Talk:Coldplay

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)

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)

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.

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Rodhullandemu 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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. Rodhullandemu 17:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say they both work for the same flower 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

These plagiarism allegations are most directed towards "Viva la Vida"; its article already contains a dedicated section with the three most notable claims by Creaky Boards, Joe Satriani, and now Cat Stevens. I don't see how a dedicated section about this song's allegations need to be reproduced on the artist article. Likewise, I don't see how applying Martin's Rolling Stone plagiarism quote is appropriate, when it's not even in the context of VLV at all. Unless Martin makes a plagiarism comment directly about VLV, it fails WP:SYN. --Madchester (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not only about VLV. There was an earlier allegation about Clocks. The allegations, combined with Martin's quote, demonstrate a clear pattern, beyond VLV. That's why the quote is historically relevant. Beyond this quote, there are other quotes from the band related to the subject of plagiarism--so I don't understand how the band's own statements on the matter are somehow suddenly irrelevant? Here are a few more references which provide more statements [3] [4] [5] Perhaps we should include all the quotes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosennose (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The allegations, combined with Martin's quote, demonstrate a clear pattern, beyond VLV.

You just demonstrated WP:SYN in progress; using Source A (allegations) with un-related Source B (Martin's quote) to derive Conclusion C (of "a clear pattern" of plagiarism). Wiki doesn't work that way. Cheers, --Madchester (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. You're not answering the argument I made above. Which is that the SYN rule provides for an exception when other reliable sources have already published the same analysis. 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. What is your answer to this? Go read the articles and you'll see that I'm right.

And I didn't say that there was a clear pattern of plagiarism. I meant that there was a chronological pattern on the issue. History is a pattern. And all of the information IS related, since it ALL addresses the issue of plagiarism. Rosennose (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose

(outdent) Has there been any consensus to actually keep the section? The band's plagiarism accusations do seem notable to mention in this article, perhaps. But as it stands, the section itself is not very well-written and, as pointed out above, has definite WP:SYNTH problems by using Martin's unrelated 2005 quote. I don't wish for another edit war to start, but I'm ready to rework that section, or just remove it. Jamie^☆S93 12:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Besides the WP:SYN issues, the actual "Clocks" lawsuit hasn't been well-covered by any reliable sources. A one line mention on (a Radiohead fan site no less) doesn't satisfy WP:RS. Taking out the passing "Clocks" mention; the remaining allegations are all related to VLV... and that article already has a section comprehensively covering past and on-going plagiarism claims. So ultimately, I don't see the need for this same section to be repeated on the main artist article, when the claims are really focused on one track in their entire catalogue. --Madchester (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah - I hadn't checked the source on the Clocks one, good catch. Discounting that one, there's only three remaining like you said, all for VLV. Since the section is focused upon one song alone, it's not really needed, and would be giving undue weight to something that's not relevant to the band's entire career. I'm removing the section now. Jamie^☆S93 17:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The lawsuit is a fact. It's even covered in the Dutch version of Wikipedia. [6] Is that not a reliable source? 67.111.163.154 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose

Rosenose, a fansite is not a reliable source. Sure it's mentioned at it.wp, but not sourced. Even if a major band fansite states true facts, it's still not reliable. You may ask, why? In this case specifically, a Radiohead fanpage will certainly not portray Coldplay in a neutral light; for all I know, this may have been a very non-notable case that the website dredged up to paint Coldplay in a negative light. Including that here is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Fansites are simply not acceptable in this kind of situation. Jamie^☆S93 20:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to accept that the mention of 2005 Martin quote violates the SYN rule. As I mentioned several times above, the SYN rule provides for an exception when other reliable sources have already published the same analysis. 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. What is your answer to this? Go read the articles and you'll see that I'm right. 67.111.163.154 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose

1. Keep your cool; bolded comments can be seen as shouting at other editors.
2. We don't cross-reference Wikipedia pages. Nor do we use a (Radiohead) fan site as a source per WP:RS
3. The only reliably sourced plagiarism allegations are about VLV, and that article already contains its own sub-section on those claims. Creating a new sub-section on an artist page based on allegations about a single song in the artist catalogue violates WP:UNDUE. To extrapolate these existing allegations about one song as evidence of a band being plagiarists fails WP:SYN.

Please assume the good faith of Wiki's editors. Thanks --Madchester (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I added 2 new reliable sources for the Van Houten plagiarism claim. [7] [8] These sources justify the Plagiarism section, since the only reason to delete the section was that the claims only related to VLV.

The only reason I bolded my text, was because my argument has been ignored. I apologize if it appears as yelling--it's not. I'm just reiterating the argument. 67.111.163.154 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose

I find interesting about the "Clocks" plagiarism claims interesting:

1. While the VLV allegations were published in multiple mainstream reliable sources, this case has only appeared sporadically at best among sources with questionable history of fact checking. The Laptoprockers story has no link to the original source(s) reporting on this plagiarism claim.
2. In the year and half since this story was released, there's been no responses from either Mr. Van Houten or the band. Nor has there been any news about the actual litigation process or any out-of-court settlement. On the other hand, the VLV allegations were followed prompt responses by the band, and even by Creaky Boards in their claim.

Plagiarism is an exceptional claim; and per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Right now, there are no water-tight sources reporting the "Clocks" plagiarism claims.

As an aside, the "Bitter Sweet Symphony" article describes the Rolling Stones' successful lawsuit against the Verve. We don't give undue weight to the incident by adding a "Plagiarism" section to the Verve artist article even though the verdict means that Richard Ashcroft did plagiarize the Stones. Likewise, it just seems off to have an individual section on plagiarism claims in the Coldplay article... especially when the "Clocks" case is not reliably sourced or verifiable, while the VLV claims are just that - claims that have yet to be proven in any court case. Following the Verve/BSS example, even if Coldplay were to lose the Satriani lawsuit, it would still be undue weight to include a plagiarism section in the artist article. --Madchester (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have provided several reliable sources for the "Clocks" case. The laptoprockers article is entirely valid and reliable, and you have no basis to claim that the source has a questionable history of fact checking. And unlike Wikipedia, sources do not need to provide links to the original source of their research. So unless you can actually demonstrate how the source is somehow unreliable, they should be considered valid.

Furthermore, the Van Houten claim did receive press in Europe. In fact, it was broadcast on Italian TV. Here are some additional sources. [9] [10] [11]

If we accept that the Van Houten claim is real, then I don't think the UNDUE weight claim is correct. The Led Zeppelinarticle has an entire section on Plagiarism which outlines the history of the claims against the band. Is the Led Zepplin section UNDUE? Given that there have been multiple claims against Coldplay and multiple statements by the band about Plagiarism, the section is not UNDUE. It is very relevant and important. 67.111.163.154 (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose

laptoprockers looks like a self-published source to me. In fact this page states: "We do not guarantee the accuracy, the integrity, or the quality of the content on this Site, and you may not rely on any of this content." That doesn't sound like it can be considered a reliable source to me. Can you show that it has good editorial oversight? One way of doing this would be to show that it has been used by other known reliable sources (newspapers, radio stations, television stations, etc) as a source of information. By the way, could you ensure that you log in to make your comments so it is clear that there is only one person arguing your case and not more than one? Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

fair enough. what about the additional 3 sources I supplied above? [12] [13] [14] Rosennose (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose

Here are additional sources on Van Houten

Websites

Can the Official Coldplay Ultimate Fan Page be added into the external sites section. http://www.coldplay.ultimatefanpage.com/ --Sezzawarb (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In what way is it official? --JD554 (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)