Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

RFC about the lede

There has been an edit war that went to a couple of noticeboards that I was not involved, that is where it was brought to my attention, I had a look and the dispute was about a couple of descriptive words in the lede, I felt this was actually making the lede very poor and full of pointy claims, I trimmed the lede to remove the excessive claims that were causing the edit war and there were also excessive citations in the lede being used to support these unnecessary claims, my edit has been reverted by one of the two users involved in the edit war, I feel that my edit solved the problem that was causing the edit war and also removed the need for the citation farm that was created to support the claims, my edit is here...

Led Zeppelin were an English rock band formed in 1968 by Jimmy Page (guitar), Robert Plant (vocals, harmonica), John Paul Jones (bass guitar, keyboards, mandolin), and John Bonham (drums). The bands guitar-driven sound and individualistic style drew from many sources and transcends any one genre. The band did not release the popular songs from their albums as singles in the UK, as they preferred to develop the concept of "album-oriented rock".

and the reverted edit is here..

Led Zeppelin were an English rock band formed in 1968 by Jimmy Page (guitar), Robert Plant (vocals, harmonica), John Paul Jones (bass guitar, keyboards, mandolin), and John Bonham (drums). With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regularly cited as one of the progenitors of both hard rock and heavy metal. However, the band's individualistic style drew from many sources and transcends any one genre. Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres also incorporated rockabilly, reggae, soul, funk, and country. The band did not release the popular songs from their albums as singles in the UK, as they preferred to develop the concept of "album-oriented rock".

Influence sections

Just keeping this on the agenda in the face of the need for pretty rapid archiving. It is clear from recent edits that some editors have difficulty with this section. The fact that these names are sourced doesn't mean that they have to go in this article. It might be a good idea to consider this section again and perhaps look at the way this is done: the section at Beatles#legacy makes an interesting comparison, since they are one of the few bands that have sold more records and have (arguably) been more influential. Honesty, would it be done this way in a printed encyclopedia? My personal feeling it that this section and the cultural significance section may actually under-rate the band's influence. The fact that Brittney Spears, Ashlee Simpson, and Jessica Simpson have worn their T-shirts is a lot less significant than the impact they had on the development of rock music as well as composition and recording techniques.--SabreBD (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the way how it's done on Wikipedia, at least. There are numerous good/ featured articles which include similar lists, for instance Black Sabbath. The comment about Britney Spears, Ashlee Simpson and Jessica Simpson is just there to entail on the popularity of the "band's apparel", not the band itself. You can feel free to expand the section with what you feel should be mentioned about Zeppelin's impact on "the development of rock music as well as composition and recording techniques". Scieberking (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How large are we going to let this list get ? My friend next door was influenced by Led Zeppelin, can I add his name to the list ? Mlpearc powwow 02:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your reply Scieberking. Notably the list is a lot shorter in Black Sabbath, (which is only GA not a FA) with a lot less "outliers". A key consideration is that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) is a good reminder of the problem here. I raise the issue because I think this article should be going for GA status and this may be an issue at that level and I think almost certainly would be at FA review. Fewer names would make the same point and not attract the puzzlement of so many readers.--SabreBD (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. Okay, I've trimmed down many of the less relevant and/or less notable artists from this section (there were almost 60 previously; now about 40). Hope it looks much better now. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It does look better, thanks for taking this on board.--SabreBD (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with complete removal. The list looked spammy and fancrufty. See Talk:Pink Floyd for a fuller rationale. --John (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed your point but I need some time to reorganize it into specific, well-referenced paragraphs, while removing "spammy" things that disturb you. At the same time, you can easily find such lists even on good articles like Black Sabbath. Scieberking (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --John (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:IAR. Just give me a few hours to fix the whole thing. Scieberking (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that one person can really decide which bands to include or not include. --John (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Name me one band in the list that you can prove is improperly referenced. Everything here is done with proper citations, and I'm going to redo it utterly with even more satisfiable references. Scieberking (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the refs, just going by my experience at the Pink Floyd article and my understanding that we need to show and verify with more than a passing mention; substantial third-party coverage is required for inclusion. Have at it, and I'll have another look this evening if I get time. Again, the discussion at Talk:Pink Floyd may be of interest. --John (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your understanding, John! I'm at it right now... doing the best I can. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It will obvious from the comments above that I am not a big fan of this list, but did achieve a kind of consensus on this, so any major change does really need to have general support achieved here.--SabreBD (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. I've finally done the best I could- with proper references, separate sentences, and all. I don't think there's anything left that would be objectionable anymore. If there are still confusions, let's ask for WP:RFC. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, we don't need a special consensus to remove material that fails WP:V, we can just remove it. Choosing one example more-or-less at random, how does this source verify that The Smashing Pumpkins were influenced by Led Zeppelin? I am not seeing it. If all the references are as bad as this we will probably want to remove the whole section. Sorry. --John (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Really not what I was suggesting. If there are references that do not support the assertions based on them the assertions should be removed throughout the article, whether we have a list or not is really a separate question. I will try to find time to check through them and remove those that fail verifiability.--SabreBD (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Your guess wasn't far off. The majority did not support the assertions and were just general biographies of the band. Now would be a good time to consider whether we should persist with the list or whether having three examples of hard rock/heavy rock and three of alternative etc is helpful and sufficient.--SabreBD (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be that paring the list down to the entries that fulfill WP:V will make it more manageable and less listcrufty; that was my experience at the PF article. A single review comparing Band X with LZ won't do it; we would need really strong references like the one on the PF article about Bowie where Bowie himself talks about how much he was influenced by early PF. Hope that helps. --John (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't you see "Led Zeppelin" under the "influenced by" section of Smashing Pumpkins' Allmusic entry? That's exactly how you take "genres" for the bands from Allmusic. Genres sections too aren't part of the body of its Allmusic biography. It obviously does satisfy WP:V. That's the way it's being done on wikipedia, even on good and featured articles. And wait.. who screwed the article and added the horrible lede that's clearly breaking consensus. Reverting to last constructive edit and I'll try to find stronger references as well. Scieberking (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That may work for sourcing genres (though I'd argue it is still a little sloppy) but definitely not for an "influences" section. --John (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

With the allmusic references the lists are very weak, given that they seem are so long that they seem to include every major band that preceeded the one that is the subject of the page. I was looking in the text, which would have been sufficient for references and hardly found any. I really do not feel this is enough for verifiabity. There are also major problems with the other references, particularly with the Rolling Stones Magazines ones, which do not actually go to the band pages, but the magazine front page. If these fail verifiability it is not a matter that needs consensus, because it is a matter of policy.--SabreBD (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• The dead references to Rolling Stones Magazines have been replaced with Allmusic ones. Actually, the RS redesign has created quite a few problems and changed permalinks as well, so those weren't working anymore.

• Allmusic citations do satisfy each and every policy of WP:VERIFY. The claim that they're weak and should only be used for "listing genres" is IMHO your POV. Point out one policy that discredits Allmusic citations.

• As a side note, I'm still trying to replace Allmusic citations with more scholarly references (see what I've done with Queen) like books, magazines articles and such. Hope that helps. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful with the replacement references. I have only had time to check the Queen one, but it doesn't really support what is being said here. It says Bowie was a major influence, but it only says that Led Zep was in Mercury's record collection. Oklahoma was in mine when I was a kid, but I really wouldn't call it a great influence. The citations really do need to clearly state that they were an influence.--SabreBD (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Check this... from the same book. I'm still working on the references thing, though. Scieberking (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some of these references are highly problematic. We need to err on the side of not including weak claims, lest we end up with a long and unencyclopedic list, as we currently have. Enforcing WP:V better (and remembering what this project is not) will help make the article better, by only listing acts which were really influenced by LZ. Per Sabrebd, having a record in your collection definitely does not mean you were influenced by it, and to state otherwise is WP:SYNTH. --John (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with it now... No Allmusic citations anymore! If there still are confusions, make a list of unclear/ confusing references that've been used and post it here. I will try to replace those as soon as I can. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I keep finding poor references here. To take just one example, this is definitely not a good source to verify that "Several other bands and artists from diverse genres have also acknowledged the influence of Led Zeppelin, such as ...Prince." We don't need replacement sources of similar quality, we need better sources that actually verify the claims made. If this demand leads to a shorter list, that is still going to leave the article better than it is now. --John (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasnt too sure about Prince either so I've removed it. Point out other weaker references so I could replace or remove them. I don't think there's any need for cleanup tag anymore. Thanks Scieberking (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course there still needs to be a cleanup tag. We've still got these long lists of bands and they look like crap. BE CONCISE. The Who's page used to have this massive list of bands they've influenced, as well, and it looks a million times better now without it. Just say Led Zeppelin has influenced many hard rock bands from such and such to such and such. That's all you need. 206.216.34.171 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I decided to "be bold" and do it myself. I think the way it looks now is all we need and looks much better. The examples I chose aren't written in stone, of course, but I think the number of examples is much more appropriate, readable and encyclopedic than those laundry lists. 206.216.34.171 (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Just pluck the whole thing out and be done with it! Why is it relevant at all? Radiopathy •talk• 02:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No more compromises now. No need to delete well-referenced content that has been here for months with clear consensus. Let's ask for RFC about this. Scieberking (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was well-referenced there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that it is not well-referenced. --John (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And we need to demonstrate a consensus to keep this poorly referenced and indiscriminate material. I do not see that consensus at present. Does anyone else? --John (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Point out the poorly referenced artists/ bands then. I am more than willing to remove them. Scieberking (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if the lists are well-referenced or not. They're ugly, unnecessary and unencyclopedic. I'm sure we could easily find 100 notable bands influenced by Pink Floyd, another 200 for Led Zeppelin, 300 for The Who and 400 for the Beatles, but what would be the point of listing them all? 206.216.34.171 (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Radiopathy and 206.216.34.171 that the whole section needs to be removed rather than arguing about specific items on it. --John (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a disagreement anymore. The list has been finally removed. Secondly, Pink Floyd, Beatles and the Who are totally irrelevant here. Led Zeppelin, indisputably, is the most influential rock band of all time after the Beatles. Period. Scieberking (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better. Good job, Scieberking. Can't agree about Led Zeppelin being more influential than The Who, though. Cheers, mate. 206.216.34.171 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I spoke too soon. Some of these sources remain very questionable. I removed the Nirvana one, because it didn't support their inclusion in the slightest. The Soundgarden and Smashing Pumpkins ones aren't much better. Can't you find quotes from the likes of Kim Thayil and Billy Corgan acknowledging the influence of Led Zeppelin instead of using some book author's mere opinion on what he's hearing? 206.216.34.171 (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

More problems. Dave Mustaine was just saying he's a fan. He mentions Crowded House in the same breath. That means I could list Megadeth as being influenced by Crowded House using the exact same source and reasoning. These are supposed to be examples of bands influenced by Led Zeppelin, not lists of mere fans of their music. And the source for Velvet Revolver's inclusion didn't appear to even mention them. I'm not doubting that Megadeth and Velvet Revolver are influenced by Led Zeppelin, but you need to find citations that actually support their inclusion. 206.216.34.171 (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No. All you're trying to do is destabilize the article, as your history implicates. Read clearly. I've modified/ replaced/ expanded most of them. These books are considered scholarly thus a prime and ideal example of reliable source. Enough said. Scieberking (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to make the article better, not destabilize it. Bad citations make articles unstable. Removing them does not. Additionally, this is a free wi-fi location. My history is not my history. It's the history of hundreds of people. I'll look at your modified/replaced/expanded citations and see if they're adequate. You can't deny that all of the ones I deleted were inadequate. 206.216.34.171 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at them and I don't like most of them, but I won't delete them. I think many of them are really weak. When we're talking about artists that have been directly influenced by other artists, the desired standard of proof ought to be the words of the artists themselves. Because some "scholar" saying, "Hey, this sounds like Led Zeppelin" just shouldn't cut it. 206.216.34.171 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The citation for Megadeth is particularly pathetic. Led Zeppelin influenced one Megadeth song? And just the front of it? And they even have to share their influence on the front of one song with the Beatles? That warrants a Megadeth mention in Led Zeppelin's article? That's sad. 206.216.34.171 (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Scieberking (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Album Sales

I think I've found more than enough third party reliable sources from the most famous/circulated publications to re-add the 300 million figure:

• BBC News
• CNN
• Official Press Release 1
• Official Press Release 2
• The Guardian
• The Daily Telegraph
• Daily Mail
• The Sun
• The Washington Post
• Star Tribune
• Daily Mirror
• Herald Sun
• The Independent
• Bloomberg L.P.
• SPIN Magazine
• Time Magazine

Scieberking (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion, not for announcing that you are single-handedly changing disputed content without discussion. This has been discussed before and these sources have been cited before. They are contradicted by a like number of other reliable sources, including some of these same publications. See Talk:Led_Zeppelin/Archive 5#Disputed accuracy of worldwide album sales. Piriczki (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your main quibble was that the 300 million figure is never officially supported. Now I've got proof. I'm actively taking part in discussion that's why I've got this section here - not a big fan of sock-puppetry and other unethical tricks like you did previously- If we've this much reliable sources, there's no way we can deny 300 million album sales, which is being used everywhere including wiki projects of other languages. Why don't you change Queen to 150 million then? Scieberking (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right about Queen, I corrected some glaring errors there recently but hadn't checked the 300 million claim (though it is preposterous). Taking a quick look, it appears that figure morphed from some previous uncited total of "records" sold (which included singles). The 300 million has probably made its way into reliable sources by now.

As far as this article goes, the 200 million figure was often mentioned in news reports, particularly when the DVD came out in 2003, but then in November 2005, a couple articles about the Polar Prize appeared showing 300 million. This was after 300 million was added to Wikipedia by an anonymous editor without a source (see diff). Did the total suddenly jump from 200 to 300 in two years? They just blew right by milestones of 225, 250 and 275 without mentioning it I guess.

One thing to keep in mind is that almost all worldwide sales figures are estimates. That is why they are always expressed in large round numbers such as 100 million, 200 million, 300 million. A common rule of thumb for estimating worldwide sales is to take U.S. sales, which can be determined with a reasonable degree of accuracy, and double it. According to the RIAA, Led Zeppelin has sold 111.5 million certified untis in the U.S. (the term "certified units" is unique to the RIAA due to their method of counting each disc in a mult-disc album). The adjusted total comes to about 90 million albums sold. Led Zeppelin IV accounts for 23 million of the total or about 25%. If that percentage held for the rest of the world, and IV has sold 37 million worldwide according to wikipedia, that would equate to about 148 million total albums sold worldwide. Looking at it the other way, if the 300 million figure is to be believed, IV would have sales of 75 million worldwide, which it apparently does not. The numbers just don't jibe if you ask me.

Anyway, with the rules being what they are, I suppose a Wikipedia article can contain anything that can be sourced even if the source is possibly or even likely inaccurate (in my opinion).

The sockpuppetry thing was unfortunate. Got sucked in trying to make some simple corrections in the face of what turned out to be an army of sockpuppets. Speaking of sockpuppets and impersonation, I noticed someone has posted comments using my Wikipedia user name in discussions that you participated in with some other familiar Wikipedians Paul Erik, Uncle G and HexaChord, see [1] and [2]. Just want to let you know that wasn't me you were having discussions with, just so there's no confusion. Piriczki (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Piriczki, the thing is that there's NO single policy on Wikipedia why we shouldn't mention the well-referenced 300 million on this article, to be on the safe side, if it's being mentioned on nearly every other article including Russian, French, German, etc. etc- a figure that itself comes from the most reputable newspapers and magazines. I'm sorry about mentioning the sock-puppetry thing that was kinda irrelevant here... I've always respected you as a fellow editor and even awarded you a barnstar. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't post this one either. I'm with Robert Plant on this one, I think it's 200 million albums too. Piriczki (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, that's funny... dumb impersonators! Scieberking (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin did not sold 300 million albums. They sold a lot in the US, but also there the figures are very inflated. One of their compilation boxes sold 1 million copies, but was certified diamond, because the box contained 10 discs... So, It's better to say 300 million units instead of 300 million albums. A lot of reliable sources talk about 200 million albums:

• http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=12479
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562875/Rock-group-Led-Zeppelin-to-reunite.html
• http://www.led-zeppelin.org/reference/discography/index.php
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1318654/Led-Zeppelins-Robert-Plant-folks-latest-hero.html
• http://www.robertplant.com/index.php/press/my-screaming-led-zep-days-are-over-ex-hellraiser-robert-plant-on-becoming-folks-latest-hero/?spid=2
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/29/musicnews.music
• http://www.ledzeppelin.com/news/2007/10/25/mothership-two-cd-very-best-collection
• http://www.polarmusicprize.org/led-zeppelin/

200 million is definitely a more realistic figure.Christo jones (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

300 million record sales for Led Zeppelin is not inflated. The available certified sales of the band are almost 130 million units alone. That is way more than ABBA (only 54.5 million) - 370 million is being claimed, and Queen (only 87.8 million) - 300 million is being claimed. In addition, their first record was out in January 69, so approximately 30-40% of their records have gone uncertified due to numerous markets establishing their certification systems after early 1970s. In addition, threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; so you gotta find a WP:RS that declares 300 million record sales for Led Zeppelin is inflated. There's nothing else we can do. Scieberking (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the mere fact that wikipedia asserts that Zeppelin has sold 100 MILLION more albums than Pink Floyd is ridiculous. Sure, wikipedia is verifiability and not truth (no one knows that, not even the most "reliable" sources, as we have seen here), but do you all know that wikipedia is the first hit in any google search and has been for years? Don't ignore that essential fact and god damn do something about it. Maybe: 1. State that the number of sales is speculative and present all of our so called conclusions (300, 200, 130 etc.) 2. Make this too authoritative site take responsibility and state that the 300 million figure possibly has its origin in wikipedia itself. That is the best wikipedia can do now, instead of guessing and spreading false information as it had done, and which this article is a prime example of. Revan ltrl (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I love Pink Floyd, but I would be shocked to learn that they sold anywhere near the number of albums as Zeppelin. Do you have any reliable sources to back up your "ridiculous" belief?LedRush (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure above cumulative sales, but Mick Wall books details sales for individual albums. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, Revan ltrl! I also like some Floyd's stuff, but that doesn't mean they have sold more than Zeppelin. Their certified sales also suggest this. Scieberking (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You all comment on Pink Floyd - I'm not questioning how good they are and my comparison doesn't stem from my opinions on the bands. What about the solution I offered, that would be better than the current state of the page.

And LedRush, your apparent 'shock' in learning that Floyd has sold even near as much as Zeppelin just shows how ignorant you are. Floyd's 70s studio albums have all sold two digit million sales - their four best selling albums quite surely outsell Zeppelin's top four. And don't call me ridiculous again - I didn't comment on you. Should I be shocked over the fact that you guys base your doubts on Floyd's sales on how 'good' you think they are? Why are you insistent on missing my point - you're stating a lie, basically, when you could state what I suggested, which would be for everyone's benefit (including wikipedia's reliability). Revan ltrl (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you need to settle down. You said that Wikipedia's information was "ridiculous". I used quotations on the word ridiculous to let you know that I was talking about your words/opinions on Wikipedia. Even if the quotes weren't there, the sentence would merely mean your opinion is ridulous, not that you are. You know, like you've called all of our opinions ridiculous because we agree with Wikipedia's current content.

Also, I never said I based my opinion on Floyd based on how much I liked the music: I mentioned that I love Floyd so you wouldn't discount the opinion as that of a hater. But the fact is that, in the US, Floyd had two monstrously popular albums (which sold less than Zeppelin's biggest sellers) and two very big albums which, combined, still don't surpass the number of sales as Zeppelin's 6th best selling album). The tally for Floyd is 23m, 15m, 6m, and 4m. And for Zeppelin, 23m, 16m, 12m and 11m. And Zeppelin still has two other diamond compiliations in the US. I stand by my initial statement: it is shocking to me that someone would think that Floyd sold almost as many albums as Zeppelin seeing as how much more popular and relevant Zeppelin is. But, whatever, this doesn't impact the current conversation.

PS, please don't accuse of us lying. It is a personal attack and against WP policy. Also, please don't attribute opinions to me which I have not stated.LedRush (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Revan ltrl- you're all about personal attacks and baseless, unreasonable arguments without any reliable sources. If you continue like this, you'll get another block soon. Scieberking (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Somehow you manage to tilt your argument to Floyd's and Zeppelin's sales in US alone, while I mentioned sales in general. Nicely done. Let me quote you: "it is shocking to me that someone would think that Floyd sold almost as many albums as Zeppelin seeing as how much more popular and relevant Zeppelin is". Well, I stand by my belief that you base your out-of-proportion perception of these bands on your opinions on the bands. Explain how Floyd's 10 million fans on Facebook stand out as less relevant that Zeppelin' million? Well, your view is very very ridiculous and out-of-date, dearest wikipedia editor, Floyd surpassed Zep in the 70s.

It's very easy: you can either post this, uh, untruth, or post an estimation: 130-300 million albums. Take into account that the site you sorry lot represent is the first hit on google - take responsibility. Don't linger like worms and comment on my side points. But I know you insist on being projections from Kafka's The Process. Revan ltrl (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Scieberking, is it this argument stated above that you find "unreasonable", presenting an estimation instead of a myth as truth? Where is your reason there?

And the guy who presented the sales figures for Zep, that strategy was a bit obvious, wasn't it? You said two diamond compilations? I see one, and that is the boxset which has sold 2,5 million copies, which makes it a diamond release, not because it has sold 20 million or whatever a regular album has to sell. I see no other diamond certifications in Zeppelin's discography, only a few 1x or 2x platinum ones. A comparison between Zeppelin and Floyd albums not angled like yours, would look more like this: Dark Side of the moon stands at 45 million - Zeppelin IV at 32 (that's a 13 million difference). The Wall stands at 23 million (in the US, couldn't find worldwide here at wikipedia in my minute-long search) - Zeppelin II stands at 16 (according to you; still, a 7 millioin difference to Floyd's favor, AGAIN). Floyd's Wish You Were Here stands at 13 million - Zeppelin's (I'm guessing) Houses of the Holy at 12, but a first favor to Zeppelin, since it has probably sold a bit more worldwide. Your deliberate exclusion of worldwide sales also omits The Division Bell (12 million). I mean, you have demonstrated your extreme tunnel-vision, but do you see how Floyd's and Zeppelin's sales shouldn't be that imbalanced? Do you see it? I honestly believe that Floyd have sold more than Zeppelin and remain extremely more relevant and vital in new and newer generations, doubtlessly. Revan ltrl (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this the silent treatment or is it just that you don't have anything to come with? Because I understand if you don't. OK, I'll put aside my fright of how your critical thinking is lacking to the max and how you all subordinate to wikipedia regulation like small Moseses, and how little consideration you take into the fact that wikipedia, this second hand (often false - there is a reason universities and such despise seeing 'wikipedia' in the footnotes) information tool, is treated like some kind of truth by everyone, especially the reliable sources it uses in order to create these vicious information circles a la Led Zeppelin. I'll put this aside and ask if you can offer me a regulation that says that, in the case of contradictory information by reliable sources (e.g. the album sales), the higher number shall be picked? Is there also a regulation that talks against one's critical thinking, i.e. DIFFERENTIATING between what's reasonable, plausible, fair, whatever, and what's NOT. Please enlighten me, oh you mighty. Revan ltrl (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, when you personally attack other editors and make poor policy arguments, they don't reply? That's so weird. I think you've gotten all the replies you need above.LedRush (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha, so sarcasm is your last resort? I guess wikipedia doesn't have regulations against that. Extremely admirable! I know that I completely killed off your arguments about Led Zeppelin's sales, but don't feel bad, even if they were weaker and the strategy more obvious than, uh, something that is very weak and very obvious. But, then again, do feel bad.

Let me analyze your answer: when you personally attack other editors. Don't just spit that out, man, GIVE THE FIRST EXAMPLE. and make poor policy arguments. Which arguments? How are they poor? I referred to mere common sense, and you didn't answer ANY of my questions, but crawled away with the silent treatment and answered with sarcasm. Very admirable. Then you have the nerve to post on my personal discussion page similar claims. Check that answer on my wall and answer there please. Here, explain why you think that appealing to the common sense of the human mind and shedding light on vicious circles that originated in wikipedia are poor policy arguments. Please have the decency to explain yourself, I have. Revan ltrl (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

From above: "The tally for Floyd is 23m, 15m, 6m, and 4m. And for Zeppelin, 23m, 16m, 12m and 11m. And Zeppelin still has two other diamond compiliations in the US." This remain 100% true. If you want to show me sources that contradict this, I'd be interested to see them.LedRush (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and in case you can't scroll up the screen, I've listed your personal attacks on your talk page. Hopefully that discussion can stay there.LedRush (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

LedRush... are you trying to infuriate me? I almost feel sorry for you. Where is the logic in numbering the sales for Zeppelin and Floyd IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ALONE, as you do here, as an argument in a discussion that deals with their sales WORLDWIDE?! There is no way in Hell I will accept that argument as a sign that Zeppelin has sold far more than Floyd. I am very aware that Zeppelin has sold 111 million in the US, and Floyd 75 million, but that is OF NO CONSEQUENCE in this discussion. I repeat: SALES WORLDWIDE. Geez! I will repost my answer to your listing American sales: First I mention that Zeppelin has one and not two, as you state, diamond compilations (check their discography here at wikipedia), and the one that is certified diamond has sold 2,5 million copies and not 10, because it is a boxed set, check its page. What I answered: A comparison between Zeppelin and Floyd albums not restricted to American sales would look more like this: Dark Side of the moon stands at 45 million - Zeppelin IV at 32 (that's a 13 million difference). The Wall stands at 23 million (in the US, couldn't find worldwide here at wikipedia in my minute-long search) - Zeppelin II stands at 16 (still, a 7 million difference to Floyd's favor, AGAIN). Floyd's Wish You Were Here stands at 13 million - Zeppelin's (I'm guessing) Houses of the Holy at 12, but a first favor to Zeppelin, since it has probably sold a bit more worldwide. Your deliberate exclusion of worldwide sales also omits The Division Bell (12 million).

I checked wikipedia articles for these numbers, so there are your sources, God knows if they are true or false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revan ltrl (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we don't have worldwide sales numbers for the Zeppelin albums (except IV) on wikipedia, so I just used an undispituable and non-estimate numbers: those for the US. And seeing as we are trying to discern whether or not the estimated world wide sources are accurate or not, it seems to make sense to compare concrete data, and not compile estimates.LedRush 17:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Zeppelin albums might not have the figures for worldwide sales, but several Floyd albums do, e.g. the ones I used, so there is no point in dragging Floyd into the US just because Zeppelin then looks as the biggest seller - to the contrary, it would be more accurate to take Zeppelin's US sales and compare them with Floyd's worldwide sales, as I did, which then shows a more accurate comparison between the bands' sales. And then it is quite important to add that Zeppelin's biggest seller has worldwide sales stated (32M), while Floyd's second best seller doesn't (23M). The current information wikipedia offers is outrageous (the 100 million difference between Floyd and Zeppelin (and Queen, for that matter)), so that is why my argumentation that an estimation should be used between sourced numbers, instead of a wild guess at the best sales figure and dismissal of the lower figures who are as well-sourced according to wikipedia standards. Revan ltrl (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"it would be more accurate to take Zeppelin's US sales and compare them with Floyd's worldwide sales, as I did, which then shows a more accurate comparison between the bands' sales". Could you please explain why it is a better to compare numbers for the whole world with just sales in the US than to compare precise and accurate numbers from the same territory?LedRush (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was very clumsily written. Nevertheless, one of my strives was to contradict your main point: "I love Pink Floyd, but I would be shocked to learn that they sold anywhere near the number of albums as Zeppelin". Anywhere near. Are you shocked yet? Because I suspect you weren't that well-oriented in how big a band Pink Floyd really is, and if you were, it must have been in the US alone, which is one country; there is a world outside of it. As I have stated, I am very aware of Zeppelin's 111 million and Floyd's 75 million in the US, and I have already (two times) presented clear numbers that wikipedia offer in their articles. I found your comparison between the two bands' US sales extremely angled, manipulative and misleading, not proving anything; there is no need or logic in compare two bands' sales in one country in a discussion of worldwide sales - it makes it accurate to say that one of the bands suffer, and one prevails. There need not even be a discussion of the US sales at all; as far as I know, that country keep quite a good monitoring of album sales, and there is no point in arguing against the 111M vs 75M figures. Hence my clumsily written statement, which you responded to: "explain why it is a better to compare numbers for the whole world with just sales in the US than to compare precise and accurate numbers from the same territory?" First of all, you make an unfair and illogical distinction between "numbers for the whole world" and "precise and accurate numbers". Is there a difference between numbers and precise and accurate numbers? If I were to argue against you on this point, you don't offer precise and accurate numbers, because they are rounded off to the closest million, and I might even take this as an implication towards the numbers I offered as false; after all, you haven't commented on them whatsoever. But I intended the clumsy statement to state that there are numbers that contradict your main point, very much at that. There are precise and accurate numbers for both bands' best selling albums worldwide: 45M vs 32M. There are only US numbers available for their second best selling albums: 23M vs 16M. There is already a 20 millioni difference to Floyd's favor, so it is pointless to restrict a band's sales to one country when as precise and accurate numbers are available to its worldwide sales. It boils down to if wikipedia will keep posting a 100 million difference between Floyd and Zeppelin (which is outrageous), or apply some critical thinking and plain reason (which are not poor arguments) and go for the better sources or present an estimation instead of an untruth, and being aware of it on top of that. Then, maybe articles of Queen and Abba, for example, could follow this example; after all, there was one guy that posted some accurate numbers, stating that they can't be posted for some reason. Revan ltrl (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this the silent treatment again? Anything wrong with my post? Revan ltrl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have commented before but this discussion ceased being productive a long time ago. Discussion of other groups, such as Pink Floyd or Queen, is completely irrelevant here. The facts are: in 2002 Billboard reported Led Zeppelin had sold "nearly 200 million albums." (see [3]) According to Atlantic Records, as of 2003 Led Zeppelin had sold "sold some 200 million albums worldwide." In April 2005, Robert Plant said that Led Zeppelin had sold 200 million albums (see [4]) Then, in September 2005, this unsourced edit was made to Wikipedia even though no published sources supporting this claim existed at the time. Before long the bogus figure began to appear in other sources. Now, if a group, which broke up more than 20 years earlier, and had sold 200 million albums up to that point (2003), suddenly sold 100 million more albums in the next two years, it would be the greatest achievement in the history of the recording industry. They would have outsold everyone during that period, they would have sold more albums in 2 years than all but a handful of artists have sold in their entire careers. It would have been the story of the decade in music but somehow this fantastic feat has gone unnoticed. Why is that? Because it never happened. Piriczki (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So, I did another search and it seems like the 300 million number is cited far more than the 200 million number. Is your argument that this is a question of circularity, and that the 300 million came from Wikipedia? I guess it's possible, but it seems unlikely when comparing established sales in the US among the relevant groups.LedRush (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am firmly convinced this is a case of circularity and that the 300 million came from Wikipedia. Again, attempting to justify a sales figure with comparisons to other groups isn't a sound argument and only muddies the water. Besides, comparing U.S. sales to worldwide sales for different groups is like comparing apples to oranges. For one thing, Pink Floyd and Queen were together longer and released more albums than Led Zeppelin. Queen's popularity in the U.S. dropped precipitously after 1980 and they never toured here again after 1982 while they remained popular elsewhere so I would expect U.S. sales to be low relative to worldwide sales, especially compared to Led Zeppelin who were particularly dominant in the U.S. Another example of that would be Abba who was very popular around the world but not so much in the U.S. Pink Floyd's top selling albums, Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here and The Wall haven't been certified in the U.S. since 1998, 1997 and 1999 respectively so their last reported U.S. sales would be low relative to a current worldwide figure. As far as the respective Wikipedia articles go, the 300 million claim for Queen looks bogus and it appears that figure morphed from some previous uncited total of "records" sold (which included singles). I don't know what the actual total for Queen is, but whatever it is, it is irrelevant to this article anyway. The 200 million figure for Pink Floyd is according to EMI so I don't see how that can be doubted or trumped by any other source, just like the 200 million figure from Atlantic can't. Piriczki (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No your totally wrong there mate. Zep's total certified sales alone is 130 million, while Queen is 87 million and Floyd around 100. So Zep absolutely has edge over and beats both. They've sold more than 300 million records, if not albums. Get over the fact. Judaispriest (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The total certified sales mentioned are what's called original research on Wikipedia. What's worse, people are using them to draw conclusions about other figures based on various assumptions. My point above was that attempting to justify one sales figure by comparing other groups doesn't help, it's apples and oranges. That's why this discussion has gone on forever and has accomplished nothing. Piriczki (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Look. In order to reach anywhere near the actual sales we look out for the certified units from the official websites of every major market in the world. That's the most logical and wise thing we can do to help things. I've stated those calculated figures for Zep, Queen and Floyd. Providing solutions and actually doing stuff works here, merely complaining about it only makes thing worse. Judaispriest (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

More than about 65% of web pages or news sources mentioning Zep's sales will mention 300 million albums as LedRush and Scieberking clarified above. However there are some sources (such as http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/09/led.zep/index.html) that state 300 millions records and I think we can rightfully use the term. Judaispriest (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You refuse to see the big picture, how wikipedia works outside its own confines, and take responsibility accordingly. Sure, the swarm intelligence and contribution is extremely admirable, but is it impossible to infuse some swarm common sense as well? If we are in such a disagreement, post an estimation, for example: estimations of the band's worldwide sales range between 130 and 300 million. Does that break any regulations? Is it a violation against common sense or sources or wikipedia itself? Maybe your sensibilities? I hope none of the above.

Btw Piriczki, I would think that a dedicated wikipedia editor (as you all here are, wiki-awarded group of fine gents) would hurry to contribute to a discussion not being "productive" and making it instead more productive instead of waiting. Because you try exactly what I tried with the fine gent LedRush, state that the 300M figure has its origin in wikipedia (circulation you guys obviously call it - I don't have the wikicabulary and don't want to frankly), and apply some common sense into the discussion, only you offered a couple of sources - so, wikicabulary and some sources - I'll try those tricks next time. And as for the comparison of album sales between the bands, it's not like apple and oranges, because the two best selling albums had worldwide sales and the two second best albums had US sales and so it contributed to indicate reasonable difference. It worked as an indicator of the absurdity of the 300M figure. No need seeing Pink Floyd as an orange compared to an apple, but as a variable in a very simple equation. Hence LedRush's and Judaispriest's arguments reduced to how many times one figure has been reported over another.

But how about posting an estimation? There is no shame in that, Jimbo Walesians. Revan ltrl (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No one should be posting estimates or employing "simple" equations. That is known as original research and does not meet Wikipedia standards. Rather than irrelevant comparisons and fan boasts, this discussion should focus on verifiable facts and address such obvious questions such as why did their record company say they had sold 200 million albums? Why does their Official MySpace Page say they've sold 200 million albums? Why does Robert Plant say they've sold 200 million albums? Why are there no published sources prior to the unsourced edit in 2005? How could they possibly have sold 100 million albums in two years? Until these perplexing questions can be answered satisfactorily, this article will remain in dispute. Piriczki (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Their officials also said 300 million and all your questions have been answered already above. Judaispriest (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I acted on the basis that your questions have been answered and dismissed - this article has already stated 200 million albums with your already used examples as sources but was changed back to 300 due to errors in wikipedia policy (the "standard" you mention) guys like LedRush and Judaispriest use to their advantage. So you're basically a rerun of a former discussion. I find it funny how you elevate wikipedia regulation at the same time as you use common sense - it is you who dismiss my ways as unproductive, yet you raise the same (according to you and wikipedia unnecessary) questions in hope of, what, changing something? You should then know that wiki regulations renders this discussion unsolvable and step in line behind LedRush and Judaispriest, since there is nothing in wikipedia that, maybe, says that one source can outdo the other? Don't be a walking paradox and no need in adding the very well-known arrogance to the faceless, disembodied discourse you all use as dedicated editors - this only fuels my disgust for discussing with you guys, even if one of you may argue for the same goal. SO, my point, which it has always been: rather a sourced estimation (and perhaps a small explanation in the article about the circulation occurred - at least that's not original research haha) than an untruth. I still think EMI and Plant weigh heavier than the combined forces of the other sources. Revan ltrl (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys, but I feel we settled on 200. Revan ltrl (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Judaispriest (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I may not be opposed to giving the range, seeing as it is expressed that way on the list of best selling bands page. The earliest 300 million number I can find is in 2006 (well, I can find earlier but they aren't RSs). Judaispriest, can you find an earlier one?LedRush (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I could but wasting time on that'd be totally unncessary. 300 million record (not album) sales is an official figure, which, verified by tons of RS, is highly logical and acceptable. It does not go against ANY wikipedia policy. Judaispriest (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you define number of records sold as opposed to number of albums sold and what impact does that have on the total? Exactly how do you define "records" versus albums? Is a source that states "records" somehow more reliable than those that say albums? Why? By the way, none of my previous questions were ever answered. Piriczki (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Records means albums+singles+CDs+DVDs+vinyls+everything. See Talk:List of best-selling music artists. Thier official myspace page as well as some official press releases also stated 300 million number. All your questions have been already addressed above. Judaispriest (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Zeppelin are famous for never having released any singles - a format that adds much to the astronomical worldwide record sales of, for example, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, and The Beatles. And their discography overall does not sum up - far from it. Led Zeppelin IV, according to the 300 figure, and being their biggest seller at 32 million copies worldwide, represents a supposed 10% of their sales... What is the rest 90% out of the other 8, or whatever it is, studio albums? Have they, together with a few compilations and DVD releases, sold 270 million copies? That, in turn, supposes, roughly, an average of 30 million copies/studio album. And if they have achieved that, why wasn't it reported, as Piriczki stated - news media would earn a big buck off that story. Why are you even trying to justify that number logically when it can't be done - the number is not acceptable in any logical sense; the Reliable Sources-argument weighs heavier here, stick with it.

I also have a question that hasn't been answered: is there anything in wiki regulation that addresses contradicting reliable sources and if circulation (and logic) should be instrumental in choosing, in the case of ambiguous reliability, the logical source? Revan ltrl (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

First off, Led Zeppelin IV sold far more than 32 million copies. 37 million is mentioned in List of best-selling albums worldwide, but its more than that also. See this. Secondly, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band sold 32 million+ copies, where does rest of their 1 billion sales come? Their total certified sales are 246 million; only 24.6% of their total 1 billion. Zeppelin's certified sales is 130 million; about 40% of their total certified sales - 300 million. So obviously, the sources for 300 million records are most reliable than anything else. Judaispriest (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm rarely this unconvinced, Judaispriest... I mean, you are aware that the certifications list you linked doesn't add to 32 even? But you just know that it has sold more, and that their certified sales work as a true indicator that they have indeed sold 300 million albums. The comparison to Beatles is completely and utterly worthless. I mentioned that the single format is nonexistent in Zeppelin's catalogue, hence the 300 million figure being outrageous - it can't be made out of their catalogue. Beatles, on the other hand, is one of the most successful single-releasing bands of all time. This is from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Beatles%27_record_sales: "In 1964, the Beatles had the never-matched total of 15 American million - selling records (9 singles and 6 LP's), representing US sales of over 25 million in 1964 alone." "'I Want To Hold Your Hand' sold nearly 5 million records in the US by 1968, making it the best selling single of the 1960s." "The 'Hey Jude' single had sold over 3 million copies in America in its first 2 months of release." By 65, they had sold 100 million records worldwide. By '66 150. By '69 300.By '72 545. Do you see how comparing Zeppelin to the most successful band of all time is, like, not beneficial for your argument? Beatles was first and foremost a singles band, hence their billion-scale sales, Zeppelin was not. Revan ltrl (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, please guys, I'm beginning to take these silences that follow my comments as compliments. How about a "Hey, Revan, I see your point, but my argument is backed by all these reliable sources y'know, and I kinda want Zeppelin to have sold 300 mill...". Well, I would also want that, but it can't really be true by merely wanting. Both me and Prizcki have pointed out questions that can't be answered with real information and which argue strongly for the fact that 300 million is too much. So, having common sense ruled out from a wikipedia conclusive discussion (because we know circulation is the answer to why so many sources have the 300 figure), there are only reliable sources left. But several reliable sources state different numbers, most either 200 or 300. So, do you all agree on trying to reach consensus on which sources that should rule out the others? Because, as I understand it, wikipedia regulation doesn't offer any advice for these situations, to go with the most logical sources, the biggest figure, the the sources that are superior in number... Revan ltrl (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, you really need to quieten down. The 246 million certified sales of Beatles also include their singles. So you have a baseless argument which sane editors prefer to ignore. The answer to your complain that you get ignored. Think about it. Judaispriest (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Could I get some feedback? This is unbelievable. Prizcki, please enlighten him of how little sense he makes. He's not only introducing his post with a "Lol", he implies that Beatles has sold less than Zeppelin... that my arguments are baseless... that any "sane" editor would ignore my post... He's clinging to the last shred of defense he can scrap together... i dearly hope, for your sake Judaispriest, that it's only a facade of pride and not a true conviction you have of which you say. You arguments are demolished, ACCEPT IT! It is not possible NOT to see the logic in what I wrote! Think about it! And I don't fucking care whether you think I'm loud, I'm just trying to get my fucking point through and I'm met with the common sense of god damn Jehovah's witnesses. Revan ltrl (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that your lack of civility, your horrendous logic, and your poor writing skills are more to blame for lack of responses than anything else. Judais priest has made his arguments above, and I'm not sure that restating yours requires him to repeat what he's already said. I feel everyone has made their positions known here, and consensus has not been reached.LedRush (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha, geez. You both attack my logic but refuse to actually comment on it. Pure insults. The civility blame, fine, I frankly don't care whether you find me uncivil or whatever. But please, you're both such poor losers, I can't believe it. And my logic and writing, Ledrush? I would want to tell you that they are self-experienced on your behalf and that you're merely projecting them on me. But fact is I'm a member of Mensa and write A papers in academic writing, so please don't even try feeding me your sorry bullshit. You're both barking from some small corner of shame. Pitiful. Revan ltrl (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"But fact is I'm a member of Mensa and write A papers in academic writing, so please don't even try feeding me your sorry bullshit." That you felt the need to write this is absolutely hilarious. I actually laughed out loud. That the irony is lost on you is quite sad.LedRush (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mensa International, huh? I won't be surprised if a person like you claims to be a member of Skull and Bones, or even Ordo Templis Orientis maybe. ROFLMAO. Judaispriest (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Or was it a misspelling in your "A Paper" and you actually meant "Menses".... ;-D Judaispriest (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't lie. And yes, I felt it was totally necessary. Mensa and A-graded papers in Academic Writing correspond perfectly with what you intended to insult, so thanks for letting me outdo you... once again. And it's not like you would comprehend any explanation to how you are wrong, so two concrete facts more than sufficed for me. And I find it highly amusing, and understandable, that you find Mensa membership that out of reach so you have to compare it to such absurd groups. But, as I said, understandable, it is long proved that common sense and intelligence is pure jibberish to you two. Thank you also (both of you) for this amusement... Just what I needed in between two Mad Men episodes. You continue to shrink, it's great! Revan ltrl (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you needed three follow up edits to insert more insults and to fix grammatical errors.LedRush (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you were a member of this organisation, you would not even write this crap above, stealing user's time.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who you're referring to, Pumpkin, but I'm met with total ignorance when trying to deliver an actual suggestion for this discussion. And LedRush, you keep pondering that, track my every move in this festering slime pit of a site and chuckle to yourself for every revised post... might as well make a hobby out of it, since I strongly doubt you have anything that even resembles a life out there. Lucks to you, buddy. Revan ltrl (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL.. what a loser! GreatPumpkin is referring to you. And I personally know LedRush. He's a legendary surfer. All he has is cool buzz, some tasty waves, and he's fine.... :-P While you, as we all know, are you a filthy cave troll... A complete waste of oxygen Judaispriest (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Noting that User:Judaispriest has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Scieberking. Piriczki (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to add the 300 million figure to this article all I ask is that you find a source that PREDATES its first appearance in this very Wikipedia article. It can't be done. It's a prime example of Wikiality. 71.183.238.217 (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

300 million

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This issue has been handled. Further discussion is not helping to improve the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

---

To all supporters of the 300 million sales figure, I have a simple request for you. Find out WHERE the known vandal who initially added it to this article got it from. Had to come from somewhere, right? Otherwise, it's just vandalism with nothing to back it up. Find a source that predates its entry in this article. Any source. I don't even care if it's a reliable source. We can get to that later if you ever find anything, which you won't.

It is obvious to most impartial observers what happened. A vandal made up the 300 million sales figure and added it to this article. It remained there for months with no citation and no reverting. Sloppy journalists then used Wikipedia as a source and promulgated the phony sales figure. Now those articles are being used to support the initial vandalism. How anyone can support this is beyond me. Do we want truth in Led Zeppelin's article, or do we just want whatever makes Led Zeppelin look as awesome as possible? Do we want to be encyclopedia editors or fanboys? 206.216.34.251 (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we could discuss this more constructively if we did not engage in repeated personal attacks on each other.

Having said that, we have sources from early 2001 that say that Zeppelin sold over 200 million albums.[5] It is possible that with renewed popularity, a few new compilations and a new live recordings, that an undetermined "over 200million" became an undertermined "over 300 million". This is not necessarily a gain of 100 million records, as some have claimed. It could be 55 million (246-301).

In 1997, Led Zep has sold only 63.8 million in America.[6] In 2001, they had sold 103.5,[7] an increase of 40 million in the US alone in 4 years. It seems entirely plausible that from 2001-2005 Zeppelin experienced an explosion in global sales similar to what was experienced in the US from 1997-2001.

But in the end, global sales are estimates, so perhaps the nature of the people conducting the estimates has changed...I don't know. While I concede that it is possible the 300 number originates with Wikipedia, I don't believe it is proven, nor do I concede it is likely. And because the majority of incredibly reliable sources indicate the larger number, I think we are well within WP policy to state both numbers as the article does now (in fact, I think we are within policy to keep just the 300 million number, as others have argued for above, but I'll leave that argument to them.) LedRush (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, find a source that says 300 million prior to that figure's first appearance in this article. Did the known vandal who added that number have a crystal ball? Where did he get that number from? That is the crucial question. The RIAA updated their sales figures. That does not mean that Led Zeppelin sold 40 million albums between 1997 and 2001. That you could actually think that that's a reasonable scenario just shows how ignorant you are on this particular issue. Atlantic Records says that Led Zeppelin has sold 200 million records. Led Zeppelin's official website says that they have sold 200 million records. Who says 300 million? Sloppy journalists from the likes of CNN who use Wikipedia as their source. Notice how they never say where the number comes from. Ask yourself where someone writing copy for CNN would go to get Led Zeppelin's worldwide sales figures. There is no worldwide body for tracking such sales. They didn't go to Atlantic Records for the number. Atlantic Records says 200 million. They didn't go to the band's official website for the number. That also says 200 million. So where did they go? Have you noticed that some CNN articles says 200 million while others say 300 million? There are CNN articles from 2007 that say 200 million while CNN articles from 2005 say 300 million. Why is that? Where are they getting their info? Wikipedia, that's where. It just depends on what Wikipedia is saying at the time that the article is being written. Wikipedia is their source. The obvious truth of this is staring you in the face, you just have to detach from your obvious fandom long enough to see it. The only source we should be using to verify Led Zeppelin's worldwide sales is Atlantic Records. That means 200 million. 206.216.34.251 (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your argument requires a lot of assumptions, and I don't necessarily agree with them. Also, the official website says over 300 million here [8] and here [9]. That you claim that it doesn't shows: 1. you're cherry picking or not good at finding the numbers; and 2. you don't read the prior discussions on this topic.LedRush (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the pervasiveness of wikiality can be unsettling. Notice the dates on those articles. Both well after the initial edit in this article. So I ask again, was this vandal psychic? Could he see the future? You accuse me of cherrypicking, but you've done the same. See here [10]. Notice the date. There is far more legitimate support for the 200 million figure since it comes from Atlantic Records itself. The 300 million figure is a prime example of wikiality. I could never support an article for good or featured article status that has not excised such an egregious example. 206.216.34.251 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In March 2003, with the announcement of How the West Was Won and the Led Zeppelin DVD, Atlantic Records stated Led Zeppelin "has sold some 200 million albums worldwide." At that time their U.S. sales, according to the RIAA, totalled 105 million certified units (or 88 million albums). Since then they have added 6.5 million in certified units, bringing the total to 111.5 million units (or about 91.5 million albums). Total worldwide sales of 100 million albums during that time period seems highly unlikely, if not inconceivable. Piriczki (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I've presented the facts in a very different light than that. Regardless, it seems like the current approach in the article, citing both numbers, is a reasonable compromise. Do you have an edit suggestion, or are you just arguing the merits?LedRush (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• It definitely seems like a fair compromise to cover disagreeing sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm convinced there is circularity but since 300 is now found in what are considered reliable sources, a range of estimates will have to do. Piriczki (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather we take a stand against such an egregious example of wikiality. I'm not going to let some vandal succeed, if I can help it. I will never support this article for good nor featured article status as long as there is wikiality in it. This [11] is wikiality. That's what happens when we don't excise vandalism promptly. I ran that howler to ground. Purged it from four different Wikipedia articles. I regret that I'm apparently too late to stop it in Led Zeppelin's case. Wikiality lives. Especially when editors let it. 206.216.34.251 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't help but find it ironic and amusing that you settled with what I suggested all along. Standing ovations, guys! Revan (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I deem it necessary to state in the article that the 300 million sales figure is speculated circulation (stating that no source before the vandalism has stated 300 million), since the vandalism that started it not only affects the discussions here back stage but the information presented in the actual article. It is important not to forget that wikipedia does not have sovereign status that excludes it from the events it presents, but is a functioning element in the events. And no, it is impossible that Led Zeppelin has sold 10 million records a year for four years, completely outrageous. Sloppy journalism is an eternally more accurate explanation. Revan (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How about a parenthesis after "while other sources state sales of more than 300 million records" naming that none of these sources predates an unsourced and false entry made by a vandal at wikipedia in 2005, followed by the analysis that the 300 million sales figure implies that Led Zeppelin's sales sky-rocketed within a few years to impossible proportions after 200 million had been stated officially. The estimation is given in the article, but there is no need for the two figures to be equal. The vandalism that occurred is now significant to the band itself and warrants address. The goal is to eliminate 300 million altogether. Revan (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Another possible way of disrupting the balance that is now present between the two figures as a first step towards elimination of the 300 figure is to start off the sentence with "According to Atlantic Records and Robert Plant, the band has sold 200 million . . . while other sources state that" etc. I'm going to take the liberty to disrupt the balance unless someone objects soon. Revan (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Because we have just concluded a compromise on this issue, one which led to your block, I resisted comment as I felt the suggestion was merely a plan to incite more flaming and edit warring. I do not agree with any such edit and would rather the article go back to using the most recent RSs for the number of albums than citing an old article on what Plant thinks about how many records he's sold. Also, I find the reopening of this issue so soon after a consensus was reached as improper. I would also remind that you have been warned by an admin to stay away from me. Seeing as you know me almost exclusively from this article, I would ask that you try and remain civil and adhere to WP policies.LedRush (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I am not sure why you've gone from (incorrectly) gloating that the compromise was your idea merely 2 days ago to finding the compromise unacceptable now.LedRush (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Folk rock/prog

Just picking brains here about something: it's well-known that Zep loved and was heavily inspired by contemporary British folk artists like Roy Harper, Bert Jansch, Sandy Denny, etc., but has anyone ever classified them as "folk rock"? For starters, Allmusic doesn't. Is the inclusion of folk rock in the infobox because there are lots of sources calling them folk rock, or is the rationale simply that they incorporate folk into their rock? Because it's not the same thing, and I doubt any overview of the folk rock genre would include Zep. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Allmusic is crap. It lists pure "Blues" as one of the two genres of Led Zeppelin. So are you going to call them a "Blues band"? I copy paste this from archives:

• "Where's the sense of reviewing an album filled with material that every right-thinking human being must already own? Well, let's not forget those over 80s and under 20s out there who may have yet to experience the full majesty of the band who set the benchmark for stadium-packing epic blues/folk rock. And, on the eve of the most hyped reunion gig of all time, Mothership lays it all out in chronological form". Cynical re-packaging, maybe...but oh, what a back catalogue! by Chris Jones of BBC

• "A real test of endurance, for sure. This is rock music, pure and simple, and they were very much a rock band. They weren't a one-trick pony - a number of their tracks have a distinctly folk-rock feel - and they really enjoyed what they did. And almost all of their songs are about love, in one form or another". Jon Downs of Blogcritics

In addition, "The Routledge companion to Britain in the twentieth century" by Mark Clapson describes them as, "LED ZEPPELIN - Rock, blues and folk-rock band".

Judaispriest (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Blogcritics a reliable source? Also, note the context of the quote--"have a distinctly folk-rock feel"--not quite the same thing as "is a folk-rock band". Additionally, are there any sources that discuss Led Zeppelin as part of the history of folk rock? After all, Smashing Pumpkins have been called a grunge band and Radiohead a Britpop band on occasion in offhand manner, but any source that actually deals with the genres will explain why these are inaccuracies. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, some songs are folk rock. Please listen to Led Zeppelin III; almost all of them are folk rock. Folk rock is a fusion between the folk music and rock music; folk music describes the music for the "folk"; looser, fruity songs with (mostly) the acoustic guitar as the lead instrument and instruments like harmonica, accordion, sitar, bagpipe and many more; yes that's apply. It would be better if you would think logically and not view another website (please stop this "is-this-reliable-or-not?"-crap); this is crazy...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This "'is-this-reliable-or-not?'-crap" is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. "Listen to the album" isn't good enough. Also, "fruity songs" . . . ? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Listen. Blogcritics might not be a highly reliable source, but still a WP:RS according to the criteria. Ask any time on noticeboard. Secondly, who the heck is calling them a strict "folk-rock band". Beatles played psychedelic rock and that doesn't make them a "psychedelic rock band". I totally agree with GreatOrangePumpkin. They played some folk rock songs, and the genre is rightfully listed there. Scieberking (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Whining does not help, WesleyDodds. Blogcritics has editorial oversight. Blogcritics is not largely user-generated. Satisfies every policy. Everybody on Noticeboard will agree. It runs on the same model as NY Times' About.com. Besides that, its only one of the sources provided. Scieberking (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about whining? Assume good faith. It's a basic question. Also, beyond the reliability of this one source, it's really important to get a broader examination of sources, because three examples (two of which are reviews) aren't all that convincing when it comes to determining if there's consensus by sources declaring them a folk rock band. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Initially, as a semi-retired editor, I was hesitant to get involved, but just can't tolerate nonsense. I would repeat my previous suggestion; putting "Rock" as the sole genre in the infobox just like the other major articles do. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, in simpler words, some of their material is folk rock, but that doesn't make them a strict "folk rock band" or a purist "folk group". Led Zeppelin defies categorization. For the record, there's been a consensus to keep "folk rock" in the infobox after lengthy arguments (see archives) but I still suggest the simple Rock label. As per your wish, here is an "overview of the folk rock genre (that) would include Zep", penned by well-known American music journalist Richie Unterberger who also happens to be a leading contributor at Allmusic:

• GREAT MOMENTS IN FOLK-ROCK: LISTS OF AUTHOR FAVORITES

• Even your Allmusic junk says, "its [Led Zeppelin's] areas of expertise were heavy metal, hard rock, blues-rock, and folk-rock". Divinity: Led Zeppelin. Notice how accurately this order is being preserved on Wikipedia!

• David Fricke, former managing editor of Rolling Stone and one of the most well-respected rock critics, mentions "folk rock" of Led Zeppelin in his article Led Zeppelin Reunite The Full Report From David Fricke.

Here's a few more reliable sources:

• Led Zeppelin III Review: An underrated work by any reckoning by Greg Moffitt of BBC

• Led Zeppelin 1970: A Banner Year for Page, Plant and the Gibson Les Paul Standard by Ted Drozdowski of Gibson

Regards, Scieberking (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Scieberking, nobody is arguing that Led Zeppelin didn't incorporate folk/folk-rock into their records. The question is, whether that folk-influence necessitates us adding "folk rock" in the genres tab. In your own words, "that doesn't make them a strict 'folk rock band'"—then why list folk rock at all?

I don't mind listing just "Rock" in the genres, although my first preference would be to include heavy metal as well—the band's defining genre.—indopug (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, Scieberking. I'm not trying to be difficult or antagonistic about this, so there's no reason to use wording like "Even your Allmusic junk". This is just something that needs to be addressed with some thought at some point or another on the road to getting this article to FA-level quality. As for the "subgenres/just Rock" issue, I'd be down with Indopug's "Rock, heavy metal" suggestion, although we should probably link to "hard rock" too. The point of the genres field is to link to pages that provide additional musical style context--the rock, metal, and hard rock articles all devote sizable portions to Led Zeppelin. We also need to consider the categories at the bottom of the page, which everyone seems to forget about. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I said that calling them a strict folk rock band would be untrue, but I also think all the above sources easily qualify the mention of "folk rock". "Gospel" is listed in the infobox of Dylan's article. Does that make him a gospel singer? Hard rock, heavy metal, folk rock are all subgenres of Rock, right? So listing "Rock, heavy metal" would be just plain stupid. Scieberking (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not stupid per se; it's simply general and specific at the same time. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it would. It is okay the way it is. Scieberking (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with calling them folk rock is that the number of sources used to back of this statement are far fewer than those that call the band heavy metal, hard rock, rock, blues rock or even progressive rock. Putting folk rock in the info box is a clear case of undue weight.LedRush (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is - not many people will argue against the fact that the band made some folk rock songs in their career. There are songs spread throughout their career in that genre, as well as on most of Led Zeppelin III. I don't think the "Genres" section of the infobox necessarily needs to be something the band were labelled as, but rather an indicator of what their music was labelled as. Whatever the consensus comes to, I strongly believe hard rock should not be touched (contrary to what some in this discussion are proposing), as it's pretty much the genre that the majority of their music falls under and it would be a complete oversight to omit. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Point of clarification: the material on LZIII drew from contemporary British folk music, not folk rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Elvis is more commonly known as a rock 'n' roll singer, but should "country" and "gospel" be removed from the article's infobox? Of course not, because he did some stuff related to those genres. I'm finished with the discussion. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To repeat:The problem with calling them folk rock is that the number of sources used to back of this statement are far fewer than those that call the band heavy metal, hard rock, rock, blues rock or even progressive rock. Putting folk rock in the info box is a clear case of undue weight.LedRush (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with this. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How does "rock, heavy metal, hard rock" sound then? The change from the status quo being that two very specific sub-genres (blues-rock and folk rock) are replaced by the overarching rock genre. This de-emphasises elements of the Zeppelin Sound that were present in only a few songs and albums. The prose, of course, can cover the blues- and folk-derived aspects of the band's music.—indopug (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. It has the added benefit of actually following WP policy on requiring reliable sources and not giving undue weight to minor theories and opinions.LedRush (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I can support that. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I support his too. Seems fine to me.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering that they haven't done even one heavy metal album (as opposed to songs), your suggestion is very one-sided and misleading. Considering that they have their foundation in blues, and which they never discarded, it is essential to include that one too. And considering that Led Zeppelin III and Led Zeppelin IV don't contain any heavy metal or hard rock (except for possibly "Immigrant Song") but almost exclusively blues rock and folk rock, it would be for the best to include folk rock as well. So basically, as it looks now, but with blues rock and folk rock - the genre box at its current state is a representation of 25% of their sound, not to mention that heavy metal and hard rock is impossible differentiate between in Led Zeppelin - they're the same, they overlap. Revan (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

GreatOrangePumpkin, I saw on your talk page that you're a pianist and expert in music theory. How can you then I agree with not having blues rock in the genre box? Their trademark is exactly that, the blend of rock and blues. Don't you think the current status is very narrow, one-sided and misleading? Revan (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the term "rock" in the infobox describes the different, not much used genres like folk rock and blues rock. These where mostly used in the beginning of its musical career, like in the debut album or the second, where hippie music (folk rock, blues rock, everything all together) were standard musical genres and covering classic blues songs totally normal. As indopug explains, merging "blues rock" and "folk rock" in "rock" is understandable, since they both are sub-genres of the "rock" genre. In contradistinction to the currently termed genres, the genre "hard rock" is self-evident and has been used from the beginning to the end of its career. "Heavy metal" was used mostly at the beginning (I, II, Physical Graffiti), and is therefore important, because Led Zeppelin's heavy guitar sound, fast, rough drum beats and Plant's strong voice power is an indication, that they were one of the first bands with heavy metal sound. There were much bands influenced by Led Zeppelin, including Black Sabbath. If you hear the albums "Black Sabbath" or "Paranoid" you will hear an element of resemblance in concord, timbre, rhythm, melody, dynamic and form. Short: Hard rock because its main genre; Heavy metal because important for other bands; Folk rock and blues rock was merged to "Rock" because sub-genre, not much used and sometimes merged together.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I know all of the albums you mentioned by heart, and I know that you exaggerate Led Zeppelin's importance on the two Black Sabbath albums you mentioned. I also know that Black Sabbath discarded the blues element right in the first song of the first album, and elaborated on the already existing "hard" sound of the era, transforming it into real heavy metal, by, among other things, detuning the guitar and bass to a low C#. But this isn't a discussion about Black Sabbath. Your first point is not true; blues rock and folk rock were used extensively, by no means less than hard rock or heavy metal. For all I know, their harder and heavier themes were most often than not used within the confines of blues. The blues element was never discarded by Led Zeppelin, but prevalent in all of their albums. They always had the standard blues songs in their albums, from the first one to Physical Graffiti. The same goes for folk rock - all of their acoustic songs - never discarded, but prevalent in all of their albums up to Physical Graffiti.

You assign each of the terms in the info box its own distinctive function: hard rock is supposedly "self-evident" and works as its own genre, but really, it is as much a sub-genre of rock as folk rock and blues rock; heavy metal is supposed to work as an indicator to Led Zeppelin's importance for other bands in that genre, and not as a description of their own sound; blues rock and folk rock should be merged together because they're "not much used", but which they are, very much so even. I don't see the point why readers who scan through an article should make these associations and differentiate between terms' function. They shouldn't. The info box should present a quick summary of what the band sounds like and not be a representation of something needlessly complex that only a few users think sounds fair. The inclusion of blues rock and folk rock (instead of just rock, maybe), in addition to hard rock and heavy metal of course, would make it 10 times more clear and accurate. Revan (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I just saw that the info box looks like how I suggested. I don't know if someone changed it without notifying, or if one of you did it. But I think it looks much better like that. What do you think? Revan (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I still think that the old order was way more logical and relevant. See the IP attacks, that's why... Scieberking (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I see... then it would be better to revert it like it was before. I realize that "Rock" is too generally, so the reader don't really know which sub-genres are meant. I don't care if it is just "rock" or "blues rock and folk rock", but, you see, the readers don't like it that much.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I mean and tried to state in the above discussion. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume "the old order" is when blues rock and folk rock are included? Revan (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, way more logical and relevant. Revan (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You can find tons and tons of RSs which call Zep a heavy metal band, but I doubt you can find one that calls them a folk rock band. But even that's not the real point. Per the agreement above, and per WP:UNDUE, I have to disagree continue to disagree. Folk music is such a minor influence outside of the third album, and it is not substantiated by RSs.LedRush (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello LedRush. I think I've made detailed replies to these "heavy metal band" / "folk rock band" and "not substantiated by RSs" arguments. Please see above. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but those replies have also been refuted above. It simply undue weight to put in the info box when the best you can do is find the sources you've found.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. More clearly refuted by lame arguments. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Folk rock is warranted by all of their acoustic songs. Check their catalogue. Revan (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would rather check RSs than conduct original research.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That is obvious. Though wikipedia is built on original research whether one likes it or not, whether it is against its policies or not. Some things are certainties. No one would dispute folk rock as genre. It's painting by numbers - one draws a line between their acoustic lines (among them Stairway to Heaven) to folk rock. It's not really arguable, in a logical sense. Revan (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though you have, against a few editors' opinion above, ordained the correct answer, I still say we should just follow WP policy on this.LedRush (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, NO such policy exists on Wikipedia. Radiohead is not an "electronic music group". Elvis Presley is not a "gospel singer". Bob Dylan is not a "country singer". And these are all featured articles... Regards, Scieberking (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The policy I invoked was WP:UNDUE, though I would now point you to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each of those statements seems eminently more realistic than this one (well, maybe not Elvis, but I barely know his music, so I can't really comment either way). All I know is that if you have thousands and thousands of sources which call a band a "rock", "hard rock" or "heavy metal" band, and the only RSs you can come up with for folk rock say that they have some songs influenced by folk rock, it seems pretty obvious to give UNDUE weight to an opinion. Just deal with this in the text.LedRush (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is mostly for Deletion/ Creation discussion and have you read this "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.'" and other guidelines that clearly point out that the policy itself is hardly relevant here? How about WP:SENSE and WP:IAR? Regards, Scieberking (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I like those two as well, but only the second one helps your argument.LedRush (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Explain how I "against a few editors' opinion above, ordained the correct answer" and why I shouldn't be insulted by the extreme choice of words. I would call this an attack, by your standards. Revan (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. You told me the answer without any proof at all. You merely stated that it was obvious. To make points, usually you need to provide some sort of basis for that opinion.LedRush (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: the first of the two links also helps his argument. Don't dismiss it. As I've said, having folk rock is painting by numbers, mere common sense, and doesn't need to be dismissed because someone keeps score of how many times the other genres have been cited. Isn't that illogical? I'd say it is. You could have a billion sources saying heavy metal without having them excluding folk rock. The genres are in no competitive game against each other, even though some would like to think so. Revan (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the genres are in competition. As I've argued above, I don't believe that there are enough sources to merit inclusion in the infobox of a genre which has influenced a handful of songs. I can find sources that say Led Zeppelin was influenced by reggae, progressive music, and Caribbean music, but I'm not sure that they should go in the info box (though progressive music is makes more sense to me than folk rock).LedRush (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't either. Of course reggae shouldn't be included because they made one reggae song in Houses of the Holy, or Caribbean music because another song shows an influence. But folk rock hasn't influenced only one song, or only a handful of songs. The genre, as a representation of their acoustic songs, is one of the main undercurrents of their sound, like blues rock and hard rock, throughout many albums. That can easily override the lack of journalists spelling out "folk rock" to the reader. Revan (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate genre-labeling, and most respectable bands hate their music categorized within a genre as well. But when you have Joan Baez influencing LZ to record "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You", not to mention songs like "That's the Way" and "Going To California" in their catalog, I would object to labeling them as "Folk Rock" about as much or as little as I would object to labeling them as "Heavy Metal". Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 21:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Alas, nothing can override things not being in RSs on Wikipedia. That's one of, if not the, central tenet of wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"...it reminds its maker of 1970's Led Zeppelin III, an epic LP that augmented the iconic band's hardriffing blueprint with more reflective folk-rock leanings." Is "leanings" too vague to include them as folk-rock? Doc talk 22:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, absolutely. In Scieberking's and Revan's, no. I just don't see having a handful of songs with folk-rock leanings or influences as enough to include folk rock in the info box. If gives undue weight to the influence, imho.LedRush (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

How about "Led Zeppelin’s mix of blues, folk and rock brought them huge success...". Are we talking about reliable sources or opinion? Because you're quite right that it only needs to be in reliable sources (with citations) for inclusion. Again, I despise labeling bands, infobox or no, but I seriously doubt that "Heavy Metal" has any more place in the infobox than "Folk" or "Folk Rock" when talking about the mighty, diverse Zep. Doc talk 22:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention folk-rock or blues-rock at all. It does support the idea that these genres influence their music, but it doesn't come close to justifying it in the info box, in my view. And if you don't think that people call Led Zeppelin heavy metal, just do a google search on "Led Zeppelin" and "Heavy metal". I don't think that Zep is metal, but everyone else in the world seems to.LedRush (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You're both for grand personal statements with no real credibility to back it up. OK, just to align with the course of personal opinions flowing, I share the classic artistic viewpoint of not putting much importance on labeling an artist's music - everyone must have "their own sound". Simultaneously, I find it quite pretentious. It is as if the artist in question's creative process gets diminished and crippled if fans and media labels his or her music. At least "conscious", "caring" fans think it does. A tad ridiculous. Music can always be labeled to some extent, as an idea, an indication, a vague definition of the sound. I have my own band, and I always say we play rock towards heavier things like metal, somehow experimental and progressive, and I refer to a few bands that are influences. Why should someone else's labeling bother me? It doesn't cripple us when we rehearse. Of course, having endless discussions about some mere sub-genres in a box is also ridiculous when taking a step back and reflecting.

As for your objection to my statement, LedRush. Wikipedia already has tons and tons of original research in their millions of articles, good ones and featured ones. Do you need a RS that states that a chair is a basic commodity with four legs, a back and a seat? No, I'm not saying our discussion has the same level of certainty. I'm just saying it's painting by numbers in lack of a thousand sources. We have two. As for Led Zeppelin and folk rock songs, the number of songs very much exceed "a handful". I counted 18 from their first to Physical Graffiti that can easily be labeled folk rock. This is a consistency in their sound shown throughout many albums and not an eclectic leaning which they're also known for, like reggae. I don't know how much you guys know about actual music, but never downplay blues' role in Zeppelin's music. Consider it an advice for discussions in your real lives. Revan (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... when you refer to "you both" and "real life", I would hope you're not referring to me, Revan. I've been playing bass guitar for roughly 25 years: and you do realize I'm actually agreeing with you for the most part, right? I was listening to Led Zeppelin before many of you were even out of diapers: and I know plenty about actual music. Correct me if you weren't referring to me; but I could truly care less if there's going to be a lame genre-war over this. Let the freakin' infobox follow whatever consensus develops. I've said my piece... Doc talk 07:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Revan, that personal attack on Doc and me was unwarranted. Also, Doc and I have backed up our statements with examples and citations and are haveing a quite civil disagreement. You've merely stated your opinion more emphatically and done nothing to prove your point, while engaging in uncivil behavior which pisses people off. Please try and be constructive.LedRush (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound harsh in my first sentence. I just meant that it is hard to establish credibility here at wikipedia since we're all anonymous. Meaning, we could be PhD's or college dropouts. As for "real lives", I just meant your... real lives outside wikipedia. No "get a life" insult. Yes, I agree with what you've said, Doc. Didn't mean any disrespect. It never hurts that people knowledgable about the subject at hand (music) instead of mere wiki policy preachers enter discussions. I would value your input on my list below. Ledrush, on the other hand, I most often don't agree with. He's very keen on dropping the attack blame on me as soon as I use the word "you" in my posts, resulting in me dismissing him as keenly. He is also keen on downplaying my posts and contributions here by downplaying what I say, deliberately missing my points. Allegedly, I do nothing to prove my points, as opposed to him, allegedly: he has "proven" that Zeppelin only have a handful of folk rock songs by stating that they only have a handful of songs with folk influences. That makes a lot of sense.

Maybe you missed it, LedRush, but I said I identified 18 songs in their first six albums that I think qualify as folk rock songs. I'd say that qualifies as "constructive" despite your allegations. I think I have made clear that I'm not speaking nonsense when I talk about music, and Doc has proven he doesn't. I think your statement about a handful of songs falters, but feel free to give me your input on this list: from Led Zeppelin I: "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You", "Your Time Is Gonna Come", "Black Mountain Side"; from Led Zeppelin II: "Thank You", "Ramble On"; from Led Zeppelin III: "Friends", "Gallows Pole", "Tangerine", "That's The Way", "Bron-Y-Aur-Stomp", "Hats Off To (Roy) Harper"; from Led Zeppelin IV: "The Battle Of Evermore", "Stairway To Heaven", "Going To California"; from Houses Of The Holy: "The Rain Song", "Over The Hills And Far Away"; from Physical Graffiti: "Bron-Yr-Aur", "Black Country Woman". LedRush mentioned a few sources that dropped "reggae" and "Caribbean music" as influences, possibly about "D'yer Mak'er" and "Down By The Seaside". Also, "Kashmir" displays large influences from middle eastern music. If those songs are included, the list increases to 21. Additionally, there are some other candidates, like "Four Sticks" and "When The Levee Breaks", but let's ignore those.

Of course I don't want to cause a genre war or lead the discussion into a dead end. Consider this list an attempt at leading the discussion a small step forward. Revan (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Revan, I am afraid you're just not getting it. I don't care that you think that 18 songs have a folk rock influence. I would exclude almost half of those songs out of hand, but that's not the point. First, merely having songs influenced by a genre does not make that genre important enough to be in the info box. Second, we need reliable sources to make the statements. Everything you're talking about is original research, and not very believable, either.LedRush (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting it. I just don't want to adjust to your slightly obsessive preachings. You keep writing condescending about what I say. But please, for once, fucking motivate what of everything I wrote is "not very believable" and why. And why would you exclude almost half of the songs? I'm curious about your musical ability here. And please, don't refer to any sources. Try it. Revan (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's say we discuss the songs you have proclaimed have fold influences, and, in fact, we agree that all 18 of them do have a folk influence. Look at my last post to see why we can't include the information in the info box. You're getting tied down in wanting to argue about the individual songs instead of actually discussing how to get the content in the article. Please, please try and substantiate your argument in some way other than your belief on the matter. Doc and Scieber found sources and we discussed their contents based on WP policy. You are merely stating your opinion in angrier and angrier tones.LedRush (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because you keep making ignorant opinion-based statements, incapable of motivating them. I find that outright ridiculous. The sources were discussed but you failed to reach a conclusion. We're three who think that two sources, together with common sense (acknowledging that there are more than "a handful" (here we have you conducting original research, although unexplained and unbelievable) of folk rock songs in their catalogue - I made a list of which I think qualify, and Scieberking and Doc both think the genre is one of their main genres) are enough for including the genre in the info box. Evidently, you're the only one making an effort to stop the inclusion by keeping score between the number of sources saying folk rock, and sources saying heavy metal, as if the sub-genres are in competition against each other in stand-offs. Oh, and with GreatOrangePumpkin, we're four; he supported it above. Why do you pick the wikipedia policies that suit you and exclude those which don't? Evidently, wikipedia acknowledges common sense as being useful (whadayaknow) when users disagree about sources. At this point, we have zero sources speaking against folk rock, but only one user. We have four users supporting the inclusion, and two sources naming folk rock. Revan (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose I can convince you to actually address my points, could I?LedRush (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose I can convince you to actually address my points, could I? Revan (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Could you please provide a concise question/point for me to address? In case you're forgotton mine and can't find them above, they are: "First, merely having songs influenced by a genre does not make that genre important enough to be in the info box. Second, we need reliable sources to make the statements". Please see above for context.LedRush (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, how about this? Jon Bream (http://www.jonbream.com/Jon_Bream/Home.html) wrote Whole Lotta Led Zeppelin: The Illustrated History of the Heaviest Band of All Time, published in 2008. These are a few samples from his book: "Page also picked out British folk melodies on acoustic guitar. A riff bandit, Page literally lifted several tunes outright from folk and blues artists." (p. 37); "Jones was invaluable in helping Led Zeppelin develop their sound beyond the blues and folk riffs employed on the early albums" (p. 40); "Led Zeppelin turned its debut into a sprawling mission statement, a blueprint for all future Zeppelin albums in the way it recasts Chicago blues, British folk, Eastern sagas, and progressive rock." (p. 47). "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" is called a "folk song" on the same page. I don't know if this book has been referred to here before. Revan (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As for your first quote, no one besides you have said anything about songs being "merely influenced by a genre". We have all made clear that folk rock is one of their main genres, and I find that 18 songs on their first six albums "qualify as folk rock songs", and not merely influenced by folk rock. I have repeatedly asked you to motivate your statements about why my original research about the songs is "unbelievable", why you would dismiss half of them, which handful of songs you're actually referring to. Disperse your vague statements. Revan (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please point to the RSs which state that folk-rock was a "main genre" for Led Zeppelin. If we can get a couple of those, the conversation would be over. Unfortunately, all I've seen is reliable sources that say the Led Zep incorporated some folk into some of their songs.

And, please, stop with your arguments on the songs. Your opinion of whether or not a song is a folk-rock song is completely irrelevant, as is mine. Just because you have descended from the gods with this answer clear in your brain, doesn't mean we can use your word as gospel. We need reliable sources for all statements on Wikipedia. For the very first time, you have provided a few. But they still don't do want you want them to do. The term folk-rock isn't used, and even if it were, it would have to be pervasive enough to qualify with the literally thousands and thousands of sources which call Zeppelin's genre heavy metal or hard rock...otherwise we are putting undue weight on a minority theory.LedRush (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that the same Rolling Stone biography that that supports LZ being one of Heavy Metal's pioneers also says that Page and Plant were "grounded in British folk music." "Grounded" is a lot stronger than "influenced", and there's just no way that important songs like "That's the Way", "Going to California" and others are Rock, Hard Rock or Heavy Metal. We know that Page was "influenced" by Skiffle, but there are no LZ songs that could be included in that genre alone. I do understand what LedRush is saying, but perhaps we need a Requests for comment template to get even more outside opinions. Bickering about it and reverting is never the way to deal with it. Doc talk 21:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Still with the stand-offs between genres. If you find opinions worthless, then don't bother calling them "unbelievable" if you won't back it up with an explanation. That would qualify as an attack by someone with a fragile sensibility. And how do you know what the source does or doesn't do what I want it to? Personally, I don't think a source can be more credible, according to wikipedia standards, or clearer about the importance of folk (hey hey, when a rock band uses folk, it becomes folk rock, it's like magic) in Zeppelin's music. But you really need it spelled out for you. You need some godlike (what's with the religious references you keep dropping?) reporter who bellows "Led Zeppelin is also a folk rock band!". Can't believe you dismissed this source so easily. Biased? Other users have accused you of being just that. Revan (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal attacks above, it seems we have gone from a 4-1 majority against inclusion of folk-rock and blues-rock in the info box to a 3-1 majority for inclusion. I will withdraw my objection and consider a new consenus established for inclusion unless someone from the "against" camp chimes in by the end of April 24.LedRush (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good initiative for a conclusion, but I'm fairly sure it's a 4-1 majority for inclusion. Revan (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to start this over again, but couldn't we consider the inclusion of progressive rock as sub-genre in the genre box? I see it's been mentioned in this dicussion a few times and some consider them as progressive. Leaving it to you guys for sources and arguments for and against...

Imagery suggestion

For the main page Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin discography, and the picture for Wikipedia: WikiProject Led Zeppelin, I highly suggest using the portraits from the How the West Was Won (Led Zeppelin album). I believe that there are many similar portraits of concept art around the concept of that album's art. This gives a good, equitable look at each member of the band, kind of like the image for Wikipedia: WikiProject The Who.Hoops gza (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

...Except the image you suggest isn't a free image, and you can't use album covers to identify anything but the album. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If we could use album covers the article would be full of them. Sadly they are not normally used outside of articles on the actual album.--SabreBD (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Atlantic Records

The sentence that states worldwide sales reads as follows: "Led Zeppelin have sold over 200 million albums worldwide according to some sources,[8] while other sources state sales of more than 300 million records". I suggest changing "according to some sources" to "according to Atlantic Records" or "according to Atlantic Records and other sources". As opposed to the reliable sources for 300 million, 200 million is backed by the band's own record label, and I think that weighs more than "some sources" or a newspaper and such. Before responding to this, note that his doesn't in any way clash with the consensus that was reached regarding the two different figures. Nor is it original research or opposing any wikipedia policy. I find it only warranted to include "Atlantic Records" there and not veil it unnecessarily behind a vague expression. Revan (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to read talk page archives and stop this sappy argument now? First, the Atlantic source is outdated and expired. Archiving the old reports of census data doesn't make the world's population less. Second, Atlantic has not been their sole distributor. Third, official atlantic releases have also mentioned the 300 million figure. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I know what's in the archives and I know this argument hasn't been brought up before. Would you be so kind to reread my suggestion? I don't make a thing about about whether the 300 figure is false or not; as I stated above, my suggestion doesn't clash with the consensus. I'm merely suggesting changing two words into two other words, concerning only the 200 figure. The source is here: http://replay.web.archive.org/20081123140344/http://www.atlanticrecords.com/ledzeppelin/bio. Your point about their not being their sole distributor is of no consequence. And thirdly, can you really state that official Atlantic releases have stated otherwise without providing a source? Revan (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am against the inclusion for the reasons Scieberking stated. Additionally, it would put undue weight on one RS.LedRush (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Read from here for official news releases stating 300 million sales. Most sources do mention the same figure, not the 200 million one. If I add that "most sources mention 300 million sales", the sentence would not seem encyclopedic. Secondly, the archived source is obsolete and rather invalid now too. My point is of no consequence, huh? Their stuff has been distributed by Atlantic as well as Rhino and Verizon. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, of no consequence. Regards, Revan (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"New" Zeppelin song

Just wondering, would it be worth mentioning in the article that one of the upcoming tracks on Black Country Communion's new album is a half-finished Zeppelin tune Bonham was working on with Page and JPJ around the time of the reunion in '07?

http://bccommunion.com/news/bcc-song-unfinished-led-zeppelin-track/

121.223.148.111 (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems as much of a zeppelin track as anything Page/Plant did, or anything that Page/JPJ did. It's interesting, and I'm glad you pointed it out, but I don't really see its relevance to this article.LedRush (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Artist credit controversy?

I am surprised there is no mention of this in the article, considering there is a whole section on Kingdom Come's page about how they ripped off Led Zeppelin riffs, complete with a Jimmy Page quote. It seems only fair that Randy California or one of these artists should get a quote or two on the Led Zeppelin page.

A list of some of the songs Zep stole from other artists:

"Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" - A folk song by Anne Bredon, this was originally credited as "traditional, arranged by Jimmy Page," then "words and music by Jimmy Page," and then, following legal action, "Bredon/Page/Plant." "Black Mountain Side" - uncredited version of a traditional folk tune previously recorded by Bert Jansch. "Bring It On Home" - the first section is an uncredited cover of the Willie Dixon tune (as performed by the imposter Sonny Boy Williamson). "Communication Breakdown" - apparently derived from Eddie Cochran's "Nervous Breakdown." "Custard Pie" - uncredited cover of Bukka White's "Shake 'Em On Down," with lyrics from Sleepy John Estes's "Drop Down Daddy." "Dazed And Confused" - uncredited cover of the Jake Holmes song (see The Above Ground Sound Of Jake Holmes). "Hats Off To (Roy) Harper" - uncredited version of Bukka White's "Shake 'Em On Down." "How Many More Times" - Part one is an uncredited cover of the Howlin' Wolf song (available on numerous compilations). Part two is an uncredited cover of Albert King's "The Hunter." "In My Time Of Dying" - uncredited cover of the traditional song (as heard on Bob Dylan's debut). "The Lemon Song" - uncredited cover of Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor" - Wolf's publisher sued Zeppelin in the early 70s and settled out of court. "Moby Dick" - written and first recorded by Sleepy John Estes under the title "The Girl I Love," and later covered by Bobby Parker. "Nobody's Fault But Mine" - uncredited cover of the Blind Willie Johnson blues. "Since I've Been Lovin' You" - lyrics are the same as Moby Grape's "Never," though the music isn't similar. "Stairway To Heaven" - the main guitar line is from "Taurus" by Spirit. "White Summer" - uncredited cover of Davey Graham's "She Moved Through The Fair." "Whole Lotta Love" - lyrics are from the Willie Dixon blues "You Need Love." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.250.59 (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed before. Please see talk page archives. Scieberking (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The article contained a section on this subject from 2007 to 2011. It was deleted here after a brief discussion at Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 5#Working to good article status. Piriczki (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask why it is acceptable for articles about other bands to have sections suggesting that these bands stole Led Zeppelin riffs then? Note that I am not disputing that bands have done this, nor am I suggesting that Kingdom Come were a good band. The Kingdom Come article is just an obvious example: there is a quote from Jimmy Page in that article saying that Kingdom Come stole Led Zeppelin riffs, and this makes up a reasonably large percentage of the article, but the article fails to mention a single case where Led Zeppelin riffs were stolen by Kingdom Come. It makes Wikipedia look somewhat biased towards Led Zeppelin, in my opinion, and the fact is the Led Zeppelin artist credit controversy is a pretty big deal; Kingdom Come's being influenced by Led Zeppelin isn't really in the same league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.157.238 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

We need members.

Someone should add them, so newcomers who are new to Zeppelin'd see em'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.107.103 (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There are no current members, since there is no current band. Past membership is not complex and is covered in the opening sentence. If someone cannot read that, they can look at the bottom of the infobox where it is clearly set out. There is no point in cluttering up the article with repeated information.--SabreBD (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Heavy Metal inclusion in sidebar misleading?

Originally I just removed it, because in the article it even talks about how they're not technically a heavy metal band, and brings up the point that they came before the heavy metal movement. My changes were reverted and I was told there was a discussion on this page, but there isn't, so let's start one. Is there a good reason to claim that they were in fact a heavy metal band in the sidebar, when it's actually under dispute that they are a heavy metal band? It seems a bit misleading to me. Maybe it be changed to Proto Metal, to suggest that they're style heavily influenced metal, but they were before the metal movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.216.21 (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Lots of stuff for you to read:

1 2 3 4

The general consensus was to keep "heavy metal" in the infobox (while I agree they're NOT heavy metal, though one of the genre's ancestors). Regards, Scieberking (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading through those discussions, it seems clear to me that more active users want to keep it on the page, even though others agree and made good arguments for why it is not heavy metal. I personally think it would be much more honest if "(disputable)" was added to the end of it, to signify that it has not been established as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.216.21 (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have .reliable sources that indicates they are not heavy metal or which discusses the "dispute" and would indicate that there is a real debate here?--SabreBD (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sabrebd. Hope you're doing great. The sources and everything has already been given in the past discussions. C'mon, let's not lead up a new debate again :) Regards, Scieberking (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I am doing great thanks. Avoiding a debate was my major aim. if there is nothing new here, lets just leave it as it is.--SabreBD (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent major list of edits

We have just had 126 edits by an ip user without a single posting here or any edit summaries. These seem to be good faith edits, but some of it is controversial, there are a number of errors introduced and some of this goes against hard fought for consensus. I don't really want to just revert all this work, but can anyone suggest what this was all about and what we should do with it?--SabreBD (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sabre. Yeah, I just noticed that as well. Really difficult to go through all 126 edits but would you please point out what edits he has made against consensus. Maybe we can only take his edits related to WP:MOS and discard others. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking particularly about the deleted picture and the additional paragraph at the end of the awards section, but there may be others I missed. There are also some other edits that I think are to the detriment of the article.--SabreBD (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already done both things I guess. Removed the additional RS awards because there are hundred others that could be added, and were previously removed and rolled up to a brand-new list. We can now work on other edits as well. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There were these ones I spotted and mentioned on their talk page (in an attempt to get them to slow down and exercise caution - which didn't work it seems):

You have changed:

• "with many critics and fans surprised at the turn taken" to "with many critics and fans surprising at the turn taken"
• "released the double album, Physical Graffiti" to "Led Zeppelin released their only double album" - The Song Remains the Same is a single album?
• You have changed the title of "This Week In Rock History" to "This Week in Rock History" - the title of the piece is in caps, I cannot see why you would change this

Good luck! Chaosdruid (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the simplest solution is just to put the "errors" right. If we get a reason for them we can always change it back.--SabreBD (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations in lead

There has been a edit "conflagration", but I have left a message on their page asking to discuss per BRD - their edit summary said "The lead must not contain any references unless quotations", though it is possible that they were originally reverted under the "Tag refs removed". I reverted them as I believe their summary about the lead and quotes was incorrect and that their motives for reverting were not as described in the es. Chaosdruid (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What WP:LEADCITE actually says is "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." What I would suggest is that at the moment the points in the lead need the citations, but perhaps we could move towards moving that information down to the relevant sections and probably recast the lead so that is more closely summarises the text of the main part of the article. One problem is that we never posted the "style" section that we agree to some time ago, so perhaps we can get back to that and move some of the references there.--SabreBD (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit - July

Shall I remove it from the GOCE requests list? It seems that there is a lot to work planned to be carried out before it would be ready for a copyedit. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think so.--SabreBD (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Awards and accolades

An addition paragraph has been added and re-added to the Awards and accolades section. My understanding of the discussion at Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 5#Working to good article status was that we would keep this bit as short as possible. Do we want to keep this new paragraph, integrate it into the paragraph above (which says much the same thing), or replace some of that with some of the new data? For my part, since two of the clauses deal with individuals and not the band, most of it seems more relevant on their individual articles.--SabreBD (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it twice. Page is ranked 9th - that should be mentioned on his entry. Same goes for Robert and album rankings. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox pic

Can we have a debate rather than an edit war over this. My preference is for the Chicago 75 pic. It has the whole band and is not used elsewhere in the article. If we go with the Chicago 77 we will need to delete it from later down in the article, as there is little point in having it twice. I am not aware of a guideline that says we have to use the best quality pic regardless of subject in the infobox, but is is possible that I missed it.--SabreBD (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course the 1975 one as it depicts the whole band. Scieberking (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I restored the pic of the full band this morning (or was it yesterday?) specifically because I feel the pic should include all four band members. I believe the guideline is "the picture that best represents the subject", and to me that means one that includes Bonham and Jones. Put a Page and Plant pic at Page and Plant. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everyone here so far. Radiopathy •talk• 01:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

'Album oriented rock' in lead

Album oriented rock is an American radio format, which Led Zeppelin did not create. Isn't there a better way to convey the meaning here without using a not quite appropriate term? Radiopathy •talk• 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The article may not imply that they created the AOR format. The band's contribution to AOR is massive and that's a well-established fact:

• More than any other band, Led Zeppelin established the concept of album-oriented rock, refusing to release popular songs from their albums as singles. Allmusic
  Music critic Stephen Thomas Erlewine also credits the band with establishing "the concept of album-oriented rock". Music of the counterculture era

• Led Zeppelin remains the most successful album-oriented rock 'n' roll band in history. The guide to United States popular culture

• Indeed, "Stairway to Heaven" is the one song that critics of AOR consistently point to as typifying the content of that format. Heavy metal: the music and its culture

I think "establish" would be more appropriate. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Mmm...I think what I was getting at was, is there a way to convey that Zeppelin preferred to view their albums as distinct, whole works which the listener should enjoy in their entirety as opposed to catering to the 'hit' market and releasing singles - without giving that concept a name which in not entirely correct, and indeed, which wikilinks to the article about the radio format (which in England English would be album-orientated rock, BTW)? Radiopathy •talk• 02:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I also think there shouldn't be a wikilink. I don't exactly remember but other editors have also suggested removing the wikilink earlier. AOR format and album-oriented rock are two different terms. Oh, and you forgot to add your signature, Radio. :) Regards, Scieberking (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

AOR attached to LZ would usually mean "Adult-Oriented Rock", rather than the "Album-Oriented Rock" (playing tracks off albums rather than playing singles released from albums). To use "Album-Oriented Rock" to mean a band aiming to make records that should be played as a complete album would not be the correct application of the phrase.

This is true of other bands also, such as Rush and Pink Floyd. The old phrase for those two's particular genres used to be "concept album", though Rush were really not part of the genre as they only had concept sides, not a whole album on one concept. LZ did not really fit into that genre either, I suppose it was more that they did not need to release singles, as their albums were pretty good sellers in their own right. There would also be the problem of which to release as the B sides, as most LZ tracks would have sold as A sides.

More interestingly, the Adult Oriented Rock page is a redirect to Arena Rock, something which I find abhorrent, there should be an article on this as a genre in its own right, though not in existence for long it was widely used in the 70s and 80s. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

First, you're confusing album-oriented rock with concept albums - therefore, two entirely different things. Second, even if your point is totally valid (which it is really not), wikipedia is verifiability not truth. For the same reason, every biography written about the band mentions album not adult oriented rock. Regards. Scieberking (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

First, you are confusing yourself. I am not confusing alb-o-r with concept albums, I know exactly what they are and the differences. Album-oriented is simply playing tracks off an album and a concept album is an album where all the tracks are about the same subject. Perhaps you are a little younger than me and were not around in the 70s. You should read my comment - it is saying that someone is confusing album-oriented as what the group intended, with what it really means, tracks of an album that radio stations played - simply a fact, go read some of the books on Radio in the 70s and 80s from a Google search.

Lastly, every biography does not mention that. I have read quite a few and plenty of them mention adult oriented, perhaps you only read American ones. To be honest, I have been a fan of the band and fairly involved with music since 1975, maybe I do know what I am talking about. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the sentence in question meant to say that Led Zeppelin did not favor singles because they wanted people to hear their songs within the context of the album, rather than suggesting something about a radio format. Piriczki (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid. I value your opinion and didn't mean any disrespect. Of course I'm a lot younger than you, and you may be more experienced in that area anyway. As far I'm concerned, I've read "album-oriented rock" in most cases. You can mention those with "adult-oriented rock" here, like I've done above. For the record, Zeppelin are considered the pioneers of both Arena rock and AOR by rock historians. Cheers. Scieberking (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No disrespect taken, none whatsoever. I was just trying to convey that I have seen the transitions from "Rock music" through "Hard rock" to "Heavy rock" to "Heavy metal" and the more recent "Thrash metal" etc. Each of these genres has grown and been subdivided into their own new generation of genres, something that I truly welcome, though I cannot say that thrash metal, speed metal or death metal are my cup of tea, btw what exactly is "Avant-garde metal"? I used to think that Napalm Death were in a different genre, but apparently I need to update myself (again) lol - I see they are in around ten genres from their article!

AOR was something we used to use to differentiate between rock for all, and those with more adult themes, such as sex, drugs and rock-and-roll. In those days even bands like Supertramp were classified as Rock music. AOR was often used in reference to Boston, and we could never understand why, probably why I still think this is an "across the pond" problem with definitions. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Napalm Death? LOL. I love the smell of napalm in the morning... :D Regards, Scieberking (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I still think we can come up with good wording to describe Zeppelin's philosophy towards singles without applying a revisionist definition to a term that describes a particular type of American rock radio station in the 70s.

Cool. You can put forward your suggestions here. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Style section

Just to make any discussion clear I have opened up yet another section on this. I am working on a draft of the style section, using what is already in the lead, Scieberking's last draft and anything else authoritative I can lay my hands on. The basic premise is to do what editors agreed way back here, with a non-chronological and concise section. As this is controversial I will post a link to a sandbox when I get something drafted. Any other suggestions and hints are welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I'd removed it when nobody was showing any considerable interest. Here it is. After removing the praise, we can modify it and rework it effectively. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Its OK I found a copy. I have posted a (very) rough draft here. This incorporates most of what was in Scieberking's draft, minus the chronology, what is currently in the lead and a few more observations. I am most interested in whether editors think this is enough, should there be more details on individuals (e.g. Bonham's "behind the beat" drumming, Plants wailing etc) or more examples? All this stuff is pretty easy to find, but it could be expanded into a small article, so we have to draw the line somewhere. Please note I haven't sorted out the format of citations yet.--SabreBD (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Great work! But I think after the "have been described as the 'definitive heavy metal band'" bit, we should add something like: "although its three surviving members have disliked the "heavy metal" tag." The source is here, and there are probably a few dozen more. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added that. Further suggestions welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This section now added. To do this some material from elsewhere was moved to cut down repetition and the citations have been moved from the lead to this section, so that is now summative and if these things need to be debated the evidence is now to be found in the style section.--SabreBD (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

refs

Could someone indicate page numbers on refs? For example, on ref 121. I don't have those books unfortunately, and it would be good if someone made a more comprehensive research on those books. Then we could talk about GA. 178.134.63.228 (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Its a good point. I didn't put most of these in, but I have the major books and was planning to a trawl to put the page numbers in. If anyone else gets there first it is fine by me.--SabreBD (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, great. Just let me know if you need help with anything. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have some major books, it would great if you substituted the current ones with them because the research is very poor. Please use Template:sfn. Holler me if you need help. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

My planned attempt to standardise and check all the citations has rather stalled. I was going to use the sfn system as suggested, although I am not familiar with it. However, I cannot see a way of incorporating archived versions of websites into this. In fact incorporating websites at all (and we have rather a lot of them here) seems to be rather difficult. I was going to ask user: 188.169.22.145, but he is banned for a month. Does anyone else know how to do this? I don't see much point in using this system if it means half the notes in another format.--SabreBD (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

After a lot of testing and QUERTY face pain, I have think I have worked out how to get this to function. I am going to start by posting the long promised "Musical style" section. After that I plan to go through all the references, fill in any that are missing, give page numbers where possible and will remove anything where the source does not look reliable and it cannot be substantiated from elsewhere. This is quite a major task so I will probably post changes in stages. I may post requests for help if I cannot find sources or details.--SabreBD (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Great! Please update me before removing anything for lack of sources. I can help with that, or with almost anything regarding this article. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This is my first appeal for help. I don't have copies of Welch 1994 or Lewis 2003. At some point the references for these books were aggregated so that the citations could be consolidated, but I now need to disaggregate them so that it will be clear on which page the books support a particular fact. Does anyone have access to copies and can help sort this out? If this cannot easily done I think I can substitute most of the points from other books, but I would rather keep the current broad base of books if we can.--SabreBD (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't own these two particular books, either. I think the cites seem fine if the page numbers have been provided. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that all the page numbers used are provided for every cite, not just the relevant page, which is a MOS issue. But it is OK, I think I may be able to piece this together by going through the edit histories, although that is quite a lot of work.--SabreBD (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to a copy of Welch, Chris; Nicholls, Geoff (2001). John Bonham: A Thunder of Drums. San Francisco, CA: Backbeat. so we can get a page reference for the quote at what is currently note 20? Otherwise I can swap this quote out for another one that deals with the whole bands assessment of the first session.--SabreBD (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I can arrange the book and that Jonesy quote could be found on Page 75: "swings like a bastard.. locked as a team immediately". Regards, Scieberking (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That is great, thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reached the official site concert reviews bit of the citations, such as [12] and would welcome opinions on the veracity of these sources for Wikipedia. I am sure they are accurate for the points made in the article, but can they considered as reliable sources? I am not sure who wrote them or where they were first published and that makes it difficult to assess their reliability. I can probably source most (if not quite all the exact detail) of this from reliable secondary sources. Do editors want to stick with these or play it safe? In a GA or FA review these might be an issue.--SabreBD (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think they're obviously authentic. The example you've provided is from Associated Press, archived by Sam Rapallo, the webmaster at the official site. And fantastic job with the citations and all! Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not really a question of authenticity, but whether they constitute reliable secondary sources. In the event it is rather a moot point as most of them did not support the assertions they were after (or there was no assertion). I have kept the ones that were actually supporting facts and replaced the others with other sources.--SabreBD (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Some things that should be missing

I have now reached the 2000s section of the article with the footnote standardisation and it does strike me that it may be time to edit this down a bit. In particular the section on the bootlegging court case seems like it was news at the time, but give the many court cases in which the band has been involved in its history (most of which do not rate any mention at all in the article) this seems out of place. I suggest we at least cut this down to a sentence or two, but my preference would be to remove it. The section on the possible reunion post the 02 concert also over detailed. The band have been through similar processes several times, which we give only brief mentions, and, although editors may have been trying to make sense of confusing events at the time, with a bit of hindsight this looks like it looms too large to me. I suggest an editing down of the details, while keeping the context and outcome.--SabreBD (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As usual, you're doing a mindblowingly excellent job, and if I were you I'd just carry on improving it until anyone objects. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

With your insight of "keeping the context and outcome" no objections here. Good work. Mlpearc powwow 14:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support - it is basically done now.--SabreBD (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

Does anyone have input on the article's grammar? It's flagged as needing copy edit, but I'm not too sure if the errors have been amended, or not (especially with the disclaimer about the British "were" vs. "was," when referring to the plural "Led Zeppelin" in the description paragraph).--SarahNEmerson (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The same user who flagged the article for needing a copy edit also posted a request for a copy edit from the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Led Zeppelin (according to the request page it is underway, but I have not seen any action yet). I am not aware that the article has huge issues with grammar, although it is a good idea to get a copyedit before going to GA review (which is sort of the plan - strung out across several archived threads). I considered removing the flag as it is unnecessary if a copy edit is already on the way and frankly this is by no means the most badly written article on Wikipedia.--SabreBD (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Remove that tag; the copyeditor will put it if he finds it necessary.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 18:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OK done.--SabreBD (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

LED ZEPPELIN - Now GA!

Wow that is brilliant! It is finally a GA! Thanks to all who helped! Now all we need is to bring the star back. What do you think, is it ready for the ultimate challenge =P?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations to you, too, GreatOrangePumpkin (and SabreBD). You're a major contributor here and one of my favorite editors on Wikipedia :) Also, thanks to AirCorn who did such an awesome, careful and detailed review. Now, getting the FA status is really a great challenge and needs some more work. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone involved, especially the long term editors and those that were able help with implementing the review (and catching my typos) and thanks to AIRcorn for a quality review, that usefully points out possible issues for a FA review as well. I would like to have a little break and then revisit those issues with a view to going for the star if that is the consensus.--SabreBD (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work everyone! Now if you could do the same for Yes, I would be a very happy fellow! :P But really, superb job. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Added pics before FA review

I have been patrolling the archives for pics in an attempt to fill out the last section of the article (which has expanded a bit recently). I have added the only remaining copyright pics of Jones and Bonham from the band era that I can find. I would appreciate it if regular editors could just take a look at them and see if they think they are of sufficient quality. The Jones pic has been described to me as "an eyesore" previously, but it is not like there is a lot of choice. I could create a black and white version (as we have permission to adjust it) if that was felt to be better. Comments welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That is even better! Amazing like usual :). I reverted Y2kcrazyjoker4's edit, when he removed the landscape parameter in the infobox. I found the picture very large, of course this is just my opinion. So I would like to know which version you prefer: This or the current? Regards.♫GoP♫_T^C_N 20:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks better with landscape parameter. Scieberking (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to go with the landscape version as well.--SabreBD (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I like the new pictures. The Jones picture with the bloody-red lightning looks imho even better than one in black and white. The Bonhom b&w pic is also ok. Do you think it's about time to take this to FAC? I am not sure what else could be improved. We could check it for close paraphrasing. But, as usual, it will receive polishing at FAC :). Regards.--21:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)♫GoP♫_T^C_N

I think it's time to take it to FAC, but don't you think the lead needs to be expanded a little? A concise summary of the band's early and later history could be mentioned. Just a thought. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the lead issue, and was thinking that just before reading this post, its would probably not be considered long or comprehensive enough. I will try to pull something together. At the risk of opening a can of worms, the other issues that might come up under coverage are the vexed ones of Page's interest in the occult and the plagiarism debate. Regular editors will appreciate that I don't want long and rambling sections about this, but perhaps we need something that deals with these issues head on, if very briefly.--SabreBD (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, let me know if I could help with lead expansion. Regarding the plagiarism thing, I think we can make a brief mention on the musical style section. As far as Page's interest in occult is concerned, it should be something which has to do with his own entry, since we've already mentioned the lyrics inspired by such influences (elements of mythology and mysticism). Thanks again. Scieberking (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a draft of the slightly expanded intro. I tried to keep it concise (there didn't seem a lot of point in naming albums that were in any case numbered), but no doubt editors will let me know if there is anything critical left out.--SabreBD (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks great IMO. Only this [securing the status of the band as "superstars"] sentence looks odd somehow, because the band had earned superstardom right after the release of Led Zeppelin II, as many publications assert the fact. Also, the term "untitled album" would be italicized? Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The "secured their status as superstars" was based on "cemented their status..." in the article, which doesn't mean it made them superstars, but confirmed that status. Perhaps confirmed or cemented would be clearer? I didn't italicise the untitled because that is not the title, which I think is correct.--SabreBD (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think "cemented" sounds better. Also, don't you think The New Yardbirds (in bold) in the first sentence is putting too much emphasis on the contract obligation saga? (a cease-and-desist slapped by Dreja and all) The band adapted the name mainly to complete the remaining tour commitments of the Yardbirds. The Beatles started out as The Quarrymen and The Who as The Detours, but I don't find such a mention in their leads. Any thoughts? Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I will go for cemented then. The Quarrymen don't appear in the opening sentence of the Beatles as it was decided (after much heated debate) that they were, in effect a different band, which I don't think applies here. I just put them in as part of the narrative in the article and once in the MOS indicates an alternative should be in bold, which I think this definitely was.--SabreBD (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I do understand your point, but I still think "The New Yardbirds" story is prone to controversy (mainly due to the tempestuous October 1968 cease-and-desist order by Dreja and Page's contradictory insistence that the name was only used to fill contractual obligations). Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am going to take a look at your suggestions over mentions of the "controversies" and see how that looks. Over the New Yardbirds thing, I think we have the issues soured in the article, so I don't really see a problem. For once we have hit a bit of an impasse, although I doubt either of us feel it is vitally important. Does anyone else have a view that might help us get this posted?--SabreBD (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I'm not saying that "controversies" should be mentioned :) I'm just trying to mention that in future some controversies could possibly develop. That's that. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood this, but in any case I think the couple of phrases added will be useful in ensuring that we have the coverage needed for a FA. I would like to get the new intro posted and move on with this, so to that end, is the problem with the New Yardbirds that it is there or that it is in bold?--SabreBD (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we could post the new lead that was awesomely done by you. If WP:MOS says "The New Yardbirds" should be in bold, let's keep it that way. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That is what I take MOS:BOLDSYN to mean. I will take one more look at it and then post.--SabreBD (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK its posted. I am ready as I will ever be for FA. I will put it forward over the next few days unless anyone sees serious issues we have missed.--SabreBD (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Great work. It looks good. Scieberking (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"many" vs. "plethora"

"Throughout their career, Led Zeppelin have collected many honours and awards." I suggest changing "many" with "plethora", as it better describes the situation. 107.21.144.115 (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Plethora implies and excess of something. As such it is not neutral language. Many conveys the meaning clearly and, as it happens, more accurately.--SabreBD (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

What about "myriad"? 107.21.144.115 (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is starting to look disruptive. If you have a serious objection to this word perhaps you could state it and then just wait for editors to respond. I do not intend to waste time on a debate on such a trivial issue.--SabreBD (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The word "many" is used extensively throughout the article, and I try to substitute it with its synonyms to avoid repetition. 107.21.144.115 (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Words such as "Myriad" and "plethora" don't adhere to WP:NPOV. Scieberking (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Many is used 11 times at the moment, which hardly seems excessive. However, many can sometimes be considered a weasel word, so I will look through and check for instances that might be seen that way. However, substituting a more extreme synonym does not solve that problem.--SabreBD (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"varied" vs. "manifold"

"...even though the band's individualistic style drew from varied sources and transcends any single music genre." I suggest changing "varied" to "manifold", as it much better describes the situation. (Definition of "manifold": manifold (adj.) many and various (Oxford American Dictionary)) 50.17.150.105 (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Varied is fine, and exactly conveys the intended meaning. Manifold is over complex and is just a synonym for many, which would just return the problem. On a wider note, the attempts to introduce more complex, often poorly understood and sometimes archaic language into the article are not enhancing it. It is just the sort of language likely to be objected to at a FA review.--SabreBD (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Jason Bonham as a member of Led Zeppelin

Having played a show with Led Zeppelin late 2007 in which the band even preformed songs live that were never played live before, namely the song from Presence For Your Life I think it would be most appropriate to include Jason Bonham in the info box as a member of the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.172.66 (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a long-standing consensus that Jason's filling in in his fathers drum stool did not make him a member of the band. Had the three surviving members and Jason reformed the band in 2007 that might have been different, but they didn't. On the grounds of playing with the band Phil Collins would also be a member of the band.--SabreBD (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree. I would say the primary difference in this case is that the band played songs that were never preformed live before. If what you're saying is accurate and that there is a "long standing-consensus" that Jason Bonham is not a member of the band, then "Led Zeppelin" never played a show again after their last with John Bonham. Then, any show after that should not be called a Led Zeppelin reunion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.172.66 (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty obviously an individual can perform with a band without becoming a member and I don't see how performing songs not previously performed live makes the slightest difference. However, consensus can change, if you want to make the change than you need to pursue editors here of your case. Until that is done the this aspect of the article should remain as it is.--SabreBD (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Editorial comment

Second paragraph says "album-orientated" as a link to another article. This seems like a language error to me. It should be "album-oriented." I don't want to just go correct this as there appears to be another article affected, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The link goes to a redirect to album-oriented rock, so that's not an issue. Can anyone conversant in British English tell me if that awkward sounding phrase sounds melodious to your Queens' ears?LedRush (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm that the Queen talks like that all the time. It is on the list at American and British English spelling differences.--SabreBD (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

But it brings up an old issue, that of linking to a radio format. Zeppelin most certainly did not invent the format, which existed in the US for a few years before the band's founding, and that's not what the passage is trying to say. Led Zeppelin didn't even pioneer the concept of the album being a unified whole rather than a couple of singles and a lot of filler. We need a better way to say this. But yes, 'orientated' is a 'real word' in the UK. Radiopathy •talk• 00:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

All of that is a pretty good summary of the problem. We can delink it, but it is quite likely that someone will relink it, but you are probably right that we need to rephrase it. Nothing springs to mind at the moment, but I am open to suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with all re: wording sounding like the radio format and 'there must be a better way' lean.. Radiopathy is 100% correct LZ were not the first to press the album as a complete piece of art rather than a collection of singles. The prose, simplified, says "they didn't release singles because they preferred to establish the concept of album-orientated rock"... The problem words are establish, concept and album-oriented and actually... 'rock' as a closing word on the sentence. (it's what turns it into that dreaded radio format) Reworded to their wishes... "the band did not release singles because they preferred their albums to be seen as a complete musical work and not just a compilation of hit songs" Not worth noting in the lead... but just as much a driving force (from Peter Grant, Page et al) was that they would make a lot more money and sell a lot more albums if they didn't break them into singles. Money, as much as art, was a key factor in there. Unlike other bands who were completely shafted by their management... members of LZ were well informed of their cash intake... so not releasing singles in order to fill the coffers higher would have been deep in their minds... while they were creating/releasing their 'art-in-album-form' 142.167.92.76 (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with that new form of words, which I think is a much better summary of the situation. You are right that there were commercial reasons involved as well, which are a too complex to mention in the lead. It might be worth considering them in the main text (in the early years section just after "and Grant maintained an aggressive pro-album stance" perhaps - although that will need a new source I think).--SabreBD (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IP and Sabrebd. Which is the source in the body which support the new wording?LedRush (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked through the sources for something that supported this. Erlewine in the Allmusic article says that "Led Zeppelin established the concept of album-oriented rock, refusing to release popular songs from their albums as singles" (which may be where this comment in the lead originated from), but that is not factually accurate (especially for the US), nor particularly helpful. Wall has a lot on this topic and it is not particularly easy to sum up. Dealing with the lack of a release of "Whole Lotta Love" in the UK he says that there was an official statement from Grant's office that it wouldn't be released because it was "part of the concept of the album" and that Page said "the two fields aren't related scenes to my mind", but suggesting that it was also because the singles edited out integral parts of the tracks and messed up his production. Wall then goes on to suggest a lot of reasons why Grant was reluctant - including that the single wouldn't do very well in the UK (because the BBC wouldn't play it), and that more benefit and publicity would be gained from "taking a stand". I think it would be legitimate to use this to produce something in the lead like: "the band disliked the releasing of tracks as singles, preferring their albums to be viewed as indivisible, whole listening experiences" (using the current wording from the main body). We could then perhaps add "helping to promote the concept of album orientated rock". The helping to promote aor is sourced in the Legacy section, and in this version would not be their intention, but I can live with just leaving that clause out. I think perhaps we could have a bit more detail in the early years section on the band's and Grant's stances - by which I mean an extra clause in existing sentences.--SabreBD (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well researched and argued. Your proposal makes sense to me.LedRush (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Support here as well. Radiopathy •talk• 01:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any opposition to the proposal, so that now done.--SabreBD (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Acts influenced by

In the Talk:Led Zeppelin#Led Zeppelin is NOT HEAVY METAL thread, I suggested that we should include Deep Purple to the list of influenced acts. Since then Iron Maiden have been added to the list (which I have reverted for now). A reminder to readers that we cut down the list considerably before GA and I certainly do not wish to go back to the endless acts that were there before. However, a rationale for Purple is that they are also considered formative acts in the development of heavy rock/metal, but that they only changed their sound after hearing Led Zep II. I guess a rationale for Iron Maiden is that are one of the key acts in the NWOBHM. However, we cannot list every heavy metal act, for the obvious reason that Zeppelin pretty much influenced them all. Any views on whether we should include one or both of these?--SabreBD (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There were no objections so I added Purple. I remain on the fence about Iron Maiden, so have not added them at this time.--SabreBD (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a couple threads I've been thinking about (I used Zeppelin as an example, I was thinking all music articles) influences, response. As I mentioned in this discussion the "more notable five" (or so) would undoubtedly include Purple. Mlpearc (powwow) 15:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. I am not sure if a hard rule of five can be applied across all articles. It depends in part on the type and extent of influence. It might be necessary to have more to indicate different forms of influence and some bands might influence a few significant bands in a lot of genres (which might mean several examples), while another might influence a lot of bands in one genre (which suggest that very few are needed). The mistake often made on Wikipedia is in believing that the scale of a list in some way demonstrates greater importance. I definitely agree that in this article we should keep Purple and Sabbath when everything else is gone - as influencing those bands probably makes Zeppelin the most important band in the development of hard rock and heavy metal (although those bands could and have claimed that they took things further).--SabreBD (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "five" would be probably next to impossible to write in stone on some articles but, I still feel that the concept would be worth cleaning up some pages and the idea from Yoenit that if needed a "List of" type pages could be created. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin is NOT HEAVY METAL

Led Zep was NOT heavy metal, hard rock at most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.12.175.223 (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I quickly pulled this up [13], not the best source of the hundreds I'm sure that not only consider Zeppelin heavy metal, but also as part of its very incarnation.--Racerx11 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed so many times, the fact that RSs consider them heavy metal is beyond intelligent dispute.LedRush (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is such a dead topic it should be banned from this talk page. The band invented the genre and it would not have grown to what it is without them. Mr Pyles (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's well known that Zeppelin, Sabbath and Purple are the "parents" of heavy metal. It was this "infant" they left behind, and this discussion is as old as Heavy and Metal. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hard rock or heavy metal, regardless; i have included the line, they are indeed the parents with the other two bands.HasperHunter (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Zeppelin were not metal - by any stretch of the imagination; it's a blanket insult to everything they did to call them that. Radiopathy •talk• 01:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It says hard rock and heavy metal. Look carefully... And No one denies Heavy metal came from hard rock.HasperHunter (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I have provided references for that. Do not engage in further edits unless you have a point to prove here.HasperHunter (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, your explanation seems more of your own point of view. Saying: "it would be an insult to everything they did to call them that" - this is violating WP:NPOVHasperHunter (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you've been editing Wikipedia for two weeks now, so I'm sure you know how it all works. Radiopathy •talk• 17:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I may be editing for two weeks but have been viewing this article for more than 2 years now. Originally the comment was there, removing it was questionable and was done without consensus. So if you wish to remove it, provide ample references and reach a consensus before you delete it.HasperHunter (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Then you're aware that this became an GA because of a lot of work by a lot of editors. It would be nice to keep it that way, and not have to deal with instability and contentious edits.

Radiopathy •talk• 17:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Listen, there are 5 wikipedians that have agreed that the line holds and you are the only one going against it.The line was removed with or without the approval of the ones tagging it a great article is out of question. The reference provided clearly says they were considered pioneers of heavy metal. I actually am mediating between the extremes and have said both heavy metal and hard rock. And, as of now, you have no point to prove than your own point of view.HasperHunter (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two editors in that discussion who disagree, and you are the one pushing his own opinion by reverting, harassing other editors and not allowing ample time for discussion. Stop. Radiopathy •talk• 17:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

yeah? You are the one accusing others not me. The posts you have put in my talk page includes accusing and harassing me personally. One Editor is a unregistered wikipedian (anyone with a computer can do this). You are the only one against. We have references to back the claim. you dont! BTW this discussion was here months ago before you even started in wikipedia. So i would suggest you to go back in the edit history.HasperHunter (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing that the band were heavy metal, or that they help form heavy metal, cannot be taken as agreement that you can put in your particular edit. I suggest you take a step back and a deep breath, take care to consider Wikipedia:Civility and WP:Consensus and then carefully state your case for this proposed change. Engaging in endless reverts without consensus is not likely to help get what you want. Given the number of reverts you should also be aware of the WP:3RR.--SabreBD (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No one is asking anyone to agree they are heavy metal. The line is saying they were pioneers of heavy metal and hard rock. This discussion is worthless if you both are not willing to understand. I have carefully stated my case with reference and citation saying the exact line.No more to discuss if you both do not come up with a proof that can falsify the comment. Removing it was not agreeable in the 1st place way before this talk even started. I took a mediator role saying both 'heavy metal' and 'hard rock'. You both did not contribute to the talk page before reverting and should be aware of WP:3RR yourselves. The reference holds and is of a well known book. Disagreement needs to have some well cited clarifications.HasperHunter (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The case is simple. The beginning of the article says Led Zeppelin is a rock band thus taking the 'rock' point of view. And at the end, they are declared as the pioneers of the two genres with reference by a book. Any music lover in this world would know heavy metal originated from hard rock. So not to consider Led Zeppelin as pioneers of these genres would actually be an insult in fact. So what Radiopathy suggested can be seen in this way too.HasperHunter (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

For myself I do not disagree that they pioneered HM, but that is covered elsewhere in the article. I am not convinced that we need to put this in the lead in this way, but I am happy to be persuaded if a significant body of editors agree the case. Others may have different objections of course. Please note: regardless of any source you cite, the content of the article still needs consensus here.--SabreBD (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would lean towards including the proposed edit, perhaps with the omission of the two other bands. We make a strong case in the body of the article regarding LZ's influence on the haavy metal and hard rock categories, and whatever your personal opinion is, it cannot be disputed that critics regard them as heavy metal and hard rock music, and that critics widely credit them either with the invention of the genre of heavy metal, or the popularization of it.LedRush (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem calling them heavy metal... they invented it. NO heavy metal would exist without them. The added statement is completely true. BUT, that being said... I see no reason to bash it home right in the first paragraph of the lead in. It would be better suited in a musical style section (similar to other acts who cross many genres) I can agree with LedRush to the idea that if it does stay in the lead... there is no reason to name drop the other 2 founding bands. Both Deep Purple and Black Sabbath have said many times that they changed their own musical style immediately after hearing Led Zeppelin. "Led Zeppelin are considered to be one of the pioneers of heavy metal" is 100% true. Supported by the reference. And nothing more needs to be said after that. Mr Pyles (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Heavy metal would exist without Led Zeppelin because of the work of The Kinks, Vanilla Fudge, The MC5, Steppenwolf, etc., - all of whom existed before Zeppelin. I was alive during the time that all of these bands were active, and the term most often heard in regards to style was "heavy music", not heavy metal; that term probably didn't even enter the lexicon until the early 70s, and it was rare that it was applied to Led Zeppelin. I'm at once amused and resentful that younger editors are attempting to rewrite musical history out of ignorance and then claiming to be right because they have 'reliable sources'.

I concede that the opinion that Led Zeppelin are considered by many to have been a metal band should be acknowledged, but like the others, don't feel the need to name the two other bands. Radiopathy •talk• 23:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

When I saw Led Zeppelin in the early 70s (twice)... they were a great heavy metal band. I was nearly deafened by their onstage power... John Bonham and JPJ were a potent rhythm section, second only to Moon/Entwistle. (who I also saw several times between 1970 and 1973) BTW... thanks for the young editor compliment... made my day. Take care. Mr Pyles (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What was it that made them heavy metal other than wishful thinking? Radiopathy •talk• 00:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sidestepping the HM debate, and putting aside my disappointment that everyone editing this article seems to be as old as me, it seems we have the basis for a consensus here. It looks to me as if editors can accept something in the lead that indicates that they are "seen as pioneers of heavy metal", but that we do not need to namecheck Sabbath and Purple. I suggest that this goes in the final paragraph of the lead, reflecting the place where this is dealt with in the article body. It has also struck me that we should probably put Deep Purple in the bands influenced list, as it helps makes Zeppelin's influence a bit clearer, whether or not we think they are HM. As noted above, Purple have been clear that they adjusted their sound after hearing Zeppelin, so this is pretty easy to source. I will implement this in a day or two, unless there are reasoned objections.--SabreBD (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the sentence you have edited. And there is consensus now with everyone. One a side note, I saw some comments about young editors, people rewriting history etc. A small suggestion would be to study 'relativity'. People might just miss to get a chance to know who the editors really are ;). Surprise!HasperHunter (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no hurry. As I said, leave a day or two at least for anyone to raise objections to the specific change proposed please.--SabreBD (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Alright, I'll object: who cares if some hack feels that Zeppelin were metal and ranks them right up there with the likes of Deep Purple and Black Sabbath? What does that prove, and how does it improve the article? It doesn't: it gives undue weight to the opinion that Led Zeppelin are heavy metal and says nothing of all the other genres which inspired them and made them who they were. They were essentially a blues and rock band who also experimented with other styles - it's some members of the media and some fans who hung the metal label on them.

Additionally, I think that in light of how we were forced to deal with this topic by a particularly aggressive, disruptive editor, that we should all agree that the 'proposed' change should not be added to the article in any form. Radiopathy •talk• 23:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The new intro works for me. Mlpearc (powwow) 23:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean the one that has been implemented by and ip, or the suggestion I made above? - or possibly you dont care which.--SabreBD (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the sentence is OK although it can be merged with the preceding sentence (with the weasel wording removed. IE: "They are one of the most successful, innovative and influential rock groups in the history of music and are considered to be one of the pioneers of heavy metal and modern hard rock." The whole 'widely considered' wording in anything on Wikipedia is just poor writing style. As far as them being pioneers of heavy metal/hard rock... whichever (in the 70s thats a pretty interchangeable term)... that is not offensive in any way shape or form to anyone who was there... saw it... and understood. Mr Pyles (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Radiopathy, I thought you agreed of the new version, Did you not say above :" I concede that the opinion that Led Zeppelin are considered by many to have been a metal band should be acknowledged, but like the others, don't feel the need to name the two other bands.">>> we are not naming the other bands.

The case is closed.HasperHunter (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If the case is closed, let me reopen it. The lede already stated "Their first two albums, with their heavy, guitar-driven blues rock sound, led to Led Zeppelin being regularly cited as one of the progenitors of heavy metal and hard rock, even though the band's individualistic style drew from varied sources and transcends any single music genre." For that reason, the last sentence in the first paragraph should be deleted ("They are considered to be among the pioneers of heavy metal and modern hard rock."), and this whole discussion was unnecessary in my opinion.LedRush (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit I share Radiopathy's misgivings about how this is being pushed on the article. It was happy to go along with a consensus that wanted to add something new, but we clearly do not have that. LedRush is right, we do not need to say this twice. Both sides of the debate were happy with what was there before, so I hope they will be happy to return to the status quo. I cannot say I particularly wish to waste more time on this, or to see unnecessary arguments fostered among editors for whom I have a lot of respect. There are so many more important things to be doing right now.--SabreBD (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Sorry. The middle ground was to remove other two bands names and keep the sentence. I and others agreed. LedRush is the only one questioning this part now.HasperHunter (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck off, mate. Radiopathy •talk• 23:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mind it.HasperHunter (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We have new proposals and, including myself I see three editors here who would rather have no change. In any case, the one thing that is clear is that there is no consensus for the version that keeps being re-added. So please just wait until other editors have had a change to reply. This article will still be here and there is no great hurry to declare a debate closed.--SabreBD (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Sabrebd, sorry the late response. The "works for me" I was referring to is "They are considered to be among the pioneers of heavy metal and modern hard rock." Mlpearc (powwow) 04:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Very reasonable. It's a fact worth celebrating twice... but the way it is written in the 2nd paragraph is sufficient enough. Al long as children claiming to be elderly children don't get all whiny-baby over the second paragraph try and remove that part now as well... its back to my original post at the top of this thread... this subject should be a banned topic. Its done n done. Mr Pyles (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban. Mlpearc (powwow) 19:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am against the topic ban as long as that line is not mentioned in the 1st paragraph. I have agreed to remove the other two bands name in the setences respecting the fact that the bands have explained they have their own style and flavor thus own kind of genres. However, its a universal fact that heavy metal originated from hard rock and Led Zeppelin are the pioneers of these genres. Not mentioning is not appropriate.HasperHunter (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sure you are, but it looks as if opinion is running in favour of the status quo anti, the point being that it is already mentioned in the lead.--SabreBD (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed what you were talking about the lead. I had missed that progenitor line all the time. I am OK with this :).HasperHunter (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear. So this may be the most pointless discussion ever as we have basically argued and then noticed we didn't need to do anything, but missing it is much more embarrassing for me than anyone else as I rewrote the lead not that long ago. I would just like to point out that I didn't do this to prove my status as an the most elderly editor here and I am just off to get some new glasses.--SabreBD (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The question is, ultimately, wether or not John Bonham, or the other members of Led Zeppelin when the music was being created considered their work "heavy metal." If they did not, then Led Zeppelin is not heavy metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.169.38 (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That argument was already killed and buried many times over going all the way back to the earliest years of Wikipedia. ANd it still stands. The artist cannot determine what they play simply because they don't like the title... or the community it attaches them to. Lemmy claims Motorhead is simply a rock n roll band... Alice Cooper said the original Alice Cooper band was nithing more than garage rock... and they're heavy metal... no different than Led Zeppelin. Every heavy metal band from the 70s would have perpetually sounded like Aerosmith had Led Zeppelin not played across so many so many genres and styles. Black Sabbath may have been the slab it was built on. But the reason heavy metal splintered into so many different sub-genres in the early 1980s had zero to do with Black Sabbath... and everything to do with what Led Zeppelin had already created. Their break-up following the death of John Bonham jumpstarted such a new interest in them in what they had done... it was like they invented heavy metal all over again. Mr Pyles (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So basically people of this argument are saying in hindsight "hey this is what its called even though thats not what you called it." You have to use terms they used at the time, not terms invented after the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.169.38 (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we don't. Wikipedia is full of articles that use retrospective terminology. More importantly this has been debated to death on this talkpage and there is little appetite for revisiting this, as can be seen above.--SabreBD (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Many historians will tell you that using "retrospective terminology" is a historical fallacy. The article may call it heavy metal, but that does not mean the article is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.169.38 (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The picture needs to be changed.

The current picture is horrible. It shows pictures of Bonzo, Robert, and Jimmy playing live in their heyday, and then you have John Paul's photo, in which he looks HORRRIBLE. He should have a GOOD live photo, from Led Zep's heyday, just like the rest of the guys. Akdrummer75 (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Give us some free examples to pick from. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Progressive rock and psychedelic rock

I suggest adding these as genres. I would think we should come to consensus. Ledheadtilldeath 02:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. If you check the archives of this page you will find that there have been many discussions about genres in the infobox and what is there now is the product of complex discussions and hard fought negotiations. It is worth noting that the guidelines for the infobox point to the need to generality, so there is no imperative to put in every sub-genre. In addition to that, the band were never psychedelic in the way that the original Yardbirds were and their music lacks most of the major elements associated with that genre. The band was also never primarily a progressive rock band, with one album a bit influenced by progressive rock. The most important history of Prog rock, by Macan, specifically indicates that they were not a progressive group. So I would argue for leaving the genres as they are.--SabreBD (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That album particularly being In Through The Out Door. Ledheadtilldeath (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

As Sabrebd points out Zeppelin was never psychedelic IMO, there were only two things psychedelic about Zeppelin and that was parts of The Song Remains the Same and most of the fans. Floyd had the market on Psychedelic rock. The whole idea of an Infobox is a "quick look, reference" of the article subject. A quick look at Zeppelin is "they were Hard rock, heavy metal", any sub-genre's or other aspect of their style or influence can (and I believe is) handled in prose. I feel the same as Sabrebd, leave "as is". Mlpearc (powwow) 00:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

2008 reunion in the lead

Does anybody else think that the 2008 reunion is dealt with in too much detail? It is just one show after all.—indopug (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sure eventually the recentism of 2007-8 will have to be changed to something along the lines of "they had a series of reunions". I am just not sure we are far enough away from it yet.--SabreBD (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't place undue emphasis on something just because it happened recently. Reducing the 2008 reunion info will also free up some space for the post-LZ4 albums, which are absent from the lead. Maybe a new third para from "Subsequent albums saw greater experimentation..." onwards, ending with "Their latest reunion was the well-received 2008 Ahmet Ertugun Concert in London, with Bonham's son Jason on drums"?—indopug (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead balloon

The phrase "lead balloon" is not only a British idiom, it is very much an American idiom. Since my youth (more years ago than I care to mention) I can recall people using the phrase "That will go over like a lead balloon." The only British-ism in the article is "go down like a lead balloon." I've never heard it used that way in American English. It's always "go over like a lead balloon." A minor point, perhaps. But a good Wikipedia article should never be misleading, even in small details. Gdthayer (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Band's Plagiarism is Notorious

Led Zeppelin's first two albums are chock-a-block with plagiarism, including the most notorious rip-off, Jake Homes' "Dazed and Confused". Yet this article gives the issue short shrift, just one dismissive sentence. And you call this neutral? How can it be neutral when the issue has been cleansed so that this hagiography remains undisturbed?Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have 3rd party reliable sources ? you might be able to sway consensus. Mlpearc (powwow) 05:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a long standing consensus to give this the light touch here and accordingly I reverted this. Consensus can change of course, but accusing other editors of hagiography is frankly unlikely to do it.--SabreBD (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Their plagiarism was blatant and went well beyond their first two albums. There are many, many tracks. There are a LOT of examples on YouTube by way of outright side by side comparisons of Zepp songs and the originals they clearly copied and never credited the sources, and I don't know how in blazes they got away with it for so long. I like Zeppelin but this topic should be a full section in this band's bio if there is to be actual credibility here, as it is a part of their legacy and has clearly been proven. They weren't quite as "creative" as they are made out to be, for damn sure. It's a joke if it isn't brought out here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.253.178 (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

For any editors who may be on the fence, the evidence is thick. Here are links to some of the YouTube exposés noted above: Led Zeppelin Plagiarism Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and 10 Examples. Led Zeppelin did not anticipate the Information Age (kinda like how Jefferson did not foresee DNA testing). This topic needs to be covered in this article! There are legal cases that can be cited. I see this issue to be so important as to warrant a separate article. Here's one possible title...

Led Zeppelin: "The World's Greatest Cover Band"

Ok, my input here will probably be better received if I stay strictly serious. Some may even see me as a Zep hater, but it's quite the opposite. I've been a huge Zep fan for most of my life. Ever since I was a teen, I learned to play a bunch of their songs. And still decades later I go watch tribute band performances. But the facts are the facts, and that is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. This article, as it currently stands, fails to tell the whole story.--Vybr8 (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The article contained a section on this subject from 2007 to 2011 (see previous version). It was deleted here after a brief discussion between two editors here. Piriczki (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not in favour in bringing it back. The current treatment seems balanced to me in the context of the article and Wikipedia. Also, please note there is a difference between plagiarism and copyright violations. No one ever gets sued for plagiarism in the music industry - just as well really as everyone would be in court. If you want to create an article about it have the sources then I suggest you go ahead.--SabreBD (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those pointers, Piriczki. I actually thought that was a solidly written section. The only edit I've made for now is to add the link to that first YouTube video (Part 1 of 3) to the External Links section. I expect many others will find that enlightening. As more editors get educated on the matter, we will be able to achieve a smarter consensus on which way to go in having the article cover the issue.--Vybr8 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This presents several problems. One is that, except for official channels, You Tube is generally considered unsuitable as an external link (see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#You Tube). The second, and connected point is that, despite what is being claimed here, use of these songs is almost certainly a copyright violation and Wikipedia tries to avoid these as a major priority.--SabreBD (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an editor, btw, but concerned about the lack of mention of the plagiarism and copyright violations. Agreed plagiarism isn't a crime unless you are successfully sued for copyright violations or royalties. Willie Dixon's Wikipedia page mentions "Dixon is also noted for a lawsuit against Led Zeppelin in regards to the song, Whole Lotta Love. It was settled out of court and he is now credited for the song." Surely that's worth mentioning? I think he also had to sue for Bring It On Home. There are so many ripoffs. Jake Holmes' Wikipedia page also mentions "The song appeared on Holmes' debut, "The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes (1967). Led Zeppelin does not credit Holmes with authorship of their song. A Yardbirds live recording from French TV series "Bouton Rouge" (recorded on 9 March 1968) was released on Cumular Limit in 2000, credited as "Dazed and Confused" by Jake Holmes arr. Yardbirds.[8]". Holmes sued Page for copyright infringement in 2010. "This court case (CASE NO. CV10-4789-DMG-PJW) was "dismissed with prejudice" at the request of the plaintiff (Holmes) — presumably because the parties settled out of court — in January 2012." (Wikipedia Dazed and Confused (song)). And then there's Anne Bredon and Babe I'm Gonna Leave You (Wikipedia Babe I'm Gonna Leave You). And a list of actions and settlements in Wikipedia Musical Plagiarism. So there's five "in-house" references that are safe from the above worries about copyright violation. I'm a big fan of Led Zep - I have at least five of their albums, all paid for - and am horrified that nearly all my favourite tunes of theirs are taken from other songwriters. Doesn't take away from their musicianship, but honestly, they've made squillions off those tunes, and didn't even credit the originals. I think the editors of this page need to put "loyalty to the band" aside and report boldly and truthfully. I think those who know of the above violations don't think that the page IS balanced. (Sorry, forgot to sign first time...) --Andrew P61.9.205.88 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the article

It says to post here before changing the lead section of the article. There is a statement that says "111.5 million certified units in the United States rank them as the second-best-selling band in the US". Clicking the link to the list of "List of best-selling music artists in the United States" will show they are either 4th on the list currently or 2nd UK band on there. I think this should be updated. Gicronin (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

They are second best selling band, because the two others are solo artists not bands. Is that the bit you mean?--SabreBD (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sabrebd is correct if that's is what you are referring to but, my main reason for this post is to thank you for discussing a change here before making it, this really is much easier Mlpearc (powwow) 22:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It is quite odd that some think that a band may equal to a solo musician. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection of the article

The title of the section suggests that you want the article to be semi-protected. You can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 15:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 January 2013

In the first paragraph under Early years (1968-70), please change "...followed by other East Coast dates..." to "...followed by other West Coast dates..." After Denver on 26th Dec, the band played (in succession) Seattle, Vancouver, Portland and Spokane before flying to California. All of these are on the West Coast. - Thank you. Macmillancancer 20:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Origin of name Led Zeppelin

I can't believe at this late date this story still isn't right. Keith Moon and John Entwistle used the term "lead zeppelin." Not "lead balloon." A "lead zeppelin" was John Entwistle's term for a bad gig. Around the time of the "Beck's Bolero" recording session a super group was proposed consisting of Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck, The Who's rhythm section (Moon & Entwistle) and a number of potential singers such as Steve Marriott of The Small Faces. This information is in various books about Led Zeppelin and The Who. The Keith Moon biography by Tony Fletcher is one. My edit to the lede of this article was reverted because it wasn't discussed. So let's discuss it and fix the article. Clashwho (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've got a copy of Dear Boy - The Life of Keith Moon by Tony Fletcher, and if somebody reminds me, I will dig out my hard copy and cite the ISBN and page - that should convince most people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Right, I've found my copy and on page 225 it says "either Entwistle or Moon (they both subsequently laid claim for it) went so far as to suggest a name for the prospective band: Lead Zeppelin, from the days when people would ask how a show had gone, and they would reply, "'We went down like a lead balloon". So there you go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. So why have we not fixed it yet? The name "Lead Zeppelin" came from Moon and Entwistle. Their suggestion for the name of the band was not "Lead Balloon". 63.169.112.79 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Led & Lead

Not earth shattering but should the reason for the spelling of Led not be recorded as a result of the likely misunderstanding of the English spelling by an American audience? I don't know what the exact source of this is (it make sense anyway) but I have a vague recollection of hearing, somewhere, that an individual concerned with the band pointed it out. Zeegoman (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I read this in one of their biographies. I wouldn't recommend including - it was just a random musing by someone associated with the band. "Lead", the metal, is not an "English spelling" - it's spelt and pronounced the same way in the States. There is no sensible reason that Americans would have been prone to mispronouncing the name than Brits. The person responsible for the quote was just trying to be funny.--Zoso Jade (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations

The article's citation system is broken. Several footnotes don't have corresponding references, and vice versa. I also see that, in Dec–Jan, User:Plant's Strider (now indef-blocked for sockpuppetry, btw) made several changes to the articles references. Any ideas as to what the easiest way to fix this is?—indopug (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I did think I had fixed this, but my attempt just created a series of new problems. The easiest way I can think of dealing with this is revert to the pre-Plant Strider version and then re-add the changes that are worth keeping. I admit that is not all that easy, so I am open to other suggestions. I had plans to have a go at this over Easter if editors can put up with it until then.--SabreBD (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that would be the easiest way (great minds...), and did it. I've checked that every footnote has a corresponding reference now, but haven't verified the opposite. Anyway, cheers.—indopug (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No history merge

An editor worked on this article in user space and then brought the new changes to the article in one single edit: "Pasting from my sandbox. 1 week of work." Later, the editor asked for the article history and the sandbox history be merged. I think such a merge is wholly unneeded, as there were no other users taking part in the sandbox work, no disputes, no edit conflicts, nothing that requires a difficult history merge. The 24 March "pasting" of changes is sufficient to show the user's work. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 19:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

More craziness here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Plant's_Strider. MadeinJapan proves to be a sockpuppet. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

My recent changes

A week of my work to the article has recently been reverted, and I don't see any reasons to do so. There are major sourcing issues in the previous version (incorrect page numbers, WP:RS, WP:IMAGESIZE, etc.). I'm pushing the article toward FAC. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 22:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

One major reason is that your edits changed the formatting of all of the pictures in the article. This means that the discouragement of size forcing in the MOS has been undone and that the guideline on eyes facing the text has also been broken (see MOS:IMAGE). There also see to be a lot of other problems. For example, the guideline on years seems to have been ignored in the infobox. There are also a lot of minor changes that I am not sure are improvements and would like to consider. I also think you may have undone some the work undertaken this week to put right the problems with the references, but it is difficult to check this. I think it is best that you explain exactly what changes you are doing and we consider them here before implementing them wholesale. You may find it frustrating to have a weeks work undone, but if you do not get consensus for major changes first this is likely to happen. Also bear in mind that a lot more work than that went into getting this article to GA status and keeping it there. It might be best to start with the changes to the citations, which are very hard to see in an edit preview. As far as I was aware there were no "citation problems" left, but you may well have spotted some.--SabreBD (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me kick in and say that there were tons of citation problems which I fixed. There were several (not many) instances of unsourced material. Can you show me at least one citation problem in my version? As for the image part, the guidlines says that text should face the images, which means that text should be left and images should be right. As for the image size, the guideline suggests using "upright", which is exactly what I did. I deeply appreciate the work you've done on this article, but what about accepting my version (which clearly improves on the current) and then making minor tweaks to it? (if needed) MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 22:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That is not what what the guidelines say: which is "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text", obviously that alone means it must be possible to have images on the left, even without the next line, which is "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left". Size forcing is discouraged, although exceptions include when detail is unimportant, such as in an image of a flag. It is already quite hard to see, so there is no reason to reduce them further, since some effort has been made to avoid any other problems. Is will probably take me a while to look through all the changes to the references as you propose.--SabreBD (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes that I made (in a nutshell):

• Improved sourcing -- corrected the page numbers. Substituted many online sources with books (WP:RS).
• Added detail.
• Rewrote the lead. It needed to be done from scratch.
• Removed redundant references.
• Made some corrections per comments from the failed FAC.

Sabrebd, if image size is the only thing that's wrong with my revision, then we can simply approve my change and you can adjust the sizes. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 00:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The changes to the article itself seem massive and are hard to gauge. I saw many examples of changes with which I would not agree, but it is difficult to assess on such a scaleLedRush (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What about applying my changes, since it clearly improves on the current version, and then making tweaks to it? MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 11:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Since I haven't received much feedback, I'm going to amend my changes and please, instead of fully reverting, only change the things that you don't agree with. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 22:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS. You clearly do not have consensus for your changes. You have had two editors comment and both have asked you not to implement your changes. I certainly need more time to look into all the citation changes and I disagree with a lot of the others. You have also not even waited 24-hours before reverting. Not everyone checks talk pages every hour and some of us occasionally work and sleep. You will have to be a bit more patient and see if consensus emerges. It would also help if you actually explained what you are trying to do.--SabreBD (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"It would also help if you actually explained what you are trying to do." I think it's very clear what I'm actually trying to do -- I'm pushing the article toward the FA-status. There's a reason why the article failed at FAC twice. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 00:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I mean in particular, not your general aim. I think you need explain each major part of your edits here, so that editors can consider them. I also have to add, the best way to do this was not to revert to your first edit (which among other things put the image problems discussed above). Doing this means that if editors want to get back to a workable version they can either pick through all your changes adjusting the ones they agree with, or revert the lot. You really cannot expect editors to have that sort of patience when you have ignored the issues and objects raised here and gone ahead with making the changes again. It would be best if you reverted back your own edits and came back here so that you can get consensus for your changes, as you should do under WP:BRD.--SabreBD (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A general list of changes that I introduced can be seen above, and if you're interested in any edit in particular, you can ask me and I'll provide reasoning.

• WP:IMGSIZE: "...unless you use upright with a scaling factor, so the use of upright is preferred wherever sensible."

If there are any particular changes that you and other editors disagree with, please post here. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Since MadeinJapan was a sock of Plant's Strider, I have reverted back to the version before the radical changes began. We didn't do this last time and ended up in a mess that indopug very kindly waded through and put right. Although they were problematic edits (including issues of images, grammar, spelling, paragraphs) they were not all negative so I will try to go through them and see what might be useful, although the lack of edit summaries makes this very difficult.--SabreBD (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the lack of edit summaries was mostly my fault (see the SPI archive for the reason why). Let's hope the next thing to go is the edits themselves. :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not a fault. Since we will no doubt have to live with another incarnation soon it underlines the importance of major edits having descriptions. I also think the only way of stabilising the article is to get it through FA. Accordingly I am chugging through the last set of FA recommendations. The major issues are in the citations. Not for the last time, I wish I had never gone over to this system (probably at the suggestion of an earlier incarnation): sfn numbers are hard to manipulate, easy to get wrong and very hard to make consistent. Any help or suggestions for improvement at this stage are very welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it should be too hard to work up to FA status, and I'd be glad to help. I'm a big Zeppelin fan, but I regrettably don't own many books on them. I'll take a look next week and see what can be done about sourcing. Sfn templates can get tedious, but it seems to be something FAC reviewers like, for whatever reason. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yardbirds as associated act

Discussion

I'm wondering whether or not the Yardbirds meet the criteria to be listed as an associated acts. According to the relevant template documentation, we should avoid including "[g]roups with only one member in common," implying that groups with multiple members in common are okay to include. So... how many members do Led Zeppelin and the Yardbirds have in common? As I see it, the answer is either 1 or 4, and nowhere in between. Page was a member of the Yardbirds from 1966 to 1968, the same year he formed the New Yardbirds with Plant, Jones, and Bonham. While I believe it's generally accepted that Led Zeppelin is essentially the same band as the New Yardbirds, I don't know that music journalists or other reliable sources commonly consider the "New" Yardbirds to be "The" Yardbirds. If they are considered the same band (or two variations of a single band), then I think the Yardbirds definitely belongs in the field. If not, then we only have Jimmy Page as a shared member, and we should not include it. Any thoughts? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to say no, the Yardbirds are not an associated act of Zep, with only one member in common and no chronological overlap between the two. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this change. Per the template guideline, the general aim of "this field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career." The guideline also includes "Groups which have spun off from this group"; Led Zeppelin is definitely the successor group to the Yardbirds; heck, they even called themselves the New Yardbirds as they were fulfilling the Yardbirds' touring obligations. The second paragraph of Formation in the article confirms as much. There's also the fact that the management of the two bands (namely, the great Peter Grant) was the same.

I think it's thus clear that the Yardbirds and Led Zeppelin were closely related bands.—indopug (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts: "This field can include, for example, any of the following: A group from which this group has spun off". Which would seem to imply that the New Yardbirds are associated, since Zep "spun-off" of them, but they didn't spin-off the Yardbirds. Further it also says: "The following uses of this field should be avoided: Groups with only one member in common". Since Led Zeppelin and the Yardbirds have only one member in common, the prescription would seem to imply that the Yardbirds should not be added as an associated act with Zep, but that the New Yardbirds could be. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

But see, I'm not convinced that the New Yardbirds ever existed as a separate act for them to spin off from. All sources I've seen seem to treat them as an early version/billing of Led Zeppelin, like Spectrum Five or the Tea Set for Pink Floyd. If they spun off from one, it would make the most sense for it to be the Yardbirds, since Page essentially thought he was forming a new lineup of that band (or at least a new band under their name) when he assembled the members. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you in this regard Evan, however; the article currently states: "the band completed the Scandinavian tour as the New Yardbirds". So its not clear to me how a band that never existed could complete a tour. Also, if the Yardbirds are an associated act with Zep, then they have only one member in common, right? What am I missing? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean that the New Yardbirds didn't exist, just that they weren't really a separate group from Led Zeppelin. Pink Floyd played lots of shows as the Tea Set, but no one really considers them a separate group from Pink Floyd. All the members of the "two" bands were the same, in contrast to (for example) the Quarrymen, who had lots of members who were never part of the the Beatles, even though that band spun off from them. This case is more analogous to the Tea Set/Pink Floyd situation rather than Quarrymen/Beatles. Regarding the "one member" thing, I agree and that is the main reason I removed the Yardbirds in the first place. I find the opposing arguments reasonable enough, though, and I'd be willing to disregard that and add the Yardbirds back if there's consensus. It is a guideline, after all, and not policy. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would we call Zep a spin-off band of the Yardbirds when "they" recorded an album as the New Yardbirds after Page left the Yardbirds? The Yardbirds → The New Yardbirds → Led Zeppelin. Are we skipping over the New Yardbirds, which seems more like an associated act with Zep, having more then one member in common and having recorded an album with several members in common? What are the opposing arguments that you find reasonable enough to skip over the New Yardbirds in favour of the Yardbirds? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. No one ever recorded an album under the New Yardbirds name. The Yardbirds are closely associated with Led Zeppelin, historically and musically, whether or not it meets the technical definition set down by the infobox documentation, whereas the New Yardbirds are universally seen as an early name used by Led Zeppelin. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if I'm incorrect, then so is the Wikipedia article, which currently states: "The band completed the Scandinavian tour as the New Yardbirds ... Later that month, they began recording their first album, which was based on their live set. The album was recorded and mixed in nine days, and Page himself covered the costs.[20] After the album's completion, the band were forced to change their name after Dreja issued a cease and desist letter, stating that Page was only allowed to use the New Yardbirds moniker for the Scandinavian dates.[21]"(emphasis added) To me, that means they recorded an album before changing their name to Zep. Whether or not it was released as the New Yardbirds is another question entirely. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's a fair point, but I'm not sure it undermines my position in any way. After all, the public billing of a group is certainly much more important to their identity than a name that (at least as far as its connection to the album is concerned) may have only appeared on studio documentation. The question still remains as to why the New Yardbirds should be considered anything other than the original name of Led Zeppelin. Why do the New Yardbirds belong in the "Associated acts" field as opposed to the "Alias" field? What makes the New Yardbirds "a group from which this group has spun off" as opposed to an "official stage [name] for the act ... other than the name in the |name= parameter"? Led Zeppelin didn't spin off from anything; they changed their name when Chris Dreja threatened to sue. None of the members left the New Yardbirds to form a new band, which is what "spin off" strongly implies. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

They toured Scandinavia and the UK as the New Yardbirds then recorded an album as the New Yardbirds before changing their name to Led Zeppelin. I see your point that the New Yardbirds could be seen as an early name of the band known as Zep, but why IYO, are the Yardbirds an associated act of Zep, but the New Yardbirds are not? If "Led Zeppelin didn't spin off from anything", then why are the Yardbirds an associated act? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"Why IYO, are the Yardbirds an associated act of Zep," — Woah; stop right there. They're not an associated act in the infobox documentation sense, and I never said they were. What I said is that I wouldn't object if consensus came down firmly on the side of them being listed. I'm not arguing for the Yardbirds to be listed, and I'm honestly not sure how you read my comments here and came away thinking that. I'm the one who removed them from the infobox.

I might be phrasing all this wrong, and I apologize if any of the above is unclear. Let me try to put this in better terms. As I'm sure you know, "Arnold Layne" was not only recorded, but released by Pink Floyd under the billing "The Pink Floyd. So why aren't you rushing off to Pink Floyd to add "The Pink Floyd" to the "Associated acts" field? What makes "The Pink Floyd" less of an associated act there than the New Yardbirds is here? What makes the New Yardbirds a separate band from Led Zeppelin but the Pink Floyd not a separate band from Pink Floyd? This isn't WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; I'm simply asking why your logic applies to one article and not to another. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Per your above comment: "Okay, that's a fair point, but I'm not sure it undermines my position in any way." Your position seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong): "No one ever recorded an album under the New Yardbirds name." When they recorded the album, their name was the New Yardbirds and I think its quite safe to assume that the studio production notes from the sessions reflect this. What name would the engineers have written? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, my position is that the New Yardbirds are not a separate act from Led Zeppelin. My (evidently mistaken) belief that they hadn't recorded under that name was one of several points I used to support that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article currently states: "One account of how the new band's name was chosen held that".(emphasis added) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• According to the Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound - Volume 1: "the New Yardbirds, (were) the precursor to Led Zeppelin."
• According to When Giants Walked the Earth: "the first Zeppelin album would almost certainly have been the first New Yardbirds album had it not been for the fact that Chris Dreja sent a lawyer's letter warning them to 'cease and desist' on pain of legal action." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Evan, to answer your above question: "What makes the New Yardbirds a separate band from Led Zeppelin but the Pink Floyd not a separate band from Pink Floyd?" IMO, the New Yardbirds is an entirely different name from Led Zeppelin, while the Pink Floyd is merely a variation of Pink Floyd. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and see what others think. Bands change names all the time. In my opinion, we simply can't treat all those different names as somehow different acts without infoboxes starting to look really ridiculous. Coldplay recorded Safety when they were still Starfish; The Who released "Zoot Suit" as the High Numbers; Queensrÿche played some bar gigs under the name Free Beer simply because those words on the marquee attracted large crowds. Treating the New Yardbirds as an associated act would require some major changes to the infobox documentation before it would make sense to me. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• If the Yardbirds are an associated act with Zep due to having one member (Page) in common, then why aren't the Shadows also an associated act with Zep, since both acts enjoyed the bass playing of Jones? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You're again assuming that I'm arguing for the inclusion of the Yardbirds. Please check by comment above at 23:29. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm putting too much stock in your above comment: "I find the opposing arguments reasonable enough", which I assumed to mean Indopug's argument that the Yardbirds are indeed an associated act with Zep. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I went on to say "I'd be willing to disregard that and add the Yardbirds back if there's consensus." And yes, I used the word "reasonable," not "correct." An argument being reasonable is not the same as it being right. For example, I strongly disagree with anarcho-syndicalism, but that doesn't mean that I think every argument in favor of it is completely unfounded. Indopug gave a logical argument; I don't agree with that logic, but that doesn't mean I can declare him objectively wrong. If the majority of people who comment here happen to agree with Indopug, then I'll get over it. The main reason I commented here today is to clarify that I haven't come across a source that regards the New Yardbirds and Led Zeppelin are anything other than the same band under a different name. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: "The main reason I commented here today is to clarify that I haven't come across a source that regards the New Yardbirds and Led Zeppelin are anything other than the same band under a different name." Mick Wall: "[Epic] would simply not be able to take the New Yardbirds, or their resultant offshoot [Led Zeppelin], seriously enough."(Wall, 2008, p.76) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that an incorrect conclusion can be derived from a reasonable argument? Anyway, maybe I misunderstood you, but as of right now Indopug is the only editor defending the inclusion of the Yardbirds as an associated act with Zep. Evan, are you going to take a position either way, or do you plan on remaining neutral? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an incorrect conclusion derived from a reasonable argument isn't a bad way of putting it. There's currently a debate over problems at Wikimedia Commons, with many calling for the project to be shut down. The fact that I disagree with those people doesn't mean I disagree with the argument that those problems are actually problematic and need to be dealt with. In this case, the Yardbirds are "associated" with Led Zeppelin in a loose historical sense—I hope no one is disputing that—but not in the infobox documentation sense, as I said. Anyway, I'm not neutral in this discussion and I never was. If I were, I would never have made any changes to the infobox. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

IMO, the reasonable argument is that there are problems at Wikicommons, not that it should be shut-down because of problems, which is an entirely unreasonable argument. To clarify my position here I would say that Page is associated with both the Yardbirds and Led Zeppelin, but Led Zeppelin is not in anyway associated with the Yardbirds beyond having one member in common. Our guidelines expressly discourage inclusion based on one member in common, so what exactly is Indopug's compelling reason to disregard our guidelines in favour of his opinion? Anyway, in case its not been made clear, I strongly oppose the inclusion of the Yardbirds as an associated act of Led Zeppelin based on the existing Wikipedia guidelines, not my personal opinion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Gabe, per the sources you yourself provided, the Yardbirds were a precursor band of the Zep. Would that not establish strong links between the two bands? That only one member ended up on both bands is incidental. It is extremely strange that the entire first subsection talks of central place of the Yardbirds in the Zep's founding.—indopug (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Not quite Indopug, according to the Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound - Volume 1: "the New Yardbirds, (were) the precursor to Led Zeppelin."(emphasis added) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As for the Shadows (and, say, Them Crooked Vultures) non-inclusion, that is exactly the kind of acts we want to avoid. The Yardbirds is an obvious different case. Here the disqualifier doesn't apply because there are several qualifiers for the Yardbirds to be included.—indopug (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Yardbirds have one member in common with Led Zeppelin. So does the Shadows. So why should we treat the Yardbirds any different then the Shadows? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"The Yardbirds are closely associated with Led Zeppelin, historically and musically, whether or not it meets the technical definition set down by the infobox documentation, whereas the New Yardbirds are universally seen as an early name used by Led Zeppelin."—I agree entirely with this Evanh2008 statement (and I think so does GabeMc). A question regarding the bolded bit is: why should we get technicalities of the way the guideline is worded get in the way of its spirit. The whole point of that field is to include bands that are closely associated, "historically and musically". Now, as I've said in my reply to Gabe, the presence of several qualifiers for the Yardbirds means that we needn't consider the single disqualifier. Even if you disagree with me on this, don't you think WP:IAR applies? That the infobox (and, by extension, the article) is improved by acknowledging the Yardbirds as an important act associated with the Zep?—indopug (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• As Evan said above, if there is an obvious consensus to ignore our existing Infobox guidelines then I am sure that the Yardbirds will be added back whether its correct to do so or not. IMO, those who disagree with the guideline should try to change the guideline, not ignore it at random articles. As for me, I've had more than my fill of these infobox time-waster discussions. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, according to Mick Wall, Plant wasn't a fan and didn't listen to the Yardbirds nor did he own any of their records,(Wall, 2008, p.25) which would seem to further the notion that only Page is connected to both bands. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mick Wall: "[Epic] would simply not be able to take the New Yardbirds, or their resultant offshoot [Led Zeppelin], seriously enough."(Wall, 2008, p.76) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

Oppose inclusion of the Yardbirds as an associated act with Led Zeppelin

1. Per my above comments the two band's have only one member in common. According to Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts: "The following uses of this field should be avoided: Groups with only one member in common". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

File

The article had a picture removed. What has happened? What image can substituit that voi removed? The article should not be without a picture section Early years: 1968-70. --Zoldyick (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms

Why is there no criticisms section? Led Zeppelin has been fairly widely criticized for plagiarism, to the point where almost entire albums are accused of being uncited covers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.70.20 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The article contained a section on this subject from 2007 to 2011. It was deleted here after a brief discussion at Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 5#Working to good article status. Piriczki (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There is some brief discussion about the band's liberal use of blues riffs and even a mention of accusations of plagiarism. Perhaps the article should mention that they have been unceremoniously dubbed "the Blues Pirates". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that at the very least, Zep's borrowing from Willie Dixon should be included in the article, since he did receive an out-of-court settlement. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There's an interesting profile/live review of them by Robert Christgau (Newsday, 1972) here, if anyone's interested in working it into the article. Dan56 (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dan! This should prove most helpful. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keith Richards said Plant's voice "started to get on my nerves" and Eric Clapton said he thought Zeppelin were "unnecessarily loud".(Wall, 2008, p.144) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Again some Floyd and Who fanboys are only trying to disrupt a good article here. Leading contributing editors had decided, after really lengthy discussions, to keep the criticism to the indivual song articles. It's interesting here to note that the contributions of editors like GabeMc and Piriczki have been minimal to this article, except anti-Led Zeppelin rantings.

Frank Sinatra thought Elvis was trash and many famous artists heavily criticized the Beatles. But things like that needn't be included.

198.178.126.232 (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)