This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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".
[1]
[2]
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. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [1] [10] However, the band's individualistic style drew from many sources and transcends any one genre. [11] Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres [12] also incorporated rockabilly, [13] reggae, [14] soul, [15] funk, [16] and country. [17] 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". [1] [2]
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Point out the poorly referenced artists/ bands then. I am more than willing to remove them. Scieberking ( talk) 18:04, 18 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 think I've found more than enough third party reliable sources from the most famous/circulated publications to re-add the 300 million figure:
Scieberking ( talk) 10:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
200 million is definitely a more realistic figure. Christo jones ( talk) 17:51, 31 December 2010 (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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here's a few more reliable sources:
Regards, Scieberking ( talk) 07:42, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I assume "the old order" is when blues rock and folk rock are included? Revan ( talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, way more logical and relevant. Revan ( talk) 18:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Folk rock is warranted by all of their acoustic songs. Check their catalogue. Revan ( talk) 23:08, 12 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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? Revan ( talk) 21:02, 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)
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...
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think "establish" would be more appropriate. Regards, Scieberking ( talk) 09:15, 18 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
"...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Radiopathy •talk• 17:47, 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)
( 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
I suggest adding these as genres. I would think we should come to consensus. Led head tilldeath 02:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [1] - Thank you. Macmillancancer 20:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Changes that I made (in a nutshell):
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)
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)
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 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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".
[1]
[2]
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. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [1] [10] However, the band's individualistic style drew from many sources and transcends any one genre. [11] Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres [12] also incorporated rockabilly, [13] reggae, [14] soul, [15] funk, [16] and country. [17] 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". [1] [2]
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Point out the poorly referenced artists/ bands then. I am more than willing to remove them. Scieberking ( talk) 18:04, 18 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 think I've found more than enough third party reliable sources from the most famous/circulated publications to re-add the 300 million figure:
Scieberking ( talk) 10:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
200 million is definitely a more realistic figure. Christo jones ( talk) 17:51, 31 December 2010 (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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here's a few more reliable sources:
Regards, Scieberking ( talk) 07:42, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I assume "the old order" is when blues rock and folk rock are included? Revan ( talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, way more logical and relevant. Revan ( talk) 18:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Folk rock is warranted by all of their acoustic songs. Check their catalogue. Revan ( talk) 23:08, 12 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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? Revan ( talk) 21:02, 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)
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...
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think "establish" would be more appropriate. Regards, Scieberking ( talk) 09:15, 18 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
"...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Radiopathy •talk• 17:47, 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)
( 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
I suggest adding these as genres. I would think we should come to consensus. Led head tilldeath 02:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [1] - Thank you. Macmillancancer 20:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Changes that I made (in a nutshell):
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)
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)
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 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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.