Talk:Dazed and Confused (song)

message: Inclusion of genres in articles should follow WP policy of neutral point of view, specifically Due and undue weight.  It is easy to comb the web searching for some mention of a musician's or song's influences or elements of style.  However, "giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."  Genres in inboxes should aim for generality and be limited in number.  According to Template:Infobox single genres "should be stated and referenced in a 'Composition' section of the article."  If it is not discussed in the body, it should not be included in the infobox.  This allows for the quality of the source(s) to be weighted – a reasoned and detailed opinion should be given more weight, whereas an unsupported brief mention in passing should rarely count. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres in articles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dazed and Confused (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/halloffame.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This change or similar has been made repeatedly over the last couple of months, and should be properly discussed by the interested parties before the dispute becomes disruptive.
Please leave the related text as is until consensus is reached.
The discussion should not be thought of as a vote; it is the most reasonable agreed state that should be published. fredgandt 15:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The language regarding a "separate copyright" was initiated by a banned user in an attempt to whitewash from Wikipedia any information which may reflect negatively on Led Zeppelin. This effort has been pursued for years through numerous sockpuppet accounts and now through the use of proxy servers. The copyright claim was meant to support a somewhat ridiculous claim that Jake Holmes' song and Led Zeppelin's recording were two distinct songs that happened to have the same title. That they filed a copyright claim is completely irrelevant—George Harrison still has a copyright on "My Sweet Lord," Ray Parker Jr. still has a copyright on "Ghostbusters." The only relevance in a copyright infringement dispute would be whose claim was first. Piriczki (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of the two cited sources say that LZ holds a separate copyright.  In fact, Fast writes "First, Zeppelin's piece is a cover version of the song by the 1960s American folk singer Jake Holmes".  ASCAP does not show the song's copyright status.  They manage the performance rights and list Page (not LZ) as the writer.  In any event, the lead does not follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and needs to be rewritten.  —Ojorojo (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreement over the text of the lead statement 

message: I've trimmed some of the unsourced content out of the article, particularly with respect to Led Zeppelin live performances. I've had a look around for sources documenting the development of the piece live, but all I have is Dave Lewis' book which simply says it included lots of improvisation, threw in bits of songs, and featured the guitar being played with the violin bow, and stretched up to 40 minutes or so. As for what got expanded when, I'm sure you could go through the bootlegs and work it out, but it would be original research and probably of not much interest beyond hardcore fans. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, re the  tag on the 2007 performance being a tone lower than the 60s and 70s versions, this can be "verified" by playing along on an instrument that doesn't need tuning (any modern keyboard) - do we really need a cite? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: One performance(?) doesn't seem important enough to mention, but things like key, tempo, meter, etc. should have a RS.  Good start, but the article could use more trimming. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trim 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dazed and Confused (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120514052629/http://www.led-zeppelin.org/reference/index.php?m=assorted3 to http://www.led-zeppelin.org/reference/index.php?m=assorted3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Russo's 2001 edition (224 pages) of The Ultimate Rave-Up is used for some recent edits.  The earlier info was based on his 1998 "updated first edition" (160 pages). There's a new September 2016 edition (304 pages).  In the Glimpses 2011 liner notes, Russo lists "Dazed and Confused (live) – Track 23 Unknown Venue in England, Jan '68". I wonder why he didn't identify Middle Earth (10 years after his 2001 bio)?  Clayson lists three January gigs in England (page 190).  The Chrome Oxide Yardbirds page (probably not RS) lists two dates for January 1968: January 3, 1968, Corn Exchange, Chelmsford; and January 19, 1968, Middle Earth Club, London. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Russo also lists two January dates in the 2001 edition of "Ultimate Rave-Up": The Corn Exchange on the 3rd and the 19th at the legendary Middle Earth club. The original text before edit read that the recording was from "mid-January, around the time the Yardbirds recorded their last single." As the only show in mid-January, it follows that the Middle Earth club was the venue. Russo's researcher is still not convinced the Luton show took place, so I'm wondering if this inability to absolutely confirm with a paper trail that the "Glimspes 2011" version was from the Middle Earth club is the reason Russo is hesitant to ascribe the venue. If we say "mid-January" as in the original text, the venue has to be Middle Earth. A change to simply "January" would leave it vague. Change?  Morgan johndavid (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Unless there's a later RS that says differently, Russo's 2011 liner notes should be used. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Made these and some other changes/additions from Russo's new edition. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  13/7/2017 edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dazed and Confused (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515184423/http://www.pauseandplay.com/vaultsongs.htm to http://www.pauseandplay.com/vaultsongs.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: : The four lines of lyrics you removed is not "more close paraphrasing", it is a direct quote.  This is permitted under WP:SONG#LYRICS: "Quotations of the work within the analytical framework can fall into the fair use provisions within US copyright law (and to a lesser extent fair dealing and related concepts within other jurisdictions). However, how much of a song you can quote is open to interpretation, but you should avoid copyright paranoia."  WP:LYRICS lists examples of GA and FA song articles that should be used as guidelines.  It includes "Like a Rolling Stone", that has four verses each with two to six lines.  Your interpretation seems to prohibit quoting any lyrics, which is commonly done in critical or academic articles about songs.  After all, including 30 seconds of a copyrighted song recording (often more than a verse) is permitted under fair use. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 July 6 - Led Zeppelin articles seem to be full of close paraphrasing and excessive quotations all over the place. Trimming these avoids copyvio problems and makes the article more readable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Led Zeppelin articles are full of problems – frequent and large blocks of quoted text should be removed.  However, that does not justify the removal of a single verse of lyrics from a "Composition" section in which the lyrics are discussed.  I think this is a clear case of copyright paranoia. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more a case of having removed close paraphrasing from numerous articles I'm starting to get a bit twitchy about anything resembling it. Unfortunately, having first mentioned this on Talk:Stairway To Heaven and then on the Copyright Investigations page to little response, I was starting to wonder if it was just me out of step? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  LZ articles have been subject to so much sock puppetry, edit warring, OR, POV pushing, etc., etc., that most editors probably don't want to have anything to do with them.  I think there may also be confusion over "close paraphrasing".  Much of the text you removed are in fact direct quotations with references; they have not been superficially modified or attempts made to hide their origin or to pass them off as the editor's own wording.  Overuse of quoted text is a different issue and should be addressed.  However, I believe a bigger problem is large sections of unreferenced text (likely OR or actual closely paraphrased text without identifying the sources) and text with references that don't support the assertions.  There is so much written about LZ, it should be easy to find material for their articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics quote 

message: : The Holmes and Yardbirds sections don't include "Personnel section"s, so why should Zeppelin have one? It's better to have a consistent format, but adding them to all three seems like busy-work producing clutter. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it has been there, it's not disrupting anything and a section can be added to Holmes and Yardbirds.  - FlightTime (open channel) 18:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added three months ago by a user who has edited a total of two days (seems like he was bored). It could easily worked into the prose section (Page, Jones, & Plant are already there – just add Bonham). —19:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. That will work.  - FlightTime (open channel) 19:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Separate sections for personnel, charts, track listings, etc., like infobox genres, are easy targets for single purpose-type editors who rarely cite any sources for their changes. Sometimes they engage in subtle vandalism by adding different instrument brands, types of percussion, dates and positions, etc. Requiring RSs may help, but is a "Charts" section with a table really necessary for one or two entries or a "Track listing" section needed to only list an A- and B-side? This type of brief info should be included in the prose. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeppelin personnel section 

message: I thought about either reinserting the EP cover art (now used in "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You") that I removed three years ago or taking the EP cover art to FFD. Then I found just two sources discussing the promo EP. I would like to know whether one self-published source containing an interview with a Led Zeppelin collector and one guide whose "facts" are disputed (by one Amazon customer) are reliable sources to cite info about the promo EP. -- George Ho (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why a citation regarding the promo should be added, but Frank & Lou Anne Reddon are arguably "recognized experts" and Thompson has written numerous rock bios. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah. I see. Thanks. I intend to add a prose info about the promo EP. I figured that the EP can be spared if that info were to be added. --George Ho (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources discussing the promo EP 

message: It seems an odd omission for  this article to not point out that the Zeppelin tune has entirely different lyrics. I think you can see the Yardbirds created a new arrangement for Holmes song, then Page w/LZ wrote a new song around the arrangement, leaving not much of the original save the title.
Gjxj (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd, the article specifically states: "Singer Robert Plant wrote a new set of bluesier lyrics, according to Page,[3] though Plant is not credited on the album, due to contractual obligations to Chrysalis Records... Other than the lyrics and vocal, the song remained very similar to that performed by the Yardbirds earlier that year.[1][47][48]" Do you have any reliable sources that add to this? —Ojorojo (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed "was further adapted" to "with new lyrics and vocal line". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  that works!  Gjxj (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  holmes/zeppelin lyrics