Talk:Jimmy Page/Archive 1

?
I removed the sentence about his "supposed child" being a drug user because of his "scrubby-ness." Adamlazzara (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Who exactly is this "noted guitar historian Robert Lynch" ?A google search on him throws up few hits related to guitar. And the relevant hits all seem to be ( going by the date of publication ) regurgitations of precisely two wikipedia articles - the ones on Jimmy Page and Al Di Meola. I suspect that these are vanity edits. Can anyone come up with some evidence of his notability? And wher are the references for his comments on Page?(70.56.218.159 05:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC))
 * I was wondering that myself. A book/magazine ref should be found soon to add some V to it or it should be turfed. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 11:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed "Brian Pool and the Tremeloes" to the correct spelling "Brian Poole and the Tremeloes". So what if I'm a pedant?{subst:unsigned|67.68.48.171}} Also, Ritchie Blackmore played lead guitar on 'Just Like Eddie' by Heinz - not Page. Page would never ever have played sessions for Joe Meek because of his disliking of the way Meek worked and how the guitar sound was compressed and speeded up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.141.215 (talk • contribs) Heston is in West London - not North London —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tori tait (talk • contribs) It's very long, which is good, but it has no sections. It's almost as bad as a run-on paragraph or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.198.36 (talk • contribs) Where is that black-and-white picture of Jimmy Page? 'The image cannot be found' now, despite any image searches of 'Jimmy Page wikipedia' that might suggest otherwise. Whoever knows what I'm talking about and knows where to obtain it, please post the image where it once was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.204.66 (talk • contribs) There is No evidence that jimmy page used ANY other drugs besides heroin....
 * Actually Page is confirmed to have done many sessions with Joe Meek, including Screaming Lord Sutch's 'She's Fallen In Love With A Monster Man'. Blackmore did the lead work on 'Just Like Eddie,' but Page played on Heinz' 'Digging My Potatoes.' ScottSwan 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * there are photographs of him smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol

Regarding biography
It seems to me that the existing biography was largely ripped from Page's official site. Shouldn't this be remedied? Also, I think there should be a proper discography here, given Page's stature in the musical world. --Zoso 00:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) That isn't Page's official site. To my knowledge he doesn't have one. El cactus 04:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC) It says that he has been active since 1957, being born in 1944, making him 13 when he started. However, in the biography it says that he first picked up the guitar at age 15. In my humble opinion, this is contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.234.182 (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC) - the biography is wrong, his first public appearance is on the huw weldon show in 1957 (you can see this on youtube) Interestingly enough, it said 15 in Hammer of the Gods... Said that he had picked up a Spanish acoustic that was dropped off at the house by a relative. AlexRochon (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Violin bow
I would like some info on the bow incident... When/Where? Mention it in the article perhaps? Redwolf24 10:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Jimmy Page used a violin bow on his guitar many times, it wasn't just a single incident, infact I don't know a show where he didn't use it :) - although given the huge amount of LZ shows there must have been a few. He mostly used it on their song "Dazed and Confused", but also used it during "How Many More Times" in earlier performances (they stopped playing this live in around 1970, I think). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.7.203 (talk • contribs) - this point will be well known to anyone who has seen the dvd. he also used the violin bow in the yardbirds, mainly on "dazed & confused" (there is a live version of this on youtube) but also on "tinker tailor soldier sailor" on "little games".   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.70.235 (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC) During some of Page's session work, he worked with a string ensemble. One of the violin players asked Page if he had ever considered using a bow on the guitar. Page said that it would not work because the bridge is not arced like a violin. But later, Page tried the technique and adapted to his legandary stage shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.35.75 (talk • contribs) The violin Player was father of David MacCallum - famous for "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." in the 60s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.6.107.209 (talk • contribs)
 * Not that this is relevant at all, but it also completely destroys the bow... :-P Firenexx 01:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Actuallly it doesn't destroy the bow unless you REALLY use the bow hard like Page did (he would really wail on the thing). It does however cover your guitar and strings in rosen which is a pain if you try and start to pick the strings again. You can really get some interesting sounds by using it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzlydog (talk • contribs) Page would often have his roadies either bring extra violin bows on the road or scope out a restringing shop, as his bow would become, as Firenexx put it, completely destroyed. :) Ledzepluvr 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC) The bow was definitely used on the studio versions of Dazed & Confused and How Many More Times, both on the first album. Speculation has run rampant that it was also used at the beginning of In the Light and In the Evening.  With the former, its plausible that it is a bow on an acoustic guitar, but this has never been proven.  With the latter, speculation is that it is actually a Gizmotron used.  As far as live performances, the bow was used from the beginning until 1980.  At first it was used in both D&C and HMMT, and then cut down to just D&C.  In 1975 Page broke his hand, and for the first few shows of that tour they played HMMT and the bow was once again used during that song.  Then in 1977 D&C was dropped altogether, but Page still whipped out the bow as part of what some call a "noise solo" as that's about the only way to describe it. In 1977 it led into Achilles Last Stand, and in 1979 it led into In the Evening. Hope that helps! --Cooleyez229 07:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Guitars listing
Under the guitars listing there's a Gibson "Black Beauty" Les Paul Custom. I'm assuming the listing refers to the one that was stolen from Page in the late 60's or early 70's (can't remember which, think it's the latter). Now, since he technically doesn't own the guitar, I was thinking that this entry maybe should be removed. I don't mind doing it myself, but I don't really want to edit articles if I'm unsure how others feel about the change. So please just share your thought. Raflmoe 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC) The "Black Beauty" was recently remade in '07 as a gift for then what was the upcoming 02 Arena, and this was by gibson (I found this out in December 07's Guitar Mag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.68.165 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This list doesn't indicate itself as being a list of Guitars Jimmy Page currently owns. I'm sure some of the other guitars may have been sold or fallen into various states of disrepair (he doesn't play them all constantly, after all. Some of them have to sit around in storage closets.) Therefore, it would seem it is just a list of "Guitars," or, more precisely, guitars that he's played a significant amount in the past. I don't think a change is necessary. You might want to note (This guitar was stolen in ____ (whatever year)) next to the guitar there, and put a source in the links at the bottom of the page. This would be harmless and I'm sure a lot of Page fans would be interested in this knowledge. firenexx 15:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In the guitar listings, it is stated that he uses a "Harmony Acoustic". This acoustic is a mid 1960s Harmony Sovereign Dreadnaught Acoustic. While I'm not 100% sure, I believe this may be the guitar that the acoustic tracks of Stairway to Heaven were played on (I own one, and the similarity is amazing), but I could be wrong. christian.elliott 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely instruments
I removed "recorder, flute, tuba, computer keyboard, and airhorn" from the "other instruments" section- I've never heard or seen anything about him playing the instruments, and some of those just seem silly. If you can find a source for that info, feel free to add it back in. -albrozdude 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Chinese ancestry
This article says that Jimmy Page is 1/8 Chinese. I have pretty big knowlege of the subject, but I have never heard such a thing. Does anybody know wether it's true or nor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.116.53.58 (talk • contribs)
 * That bugged me too. The only place(online) that says it, besides here, are the spam info pages that link all the info directly from wiki. Your probably pretty safe to turf it. IMO Cheers! Anger22 21:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just written to the guy that added this and asked him to provide references Mikus666 21:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ya know, i actually did always notice that he looked a bit eastern. but, of course, we need a ref. Joeyramoney 22:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There is one article on About.com of these two random guys talking about Page being Asian and it's going all over the net like crazy and everyone is accepting it as hard evidence. That's like using Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia!! I highly doubt he's of Asian descent. He was born in the 1940's and supposedly it's his great grandmother that is Chinese. My great grandma was born in... like 1891 and I'm only 17!!! So if it's about the same for Page, his great grandma would have been born in the 1830's or 1840's. Does it really sound logical that a Chinese person immigrated to England in the 1830's and married an Englishmen? She probably would have been killed back then!! Let alone marrying an English person. There's no way in hell Jimmy Page is Asian. Many Irish people have slanted eyes and look kind of Asian and his name is James PATRICK Page. I'd say he's probably just half Irish and the parent that is Irish just had the slanted-eye Irish trait. Maybe like his dad had black hair and his mom had slanted eyes and he just got both those traits.. Trust me, Jimmy Page is not Asian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.139.199 (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen pictures of Jimmy's mother and she definitely looks part-Asian. I don't know of an official source for the info, however. ScottSwan 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bjork looks Asiatic and she's from Iceland, not sure about her ancestry though. MegX (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I defy anyone to watch "it might get loud" and not ask yourself, "is he asian"? I just started to type the question in on Google and it came up in tons of places, but all just speculating fools.  Why has nothing citable ever been said about this?  If he looked part black, someone would have asked him by now.  Something about looking Asian, I guess, causes people not to bring it up when he's around.  o well....Chrisrus (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that unlikely. Maybe his great-grandfather was a sailor who went to China and brought a Chinese girl back? And remember, Hong Kong was British from 1842. Bgagaga (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right. But can we find any published interview or anything we can quote?  Why do you think we can't?  It reminds me of the Richard Pryor story about how when he visited Africa for the first time, he looked around and said "Somebody in my family been lying!" Chrisrus (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin
Shouldn't their be a larger section on his work with Zep? All we have now is about three paragraphs. About a fifteen year period. Yeah. :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.42.51 (talk • contribs)
 * that's why led zeppelin has it's own page. Joeyramoney 22:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin III
In the subtitle "Aleister Crowley/Occult Interests" it says that Page pressed two sayings into the front and back covers. I have a vinyl of this album, and nowhere that I can see does this exist. The article on the album itself doesn't contain this bit of info either. Has anybody heard of this, and if so, where is it on the cover? Plus we need a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.239.147.121 (talk • contribs)
 * My father has the album, and I don't recall seeing it, and, since there's not any source, I'm going to remove it. M2K e  14:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read somewhere that there was some Crowley quote; possibly 'do what thou wilt and it shall be the whole of the law', that was pressed into the vinyl itself? But I'm not sure about the reliability of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El cactus (talk • contribs) It was SCRATCHED into the run-out first few hundred LPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.6.107.209 (talk • contribs) I have a copy of an original Led Zeppelin III with the inscriptions. It has Do What Thou Wilt pressed on Side One and So Mote Be It pressed on Side Two. They are etched in script letters into the vinyl where the playing space runs out. I have also seen the album with only one of the inscriptions pressed on one side. I think there are probably more than a few hundred out there, but I am not sure. It's true. The plates used to press the records must have been changed at some point. Earlier pressings(?) have it while others don't. I have one of each. The one without was produced after the with different product numbers. - Rockthing 16:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Jimmy had the two sayings inscribed on the first few hundred LPs without the other band members knowledge, and if I remember correctly, was removed when they found out.

Edit the Non-Music Interest Section
That section is ridiculous. Can you people stop ruining wikipedia, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.42.156 (talk • contribs) What's wrong with it? Grymsqueaker 16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Do you mean the "Personal life" section? Is there any information whatsoever that Page is a football fan or that he is interested in Chelsea FC? Personally, I don't feel like a reference to the Chelsea website is very substantive. - Rockthing 16:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC) I recall DISTINCTIVELY a Page/Plant interview in which Plant raved on about football (his team being West Brom, I believe) but Page said he himself never had any interest in the sport. So the Chelsea reference is highly dubious!

Welsh?
I was just curious as to why Page is listed under Wikipedia's "List of Welsh People." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Registered user 92 (talk • contribs) Yeah. He looks half Asian to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.81.39 (talk) 05:06:05, 7 May 2007 Not only is Jimmy Page NOT Welsh, but according to Hammer of the Gods, he never visited Wales until 1970, when he and Robert Plant vacationed at Bron-Yr-Aur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexRochon (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

PLAYED WITH KINKS
I think it is somewhat obvious to anyone who has listened to Page's session work in detail, and also to that of the early Kinks, that Page played more than one guitar solo on their releases. The solos on played on not only "You Really Got Me", and "All Day and All of the Night", but also to "I Need You", sound very similar in both tone and composition to Page's session work around that time for bands like The Primitives and The First Gear. If the solos do belong to Dave Davies, it was quite an amazing anomaly and coincidence as he has produced no other guitar solos that I am aware of that sound anything like them. The assumption that Shel Talmy would have just brought Page in to play some chords borders on naive. Shel was in the business of hits, and Page was his ace. Yes, the official versions of the events are that Dave Davies played all of it and Page just kind of lurked in the shadows or played some fuzz notes...or Keith Richards insists that he (Richards) played the solo on "Heart of Stone", but admits to copying it note for note from Page...but, oh, wait, Page did play on the alternate track that was released much later on the Stones Metamorphosis album. Again both solo sounds alot more like Jimmy Page in 1964 than Keith Richards - in fact Keith Richards really did not show the ability to play scales like that until perhaps much later, if ever. These explanations, at best, seem weak. Well if these guys were playing these solos, what did Page do then? Play some rhythm guitar and offer advice on solos? Rhetoric aside, the strongest evidence that Page did play these solos is the music itself. There are definitive elements to the sound and note selection that point intractably to Page's style at that time. In any case, at the very least the assertion in the article that it is a fact that he did not play on these recordings should be changed. This is not an NPOV. Considering the fact that the issue has been debated amoingst rock journals for decades should at least put this information in the realm of dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickiron (talk • contribs) There can be no disputing the fact that Dave Davies's frantic guitar solo in on the record ("You Really Got Me"). You can almost hear Ray urging him on. In an interview though Ray said that there was another guitarist on the record. If this is the case then they were either in the studio or there was an overdub. This additional guitar was either Jimmy Page and/or Big Jim Sullivan. The Musician's Union did not allow overdubs but they did take place regularly. There had been earlier attempts to record "You Really Got Me" and I suspect that Dave may have picked up a few hints from Jimmy Page (who was more of a rock guitarist than Big Jim Sullivan) at these earlier sessions. Overzeal 10:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Styling
His styling listed is OBE, Officer of the British Empire; however, the categories at the bottom of his page list him as Commander of the British Empire. Which is it, Commander or Officer Gorovich 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC) I looked through some links, and according to the one referenced in this article[1 he was made an Officer, so I went ahead and changed his category from Commander to Officer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorovich (talk • contribs) - it is OBE, which he got in 2005 as founding patron of the abc trust (from the abc trust website) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.70.235 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bands
Oughtn't it be mentioned that he was a member of [The Outlaws]. It says so on the Outlaws webpage, and its apparently important enough since Ritchie's page has it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shigaon (talk • contribs)
 * Page was never officially a member of [The Outlaws]. He only did some sessions with them. ScottSwan 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

vandalism
this article has been vandalized --24.61.34.214 03:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC) No kidding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs) OMG! Sarcasm much. Avianmosquito (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Heavy
The article says 'One of Jimmy Page's Les Paul Custom "Black Beauties" is now owned by Dan Hawkins of The Darkness, due to the fact the guitar was too heavy for him'. Is that 'heavy' as in, like, really heavy, man? Like, too heavy even for Jimmy Page?? Now that's heavy!!! --Thoughtcat 13:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC) A response, During his time with led zeppelin page usually appeared  skinny and frail (mostly latter in the 70s) but that is why it was to heavy for him. Although jimmy is still the gutair god #1 IMO.67.165.246.163 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC) i think it has more to do with the fact of him being, like, 70 years old than with him being thin and frail 30 years go —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A Les Paul is about 20 lbs. While 20 lbs. may not seem like much weight for a full-grown man in my experience of playing one four hours a night three nights a week for years you will get some serious back and shoulder pain.

Post-Led Zeppelin Career, etc.
I feel like this should be treated more chronologically. It's really all over the place, with a mention of 'Death Wish' coming at the end after his collaboration with 'The Black Crowes'. Also, I've never heard of him doing the soundtrack to Death Wish III. Does anyone have a citation for this? In general there is a lot of unsubstantiated information throughout the article. Something drastic really needs to be done about the flow as well. This is a topic which I feel confident about and would like to see presented in style. This is a really good start. It just needs some second opionions (that aren't anonymous) and a little polish. I hope to put some serious work into mostly rewording and reworking whenever I have time. Now is not the time, but I look forward to working with any regular editors of this article. - Rockthing 16:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC) I read somewhere recently that Page collaborated (or at least jammed) with the amazing jazz bassist Jaco Pastorius. Does anyone more knowledgable about Page know if there is any truth to this? If so, it would definitely be a candidate for inclusion in the Post-Zep section...that would demonstrate a dynamically different side of Page's musical abilities (jazz fusion). I hope someone can help...
 * IMDB credits Page with "original music" for Death Wish 3. No soundtrack album was released, however, and it is believed that the movie used music that Page had recorded for Death Wish 2. ScottSwan 18:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps is where you should be at. Get a friend to help you if you have never used it before!  Candy 06:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Candy: Is there any need to be rude? Of course I've googled that information, it just seems slightly implausible, so I was wondering if anyone had actually verified that the rumors (as reported on the site you very obnoxiously linked to) are in fact true. By your link, I suppose you're suggesting that I should believe everything I read as a result of a google search? I pity you. See my page for a response to your comment on my user page. Candy 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC) My respnse to your comment here is: 1. Sign your name (see Wikipedia help) 2. Try using specifics rather than make me or other editors scramble around to see what you may mean 3. I don't see the relationship between my comment and that you believe everything I believe everything on the web is true 4. No need to pity me. Candy 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC) For CANDY: (See also your user page...and be careful about calling yourself "editor") Here is my response to your comments from your user page: A RESPONSE: Perhaps you don't like using your name and like anonymous comment? -I asked a question before adding to a webpage. I'd seen rumors and all sorts of webpage/bootleg claims that Jimmy Page performed with Jaco...nothing credible and nothing actionable. Perhaps you don't like citing sources? -I like citing sources. That's why I asked the question. You googled and linked to a non-reputable webpage, not a credible source. I had already done that myself, prior to your rude comment, many times. I was asking for credible information. That was clear. Perhaps you like to actually refer to anything specifically? -This question does not make syntactical sense in English. Well, as you don't seem actually bothered to be specific I assume you are not bothered about being serious. -I have no idea what this sentence is referencing. I have been very specific with my question and also very specific in addressing your unwarranted rudeness. My effort was to not add heresay to Page's website; you googled and linked to a non-credible source and rudely dismissed my comment on the Page Discussion page. You were rude, not me. I don't think you should be bothered about my rudeness but think about your lack of specificity and the fact YOU can't be BOTHERED. -I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems that you are responding to your previous sentence, which didn't make any sense, so is this meant to create a conversation with yourself? And no, imho it doesn't show a dynamically different side of Page's musical abilities. -To suggest that Jaco Pastorius is akin to any type/genre of music that Jimmy Page previously played or currently plays is a completely idiotic statement. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong and very uneducated. Jaco completely revolutionized the jazz world; he invented his own instrument by reformatting the existing model of the electric bass to generate a new tone...and his playing with Pat Metheney and with Weather Report ushered in a totally new type of jazz...dubbed "fusion". Jimmy Page has never been associated with any type of jazz, and, if you consider his work in the blues to be in the same ballpark as jazz, you've obviously never heard any of the mid-1970s through mid-1980s fusion that Jaco created...Page's ability to musically jam/communicate with Jaco in a live, or otherwise, setting highlights a different style for certain. Perjaps YOU can help us by EXPLAINING what YOU mean. -I've already explained pretty accurately with my question on the Page Discussion page; you might have convoluted things by being rude and by googling a non-credible site. Google is obviously not the best way to research or to find credible information. You suggested that I either (1) use google to "research" Page and Jaco (I already had, which is why I was asking for more of an "expert" opinion from someone who might have already researched the rumors, the different non-credible websites) OR (2) find a friend to show me how to use google (which was rude and unnecessary). Your suggestion that google be used at all implies that you believe that google should be used to locate credible citations for Wikipedia edits...anyone who uses google knows that alongside useful information a TON of absolute crap comes up in response to any search... The suggestion that Google is a viable source of credible information to support citations is a flawed statement. As this is the supporting statement for your rude comment, your comment is easily dismissable...you have made a very silly and very uneducated assertion that google be used and be trusted to deliver factual information. Perhaps it is you who needs help from a friend in conducting research. It shouldn't matter that I am anonymous...YOU MADE A PERSONAL ATTACK AGAINST MY INTELLIGENCE WITH YOUR COMMENTS. SHAME ON YOU, CANDY! You made your rude attack public, so I'm happy to expose you for what you are right here on this page, too. 72.84.195.236 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your IP address appears to have been blocked due to repeated vandalism. If you wish to discuss this further than please contact me when you have access to Wikipidia again. Candy 06:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I use a shared IP address. I had nothing to do with the vandalism, which, by the way, seems to have ceased and (knock on wood) not started again in 2007.  A quick review of all of the 2007 contributions from this IP address, most of which were mine, confirms this fact.  I'm not sure what else there is to discuss.  You were unnecessarily rude.  You can admit to that anytime, and an apology might be a keen idea...

72.84.195.236 21:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC) May I point out that in reponse to my supposed rudeness you have attacked me on two fronts (here and my own page)., In addition, you have perverted what I said (I have not suggested google is a suitable source I merely implied you use it to start your investigation as you didn't seem interested in using any reference to submit for discussion - whether google or otherwise). I also, have not taken to shouting (which you have done above im copious amounts). You claim I made a personal attack against your intelligence. First of all, you are in an impersonal address and therefore cannot be attacked personally as you are not even registered. I made a respose to a vague comment. Try to see the difference ... person to comment. Furthermore, it is not possible to attack intelligence which is an abstract concept in itself. You have clearly misrepresented me by claiming that my comment was uneducated. You have no basis for that. Silly it was for sure and tongue in cheek but further than that you cannot say. I have made an apology on my page to you sumply for being rather sarcastic. On the other hand, your tone I find quite obnoxious and unwelcoming. Surely, the response to something which is taken as a slight is to question how I meant it (remember assume good faith) not to blast me. Candy 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the apology portion of your note on your talk page. I don't appreciate the "but I also want to say..." portions that you have left here.  I did not attack you at all.  I pointed out that you were incredibly rude...that YOU did not "assume good faith" with my question...that you assumed it was a chance to belittle someone.
 * I did not mean the "uneducated" comment so much as an insult...I meant it as a statement of fact...your opinion about Jaco's music not highlighting a different genre for Page is an uneducated opinion...obviously you don't know enough about Jaco, his music, or what significance his music holds to support that opinion. That's fine.  Jaco is outside of lots of people's musical lexicons, just as Jimmy Page is probably not tops on jazz experts' lists...that was my point, it seemed an unlikely combination, an unlikely jam session...tons of assertions available via google that it did happen, but I wondered if anyone had actually heard any of the purported recordings, etc.  (probably that would only take somebody with bit-torrent download capability, something my internet service provider doesn't support).  So, your opinion was uneducated...and your rudeness did not assume good faith.
 * I didn't "pervert" anything you have said. Anyone can read along my line-by-line response and observe that to be true.
 * Your argument about "attacking intelligence" is not even worth dignifying with a response. If you want to close read my phrasing, try copy editing your own comments (esp. if you want to keep calling yourself "editor").  You admitted on your talk page that your comment was rude.  It was an attack, and was unwarranted.  Insofar as you obviously assumed it was a chance to belittle someone else, you yourself have blatantly violated the spirit of the Wikipedia community.
 * My comments are not unwelcoming or obnoxious. I have not made any snide remarks to rival your "try google" statement that started all of this.  You behaved like a jerk, and I am simply calling you out for it...and also demonstrating that you have no entitlement to talk down to me (whether or not I have an anonymous IP or named account)...it violates Wikipedia's mission, and besides I know more about the issue at hand (particularly the significance of Jaco) than you do, so what possible grounds does that give you to pass judgement?  You would have done well to not reply at all to my initial question, you should have let someone with experience, knowledge of a recording, or an expert knowledge of Page or Jaco's bootography give the requested details...instead you've been rude, and now you're trying to save face, but it's just not going to work.  You messed up.  Give it up and move on.  Try to be more respectful and more productive as a Wikipedia editor in the future.
 * 72.84.195.236 00:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Charles Obscure"
Does anyone have a source for this "Charles Obscure" alias? I've never heard of this before. IrisKawling 19:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I really don't think a credit for one song on the entire Led Zeppelin catalogue warrants an inclusion as an alias on a biographical infobox. It's not like a nickname commonly used to refer to the indivudual (eg "Bonzo" for John Bonham) Edelmand 02:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * that was the alias Jimmy used for "Hats Off To (Roy) Harper" (Trad., arr. Charles Obscure). Seems to be some kind of inside joke.  In recent years that songwriting credit has been changed to "Page/Plant/Jones/Bonham". ScottSwan 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for clarifying but is it really that notable to be in the infobox? IrisKawling 04:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Added the Knebworth Concert
The line-up for this concert wasn't known until the morning of the show (that is tickets were bought not knowing who was playing). When Plant was announced, Page wasn't mentioned. Unfortunately, I can't find any good reference to back this us ... yet. The one I did find was untrustworthy (it missed out at least two songs that Plant did with his band - Going to California and Tie Die). However, I can vouch for the accuracy of the tracks. Notably as well, Page had lost that paunchy beer belly that he had at Live Aid and looked more like his younger self. Candy 08:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Albeit with some gray streaks! Additionally, and it might be too much to mention in the article, and I can't find an article to back this up, but I've read before that Wearing & Tearing was rehearsed for Knebworth eleven years prior. --Cooleyez229 07:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyclic referencing
I just noticed the reference to the Ultimate Hellraiser TV prog for channel 4. Having seen the programme I didn't think it particularly good. But the main concern is that I also saw a recent one called "God gave rock and roll" which was about the relationship between (mainly Christian) religion and the blues /rock and roll. Guess what came up? Well "Stairway" and back masking and Led Zepellin being an occult band. The odd feeling I had was that part of the research had been done using Wikipedia (and from older PoV edits). My thoughts are: What if the info was taken from Wikipedia? As TV progs don't cite sources I guess we will never know! If someone now uses a TV prog as a ref in Wikipedia to try to validate a citation doesn't this become a cyclic feed? My question is, is there any Wikipedia policy or guide to avoid this or discuss this? Thanks, Candy 10:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Glyn Johns
I notice that the following was added and then removed: "Famed producer Glyn Johns, who was bitter over the limited credit he thought he deserved for producing an album with Page, once went to a Page concert just so he could go backstage before it began and tell Page what an insufferable jerk everyone thought he was. In typical Page fashion, it has been rumoured that Jimmy forgave Johns for the insult and immediately tried to patch things up. Johns refused and threw a tantrum. Jimmy called security and had Johns escorted out of the building. The two have a very difficult relationship to this day. " Can someone explain why? The above is taken almost verbatim from "Hammer Of The Gods" by Stephen Davis, and is therefore considered to be "factual" enough for this page. One might say that it elude more to Led Zep., but seeing as it has more to do with Page's personality traits, then it sits well here. Nexus Icon 09:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Les Paul bought from Joe Walsh
This page has Page's #1 as just a 1958 Les Paul while #2 is the 1959 that Page bought from Joe Walsh. I was thumbing through a Guitar World from March of 2004 and it was talking about the recent Gibson Jimmy Page limited edition "#1" Les Paul and went on to describe that #1 was from Joe Walsh and is the one that's wired out-of-phase depending on how the push-pull tone knob is situated. So which is it and are there any references that say that #2 is from Joe Walsh and not #1? My reference again is from Guitar World March, 2004.
 * I'm not sure. I've heard it was #1 and that it was given to him by Walsh.  I'll have to look into it. --Cooleyez229 07:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of inacuracies here: (1) Both his #1 & #2 Les Pauls are 1959 models - the '1958' thing is a myth that has been circulating since the 1980s. #1 has no serial number which makes it hard to be 100% sure but there are details one can study, & the most popular opinion with guitar experts is that it's a 1959 (2) It was in fact the #1 guitar that he bought from Joe Walsh for $500 in April 1969 - Page confirmed this himself in the interview Gibson guitars did with him at the time of the JP signature Les Paul model. The interview was run on the Gibson website for a while & was on a DVD given as part of the "case candy" with the original run of the signature guitar (3) Regarding the custom switching, #2 was customised first, & has 4 push/pull pots plus two switches under the scratchplate (photos have been seen in a number of magazines); #1 only has one push/pull pot, which switches the pickups in & out of phase with each other.User:Huw Owens 14:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Huw Owens 01/05/07

Age listed in "Formative years" section
There is a passage that reads "At the age of 17, Page appeared on Huw Wheldon's All Your Own talent quest programme...." This was changed from "At the age of 14..." by 72.66.76.127 (see DIFF). Is this an accurate change or an incident of fact-altering vandalism? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC) video of the performance is available on youtube. he certainly looks closer to 14 than 17.
 * the date of this performance is not known for certain. Jimmy has stated that he was 13 years old when he appeared on the show, while the BBC website says it was recorded in 1958 (making Jimmy 14 years old).  But it certainly was not recorded when Jimmy was 17. 74.107.138.40 (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Drug use?
For the citations for drug use are b.s. there is no evidence for the quotes that this article has in them. In fact there is no evidence AT ALL of any other drugs used by him though out the 70s, beside heroin in late 75 early 76.67.165.246.163 16:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what you mean by "there is no evidence for the quotes that this article has in them". Have you actually consulted the sources which are cited?  I have, and the citations are correct.  Edelmand 12:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok then please feel free to tell me Exactly what drugs he used before heroin in 1976..!(67.165.246.163 19:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
 * The specific drug or drugs he used before 1976 are not mentioned in the article, so why are you asking me? The fact that Page himself stated that "for me drugs were an integral part of the whole thing, right from the beginning, right to the end" would logically mean that his drug use (whatever drug or drugs those were) was not limited to late 75 early 76, and was present throughout the 1970s. I stand by my statement that the quotations cited, far from being "b.s.", are correct and accurate. Edelmand 12:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

well you or other people should find out what drugs he did before 76
 * Why put the onus on me or "other people"? If you are so keen to find out specifically what type of drugs he did before '76, go ahead and do the research, find a source, and cite it accordingly. Edelmand 14:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been under repeated attacks of vandalism by User:Central2 who also edits as IP which has been blocked for 1 month for repeat violaions of several Wikipedia policies. Referenced content, no matter how controversial, is still referenced content. Removing/altering referenced content is vandalism. Wikipedia is not here to be used for hero worship... just cited information. If anyone has a dispute over the references themselves those judgements are not to be made on the main article. If anyone has differing information with regards to this disputed section and it has verifiable citations it can be added as a contrary view. But if Central2, or anyone else continues to delete referenced content they will be reported to an administrator. 205.174.170.244 14:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Edits as 67.165.246.163 have been accidental; a simple matter of not being logged in. I have NOT removed any referenced content whatsoever. If you still believe I have, please provide direct quotations. The reverts you are making refer to members of Led Zeppelin being involved with cocaine (which isn't even in the referenced content, let alone being true at all). Reverting back to accurate content. User:Central2 9 August 2007 At second look, I am not and am in no way associated with 67.165.246.163. The edits related to this account are not mine, and I have never been blocked or warned on Wikipedia to my knowledge. Maybe a shared IP address? User:Central2 9 August 2007 Would just like to state that all material in section 'Drug Use' in the current revision (as of 15:37) is referenced and accurate (this accuracy including the references themselves!). User:Central2 9 August 2007
 * Central2 and 205.174.170.244 please be aware of the amount of times you have reverted, or partially reverted, to what is, in essence, the same versions. Central2, the version you are reverting to removes names (as in this edit) given from cited material, which others have attested on this page as having verified. The following diffs are your edits following edits by 205.174.170.244, at points both of you brand each other as vandals (diff1, diff2, diff3 diff4. If you are unaware of the policy about Wikipedians who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, please read it before making further edits as the policy is enforceable by being blocked from editing. Thanks--Alf melmac 19:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Connection to Crowley?
I note the very detailed description of Page's interest in Aleister Crowley and Thelema. I also note that Page is included on the List of Thelemites, but that he is not explicitly stated on this page to have ever been involved in Thelema or included in the Category:Thelemites. If anyone can verify that he ever was a real adherent of Thelema, and add such to the article, it would be greatly appreciated. Alternately, if you can't find evidence which explicitly states his adherence to Thelema, please say as much and I will remove his name from the list. Thank you. John Carter 19:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He's not supposed to be in List of Thelemites, I'll remove him. IPSOS (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the status of allegations of Page's plagiarism? I'm surprised that no mention is made of this in the article. See: http://www.furious.com/perfect/jimmypage.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk) Do you have any citations to give about the distancing of himself from the occult you've said Page has done? There is so much I've read about his intense interest in it over the years, and your article is the very first word I've ever found that he has rejected it. When? It would be especially good to learn his reasons for this change, as the occult has been, for decades, such a powerful part of his identity, whether by his enthusiastic design or not. It is very nearly as key to his public identity as is his interest in the precursors to Zep's style. For most, this revelation you've given must be a bombshell, and I think the questions I've put are deserved for your article. Thank you. I will be most interested to see what you provide. Eyecicle (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since no-one has replied to this in the past year, and in Page's recent interviews he talks openly about his occult interests, I've removed the "distancing himself" phrase. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll see in the Thelemite section below on this Tslk page that some editors are very keen to maintain the illusion that Page has "distanced himself", despite numerous resources - including for example Mick Wall's recent biography of Led Zeppelin - demonstrating that his interests were always serious and remain strong. I support your removal of the "distancing himself" phrase. Ankhefenkhons (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I ought to add that "he has never described himself as a Thelemite" is incorrect and should be challenged. He was in the habit in the 1980s of sending Seasons Greetings cards signed "Thelemically Yours" which presumably amounts to the same thing... Ankhefenkhons (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism
What is the status of allegations of Page's plagiarism? I'm surprised that no mention is made of this in the article. See: http://www.furious.com/perfect/jimmypage.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Is there any referenced content available from a reliable source? Legal documents or court documents or settlements that can be used citations? The non-notable source of the furious.com blurb would not qualify as a reliable source for any information regarding supposed plagiarism. 142.167.93.132 15:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I notice my comment on plagiarism has been removed.

As wiki itself cites Page's stealing of the trad song 'Blackwaterside' (learned from Bert Jansch), and Page's ripping off of licks from Jansch and Davey Graham are well known to anyone with any span of knowledge of UK guitar music I thing this is another sad example of blind zealotry preventing any word of criticism on wiki.

Page is an infamous plagarist but we can't acknowledge that on wiki!!!

Roger 15.01.08 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * TBH I think that the plagiarism thing is completely out of context. You have to put yourself in the era and understand how the process worked with guitarists and musicians at the time. Many of these bands and musicians jammed a lot together. They would take parts of each other's songs and simply use them. It is clear that some of Page's guitar compositions were either derivative of, paid homage to or stole sections. However, this was not unusual. It wasn't necessarily though of as bad or an abuse of copyright as usually what came from it was something very different.


 * Rather than accusations of plagiarism it is always better to state facts such as whether he was taken to court. The court results or cout of court settlements. The following article gives some indication of the history behind the plagiarism accusation. (I consider the article to have a fair amount of fact and sets the scene for the era but is often disjointed and incoherent structurally in places.) Happy reading though. I particularly like the comment ""Whole Lotta Love" is obviously, as Steve Marriott pointed, a direct nick of the Small Faces take on "You Need Love." The lyrics are basically the same as the Muddy Waters version." If you read the two sets of lyrics it gives a whole different understanding of basically. --Candy (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Candy. It should be pointed out that the blues was a music form that liberally borrowed from each other since the first blues song was ever strummed on guitar. Remember before World War I, the idea someone could copyright music with lyics, and receive royalties for it was unheard of. Dixon's publishers could copyright it because the tool was there for them to be used. They just happened to be the first to use it. Specifically though, the issue involving "Whole Lotta Love" hinged on the similarity of lyrics, not the music, so it's relevance in this case to Page who didn't write the lyrics is minimal. Allegations of copyright infringement are best handled in courts of law, and not on the pages on an encyclopaedia. It opens up this encyclopaedia to the possibility of being sued, even if some other source has said it. MegX (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also the Jeff Beck Group's You Shook Me vs. Zeppelin's. Beck pretty much gave up on being a 'rock star' in a band after that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between bluesmen playing each others songs and rich kids from the UK taking those songs and stamping "written by Page/Plant" on them. Jansch/Graham/Spirit/almost as many bluesmen as there are "Zeppelin" songs have been ripped off by Zep- talented but obscure acts that could have really used the exposure that an acknowledged cover by a marketed band would bring. If Page isn't gonna be described as a "plagiarist" on wikipedia, there is no reason why he should be described as a "song-writer"- that's quite misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.79.35 (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bert Janch didn't write "Black Waterside" and therefore would not be entitled to any royalties for it. In fact, Janch himself stole the song from someone else and credited it to himself. 74.107.138.40 (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Drug use edits
I remove the header "Drug Use" and changed it to "Cocaine and Heroin abuse". The reason for this is that many substances are psychoactive (which is a reasonable if not definitively inaccurate definition of drug). Alcohol, nicotine and heroin are all drugs. As the section did not refer to all his drug use (certainly alcohol was also one) it seemed to be better to redefine it as his abuse (rather than use) and name the specific drugs alleged in the section. I feel that this makes it more specific and appropriate. Candy 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

so he didn't abuse alcohol and nicotine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Discography
Hi there! I'm in Wikipedia Italy as Luketheduke and I'm one of the biggest Led Zeppelin collectors in the world. I did the most comprehensive discography ever made and I'm trying to give a strong help on understanding Led Zeppelin + members to the newbie. Note that it's for the official releases only and not for the illegal bootlegs. I really don't understand why you cut my link: did you really look at my discography? Nobody ever made it, there's no book or anything similar. And you don't consider it important or interesting? c'mon let me know why ... Thanks luke p.s. please don't say a word about external link, because it's full of links (not all so interesting or updated as you think, i.e. Jimmy Page at Discogs, what is this mess of official not official singles album etc?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.204.109 (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:EL 156.34.214.13 10:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I read and re-read more than once the link you wrote (who are you?) and now I'm 100% sure that my site is correct (www.vjez.com) and these links MUST be cut off: # Jimmy Page at the Internet Movie Database ; # Jimmy Page at All Music Guide; # Jimmy Page at Discogs. Just to mention: they are totally commercial, useless, with a big amount of commercials, they are not unique resources etc. My site is 100% unique and there's nothing similar in the whole web. If you can prove that, you're right and I'm wrong. This is a three years hard working, of collecting infos, images, of checking different editions, of contacting collectors worldwide etc to give an idea of the vastity of the records made. It's only the beginning and you don't consider it interesting. You're not a LZ fan at all, for sure ... No words. Luke (one feedback received: "Very nice Site you have. I have always wanted to see one like this. All the best Pet.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.218.222 (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have heard through the years that Page plays guitar on Tom Jones' hit "It's Not Unusual", a pretty significant international hit. This is corroborated by several links online, one included here >>> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0656211/bio Please verify. --Almightybooblikon (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Skiffle
I changed this entry from "skiffle group" to "skiffle duo" because I have seen the episode of Huw Wheldon's program in which Page appears. You can see it too on the BBC documentary "Dancing In The Street". After playing his piece, Page is asked by Wheldon if he played any other style of guitar, to which Page replies, "Yes, I'm learning Spanish guitar as well". Wheldon then asks Page if he is "...going to play skiffle..." when he grows up, to which Page replies: "No, I'm going to do some biological research". Classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.11 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A DEGREE OF MURDER
wHY HASNT ANYBODY NOTED THAT JIMMY PLAYED GUITAR FOR BRIAN JONES' SOUNDTRACK MORD UND TOTSCHLAG( A degree of murder)THEY WERE GOOD FREINDS AND THER SOUNDTRACK I AVALIABLE THROUGH WATCHING THE FILM ON DVD. tHIS WAS IN 1966-67

We need more pictures!
This article needs more pictures of Jimmy Page. 66.44.181.31 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no free-use images available at Wiki Commons. People try and upload stolen images from the interent all the time. But they are copyvio and will always be deleted. If you want to go up to Mr Page and ask him to pose for a picture feel free to donate it to Wikipedia. Unless someone does that...there will never be a picture here until after he dies.(when a fair-use picture may possibly be allowed) 156.34.225.77 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can get images of Jimmy Page by emailing Atlantic Records. They keep stock photos and will let you use promo images of Jimmy Page provided you tell them it's not for profit. They're not too difficult to get if you ask nicely. MegX (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

jimmy page also did alot of cocaine and over dosed twice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.14.118 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Violin
Does anybody know if Jimmy page played the violin before he played the guitar? (Obviously at a very young age.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.206.66 (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * he did not

Plagerism revistited.
Their should be at least a breif mention about Page and the rest of Led Zepplin being taken to court for plagurism, how ever much his fans would like to ingore this it happend. There is a setion at the Led Zepplin page so perhaps that there could be only one or two lines but its something that should not me white washed.

Also FSAB (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) before you make the tried old exuse "Blues guys ripped of each other too" old blues aren't "ripoffs" because they didn't have that commercially and economically grounded idea of intellectual property and such as we do today. The songs were public property to all of the black community of the time. Led Zeppelin made the mistake of thinking that they could take that idea of musical public property into the mainstream business world of a massively popular band in the second half of the 20th century without giving credit and expecting to get away with it.
 * 2) Zepplin didn't rescue any one from obserity as the redisovery of the Blues had already happend in the 50s/60s, infact they were in some ways part of the scean that were responsible for the decline in Blues sales.
 * you are a bitter individual with no music to call your own —Preceding unsigned comment added by A plague of rainbows (talk • contribs) 19:10, 23 July 2008


 * It's covered already under Led Zeppelin. Since the case was mostly over lyrics, the guitarist's article might not be best suited. Also, please keep in mind this isn't a forum for discussing whether Led Zeppelin are good guys or rippers-off. That white rock "rips off" black music (and other white rock) is a subject for another article. The implication in your second point that Led Zeppelin caused a decline in blues sales is news to me and could use reliable sourcing; it would certainly be an interesting addition to the Led Zeppelin article. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * yeah your proberly right, at least the Led Zepplin articule has a breif section on that. The sales thing I'll try to find something on it.FSAB (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thelemite Revisited
I'm a little concerned about this:


 * Although Page collected works by Crowley, he never described himself as a Thelemite nor was he ever initiated into the O.T.O., and has since distanced himself from anything to do with the occult movement. The Equinox Bookstore and Boleskine House were both sold off during the 1980s, as Page settled into family life and participated in charity work.

It seems rather shallow and misleading. Although he may not have publicly declared himself to be a Thelemite, he's certainly self-described as a student of Aleister Crowley and uses a stylised "93" (representing "Thelema" as his signature); he is credited in several recent Thelemic publications as having provided documents and notes of clarification, and so on. The clincher is perhaps a Christmas card he had printed and sent to friends, Crowley image on the cover, signed with "93" with the greeting "Thelemically Yours". It's true that he wasn't "initiated into the OTO" but he appears in photographs taken in the last two years wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the OTO lamen or logo. To my knowledge, he has said nothing to "distance" himself from the subject -- he just prefers not to discuss it to ill-informed interviewers. So, I've deleted the first sentence -- please discuss here before reverting! Ankhefenkhons (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This amendment was deleted within a minute of being posted and without discussion here. MegX's discussion page shows that an attempt to discuss the change there was also deleted without response. The sentence above as reverted is without sources or references and appears to be incorrect in matters of fact. Anyone care to suggest how it can be adequately sourced, corrected or removed without being automatically being reverted? Ankhefenkhons (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Article should be left as is. There is no evidence Page was a member of the OTO. There is no evidence he is still practicising Thelema. You have made a number of claims above without any citations. HelenWatt (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Helen - thanks for your response. I acknowledge in my paragraph above that Jimmy Page is not a member of the OTO, although he remains a member of an allied organisation; also, there are images freely available online, including Ross Halfin's site, that show him in clothing prominently displaying the OTO lamen. There is much evidence that he remains a practising Thelemite, too, despite you not being aware of it. The "claims I make" are in a discussion page: I merely propose the removal of a sentence containing factual errors and without citations that is included in the main article page. Where is there any evidence, for example, that "he has distanced himself" from the subject? I must stress that I write as an admirer of Jimmy, both musically and in respect of his other interests and I proposed this simple correction only to improve the quality of the information presented in the article. Ankhefenkhons (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "although he remains a member of an allied organisation" which organisation? Please provide evidence of this. It's one thing saying it, it's another thing proving it. I'm still not convinced. HelenWatt (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, I appreciate that you're "not convinced" about this particular statement - why would you be? I've deliberately avoided mentioning it on the main page. If I had, I would have provided the documentary evidence. I note that you've ignored the other matters I mentioned... But the fact is that we're chatting about this on the discussion page: my concerns are about baseless assumptions given as fact on the main article page. I have asserted nothing new in removing the sentence, simply called for citations or evidence for the assertions in it. Ankhefenkhons (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus here is not to change it. I don't see any evidence either to suggest change otherwise. Weren't you in trouble before for spamming wikipedia with your lashtal site? TheClashFan (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "In trouble" on Wikipedia? What a quaint notion. I deliberately avoided reference to the site you've chosen to name and it's a little disingenuous of you to complain about the absence of evidence just before disclosing that you're well aware that I'm not permitted to include links to that evidence. How about this as a teaser, though? Page wearing OTO lamen, courtesy of Ross Halfin. Still, if it's "consensus" rather than "factual content" that is sought here, then I'm clearly heading nowhere with this correction and will respectfully withdraw and focus on better-informed resources. Seems a shame, though... Ankhefenkhons (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
"After the band's concert tour of the United States in that year, Page..."

In what year? C'mon people - we can do better than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.214.229.68 (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And..."In late 1964, Page was approached about the possibility of replacing Eric Clapton in The Yardbirds, but he declined the offer out of loyalty to his friend.[7] In February 1965 Clapton quit the Yardbirds, and Page was formally offered Clapton's spot, but because he was unwilling to give up his lucrative career as a session musician, and because he was still worried about his health under touring conditions, he suggested his friend, Jeff Beck. " Was it loyalty, health, money?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And: Interest In The Occult - "At 2007 Page broke his finger delaying him form getting some practice but eventually all his practice pays off to a good show." Not only is this sentence incoherent, it doesn't even belong to the topic at hand.

PCB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.162.222 (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why was the old picture changed?
I did not see anything wrong with the Old Picture and why must Robert Plant be included in the picture when this is an article of Jimmy Page?

There are many other pictures of Jimmy Page that could have been posted and i do not believe it was necessary for the old one to be removed. --Nothingbutgrains (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I too believe the older one was better. The article is on Jimmy Page, so I don't see what including Robert Plant has to do with it and the person who added the photo btw incidently didn't know the difference between the two people (they were labelled incorrectly). The older one was a promotional photo from a media kit (they are meant for widespread distribution and use) yet some editors not directly connected with the project objected to its use. MegX (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

S. Flavius Mercurius
also known as Charles Obscure, S. Flavius Mercurius

!!!!!!

can i know who wrote that

is that a vandalism or he is known with these names

and what is their origin especailly for the second S. Flavius Mercurius

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.211.66 (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

seperated or not
i read a month ago at this page that jimmy and his wife/partner were seperated in july 2008 then i didn't find it today what is the matter

any news?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.123.197 (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy and Jimena are divorced, as of 2008.

Les Pauls #1 and #2
After multiple edits, the information concerning these two guitars is very questionable. Firstly, there is confusion on which guitar was received from Joe Walsh. Gibson guitars has already confirmed that his #1 guitar IS from Joe Walsh, and IS from the year 1959 after a thorough exam due to the lack or serial. Also, the article states that Roger Griffin created a replica, which should be a separate listing on the Equipment list because it is a seperate guitar. Lastly, it says that the #2 was the guitar that Gibson recreated in 1994 which is absolutely incorrect.

Sources: Harmony Central, Gibson Replicates Jimmy Page's Les Paul #1, http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM04/article/Gibson/Jimmy-Page-LP-1.html -Says the guitar is from 1959 and bought from Joe Walsh, and it is NOT the #2 that was replicated

Youtube, Jimmy Page Talks About His Les Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoBs3vyI3Q0 -Direct evidence that the #1 was from Joe Walsh

Could someone change this information for me? The last time I did, a member reported me for vandalism and listed information with no credible sources. I reverted the page and got reported for vandalism again. This behavior is absolutely inappropriate and I would appreciate help from another member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQueenCorner (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ive tried fixing this also and got reported for vandalism by Fair Deal twice... I even cited the interview with Page when he states the #1 is from Walsh Zoso313 (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC) :The harmony central ref fails WP:RS. You are removing citations that pass WP:RS and altering the information away from the properly cited version. Please do not delete references and re-add false/contradictory information or you will be blocked from editing. Fair Deal (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Striking socks Rockgenre (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC) ::I have reverted the page to the earlier version until the discussion is finished here. The earlier version matches the references that are given and all references pass Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. The Number 1 model is most definitely a 1958 and the number 2 model is a 1959. There may be a discrepancy over which model Page got/bought from Walsh. Page always uses the term 'acquired' and never states whether that means bought or was given. However the best reference for this the Tony Bacon books. Bacon's Encyclopedia of Electric Guitars and 50 Years of Les Pauls state that the guitar was a gift. So that is how the wording should stay. Wether B (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Striking socks Rockgenre (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It was thought to be a 1958, when gibson made the second run of signature models it was figured out to be a 1959. The interview with Walsh himself states that it is a 1959. Also page only has a push pull for out of phase. He says this and even shows the viewer this in the interview. The best reference concerning this topic should be page and walsh themselves. They know the guitar better than anyone. Zoso313 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC) ::I will email one of the WikiProject Guitarists to review the article. Wiki is built around the weight of reference. And the weight for this page still leans towards the earlier version. We can wait for a response from the project admins. Wether B (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Striking socks Rockgenre (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok that sounds good. Just make sure they see the interview with Page himself  *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLSz5vD9Dho. He does clearly explain everything. It is just that i believe what PAge himself says should be top for weight of reference (along with Gibson, who made the guitar and Welsh since he owned it formerly.  Zoso313 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC) ::Page never states the year of No 1 in the linked video. He does say that No 2 is an a "real old vintage one" but doesn't claim them both from the same model year. The Gibson link I have seen is likely a typo as it contradicts several other links, many from Gibson as well, that say 1958. The Higgs.com link explains the source of confusion between the 2 years. The Gibson serial registry library identifies No as as an 8-XXXX, not a 9-XXXX as it would be if it were an unidentifiable 1959 model. The wording should state that it was acquired and not given. Fair Deal (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Striking socks Rockgenre (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It says that there is confusion that sometimes causes people to think it is a '59. Perhaps a re-read will clear that up for those still thinking '59. Joe Walsh never calls it a '59 in the Guitar Center article. The author of the article does. Like the other Gibson link I think that could just be a typo. Walsh probably never new what model year he owned. This model/year confusion is similar to the confusion over George Harrison's red Les Paul. His was always thought to be a refinished '57 Goldtop when, in fact, it is very likely that it was a refinished sunburst '58. Is there a link from Gibson that specifically states that they "thought" it was a '58 but now "know" it is a '59? The neck on No. 1 was shaved down significantly from its original state. A '59 or a '60 wouldn't have had near as much neck to shave as a baseball bat '58 neck would have so there would not have been that "significant" difference that turned Walsh off and made him keen to sell it in the first place. GripTheHusk (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Striking socks Rockgenre (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)When Gibson made the 2004 signature they concluded that based on its construction it is a 1959. They originally though it to be a 58 but have stated otherwise know since they were able to open up the guitar. Also in an interview with Walsh (http://gc.guitarcenter.com/interview/joewalsh/) it is stated to be a 1959. He wouldn't get confused on the year when he only had it less than 10 years after it was made.
 * 2) There is no serial number on the guitar because the neck modification Walsh had on it erased the number so i am not sure what registry you could be looking at.
 * 3) The number one les paul is the guitar he used the most. That is the one he is showing in the video and handing over for gibson to make the signature model after. And it only has one push pull for out of phase. The #2 had all the extra push pulls and switches under scratch plate. Page in the video clearly shows the one push pull. The #1 is the 2004 signature model.
 * 4)why is everyone bring up acquired and given again. i am not arguing that fact...
 * 5) Also the higgs.com says the 2004 signature which is the #1 les paul is a 1959. Zoso313 (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is possible that a typo could have been made on that press release but all the paper work that came with the signature guitar including the little certificate with Page's signature also say 1959. And what evidence is there that actually makes it definitively a 1958, there is no serial number on it. Shouldn't were there for go with Gibson evaluation since they had access to the guitar itself and thoroughly looked it over to make the 2004 signature series. In terms of the neck we dont know exactly what size it was to begin with so we dont know how much was shaved.   Also no matter what the date is on the guitar it is shown in the video that is only has one push pull for out of phase so i hope we can agree that, that should at least be fixed in the wiki article under the #1 les paul.  Zoso313 (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was requested already but.. can we get a link to a Gibson source saying that its a 1959 model? Or a scanned upload of the docs that come with the sig? The previously mentioned higgs site and the 2 Bacon books still hold the "weight" ( as it was described earlier ) stating 1958 as the birth year. And yes... the single pop knob mention should be corrected. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Heres the link to the Gibson press release (http://www.gibson.com/press/custom/pr/customjimmy1.html). I have a picture of the guitar and the certificate close up that is saw a while back when someone was selling it on ebay but i cant figure out how to upload it to this talk page? There is another picture of the certificate towards the bottom of the page on this auction (http://cgi.ebay.com/Gibson-Jimmy-Page-Les-Paul-aged-by-Tom-Murphy_W0QQitemZ160348980805QQcmdZViewItemQQptZGuitar?hash=item25558b4645&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14) but it is hard to see the writing. If there is anyway for me to upload the picture I have please let me know. Zoso313 (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Zoso313, you can upload your picture using imageshack where no registration is needed. TheQueenCorner (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a high resolution picture of the certificate for an aged model: http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee115/cwh1/jimmy%20page/NewPics9427.jpg


 * Its the same one you linked to! lol Zoso313 (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is very strict about image sources. You can't just upload an image you've found somewhere on the internet and upload it claiming you own it. See: WP:FAIR, WP:COPYVIO. You need to clearly own/source images yourself. Or find them in the any of the available library sites that host free-use images. The photobucket image works great for this conversation. But it cannot be used "live" in the article because it against the rules to purposely link to an external website hosting images. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ok then the article from gibson themselves should work just fine. It states 1959 for Page's #1 Les Paul(http://www.gibson.com/press/custom/pr/customjimmy1.html). Zoso313 (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't upload it to Wikipedia itself as a display image, but you you could just load it to an image host and link it to the discussion area in case one certificate wasn't enough evidence. Is there anything else required in order to change the guitar date to 1959? Also, Tony Bacon's Book of Electric Guitars was published in 2000 which was before Gibson's inspection of #1 a few years later. TheQueenCorner (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The picture i have is of the same exact certificate, but the press release should be enough and its not a typo since the certificate is the same date( 1959). Zoso313 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A late point, but I have finally found a source where Page confirms his main LP is from '59 and from Joe Walsh. It's near the bottom http://www.modernguitars.com/archives/003340.html TheQueenCorner (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

1960 Les Paul Custom (Black Beauty)
I noticed a line in the article that says "In 2008 the Gibson Custom Shop produced a limited run of 25 replicas of the guitar including the Bigsby Tremolo and the custom 6-way toggle switch" which needs to be corrected.

Firstly, the Jimmy Page Black Beauty model released in 2008 was a re-creation BASED on his stolen guitar and was NOT a replica. Gibson didn't have access to the original guitar to replicate the specs (because it was stolen), and secondly, there were a few changes made to the 2008 model that were not present in the 1960 one. (The 2008 guitar was made based on VOS specs). Examples:

If you look at this video of the guitar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm3zUQjG5no (skip to around 2:57), the neck and bridge pickup covers are removed and the Bigsby is ALL gold with no black on it, unlike the 2008 model: http://www.gibson.com/press/custom/gibsoncustom.asp#PageLP Also, the original did not have a 6-way switch, which is a new addition by Gibson.

The second part of the statement says that only 25 of these guitars were produced, which is not true. 25 SIGNED models were distributed and more unsigned ones were sold as well. Not all of the 2008 models came with a Bigsby, although most did.

I would greatly appreciate it if someone corrected the article and added the proper information. TheQueenCorner (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The details you describe needs a reference to add as an inline citation. Youtube can't be used as a reference. Peter Fleet (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There's some info on the certificate, but it's for discussion purposes and not to be used in the article: http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee115/cwh1/Jimmy%20Page%20Custom17/NewPics7013.jpg TheQueenCorner (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Ramone and "punk" guitar, The Stooges, Mc5
Hi, I've been told i need to post here on the factuality of a claim, though cited,

its pretty commonly known in Punk and Rock that Johnny Ramone got his technique from The Stooges and The Mc5 (mid 60s-late 60s ish group (doing the technque before and the Stooges possibly too, other rockers incorporated).

This claim taken from the wiki Page article: "Dictators bassist Andy Shernoff suggests that Page's sped up, downstroke guitar riff in "Communication Breakdown" is one half of the inspiration for guitarist Johnny Ramone's punk-defining, strictly downstroke guitar strumming, (the other half being Black Sabbath's Paranoid)[17]" is a rumor or guessing on his part,

however its pretty well known he didn't like Beck's Page's playing at that point, which he made negative comments about...

and i'm not really certain he listened to Sabbath at all...

These sources (which some of which i posted in the history section), but i'll go into further detail: Rock & roll: an unruly history By Robert Palmer, page 261, http://books.google.com/books?id=eEEYAQAAIAAJ&q=johnny+ramone+jimmy+page&dq=johnny+ramone+jimmy+page&ei=ZgqpSv__IobgNdqVxZ

Johnny states: "There was a super high energy with The Stooges"... "You could see they were able to play true rock n roll without having to play like Jimmy Page or Jeff Beck. People started overindulging with long guitar solos in the late sixties"

From allmusic Johnny Ramone page: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&token=ADFEAEE47B16DD4BAE7020E0AD157BEC8641CB29E762D2A1316E697AF1A9026BA53A57D368CF95C5AEF877AB7BAFFF2AE85305D7C2E455FECC1740&sql=11:5wfqoawayijn~T1

"Cummings was taken by the rock sounds of the '60s — Rolling Stones, the Who, etc. — but discovered a real connection with such proto-punk bands as the Stooges, MC5, and Velvet Underground."

Accessmylibrary Obituary: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-14746610_ITM

Johnny: "And it takes a certain type of band to make you feel like maybe you could do it, too. Bands such as the New York Dolls, the Stooges, and Slade influenced me because they didn't make it look like you had to be playing guitar for 20 years and practicing all the time. And music during the mid '70s, I mean, there was no point in listening anymore. There was no more pure rock and roll--it was all this fusion. Forget that! I thought I'd be an old man before I could play in one of those bands."

"I was 25 years old when I bought my guitar, and no way was I going to sit there and try to learn Jeff Beck or Jimmy Page licks. It was already too late. So I couldn't worry about that. I had to worry about what I could do."

See, not to offend anyone, but he didn't like these types of guitarists at that point it time, and didn't want to be like them. Shernoff was just speculating. --DavisHawkens (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Shernoff was clearly speculating, based on the text being referenced. I guess the issue is whether or not we want to include the speculation in the article. I vote for 'no'. Luminifer (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --DavisHawkens (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to do when anonymous IPs refuse to take part in the TALK page and go completely around it. I've never had any luck dealing with that situation successfully. Any help? Luminifer (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This I.P. 202.174.177.56 has just made the false accusation that I am vandalising the article by removing the fictious claims, despite the fact that I have proven and given clear links above that prove the claim to be completely incorrect. Is there a way of possibly blocking this I.P. and others that keeps vandalising? --DavisHawkens (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC) ::If you deleted referenced content, which you did, then in fact you did vandalise Wikipedia. Please do not remove cited material from Wikipedia. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, look the claim in the article is fake speculation, and I was removing accordingly as the footnotes and quotes from JOhnny on the talk page

The "referenced content" is making a false claim, and Ramone has clearly stated where his inspiration was from, and how he didn't like Page and Beck at that point in time.... This is Very Clear Cut...

It was already agreed that that content needed to be taken out as its false....

Perhaps you could direct me to someone, like a dispute resolution thing, or a higher up Editor maybe?

and yes, i'll cease reverting at this point in time... but there's absolutey, no reason, as (above noted above)

that that should stay in... (no offense intended) --DavisHawkens (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, this needs to be put out to all of you. I put forth that a member of the Dictators theorizing that a member of the Ramones was influence by Jimmy Page is simply not a worthwhile thing to include in the article - especially since there are many more tangible influences that can be listed, and given the fact that the influence is merely being speculated. This sounds like example creep to me. What arguments do others have for keeping it? I'm not arguing that it's legit, I'm questioning whether it's really useful and meaningful to have it on the page. Luminifer (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To Aussie Ausborn (see talk), I put up about 4-5 quotes above that completed prove the statement was false, Ramone even said he didnt want to play like those guys, and unless theres something straight from JOhnny Ramone's quotes saying thats were he got it, it shouldn't stay in, and I think it is more netrual for that not to be in there. Page also doesn't like getting credit for stuff like that and the heavy metal tag---DavisHawkens (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

- Above i meant as far as I know that its false.--DavisHawkens (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC) And for it to stay in I think there should be a better or more direct source stating the inspiration--DavisHawkens (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If nobody chimes in with a meaningful argument otherwise, here, on the talk page, we're going to have to assume implicit consensus, as there are no counter-arguments presented here. Luminifer (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And also to bring to everyone's attention that there is a video source with Johnny Ramon stating that he his own downstroke picking style came from playing Communication Breakdown constantly in his 'garage band' years prior to The Ramones. The original post is:
 * It is ok to add referenced point/counter-point content as long as you are not attempting to push some sort of point. There is nothing controversial about the content. It simply says what an artist has claimed and it puts the statement directly into the mouth of the person who made the statement. And it comes from a verifiable source which passes WP:RS criteria. There is nothing wrong with that. There really isn't any need to even bother to point/counterpoint the statement because it will lead the article off topic. The better place to add detailed clarification over influence. For the Page article it could actually be verified further if one wanted to add that Johnny Ramone himself says his downstroke guitar style came from playing Communication Breakdown repeatedly in his earlier years prior to the Ramones. If someone adds that second reference to the Page article using a {cite video} citation template then you really don't have much more argument unless you can find 5 or 6 counter-statements against the text. And even then, as stated already, the counter-argument is out of place in the Page article and belongs in the article for Ramone himself. Hope that assists you. It is not an controversial piece of text with or without the citation. (The citation just adds to its validity) It is not a WP:BLP issue. Perhaps you could focus on improvements to an article that has more serious issues.
 * DavisHawkens, in answer to your question on my talk page, Yes, there is a video documentary easily available through Amazon.com or any other large online vendor called "Ramones:The True Story" which will give you your quote. It can be added to the Page article as another source but, as I said in my previous post, we're already getting off-topic in in the article by giving details about Johnny Ramone that are better suited to the Johnny Ramone article. The original intent, I think, was just to show Page's impact, even if unplanned, on the music world. Which it does. Hope that helps. As I already said, it is a trivial issue and too many editors have wasted a lot of time on this talk page over nothing. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * DavisHawkins' point, I think, is that the quote does not show any impact - it only shows supposed impact. Given that the quote is surrounded by much legitimate _actual_ impact, it seems questionable to include such a piece of information on the post. There are 1000s of guitarists who are who might have been influenced by Page - should we include every one of them? Again, it's debatable whether or not there is a POV issue here, but there is certainly an example creep issue. Luminifer (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats right, "supposed impact", Ramone may have liked Led Zeppelin at one point, but he hated alot of it too, the technique in question was already being done by The Beatles Helter Skelter, The Who, And Mc5 (pre-Zeppelin) band that Johnny was hugely into... including it does seem to be a pov thing, and its vague, considering Page was influenced by alot of rockers too... in regards to "Page's impact", he himself wouldn't like his "impact" to be exaggerated and the band has complained about that numerous times, e.g. the heavy metal debate...--DavisHawkens (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Been reading what Aussie Ausborn has said, there is reason to add a point of counter-claim or have it removed, and from what i understand that a counter point could be added, I think a point added would be reasonable as you have suggested above, specifying he got it from Mc5/iggy and the stooges as clarification, not point of view.

The question is, how specific does it have to be... Would be out of the question to state he didn't want to play like Page and the stooges is the band he would always cite? or should it be just a point on his influences.I still think the whole thing should just be moved to save time and effort... Is there a dispute resolution thing?--DavisHawkens (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

-Just read some mixed quotes from JOhnny Ramone, some that says he liked Page, but other times he was getting away from that and those other bands being his thing... So i guess its a mixed bag at the end of the day... --DavisHawkens (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I might suggest something like "at times, Johnny Ramone has acknowledged that he was influenced by Page, but at other times has flatly denied this" if you really feel like it. Luminifer (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, that would be good... I think u might be able to add it, yeah he seems to give a mixed response...--DavisHawkens (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any of the interviews to use as refs - I think it would be fine if you did it. Luminifer (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The quotes and links, and references are just above..--DavisHawkens (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion for a wording option is poorly composed (very unencyclopedic). It has the writing style of a junior high school student. You can't deviate from a cited text to create you own version. The wording that is already in the article is fine. And with Aussie Ausborn's suggestion it can be expanded slightly.

Fair Deal (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If u don't mind me asking FairDeal, just to clarify, What exactly did Johnny say in the documentary, what were his exact words in the doc.? I'm reading alot of mixed information... This documentary is of interest to me... --DavisHawkens (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Fair Deal's compromise is the most common sense approach to the section and his/her wording should not offend anyone. 202.20.0.166 (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What is Fair Deal's compromise? If you mean the current phrasing where it not accurately reflects the citation, that was actually my compromise if you check the actual history. If you mean something else, can you please elaborate? Luminifer (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way, I think the article is still trying to drive home the WP:POINT that Jimmy Page was more influential than he is. Luminifer (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That "ramones true story" footnote needs more in-depth citation, its vague and I'd like to see a direct quote from JOhnny for sure, or else it needs to be removed for the time being... Yes i agree on the point thing, and yea, I will add A ramone footnote stating he gave mixed info on influence for the technique... unless u want to do it... Also Aussie Ausborn said he saw it, but he didn't add the footnote in, and I'd like to see what it says exactly, as FairDeal added that part i think... don't want us to jump the gun on misinformation, as it spreds quickly on the internet you see... but i'll add that JOhnny gave mixed info and quoted the Stooges... --DavisHawkens (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC) :I am going to revert the latest text, for now, as it has taken the section completely off-topic. The previous text had verifiable references. The editor who added the video citation simply asked that the reference be formatted properly. Instead over 1400 bytes of content was added which did not detail anything about the subject at all. The content was certainly valid in the article about Johnny Ramone. But it has no place here. Wether B (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 01:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, No the point i added wasn't completely off topic, And did detail about the subject... Jimmy Page's influence... it was just clarifying what was stated, and an attempt to at least.... the Point that I was trying to add was that mixed accounts were given, and that whether the information from the documentary was true, whether it was given straight from Johnny's words, and the Point being he cited those other bands mostly...also the reference used was not indepth enough, (see the footnote), perhaps i am not using the Correct terminology, but if u see above, a point appeared to be in order... I also added more in-depth info.... If u really feel the edit is still incorrect, or if i did it wrong again, I would like to discuss this further... Please read above... --DavisHawkens (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: If u feel this "Point" is too in-depth, I will work further to condense, or if u feel its to POv Page inventing Punk... etc.. Just trying to fix... Please fill in the source and clarify what Johnny Said in the documentary... If there is a youtube link for the video, that would be swell, so i could follow up...--DavisHawkens (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a controversial topic. I think it definitely violates WP:NPOV to present references/statements that praise the subject of an article and to leave out contradictory statements. Why don't we remove the Johnny Ramone bit entirely? It really doesn't add a lot to the article. There are countless people influenced by Page (many more verifiably and absolutely), and they are not listed. I would argue that if anyone has a WP:POINT it would be whoever put that text there originally (ages ago).Luminifer (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is controversial, and am trying to keep it netural... also when i said "Point" i may have been referring to the wrong policy...--DavisHawkens (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the only issue with the earlier reference was that it wasn't formatted correctly I have remedied that with the proper citation template. Also note another quick quote and reference was added. Hopefully this issue is now killed once and for all. You people have wasted a grand amount of time over nothing. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats great that you cleaned up the reference a bit, but what I wanted clarified was whether Johnny Ramone, actually stated word for word that he got the technique from Ramone, which I would like Aussie Ausborn to clarify, theres no denieinng that Ramone considered Page an influence, but the technique in question, I wanted that clarified if that was what he was referring to and what the exact quote supposedly from Johnny Ramone's mouth was... The ammendments which i tried to add which some agreed with, were to specifiy he did not want to play like the likes of Beck or Page, and that he cited The Stooges as how he wanted to play... I still feel some of that needs to be clarified, but its good that you cleaned that up a bit.... Still some of what is there is still taboo... Over the actual technique... --DavisHawkens (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC) that sentence stating his the greatest might have neturality issues... i don't think i'll contest it though... --DavisHawkens (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)--DavisHawkens (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am directed here from the BLP noticeboard and have just read the above discussion. I should note that I am uninvolved in this dispute, something of a fan of Jimmy Page's music myself, but not a highly experienced editor. I think I can safely say this is not a serious BLP issue (well it can't be as Ramone appears to have died in 2004, and there's certainly nothing negative being said), and more of a neutrality dispute. After the recent edits, the article seems to be making it clear that someone has said this about Ramone, not that his technique definitely came from Page. So it's not such a big deal I don't think, at least as the article is now. I guess there are two questions, (i) is the bit about Ramone given WP:UNDUE weight? (ii) Are the sources giving this text WP:RS (reliable sources)? I think the answers are probably "Yes" and "No." Not that I feel it really matters terribly -- there are plenty of other problems in the article that could be looked at first. My feeling is that Page's influence probably goes significantly beyond what the article shows, and this thing about Ramone is probably fairly minor. Does this help? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The biggest issue with any "Infleunces" section is that sometimes they balloon into fanboy cruft and peacock praising. This article's influence section is actually quite good... in that it directly quotes people and has a reliable source for their quotes. If someone wanted to be prickish and want to include negativity.. for negativity's sake... they could always add in that Jack Bruce says “Fuck off, Zeppelin, you’re crap.”... but what purpose would that serve?... none really... unless someone wanted to prove that Jack Bruce is a whiny old jealous prick whose inner envy of Jimmy Page is massive and he can't stand the fact that anything Page has been involved with has outsold anything he has done by 100 times over. But... like the superfluous Ramone "what-ifs" that sort of detail is better suited for the Jack Bruce article and not this one. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree here... However, isn't it sort of 'example creep'-y to have a 'theoretical influence' listed when it's so much easier to simply list actual influences (i.e. people who acknowledge the influnece directly rather than people theorizing that other people are influenced)? I feel that listing this, and not listing so many other influencees, may also violate NPOV. Luminifer (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But, and this has been stated before.. several times, listing influencees of Johnny Ramone in an article NOT about Johny Ramone... is un-required overkill and superfluity. You wouldn't go to the Eric Clapton page and talk about Eddie Van Halen stating that he was his main influence... and then go on to list every other influence that EVH had when the article is supposed to be about Clapton. There is no NPOV vio there. If it's a direct quote... like this article has... and it's cited... it's just a simple little fact. Having the third party mention in this article is a bit awkward.. but... in the context that it is used... it just becomes a bit of poetic prose to act as an introductory sentence which gets expanded on on the next 2 lines... and then DONE, STOP, MOVE-ON to next influencee. Any section in this article could be trimmed. But it should still read well.. always. I've contributed to a lot of FA's. The initial aim should always be "cold, stale, referenced facts." But after that is done the article needs to have a complete "prose-wash" to make it read well. Small bits of artistic license can come into play then. That is the role that lead-in-to-Johnny line fulfils on this page. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry libs. I must have said that confusingly - I thouhgt saying influencees would make it clearer. What I mean is that Jimmy Page has influenced a LOT of people. There is no denying that. I'm sure that we can get a lot of notable people Page has influenced, and get first-hand sources where those notable people say "Page influenced me in such and such way". Given that, it seems odd that we need to include a second-hand influence at all - Page is so influential it seems like example creep to include anything but a first-hand referenced influence. Luminifer (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification: First hand reference: "Page influenced me". Second hand reference: "Page influence this famous person who is not me". Luminifer (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, I'd like to state that I'm pretty neutral on this - I'm just trying to offer a compromise that might please everyone. However, a quick google shows more people citing that Ramone liked page than otherwise. Personally I don't know enough about the subject - all of the google sources (and even some that were put on the page) are not top-quality sources. Luminifer (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I actually wanted the Ramone being influenced by Page in there, and that he was inspired I actually added it to a point, but the vagueness of the Ramones- The True story footnote was not clarified whether he directly stated it, and thats what i thought was questionable, because i asked whether he directly stated it or not, and whether thats were he got it... There are numerous quotes that state his playing style was due to The Stooges, Mc5, and that he didn't want to play like the likes of Page, Jeff Beck, and I think that should be added to the article... That his technique was inspired because he couldn't play like him and didn't wanted to... Like a Response of sorts..thats what i added... This article is claiming that the downward Punk strum technique came from Johnny trying to play like Page... You see theres contradictory information that states otherwise, And I wanted that clarified for sure before that was given the full go ahead,.. But this article states directly that it came from Page... but I wanted that clarified that Ramone stated that... Thats a taboo thing to put in, and i wanted full clarification... or an ammendment stating it was because he didn;t want and couldn't play like the likes of Page... Ths sources that I listed above also state his playing was a backlash of sorts to this playing as Johnny thought the late sixties was to into solos and technicality.... You see whats presented is only one side of the story... when theres clearly more than meets whats already listed... An ammendment of sorts is still in order and the reliability of some of the sources on Page's wiki are a little questionable...--DavisHawkens (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, nothing more in order here. See above talk. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Unless you can come up with a way to very briefly and succinctly say what you want, we should either leave it as is, shrink it down (I'm all for that), or remove it entirely.. Luminifer (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I see some of what your saying, Still I don't think we need 3 lines on it, I have a direct quote, that just says something like Yes he inspired me... - At this point I'd rather a quick direct quote to trim the fat on that, and the speculative sources (the vague quote claiming he confirmed Page is where the technique coming from - added from someone who i don't think even saw the documentary), to avoid any Points: "But, Jimmy Page: His playing is truly amazing. I could never play at that level. I don’t try to imitate him, but I listen to him a lot." http://www.geocities.com/robertofotografie/jr.html

Other than that, yeah, i'm kinda tired of debating this as well...--BernardMackintosh (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we have two issues that are both being badly presented. (A) Ramone liked Page.. This one is pretty easy to back up it seems. (B) Communication Breakdown was the inspiration for the whole punk movement. This seems harder to back up, and is in my opinion more dubious :) I would not object to your change. Luminifer (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.... I dunno, It doesn't bother me that much, but what your saying does come across as "Communication Breakdown" was the start of punk, furthermore, isn't there a list of reliable sources for Wikipedia? Does this Ramones:The True Story feels like a proper source? It does kinda swing to saying that ya know? -The way its worded just doesn' feel right... I might make a minor adjustment... I understand alot of whats their is doesn't break some rules, but kinda does from a viewpoint, this does swing one way... --DavisHawkens (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC) :The reference doesn't say that Communication Breakdown was the start of punk. In the video Johnny Ramone simply says that he improved at his down-stroke picking style because he kept playing the song over and over again for the bulk of his early career. It was an influence on Ramone and the sources don't claim or support anything about influencing an entire genre. Only the one person. You can't make a minor adjustment that alters the wording away from what the reference actually says. You can correct a spelling mistake. But by my reading the piece has none. I fail to see where there is any problem with how this is written. It is certainly better than it was before. And completely verifiable. It is brief, accurate and sourced. Better than the rest of the article in many ways. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up, Aussie Ausborn, I guess technically it could be said, that line, but i still think its bit misleading... What would make it better is if that full part u described above should go in there: 'Johnny Ramone simply says that he improved at his down-stroke picking style because he kept playing the song over and over again for the bulk of his early career.' Thats more clarification... I want that put in there... I think that that would make it more to the point, partial inspiration, Not 'Oh i totally just got it off him', know what i mean?... Whoops forgot to log in...--DavisHawkens (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that at least 4 of the people on here are actually socks of the same person, and the person on the other side turns out to also have been a sock of someone else and his blocked, should we (meaning someone who isn't me) reopen this discussion? Luminifer (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

2008 Divorce
Jimmy Page divorce in 2008. He is no longer married to Brazilian Jimena Gomez-Paratcha. Why is this NOT mentioned? IMDB confirmed that they were separated as of July 2008. but I know they divorced in the fall of '08.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0656211/bio

Tim 10-22-09

Recent edits
Recently, new user RazerCrane has repeatedly removed referenced content that has been in this article in some form for over two years. The passage in question was introduced to the article back in April 2007 with this edit. The passage remained without dispute until September 2009 when new user DavisHawkens, now blocked as a sockpuppet of user CosmicLegg, removed the content (see this edit). This latest new user has offered no valid reason for removing this referenced content other than what appears to be a strong animosity toward certain established editors. It makes me wonder. Piriczki (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read above, you will see that user Luminifer has shown reasoning why the information was questionable e.g. 'example creep' violation of 'WP:NPOV', and that it was forced in by sockpuppetry by accounts Wiki Libs and DavisHawkens. I also find it odd why admitted sockpuppets (Piriczki: admitted to be Les Fleurs de Lys :, is still editing, possibly 202.108.50.14 one of many IPs that have never been used before and new accounts created were strangly trying to keep it in, considering the circumstance it was forced in, and given it is said to be within violations according to the above reason. --RazerCrane (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Piriczki. RC's edits are suspicious, and lack an explanation.  I've restored the sourced content.  Perhaps we should take RC to WP:SPI.  Deserted Cities (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not matter that Wiki Libs put the text in or anyone else. His sockpuppeting behavior has nothing to do with this, nor does Piriczki's. We block the sock, and the person engaging in the behavior can be allowed to continue editing under certain circumstances. I've reviewed the history, and what I see is removal of referenced content. RazerCrane, you do not have consensus to remove the material—yet. You are welcome to start a reasoned discussion about its removal that does not involve other editors and their behavior. Discuss only the merit of the content, if you would. If you continue to remove it, you will receive a longer block. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This article has been a target of ongoing vandalism. Should be proofread and locked. Any suggestions? --Scieberking (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Texas, which forms Part of Greater London?
can somebody correct his birthplace? Pelzkragen (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No Introduction Necessary
This is a pre Led Zep album released in 1968 on Spark (SRLM 107) - I bought one in Leeds in the mid 1970s for 10p, they had piles of them! Also features JPJ (bass) on Everything I do is Wrong, Think it Over, Dixie Fried, Fabulous, Breathless, Lonely Weekend and Burn up. Although, this is pretty straight RnR "Burn up" has JP drawing in his Yardbirds and Zep sound to the track. And then there's Clem Cattini with a nice light touch not to mention Albert Lee (guitar), Jim Sullivan (guitar), Nicky Hopkins (piano) and Keith David de Groot (vocals). Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.75.24 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't he a member of Cream at some stage? I wonder why Wikipedia omits that fact from the intro.45g (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wedding to Sharon Darlene Horsechief
The last sentence about occultism says: "Happily married to Shannon Darlene Horsechief. He says "This will be my last marriage." " Wandering where the info comes from, I've search online and found nothing. Since how is "recently"? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.32.117.89 (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Life within Led Zeppelin need expansion
I was surprised that the article went from (a very good) quote as to his ideas and expectaions in assembling a band to his influence and legacy. There must be a whole lot that the average reader doesn't know about his role in the band, and even personal (albeit controversial) information including his relationships with very famous groupies, (Pamela Des Barres), and Page kept a 13 year old under lock and key for a time- don't expect to see that in his biography, though! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC) ✅

Poor Wording in "Personal Life"
"From 1986 to 1995 Page was married to Patricia Ecker, a model and waitress. They have a son, James Patrick Page III (born April 1988). Page later married Jimena Gómez-Paratcha, whom he met on the No Quarter tour in Brasil.[107] He adopted her oldest daughter Jana (born 1994), and they had two children together; Zofia Jade (born 1997) and Ashen Josan (born 1999)." In the sentence "He adopted her oldest daughter Jana (born 1994), and they had two children together; Zofia Jade (born 1997) and Ashen Josan (born 1999).", the wording makes it sound like he had children with Zana because "they" in this case refers to both Page and Zana. A suggestion would be to replace "they" with "Page and Gomez-Paratcha" so as to clarify just whom you are referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.31.89 (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I.Q.
I would really like to know this man's I.Q. . Anyone have that info and can we add it to this article?76.246.235.134 (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Need for new pic?
I agree that the current 70's pic is awesome n all that but I think a more recent pic should be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightrider abhi (talk • contribs) 05:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Notable guitars
The notable instruments section has grown recently; I reverted to what are probably the most notable, which is all that are necessary. As of this edit, those guitars are: Jimmy Page Signature Les Paul, Gibson EDS-1275, Fender Telecaster and Danelectro 59DC.

I'm wondering about the Tele, since its only notability is that is was used exclusively on the entire first Zeppelin album - or is that why it's notable?  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  16:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

LEGACY?! ...what legacy?
As we Russians say, "hint to the lot of you in a tank [buttoned-up and with little perspective on what the hell's going on]", THE GUY AIN'T DEAD YET... Legacy sort of presumes some finality. If other artists of similar age and reputation are anything to go by, Page may yet give the world hell in a handbasket a time or several. Well, either that, or he might embarrass himself so damn powerfully, think fat Elvis, as to undo half of his glory in folk memory. Hence - legacy ain't decided until the coffin drops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.80.59 (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dunlop Cry Baby?!
Jimmy Page couldn't possibly have used a Dunlop Cry Baby wah during his time with Led Zeppelin. This is a common misconception stemming from Dunlop's advertising literature which lists classic "Cry Baby" or "Wah" users.

The reason Jimmy Page couldn't have used a Dunlop with Led Zeppelin is because they simply didn't exist. Dunlop only started producing them in 1983. Prior to that they were manufactured by Thomas Organ for the USA market and Jen Elettronica (as both Vox and "Cry Baby") for the European market. Jimmy Page did in fact use a Vox "Grey" wah, which was one of the handmade hammertone prototypes made by Vox/JMI circa 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.161.6 (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)