplay. If there was more than one, than are should've been used.

In UK English 'are' is the commonly accepted method of referring to a band (which is a collection of people). --JD554 (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with JD554's thought process. It depends on whether we are trying to give the idea that Coldplay are one thing, ie singular. If we are, then grammatically we should use "is" because after all, we wouldn't say "table are...". However the use of the plural pronoun "they" makes it complicated. I would say stick with "are" for now, but I think there should be some sort of discussion on this for a general policy. Alan16 ^talk 22:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ColdPlay Userbox

As part of Wikiproject Userbox, I have added Template: User ColdPlay to the bands area. Feel free to use. Tim Quievryn

Concert footage airing

In case there are any misconceptions, the concert slated as being a DVD release earlier in the year has been shown on BOTH SPANISH AND CANADIAN TELEVISION. Somebody is continually deleting my alterations even though it WAS DEFINITELY shown on Spanish television, according to the official website.

Commercial Success

"All of Coldplay's albums have enjoyed commercial success." Is this a good sentence? Because the album themselves do not enjoy commercial success, the band does. Should this be changed? Amazin credible 03:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it should be changed because the albums make money for the band, not the other way round. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

broken link

[reflekts] --> reflekts I can't change the source so somebody else (a mod) has to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.118.161 (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean under 'musical styles' where it says [reflects]? That shouldn't be wikilinked, it's an editing mark that is common in a quote. tedder (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay are an English alternative rock The ARE needs to be changed to IS

Coldplay is a single entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RicHicks (talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates Contradict themselves

First Sentence: 1998 The Block on the Right: 1997 We have a problem. Anyone know whic one is true? I think its '98 but I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaptopSafe (talk • contribs) 14:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

Credible, real evidence and quotes about the issue of Coldplay's alleged plagiarism are constantly being edited out of the article. I think we need to come to a conclusion on the best way to address this topic. Most recently, quotes from Chris Martin on the subject were deleted because an editor thought that the NOR rules applied. However, in the text that I authored it was clear that the statements were separated from the current plagiarism accusations based on the phrase "prior to the current allegations" and the chronological timeline. Additionally, these quotes are frequently referenced in the press when addressing this issue.^[1] ^[2] Therefore, NOR isn't being violated since other sources are applying the same logic. Rosennose (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose[reply]

However, by placing the quotes next to the current allegations the way you did, you were inviting the reader to make their own WP:SYNTH and adding WP:UNDUE weight to Martin's quotes. --JD554 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph is about the current VLV plagiarism allegations. You can't take any old Martin quote and apply it to this particular case as it would be a WP:NOR/WP:SYN vio. The policy means that if Martin addresses plagiarism in other contexts, you can't use it to advance the argument that they plagiarized VLV. i.e., your edit on Martins's 2005 quote on an entirely different piece of work can't be used to support the 2008/9 VLV allegations. You can do that on a personal blog, but it goes against Wiki's policies as JD554 mentioned above.

I noticed that you have been pushing the plagiarism angle since opening an account, and I would also advise at taking a look at WP:UNDUE. Unless there is due reason, you can't place such allegations in the intro or in its own section... as you did with some of your earlier edits. --Madchester (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I established a Plagiarism section which outlines all info in chological order, including Martin quote. Therefore, all evidence is presented in an unbiased manner. This is important information and should not be censored. It is not UNDUE by any means. The accusations are from established musicians, the evidence from credible sources, and is being addressed by the legal system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosennose (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why other editors are trying to hide the truth? That's like arguing that an article about Barry Bonds should not include a reference to Steroid use. The allegations are valid, numerous, and relevant, and therefore should not be hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.111.163.154 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

This edit-warring is unacceptable, and I have fully protected the article for a week while you thrash it out. Please look at Disupute Resolution if you can't sort out a consensus here. However, if agreement is reached before then, please contact me or report at WP:RFPP. I don't rule out blocks for WP:3RR breaches either. Rodhull andemu 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sense WP:SOCKPUPPET being an issue here.

User:Rosenose created an account on May 5
User:67.111.163.154 began editing on Wiki on May 6.
User:Otherwisealilly created account on May 7

All 3 users have solely focused on Coldplay plagarism allegations. Also, they've been restoring each others' edits after they've been removed by multiple established editors. My 2 cents is that a checkuser run may be needed here..... --Madchester (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to SOCKPUPPET allegations, 67.111.163 is Rosennose. I just didn't sign in on that edit. Sorry for that mistake. Otherwisealilly is a colleague of mine who agrees that the plagiarism sections should be included. Rosennose (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose[reply]

And do you both work for the same firm of architects? Because apart from WP:DUCK, it's probably also taking a look at WP:MEAT. Rodhull andemu 17:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they both work for the same flo wer shop. To me there seems to be some obvious sockpuppetry, and even if there isn't, there is a flaw in Rosennose's argument. (S)he claims to have presented the information in a chronological fashion yet (s)he put the 2005 quote after the 2008/09 stuff, encouraging people to draw a certain conclusion. Alan16 ^talk 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Alan16's argument about the chronology, please reread the current text in the Plagarism section. It is all presented in chronological order. The 2005 quote appears first, followed by the allegations.

In response to the sock/meat/duck arguments, I think the plagiarism issue should be addressed on its merits, instead of focusing on my identity. Can someone please explain why the plagiarism information is not worthy of reference? It receives ample media coverage and is being litigated in the court system, so it is certainly a real, relevant issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosennose (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that we keep in a lawsuit which was withdrawn because the suer realised he had no case, which is basically what happened. Alan16 ^talk 17:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting, that the Led Zeppelin article has an entire section entitled "Allegations of Plagiarism" as well, so there is clearly a precedent for including such information. Rosennose (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose[reply]

There is no problem in having the plagiarism allegations in the article. The problem is adding in Martin's quotes about being "good plagiarists" as this lends WP:UNDUE weight to the allegations causing the reader to reach a possible wrong conclusion that they are guilty of plagiarism. It certainly doesn't help when the section starts "Several artists have accused Coldplay of plagiarism." and then immediately follows with Martin's quote about how good they are at it. It draws an obvious conclusion which may or may not be true (that is what the court case needs to decide). --JD554 (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes are real and relevant. They shouldn't be shoved under a rug and hidden. The quotes and allegations are presented in a chronological, factual manner. And the quote is included in the media coverage on the plagiarism issue, so clearly there is a precedent for using the quote in the context of this discussion. It is not our responsibility to edit the truth because someone may, illogically draw a conclusion. Ultimately, Martin made the statement, so he should be accountable for people potentially drawing conclusions from it. Wikipedia should present all relevant information to the public--we shouldn't censor Martin's own statement because it may cast him in a negative light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosennose (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way it is currently worded invites readers implies Martin is guilty of the greater accusations of plagiarism rather than the simple borrowing of chords he is referring to. Context is everything and it isn't provided here and is a breach of WP:SYNTH. --JD554 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not a violation of WP:SYNTH. First, the quote has been presented by other sources in relation to the Plagarism topic. To quote from the SYNTH rule, the "precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor." Numerous sources have published the 2005 Martin quote in the context of the allegations several years later. Therefore, a violation is not present. Second, the chronological nature of the presentation of the quote relative to the accusations makes it clear that Martin was not admitting guilt to the actual accusations. In fact his quote, predates the release of the song in question.

With that said, I will agree that we could probably devise a better wording around the inclusion of the quote. But to patently erases it is unreasonable. Rosennose (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose[reply]

[1] ttp://evilbeetgossip.film.com/2009/05/04/todays-coldplay-plagiarism-story/

[2] ttp://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/who/news/04052009/coldplay-accused-of-plagiarism-again.html

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 :::The way it is currently worded invites readers implies Martin is guilty of the greater accusations of plagiarism rather than the simple borrowing of chords he is referring to. Context is everything and it isn't provided here and is a breach of [[WP:SYNTH]]. --[[User:JD554|JD554]] ([[User talk:JD554|talk]]) 21:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
+:::: It's definitely not a violation of WP:SYNTH.  First, the quote has been presented by other sources in relation to the Plagarism topic. To quote from the SYNTH rule, the "precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor."  Numerous sources have published the 2005 Martin quote in the context of the allegations several years later.  Therefore, a violation is not present.  Second, the chronological nature of the presentation of the quote relative  to the accusations makes it clear that Martin was not admitting guilt to the actual accusations.  In fact his quote, predates the release of the song in question.
+:::: With that said, I will agree that we could probably devise a better wording around the inclusion of the quote.  But to patently erases it is unreasonable.  [[User:Rosennose|Rosennose]] ([[User talk:Rosennose|talk]]) 23:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose