Talk:Led Zeppelin

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hszylit.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Mystique of Led Zep
Am surprised that no one has touched upon the hold that Zep exerted over their fan base in the 70's. Back in that time of limited media coverage (Rolling Stone, Creem, and none in the mainstream) a cany operator like Peter Green clamped the lid down on all media releases concerning his boys. No interviews unless he gave the say-so. No photo op unless he gave the say-so. And everything about the band was molded in that high church 70's hippie archetype. Man, we crawled up the wall for any piece of information concerning the band. And the release of the albums were like the tablets coming down from Sinai. You think I am joking? I was there. Crazy thing is, the damn albums still sound great. Still think the third one is the best. 75.107.248.88 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Is Coda a "major work"?
Whether to include Coda in the main article discography has been discussed before. The WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines is actually a "essay on style", not a formally adopted WP guideline or policy. It includes: "The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums, leaving a complete listing of releases to the discography article... Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included." (emphasis added)

So, there is no bright-line rule that any type of album should be automatically excluded – the more important consideration is whether the album is a "major work": how did it chart, what did the critics have to say, etc. I don't think that anyone could argue that Frampton Comes Alive! is not one of his major works (it's probably the major work of his career). Anyway, rather than re-add Coda (it was removed over a year ago by a since-blocked editor), this is being opened for discussion to see other viewpoints (pinging previous participants:, , and current editors ,  ).

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Our article Coda (album) states "Coda is the ninth and final studio album...", not as a compilation album at all; however Led Zeppelin discography does include it in the "Compilation albums" list - so we already have a contradiction. It is certainly not a "compilation album" in the usual sense of an album compiled of tracks from previously released recordings - the tracks on coda were all previously unreleased. I would go with the description "the ninth and final studio album" and include it in the Main discography section of this article, and move it from "Compilation albums" to "Studio albums" in Led Zeppelin discography Another relevant discussion was about Pictures at an Exhibition (Emerson, Lake & Palmer album) which was agreed should be included in the discography of their main article, despite being a live album. (ELP and Zeppelin in the same thread - I'll go and fetch my hard hat) - Arjayay (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * [R to Arjayay] I tried to steer clear of the studio vs compilation issue, but I suppose it was bound to come up. The same IP who is attempting to re-add Coda to the Discography section here is the one who twice changed "compilation" to "studio" in the album article (soon to be reverted by ?). The ref (removed by the IP) calls it "a rarities compilation", but a quick scan of other reviews don't mention it.  In this case, there should be more than one ref to classify it as a "compilation", but the sources usually don't supply a neat type= definition.  So regardless of whether it's a studio or compilation album, should it be included here in the Discography section? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Coda should be included, though I don't feel strongly about it. The songs may have been recorded at various times with various projects in mind, but they're new material in the sense that they'd not been released before. It's not at all equivalent to a Greatest Hits or a compilation of that sort; it's a significant body of new (to the public) work that also, per our article, charted in five countries' top 10s. (Incidentally, I'd argue that true compilations can - rarely - belong on these lists too; perhaps includes some it shouldn't, but it would look quite wrong without Songbird.)  &rsaquo;  Mortee  talk 18:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes - If we are to use the standards of significant coverage at WP:SIGCOV, then Coda is notable enough to be considered a major work. isento (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I am persuaded by Arjayay's, Mortee 's, and isento's cogent comments. (Thanks for the ping Ojorojo ;-). - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * With regards to the question of album-type classification, it has been demonstrated at Talk:Led_Zeppelin_discography that numerous reliable sources consider Coda a compilation album and In Through the Out Door the final studio album. isento (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

https://wcsx.com/galleries/led-zeppelin-all-92-songs-ranked/ Source here says Coda is a compilation album and the albums article says it is a compilation album. 24.127.236.115 (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Coda being a studio album or a compilation album

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

Should Coda be listed as part of Led Zeppelin's studio albums or their compilation albums? 24.127.236.115 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Compilation Albums as it is a compilation of unused songs. I believe the studio albums should remain as full concept albums that were meant to be produced together. Cook907 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

→ Let's rephrase the question to comport with the traditional format: 'Coda ''should be listed as a compilation album. Support or Oppose?'''
 * Support Oppose (per the explanations below—thank you for clarifying the issue for me. Edited on 27 Dec 2019.) Coda being listed as a compilation album. I agree that studio albums are full concept albums developed and arranged by the artist(s) to be heard in the order presented and in their entirety. (At least that was the intention before the advent of streaming.) On a personal note, I've been an ardent Zeppelin fan since 1973 and I've always considered In Through the Out Door to be their last album, with Coda being a nice addition of previously unreleased songs.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as explained above, this does not fit the "normal" definition of a compilation album as none of the recordings were previously released. Furthermore it was issued by Swan Song Records which was still under the control of the band, unlike many "cash-in" compilations produced by many record companies against their bands' will. I also note that the definition at Coda (album) which was "Coda is the ninth and final studio album" when I wrote the above comment, has since been changed. - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my response above, but I don't really see what the question means in the context of this article. The discussion has been about whether to list it in this article under §Discography or not, i.e. whether it's a "major work". In this article we haven't listed albums separately by type and I've argued that, whether Coda is a compilation album or not, it should be included in that section as a major body of previously unreleased work. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 23:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Close this RfC as unnecessary. There is already an ongoing RfC on the same issue. Whether to remove or keep Coda listed in this article's "Discography" section does not depend on how it's categorized (see the discussion above "Is Coda a "major work"?"). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This RfC has not yet been closed. But seems to be going the same way as the other one here? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. - There is currently a consensus that Coda is a major work, which means it should be listed in the main article discography. And, closely related, there is consensus that Coda should not be classified as a compilation album. Question: Have we done enough to solicit opinions from other editors? (I don't know the answer.)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The difficulty here appears to be with the term "studio album". At its simplest, a studio album is just an album recorded in a studio, but there has grown an understanding over the years on Wikipedia that "studio album" = "major work", and as a consequence any album that is not defined as a "studio album" is therefore not a major work. Even though a compilation album may consist of tracks recorded in a studio, people feel that a compilation album is not a major work so therefore cannot be a "studio album". Which creates odd situations such as Physical Graffiti being partly a compilation album, yet folks don't have a problem with that album being regarded as a major work, but there does appear to be a problem with Coda because none of the tracks were recorded specifically for this album. The term "studio album" to replace the standard "album" on Wikipedia appears to have first occurred in 2008 -, though changes were still taking place in Dec 2013 - , and Feb 2015 - . For most of my life albums have been termed albums, unless they were live or compilation albums. Same as albums were always understood to be single albums, but were not defined as "single album" even though we had "double album" and "triple album", an "album" was understood to contain tracks recorded in a studio without that having to be spelled out. I'm not exactly sure when, why, or who started to call all albums (other than live or compilation) "studio albums", but I have noticed it occuring in sources outside of Wikipedia. Did we start it here, and then other sources copy it, or are we the originators of the term "studio album" used to describe all albums released by an artist unless the album is live or compilation?  By using this term we are creating problems for ourselves. Some albums contain tracks recorded live in concert as well as tracks recorded in a studio. Some albums are recorded live in a studio. Some live albums are overdubbed in the studio. Some albums are recorded in a studio but have live effects added to them. Some artists record new material live in concert, which make them significant major works, but editors on Wikipedia remove such albums from listings because they are not "studio albums", and debates take place as to if the album should be listed or not. Concerto for Group and Orchestra is not listed on Deep Purple because it's not a "studio album". This is a better way of doing it: Frank Zappa discography. Coda was an official album released by Led Zeppelin. If we move away from this recent "studio" appendage to official albums, we can avoid confusions and the need to debate if an album mostly recorded in the studio (two tracks were recorded in concert) consisting of unreleased material and put together by the band and accepted by the studio as an official album to fulfil contractual obligations is actually an official album. SilkTork (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Some music writers have felt that it was necessary to distinguish between a "studio album" and a "compilation" (for the same album of previously unreleased recordings) much earlier (1985, 1998, 1995). The problem is that many readers see "compilation" as applying to best-of, greatest, etc., collections of previously released material. To me, it is misleading to include Coda with The Best of Led Zeppelin, Mothership, etc. To use "anthology" or something similar for the latter might be more accurate, but many music writers do not focus on classification schemes and do not use the terms consistently. Should (or can) WP develop its own system, such as the Zappa example? Or if WP is based on "verifiability, not truth", it only depends on what reliable sources say. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


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

Heavy metal
Should heavy metal be removed from the infobox? They are cited as pioneers of the genre, but should Led Zeppelin really be classified as heavy metal, since more of their harder-hitting songs fall under the hard rock genre as well? Music2247 (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Nope, see Talk:Deep Purple for rational. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup. They may have influenced Heavy Metal but they didnt play it. Please remove it ;) KhlavKhalash (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree 2.119.178.242 (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection
This article has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. SilkTork (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Discography section
I made an edit to the Discography section (diff). I replaced the "Main" hatnote with an italicized note below the list of albums that reads, "Note: See Led Zeppelin discography for the band's live and compilation albums. Also see List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin." I wrote the following explanation for the edit: "Given the controversy/debate regarding the band's "major works" and studio vs. compilation albums (see Talk page), I think it's important to provide clear direction to readers who are looking for the band's *complete* discography." ¶ Is that okay? Or does it run counter to long-established norms or policies for the Discography section? Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The way "Main articles: Led Zeppelin discography and List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin" appeared at the top of the section and now does again is the norm and follows WP:WPMAG. It would probably be more accurate to be titled "Major albums", but that might be a discussion for WT:WPMAG. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool - thank you Ojorojo.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

More Coda compilation vs studio
Just when you thought it'd go away... Two different RfCs on whether Coda is a compilation or studio album have reached opposite conclusions: 1) "There is a clear consensus that Coda should be categorized as a compilation album in this [Led Zeppelin] discography."; 2) "The consensus is that Coda should not be listed as a compilation album [in the main Zeppelin article]." Obviously, this is not a workable outcome, since Coda should be classified one way or the other consistently throughout WP (the album page identifies it as a compilation). Do we need another RfC or ? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's ask Jimmy Page to arbitrate. ;^]  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  10:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Black Sabbath, a Led Zeppelin influence?
Black Sabbath seems to have influenced Led Zeppelin as well, with John Bonham listening to them and some Led Zeppelin riffs having similarities to Black Sabbath's riffs. Songs like the Rover and The Wanton Song sound exactly like Black Sabbath.

Therefore I think Black Sabbath should be added to the list of Led Zeppelin's influences.

https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/bill-ward-talks-about-legendary-black-sabbath-led-zeppelin-jam-session/

""It only happened on one occasion that ZEPPELIN and SABBATH were in the studio at one time, and I think it was in the mid-'70s," said Ward. "We were in sessions I don't remember what album we were working on but it all started when Bonzo [LED ZEPPELIN drummer John Bonham] comes into the studio and sits down at my drum kit and starts playing 'Supernaut'. That was one of our songs that he really liked. It escalated to a pretty crazy situation within about 30 minutes, because not only was Bonzo there, but Robert Plant and John Paul Jones were there as well. Jimmy [Page] wasn't there, but I wish he had been. And Bonzo was kickin' the crap out of my drum kit!" Ward laughed. "I can still hear him playing that intro on the hat, over and over."
 * I've never heard any claims that Black Sabbath influenced Led Zeppelin. If anything I'd say it's the other way around, as Zeppelin existed first. As with any additions, just reliably source it if you want to add it. The blabbermouth.net source you provided above won't cut it. SolarFlashDiscussion 19:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Considering that both bands formed in the same year, and in the same place, and both made similar music, my perception is that they influenced each other. Many have said that both bands are similar musically. Led Zeppelin did release their debut album a year before Black Sabbath did, but Black Sabbath had already performed War Pigs live, and had written a number of songs including Black Sabbath, Wicked World and Iron Man, according to Geezer Butler. Led Zeppelin probably picked up Black Sabbath's influence as time progressed, just as Deep Purple was influenced by Led Zeppelin despite having already released three albums before Led Zeppelin's debut. Bonham could not have heard Supernaut without listening to the whole album, as the song was never released as a single, and it is probable that both bands checked out each others' music throughout their career. Jimmy Page used at least one Sabbath riff live, from Children of the Grave, if I remember correctly. It is not unlike Jimmy to pay tribute to his influences on stage.

The following links all attest to the fact that Bonham did indeed listen to Black Sabbath and Supernaut was one of his favourite songs:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/readers-poll-the-10-greatest-black-sabbath-songs-14617/7-supernaut-70379/

https://www.loudersound.com/features/black-sabbath-led-zeppelin-story-of-jam-session

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/black-sabbath-led-zeppelin-jam-session/

Muckykarol (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, but without reliable sources that prove that the band as a whole were inflenced by Black Sabbath, this is just your opinion. So what if the drummer liked a couple of Sabbath songs. SolarFlashDiscussion 14:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

John Paul Jones did say that each member of Led Zeppelin had very different musical tastes and all those diverse influences reached common ground with Led Zeppelin's compositions. With this observation under consideration, why should the drummer's, or any member's influences and tastes be discounted? Here's the actual quote:

"JPJ: I've said it before. Led Zeppelin was the common ground between four individual musicians. We all had different, very wide-ranging musical tastes. And the space between us, the area in the middle, was Led Zeppelin. That's kind of obvious in one way, I suppose, but we were not the kind of band where everyone would listen to the same kind of music and that music would be the basis of the band. It was more a common ground. So no one musician could ever re-create Zeppelin on his own. It would have required the four of us."

Source for John Paul Jones' quote:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=whiYj4MxeA0C&pg=PT103&lpg=PT103&dq=led+zeppelin+diverse+influences+per+member&source=bl&ots=pehbxu2cqO&sig=ACfU3U3iI2qNouZAC5B8gAy95drTcoTH2g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-gPn3r4nqAhVRxTgGHSgMCYAQ6AEwCnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=led%20zeppelin%20diverse%20influences%20per%20member&f=false

Muckykarol (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke? You're trying to use a quote that makes no mention of Black Sabbath whatsoever, and the earlier sources make no assertion whatsoever of what you're claiming. This is clear WP:NOR. You're attempting to make an analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by any reliable source. Either find sources that EXPLICITLY state that Black Sabbath was an influence on Led Zeppelin or find another batle to fight. As of now this is just a waste of time. And are you posting under your account + as an anonymous IP in the same discussion? I'd stop that immediately if I were you. SolarFlashDiscussion 19:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I read through your source and it actually makes a strong case against your point of view. It states the following: "But while Bonham, for one, appreciated Ward's playing on Sabbath's 'Supernaut' and envied Ward's use of two bass drums, the rest of Led Zeppelin had less respect for the foursome", with the foursome in question being Black Sabbath. It continues in the same paragraph: "In interviews of the 1970s Robert Plant dismissed 'groups in England who still rely on riff after riff after riff… Some audiences can shake and bang their heads on the stage to riffs all night long, but subtlety is an art that must be mastered if you’re to be remembered'." This is taken directly from a paragraph dedicated to Black Sabbath, so there should be no question who Plant is referring to. The same source later describes what Bonham referred to as "Deep Sabbath"; he viewed this music as "sketchy blues-based thud" that was "inane with no mystery to it at all." Then it mentions Page & Jones' disdain for Sabbath's music: "…Page pointing out the lack of 'light and shade' dynamics in competitors like Black Sabbath, and Jones sneering at the 'glowering, Satanic crap' of most metal acts." And again, this is taken from your source. All of this is obviously not the ringing endorsement you'd expect for a band that you're alleging was a major influence upon them. SolarFlashDiscussion  20:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The anonymous IP thing was a mistake, I posted it through that by accident. Anyway opinions are susceptible to change, and I have seen many bands listed as an influence just because one member used to listen to their music, as Brian May of Queen for example. And the fact that Plant considered their music to be "riff after riff" does show that he was, in any case, familiar with Black Sabbath's music and he did listen to them. Whether that counts as influence or not, he would not have to say it. Through Wikipedia itself I got to know that Supernaut was Bonham's favourite song, and not just Ward's drumming.

As this was just a clarification whether we should add Black Sabbath to the list of Led Zeppelin's influences, and I was aware of the original research rules of Wikipedia. John Paul Jones' quote just served as a reminder to you that each member's musical taste and influences was vital to the band as a whole as a response to your query,"So what if the drummer liked a couple of Sabbath songs". I was under the impression that if a band member cited another band or one of it's songs as a favourite, the band was considered an influence, as Halford never did call Queen an influence, but it is still cited as one of Judas Priest's influences as Halford called Mercury his favourite singer. I thought the same would apply to John Bonham and Led Zeppelin as a whole.

Muckykarol (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead for Article and More Information on Sales Success including around the World
Hello people interested in Led Zeppelin, and I assume classic rock, in general. About a month ago I added some information about the specific most-renowned songs from each Led Zeppelin album to the lead of the article plus info on how successful Led 1 was, how Led 2 really broke them big in a number of countries, the large success of Whole Lotta Love, the impressive double diamond status of Led 4 in Canada and the US, and about Physicial Graffitti being 16 times platinum in the US. No one has challenged or objected to this info, so it appears people find it beneficial - that casual readers can get a truly good sense of the band, including significant songs by reading the lead. I also added info like this to the Rolling Stones lead and no one objected there. However, I tried to add info like this to the Genesis lead and to both the lead and body of the Who article ands was aggressively blocked by 2 editors. In fact, a Genesis-page editor removed info on singles from their most successful albums and those ablums chart success that was there before I even started making edits suggesting I had added that existing info too. If you feel the type of info I added to the Led Zeppelin article should be more available in the Genesis and The Who articles feel free to go over there to review my last attempted version and comment in the talk page for those that you support some, most or all of the additions and reductions (i.e. making some stuff on the members or formation of the band more concise) that I had proposed, and indicate if you support those proposals on that talk page.Informed analysis (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for improvement of this article. If you would like to suggest changes for another article, go to that article's talk page.
 * For recruitment of like-minded editors, you can try a related Wikproject, for instance Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop being bossy - unsure why you are posting here mere minutes after I post.Informed analysis (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This page has been on my watchlist for years, and just like you I'm free to discuss things here. As far as being bossy, I thought I was informing you of talk page guidelines, and offering you another route to pursue your quest. Because getting on article talk page A to talk about topics B and C isn't what an article talk page is for. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021
Add to John Paul Jones’ instrument list: JPJ also played the mandolin “The Battle of Evermore”. 2601:40A:201:2470:F0EC:29EC:C848:1212 (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Page played the mandolin in “The Battle of Evermore” Airpace (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Grammar
Why does this article use the plural for the group viz. "Led Zeppelin were" and "Led Zeppelin have been credited". A singular group should use the singular form. Sideriver84 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * British and American English have different rules for collective nouns; see American and British English grammatical differences. For obvious reasons, the article uses British English. Favonian (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna groove. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * makes sense, thanks! Sideriver84 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021
The article says, "... one of only four acts to earn five or more Diamond albums.[202] "

According to   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_certification#RIAA_Diamond_certifications    only THREE acts have done so. 71.38.10.92 (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There are four, per that list: Eminem, Garth Brooks, Led Zeppelin, and The Beatles. Niftysquirrel (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021
Hello, On top of the right bar, where the photos of the four members are shown, the order of the names of the members are wrong. It says "Clockwise from upper left:" The correct order should be: Jimmy Page, John Bonham, John Paul Jones, Robert Plant. Cheers. 213.74.183.18 (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The current order seems correct: John Paul Jones is at the bottom left, and thus mentioned last. — LauritzT (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Plagarism
Led Zeppelin is a glorified cover band, and there's not even a single mention of their blatant plagiarism--it's at least worth a "controversies" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.85.73 (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Retroactively claiming this comment TheBSG (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Led Zeppelin makes a mention of allegations of plagiarism. It could be expanded with more information on relevant cases, like winning the Stairway to Heaven lawsuit. WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONs are bad for WP:NPOV. And please don't attack the subject as a glorified cover band or allege blatant plagiarism unless it's been supported by a court of law. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others exists. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is plain hagiography, what's written here is just whitewashing all the claims of plagiarism, given that Led Zeppelin must be the most-sued of all bands for plagiarism. It's not just that they take elements of other songs or improvise passages, but they claim to write songs that were clearly by other people, such as Dazed and Confused, and would not acknowledge it until they were sued. You need to have an entire section on plagiarism for the article to be considered unbiased, how this article got listed as a good article when it failed the criteria of a good article (like neutrality and broadness of coverage) is beyond me. Hzh (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

→Thank you, I had initially made my comment after linked this to a friend who asked about it off-hand when I mentioned their history of litigation, because I assumed it'd be a section of its own. I may have made my original post in... a state, but I do think my point stands after reading the page again. I am sorry for my editorialization and attacking the subject, but I am not the one to write an unbiased part about it--just kind of annoyed someone who's more objective and good at wikipedia hasn't mentioned it. TheBSG (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * People have complained about this for years, and nothing was done about it. The article clearly shows bias in what is written. This is the only part written about plagiarism - It reads like a fan's justification for what they did, and it is at best misleading, at worse deceptive. They were accused of plagiarism because they claimed writing credits alone and refused to acknowledge the original source even when asked to do so by the original authors. It also read like they used blues and traditional folk songs that's been around for a long time, when that isn't true for many songs - "Dazed and Confused" for example was written just a few years earlier by Jake Holmes (whatever people might argue about what Led Zeppelin added or changes made to the song, it's still essentially the same song). If nothing is done, then there is a case for reassessing its Good Article status and remove it if necessary for failure to comply with the Good Article criteria. Hzh (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A year later and there's still no Controversy section. Really reduces my faith in Wikipedia. TheBSG (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of people who consider them less than irrelevant..they brought a lot of darkness into the business..just because they sold a lot of records doesn`t mean they were good..they borrowed from everyone
 * There were plenty of people who couldn`t stand them even when they were current..loud and repetitive..Plant`s vocals were inane high school boy lyrics screaming from my point which was pathetic seeing how he actually can sing when he wants to..Morrison was tone deaf but at least he had some ability as a writer..there definitly needs to be a critism section in this article Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Personnel section
Responding to 's revert edit comment: Except for the death of Bonham, the members of the group have never changed. So there is no point in listing the reunion years. I reverted this addition a year ago by a now blocked user and also reverted another as "not needed". It seems like details-for-details-sake busy work that just clutters the section and makes it more difficult to read. Why do think it is necessary? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022
I have made a new cover image for the wiki page and I believe it's better and cleaner than the previous one. Please consider changing it? Bennettp22 (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: You will have to upload the image, and it will need to have acceptable licensing, including the image or images you created it from. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Picture Description in the preface
I'd like to rise a doubt about the description of the first image appearing in the article. It seems to me that Robert Plant and Jhon Paul Jones names should be swapped to match left-right reading of the picture. 62.18.110.212 (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ - it clearly states "Clockwise from upper left" not "reading left to right", so the descriptions are correct - Arjayay (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

John Paul Jones incorrect link
On the photo above the background information box in the top right hand of the page, the hyperlinked "John Paul Jones" redirects to the wrong John Paul Jones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Jones_(musician) needs to be linked as opposed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Jones. ZzKermit (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2024
2604:3D09:3E75:7400:BDB9:BCA2:6D61:BB97 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I just want to change the picture for led zeppelin.
 * What do you want to change it to? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The only one that would have a chance of being accepted is Led Zeppelin - promotional image (1971).png, unless the requestor has a free image. (if you're referring to the infobox) - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Grammar
Please, will you use singular verbs when speaking of singular nouns - i.e. Led Zeppelin WAS rather than WERE. A band is a singular collective entity, not plural.

John Philip Curtis - an old pedant and lover of the English language. 2407:E400:803E:3700:D814:5E7D:2323:EF51 (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As is clearly explained - Arjayay (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry sticky keyboard - as per WP:Engvar - Arjayay (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Coda IS a STUDIO ALBUM!
Coda being a studio album or compilation album is not a throwaway discussion. People aimlessly say it’s a compilation without doing the proper research. We don’t get to decide, based on no evidence, that Coda is a compilation album. The fact is, it isn’t. The only thing that makes it even remotely compilation-like is the fact that the songs are compiled over a long period of time.

People have let rules ruin art. Just because something does what Coda does, doesn’t mean it’s any less of an important piece of work than the others. Because it has the qualities of a compilation, that doesn’t mean it is. There is more proof for it being a studio album than it being a compilation.

Here it is:

On the OFFICIAL WEBSITE of Led Zeppelin, it is listed at the top among the other eight studio albums. There is no compilation or live album up there, it is just the studio albums. It would be awfully strange if it happened to just be there and mean nothing. But ok ok, not good enough? Atlantic Records (and this is mentioned on Wikipedia too) accepted it into the studio discography, LEGALLY. Led Zeppelin owed one and Atlantic Records constituted it as such. Think that they did that out of kindness because of what happened to the band? Ok, here’s this one: “The Complete Studio Recordings” Box Set is split into … NINE sections. All of them, being studio albums. Coda is the last one on it.

Not that this one is full on proof, but when you click the link of Coda on the official website for Led Zeppelin, you’re taken to Amazon. Here, as a direct link from Led Zeppelin, you are given a description about the album. Not states it’s the final studio album.

As someone who does a good amount of research before doing a discography listen, this Coda debate has really frustrated me. All evidence points to it being a studio album. It is not up to us. We aren’t deities that make judgment calls on artists work and what is this or that. It is the artists decisions as well as those legally involved that have a part in the decision. And this decision is almost 100% clearly one that calls it a studio album. There is evidence for it.

I’d also like to point out the inconsistency on this page. For the longest time there were “eight studio albums,” Coda was a “compilation album,” but then you’d have a section talking about the box se, saying that there’s nine studio albums. It is inconsistent and frustrating, especially to those trying to get an idea for Led Zeppelins discography.

So please, accept it for what it is. Occasional Tinnitus (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)