Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Plant's stance on albums and singles

Can be seen in this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GYR21kG9PE&mode=related&search= I think it could be of some use, maybe? He talks about not releasing singles in Britain from 1:25 or so to 2:15 or so. 71.1.45.234 02:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

someone had put the pink floyd article in hear in place of led, it has since been change and please sir (if you read this) do not do it again thank you.

Genre Change

Using archaic opinions about a particular act from long ago is not valid using today's privelege of hindsight. In the `70's, it's true that some people "mislabeled" Zep as heavy metal rather than hard rock, mainly because the genres themselves were young, but that doesn't mean that their mistaken opinions should be referenced as fact 35 years later. Case in point is the labeling of the soft white acts of the late `50's who stole black music from the musicians who created rock-n-roll and called it the same, which in hindsight was nothing more than pop or rockabilly at best --- Ricky Nelson was no rock-n-roller. It would be better to use modern-day published opinions of so-called music experts as valid source citations for prying Zep from the heavy metal label and put them where they belong, in hard rock. Couple that with the POV of anyone with ears and you have a strong claim.66.168.242.100 05:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Led Zeppelin should have the genre "Heavy Metal" removed from its list. While Led Zeppelin many have influenced some metal bands or have used some of the same blues progressions that bands like Black Sabbath used, this does not mean that they are in fact a "metal" band. I cite as reasons: firstly, the lyrics contain none or little of the darkness or negative emotion that typifies metal music, and secondly, the guitar/bass contain only a fraction of the typical distortion found in other "metal" music, making the songs more melodic than intense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.112.206.164 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

That would be an incorrect POV delete based on a bad stereotype of the genre. Every pro publication labels them as heavy metal. On Wikipedia verifiability is key. And for this there are hundreds of references to support their inclusion in the genre. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin is just not heavy metal. I agree with the first poster. The Chicken 01:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a kind of discussion between hard rockers and headbangers about which bands are heavy metal or hard rock. Headbangers don't like hard rockers, but hard rockers doesn't have that feeling about the headbangers. And one thing that headbangers couldn't stand is the greatest band of the world being hard rock and not heavy metal. At least not only that. So they started to put it like that, Led Zeppelin is a heavy metal band. There are much more heavier and darkest bands than Led Zeppelin that are simply labelled as "Hard Rock". Of course Led Zeppelin has some musics that could be labelled heavy metal, such as "Achilles Last Stand", but in general, they're hard rock. Pete Vilel 13:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the proper forum for debate over who is heavy metal and who isn't. In my opinion...when I saw LZ in 1973 they were a heavy metal band. When I saw them in 1975...they were a heavy metal band. When I listen to them today...they are a hard rock band. But editor opinions have no place in Wikipedia. It's all about WP:CITE and WP:V. Right or wrong, just about every pro publication has labeled them a heavy metal band. In order to rm the heavy metal genre, by Wikipedia policy, would require at least 2 dozen valid and verifiable references in order to stick. In the end the only genre that really applies is rock. Heavy metal, hard rock, prog rock, pop rock, country rock...etc...are all just sub-genres of the parent "Rock" genre. Maybe that's the way to go for all artists? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 17:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

led zeppelin is not heavy metal,a great hard rock band but not heavy metal

Would it not be better to go on how the band classed themselves? I remember listening to an interview with Jimmy Page, possibly Robert Plant, and they did not like the label "Heavy Metal", as they did not think it was an accurate label from the music the band produced. I'm sorry i can't be of any help by bringing up links, but it was a thought anyway.86.133.105.141 19:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.105.141 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Yep always have said their music is not Heavy metal. Candy 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Their music is the prototype of heavy metal, and should probably be labelled as proto-metal. Taka an analogy, Led to heavy metal is like Patti Smith to punk. Wooyi 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As an over 40 who has lived and loved hard rock since I was 10, I can promise you that Led Zepp, Deep Purple and all were never Heavy Metal to the original fans. We used to call them Heavy Rock, nowadays Hard Rock, and were pissed at all the media trying to move product by using the much more scary "Metal" tag. If Led are Heavy Metal, why are they in the Rock bins not the Metal bins in my local music store? If Led are Metal, why don't they call themselves that? If Led are Metal, why are there so many fans bitching about this label? I just can't understand the attitude of those who want to label the band Metal. Yes they were influential to Metal bands, yes the media used the stereotype. So what? That doesn't make them Metal. Use your ears! Reszerve 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure thats not supposed to say as a 10 year old who'll still be listening to hard rock when I'm 40? You must've belonged to an awfully small group of friends who didn't know what heavy metal was. It's not about personal opinion(or puppetry opinion)... it's about reference and verifiability. The weight of evidence wins. Not the POV. 156.34.218.199 10:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Their link to the HM genre is referenced "in concrete". And there are many of them. Young people who aren't very "musically school'd" don't usually consider them as part of the genre. But they are very securely connected to it. It would take at least 2 dozen valid references saying they aren't heavy metal in order to pull the genre ref off of the article. I have never seen 1 valid reference for it, but that doesn;t meant they aren't out there. 156.34.217.119 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

They are for sure not a heavy metal band, especially considering that the first heavy metal band was Judas Priest, who wore metal and played LOUD. Zeppelin uses so much blues and rock that just because they played loud and with a ton of energy, it does not mean they were heavy metal. They hated that name, and journalists would only use that name to excite interest. 208.127.96.11 07:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster, Led Zeppelin is primarily a hard-rock band and has connections with the heavy-metal genre but does not fit into it as well as it does in the hard-rock genre. As for references, allmusic.com classifies them as 1) Blues-rock 2) Hard-rock and 3) Heavy-metal. In their rollingstone.com biography it says: "Led Zeppelin is sometimes credited with inventing heavy metal. That's an understandable misconception, given that few songs bring the godless thunder quite like "Whole Lotta Love," from the British quartet's second album. But Zep's scope was far wider. Though the band wrote some indelible songs, its primary innovations were in pure sound: the orchestration of bass, drums, guitar, and voice into music that embraced mayhem and subtlety, light and shade, Eastern drones and city blues, proto-punk and centuries-old folk." This also seems to put them into the more versatile hard-rock genre instead of the in-your-face loudness of heavy metal. AFAIK, these are the two most influential/important sources of music journalism. They both (rs.com implicitly) state that Led Zeppelin is primarily a hard-rock band but can in a way also be seen as heavy-metal band and so I think the current classification (hard-rock first, heavy metal second) is correct. CheesePlease NL 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Metal is named after the lyrics of the Steppenwolf song Born To Be Wild. Ergo, anything that is in the same genre as this must also logically be "Heavy Metal."

--Justificatus 11:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Label it proto metal, which automatically redirects users to heavy metal. It admits their influence and likenesses to heavy metal, while agreeing they're not strictly metal.(The Elfoid 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

The job is not to classify them ourselves, if there are some references that conform to the standard that say that by all means, add it in, a large part of the readership will not have the foggiest what proto metal is - the general classification they have been given is heavy metal, as has been cited in the article. I normally find their records in the Heavy Metal section of Virgin, HMV et al.--Alf ^melmac 10:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I now stand corrected as the Virgin store in town now have them in Rock/Pop :s --Alf ^melmac 22:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Albums' chart history

I just noticed that an anonymous user has changed the chart position of the 'Fourth Album' from 2 US to 1 US. I recall reading in the Q magazine special addition on Zeppelin that The Fourth Album peaked at 2. This source is not infallable, but errors are few. Can anyone confirm this chart position elsewhere? Thanks - Rockthing 14:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC) led zeppeln is not a heavy metal band,they are a great hard rock ,rck n roll band but not heavy metal

It made it to number one in the UK, and unfortunately I don't have an answer for the US. The UK certainty comes from pg 157 of Keith Shadwick's "Led Zeppelin the story of a band and their music 1968-1980" copyright 2005 Mister B. 04:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC) According to The Great Rock Discography (Martin C. Strong), it was No 2 in US.

Unreleased songs

The article states: In 1974, Led Zeppelin launched their own record label, Swan Song, named after one of only five Led Zeppelin songs which the band never released commercially (Page later re-worked the song with his band, The Firm, and it appears as "Midnight Moonlight" on their first album). What are the 5 unreleased Led Zeppelin songs? I know Nadine is 1, Now Swan Song, What's the 3 others and where can they be found?

24.47.151.238 19:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)David

This statement in the article is not only unreferenced but highly glossed over. The song referred to was mostly a work in progress and parts of the structure were apparently used in Midnight Moonlight (Cameron Crowe). The way it is written in the article is misleading. As far as this article goes, without references to validate it, it is a worthy candidate for removal. Until it is placed in with substantial refs I wouldn't bother with it. Candy 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hurdy gurdy player

I was wondering what was the name of the hurdy gurdy player in Led Zeppelin? 82.133.95.239 22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There was none in Led Zeppelin, however when Page and Plant toured Nigel Eaton did play one. IrisKawling 03:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Page also played on [Donovan]'s Hurdy Gurdy Man song. No much help but a bit of triv. Candy 21:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC) No, he didn't. 70.21.145.35 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he did record on that track. So did John Paul Jones (musician). Check the wikipedia article on Hurdy Gurdy Man. I think 82.133.95.239 most likely was asking who played the sitar in Led Zeppelin as Jimmy Page played it on the track Hurdy Gurdy Man by Donovan Frankenreiter and many have mistaken the song title to be a reference to the psychedelic sounds of the sitar.74.56.236.154 22:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Page himself played a hurdy gurdy in the movie, The Song Remains the Same. You can see him turning the knob, screeching away, as the camera walks up to him, sitting outside on the grassy area, just before he turns with the "firey eyes" and all that business.

Reunion?

I heard that zeppelin was getting back together. did anyone else hear this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.95.162 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Heard it many, many times. It's unlikely ever to happen, but I suppose it is possible. -- 83.100.198.162 01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Love to see it happen, but highly unlikely68.78.45.216 01:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No offense to anybody, but I'm glad they didn't reunite for good. I mean, what they had in the 70s was obviously classic material that'll transcend rock forever. But going back to, say, 1980, right after Bonham's death. I think it was a wise decision not to continue after that point. Imagine if they had hired an (unbeknowest to them) incompetent drummer, or if they had constantly-changing lineups like Black Sabbath did. Of course, it could've worked, too. But I'm glad what happened is what happened. Dark Executioner 12:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Coda

A quick question. I know CODA was released after Bonham's death, but it was still a Led Zeppelin album. Is there any reason it is not listed under their discography? Mister B. 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea. However, I'm guessing that like other compilations it is not mentioned here as only the albums released when the group were all alive. Coda was a mish mash and not really a well thought through album. There is a link to Zeps other albums on the page (so this one can be kept short) where they can be seen in full details. Candy 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just adding that I seem to remember it might have been a contractual obligation album. However, they had their own recording label so not sure how that worked there!! Candy 17:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Presence was a mish mash and not well though out album, so Coda should be in the discography as well. The material was made while all the members were made. Is Pink Floyd's The Final Cut not an official album cause they had already broken up? 208.127.96.11 07:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Most published sources include Coda as part of the band's discography. I think it should be included. Edelmand 09:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, include the Coda album. my rationale is that it an official Led Zepp release, it is not a compilation of previously released material, it is no more a mish-mash of old material than Physical Graffiti, and it is included in the Ten CD box set of Led Zepp's studio albums (which incidentally are the earliest CD's I know of to use, very mildly, volume maximizing software in mastering). Reszerve 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

GA feedback

You have a good article here, but I am placing it on hold so you can address or justify the following concerns:

1. The opening paragraph seems a little choppy to me.
2. Some of the prose could use cleaning, ie. "While the album received generally positive reviews, some derided it, most famously John Mendelsohn of Rolling Stone magazine, who savaged the band for stealing music (notably Black Mountain Side from Black Water Side by Bert Jansch and the riff from Your Time Is Gonna Come from Traffic's Dear Mr. Fantasy), mimicking black artists, and showing off." Perhaps it could be split up to something like "... John Mendelsohn of Rolling Stone magazine. In his review, he savaged the band for stealing music, notably Black Mountain ...". I generally prefer to see articles without phrases in brackets and although in might be a pain, it would help with the flow.
3. Some unsourced POV statements, ie. "By 1976, Led Zeppelin was a household name in both North America and Europe, perennially topping the charts on both continents."
4. Post Led Zeppelin: Is such a long section really needed? It certainly wouldn't hurt to trim it down.I am open to leaving the section the way it is if it can be justified.
5. Good use of images, although you're most likely going to have to lose a few if your pursuing higher status for the article. You should perhaps avoid using 2 concert images from the same year and is the picture of the Hindenburg necessary when there is a shot of the album cover?
6. The sourcing doesn't fit the style guide. The citations go directly after a period or word, but in some cases, there is a space.

When these issues are addressed, let me know and I'll re-review it. -- Scorpion 14:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC) In *Just a reminder, the on hold status of this article expires tomorrow. -- Scorpion 22:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I rereviewed the article and it seems that few of my previous suggestions implemented. The one week on hold period has expired and I'm sorry, but I have to fail the article. -- Scorpion 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

I'm putting this article on hold because of a few major items.

1. The list of influences in the intro, (rockabilly,[3] reggae,[4] soul,[5] funk,[6] jazz,[7] classical, Celtic, Indian, Arabic, folk, pop, Latin and country.) is a bit choppy due to the references appearing after every other word. Also, it seems as though the last few genres are uncited-and that's the kind of assertion that needs cites.
2. In this article's case, the audio samples ought to be inline-see the Pink Floyd article to see how to do this.
3. The article is divided into history sections based on albums- this results in very short paragraphs. I would suggest that the history section be divided by major eras in the band's history instead.
4. The discography section needs to just list album name, release date, and chart positions. Covers ought to be on just album pages and discography pages.
5. Citations are not formatted according to cite web, but at least they're formatted consistently. However, if you're ever going to try for FA, they need to comply with cite web.

When you can fix these problems, let me know and I'll rereview it. Atlantik 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wearing and Tearing

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I don't know if I'm disobeying any rules but I went ahead and added Wearing and Tearing, please feel free to edit it. It was a red link so I added some info on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Razoso (talk • contribs) 03:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Editing

When the reviewer put the GA nomination on hold, I tried to do some editing to meet the requirement, but then I confronted many "edit conflicts" like everyone else is editing it at the same time. So I might come later when there are less people around. But if anyone else can edit it to make it meet GA standards, please do so, thanks! Wooyi 16:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I will help out when I can. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time atm and when I do visit I seem to be repairing vandalsm 8( Candy 11:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Rating

I am trying to edit this so it becomes a good article. However, I think surely it is worth more than a B grade in its present form? I mean, if you look at similar articles (e.g. Van Halen's) are much worse, but still have the same rating. Why exactly is this article a B grade, and not a higher rating? Any suggestions?

Debut performance is wrong.

The first Led Zeppelin date is listed as being in November 1968 at the Roundhouse, when actually it was in October 1968 at the University of Surrey in Guildford. http://ledzeppelin.alexreisner.com/tourdates.html

Do I just edit to correct it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alanroy (talk • contribs) 17:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Error now appears to have been corrected Edelmand 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Page Length

This page is fairly long, I think we need to come up with some stratagy for cutting it down a bit, because to my mind its one of the only things stopping the page from making FA status. Maybe we could shorten down the biographys a good bit, and have two pages based on the Early & Latter Years that even the band themselves recognise as the division in there playing style. Anyone else have any ideas on shortening the page? --Ferdia O'Brien (The Archiver & Vandal Watchman) 23:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is long because it is a very important page in rock music history. Please go ahead and remove tautology, irrelevance and maintain succinctness but an article which is long is not necessarily inappropriate. Candy 00:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, as does this: Wikipedia Article Length --Ferdia O'Brien (The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman) 00:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You may disagree user Ferdia. However, the article you point me to does not. Quote: "Though article size is no longer a binding rule, there remain stylistic reasons why the main body of an article should not be unreasonably long, including readability issues. It is instead treated as a guideline, and considered case by case depending on the nature of the article itself." How does this disagree with me? Candy 08:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just followed the Wiki guidelines for estimating page size (see the article Ferdia liunks to) and I found it to be 39 kB.

Prose size	What to do
> 100 KB	Almost certainly should be divided up
> 60 KB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
> 40 KB	May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 30 KB	Length alone does not justify division
< 1 KB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub. If it's an important article that's just too short, put it under Article Creation and Improvement Drive, a project to improve stubs or nonexistent articles.

I think that just about says it all. Now, if there are stylistic reasons I would be happy to hear them Candy 08:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Case in point, this article is 60KBs, I advise the possibilty of splitting it occording to Early & Latter years. --Ferdia O'Brien (The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman) 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than splitting the page into two, may I suggest that the Post-Led Zeppelin section be scaled back (see "GA Feedback" section above, point 4). Much of this information is already duplicated in each of the 3 surviving band members' own wikipedia pages which discuss their post-Led Zeppelin solo careers. Edelmand 14:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the article, I feel, will do nothing except hinder it. I agree, the page is too long, but I and others have been attempting to fix this. The page was far larger before. I agree with a large cut in the "post Led Zeppelin section", although again it is looking more lean than it was. --FrasierC 20:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read the instructions for assessing the size of a Wiki page by Wikipedia you do not include images, comtecnts or boxes. It stands I believe where I wrote it Candy 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is not too long in so much as there is quite a bit of redundancy. Each of the band's albums has a pretty formidable page of its own. While I do not necessarily disagree with there being some comment on each album in this article, there is currently far too much; should a reader be so inclined, there are links they can click on. Other than that, I do think the article looks good as it is.--Zoso Jade 22:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

good article, bad formatting

I read over this article and i gotta say it is filled with plenty of great content, but the formatting is so-so. In order to get this up to GA or FA status, some changes need to be made. One thing is that article simply has too many images. If we cut back on a few (Namely the poster for The Song Remains the same and one of the many Physical Graffiti performance shots), and re-organized the images and worked in the sound samples into the actual text and not discography, this article may be GA worthy.  Scrumshus 'Talk to me 22:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed an image Edelmand 12:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the audio samples from Discography to the main article IrisKawling 03:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of Copying Music

I haven't checked for any articles, but there have been credible accusations about Led Zeppelin stealing large amounts of their content from other artists. Much of the the accusations could understably be seen as hearsay, and even if there are some articles on it, does it have a place in this wikipedia article? 1337wesm 19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is already reference on the page of Led Zeppelin being sued by other artists for copyright infringement Edelmand 09:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dazed an Confused is generally accepted as being written by Jake Holmes. And if you listen to his song, it's obvious they stole it. This one should either be called out specifically or there should be a section for accusations of plaigarism(sp?)

The topic is already copied enough in the article. Unreferenced/whiny accusations/opinions are better suited for an internet chat room. The article already has too much content and needs to be trimmed anyways. 156.34.142.110 12:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the page needs to be trimmed. I disagree that this topic should be blown off with such disregard. On the topic of unsourced claims, I think it is accepted by all but the most Zep-can-do-no-wrong Zeppelin experts that the band did copy a lot of music without crediting the original artists. This is not a small issue; especially on their first couple of albums, the band was only writing about 20% of the music. While many other bands at the time were similar (The Stones, Clapton) the rest generally credited the original artist. This is quite a big deal as I spent my first few years as a Zeppelin fan thinking they had written all this and as I got deeper into the Blues, I noticed just how much was taken from other artists (forgetting the songs that were straight covers, almost all the others were taken from a wide source of old Blues songs) and this is something that was very important to me. This isn't one or two songs. This fact is so linked with the band that it is often parodied. Who can forget the episode of The Simpsons where the family arrive in London and Homer sees Page and exclaims "There's Jimmy Page! The biggest thief of African-American music of all time!" This deserves a section much more than the article needs to have those huge summaries on each album. --Zoso Jade 14:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

lol Zoso, that IS a good episode =P! hey User:156.34.142.110|156.34.142.110, i wasn't talking about "whiny" accusations, i was just wondering if there should be a section regarding the enormous amount of content that has been accused by other artists of being stolen, along with the various lawsuits 1337wesm 19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We had all this a while back. The problem with this is that by their very nature a lot of these accusations are not fully proven, and are basically for the listener to judge if they were stolen from a different artist in the past. Making such accusations is not for Wikipedia. There is already a bit about being sued because of copying music, and I think that's as far as a Wikipedia article can go. Wikipedia is not for making accusations, even if they are likely to be true. There could be an acknowledgement that they are accused of this, but any more would make the article worse. --FrasierC 21:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who doubts: Click here to listen to Jake Holmes 1967 recording of Dazed and Confused: http://itsaboutmusic.net/samples/Jake_Holmes/The_Above_Ground_Sound_of/06-Dazed_and_Confused.m3u Still think Zeppelin didn't steal it?

But LZ's D&C is a re-working of the Yardbirds track "I'm Confused" which pre-dates that particular "Jake" recording. And what early 1920s blues traditional is Jake Holmes plagiarising in his song? Who exactly did he list as the song writer on his track? You would expect if a valid claim of authorship was present...some sort of legal action would have been taken. Had it been so, like the legal claims already documented in the article, then perhaps a brief, cited mention of it would be suitable. But since no legal case was ever filed then any similarity is just a matter of opinion. And opinion has no place in an encyclopedia. 156.34.210.107 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So this entire page is opinion I suppose? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazed_and_Confused_%28song%29

Jake Holmes' said specifically that Dazed and Confused sounded like his version, but he decided to "let them keep it". Again, this can be mentioned, but there is no point pandering to the unverified claims that Led Zeppelin "stole" music from other artists. Stick with what we know, now what is most likely.

And citing another Wikipedia page does not prove anything.

--FrasierC 12:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of these accusations aren't fully proven?? Have you heard the songs in question? The lyrics are almost exactly the same a lot of the time. The only more damning bit of evidence that could possibly be gathered would be if we had a video of the Zep boys sitting next to a phonograph listening to this old music and saying to each other "we should use this and claim we wrote it".--Zoso Jade 15:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have heard pretty much every Led Zeppelin song they ever made, and have heard most of the songs they are accused of copying. I agree with you, they did copy some of these songs. But that's not what this is about. Wikipedia is not made for people to spout what they think is right or correct. It's about what has been proven conclusively. It hasn't, in most cases. We can only comment on the accusations made and the fact that there was a court case, which they settled out of court. Wikipedia is not for us to say what is most likely true. It is to comment on what is true. The truth here is that there are accusations, and there was a court case. What you or I think is beside the point.--FrasierC 12:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps you are taking the whole Wikipedian mantra just a little too far. The reason that Wikipedia asks for evidence is so that the treatment of contentious issues is standard across the board. Led Zeppeling copying other music without credit is hardly contentious. All but the most extreme of observers would agree that this is copied music, and I don't believe I have ever heard any serious person disagree. I think you will note that I never said the article should chide the band for their copying of music but rather that it should mention that several of their songs contained uncredited portions of other artists' songs and so, contrary to your point, this is not about me getting my opinions onto the page. This is a an NPOV statement and hence, is allowable by Wikipedia rules. Applying your demand for evidence rule to every section of the article and pretty much everything should be taken out. I have never seen irrefutable evidence that it was definitely Robert Plant singing on any of Zeppelin song. Can I contest the claim that Plant was the lead singer of the band? Are there actually any Zep experts on Wikipedia who thinks the similarities between Albert King's "The Hunter" and a section of "How Many More Times" is a coincidence? If so, are they mad? How is this issue contentious?--Zoso Jade 16:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not taking anything to far. What I am arguing is that Wikipedia isn't for you or I to level these accusations at the band. They are by their definition accusations. Therefore, you can perhaps make a comment that they were accused of copying Dazed and Confused et al., but you could not say that they did in actuality do so. The evidence in that particular case speaks volumes, and I would say that it is clear to me that they did. However, that's not for me to put in the article. I can however put in evidence to suggest that this was the case. People then make their own decisions from this. We can say that accusations exist, and link to them. This makes the most unbiased account possible, because it deals with factual information. Therein lies the difference.

Should we post a list of songs they copied? I would say no, and I can say why - what happens with said lists is that people add to them unverified claims of copying, like the famous Stairway To Heaven's riff is that of Spirit's "Taurus". That is an example of an unverified accusation of copying, specifically. There are other examples I have read, like how Moby Dick was apparently copied from something or other, not that I ever saw how one could copy and drum solo. Where does fact end and interpretation come in here?

What exactly are you proposing? The case and some of the accusations are already in the article. --FrasierC 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe we are in as much disagreement as it may seem. What I am suggesting is a specific section mentioning these accusations (rather than it being lost in endless text on, quite frankly, less significant issues. We can state this in an NPOV way, but I do think it should be more prominent as it is one of the most famous things about the band. I note that you are focusing on the more arguable cases such as Taurus (STH) Moby Dick (the claim is that Page's guitar part, and not Bonham's solo, is stolen from Bobby Parker's "Watch Your Step", though as you say, this is debatable, even though the guitar riffs sound similar). However, even if we choose to ignore the shakier cases, there are still numerous cases where (lyrics especially) are virtually the same and a good number where Zeppelin's use of other artists' songs is undeniable (these are mostly the old blues songs, which is why I have focused attention specifically on them). I am not suggesting a list on the page, I am suggesting a specific section that says something along the lines of:

"Many of the band's songs, especially in their early career, consisted of using sections of other artists' songs, though these other artists were often not credited. Famous examples include Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor" and Robert Johnson's "Traveling Riverside Blues" for The Lemon Song and Willie Dixon's "You Need Love". As a result the family of blues artist Willie Dixon sued the band for copyright infringement, resulting in a settlement being paid by the band. This had caused some controversy for the band, and has resulted in several other plagiarism claims, some of which the band claims are false."

Or something along those lines. I don't know whether as many examples as that are necessary (all the songs mentioned are pretty much indisputable, and there are more) but I think that would be pretty fair to write about the band and I'm sure there are others who would be willing to add a bit of text.

--Zoso Jade 21:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"I do not believe we are in as much disagreement as it may seem. What I am suggesting is a specific section mentioning these accusations (rather than it being lost in endless text on, quite frankly, less significant issues. "

The issues are already in the article, and I think actually fit into the article perfectly well, both in the sections of Led Zeppelin I and II. There is a good deal of information already included as it is. Whether a seperate section is really worthwhile, I don't see there been much difference between that and what is present.

--FrasierC 19:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote for a different section: the fact that Led Zeppelin has not written the majority of the songs on their first albums - or even just the many accusations for this - deserves a firm place in this article. I feel important information is being omitted if this goes unnoticed in the article and adding it would add to its quality. CheesePlease NL 21:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Edit: I know that it's already in the article but as this is one of the major topics in Led Zeppelin discussions (outside wikiepdia) I think it deserves its own section. This would also help clean up the article as it would take some information out of the endless chronological biography into a seperate section. CheesePlease NL 10:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

FrasierC

The issues are in the article but are merely scattered around other sections. I'm sure any independent observer would agree that it has been played down. This is not some passing issue that one or two people have moaned about. It is pretty famous within the industry; they have been criticised for it by other blues-covering artists (such as Clapton, who, by contrast, was very particular about noting his sources) and on searching for Led Zep on the net, many sites come up speaking of the issue. That this deserves its own section seems blindingly obvious to me. I am not some sort of troll, I am a massive Led Zeppelin fan, and perhaps it is beacuse of this that I know how important it was to me when I first noted that the songs I had always credited to their genious were actually the creations of other artists. I think leaving out a section is actually ironically similar to the same sort of denial that led to Zeppelin not crediting these artists in the first place. I am not making the edit now as I do not believe in revert wars, even though Wikipedia tells me to "be bold". I am also aware that you have been responsible for a large amount of work on this article... but you must admit... the concensus is heading firmly in the direction of the inclusion of a section. I don't think it would take much more than a lift from the II section and a better list of original artists (with only those that are generally regarded as certain). Cheers.--Zoso Jade 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done a lot of work on the article. However, that is not the reason for me not wanting to have this in a seperate section, as I was not the one who originally made the article in the order that it is currently in, I have merely edited what was already present.

I have no problem with this if there is a general concensus, although I hardly think that that has been shown at this time, there has been but one vote on the issue. And if you want to edit the page, I would more than be happy with the result, I do not like revert wars either.

I resent the accusation that I am downplaying anything. By that definition, it could be said that we are downplaying the fact that they sold 108 million albums in the US - there is not a section on it, it is only mentioned once. That does not mean it is being downplayed. My argument against adding such a section is merely stylistic - the rest of the article is put in an order, and taking this one issue out of this order, however important you perceive it to be, would disrupt the article throughly, or so I believe. I do not want to in any downplay these accusations. --FrasierC 21:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it would disrupt the structure of the article and so I checked some other articles in the same category like AC/DC, Queen, Aerosmith and The Who. Queen's and The Who's structure is somewhat different. Both of them have a history section that are approximately half the size of the full article but in addition have a couple of smaller sections. AC/DC and Aerosmith are more or less like Led Zep, but they don't divide the history section into album releases but rather into eras. I think it might be a good idea to take on more of a Queen/The Who structure, taking some information out of the history-section that is not really bound to a specific era/album and putting it into new sections that come after the history section. If we do this with more subjects than just the music-copying accusations, the structure would not suffer from it in my opinion. CheesePlease NL 13:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Of the articles, interestingly, the only one of the articles listed to be featured is the AC/DC one; one of the one's with a structure similar to the Led Zeppelin article. I would argue that, therefore, while either style is not "correct", there is certainly no disadvantage to the layout currently shown. Changing it would take a lot of time - and I don't really see what benefit it would have to the quality of the article. --FrasierC 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. I think Led Zeppelin is one of the greatest rock and roll bands ever. But this is not a matter of reworking old blues standards whose origin is already in question and may or may not be considered public domain. These are unique songs that have been copied. The fact that some people can call it "interpretation" or "opinion" is astounding. Led Zeppelin were musical geniuses, but they are not infallible.

I agree with FrasierC on this one. Accusations and debates about Led Zeppelin copying music are certainly not insignificant, but I question whether it should have an entire separate heading in an otherwise chronological article of this type. If one looks at other internet chronological biographies of the band (some of which are linked under the "external links" heading) most mention the issue in passing but do not concentrate on it, which would correspond with the way the issue has been treated on this wikipedia page. Some might argue that the legacy that Led Zeppelin had on rock music is just as (if not more) significant an issue than their copying other artists (certainly much has been written on it elsewhere), but I notice that a previous section on the band's legacy has been cut, probably for the same reason. If we include a section on Zeppelin copying music, do we then reinstate the section on their legacy? If we do, then we get back to the problem of page length. In summary, my view would be to keep it as it is, where the topic is noted in passing in its correct chronological order. However, if most people feel strongly the either way I would say majority rules! Edelmand 12:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I will add concensus to the views of both Frasier C and Edelmand. Inclusion only if the issue is pertinent, IE: a documented/verifiable court case or settlement, but any other instances are, in the end, just unreferenced opinion. What little legal action the band ever had to defend happened after the demise of the band. So this information(with valid reference) should just be piped in the proper chronological order..."Post Led Zeppelin". 156.34.142.110 13:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Guess what? Every single band, musician, and singer has stolen something from somebody else. Sometimes its more obvious than others. One of the contributing factors to Led Zeppelin becoming one of the greates bands of all time is that Jimmy Page is the master at stealing other people's material and making it better. Led Zep I is just a remake of the Jeff Beck Group's debut album Truth, which came out in 1968, but guess what, Zep became famous from it, because Page saw the mistakes made and made a great album. The most important lesson that any musician must learn to be successful is to steal from everybody. If a band released a song today, you could probably find a band in the 60s and 70s that wrote one just like it. Then you would find a Blues song from the 40s and 50s just like it. Then a jazz song from the 20s and 30s. Then an even older song. No one really started taking credit for songs until the mid 20th century, which caused many problems, since no one really knew where the songs originally came from. This is why, unless a band deliberately "copies", not uses, a song, no one really cares, because they took it form someone else before. So stop bickering and get on with your lives. It doesn't matter, no band , unless they copy a song should be under any condemnation for using someone elses song. Jimmy Page is a smart man. 208.127.96.11 05:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a total crime (almost as big as Zep's thievery) that nobody has put together a section about their widespread plagiarism. Set aside any arguments about the old blues songs Zep has already admitted to stealing after being sued by these old blues artists as Zep has already admitted they stole them and gave them money & credit for it. You can't argue for someone who's already admitted their guilt, unless you're saying it happened by reason of insanity. Couple that proven pattern of theft with some easily-identifiable, unique chord progressions that were obviously lifted from other more-contemporary songs and you wonder how anybody can listen to "Taurus" by Spirit and believe that Jimmy Page, a fan of the band, actually just came up with those same 1st 5 chords on his own for Stairway To Heaven a few years later. You think this chord progression is natural because you've heard it all your life, but in the early `70's, it's a highly-unique set of chords for someone to pick up and just play/create. This isn't the only song plagiarized by Zep. I've been a 37-year fan of the band and still own the 1st 4 original vinyl LP's and I've known for decades that these guys were artistic thieves, but it doesn't mean I don't like the music, it just means I don't respect them as much for it, so I'm not in denial over it and I wear no rose-colored glasses. It just goes to show you that no matter how famous or venerated you become, you're still an animal after all with the same primordial urges as everyone else, and musical larceny is the favorite addiction of Mr. Page & Mr. Plant.66.168.242.100 06:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Information of this nature needs citations, please provide them and the edits adding the info will likely remain.--Alf ^melmac 08:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Changes

For all those who have been reverting my edits, please discuss your reasoning and arguments against them here. I'm more than willing to hear anyone out. I simply don't understand why everyone is so intent of parsing the history section down to a ridiculous ten sentences per album, yet leaving the completely irrelevent "Post Led Zeppelin" section untouched, and having absolutely no information on the band's enormous influence either on other music or pop culture. If any article need major reduction in the history section it's the Beatles or Rolling Stones--go look at those messes.71.76.223.251 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On a side issue, could you please register so we can see who's making changes? If you are who I think you are(removing the prog rock statement, etc), I think your edits have been sensible. The only one i have an issue with is I think it is probably fair to note when comparing Zeppelin's record sales to that of other artists, the few number of albums that Zeppelin have actually released.--Zoso Jade 21:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Registering is not going to tell you who I am. I don't see what a username is going to tell you about anyone.71.76.223.251 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're not the ditor I thought you were... you're the one doing the opposite (was difficult for me to tell because I'm not good at memorising IP addresses). Signing up for Wikipedia allows other users to track what you are doing. For instance, in this situation where you keep editing the article, it was a bit harder for me to find this out.

On another point, revert wars are a pain. The overwhelming weight of opinion is against you. Probably best to let this one go, mate.--Zoso Jade 08:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

All of todays edits from the 71.X IP range have completely ignored every policy Wikipedia has on editing and lower the page from being an ecyclopedia article to being a fanboy page straight out of a poorly written teen magazine. Last fall any credibility the article had was lost completely by a series of horrible edits from a user named Dume7. This user also did a lot of damage editing from a 71.X IP range. Lately a group of dedicated editors like Edelmand, Frasier C, IrisKawling and Zoso Jade have taken on the task of trying to reverse all of the garbage that was added into the article last fall. Now, suddenly the article is being driven back into the dumpster by another IP range (coincidently coming from the IP 71.X range...hmmm???) If this article were to go for peer review right now it would get hacked to pieces. It is not even close to GA let alone FA consideration. It needs to stripped down and rebuilt using Wiki-policy as a backbone or it will never get beyond the "utter failure" it's been since Dume7's damage. I say let the team that's attempted the latest cleanup try and finish what they've started. And leave the POV tripe for the teen blogs and chat rooms where it belongs. 156.34.228.207 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's completely ridiculous--this article was a featured article candidate because of ME. Ha! My damage? What the heck? Since when is detailed substance damage? Teen blogs? What are you talking about? Go strip down an article that needs it, such as the articles I mentioned. Why are you so obsessed to reducing this article to a blip? You've made it obvious that you don't want to discuss any specific changes or complaints or involve any kind of logic like that, so I think I have nothing more to say to you other than to point out that we have a major and fundamental disagreement on what an encyclopedia should be (i.e., a virile and informative document), and frankly, I would have banned you long ago if it were up to me. It's strikes me how dramatic and aggressive so many of you seem to become when speaking about how this article is "tripe" and "not even close to being a featured article". If that's the case, no article on the whole wretched site should be a FA--they're all a mess. These kinds of overly pessimistic evaluations are more comical than persuasive. You know how much respect I have for wikipedia's sad pseudo-intellectual peer reviews: 0. That's a zero. 71.76.223.251 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that the article as it stands is a good length. Can you, without resorting to aggression, tell me why these changes are in any way improvements to the article?

And the fact remains that it failed as a Featured Article candidate. So it wasn't good enough. Like it or not that's the fact of the matter. --FrasierC 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss the article at length with you 71.76.223.251. You clearly have the page's interests at heart, even if some of your edits are POV.

Wonderful. Thanks.71.76.223.251 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What I do not think is healthy is coming onto the page and putting in loads of irrelevant information in, like emphasising the fact that Led Zeppelin outsold the Rolling Stones. That fact is already in the article, there is no need for an in depth account into how Led Zeppelin outsold Mick Jagger's band by 60 million albums despite the fact that Led Zeppelin have released far less. That's for the reader to extrapolate from what has been put. Adding it in looks biased - even if the basic information is true - and is unnecessary at any rate. What I'm saying is that these edits are disputed, so can we at least have a discussion on what you think is wrong with the article, rather than a pointless revert war that does no one any favours? --FrasierC 23:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind you saying that certain bits of info should be excluded; but to say this is point of view doesn't even make any darn sense. I challenge any of you to point out a single truly POV bit of info I've included--one iota. It just isn't there. And yes, the brief item that you pointed out is factually true, and I think it gives the general reader a good conception of the bands sales to compare them to another universally known band. If you call that in-depth, I'd hate to see your idea of brevity. Maybe it should be deleted--I'll consider it, along with any other recommendations.71.76.223.251 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not compare them to the Beatles then, in the interests of fairness? They're universally known, aren't they? And they sold four times more albums than Led Zeppelin. What about Abba? They outsold Led Zeppelin as well. So why haven't you compared Led Zeppelin to them? Just to pick one of your edits: , "leading to a surprisingly progressive sound. " What's a "surprisingly progressive sound"? That isn't factual - it's debatable whether it was surprising or indeed progressive. "It's most famous song's include the FM radio staple, Kashmir, Trampled Underfoot, and the ballad about lost love, Ten Years Gone." Apart from the incorrect pluralisation, I would dispute that Ten Years Gone is one of the album's "most famous songs". "having outsold all bands of the time, " What about Abba? "a household name" A citation would be needed for this.

--FrasierC 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1.ABBA hasn't sold as many albums as Zeppelin. Period. The Rolling Stones are their closest contemporary competitor, which is why I included them for comparison rather than the Beatles, who obviously were gone by the time Zeppelin reached its zenith in the mid-70s.

2.Guinness says the Beatles have only 500 million verified album sales, far more reasonable than EMI's boastful and unsubstatiated number of 1 Billion, which is thought to include solo member's efforts in its tally. Even if one is dumb enough to accept that false figure, its not four times more albums, and considering that the Beatles have released far more material (about four times more material, ha!) in addition to their dozen studio albums, and had a decade head start on Led Zeppelin, this is harldy as impressive as some would make it out to be. Anyway you look at it, 300 million in sales for only 8 albums is significant, and pretty remarkable--that's all I want to say.

3.Houses of the Holy has been called a progressive album for years. I don't need to defend common knowledge.

4.By 1975 Zeppelin were indeed a household name as the most popular band in the world...once again, common knowledge.

5.The three songs mentioned do indeed garner heavier airplay than all others on the album, and are the only songs on their greatest hits from the album. I think my grammar is just fine, too. I think you're going by UK english standards. I, like 75% of the people on the web, am American.71.76.223.251 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not compare them to the Beatles then, in the interests of fairness? They're universally known, aren't they? And they sold four times more albums than Led Zeppelin. What about Abba? They outsold Led Zeppelin as well. So why haven't you compared Led Zeppelin to them? Just to pick one of your edits: , "leading to a surprisingly progressive sound. " What's a "surprisingly progressive sound"? That isn't factual - it's debatable whether it was surprising or indeed progressive. "It's most famous song's include the FM radio staple, Kashmir, Trampled Underfoot, and the ballad about lost love, Ten Years Gone." Apart from the incorrect pluralisation, I would dispute that Ten Years Gone is one of the album's "most famous songs". "having outsold all bands of the time, " What about Abba? "a household name" A citation would be needed for this.

--FrasierC 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article1082735.ece No, not period. 370 million - more than Led Zeppelin."

The problem with that figure is that it includes SINGLES (i.e., not just albums), which you can see if you look at the original study which tabulated that. If you'll look only figures for ALBUM sales, you'll see that they barely crack 100 million (it was 104 million in 2001, at least). As you know, Led Zeppelin, by and large, did not release singles.71.76.223.251 01:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that ABBA did not outsell Led Zeppelin in terms of record sales, which is normally what this, if at all, is judged by.

Album sales or not, I still don't see a justification for including the mention of the Rolling Stones, I don't see any real relevance or indeed point. How does it improve the article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by FrasierC (talk • contribs) 01:45, 3 April 2007

"Ok, so even at this estimate it's 500 million - almost twice Led Zeppelin's sales. So why not compare them to the Beatles?"

As I said--because they were not true comtemporaries of the Beatles like they were of the Rolling Stones!71.76.223.251 01:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What difference does them being contemporaries to the Rolling Stones make? Surely the lead in is discussing overall record sales?

" 5.The three songs mentioned do indeed garner heavier airplay than all others on the album, and are the only songs on their greatest hits from the album."

"Ten Years Gone is not on their "Greatest Hits" album. So I further assert that its inclusion is POV."--FrasierC 01:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a huge zeppelin fan (and absolutely loath abba). Zep sales levels in US (and canada) are unprecedented; 109.5 million certified units with just 19 album releases http://www.led-zeppelin.com/disc.html However, sales in europe and the rest of the world did not keep pace with North America - the US accounts for about 38% of the World market(Pls note that "Latter Days" is not certified in the US and soundcan sales are 366,000 (dec 06) and coda and Early Days are 'just' platinum.) 300 million would be an average per album of 15.78 million!! while "untitled" is expected to have sold about 32 million WW. The maths simply do not add up. total sales figure is close(r) to 150 million. talking about maths: as for ABBA the US (10.5 certified album sales and 2 gold singles)is (and was) not a significant market for them. The rest of the world was - certainly single sales but 370 million records is hard to believe 10 million singles and 15 million albums in the Uk (their biggest market) accounts for 25 million records (incl US sales 37.5 records - Us and Uk represent 46% of the world market) 332 million to go!!!

Disputed Changes 2

I'm splitting this into two headings so I can see what's going on.71.76.223.251 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"most famous". I would argue that that is still POV, unless you can prove they are the most famous."--FrasierC

Listen Immanuel Kant, almost nothing is truly NPOV. If you only want NPOV statements then we might as well delete the whole thing and just move on to Cogito Ergo Sum.71.76.223.251 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I have proved it, but take out those words if you like. Even so, I think that a few songs from each album should be described so that the can see how each release is different from the one before.71.76.223.251 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Is not a good sentence, nor is the comma before the "too" at all necessary."--FrasierC

Is it necessary? No. Do I want it to be there? Yes, and that's perfectly acceptable.[1]

"Your arguing style is so arrogant it is unbelievable; I was merely pointing out the typo, as it was in the article, not on a talk page, where it would be irrelevant. You then said I was wrong, because you can't seem to accept that you are fallable in any way shape or form. When I proved beyond doubt it was wrong, you attack me for pointing it out."--FrasierC

Who cares if I make typo. Fix it, then. Stick to the topic! You don't have time for this.71.76.223.251 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"And I spell pluralisation with an "s". It is the English spelling of it. I couldn't care less that the Americans spell it a different way. You know the Chinese don't spell it anything like that. But that doesn't make me wrong."--FrasierC

No, it makes you outdated, and the Chinese who speak English do indeed spell it like Americans, like everyone who doesn't live on a particular island in Western Europe.71.76.223.251 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Anyway your argument shows a lack of knowledge on Wikipedia's policy. Led Zeppelin were an English band, so you would write English grammar, regardless of how you and 75% of the internet use the English language."--FrasierC

I know the policy and its nonsense. Why should we cater to a minority in writing for a band that sold the vast majority of its albums in my country where many more people would be interested in reading this. Not to mention that there are many more people in my country to begin with. 71.76.223.251 15:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"What is being discussed then? And you aren't the "author" of anything. This isn't your page, despite what you might think. Total sales figures are being discussed, look at the lead in, it makes no mention of at the time or anything else."--FrasierC

I wrote the freakin lead in! Do you fail to comprehend this? It may not be my page, but I am indeed the author of a of good bit of it. Would you tell Nathaniel Hawthorne the meaning of the Scarlett Letter, or Goethe the meaning of Young Werther? No? Then don't tell me the meaning of what I wrote.71.76.223.251 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Can you please tell us how the article is being improved by your edits, or indeed why you do not cite your sources? If what you claim is fact, they should not be difficult to find."--FrasierC

A bit of artistic evaluation is acceptable on a page largely about music, which is, you may have forgotten, an art form! Go look at the Mozart article, where there is tons of artistic description with *gasp* adjectives, and even mildly interesting language. And no, I didn't write it.71.76.223.251 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"And let's be frank about this; not one person who has come on this talk page has said anything about the changes other than negative remarks for your changes. I know Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but isn't this telling you something?"--FrasierC

It tells me most people should give up their compunction for writing.71.76.223.251 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"And anyway, you do realise you have broken the 3 reverts rule right?"--FrasierC 01:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So have those who are fighting with me. The difference is they devilishly hide their treachery under the banner of cleanup! Ha!71.76.223.251 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside from, "clockwise from left" some of the recent changes added to this article appear to be written by a 12 year with a learning disability. It's an encylopedia not a grade 4 classroom bookreport. Here's a hint...unless it has a reference...adjectives have no place on Wikipedia. Save the poetry for the teen blogs. And there is enough concensus now that Prog rock is wrong that if it gets added in again....report the user to WP:AiV. This is getting ridiculous 216.21.150.44 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying clockwise from left is wrong? It isn't Please point to specific incidents.71.76.223.251 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me make another proposition to everyone: That all the non-factual material you object to be removed and place into "musical style" or "criticism" section. This has been done for many other music articles like Mozart.71.76.223.251 15:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"I think I have proved it, but take out those words if you like. Even so, I think that a few songs from each album should be described so that the can see how each release is different from the one before."Dume7 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"I think that you haven't. Where are the citations? And I don't think that a few songs from each album should be described. So what makes you right? Moreover, descriptions of songs are almost inevitably POV, especially the way you have written them in the past with flowery descriptions which have no place on Wikipedia."

Tell that to the people on the hundreds of other art-focused articles who are far more extreme in their descriptions.Dume7 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Mozart, Beethoven, Pink Floyd, Beatles

"Its" nonsense is it? Ah well, it still stands, I'm not too bothered what you think really. And actually, Led Zeppelin sold the vast majority of their albums outside America."

Yeah, and that "vast majority" was spread over about 100 different countries, while America bought well over a third, far more than another other single nation.Dume7 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"And your argument is ridiculously petty and one I do not want to get involved in. It goes on an awful lot and is largely pointless. Both American English and English are correct, regardless of how many people speak it or use it."

Yeah, and so are Latin and Ancient Greek. Let's write it in those languages, then. Everybody speaks those. 71.76.223.251 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

" Are you saying clockwise from left is wrong? It isn't Please point to specific incidents."Dume7 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, he's saying that is your only worthwhile edit.

"I don't care what those who "are fighting with you" are doing. You have broken the rules."

So have you. It's called vandalism.Dume7 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It tells me most people should give up their compunction for writing."

"Arrogance is so apparent in you. So people disagree with your "improvements" and thus they are wrong? Can you not see the problem with that."

They don't just disagree, they say things like "save it for the teen blogs", and call me "12 year old with a learning disability" just because I corrected the caption under the title photo, added in a sales comparsion, and mentioned three famous songs from physical graffitti. If that makes me a 12 year old with a learning disability, then I'm proud of it. These aren't even worth addressing really, but I think I have the moral high ground when it comes to restraint from petty insults.Dume7 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Mozart article isn't featured, so why should we want the Led Zeppelin article to be like it?"

Why should not go repair that much more extreme example instead?Dume7 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"And I could tell you didn't write it, it doesn't have typos every two lines."

Save some of that weak venom for your real enemies. I'm immune.Dume7 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"I wrote the freakin lead in! Do you fail to comprehend this? It may not be my page, but I am indeed the author of a of good bit of it."16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"This is why it isn't a good article."

And that's where I would disagree. I think its seen better days, but its okay.Dume7 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Are you comparing yourself to these authors then?"

In an a priori sense, yes.Dume7 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Answer my question, why are almost none of your changes cited? Surely they if they are fact, why can't you find citations?"

Common knowledge does not need a reference--take that peice of policy and eat it. Also, the vast majority of the sentences on this article have no references. Why waste time on me when you could be doing something constructive.Dume7 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"And a Wikipedia article should not be open to interpretation. So if the reader is unaware of what your point is, then you have failed in your attempt to make the page a good article."

I can't cater to inabilities of the rabble. There is no particular point besides--it's just an article. Dume7 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"You clearly have no understanding of what an article should be. If you had, you would have made it so it would at least have "good status". It doesn't."

You know when it was nominated for FA status, directly after I had revamped it--and it probably would have been confirmed if I had been allowed to finish. Then certain person who shall remain nameless RUINED it and removed the meat. They couldn't edit their way out of a paper bag.Dume7 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"I realise that you will simply revert the page again, because you are too immature to debate properly, and too arrogant to believe that you could be wrong, but even if this gets you to think for one minute then I'll have done something."

I'd love to debate but you want to talk in generalities. I want you to "cite your sources", as it were.

"It is you and people like you that give Americans a bad name. I love America, and I think most of the people there are great. But the sad fact is that people see people like you, loud, aggressive and unwilling to listen to anyone, and base their assessment of Americans on this. This is why there is so much anti American feeling throughout the world, and for that I feel exceptionally sad."

Once again, an irrelavent generality.Dume7 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"All "non factual material" should be removed."

The why not go pester the people on that article? Why are you so obsessed with my edits? Here, go have fun: Mozart.Dume7 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Do you actually know what Wikipedia is? It should include the facts. That's the point of encyclopedia."

I agree completely.Dume7 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The page is now semi protected.

--FrasierC 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I semi-protected the page before the parties involved exceeded the three-revert rule, it's set for 24 hours.--Alf ^melmac 15:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dume7 please stop refactoring the page, this edit changed and removed data.--Alf ^melmac 17:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about.71.76.223.251 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"I realise that you will simply revert the page again, because you are too immature to debate properly, and too arrogant to believe that you could be wrong, but even if this gets you to think for one minute then I'll have done something."

I'd love to debate but you want to talk in generalities. I want you to "cite your sources", as it were.

"It is you and people like you that give Americans a bad name. I love America, and I think most of the people there are great. But the sad fact is that people see people like you, loud, aggressive and unwilling to listen to anyone, and base their assessment of Americans on this. This is why there is so much anti American feeling throughout the world, and for that I feel exceptionally sad."

Once again, an irrelavent generality.Dume7 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"All "non factual material" should be removed."

The why not go pester the people on that article? Why are you so obsessed with my edits? Here, go have fun: Mozart.Dume7 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Do you actually know what Wikipedia is? It should include the facts. That's the point of encyclopedia."

I agree completely.Dume7 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The page is now semi protected.

--FrasierC 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I semi-protected the page before the parties involved exceeded the three-revert rule, it's set for 24 hours.--Alf ^melmac 15:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dume7 please stop refactoring the page, this edit changed and removed data.--Alf ^melmac 17:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Tell that to the people on the hundreds of other art-focused articles who are far more extreme in their descriptions."

"So other articles are worse, so therefore, we should make this one worse as well? What logic is that? I want this article to be featured, I want it to be of decent quality. I don't really care that other articles are worse. I agree there are far worse articles. That does not make your argument for making this one worse any more valid."

The logic is, why are you willing to waste you time by hanging onto my coattails when you could be improving an article that needs it more?71.76.223.251 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

" So have you. It's called vandalism."

"Where have I done this? Please show me where I have "vandalised" anything? I haven't even reverted your edits. So not only can you not write Wikipedia articles, but you can't even get your facts straight. Show me where I have fulfilled these accusations? Because I know for a fact I haven't."

You have indeed reverted my good edits.71.76.223.251 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Once again, an irrelavent generality."

I find it sad that you think so.

"Common knowledge does not need a reference--take that peice of policy and eat it."

What you have suggested is not "common knowledge." In fact, some of it disagrees with a prominant biography."

"Also, the vast majority of the sentences on this article have no references. Why waste time on me when you could be doing something constructive."

I am doing something constructive; making the article better rather than adding nonsense that no one thinks is any good. The vast majority aren't cited that is true. But I want them to be cited. I want the article to be good. I don't want to make it worse and then use the argument that "it's already crap, so let's make it worse, and hey, there's worse articles out there!"

" I'd love to debate but you want to talk in generalities. I want you to "cite your sources", as it were."

What on Earth are you talking about?

"The why not go pester the people on that article? Why are you so obsessed with my edits? Here, go have fun: Mozart."

Because I have no knowledge of Mozart. I realise that's probably never stopped you from opening your mouth, but to some of us it's a matter of manners that we don't comment unless we know what we're talking about.

"And that's where I would disagree. I think its seen better days, but its okay."

It's not a Good Article is what I mean, in the sense of the Wikipedia definition.

"You know when it was nominated for FA status, directly after I had revamped it--and it probably would have been confirmed if I had been allowed to finish. Then certain person who shall remain nameless RUINED it and removed the meat. They couldn't edit their way out of a paper bag."

Do you actually know what you have to do to get an article nominated? Not a lot. It's actually getting it to be FA which is the difficulty.

" I can't cater to inabilities of the rabble. There is no particular point besides--it's just an article. "

No - you clearly can't cater for anybody at all.

"They don't just disagree, they say things like "save it for the teen blogs", and call me "12 year old with a learning disability" just because I corrected the caption under the title photo, added in a sales comparsion, and mentioned three famous songs from physical graffitti. If that makes me a 12 year old with a learning disability, then I'm proud of it. These aren't even worth addressing really, but I think I have the moral high ground when it comes to restraint from petty insults."

"-Your aggression and lack of manners have been shown before. Why did you expect anything different from everyone else?--FrasierC 18:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)"

I didn't expect anything more at all, although I don't every remember saying that anyone had a learning disability. In every occasion I merely state that I'm right and others are not. How is this agressive or rude? 71.76.223.251 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Yeah, and so are Latin and Ancient Greek. Let's write it in those languages, then. Everybody speaks those."

Latin and Ancient Greek are dead languages. "British" English is still spoken by a lot of people, including most people in South Asian. Just because people like you are childish and can't accept that other people don't want to conform to what you think is right doesn't make these people wrong.

Seeing as how practically nobody in "South Asian" (holy crap--typo !!!!!*gasp*!!!!! ) has a personal computer, I don't really care.71.76.223.251 21:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"You have indeed reverted my good edits."

No indeed I have not. I've not reverted anything. Other people have, but I personally haven't.

" I didn't expect anything more at all, although I don't every remember saying that anyone had a learning disability. In every occasion I merely state that I'm right and others are not. How is this agressive or rude?"

The sad thing is you really can't see you are being rude and overly aggressive.

--FrasierC 21:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Article That Once Was

For those who want to see what this article looked like when it was a featured article candidate (i.e., before my edits were erased), here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&diff=prev&oldid=83871252 Needless to say, I thinks its infinitely better than the sterile little pile of information shavings that it is now. Does it need more sourcing and some condensing? Absolutely, its sort of a mess, but I was never allowed to finish. The fact is that this older version is far more informative and interesting than the one we have now, and ever since I left things have gone downhill. Look for instanced at the Pink Floyd page, which is a featured article and look at how many POV statements are used--hundreds. Yet that article is featured and this one which is far better written and organized is complete "teen blog" garbage written by a "12 year old with a learning disability". See hypocrisy Dume7 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your argument for POV is ridiculous and wrong. Just because the Pink Floyd article isn't perfect, does not mean we should aim for imperfection as well. And I dispute that hundreds of POV statements are used. Show hundreds of them please? --FrasierC 18:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither the current article nor the one you give a diff for mentions the theme tune to Top of the Pops, both are short of current Featured Article status.--Alf ^melmac 22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all why do you have to divide practically every sentence you write into a different paragraph--it makes it extremely difficult to see what's going on. As for the hundreds of POV statements, just look at the article: Pink Floyd. It's plain as day. You say you want a featured article, so I give you one as an example, and then you scorn it. Either way I think my unfinished version of this article is way better than the current one. 71.76.223.251 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My paragraphing adheres to all the rules of English. If you can't understand it, it really isn't my fault. I do not scorn anything - I am saying that your argument for POV statements is going against what Wikipedia is about - ie there should be a lack of POV statements. You saying other articles have POV statements does not make them any more wanted on Wikipedia. As for whether you think it is better or not - it is hardly surprising that you think that. It does not make your version any better, and you have not really shown why your additions would improve the article. Let's just see what the consesus of people is here.FrasierC 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your writing is easy enough to understand, but I can't tell what you've written because you have to stretch it out like verbal laffy taffy; we're having a conversation, not writing epic poetry or sonnets--you don't have to press enter every ten words. Moving on: Consensus is the death of writing. Has anything great ever come out of consensus. Did Shakespeare take a vote on whether Hamlet was good enough? Did Copernicus take a vote on whether the center of the solar system is the sun? Consensus is a way for average people to make things more average. The article I named is a featured article, which means it must be fantastic going by those beloved wikipedia standards of yours. You don't like it? Tell them to go strip its star. 71.76.223.251 20:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's hilarious that you have such large delusions of grandeur. This isn't Hamlet nor is this Copernicus' writing. It's a Wikipedia article. The two are completely different. What makes you right and everyone else wrong? --FrasierC 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Be more specific, and once again, stop putting your signature below your writing. That's why no one can tell who is speaking under the Disputed Changes headings. With only one line between different posters, its hard enough to read as it is. 71.76.223.251 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "be more specific"? I am being very specific. You say your article is good, but everyone else says it isn't. So what makes you, the author, right?

What I don't understand is why you want to edit Wikipedia at all. You don't seem to want to adhere to the rules, and in fact admit wanting to include POV in the article - which is against Wikipedia policy. Why do you want to edit on Wikipedia when you clearly dislike the rules and foundations it is built upon? --FrasierC 01:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The relevant bit of the Manual of Style states that 'articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country' so there's no argument about BE vs AmE.--Alf ^melmac 21:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad sentence.

"Led Zeppelin were an English rock band formed in 1968 and composed of guitarist Jimmy Page, vocalist Robert Plant, drummer John Bonham, and bass guitarist and keyboardist John Paul Jones."

Not only is it awkward to read, it is incomplete. I suggest something like :

"Led Zeppelin were an English rock band who formed in 1968. Led Zeppelin were composed of Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Bonham, and John Paul Jones."

As each of the members have extensive pages, it is unnecessary to have incomplete listings of what instruments they played cluttering the FIRST sentence of this article! --Mister B. 03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I am in two minds about that. The sentence is clumsy, but I think it is a good thing that the page includes what the band member's played, as I think it adds to the article as a whole. --FrasierC 19:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps just a re-write, or this could be included in another sentence. The problem is that, Jimmy didn't just play guitar, Robert didn't just Sing, and John Paul Jones certainly did not just play bass and keys. Why does having the instruments they play add to the article? Why is it necessary in the FIRST paragraph, the information is available throughout the article. At this time I will make the change, but will keep this forum alive to host and conversation regarding it.--Mister B. 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is the case for many bands that certain members would often play other instruments than the one for which they were mainly known. That being so, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out what the main instrument played by each member is, rather than just having the band consist of four random chaps who did something or other. If I were to read about a band for the first time I would certainly be interested in knowing what each of the band members did, but not to the pedantic degree that it would matter that on some particular song on one particular album they played a different instrument. If I were to read about a band I know little about and read that one member played the bass, I would not automatically assume that on every single song the band ever released that person played the bass and no other instrument. As we all know in the vast majority of Led Zeppelin songs Page played guitar, Plant sang, Jones played the bass or keyboard and Bonham played the drums and I think anyone reading the article will be intelligent enough to know that these designations are not necessarily limiting. My thoughts anyway...--Zoso Jade 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zoso Jade said. --FrasierC 16:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

How would you propose to re-word it then? There is no denying the original sentence was very poor. --Mister B. 19:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (Edit to comment --Mister B. 19:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

roller coaster

• Travel Led Zeppelin's stairway to theme-park heaven
• --Ling.Nut 12:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

origins of the name Led Zeppelin

is it possible that the name Led Zeppelin is derived from an English pronunciation of the Dutch "Leidseplein" (this is the Leyden square in Amsterdam), quite near the Dutch popmusic temple Paradiso? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henkberg55 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

I suppose it is possible, but it seems likely to be a coincidence to me. If you find anything to support this, great. Mister B. 00:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the name came from Keith Moon who is often quoted as saying "You'll go down like a Lead Zeppelin" to members of the band. The band quite liked the name but changed the spelling to Led Zeppelin to accomodate the American audience who they thought would call them Lead Zeppelin as in "Leed Zeppelin" Chilkoot 19:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually there is a lot of mystery surrounding it. Jimmy Page used to wear a broach shaped like a Zeppelin, which could have been the source of the name, but the story that most people hear is : Keith Moon, Jimmy Page, and Roger Daltry were talking about starting a super group which Keith Moon was quoted as saying would go down like a "Lead Zeppelin". Saying something would go down like a "Lead Balloon" is a reasonably common slang term in england, so this isn't that big of a stretch. That is the version on the article page. --Mister B. 04:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It came from Keith Moon who said "you'll sink faster than a lead zeppelin" I believe the band credited Moon somewhere when they announced their new lineup....... (72.39.106.180 23:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

The common belief is the correct one. John Entwistle said in a book (I don't quite remember it, but it was something about the greatest bass players of all time. I remember posting it on here a while ago) the he and Keith Moon were in a bar talking about a band to make, since they wanted to leave Townshend and Daltry. Moon said "It would sink like a led zeppelin"

EDIT here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin/Archive3#A_Bunch_of_helpfull_info

iTunes

Why is Led Zeppelin not on iTunes? 68.55.183.136 21:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Because of Copyright issues. Mister B. 04:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Under the heading "Biggest band in the world", the "Debauchery" link leads to an article on Catholic Church indulgences???

Why does this link point to there? I -am- assuming good faith on the part of the person who created the link, but honestly, what does the concept of an "indulgence" (which was a way for Catholics to pay money to earn favor with the Church and with God) have to do with musicians' debauchery in the context of Led Zep's members' legendary rock n' roll lifestyles? I thought about changing it, but I'm not skilled with HTML, so, anyone else want to point this link to a more appropriate article: like say "pick-up artists (PUAs)" Jdholsinger 12:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Another way of talking about debauchery is to say one is indulging themselves in what could be perceived as unsavory activities. I'm sure the original editor making that link didn't know about the Catholic term Indulgence (I know I didn't). Debauchery has its own article, so I linked it there. — Zaui (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Top of the Pops

During the 70s & 80s, the BBC programme, Top of the Pops, used the guitar rift from CCS' version of Whole Lotta Love as the opening title music.

Goldbug

Goldbug covered A Whole Lotta Love and combined it with the annoyingly catchy Pearl & Dean (an advertising company) cinema music. LewisR 02:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

The images need fair use rationales that specifically state they are being used for this article or the nomination will be quick-failed. Look to similar GA/FAs for examples. --Nehrams2020 22:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in the Timeline?

(Npjnpj 09:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)) This is my first entry in Wikipedia, so please excuse any 'mishaps'. I will check regularly for any comments and correct any mistakes I might have made.

The article contains the following statement:

"Page joined the Yardbirds in 1967 to play bass guitar after the original bassist, Paul Samwell-Smith, left the group. Shortly after, Page switched from bass to second lead guitar, creating a dual-lead guitar line up with Jeff Beck. Following the departure of Beck in October 1966...."

This surely must be a mistake? According to this Page joined the Yardbirds after Beck had left?

I believe it is a mistake. I have corrected it to 1966. Well spotted! 8) Candy 07:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images used without fair use rationale

All these screen shots from concert DVDs in the article are copyright images presumably used with fair use in mind, but no rationale provided. I'm not even sure that there is a rationale, as free images or public domain images should not be that hard to find. The images should be either given a rationale for use, or taken down. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a metal band?

Many people I have met these days tell me that Led Zeppelin is a Rock band and not a Metal band. I want to discuss with people about this. I'd say this is true. Your opinions?

• Please see the header for this page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Led Zeppelin article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. So here's my thoughts: ask your question in some other internet forum/ If you want to help bring this article up to good or featured status then have at it. —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On top of that, the topic is already beat to death here. Wikipedia is not about personal opinion. It's about citation, reference and verifiability. The only people who don't consider Led Zeppelin as a heavy metal band are musically impaired teenagers. As recommended, the topic of Led Zeppelin 'not' being heavy metal can probably be found on some teen chat room. It need not be discussed here any further. 156.34.209.39 08:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Quantity of drink

There is a simple but rather whopping error in re Bonham's death: the article says "he downed four quadruple vodkas (roughly sixteen shots (2/3 pint(~8dl) of vodka)". A quick check with the Unix "units" program says that 2/3 pint is closer to 3 dl. On the other hand, 16 shots converts to 7 dl or 1.6 pint. This is assuming that 1 shot = 1.5 US fluid oz.

The "units" program's data file documents an "EU shot" which is 25 ml (compared to the US shot, which is 44 ml). The UK was in the EU at the time. After checking Shot_glass#Sizes, I see that the UK shot is 25 or 30 ml.

Being more careful with units, I get:

four quadruple UK shots = 16 shots = 400/480 ml

400/480 ml = 0.7/0.84 imperial pint = 4/4.8 dl

So a better statement would be: "he downed four quadruple vodkas (roughly sixteen shots (3/4 pint (~4.5 dl) of vodka)".

Do people think this is a reasonable amendment? DWorley 01:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)DWorley

Images needed

I have been following this page for about a year, and over that time numerous images of Led Zeppelin have been added (some by myself), only to be taken down later as a violation of fair use. The page currently only has one image of the band, which is in the infobox. No pictures of any of the individual band members, or of the group performing live on stage. My question is: where can fair use images of the band actually be found? Edelmand 11:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Easiest way would be by contacting people who have photographed concerts, and getting their permission to license them for free use. Unfortunately most concert images on the internet are without author information, let alone a contact. I guess we just have to hope that there's a wikipedian among us that has attended a show and has photos. IrisKawling 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Musical Methods

i think more information on Led Zeppelin's use of musicality should be brought to attention this includes guitar scales and methods, innovations , and commonly used chords , bass lines, methods , plucking techniques ,drum beats and percussiive innovation and vocal ranges.

It will likely be removed as WP:ATT if it isn't properly referenced and verifiable. The article already has too much unref'd original research as it is and requires cleanup more than new content. 156.34.209.136 02:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Added the Legacy and cultural impact section

many bands have this, if any it should be Zeppelin Zephead999 23:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

However, the section should be in proper English and be cited as well as NPOV.72.72.32.16 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

LMFAO. citied? have you been living under a rock your whole life? YOu do the citing buddy, oh and if u want it in proper english then fix it yourself. and it is NPOV, those were all facts. Zephead999 23:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

External Link Request

I would like to request the following link for inclusion under the external links:

• Led Zeppelin/Archive 4 discography at Discogs

All information in this database is cross referenced and inaccuracies, if any, can be updated by anyone that wishes.

Thank you. 171.159.64.10 17:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Add to the "plagarism" section?

The Lemon Song (off of Led Zeppelin II) was plagarized off of the song "Killing Floor" by Howlin' Wolf. Chess records had to sue to get the royalties and to have the song credited. Add?

Not sure about that Lemon Song. The main lyric as far as I know is from Robert Johnson's Travellin Riverside Blues. And he probably heard it from someone else. However, one that is notably left off is that "Since I've Been Lovin' You" is an almost direct lift (but better version) of "Never" by Moby Grape. And here's the reference: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=33:ajftxzldldke

Please some put info that Led Zeppelin is Hard Rock!!

I have a friend who dosn't think Zeppelin is Hard Rock. Someone please convince him they are. Jerry65 11:48 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism section

either remove this negligible, useless section over one of the stupidest "controversies" about a band ever to be invented by Rolling Stone, or I will post a sourced, reasonable plagiarism section of equal value about another a band many of you anti-Zeppelin idiots may not take so kind to. give you a hint: Their name starts with a "B", ends with an "S", and has a big "over rated" in the middle.

This has already been argued to death. See above ("accusations of copying music"). I personally agree with you that this 'controversy' is overstated, but it seems that enough people are interested in the topic to warrant a heading. Edelmand 09:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The standard for international English is American English

To the person that appointed themselves the arbiter of (English) verb conjugation with this statement: Note: This article is written in UK English, which treats collective nouns as plurals. (i.e. Led Zeppelin WERE a band.) were Don't waste your time changing this to "was", it will be reverted back quickly.

Sorry, wrong answer. It's my time to waste. And since I'm disabled, I have a good deal of it. As Obi-wan said to Han Solo, "You can't win." ;0)

American, i.e. US, English is the standard for International English. Therefore, its conventions are the ones that should be followed for an international audience (such as the one to which en.wikipedia.org caters to).

If this person hadn't thrown down the gauntlet I probably would have let it pass. The insolent tone also made it imperative to correct the error.

But I am NOT going to be dictated to. I will revert to the internationally accepted standard just as many times as it is reverted to the insular British conjugation.

Obviously a policy needs to be set mandating the use of American English. This would eliminate these disputes.

Far, far more people use US orthography than any other (300 million Americans vs. 55 million Brits and that's not counting the hundreds of millions of non-Anglo-Americans who use it). The truncated English vocabulary--about 800 words--used by international airline pilots is based on US usage.

It is thus clear that US English is the only logical choice.

PainMan 09:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:ENGVAR. UK subject, UK English. Peter Fleet 10:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

...the most relevant section of which is as follows:

Strong national ties to a topic

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. For example:

• American Civil War—(American English)
• Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings—(British English)
• Australian Defence Force—(Australian English)

Since Led Zeppelin were an English band, it would seem appropriate to retain the UK English format (although I take your point that the "don't waste your time" statement could be toned down) Edelmand 12:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

@Edelmand Given the bewildering number of Wikipedia "policies" and "suggestions" and maybes, it's hard to know every single policy, so if I err'd against one of these policies, my bad.

And, re-reading my own post, I realize that my tone was too strident. I was having a bad day. Of course, that's no excuse for disrupting the consensus (or however it's put in wiki-speak).

I do, however, have an counter-argument to your main contention:

Since Led Zeppelin were an English band, it would seem appropriate to retain the UK English

Of course, this is true. Zep, however, became world-famous and hugely successful because of their popularity in the United States. They did come from England but they made their careers in the US, selling over 100,000,000 albums (according to the RIAA). In fact, they are the second bestselling group after The Beatles; and fourth bestselling artist after The Beatles, Elvis and Garth Brooks (US stats).

Nearly all of their music was heavily influenced by American blues, rock, rockabilly and other American "roots" music.

Also, during almost the entire duration of the band's existence, they lived in the US (because of England's insane tax laws which confiscated 98% of a musician's income back then!).

I believe this makes the use of American English the appropriate choice.

Clearly, we have a dispute that's obviously larger than just this article. I believe that the entire article should be rewritten to comply US English standards.

How can this resolved professionally? In other words, without a revert war?

PainMan 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No need for any revert war. WP:ENGVAR is very clear. UK English for a UK subject. Led Zeppelin were and English band comprised of English citizens. "Led Zeppelin were a band" is how this article will stay. 156.34.236.3 01:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)