Talk:Taurus (instrumental)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
January 2016
[edit]OK, here's your talk page discussion. "It has been alleged that Jimmy Page borrowed the descending guitar figure from "Taurus" for Led Zeppelin's signature tune "Stairway to Heaven" is not making a conclusion, it specifically states there is an allegation. In fact, the text is much more neutral than the cited source, which is making a definitive claim. 'Alleged that (text) may have (happened) is needlessly cumbersome. the word allegation implies that something MAY have happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.230.37 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Note also that there are redirects for such phrases as "allegations of state terrorism by Sri Lanka", among others, further evidence that "may have" does not need to be coupled with "alleged"
- Hi. We were looking at different parts of your edit. I have no issue with changing "may have" to alleged. In fact, I agree with you, it's more encyclopedic. Where I was taking issue is your use of "leaving little doubt", which, per WP:SYNTH, is drawing a conclusion from sources, when that term does not appear in those underlying sources. While I may agree with that conclusion, it's still a conclusion, and the original wording is more indicative of the underlying sources. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 13:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I can see where that phrase might be a problem. I'd word it "increased the likelihood" 68.198.35.81 (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi 68.198.35.81. I like the change you've currently made. I think that even saying "increased the likelihood" is still moving too far down that road to drawing a conclusion. Let's just lay the facts out there and let the reader make their own determination. Btw, ever thought of getting an account? I think you could be an asset to the Wikipedia project. Onel5969 TT me 00:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I understand your objection, but 'provided the possibility' isn't ideal either. This implies that the tour was the only means by which Led Zeppelin could have become familiar with this song. Certainly, there were fans and bands who had never worked with Spirit who were aware of their music. The fact that these two groups worked the same concerts increased the possibility that there was some awareness of each other's work, but it didn't provide that possibility. 63.143.226.84 (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi 68.198.35.81. I like the change you've currently made. I think that even saying "increased the likelihood" is still moving too far down that road to drawing a conclusion. Let's just lay the facts out there and let the reader make their own determination. Btw, ever thought of getting an account? I think you could be an asset to the Wikipedia project. Onel5969 TT me 00:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- The point of the sentence in question seems to be to show that Page had access to the original work, a necessary point in proving plagiarism. However, in this case the song was recorded and commercially available to the public so it can be assumed that anyone could have access. It isn't necessary to identify a particular time and place where the musicians crossed paths in person. Perhaps a more relevant fact would be that Led Zeppelin incorporated parts of "Fresh Garbage", a song from the same album as "Taurus", in their early 1969 concerts, demonstrating Page's familiarity with Spirit's music. Piriczki (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- How do you propose rephrasing the sentence in question? We don't have to detail all the plaintiff's evidence, particularly in a stub article, but accessibility is a requirement in a lawsuit as you've noted. 63.143.225.14 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- The point of the sentence in question seems to be to show that Page had access to the original work, a necessary point in proving plagiarism. However, in this case the song was recorded and commercially available to the public so it can be assumed that anyone could have access. It isn't necessary to identify a particular time and place where the musicians crossed paths in person. Perhaps a more relevant fact would be that Led Zeppelin incorporated parts of "Fresh Garbage", a song from the same album as "Taurus", in their early 1969 concerts, demonstrating Page's familiarity with Spirit's music. Piriczki (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- How about something like "Led Zeppelin opened for Spirit on their first American tour, and soon after incorporated parts of Spirit's song "Fresh Garbage", from the same album as "Taurus", into an extended medley during their early 1969 concerts." They could have heard "Taurus" any number of ways, most obvious being by just listening to the LP. No need to speculate about specifics that are unknown. The trial is set for May 16 so the matter should be settled soon enough. Piriczki (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- works for me 63.143.227.238 (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- How about something like "Led Zeppelin opened for Spirit on their first American tour, and soon after incorporated parts of Spirit's song "Fresh Garbage", from the same album as "Taurus", into an extended medley during their early 1969 concerts." They could have heard "Taurus" any number of ways, most obvious being by just listening to the LP. No need to speculate about specifics that are unknown. The trial is set for May 16 so the matter should be settled soon enough. Piriczki (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Statements
[edit]In depositions made to the District Court of California, both Jimmy Page and Robert Plant have stated they heard "Fresh Garbage" via the CBS sampler album The Rock Machine Turns You On, which was released in 1968, not the Spirit self-titled album with "Taurus". See [1] .46.21.106.63 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please post a link to the deposition of Jimmy Page, I assume it was also executed a few days ago. Piriczki (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Here it is: [2] Piriczki (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Leave the templates alone
[edit]They belong in this article and the article should not be a stub, not after all the media attention surrounding it.--67.86.58.36 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The song was a song by Spirit, correct? If the answer is yes, the template stays. Was Led Zeppelin embroiled in a plagiarism case involving this song? If the answer is yes, then that template has a right to stay. Stop undermining my work and reverting this page to a stub, you bastards!--2601:5C0:4280:3D40:60FE:B11B:20F8:C6F9 (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)