Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 5

Present tense?
Should this article be edited to reflect the fact that Led Zeppelin is no longer an ex-band...they are current and rather than statements such as "Led Zeppelin were an English band," should it read, "Led Zeppelin are..."? Also, should Jason Bonham be included as a member in the list of members?144.135.254.67 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No.58.172.187.10 (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not just go for it, and use the word is. Led Zeppelin is an english rock band. any other word there, is either portending personal feelings of the writer, or is just bad grammar. bad english I should say. Marvelous marvin (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Experimental Rock
I added this label to Led Zeppelin, because it's a very accurate way of describing a lot of their music. "In The Light", "No Quarter", and a lot of their post-zoso album material is very experimental in nature, and even Led Zeppelin 3 is relatively innovative in nature because of their choice to make a fair portion of the songs acoustic. If anyone disagrees feel free to say so and give your reasons. - Razorhead July 31, 2007
 * I'm not sure I really agree with labeling them experimental. While there's no arguing they were incredibly innovative, glancing over List of experimental musicians I fail to see any bands that are similar enough to LZ to let them fall into this specific genre. Besides that, User:Peter Fleet has already reverted it. IrisKawling 11:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

i added it back. "Experimental rock or Avant rock is a type of music based on rock and roll which experiments with the basic elements of the genre, and/or which pushes the boundaries of common composition and performance technique. Performers may also attempt to individualize their music with unconventional time signatures, instrumental tunings, compositional styles, lyrical techniques, elements of other musical genres, singing styles, instrumental effects or custom-made experimental musical instruments." pretty much describes LZ to a tee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk)

I think it should not be called experimental. because, what I hear is rock and roll. Some blues, some rock. I think one is going to gain much more ground, much more ground if this article is written in black and white. You can always go back and fill out the branches. Marvelous marvin (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with marvin. Led Zeppelin is about rock and roll, with a lot of influences from blues. Sure they did experiment, but that doesn't make them an experimental band at all. Almost all of their songs are 4/4 - no unconventional time signatures there. Also, almost every band eventually uses different tunings for certaing songs, not to mention compositional styles. All one could argue is that their live performances were very unusual, containing a lot of improvisation and very long solos. But that's all. Fmneto (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is entirely fair and appropriate to label Zeppelin as "Avant-Guard." This should not be the primary label but it is applicable--not on account of their use of alternate tunings (trite), blending of genres (un-original), or forays into glam/pop in the late 70s (some of us like to pretend that never happened), but because of their truly original styles and techniques. Examples include Page's use of the violin bow to create the distinct sounds of his guitar solos, and his use of the Theremin on Whole Lotta Love. I don't think it matters if they are labeled Avant-Guard or not, as they are generally perceived as just a plain Rock n Roll band, but adding the label is not innaccurate or inappropriate. Another, perhaps irrelevant, consideration is the band's extensive use of improvisation in live shows, which suggests elements of psychedelia (cf. Cream). 69.249.55.6 (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NEWS
announcements recently - a new release "Mothership", 3cds 'best of', as well as a new extended release of the DVD and CD versions of The Song Remains the Same from MSG '73. Zep will also allow the Mothership release to be sold online. Someone want to change the article to reflect these developments? 144.135.254.163 08:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename the article "the fourth album" to Led ZeppelinIV??
The article about the fourth album should be renamed Led Zeppelin IV or at least include Led Zeppelin IV in its title, because Jimmy page has often called "the fourth album" Led Zeppelin IV in many interviews (Even the main article on the fourth album is called Led Zeppelin IV). Therefore, we can rename the article Led Zeppelin IV and mention in the article that it was called the "fourth album" by robert plant.

It is mentioned in the article that it was called the fourth album by Robert Plant. But that section of the article should stay the same, as the the symbols are its official title. --FrasierC 23:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As to the statement that the fourth album was not labeled or titled, to the best of my recollection, your honor, the LP came wrapped in plastic with a sticker on which credited Led Zeppelin. Or was that just a later re-issue?Toddsschneider (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily a reissue, just a later pressing most likely. First-run fourth albums are very hard to find but they included absolutely no indications as to who it was. It was designed that way, read the full article about the album. TauntingElf (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

John Bonham a "Former Member"?
I have a problem with the edit made to the band's lineup. John Bonham really can't be considered a "former member". Almost immediately after Bonham's death, Led Zeppelin disbanded, even saying that without their irreplacable drummer they can't continue as they were. No new material was recorded with a new drummer. All the artists went their separate ways to record solo albums. So to say John Bonham is a "former member" is misleading, as all the material we know of was recorded with the original four.

SpartanMurph117 00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

then fix it Duff man2007 01:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and it's been reverted. IrisKawling 01:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First off Duff, I don't want to be that bold. If there was a good reason, I'd want to hear it. But since Kawling reverted it, I'm going to change the opening section to include Bonham in the list of band members.

SpartanMurph117 13:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This matter is coming up again it seems. There's no reason to list him as a former member, he was active throughout their entire recording history, and when he died, they disbanded. Despite any reunions, Led Zeppelin has not been active since John Bonham's passing, and any drummers filling in during one-off shows are not band members, they're touring members... barely. It's almost debatable to note "deceased" next to his name for a casual reader of the article that may just be looking for facts, but there were only 4 members of Led Zeppelin, and no "past members" IrisKawling 17:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Led Zeppelin are active again as they have announced a concert. Since they are are playing the concert under the name Led Zeppelin, and John Bonham is dead, he is a past/former member of the band. People that are arguing against this obvious fact are too biased because they are purists and hardcore fans of the original lineup. This article must be kept consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. He is no longer a member of Led Zeppelin as they are about to play a concert without him. TomGreen 20:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they are not active again. If they go on a lengthy tour, officially reunite, name a replacement drummer, and record new material, then they would be active again. They are simply playing a single one-off tribute show. If you continue going by the belief that they are active, your edits will not be helpful to this article, please take this into consideration. I also take offense to your "purist and hardcore fan" comment, truthfully I obviously am a big fan, and I wish Led Zeppelin were still active, however the fact remains that they are not. IrisKawling 22:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous, Led Zeppelin are to reunite and play a concert. Bonham is dead and is therefore a former member. At the very least the '(deceased)' must remain beside his name. This is NOT a fan site, it is an encyclopedic article. We'll have to seek arbitration from an admin if there is no willingness by people to accept facts. This is the way other band articles are presented when bands are in similar situations. TomGreen 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If the reunion was not to take place it could be argued that all 4 members were former members as the group was no longer active. It could equally be argued that they were all current members as their material was still available to buy. Thus if you asked 'who are/were Led Zeppelin' the only proper answer would be to give the 4 names of the original members. With the reunion, LZ are playing with 4 members making Jason Bonham a member and John Bonham a former member. --Egghead06 08:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pleased someone has voiced their agreement with plain logic. However, I wouldn't be sure to include Jason Bonham as a current member as I'm not sure if he is counted as a member of the band. He could play with them without being classed as a full member, in the same way that Darryl Jones plays bass with The Rolling Stones following Bill Wyman's departure, but he isn't classed as a member of The Rolling Stones. John Bonham is definately a former member. Even if IrisKawling believes they are not active again, then he must agree that ALL four must be listed as former members, as per the musical artist template box guide (I can't remember the link). TomGreen 09:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomGreen (talk • contribs)
 * Tom, if you're getting so angered by this, here is what I suggest. On November 26th you may change them to an active group, and the members to your liking, but as soon as they're done performing, it goes back, because that'll be the only time they're "active". And as I already said, if they go on tour or decide to record again, you're in the right. But until then, all that has happened was an announced one-off gig. That does not make them an active band, I'm sorry. IrisKawling 12:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So we will have 'Active for one night only'? Are Cream an active band as they did 4 gigs in 2005 but have none further planned or The Who? Surely the fact that LZ make even one appearance in the 21st century makes them 'active'? After that concert they will have 4 active members and one former member::::--Egghead06 13:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of those bands have done more than just one show, I don't know much about them but I'm just trying to say that one single get-together by 3 guys doesn't make an inactive band for 27 years active again; the 'partial reunions' notation is enough. People tend to get a little carried away with the whole reunion buzz by many bands. Look at Pink Floyd, they play one gig in 2005 at Live 8, and all of a sudden their fans are clinging to hope that they'll keep going, and thus label them as active but on "indefinite hiatus". Again I don't know much about the details of Floyd's status either, but I do know that if you ask any member of Zep if they're active now, they'll say NO. IrisKawling 13:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So is it Led Zeppelin 'were' a band or 'are' a band? The article for Pink Floyd has 'are a band'!--Egghead06 17:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Neither band are active, this article is currently correct, Floyd's probably isn't. IrisKawling 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So the band is inactive, I am therefore changing 'members' to 'former members', as per the Wikipedia guidelines on infoxes. TomGreen 14:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomGreen (talk • contribs)

I can't figure this discussion out. I've tried. I think the reason is, something is missing. or someone? mhmm. and, honestly, I just commend you folk, for your sensitivity on the subject of Bonham's death. You've done enough, you've done well, just in being careful, just remember you are not gods or angels, you are just mere men. or ladies. my point is, in laboring like you have.. in this discussion, you did get it right. IMO. Marvelous marvin (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin Reuniting?
I heard this at the Yahoo! home page.


 * Please note the disclaimer above: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Led Zeppelin article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Thanks Edelmand 11:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I know how led zeppelin is saying there waiting till after the reunion show to discuss further shows if any, but I am hearing something now about a possible show in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.28.66 (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think rumors about 2009 Belfast show and possible tour are nonsense and should not be on this page. Robert Plant has stated that a tour is not going to happen (from Uncut magazine interview). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.250.98 (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In case this is helpful, other than seeing a British morning show and hearing Robert Plant discussing the delight of reuniting with Led Zeppelin now that Jason Bonham will fill his father's former position, and now from Rolling Stone magazine, this: Led Zeppelin: The Full Report From David Fricke From the Reunion Show From 10 December 2007 --leahtwosaints (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Led Zep Sales
There's mentioned that Led Zeppelin has sold more than 300 million albums. Since 25 September 2005 16:24, is this mentioned like this way at Wikipedia. The article (the source) however is published at 7 November 2005 (more than a month later than it was mentioned at Wikipedia). I can believe that Led Zeppelin has sold more than 250 million albums, but there is no (correct) claim (yet) that date before 25 September 2005 to suggest that they've sold more than 300 million albums. So, is it possible to change the 300 to 250 million, please. Christo jones 08:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

An official press release claimed that Led Zeppelin sold 200 million albums. So, an album sale of 250 million worldwide anno 2007 is more realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christo jones (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of context sentence
The following sentence at the end of the paragraph about the Yardbirds breaking up makes no sense: "A large part of their success can be credited to their lawyer Steve Weiss" The "they" mentioned is really ambigious and there's no obvious context nearby that implies anyone at all was successful. It's also worth mentioning how Steve Weiss contributed to whoever's success. Zytsef 06:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence was not only out of context, but also pov and unsourced. It has been removed  Edelmand 11:54, 30 September 2007

(UTC)

Americans please take note
Sorry to be pedantic, but since  the 1800 Act of Union, English people became British, this is the correct nomenclature, like it or not.. Try to imagine the concept of Texans claiming not to be American and then u might see how irritating it is to have to correct this error on a daily basis. Natalie West 03:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No error - you are repeatedly removing detail from the article and pov pushing. The band are neither Scottish, Welsh or N. Irish - they are English. There is no requirement to muddy the waters here. Try this tactic on Scottish articles or on Irish articles that refer to the time it was part of the UK and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.3.45 (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Try not to paint the edits as anti-British. True they British, but more specifically they are all are originally from England.  If we're limited to listing nations and not states/regions then Scottish is incorrect too.  -Fnlayson 21:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So to Wikipedia, Led Zeppelin is not one of the most ...
... revolutionary, praised and influential bands of all time. Give me a reason why you won't admit they are.

Honestly everybody knows this yet the front page rarely, RARELY talks about it. Why? Several other bands have different articles talking about their influence an impact, if anything Led Zeppelin should be among the top 5 bands to have one yet. Yet they don't, no they just have one bashing Led Zeppelin. Why is this? Littlenickle 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone(s) has to write it and provide verifiable sources to back it up. Just that simple. -Fnlayson 02:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Littlenickle is a sock for Shutup999/Zephead999/Zabrak/Dragong4/Duff man2007/Pie76/Zubt555.. etc. Don't feed the trolls. 156.34.221.137 02:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

References in lyrics
There are repeated references to the works of Tolkien in the lyrics of Led Zeppelin. Surely this should be mentioned somewhere in this article or on the articles for particular albums or songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.107.4 (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Presence + Heroin
Though it is widely accepted that Jimmy Page began suffering from the effects of heroin use in the late 70s, I'm not sure I've read that the Presence sessions marked the beginning of his use. In addition, I'm not sure that Page himself has ever confirmed or denied his usage of heroin, officially. I think it's a bit slippery to state this as fact in the article when it is mostly speculation and hearsay. Perhaps I'm forgetting an interview I've read, but I feel if the article is going to say that Page's use of heroin contributed to the downfall of the band it at least needs a citation. I believe the band's tour manager, Richard Cole, made some statements in his autobiography about himself and his relationship with the band. I've also read that several inaccuracies appear in his book. It's been several years since I've read it and I too felt that some facts didn't seem to add up. I'll do my best to find a source for this, but while I'm doing that someone else might find it more quickly. Cheers. Rockthing 02:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Page's drug use is discussed extensively on his own wikipedia page, with references: see Jimmy Page

Edelmand 06:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'll have a look at that. Rockthing 11:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

1990s Page/Plant
Does someone have a credible source saying that Charlie Jones is Plant's son-in-law? If so, I think this would be relevant to John Paul Jones' exclusion from the Page/Plant project. I've heard/read this before, but don't want to add this information without a source handy. (on a purely speculative basis, however, there was probably no way they could have avoided calling the project 'Led Zeppelin' with JPJ involved). Rockthing 02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Final appearance in US
I corrected the statement in the section headed The Song Remains the Same, as the Oakland shows were NOT the band's last US appearance. I was curious if the statement was part of the cited source. Excuse me, the book - which I own and which does not have the cited material, now that I think about it.

I had tickets to see Led Zepplin - they must have been in the week following the Oakland shows, as the show (in Phoenix) was canceled. Unfortunately, I do not recall the date they finally did the show but it had to be at least 6 months later. Me713 22:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Oakland shows were the band's last in the United States. See Led Zeppelin North American Tour 1977. Edelmand 13:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Origin in infobox
Why does the infobox say the band originated in West Bromwich? It's not referred to in the text. I'd always assumed they were all based in London. Whoosher (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest they didn't really "orginate" from anywhere. Plant and Bonham were from the Midlands, whereas Page was from London and Paul Jones was from Kent. The band was essentially Jimmy Page's creation, so if anything it was London based. 83.100.250.8 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the localisation to West Bromwich is too specific. Origin in England would be about as close as one could really get I think. Candy (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

John Mendelsohn
The first paragraph under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin#Allegations_of_plagiarism cites 33 http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7287549/qa_robert_plant/ but there is no mention of any of that in said article, does anyone have a correct reference? Revrant 18:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen both the reviews Mendelsohn gave for Led Zeppelin. While the reviews were in general neative in tone, at no stage did he mention Traffic of Jansch or "plagiarism" in the reviews. Some editor has made a false attribution to Mendelsohn claiming he said something when he clearly did not. That section in the article therefore needs to be removed as clear bunk. MegX (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The section on allegations of plagiarism makes a claim on the original album review by John Mendelsohn for Led Zeppelin I. The wikipedia article avoids referencing the Rolling Stone article in question. After searching on the internet I've managed to find the original Rolling Stone review:

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/albums/album/103294/review/18835333/led_zeppelin_i

The wikipedia article then states:

"When Led Zeppelin's debut album was released, it received generally positive reviews. However, John Mendelsohn of Rolling Stone magazine criticised the band for plagiarising music, notably "Black Mountain Side" from Bert Jansch's "Blackwaterside" (though Jansch himself acknowledges the song as being traditional) and the riff from "Your Time Is Gonna Come" from Traffic's "Dear Mr. Fantasy". He also accused the band of mimicking black artists, and showing off. This marked the beginning of a long rift between the band and the magazine, with Led Zeppelin rejecting later requests for interviews and cover stories as their level of success escalated."

If you read the Rolling Stone article and compare it with the above quote, it's quite obvious the claims made in the Wikipedia article appears to be bogus. Nowhere in his review does he even mention Jansch or Traffic by name or the word plagiarism. Someone appears to have made some false attributions on the current Wikipedia article to Mendelsohn and it should be removed. MegX (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hate site as reference
Can we please find a more appropriate reference for Bonham's death than the extremist hate/conspiracy site av1611.org? Surely there are other reliable resources out there. PenguinJockey (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * POV website, not a reliable source. Remove it if it hasn't been done so already. Could you link me to that actual article?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

i think that av1611.orgis a horrible site and should not be mentioned as a refrence Grandoldman (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed that reference. I put up the link to his entry in instead. Fmneto (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jason Bonham?
How dare someone not even mention John Bonham in the band members section. Jason Bonham has never been part of the band, he has filled in for his father in a few concerts, thats it. You wouldnt mention Pat Smear on Nirvana's members so why put Jason Bonham on this one. I'm replacing Jason as John--Omarraii (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting picture
Is anyone else seeing a tubgirl-like picture that scrolls down with the article? Pullarius1 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC

i noticed a big picture that was fixed when u scroll down but luckily it never loaded for me


 * Yep, a hacker must have got in.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

$100,000 a ticket?
Just general discussion here, but did tickets for the latest concert go for $100,000? Or where the certain levels of tickets in which someone could record the concert? Is that what I am seeing on Youtube today?

Eltownse (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You've probably heard about the guy who bid £83,000 on a charity auction on national radio (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/events/cin07/wogan_auction_thu.shtml). The tickets themselves all cost £125 + booking fee. --Whoosher (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was reckoned that the average ticket was for £5000. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Can we get the old picture back and move the 2007 one down to that tour, this is since the old picture is comlete Zeppelin-RREDD13 (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree the current picture is not very good. You cannot even see the faces of the band members. However, it appears that the old picture you are referring too (1968 publicity photo) has now been deleted from Wikipedia due to an inadequate free use justification. This page needs more photos generally I and I have added some in the past, but they have always been removed for fair use reasons.Edelmand (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 reunion
Unfortunately, I am really pushed for time otherwise I would do this ... The info regarding the 2007 reunion needs spinning off to its own article and replacing with a short para. Otherwise, too much emphasis is done on this just because it is a recent event and is given unnecessary weight in the article. --Candy (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Slightly off-topic, but is a list of celebrities who went to the show really necessary? Funeral 14:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I have created a second article for the concert and the vast bulk of the information has been moved there Edelmand (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice job Edelmand. Thanks. --Candy (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Spirit
Link to Spirit (band) corrected. Dunks (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. Include that in your edit summary and you won't need to mention it here. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Fourth album
This sentence: "The album also featured "Stairway to Heaven" (sample (info)), which became a massive album-oriented rock FM radio hit despite never being released as a single." is very wordy, I've taken several looks at it but cannot decipher its meaning, suggestions? (Note: please look at the original sentence as it contains wikilinks)TauntingElf (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't feature Stairway to Heaven. The album wasn't even titled. It didn't have "Featuring Stairway to Heaven" on it as a sticker!!! I guess it is simply inappropriate English. Trying a quick edit. Feel free to revert or amend. --Candy (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

…Hello Dunks i read your paregraphical setting and was wondering about the political portion of it ,reason why is there is an exsistance to what you mentioned before your calculation,i'm going to try to relax and capture some Led Zepplin perhaps though my freikin radio is a disater and the darn thing very rarely plays any of it all well that ends well i am of a posible satisfaction by the way concerning a Polotic and even a history of it check the DeLancey Faction 1700's before the revolution o the tears well there somewhere o crap my heads getting moist.12:02 p.m.e.s.t.

…above was David George DeLancey/12:04 p.m. e.s.t. search David_DeLanceywith or without @Yahoo.comDavid George DeLancey (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Top Ten
Led Zeppelin aren't the only band to have all their studio albums hit the Billboard top ten. See Stone Temple Pilots, Pearl Jam, etc. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The information is cited to a website which was dated 2000.  Since then, all Pearl Jam's albums have gone top 10 on Billboard.  I have removed the sentence. Edelmand (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Obviously, all of Pearl Jam's albums had gone Top Ten in 2000, too. And all the years before that going to their first album in 1991. The website isn't out of date. It's just plain wrong. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiality
All of the sources for 300 million albums sold are from after this wikipedia article claimed it. This is wikiality. This is this website promulgating a lie that is subsequently picked up by the press. That's disgraceful and everyone involved in it ought to be ashamed. You aren't a true Led Zeppelin fan because you lie about the band and inflate their sales as if that means anything. A true Led Zeppelin fan would be committed to accuracy and truth. An official Led Zeppelin press release claimed 200 million sales a mere five years ago. This 300 million figure is crap.

http://www.led-zeppelin.com/news/pressrelease5_20_03.html

74.77.222.188 (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The press release link provided above is from 2003. The December 2007 edition of Classic Rock magazine (page 55) states 300 million. I would have thought this magazine be a fairly reliable reference, but I guess it's possible that Classic Rock cheated as well and used wikipedia as their source. The exact number might be difficult to verify Edelmand (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course Classic Rock magazine cheated. There isn't any organization tracking worldwide sales. That's why all worldwide sales figures are bunk. Classic Rock magazine is far from a reputable journalistic source, anyway. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't feed the troll, Edelmand. User:74.77.222.188 has a long history of article vandalism. MegX (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Troll? Vandalism? Screw you, MegX. I'm a user committed to accuracy on Wikipedia. ESPECIALLY when it comes to my favorite bands. That includes Led Zeppelin. I have seen outrageous sales claims, inadequately cited, on the pages of Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, The Who and others. I have worked to get them removed, battling against thick headed fanboys and fangirls who think they're doing their favorite band's article a favor by putting poorly sourced crap in it. They aren't. They're doing their favorite band's article a disservice. This is an encyclopedia. It has standards. Among those standards are WP:V and WP:RS. If you're a real fan of Led Zeppelin, you'll want their article to uphold those standards. You'll notice that my "vandalism" just got an erroneous claim deleted. The claim that Led Zeppelin is the only band to have all of their studio albums go Top Ten in the USA. Yeah, that claim was impressive. I'm sure Led Zeppelin fans liked seeing it in this article. But it just plain isn't true. A real fan ought to want truth in this article. Not lies. An official band press release from a mere five years ago says Led Zeppelin has sold 200 million albums and you're going to believe this garbage about 300 million? Come on. You think they sold 100 million albums in five years? Of course they haven't. Stick to what is VERIFIABLE, such as the RIAA figures. Vandalism my ass. I'm the OPPOSITE of a vandal. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your version of "truth" includes adding "pklaassen = Yes". You've lost your argument. You are a troll, a vandal, and a coward.MegX (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pklaassen = Yes? What the hell are you talking about? My version of "truth" proved that this article's claim that Led Zeppelin is the only band to have all their albums hit the Top Ten was complete bunk. All I've seen is that your mode of Led Zeppelin fandom means LYING. Mine does not. Trolls lie. Vandals lie. I don't. And a coward? A coward how? You're pathetic, MegX. Your kind make me embarrassed to be a Led Zeppelin fan. Deleting my comment from your talk page proves that you're the coward. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are a coward. You use multiple sockpuppets. You haven't added anything remotely constructive to any articles. And as for being a fan of a band, with your edit history I doubt that very much. MegX (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't use any sock puppets. I think you're projecting, sweetheart. I don't know what the hell you're talking about with "Pklaassen = Yes" and my edit history amply proves I'm a fan of Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Who and the rest. I'm simply sick of seeing publicist exaggerations reported as fact. As a journalist and as a fan, it offends me. You're the kind of fan I despise. Who removed a lie from the opening? I did. Led Zeppelin are not the only band to have all their "non-compilation studio albums" go Top Ten in the USA. That's the kind of garbage that misguided fangirls like yourself infect these articles with. It's a disgrace and so are you. And your talk page proves that you're the coward. I don't go around sanitizing my talk page. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I don't have to spend my time explaining myself to an anonymous user who has surrounded themselves in their own self-importance, editing behind sockpuppets. It's users like YOU that give wikipedia bad name. You claim you're a journalist but you don't have the balls to identify yourself. You really are full of it. The multiple 3Rs on you prove that beyond doubt. End of story. MegX (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! I don't have the balls to identify myself? I suppose "MegX" is your Christian name, eh? Get a life. I don't use sock puppets. Ever. Unlike you and your endless 156.34X cronies. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this official band release, dated 25 October 2007, which cites the 300 million figure? http://www.ledzeppelin.com/news/2007/10/25/led-zeppelin-release-digital-catalog Edelmand (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just some guy writing for the website and the claim is obviously from Wikipedia. The truth is that no one knows what the worldwide sales are. Worldwide sales aren't tracked. That's why we'll never find a reputable source for a worldwide sales claim. The RIAA is reputable. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This 'worldwide sales' thing has become one of the most boring and repetitive features of articles on rock/pop bands. Not only LZ but articles on The Who, Queen, Pink Floyd etc etc regularly have spurious entries made for sales and then have them reverted by someone who doesn't like the entry.
 * As stated, above, no one tracks worldwide sales so any figures mentioned have no place in Wikipedia--Egghead06 (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't prevent a person or group from estimating total sales in specific cases. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In this article the 300 million sales is cited by several sources all meeting and exceeding any standards set by Wikipedia. Editor opinion matter nil. It's a cited statement and remains so because of it. One editor under several diguises has shaded 3RR and attempted, several times, to remove the citations for reasons which are nothing better then original research and personal opinion. Wikipedia has a List of best selling music artists which is under a huge amount of scrutiny by dozens of editors who will not accept any reference they deem questionable. If the "uncitable worldwide sales" claim is true (and I personally believe it is... but again... editor opinion means nothing)... then the editor who wishes to blank references from this article should place his efforts on getting that main list deleted from Wikipedia. As long as it remains. Any citation deemed worthy for use on that list... is a reference valid enough to be included in any related Wikipedia article. On Wikipedia, right or wrong, consensus wins over personal opinion or bias. And on this article, the overwhelming consensus is that the referenced content stays unless other citations that say different outnumber the citations that already exist... and there are currently 5 concrete references. So any attempt to knowing remove the referenced content against article consensus = vandalism and should be treated as such. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a point that some of the current citations meet WP:RS criteria. But the fact remains that they ALL appear AFTER Wikipedia claimed that figure. That's what I call wikiality. I've dealt with it on a number of issues, such as the history of the guitar smash. I'm not going to delete the worldwide sales figure from Led Zeppelin's page anymore, but I will continue to argue my case and hopefully persuade the fair minded who aren't blinded by fandom. The List of best selling music artists is full of references that are questionable and the article admits that. It's explicitly described as a list of sales CLAIMS. That's why I have no problem with it listing Pink Floyd at 200 million, The Who at 100 million, Deep Purple at 100 million, etc. That page is not presenting those figures as fact. But when those figures migrate to Pink Floyd's page, The Who's page, Deep Purple's page, etcetera, they are invariably presented as FACT. That's wrong. When I edit those pages to say that those are sales CLAIMS it gets reverted under WP:WEASEL, so I delete the figure entirely under WP:RS. And it stands because I'm right. I can't do that to Led Zeppelin's page, because some of the sources do meet WP:RS criteria. But it's illuminating that none of those sources make any mention of where the figure comes from. I think it comes from Wikipedia and I'm very disappointed in the sloppy research of organizations like CNN for claiming it as fact. Original research? Perhaps. So tell me where the figure comes from. It's not like CNN counted up all of Led Zeppelin's sales themselves. Where does the figure COME FROM? If you can't answer that question, then you know I'm right. I think all worldwide sales claims should be deleted from every page. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have provided no proof that 300 million figure originated from Wikipedia. HelenWatt (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Proof? Where does the figure come from, Helen? It's a fact that this article was claiming 300 million sold before ALL of the current references now "supporting" that claim. The figure comes from either Wikipedia itself or from a source that does not meet WP:RS criteria. If that's not true, then find the source it comes from. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Think the key phrase here is 'any citation deemed worthy'. Many used clearly are not worthy and are TV station fansites and foreign newspapers (South African and Swedish!!) etc. Before using these editors should consider reading wp:rs. To leave such vague figures in an article only diminishes Wikipedia even further.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A news item from the May 22, 2003 Bristol Evening Post cites figures that make even the 200 million indicated in the official press release seem questionable. I'll quote the article at length. "If proof were needed that Led Zeppelin are the biggest rock band the world has ever seen, then you don't have to look further than the sales statistics. Every year the RIAA, the American recording industry body, issues the figures for the (certified) best-selling albums in the world. Despite having been released over 30 years ago, the arrogantly untitled album that's become known as Led Zeppelin IV is currently in the fourth position (behind The Eagles: Their Greatest Hits, Michael Jackson's Thriller and Pink Floyd's The Wall) having sold a staggering 22 million copies.  That's 10 million more copies than The Beatles' Abbey Road and twice as many as Sgt Pepper.  Also riding high in the list is Led Zeppelin II (12 million) and the debut album Led Zeppelin (10 million)."  So, this 2003 article cites the top three Led Zeppelin sales ["in the world"] leaders as 22 million, 12 million, and 10 million respectively.  If you were take all the other LZ releases and give them the huge benefits of doubt and say they all sold 9 million each, that would still sum up to a figure substantially lower than the 200 million cited officially by the band in the same year this Bristol article was written--much less the 300 million being argued about 5 years later.alainsane (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I just found this off-handed snippet in the RIAA's official April 22, 2008 press release, which I will also quote at length: "Veteran rocker Paul McCartney earned his 15th Gold album for Memory Almost Full on Concord Records. McCartney’s former band The Beatles has sold a whopping 170 million albums - more albums than any band in G&P history." So, according to the RIAA, 170 million albums is more than other band has sold in Gold & Platinum history.alainsane (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to your statements, rather than simply quoting. I should also point out that the figures quoted are for US sales only (and old sales figures at that), not worldwide as claimed by you in quotes. RIAA specifically states US sales figure of 23 million for Led Zeppelin IV, not worldwide. MegX (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot provide a link to the first article because it's not freely available. I accessed it through LexisNexis.  Here is the link for the second snippet: http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?news_month_filter=&news_year_filter=&resultpage=&id=D313E1AB-E770-847E-0466-26571362B178  also http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTopArt It doesn't make sense for the RIAA to use old statistics.  They only stand to benefit by trumpeting their efforts and the added value they provide by presenting recent data.alainsane (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the current references for 300M meet and exceed WP:RS standards. Fair Deal (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Coda is a studio album
Proof that Coda is a studio album lies in official Led Zeppelin releases. For instance, Complete Studio Recordings has a label stating that it contains all nine studio albums plus four bonus tracks (the Best Buy in my area has a copy, so I have seen it in person). A songbook on the official Led Zeppelin site also describes nine studio albums. I know there are other items that bear proof, but I can't think of any others off of the top of my head. I just wanted to make sure this was brought to others' attention. If the band itself feels that Coda is a studio album, then it is a studio album.--Ninjaryu (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've pretty much stayed out of the studio versus compilation edit wars that have been going on, but I agree with you, if you also consider that Physical Graffiti used previously recorded tracks dating back to 1970 and it's regarded by all and sundry as a studio album and not a compilation. Although at the time Page did consider putting together a live compilation album, but the others weren't receptive to it, at the time. MegX (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've tended to stay out of it, despite how much it annoys me. Recently, however, I have seen increasing evidence proving without a shadow of a doubt that Coda is a studio album.  I feel that this should be changed, otherwise it is incorrect.--Ninjaryu (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a standard studio album. It's a compilation of studio scraps that didn't make it onto any of the official studio albums. The Who started these kinds of releases in 1974 with their Odds & Sods lp. That's not considered an official studio album, either. They're both compilations. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I don't know much about Odds & Sods (I'm more of a Tommy person), I feel that if the members of Led Zeppelin consider Coda to be a studio album, then it is a studio album. I agree that it is unusual in the respect you say, but we should probably go with what the band says it is.  Yes, they haven't said it directly, but other official releases speak loudly enough on the matter.--Ninjaryu (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Such as? 74.77.222.188 (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Led Zeppelin expert Dave Lewis, in his publication The Complete Guide to the Music of Led Zeppelin (London: Omnibus Press, 1994 ISBN 0-7119-3528-9) lists Coda as one of the ten Led Zeppelin albums released in its own right (TSRTS being the only live album of the ten). That is, he puts the album in the same bracket as the other nine  albums which preceded it.  All of these albums he distinguishes from later Led Zeppelin compilation albums, such as Led Zeppelin Remasters.  Edelmand (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some additional sources which state that Led Zeppelin released nine studio albums:
 * Liner notes for the Led Zeppelin Box Set, Vol. 2
 * Global Bass magazine interview with John Paul Jones
 * 1993 interview with Jimmy Page in Guitar World magazine
 * Article in the Telegraph newspaper
 * Article in the Mirror newspaper
 * Label attached to the Complete Studio Recordings boxed set, officially released by Atlantic Records, which states that the set includes "all nine of Led Zeppelin's studio albums" Edelmand (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

plagiarism section needs expanded
Most zeppelin songs are plagiarized, where is the info on them stealing babe i'm gonna leave you from the beatles while my guitar gently weeps or stairway to heaven from the band spirit, who zeppelin actually played with before they stole the song....there are several others as well, but overall led zeppelin as an original band is probably the most overhyped concept in musical history 24.182.229.4 (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to expand the plagiarism section. As long as it abides by Verifiability and Neutral point of view there is no reason why you can't. Edelmand (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox and reunions
I noticed that the reunion happening this year was in the infobox, and then taken down with somebody adding a comment to NOT add 2007 until it actually happens. Considering that Robert Plant himself has said this is going to happen, and is actually talking about it in the first place, and the fact that tickets are on sale now, oh yes, its gonna happen. So, 2007 stays in the infobox, mkay? --Bluorangefyre 01:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, now that it has been confirmed it can be listed there. although it technically should probably wait until they actually take the stage, it's kind of futile and will just cause many edit wars, so let's just leave it. IrisKawling 01:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Having it there will be OK. If somehow the appearance falls through, the info can be updated. -Fnlayson 03:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * John Bonham MUST be listed under former members. He is dead and as the band has decided to reform with the name Led Zeppelin, he is NOT a current member of Led Zeppelin. I understand the value people place on John's presence in the band but let us stick to facts, regardless of opinions. TomGreen 16:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomGreen (talk • contribs)


 * No details go in the box other than names. Read the rules: Template:Infobox musical artist, no other notation other than names. 156.34.225.235 08:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If you ever wondered about the credibility of Wikipedia, the pluralization of "one-off reunion" doesn't help. - 5 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmsam81 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Led Zepagain
Is Led Zepagain notable enough to warrant an article, you think? I mean they're pretty popular on iTunes. -- Gp 75 motorsports REV LIMITER  22:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, be our guest, if you can write enough verifiable material about them :) MegX (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin is among the top 10 and arguably 5 most influential and revolutionary bands of all time, why not..
Led Zeppelin is among the top 10 and arguably 5 most influential and revolutionary bands of all time, so why not include a section talking about their prodigious impact on the music industry? No, instead we get a highly distuable section talking about their plagiarism? I find that hilarious in more ways than one. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Having a section on plagiarism does not preclude adding a section you describe. As long as the information abides by wikipedia's policies of Verifiability and Neutral point of view. Previous attempts to add a section on the band's legacy have failed to do this Edelmand (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Why even bother having a source? It's common knowledge to any informed person on music that Zeppelin is among the most influential and groundbreaking bands in the history of man, argue against this and it's plausible that they're slightly mentally retarded. 17:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk • contribs)


 * The reason you need a source is Verifiability. Edelmand (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The need for it to be from a Neutral point of view seems to be pretty much ignored on wikipedia, off the top of my head the article from the F22 Raptor quotes a member of the US Air force saying the plane is the best in the world. As long as you can find a quote from someone high up in the music business it doesn't need to be neutral. Otherwise we would have to go through half the articles on here and remove those statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.151.226 (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Jones/Plant Rift
It's never really explained in the article how or why the rift began (at least, not that I can find). All I found was a part near the end that said "At the induction ceremony, the band's inner rift became apparent..." I guess it is possible I'm just an idiot. Delta (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Plant said some things during the heat of a media conference announcing the Page-Plant collaboration in 1994, when journalists kept nagging him about where John Paul Jones is (journos expecting it to be like a Led Zeppelin reunion, but Page & Plant were not willing to discuss Led Zeppelin, they only wanted to discuss the project). Plant whether he said it as a joke or not came out with "He's out back parking the car". Jones took it as a slight but got over it after a few months. It's been pretty much all water under the bridge now. MegX (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

drums, percussion?
Just a thought here. In the introduction section, should it really say that john bonham played drums and percussion? Aren't drums a section of percussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.51.168 (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Drums are the drum set. Percussion is various other single instruments.  -- Ŵïllî§ï$2  ( Talk! / Cont. ) 02:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Grammar
Grammar sucks. Someone did a bad job. Led Zeppelin isn't plural. It's just one band. For example, it's "Led Zeppelin IS awesome," not "Led Zeppelin ARE awesome." And that band IS good, not that band ARE good. Know your grammar, people. PEACE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.162.254 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Depending on whether you are using English or US English there is a clear distinction between the band is and the band are. English band written in English not US ENglish. Know your grammar!? Candy (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone has recently gone to a number of articles changing Travelling Riverside Blues to Traveling Riverside Blues, with the summary "Spelling Mistake". In British English, the spelling is with two l's. The Led Zeppelin albums which do have this song all spell it with two l's, even the CD single spells it with two l's. MegX (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Those 2 L spellings are OK in US spelling, just not preferred as I understand it. Not really a mistake in other words.  For whatever that's worth.. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if they appear with two L's on the Led Zeppelin credits as well as being OK in US spelling, then the stated reason for one of the "L's" being removed as a "Spelling Mistake" is incorrect. MegX (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

was instead of were?
isn't it supposed to be 'zed zeppelin was' not 'led zeppelin were'? 98.15.216.208 (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to take a stab at answering this question from the perspective of one American explaining the issue to another. Here goes:


 * This article is often edited by persons who speak and write using British English. With the band Led Zeppelin being very popular in their native country, this is not surprising. British English and American English are subtly different forms of the same language in many ways (see American_and_British_English_differences), and one of the ways they differ is in subject-verb agreement. Take a moment to read the following sentences:


 * The New England Patriots were accused of videotaping the signals of opposing coaches.
 * The Chicago Fire have scored at least three goals in every game.


 * In both sentences the subject is a sports team, a collection of people. The verb in each sentence is plural (Patriots were, Fire have ). An American speaker wouldn't say "the Fire has scored" just as he wouldn't say "the Patriots was accused". Though "patriots" is plural and "fire" is singular, both take plural verbs because we are talking about the team as a group of people.


 * With British English, the plural form is used much more often when referring to a group of people, especially when the group referred to is a collection of people acting individually. Thus,
 * The Rolling Stones are touring next year.
 * Led Zeppelin are possibly touring next year.


 * The Sex Pistols are well regarded as punk pioneers.
 * Led Zeppelin are still popular today.


 * are examples of how speakers of British English naturally refer to these talented people. In both cases, an American would say "Led Zeppelin is" rather than "are". The Elvis Costello lyric quoted here shows the difference British speakers see that Americans don't. It is difficult to explain; trust me, it took me several tries to write this response.


 * Some British readers are going to find this entire response laughable. So be it. Even though I am a native English speaker, have a good education and try to follow grammar rules carefully, I still find English to be an extremely difficult language to write with and accordingly I make mistakes. I only hope that Americans reading this understand that the British writers who contribute here are being very careful with what they write as well, and to them it is no mistake to say "Led Zeppelin were" in places where we would use "was". To them it is entirely natural and correct, and once you get used to recognizing that the writer is using British English, you can safely and sagely let it go.

Several talk page entries mention grammar issues. Maybe a disclaimer explaining this situation should appear near the top of the talk page. British English speakers, please comment on that possibility.

Sswonk (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you are correct Sswonk. I should add that this article is written in British English and this has been documented in the talk pages. --Candy (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue is already covered in this user warning template, and is policy already (which basically says: "leave it alone; it's fine the way it is"). Frank |  talk  17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fix the breakup section
The first paragraph ends "...problems such as the death of Robert Plant's son in 1977, Jimmy Page's heroin use,[53] changing musical tastes, and ultimately John Bonham's death in 1980 finally brought an end to Led Zeppelin."

The next paragraph then begins with a 1975 concert and a story in which Bonham is still alive. Each subsection should not have its on summarizing lead; The section of the bio should simply continue on from the last, or at most give a general summary like "they began to suffer a series of setbacks" without going into out-of-chronology specifics. TheHYPO (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Date issues
The article is plentiful with examples of both 1 January format dates and January 1 format dates. I don't personall care which is used, but someone must go through and standardize these to one or the other. TheHYPO (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Linked Day-Month or Month-Day formats will display the same to users that set a date preference in their user settings. For IP users it won't though. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Live debut
Currently the article states that "With their first album not yet released, Led Zeppelin made their live debut at the University of Surrey, Guildford on 25 October, 1968." I find this sentence misleading, as - although billed as The New Yardbirds - our 4 friends for the first time played together in front of an audience on the 7 September 1968 at Gladsaxe Teen Club in Denmark. This is confirmed by the official web site and is documented here with photos and other stuff. Shouldn't this be consided the live debut? Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably the author meant that that was their debut as Led Zeppelin rather than the New Yardbirds. I do agree that is it misleading however. --217.41.227.109 (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Most certainly, yes. I have boldly updated the article to clarify this, inserting references above as sources. – IbLeo (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Current band
I've not edited this page before and I am not an aficionado of Led Zeppelin so I feel it would not be appropriate for me to make a major edit. However, given the fact they are back in the studio recording under the name Led Zeppelin, should we not state that Led Zeppelin is/are (no plans to enter that debate:) ) rather than the past tense? MrMarmite (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, the membership is different. Robert Plant and John Bonham are no longer with them. Zazaban (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * does that prevent them from being Led Zeppelin? Genesis are still Genesis, The Who are still The Who etc MrMarmite (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am a lifelong fan, owning all of the albums and promised tickets for the Landover, MD show as a nineteen year old when Bonzo passed. To change to are would be premature. If the official website issues an announcement that they are reformed, or if Robert Plant confirms something on his site, then I would not question a change. Sswonk (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Zeppelin airship?
Their name has nothing to do with the Zeppelin airship? Their site does show one, but I did not see any mention here.--BBird 12:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sort of - from the article: "One account of the band's naming, which has become almost legendary, has it that Keith Moon and John Entwistle suggested that a possible supergroup containing themselves, Jimmy Page, and Jeff Beck would go down like a lead balloon, a term Entwistle used to describe a bad gig." So Led Zeppelin is a play on 'lead balloon'. &mdash; Zaui (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * they were sued by a member of the Zeppelin family for the LZI cover. they had to play shows in germany billed as "the knobs" or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They were never sued. Eva von Zeppelin threatened suit if they set foot in Denmark using Zeppelin in their name. They changed their name in 1970 to the tongue-in-cheek title of "The Nobs" when they played in Denmark in response. She never followed through with her threat, even when Led Zeppelin later played in Denmark in 1971, 1973, and in 1979 for the Knebworth warm-up shows, without changing their name. MegX (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, how ironic. The article says that "The group deliberately dropped the 'a' in Lead at the suggestion of their manager, Peter Grant, to prevent "thick Americans" from pronouncing it "leed".". While I'm not American, I've been exposed to American culture far, far more than to British culture, and (maybe because of that) I used to pronounce the name of the group "el-ee-dee (as in Light-emitting diode) zeppelin" before hearing someone else pronounce it. This would not have happened if they had used the correct spelling. I guess you just can't win. :-D Devil Master (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Disable editing of the Led Zeppelin article!!!!
I am sick of amateur writers who keep changing the article and adding a load of crap about the band on the main page. Someone a while back wrote an extremely well written and informative article which even for fans who grew up with them like me could learn new things from.

Some asshole Beatles fan actually suggested on the main page for the song The Rain Song that the first few notes were based on the beatles song, Something!

I have no idea how to do it but whoever the hell is in charge, please delete the current version and write a more literary minded piece about the band.

I Agree, im sick of it to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.74.60 (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Then disable the editing of it so more people can view an historically accurate bio of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.235.163.110 (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But if you're going to disable editing, please do mind your spelling. "continues", not "continue", in the second paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.101.215 (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the note at the top of this page regarding the use of British English and especially American and British English differences. The grammar used in the sentence you are questioning is correct. Sswonk (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Live
There is precious little mention of the band's stage show. The unique aspect of no opening act, so as not to be upstaged on a bad night, was brilliant. The incorporation of an acoustic set on the III tour wasn't a first by a rock band, but was still notable for a *HARD ROCK* band. They were a very loud band I recall.

Vytal (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See Led Zeppelin concerts Edelmand (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the appropriate way in which to include access to audio clips from their live performances so that people who did not witness live can have the opportunity to judge for themselves? I'd like to propose: http://concerts.wolfgangsvault.com/dt/led-zeppelin-concert/764-4017.html - and can embed a song on the page, but am looking for the appropriate protocol in which to do that. anyone? -- medecki Oct 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medecki (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lemon Song and Robert Johnson
I was rather surprised to read that "The Lemon Song" was based on Howlin' Wolf's "Killing Floor". That may be, I have never heard that song, but it is also very similar to another song I am familiar with, that being Robert Johnson's "Traveling Riverside Blues." (See, for example, http://www.theonlineblues.com/robert-johnson-traveling-riverside-blues-lyrics.html .) I was listening to this song a few months ago, I recognized it as something I'd heard in a different version, and after some searching through my archives, I realized (or thought I did) that I recognized it as the Led Zeppelin song.

Robert Johnson's work has been covered by a great many artists. Whether or not Led Zeppelin or anyone else plagiarized his work, he never had an opportunity to sue any of the artists that have used his work, or, indeed, to make much of a profit from his work. But he is referred to as the King of the Delta Blues Guitarists. S459martin (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Musicians borrow from each other. A fair point but there is a difference between borrowing a lick here or there from another artist and simply performing a cover of that artist's song like "Traveling Riverside Blues".  You are not honestly going to say I could perform Lennon/Mcartney's "Yesteday" tomorrow and so long as no one sues me I can make the claim I just "borrowed" the lyrics and melody and credit the song to myself!?  Zeppelin did more than take a phrase here and there, or a slice of a guitar lick - there are Zep songs with no original lyrics whatsoever.  These are called "covers".  And Zeppelin have no excuse - Clapton and the Rolling Stones were doing the same thing - difference was they were crediting the original artists.--Zoso Jade (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Much of the information referred to above is detailed in The Lemon Song page. Edelmand (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The information in the page cited actually suggests the point I was trying to make. "The Lemon Song" may have attributable sources to at least four different musicians; the plagiarism lawsuit led to crediting only one of those musicians. The fact is, musicians borrow from each other. Sometimes it seems rather flagrant, as in the use of the music of Robert Johnson and other Southern blues musicians not only by Led Zeppelin but many others, and often goes uncredited. But then too, the influence of Southern blues musicians on "modern" rock and roll is well known, it has been admitted by more than one musician.

My point is not to defend any possible plagiarism, nor to complain on behalf of those like Robert Johnson who never had the opportunity to sue for plagiarism, but to point out that musicians (along with writers, painters, and even scientists and other ordinary people) learn from each other. One watches another play, or sing, and borrows a guitar lick or a vocal effect.

That, in itself, is not a bad thing, it is one of the ways in which we learn. The extent to which anyone has flagrantly plagiarized from anyone else is a matter for the courts, I think. That make the whole subject seem, to me, rather a footnote to the whole page (and many others) on Led Zeppelin (and other musicians). Yes, they borrowed from other musicians. Musicians do that.

Sometimes musicians (and writers, painters, and even scientists and other ordinary people) get sued for using just too much work from another.

Robert Johnson may have borrowed from someone else for his ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_Riverside_Blues ) song. That makes me wonder whether, if he had survived to the 60's or 70's, he would have even been willing to sue for plagiarism.

S459martin (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a crystal ball. Wikipedia doesn't deal in hypotheticals. Most artists anyway don't do the suing. It's the publishing companies which do, because for the most part, they own the rights to the song. Just for example, Chester Burnett died in 1976. It was Jewel Music which litigated because they owned the publishing rights to the song. Robert Johnson is sadly long dead, so is Albert King. It's up to the publisher/s of their music to deal with the lawsuits, and so far they haven't (and I don't think they will). I've read Willie Dixon's I am the Blues (is that an egotistical title or what?) in which he states he was thankful Led Zeppelin settled out of court because he feared that if it did go to court the case would be have been disallowed due to the length of time it took to bring suit. That's his words not mine. MegX (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Just having looked at the claims in the article, and what it says is in fact incorrect. "Cross-cut Saw" is an R.G. Ford song. Albert King did a cover but he doesnt own the copyright. The publishing company for that song is Universal Music. The rights to Johnson's songs is administered by Music & Media International, Inc. MegX (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That "Traveling Riverside Blues" article claims in its userbox that it was a single by Robert Johnson. While it may have been a Robert Johnson recording, he never released it as a single. Also under Wikipedia guidelines the fair use rational for that image does not cover it's use for that song, only the album. MegX (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, I want to apologize, I fully agree the Led Zeppelin article is factual, I was not trying to generate controversy, but to put a stop to some of the comments on this particular discussion page. The post two entries before mine is about how influential Led Zeppelin was, and the post before mine is about why the "plagiarism" section should be expanded.  There are numerous other posts . . . well, never mind all of that.

Yes, it was the Willie Dixon remark in the plagiarism section of the article that prompted my (creating an account and) starting this thread, but primarily I was responding to prior remarks on this discussion board.

In regard to anyone's contribution to anything, I will let my previous words stand or fall. As I wrote, musicians learn from other musicians. . . or perhaps I should instead use a quote attributed to Isaac Newton -- "I stand on the shoulders of giants."

There are an extensive number of articles in Wikipedia about all of these people. So far as I have discerned, these articles are factual and duly give credit for what has been attributed to the individuals. (In fact, the Led Zeppelin article includes a quote from Jimmy Page that is rather pertinent to the point I was trying to make, that they did not deliberately plagiarize.)

Any other remarks on this subject are rather out of place. I will include in that category my original post on this thread: both Willie Dixon and Robert Johnson are duly noted in Wikipedia in various articles in the appropriate sections, I was already aware of that. I may have lost track of that point myself, especially in my second post.

S459martin (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be out of line in mentioning this (I'm writing this without having read the fair use guidelines), but in regards to Robert Johnson recordings, some of his work was released as singles (posthumously, as I recall), if it makes any difference, I can quote from a book I have here in my home office.

S459martin (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for the Addition of an "influence" section
It is ridiculous that this band, one of the biggest of all time, has no section discussion their impact on rock music. The article gives the erroneous impression that the band is more famous for plagiarism than the selling of albums. By ending the article in this way it completely miscontrues the band's legacy, which is broad in rock music. I do not insist that the plagiarising section be deleted, but that the article should not end in such a which emphasizes that small, sensationalist aspect. Do any others concur that an "influence" section should be created?---
 * Those sort of sections usually just invite pov skewed original research. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above more info is definitely needed pertaining the bands influence.Mikestilly (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

…According to a Radio station on Cape Cod the band is in a second recommendational gathering and is now seeking candidates as for the singing position, my calculational effort of the band is what will a band be without the calculational effort; I myself wouldn't mind the effort to continue a bands legacy, although singing may be a talent, optional study of course is a greatness towards whom may hold the barring of such a course via the occupancy of it's capacity.David George DeLancey (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Genre
This needs to stay the same. Led Zeppelin was and isnt "heavy metal", that term was created by the media to undermine Zeppelin in their hayday as 'mindless noise'. Also it is clear that Zeppelin are not a metal band so please stop labelling them Heavy Metal, seriously, Black Sabbath is predominantly metal, not Zeppelin, you can tell the difference if you LISTEN. Most importantly, What about psychedelic rock???? 'Dazed and confused', 'How many more times'? 'Communication Breakdown', Even 'Whole lotta love'- the list goes on, Especially when performed live, Zeppelin were especially psychedelic! the evidence is there, listen!! GET THIS SORTED !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.206.40 (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing musical tastes brought end to Led Zeppelin?
With their very high popularity and continued success beyond 1980, I seriously doubt that "changing musical tastes in the UK" would have any weight in any decision they would have made to quit if Bonzo hadn't passed. Remember the O2 concert website that was brought down within seconds of the ticket sale announcement? Until there is credible evidence that Led Zeppelin were brought down by punk or new wave or anything else, I must revert such statements as I did here. Sswonk (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget In Through the Out Door (1979) sold more units than Presence (1976), and reached Number 1. Also in 1979, all Led Zeppelin studio albums re-entered the Billboard Top 200. The claim that Led Zeppelin was in terminal decline during this period is not backed up by the evidence. MegX (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful random edits
I added a uw-vandal1 tag to the talk page of an editor, User_talk:Rumble74. I have noticed a persistence in the edits by this user, edits that normally result in a revert. It's not that Rumble falls under the category of bad actor, but the persistence and somewhat random inappropriateness to the subject matter of the edits stretch the limits of my ability to assume good faith. I am noting this here in case anyone else would like to comment about how to approach this situation. Sswonk (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The weakness of the article is the continual reliance of Hammer of the Gods as a quoted source. That sensationalist book would be the last thing to use as a factual reliable source. The way these edits are going, Rumble74 might as well delete the entire article and replace it with a word-for-word copy of that book. MegX (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So lets just revert it back to a pre-rumble version and be done with it. Hammer of the Gods does have some merit for certain text. But this is really in the bits where the book just re-hashes stories everyone knows that were covered in other media... menial bits... not any content dealing with the offstage lives of the band members. No article should be weighted to a single source... especially when the source is 90% useless like that particular book. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The text is largely the same as before the editor in question started. The section labels got adjusted some and moved around a bit.  I added a paragraph back earlier.  Should not be much to change to get it back like it was early this month. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

atlantic advanced 200,000.00 for LED ZEP 1
in a Guitar World article in like 1993 Jimmy Page stated he funded the first album completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.101.194 (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Move protection
I don't think that's needed anymore, as I created a disambiguatoin page for the name "Led Zeppelin".  Rockk3r    Spit it Out!  19:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

'Dazed and Confused' traditional?
I am surprised that 'Dazed and Confused' is described as traditional in the plagiarism section. It was written by Jake Holms, nothing traditional about it, and it's a clear case of plagiarism. That Jake Holmes is gentlemanly about the whole thing and chose not to sue Led Zeppelin, there is no reason for wiki to misrepresent the facts by quoting someone who is clearly misinformed. Hzh (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is lifted from an early blues track. Hard for Holmes to compose a a riff that is public domain. He couldn't sue for anything as he has no legal rights to a handed-down song. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Riff? Which blues track would that be then?  I assume you heard the song by Jake Holmes to know that it isn't just the riff that Led Zeppelin took from Jake Holmes? Hzh (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But who did Jake Holmes take it from? The Real Libs-speak politely 20:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You tell me. I said Jake Holmes wrote the song, you are the one who claimed Jake Holmes took the riff from a blues track. Hzh (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Reach consensus on history section titles, dates and content
The article has matured to the point that I would like to see a consensus formed regarding the division and titling of the history section. Nothing to be revealed about band history before 2008 will likely merit any changes to the agreed upon structure and wording once consensus is formed. Here is the current appearance of the history contents list:

1 History
 * 1.1 The New Yardbirds (1966-1968)
 * 1.2 Early days (1968–1972)
 * 1.3 "The Biggest Band in the World" (1973–1975)
 * 1.4 Nearing the end, Bonham's death and break-up (1975–1980)
 * 1.5 Post-Led Zeppelin (1981–2007)
 * 1.6 2007 reunion
 * 1.7 Reunion tour reports (2008)

I am comfortable with the divisions and associated dates. The headings have existed in this form for nearly ten months. The structure before then contained subheadings based on album titles and decades, as shown in this diff.

The purpose of the proposal is to facilitate a quest to add this article to the group of music related Feature Articles. It belongs with AC/DC, Pink Floyd and Frank Zappa, does it not? I am not seeking to form a cabal against a particular editor. It simply strikes me as common sense to solidify the history section structure, titles and associated content divisions as an initial step toward at the very least improving the article beyond B-class assessment. Sswonk (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer the pre-Rumble74 edits. Led Zeppelin were not nearing the end in 1975. MegX (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Support - Per above. Sswonk (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No arguments here except change 1.4 as per Meg-X The Real Libs-speak politely 15:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - OK, except I think the year ranges should not overlap (1972-1975 then 1976-1980). -Fnlayson (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The dates are not right in the copy and maybe that is what this will start to fix. "The Biggest Band in the World" should be, in my view, 1972-1976. After Presence and the introduction of Sex Pistols, Ramones, Clash the influence of Zeppelin was eclipsed. The heyday, if you will, was 1972 from the late '71 issue of the fourth album until Physical Graffiti and the months following. There is no way that this article doesn't deserve strong attention and support. Please continue to discuss this, Led Zeppelin is a B-Class article about an FA band. Sswonk (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's debatable. Led Zeppelin were still selling records after 1976. 9 albums in the Billboard Top 200 in 1979. That's more than the Sex Pistols, Ramones, Clash put together. MegX (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not support - I agree with the above statement, Led Zeppelin were still selling records after 1976. Presence didn't diminish Zeppelin's popularity at all and Zeppelin still broke concert attendance records in this period, Punk only effected Zeppelin's popularity in the UK. We'll never know what they could have done in the 80s since Bonham died.(talk) 00:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't consider it accurate to describe a time frame commencing in 1975 as "nearing the end...". In 1975 the band still had five years to run before they eventually broke up. Why not change "Nearing the end, Bonham's death and break-up (1975–1980)" to simply "Latter days"?  Given that an earlier heading is entitled "Early days", this would provide a neat balance to the article. Edelmand (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From memory, It was called "Latter Days" sometime ago before it was changed. MegX (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it was... and a decent section title fitting in with the whole early days/latter days album names. Cheesy but acceptable. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Early days and Latter Days works, I tried to make it that originally but got reverted back.(talk) 00:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Latter days label was for the last couple of years up to 1980, like what's labeled Nearing the end now. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been corrected. The "nearing the end" foolishness is gone. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually with these new revisions I actually think the "Biggest Band in the World" section is not needed. Zeppelin was pretty much on top from 1969-1980, all their albums throughout their career sold easily above 5-8 million not withstanding Presence. They were voted more popular than the Beatles in 1970. I removed the whole bit about their later years eclipsing the early ones, Led Zeppelin II formed the foundation of modern hard rock and sold 10 mill. I wouldn't say the success of the latter years eclipsed that.(talk) 00:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That section(and the others) have been there forever. Don't try to fix what isn't broken. What the article needs is citations... not cosmetics. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps reading WP:CON will also help. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It appears the following structure has gained consensus support:

1 History
 * 1.1 The New Yardbirds (1966-1968)
 * 1.2 Early days 1968– 1972 1971)
 * 1.3 "The biggest band in the world" (1972–1978)
 * 1.4 Latter days ( 1978 1979-1980)
 * 1.5 Post-Led Zeppelin (1981–2007)
 * 1.6 2007 reunion
 * 1.7 Reunion tour reports (2008)

I am in agreement here as well. Thank you to everyone for ironing this out. I didn't mean to say Led Zeppelin stopped selling records in 1976, only that they stopped being the biggest band in the world near that time. I think 1972-1978 is accurate and again the focus here is to stabilize the structure so further improvements can begin. On that theme, I received what I consider excellent advice from a user I sought out on my talk page. Giggy said "I don't have much time or enthusiasm for editing at the moment, but at a glance it seems to read a lot like WP:Proseline at times - ideally this could be ironed out. Also, make sure all your references are formatted properly (author date title url publisher accessdate, etc.). Just a few things at a glance..." I will take responsibility for fixing the "Reunion tour reports" this week and start gnome work on getting all the refs into templates. Please don't take that to mean I wouldn't welcome the efforts of anyone else in those areas. The "proseline" fixes require little copy edit work other than reworking paragraphs that begin with a date. I hope contributors can help with that and we can continue to work together on this and improve things to the point a GA review can begin early next year. Sswonk (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do the years in the sections overlap? The Real Libs-speak politely 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement. Except the height of the Zeppelin empire was really 1972-75. They sold records after 1976 but the vibe was never the same. So I'll change the date.

1 History
 * 1.1 The New Yardbirds (1966-1968)
 * 1.2 Early days 1968– 1972 1971)
 * 1.3 "The biggest band in the world" (1972– 1978 1975)
 * 1.4 Latter days ( 1978 1976-1980)
 * 1.5 Post-Led Zeppelin (1981–2007)
 * 1.6 2007 reunion
 * 1.7 Reunion tour reports (2008)

This template seems perfect and is more in line with what people agreed to.talk)

Is this really the end of your edits, Rumble74? I want you to answer the question directly, because you need to become a participant and not a "loose cannon". I don't agree with your actions or your conclusions. There may well be others here who don't agree as well. The reason I began this discussion was to stop the tinkering and move on. By 0200 today it appeared that you were in total agreement and you and Wiki Libs finished getting the headings together at that time. Then six and a half hours later, you suddenly changed the headings back to suit your concept of "the vibe", which is not only your own opinion but not even clearly defined. The vibe in San Francisco, in London, on the tour plane, in the press, what? You also redacted your seemingly final agreement as another example of single minded, self serving disruptive editing. We have to know if you will decide to tweak and tweak again as you have all summer and fall or if you will seriously seek to abide by the conclusions reached before you change the structure again. I am reopening the discussion, made pointless by Rumble74, and asking that no one change anything until it is reached.

Is it "Biggest Band, 72-78" and "Latter Days, 79-80" or is it "Biggest, 72-75" and "Latter, 76-80?"
 * I am suggesting Latter Days (1979-1980) as the most likely period. Then you have "Early Days", 4 calendar years, "Biggest", 7 calendar years, "Latter", 2 calendar years. I am totally committed to seeking improvement to this article. I am prepared to be shouted down every step of the way. But I can't abide with a consensus that is not reachable based on the disruption of a single editor who doesn't know the meaning of the word. Please respond, Meg, Edelmand, Libs, Fnlayson and Rumble. That will be six voters, and hopefully I can then finally say with confidence that we can move on. Sswonk (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Sswonk's proposal.... oppose Rumble editing anymore Led Zeppelin pages. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support either Biggest 1972-1976 or 1972-78 with Latter days after that to 1980. Pick one and stick with it.  Flip flopping on these sections just detracts from actually improving the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Biggest 1972-75 Latter Days 1976-1980. Frankly I'm realizing there isn't as much liberty at Wikipedia as I thought, and I don't care what retort I get. What you astutely pointed out as "the vibe" was really things going downhill after 1975 because the band was losing momentum/drugs tragedy etc, I'm well read. Here's even an article which was why I changed my mind and the dates. If you use this as a source it will become more difficult for future violations of date templates such as this. You are in such a rush, or cabal as you pointed out, to get a consensus the fact eludes you that there are a good deal of other articles out there that get tinkered far more than this. Of course their not going for the upgrade this one is. I will continue to edit, but not this article any longer because there can hardly be a consensus of opinion due to rigidity of, "editing dogma", such as this. talk)
 * Support Sswonk's new time periods. MegX (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Latter Days doesn't make any sense. They were clearly not and it is only appropriate if the band doesn't reinvent - reappear. Bonham's Death and Breakup does as it clearly indicates the phase it was in. --Candy (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Latter Days is a silly title for the subject spanning such a short time frame. Bonham's death and Breakup is a better subject title because it pertains to the phase the band was in. And I believe Rumble74's proposal has now lost the vote. --Wikix90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.132.245 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please choose one account 130.156.132.245/Wikix90/Rumble74/WikiLibs90 and stick to it. Thanks.--Alf melmac 23:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus appears to have been reached on dates; final years title under discussion

1 History
 * 1.1 The New Yardbirds (1966–1968)
 * 1.2 Early days (1968–1971)
 * 1.3 "The biggest band in the world" (1972–1978)
 * 1.4 Latter days (1979–1980) → Now the main area under discussion
 * 1.5 Post-Led Zeppelin (1981–2007)
 * 1.6 2007 reunion
 * 1.7 Reunion tour reports (2008)

As I read this, the albums I-IV are covered in section 1.2 "Early Days"; Houses of the Holy through Presence in section 1.3 "The biggest band in the world"; and In Through the Out Door, the death of John Bonham and simultaneous end of the band covered in section 1.4, with objections to the title "Latter Days" given above. I am actually still trying to decide on what to support for that title. A simple "Bonham's death and breakup (1979-1980)" would cover it, although it doesn't quite give much weight to In Through the Out Door and the stylistic changes it contained. I'm for keeping the discussion going on that, you never know who might stop by and drop a perfectly summarizing title on those two years. Sswonk (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sswonk. The new adjusted dates seem perfectly acceptable to me. MegX (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * NP, by the way, Why the Need For Plagiarism Section?/Got Rid of the Plagiarism Stuff, eh? MegX listens. Sswonk (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Broken links
http://www.led-zeppelin.com/bio.html no longer exists. If you find a link to a non-existant page, please replace it. MegX (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Broken links should be replaced with a comparable one or archive.org copy. See WP:DEADREF for more. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the current edit ping pong, I'm going to wait til the article settles down. MegX (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

circumstances of Bonham's cremation
"Bonham was cremated on 10 October 1980, at Rushock parish church in Droitwich, Worcestershire, England."

Is that right? *Cremated* at a *Parish Church*? Without being flippant, that doesn't seem very likely. I've never heard of any parish church being fitted with a crematoria furnace - at least in the UK. There are, of course, crematory chapels - which usually serve a fairly significant catchment area. Is this what was meant here?

But from my (limited) research it appears he was cremated at a crematoria (either in the UK or abroad) and his ashes were subsequently interred at Rushock Parish church, possibly on the same day (10th Oct 1980). Several pictures exist of the gravestone. i.e. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/5443

- But *another* source says he was cremated and buried at the parish church on the 12th October 1980! i.e. http://gearsofrock.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/gears-of-rock-honors-john-bonham/

This wiki entry is a good one and quite informative - it's just the bit cited above had me scratching my head a bit!

62.64.203.209 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Robert Moore


 * That is a good point. I wish I could say I had time to drive down from Weatherby to look that mystery up in person, but I don't. I believe, as noted, that the wording should be corrected to "Bonham was cremated on 10 October 1980 and on 12 October his remains were interred at Rushock Parish Church in Droitwich, Worcestershire, England." (12 October being the actual date of his interment not the 10th is listed) Wether B (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call, it does look incorrect. MegX (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors: please always include an edit summary
If you are taking time to edit this article, and to help improve it, please also include an edit summary before saving your edit. I suggest reading Edit summary, which clearly states "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary." Sswonk (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As someone who has done extensive edits on this article over the past couple of days, I must admit to being one of the guilty parties. Thanks for the reminder Sswonk, I'll be more diligent in the future. Edelmand (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred Dollar (2005). Led Zep were my backing band
Currently, the article includes three footnotes with the above reference. I have googled this reference and can find no indication that it actually exists. The reference itself gives no indication that is is book, a magazine article, or whatever. It is possible that it is bogus. Can anyone shed some light on this? Edelmand (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like bunkum. MegX (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Zeppelin Radio
Why isn't there a section for Led Zeppelin XM Radio? If the article was only semi-protected, the problem could easily be addressed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepefixer (talk • contribs) 02:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a seperate article for the Led Zeppelin radio. I beleive there was once mention of it in the main article but the article has been changed so much lately. MegX (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still believe it should be mentoned in the article, along with a link. Either that, or Led Zeppelin XM Radio should get merged into this article --Zepefixer (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New Album?
, though it is unconfirmed, I thought this may provide some use to the page.--74.68.30.237 (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed accuracy of worldwide album sales
This article claims that Led Zeppelin has sold over 300 million albums worldwide. However, this is contradicted by their record company Atlantic Records (see atlanticrecords.com/ledzeppelin) and Led Zeppelin's own web site (see ledzeppelin.com/news) which both cite a figure of 200 million albums sold worldwide.

Although several references have been offered to support 300 million, all are dated after the original, unsourced introduction of the 300 million figure into the wikipedia article and none have been found prior to that date. It is quite possible that this was a case of circular sourcing and those references should not be used, see WP:SPS.

The consensus to keep the 300 million figure, if there was any at all, was affected by blocked users MegX and HelenWatt, both confirmed sockpuppets of User:Leanne and just two of many of this user's sockpuppets with a history of vote stacking and impersonation, see Sockpuppet_investigations/Leanne/Archive. Other confirmed sockpuppets of this user that have affected Led Zeppelin related articles are ZhaoHong, Iam, TheClashFan, A-Kartoffel, Steve3848, and Edlemand.

In addition to Atlantic Records, which has to be considered the ultimate source of how many Led Zeppelin records Atlantic has sold, these reliable sources also confirm the 200 million figure.

Rhino Entertainment press release for Mothership

The Times

The Guardian

The Independent

Press Association

Los Angeles Times

CNN

The Daily Telegraph

Billboard

Also, two published book sources cite 200 million:

Schinder, Scott; Schwartz, Andy Icons of Rock: An Encyclopedia of the Legends Who Changed Music Forever (2008)

Hulett, Ralph; Prochnicky, Jerry Whole Lotta Led: Our Flight with Led Zeppelin (2005)

Piriczki (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It is also worth mentioning that two of the sources used in the article, CNN and The Daily Telegraph, are contradicted by other articles published by those same organizations (see above).

Additionally, The Times article quotes Robert Plant saying: "Led Zeppelin selling 200 million albums was just chance and ridiculous. But what I saw and heard out there in the desert was big magic." Piriczki (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, yes and yes. Furthermore, CNN and The Daily Telegraph: I will not cite them ever again, they make things up on the fly, don't provide sources and in the case of my experiences writing to CNN for retraction or clarification of factual errors, don't care if they do lie. The list "List of best-selling music artists" is in my opinion also one of the worst single pages in this generally fine attempt at an encyclopedia, and is probably responsible for a continued torrent of snowballing regurgitated crap that will be found in ink sometime in the future and cited here yet again. I say, write something verifiable about the band being very popular in the lead, mention the official sales from Atlantic somewhere else&mdash;possibly an extended footnote&mdash;and revert any changes beyond that. I wouldn't want to be associated with the article continuing to state 300 million sales, it simply is not possible to confirm or support. Sswonk (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, book sources too. Cite the 200 mil with the better quality sources above. Let's fix it and be done with it. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I knew I was right all along. In your face, blinded guardians of wikipedian totalitarianism. Pink Floyd have sold more than Zeppelin! When will it be changed?Revan ltrl (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (icon removed) I have brought this user to the attention of Wikiquette alert. Sswonk (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC) as he has demonstrated unhelpful and pointless behavior in the past. Responding in kind here or directly to the user is not recommended, rather please let Wikiquette process my notice. Sswonk (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

They've sold more than 300 albums worldwide, see here, here,here, here, here!.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The 300 million number has never been officially supported, 200 million is stated by Atlantic Records and Robert Plant, and your sources are disputed. Please read the well researched discussion directly above your comment. I have moved the new section you created into a subsection of that discussion, please read the previous comments and post your further comments there. Sswonk (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between well researched and a selective grabbing of sources, which is what I believe is happening above. The press release from ledzeppelin.com, the official led zeppelin website, states 300 million and note this press release is months after the atlantic records source. . Again Rhino Records, responsible for releasing Led Zeppelin's official digital song catalogue lists 300 million in their news announcement, again months after the above sources. . If Rhino Records says it's 300 million, on their own website, then it's officially supported. Cradleofrock (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the quote from the band site, you have to dig a little deeper to discover that it is actually a copy-paste, verbatim Verizon Wireless press release, which may have been written by someone quoting Wikipedia. See and  which are both also copy-paste jobs and both datelined from Basking Ridge, N.J. - site of Verizon Wireless headquarters . Who is to say the effusive writing of the Verizon employee wasn't arrived at using our article when it had 300 million as the figure? Even though it is on the band site, it obviously was carelessly copied by someone there from an unofficial source and it still contradicts the figures from Atlantic.
 * And whose to say that's total speculation on your part? Cradleofrock (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Who's to say...wasn't..." is just another way of writing "It's possible...was..." which is the problem, it isn't a verifiable source. Despite it's presence on ledzeppelin.com, it's obviously really just standard Verizon hype in total which clouds the particular passage about album sales. Sswonk (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With the Rhino press release, there is still not enough official information and since it contradicts the information from Atlantic, which is another subsidiary of Warner Music Group, we can't use it to change the article quite yet. I am looking into that press release as of this writing and will report back when I can find any better sources to confirm that number. Sswonk (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way you want to argue over this, that figure would be a minimum not a maximum figure as that total does not take into account cassette, 8 track cartridge, or record club sales. You can verify this by emailing RIAA and BPI for what they exclude from their tally. Since those sites claims are also prior to the release of Mothership, which charted in many countries I would argue that the 200 figure is not telling the whole story. Cradleofrock (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to argue about it, I would love to be able to confirm the 300 million figure - and I agree, 200 million is probably lower than it should be by now. In the future, all of these types of statements for bands will be confused by download counts as well. The problem is we have too little information with too little validity to do anything about it yet. I am still trying to find solid source to confirm the rhino.com claim, until then or something from Atlantic/WMG we'll have to wait. Sswonk (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting that User:Cradleofrock has now been blocked, likely being User:Leanne et al evading their ban. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit warring by User:JohnLonnnnnn
This new ongoing edit war by User:JohnLonnnnnn needs to cease. His edit patterns clearly show bad faith in trying to add contradictory material to Led Zeppelin related pages that somehow reduce the band's impact on the genres of hard rock and heavy metal while at the same time puffing up the contributions of other acts. The user needs to start using this page to propose his changes to other editors and wait for consensus as to whether or not they are valid edits. Fair Deal (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Editor should stop re-adding unwanted text. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not tried to engage in an editing war, i was just trying to make the articles more accurate, and despite people's objections I complied and altered them further, still changing them more too people's liking, however, U seem to not want to acknowledge Led Zeppelin's influences, and the source and book in question did state the band to be influenced by those bands, and has nothing to do with deminishing the band's influence. I do feel u are taking a all-mightier then though approach, which is unfortunate, because i was just trying to make the articles more accurate and truthful, without taking from the band. : ) -Two, the Led Zeppelin ii source does not stat that the album inspired those bands, it says it implies a starting point for bands like that, it does not say directly "inspired", thats the truth. -I am not trying to cause any trouble, and I think its unfair that these articles, are heavy handed in altering, even though what i changed, fixed and removed was all valid. -The addition of Jeff Beck and his album was not added with malice, I just felt it was more accurate, and even though i altered it to even down played the reference, it still was removed. -The influences were from a book, and it was referenced and true. -Feel free to discuss with me, but i d feel u are being very unreasonable.--JohnLonnnnnn (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed your edits and they do not look like they are not in good faith. You have continued to re-introduce content that tries to negate Led Zeppelin's musical contributions by introducing debate and contrary statements. The original text in the article never claims that the band is THE prime source or influence for the heavy metal bands that followed them. And the text does not deviate from its references to try and alter its meaning. If it were content that made bold matter-of-fact statements about a controversial topic then a counter-argument may be required. But in this case, and I believe it has been pointed to already, this topic is far from controversial. Comparisons to The Jeff Beck Group or Cream or The Jimi Hendrix Experience where impact and influence is concerned is simply not merited here. GripTheHusk (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I mostly disagree, and again i think u should read what i wrote and what i said above, an influences section is fully warranted, and beneficial, and the mentioning of those bands on Led Zeppelin ii, should say a start point of sorts, and not "inspiring" them. : ) --JohnLonnnnnn (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I do think its ridiculous that u wouldn't allow an influences sections, When the band was clearly influences by other bands and the source was a book. It has nothing to do with taking from other bands, and was just trying to make it more accurate. -Overpraise, and over protection of the band's article, is heavy handed, and its stuff like this that gives them a band name. - ALso the claims that Led Zeppelin II "inspired" those bands mentioned, is inaccurate, the source in question says it was a starting point of sorts for those bands. -When i added it was debatable or disputed that the album was the blueprint, i kept the other sources in, and added that Beck's Truth was also seen as such... It was not intent with malice, and the claim was paranoia and i think it should be kept in there, as it was influential on rock/metal works including Pages. That would have made it more balanced, while Still giving the band the cred that they have been given. -please discuss with me, but the edits to what i posted were unreasonable, considering i altered them even further to try and please everyone, yet still got removed. : )--JohnLonnnnnn (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article on heavy metal music is where you need to take your debate. This article is about Led Zeppelin. And it contains only referenced information about the band and does not need non-subject material added in. Time-Life Magazine's 10 part documentary on the history of rock and roll does not use the term 'heavy metal' until it comes to content specifically about Led Zeppelin. Even though the same documentary, only minutes before the Led Zeppelin content is introduced, is focused on interviews with Jeff Beck and his career following his departure from The Yardbirds. There is nothing inaccurate about the wording in this article as, pointed out earlier, it makes no bold concrete claim on the subject of the genres birth. And as for contradictory material against the bands influence on the genre, the article already has that in abundance, including statements from the band members themselves about there own dislike of the term. GripTheHusk (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, but i still think a influences reference page is valid, and theres more debate too it, and other bands pages have em, i don't see why this one can't and why it wouldn't be cool. theres a plagiarism section, i don't see why an influences section would be seen as such a stretch. --JohnLonnnnnn (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When you proposed this same idea under the account name "Johnnybritches" and it did not go anywhere did you not get the hint that is was unwanted content? An influences section for Led Zeppelin would contain content about Tommy Johnson and Willie Dixon and Muddy Waters. And the content relating to those artists is already in the article. Or in the articles about the individual members. It would not contain content about musicians and bands from the same era. Wether B (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe he got the idea from Johnnybritches, and 115.186.73.203 and Start Existing above, they all seem to be on the same page. Sswonk (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Again theres no real reason why a influences page would not be acceptable. And this is the kinda thing that makes us look stupid in the eyes of others. If your gonna mention the bluesman, the other blues rock guys should be mentioned, and I think the only reason u don't want it is because u think it takes away from Zeppelin... but it doesn't.--JohnLonnnnnn (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Article for Page/Plant partnership
Hey, how bout we start an article on the songwriting partnership of Robert Plant and Jimmy Page? It was one of the best and it's totally famous. I can't believe we didn't think of it before. TheKing44444 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)TheKing44444

Genre transcending!
Anyone else find this passage in the lead kind of ridiculous?

"However, the band's individualistic style drew from many sources and transcends any one genre. Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres[5] also incorporated rockabilly,[6] reggae,[7] soul,[8] funk,[9] classical, Celtic, Indian, Arabic, pop, Latin and country.[10]"

I mean, c'mon, does reggae belong in the lead simply because they recorded one song with a reggae influence? I'm tempted to lay some s down for the six unsourced genres in that passage. I suppose "The Battle of Evermore" is the justification for Celtic? Let me guess, "Kashmir" is the justification for both Indian and Arabic? This is so silly. They don't "transcend" any one genre. They're a rock band. A rock band that dabbled in other genres with a handful of songs. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine just the way it is right now. The band jumped genres and mixed styles frequently during their live performances going back to the days before they even had a recorded product. They often skipped through multiple genres within the same song, including reggae flourishes and Page's DADGAD experimentations. Peter Fleet (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be so, Peter, I've heard some interesting "Whole Lotta Love" medleys from them, but, c'mon, rockabilly, reggae, soul, funk, classical, Celtic, Indian, Arabic, pop, Latin and country? If anything, that stuff is footnote material, not lead material. What's Latin, "Fool in the Rain"? What's country, "Hot Dog"? Or is that rockabilly? What's classical? I mean, the Rolling Stones have probably recorded enough country to mention that genre in their lead, but Led Zeppelin?!? There is no good reason to put country in the lead of a Led Zeppelin article. Same goes for Indian, Arabic, etc. Heck, The Who recorded half a dozen surf rock songs, far more than Zeppelin ever recorded of any of these genres listed in their lead, but you aren't going to see Surf Rock in The Who's lead because it's just half a dozen songs. But Led Zeppelin record "The Battle of Evermore" and suddenly Celtic music is lead worthy? Seriously? 74.73.110.46 (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) I am a member of the WP:Led Zeppelin project and contributor. To answer your question, yes, it is one of the least attractive sentences in the article. I believe it could be "Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres[5] also drew influences from many other styles of popular music." This could then be footnoted with all of the other styles listed within the note with inline citations, instead of the pseudo-references that currently exist. Sswonk (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with what the content is trying to convey. Re-wording it slightly would be OK but the genre jumping list should still be maintained. As mentioned before they certainly did merge several genres into their music including crossing multiple genres within a single track. What is In The Light... Arabic blues... Indian soul... Raga metal... . Using Sswonk's initial sentence combined with the list it reads Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres also drew influences from many other styles of popular music including: reggae, soul, funk, classical, Celtic, Indian, Arabic, pop, Latin and country. ... it is not a false statement. If it were a false statement then it could be removed. But, in this case... in that wording... it is not a false statement. They did draw influence from all those elements. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Libs, in that this stuff isn't going in the lead as "Led Zepplin is a Raga-Metal/Arabic/Latin/..." etc etc, but it simply states that over the years, their music pulled from those styles. --16:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting it's false, but to 74's point, it isn't all that extraordinary for groups to have many influences as we all know. My proposal to footnote the balance of it is based on economy of words. As I have often thought, it is an ungainly sentence. Sswonk (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... let's shorten it up a little then... Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres also drew influences from many other styles of popular music including: Celtic, Arabic, Latin, funk, pop and country.... Funk is just soul on steroids... Indian is only found in Page's tunings but Arabic shows up quite a bit... Latin can cover (sort of) reggae... Classical?? thats JPJs background but not so much LZ... and pop... every band who gets a song on top 40 radio has a bit-o-pop in them. That shortens it to 6 examples... which is usually my threshold of example farming anyways. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * An addenenadumbdumb... lose country and just put rockabilly. There's 6. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Their rock-infused interpretation of the blues and folk genres also drew influences from many other styles of popular music including: Celtic, Arabic, Latin, funk, pop and rockabilly.


 * Who's that then? The Real Libs-speak politely 17:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No objections here. Sswonk (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer Sswonk's much more concise and elegant solution of saying they "drew influences from many other styles of popular music," but this six genre list is certainly an improvement. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it'd be good to put the longer version in the body of the article somewhere. A "Musical style" type section would be a good fit, but there's not one now.  -Fnlayson (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure... a well cited 'musical style' section is always a good thing when an artist is diverse. You wouldn't do one for... say... AC/DC.... but for LZ it would be more than fitting. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would also make for good reading. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The horribly clunky sentence in question is still in the article. Why? 98.113.216.32 (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

First line, JPJ on mandolin?
It wasn't very often we see JPJ on mandolin do we want to include that? That would kinda be like listing everyone as back up sings aswell.Brando26000 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Influence/ Legacy Heading!!!???
Ok, we all know that Led Zeppelin is one of the biggest rock bands (after Beatles and Stones). Don't you think that we should have a legacy/ influence heading for this article, for one of the most influential music artists of all time.--115.186.73.203 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can feel free to make one yourself, just find sources. Start Existing (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've been working on a very well-referenced, comprehensive and unbiased legacy section and I'll add it soon. It goes pretty well with WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Please do not remove/ revert until clarifying/ discussing here on the talk page. Thank you all. --Scieberking (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Radio segment on the Band and Sources
striking sock


 * Actually, it's the the way around. If you have a source from a radio program(me) you should have the same citation as any other source and preferably include the time when the quote/info was said. It's not fro others to "disprove" what you have heard is incorrect --Candy (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

heavy metal first please
"The exact order and wording by editor consensus is: Hard rock, heavy metal"

The most sources point to Led Zeppelin as one of the pioneers of heavy metal. So why hard rock appears in front first? The Allmusic itself in its definition of heavy metal points Led Zeppelin as the first metal band ([Allmusic http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655] says: Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin. Initially, Zep played blues tunes heavier and louder than anyone ever had, and soon created an epic, textured brand of heavy rock that drew from many musical sources.). On the main page of Led Zeppelin at [Allmusic http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde~T1], which reads: "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band. It wasn't just their crushingly loud interpretation of the blues -- it was how they incorporated mythology, mysticism, and a variety of other genres (most notably world music and British folk) -- into their sound. Led Zeppelin had mystique. They rarely gave interviews, since the music press detested the band. Consequently, the only connection the audience had with the band was through the records and the concerts. More than any other band, Led Zeppelin established the concept of album-oriented rock, refusing to release popular songs from their albums as singles. In doing so, they established the dominant format for heavy metal, as well as the genre's actual sound."

We Have the film Some Kind of Monster Metallica, where the Father of Lars Ulrich explains the rise of metal in England with Led Zeppelin to the days of Metallica.

We are hit with the audience and critical Metal: the headbanguer's Journey (2005) showing that the hard rock bands have emerged since the early metal. The film also shows the Led Zeppelin as early metal and not hard rock. Please look at movie infos: [Definitive metal family tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal:_A_Headbanger%27s_Journey#.22Definitive_metal_family_tree.22] "The chart from the film documents Dunn's view on the progression of 24 subgenres of metal that have spawned over time, while also attempting to list the prime examples of bands that fall into each category. Below is a typed version of that chart, which can be found on the second disc of the film's special edition DVD package. The film's flow chart of metal genresEarly metal (1966−1971) Cream; Jimi Hendrix; Blue Cheer; Deep Purple; Led Zeppelin; MC5; Mountain; The Stooges; Black Sabbath"

Even as we call the sources that Led Zeppelin Metal: Kerrang Magazine February 2009: http://www2.kerrang.com/2009/01/kerrang_magazine_14012009.html Led Zeppelin and the birth of heavy metal!

"40 years ago this week a little known British band released their eponymous debut album and single handily changed the face of music forever. That band was Led Zeppelin and the genre they subsequently spawned became known as heavy metal. In this week's Kerrang! magazine we celebrate as metal turns the big four oh."

Chad Bowar: Metal Timeline: http://heavymetal.about.com/od/heavymetal101/a/101_timeline.htm

Black Sabbath Biography: http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/black_sabbath/Black_Sabbath_Biography.htm Tony Iommi Biography by Greg Prato: "Black Sabbath's Tony Iommi is one of only two guitarists (the other being Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page) that can take full credit for pioneering the mammoth riffs of heavy metal." source: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:anfqxq85ldke

Judas Priest Biography by Stephen Thomas Erlewine & Greg Prato Judas Priest was one of the most influential heavy metal bands of the '70s, spearheading the New Wave of British Heavy Metal late in the decade. Decked out in leather and chains, the band fused the gothic doom of Black Sabbath with the riffs and speed of Led Zeppelin, as well as adding a vicious two-lead guitar attack; in doing so, they set the pace for much popular heavy metal from 1975 until 1985, as well as laying the groundwork for the speed and death metal of the '80s. source: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kifrxqe5ldse

NWOBHM: The New Wave of British Heavy Metal re-energized heavy metal in the late '70s and early '80s. By the close of the '70s, heavy metal had stagnated, with its biggest stars (Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath) either breaking away from the genre or sinking in their own indulgence, while many of its midlevel artists were simply undistinguished, churning out bluesy hard-rock riffs. The NWOBHM kicked out all of the blues, sped up the tempo, and toughened up the sound, leaving just a mean, tough, fast, hard metallic core. It didn't make any attempts to win a wide audience — it was pure metal, made for metal fans. Perhaps that's the reason why it's at the foundation of all modern-day metal: true metalheads either listened to this, or to bands like Metallica, which were inspired by bands like Diamond Head. Source: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:7760

BBC London: "Led Zeppelin were an English rock band formed in 1968 by Jimmy Page (guitar), Robert Plant (vocals, harmonica), John Paul Jones (bass guitar, keyboards, mandolin) and John Bonham (drums). With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre!" http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/678d88b2-87b0-403b-b63d-5da7465aecc3

London BBC: Heavy Metal http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A353134

Rhapsody.com "There's been a lot of bunk stirred up about Led Zeppelin over the years. Accuse the band of blues-ploitation, accuse them of occultism, accuse them of selling out. Join, if you wish, the Lilliputian chorus assembled against them; or join the majority for whom mere mention of the band inspires awe. From the raw intensity of "Communication Breakdown" to the cosmic sonorities of "Kashmir" and dubbed-up funk of "D'Yer Mak'er," Zeppelin's music almost never fails to compel. In their prime, Robert Plant's vocal range seemed as wide as the Milky Way, while Jimmy Page set new standards for sloppy perfection on guitar. Meanwhile, John Paul Jones has only John Entwistle to compete with for the centerfold spot in the Who's Who of bass guitarists. And though John Bonham's aspirations ultimately proved to be his undoing, he is revered by many as rock's most powerful drummer. Together they developed the mother tongue from which every Metal dialect derives -- a tongue spoken in psychedelic blues phrases delivered at overdriven speeds. Inevitably, Zeppelin will continue to be passed down like a sacred amulet by older brothers, uncles, fathers and eventually grandfathers to new generations of adolescents getting hip all over again to bell-bottoms, long hair and marijuana."

Allmovie: The Song Remains the Same Plot Synopsis by Clarke Fountain In 1973, the seminal rock band Led Zeppelin, one of the founders of the music genre known as "heavy metal," went on tour and performed in Madison Square Garden. This documentary has concert footage, including the 23-minute-long version of the song "Dazed and Confused." The film also shows the musicians at home, pursuing some of their hobbies including drag-racing. The concert coverage also has scenes revealing what took place backstage, and a discussion of the theft of the band's cash during their visit to New York."

biography at Roling Stone http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/biography

VH1 - HISTORY OF HEAVY METAL http://www.vh1.com/shows/heavy_the_story_of_metal/episodes.jhtml

People Magazine: December 20, 1976 http://www.scribd.com/doc/15249041/Led-ZeppelinPEO-19761220-ISSUE

People Magazine: August 27, 1979 Vol. 12 No. 9 http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20074422,00.html

The Book Hammer of the Gods by Stephen Davis http://www.librarything.com/work/335340

HEAVY METAL BIBLE http://www.metalbible.com/heavy-metal-bands/l/led-zeppelin-2.html

Then Why hard rock first? Heavy metal must appears first. Paulotanner (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To summarize all of the above stuff and references, Led Zeppelin helped invent Heavy Metal Music, but the band was/is not a heavy metal band. --Scieberking (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The sources did not say that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.35.253 (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism in the following text by Ricknupp and socks him. Here is the text in its stable form: "Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre.[1][2][3][4][5]

The sources are clear and diverse. Led Zeppelin was called heavy metal in his time and even today. [1]http://heavymetal.about.com/od/heavymetal101/a/101_timeline.htm Late 1960's - Early 1970's "The birth of heavy metal. Groups like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple were the first heavy metal bands."

[2]http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A353134 This was the decade where HM first appeared as we know it, spearheaded by the likes of Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Motorhead, and Black Sabbath. It was rather tame compared to the HM you may be familiar with today, but still rather hardcore for audiences back then. These were the days before the likes of Slayer and Bathory.

[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal:_A_Headbanger%27s_Journey "Definitive metal family tree" The chart from the film documents Dunn's view on the progression of 24 subgenres of metal that have spawned over time, while also attempting to list the prime examples of bands that fall into each category. Below is a typed version of that chart, which can be found on the second disc of the film's special edition DVD package. The film's flow chart of metal genres Early metal (1966−1971) Cream; Jimi Hendrix; Blue Cheer; Deep Purple; Led Zeppelin; MC5; Mountain; The Stooges; Black Sabbath

[4]http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde~T1 Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band. It wasn't just their crushingly loud interpretation of the blues — it was how they incorporated mythology, mysticism, and a variety of other genres (most notably world music and British folk) — into their sound. Led Zeppelin had mystique. They rarely gave interviews, since the music press detested the band. Consequently, the only connection the audience had with the band was through the records and the concerts. More than any other band, Led Zeppelin established the concept of album-oriented rock, refusing to release popular songs from their albums as singles. In doing so, they established the dominant format for heavy metal, as well as the genre's actual sound.

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/biography It wasn't just Led Zeppelin's thunderous volume, sledgehammer beat, and edge-of-mayhem arrangements that made it the most influential and successful heavy-metal pioneer, it was the band's finesse.

That the text, added the sources above as it shows that they were called heavy metal in 1976.People Magazine: December 20, 1976 http://www.scribd.com/doc/15249041/Led-ZeppelinPEO-19761220-ISSUE

Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music#Etymology Creem critic Lester Bangs is credited with popularizing the term via his early 1970s essays on bands such as Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath.[55]

'''Kerrang! Magazine 14/01/2009'''http://www2.kerrang.com/2009/01/kerrang_magazine_14012009.html Led Zeppelin and the birth of heavy metal! 40 years ago this week a little known British band released their eponymous debut album and single handily changed the face of music forever. That band was Led Zeppelin and the genre they subsequently spawned became known as heavy metal.

The text can not fight against the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.35.253 (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me be more clear about the issue. Please stop edit warring.

The First Source is NOT highly reliable and written by a semi-professional, Chad Bowar, who may appear to be an accountant, looks can be deceiving. About.com guides are notoriously controversial and they hire amateurs, more clearly "freelancers who work online and set their own schedules, giving them the flexibility to work when it suits them".

The Second Source from BBC is openly written by an outside contributor, not a music journalist, and thus lacks spontaneity or originality or individuality. Secondly this inexpert overview does not label Zeppelin (and even Cream and Jimi Hendrix) primarily as a Heavy metal band, but the pioneer or spearhead.

The Third Source even worse goes on to directly list Cream and Jimi Hendrix as "suspected heavy metal bands".....?

All Music Biography as a fourth source is highly reliable, but then again highly controversial. --Scieberking (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Fifth Source, RS Biography, to me, is the most reliable, and describes Zeppelin as a Heavy metal pioneer, not a so-called one-dimensional heavy-metal band. Secondly, if the article subject (Robert Plant and Jimmy Page) themselves maintain that labeling them as "heavy metal" is unfair and "defamatory", then WP:BLP recommends to omitt/ modify such information.

So in all fairness, "Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first bands that participated in the foundation of heavy metal music, therefore helping pioneer the genre." sounds just and is a good compromise. Now, stop edit warring. --Scieberking (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The stable version was changed by personal journals of the time as people have called the Led Zeppelin's heavy metal.

People Magazine: August 27, 1979 Vol. 12 No. 9 http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20074422,00.html

Clearer than that? http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655 "Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin."

Keep fighting against Allmusic here: 1 http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:anfqxq85ldke 2 http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kifrxqe5ldse 3 http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:7760

Chad Bowar is semi professional? WHO ARE YOU? http://heavymetal.about.com/bio/Chad-Bowar-17543.htm ".Chad is a longtime music journalist specializing in heavy metal and currently residing in Charlotte, North Carolina. Though he may appear to be an accountant, looks can be deceiving.

Experience: Chad has been involved in metal for over 20 years. He writes or has written for several national music publications including Outburn, Hails and Horns, AMP, Lollipop, Loud Fast Rules and more. He's done hundreds of interviews over the years with members of bands such as Judas Priest, Metallica, Cannibal Corpse, Queensryche, Sepultura, In Flames and more. In addition, Chad has covered events like Ozzfest, Warped Tour and the New England Metal and Hardcore Festival. He's also worked in radio for the past two decades at stations all over the country."

The Third Source wORSE? tHE MOVIE WITH metal gods like Ronnie James Dio? Alice Cooper? Bruce Dickson? Tony Iommi? Geedy Lee? They spoke abou heavy metal.

There are many sources as Paul brought up. There is a clear conflict of interest here by changing history. And you are allowing it. Keep feeding sock puppets and changing history. THIS is the story:

"People Magazine: December 20, 1976 Heavy Metal Gods By Jim Jerome It's the Critics, Not Led Zeppelin, Says Robert Plant, That Are Full of Hot Air Rock'n'roll is barely two decades old, but its historians have already determined its Dark Ages: during the decline of the Beatles' civilization but before the enlightenment of Los Angeles and Nashville had taken firm hold. That was the Heavy Metal Age, roughly 1969-71, when one group, Great Britain's Led Zeppelin, emerged as the genre's unrivaled sovereign. Heavy metal is the music that most closely commits artistic child abuse, aimed, as it is, at a constituency presumably under 18. Led Zep's pulverizing force has made it a sound to get cauliflower ears by and, as such, is preferably experienced in a semiconscious state. Yet, unintimidated by critics, rock fans all over the world scuffed up 24 million Zep albums (the group outsells the Rolling Stones' LPs in the U.S. by about two to one). It has also grossed some $15 million in concerts in the U.S., along the way breaking tour records of the Beatles themselves. Now there's another LP and a film of old concert footage-cum-fantasy sequences, both titled The Song Remains the Same. Though heavy metal has faded as an art form, Led Zeppelin continues to pillage and plunder the land, as ever the most puissant rock group on earth. The double LP, the group's first-ever live (not counting poor-quality bootlegs), has become their eighth platinum release (out of eight), and the film is now filling some 80 theaters across the U.S. It is little more than the group's home movie monument to itself, full of violent nightmares and narcissism, but it will gross another $3 million by Christmas.

I'm sorry but you is not the best person for this discussion. You are going through at least two sources that date from the 70th.

and the NEW

Kerrang! Magazine 14/01/2009 http://www2.kerrang.com/2009/01/kerrang_magazine_14012009.html Led Zeppelin and the birth of heavy metal!

You erased the history! Talk with LESTER BANGS and try AGAIN change the History of Rock! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music#Etymology Creem critic Lester Bangs is credited with popularizing the term via his early 1970s essays on bands such as Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath.[55] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.35.253 (talk)

I have fully protected this page due to an ongoing content dispute. I have given this full protection for now as it seems to be a dispute beyond User:Ricknupp. It has been proposed on my talk page to reduce protection to semi-protection to allow registered established users to edit. Any thoughts on this? Would it help matters if I reduced it to semi or not? I am little hesitant to do this as it would allow other parties to edit but not, which may be unfair during a disagreement. Given the above exchange perhaps it would be better left on full. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk with the FATHER of Lars Ulrich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_Kind_of_Monster_(film) In this movie he He explains who was the first heavy metal band.

The stable version of this page has changed and so YOU changed the history of music as it is registered. The 70th sources are above read, if you can... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.35.253 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lie that erases history. I did not make any change I kept PAGE AS IT WAS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.35.253 (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Camaron. Whatever you suggest, I'd be open to that. Led Zeppelin are the pioneers of heavy metal is not controversial, but the allegation that they were strictly a heavy metal band is, beyond any doubt, is disputable, capable of arousing controversy, and even worse, offensive to original band members. I think releasing the protection for account holders might not be good idea as far as vandals can easily creates multiple accounts. Thank you for your tireless efforts, Mr. Camaron, as a senior editor and administrator. --Scieberking (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, I reach similar conclusions as you do regarding reducing the protection. Hopefully once things have calmed down a bit the page can be fully unprotected, though for the time being I think it is best left as it is. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings. I just wanted to bring up a couple of arguments to Scieberking. First thing is, that the band's opinion about their genre is not relevant. The band's opinion is not a third party reliable source. Many bands do not agree with their categorization as heavy metal, including AC/DC, Motörhead among others.


 * The other thing is: how do we know that the "allegation" (as you call it) that they are a heavy metal band is disputable? Your attitude is that the heavy metal genre "beyond any doubt, is disputable". I personally do not know whether it is disputable or not. To find out the answer, whether the heavy metal genre is disputable or not, we need to look up to the sources:


 * To illustrate one point, I will pick one of the above presented reliable third party sources: Allmusic Led Zeppelin biography. This source states: "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band." This is not only an explicit statement that they are a heavy metal band. This statement also includes the word "definitive", which is crucial to illustrate this point. This word indicates that the author is conscious of other bands that can be heavy metal (or are disputably heavy metal), but that this one is the "definitive" one: "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band." Except for this source, many others can be found stating defacto simply "Led Zeppelin are heavy metal": "one of the first heavy metal bands" (BBC), "the most influential and successful heavy-metal pioneer" (Rolling Stone)


 * To illustrate the other point, we need reliable third party sources that state something in the manner of "Led Zeppelin is not a heavy metal band" or at least "it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin played heavy metal at all". But don't forget that statements such as "Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin" do not support this point. That statement says that it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin was the first metal band, or not the first one. But it does not say that it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin play heavy metal at all. A source that states that Led Zeppelin is hard rock and blues rock also does not support this point, as well as multiple such sources don't (WP:SYNTHESIS)


 * So to illustrate your point, the only thing you need to do, Scieberking, is to present third party sources, reliable at least as Allmusic, BBC or Rolling Stone, that state explicitly "Led Zeppelin is not a heavy metal band" or at least "it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin played heavy metal at all".--  LYKANTROP    ✉  23:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here’s some “stuff” (just to make clear that the fact that Led Zeppelin was strictly a heavy metal band is CONTROVERSIAL, I ain't a participant in edit war rather a "negotiator" and "peacemaker"):


 * In the houses of the Holy: Led Zeppelin and the power of rock music By Susan Fast : Only morons categorize Zep as heavy metal. It's as ludicrous as calling the Beatles "pop" or Dylan a "folkie." (An argument by a fan when asked about by the author). --Scieberking (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how fan's opinion is relevant. Try to elaborate on some statements written by proffesional music journalists. A fan's statement such as "Only morons categorize Zep as heavy metal" does not seem to be reliable enough for an encyclopedia. You should try to come up with a counterweight to Allmusic, BBC, Rolling Stone "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band", not some random fan's opinion. If you fail to do so, there's nothing much more I can discuss.--  LYKANTROP    ✉  11:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

While Plant understands the allusion: "Zep sometimes get taken for granted as a cliché of rock and roll, which is a malfunctioning generalisation. Led Zeppelin spawned a million imitators on one level or another, whether it be Bonzo's loops in early hip-hop, Pagey's hybridising of eastern scales and tuning, a culture of men in codpieces screaming blue murder. But it wasn't about being hard rock or heavy metal, where there's only one way of doing it. All the way through Zeppelin there was a dynamic.". Lykantrop, I respect your opinion and I just want to solve this disruption. I don't disagree that Zeppelin has been labeled by rock journos as a "Heavy metal band", but If you put this controversial fact again, I fear the vandals won't hesitate to break out an edit war again. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Only a third opinion? LOL. Here T-Bone Burnett elaborates "People confuse Led Zeppelin with what came after them, as if they were a heavy metal band. But the incantations that Robert was singing were drawn from the Delta and the Appalachian mountains. It was music of the mud and earth. They had many gears they could go up, but at its essence was something raw and true and authentic."


 * Encyclopedic sources are clear. The only Ricknupp vandal is a crazy Brazilian who does not accept the opposite view. I'm trying to keep the page as it existed. I agree with everything that LYKANTROP said. The artist view of himself is irrelevant. The fan view idem. The historical facts are established. The band was called heavy metal in 1970, 1976, 1979, 1982, .... 2009. Not for us to judge what is recorded in history. Anyone in their right mind would believe that James Brown said: I AM NOT FUNK! You are taking advantage of a vandal, a TROLL combat. If you Scieberking read in Portuguese I would show only one link that betray who ricknupp.


 * The materials that I put the Roling Stone show that they were always called heavy metal. The dates range from the 70s to 2000. You have questioned the film's Metal headbanguer the Journey but neither wanted to know who gives testimony there. Vandalism is not accepting more sources such as Kerrang, 2009 and go over all times during his decades when the Zepp was called heavy metal.


 * Scieberking sources are all up and down but I bring more sources of weight. Clear that the old phrase impossible:Led Zeppelin were an English rock band formed in 1968 by Jimmy Page (guitar), Robert Plant (vocals, harmonica), John Paul Jones (bass guitar, keyboards, mandolin) and John Bonham (drums). With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre.[1][2][3][4][5] However, the band's individualistic style drew from many sources and transcends any one genre.


 * More sources
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band. It wasn't just their crushingly loud interpretation of the blues -- it was how they incorporated mythology, mysticism, and a variety of other genres (most notably world music and British folk) -- into their sound. Led Zeppelin had mystique. They rarely gave interviews, since the music press detested the band. Consequently, the only connection the audience had with the band was through the records and the concerts. More than any other band, Led Zeppelin established the concept of album-oriented rock, refusing to release popular songs from their albums as singles. In doing so, they established the dominant format for heavy metal, as well as the genre's actual sound.


 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hcfrxqy5ldte~T1
 * John Bonham: Across the ensuing decade, the band ruled the heavy metal landscape


 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655
 * Heavy Metal definition: Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin.


 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:3ifyxqe5ldae~T1
 * Iron Maiden were one of the first groups to be classified as "British metal," and, along with Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, and a host of other bands, set the rock scene for the '80s.


 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=1:JUDAS|PRIESTthe band fused the gothic doom of Black Sabbath with the riffs and speed of Led Zeppelin,


 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:anfqxq85ldke Black Sabbath's Tony Iommi is one of only two guitarists (the other being Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page) that can take full credit for pioneering the mammoth riffs of heavy metal.


 * The old phrase is the one that best applies to the sources. Paulotanner (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What you brought up, Scieberking, is one musician's opinion and, again, the band's attitude. That is not really satisfactory for me.
 * One more thing that I wanted to say is: Wikipedia also does not make compromise in its content to prevent vadalism. Neither can Wikipedia just change or compromise what the sources say to prevent vandalism, nor can Wikipedia hide the important facts. The only tool to prevent vandalism is reverting it, not altering the content that is backed up by sources. I think I've said pretty much everything. Most likely, I won't be online for the next couple of days so have a good luck with the discussion. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP    ✉  14:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Paulotanner. While I appreciate your arguments, I'd strongly suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:EQ. "Crazy Brazilian"?? He might be a vandal but there is absolutely no reason for being a xenophobic offender on Wikipedia. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again I agree with LYKANTROP when He says: "Wikipedia also does not make compromise in its content to prevent vadalism. Neither can Wikipedia just change or compromise what the sources say to prevent vandalism, nor can Wikipedia hide the important facts. The only tool to prevent vandalism is reverting it, not altering the content that is backed up by sources."


 * Scieberking I ask you to reconsider your position and think about the words of LYKANTROP. We are putting out a fact of history by changing the first paragraph and not let them in his stable. Vandalism can't change the FACTS, the history.


 * One more thing. I can not be xenophobic because I am Brazilian, Checks and see my IP. Ricknupp not allow another point of view or argument to the contrary. He wants to deal with wikipedia as an extension of blogs, where he can manipulate people. If you read português I show. He does not accept facts. Please think about LYKANTROP words.


 * Greetings.Paulotanner (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that the problem is solved..Therefore the lead section will be kept as it was before: "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre." instead of "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first bands that participated in the foundation of heavy metal music, therefore helping pioneer the genre."--  LYKANTROP    ✉  14:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks LYKANTROP!! Thankfully the story and the facts will prevail and the first paragraph back to its stable form. Thank you all! Paulotanner (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been told that a consensus has been reached, and given that things seem to have calmed down a bit I am now unprotecting the page. I will be keeping an eye on the page for a bit though to see how things go. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands - sources over the decades
In Roling Stoene Magazine: STEPHEN DAVIS (Posted: May 20, 1976) "Led Zeppelin's seventh album confirms this quartet's status as heavy-metal champions of the known universe." http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/224305/review/5945483?utm_source=Rhapsody&utm_medium=CDreview

CHARLES M. YOUNG (Posted: Oct 18, 1979) "Back when Led Zeppelin was setting the heavy-metal standard" http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/197643/review/5944431?utm_source=Rhapsody&utm_medium=CDreview

KURT LODER (MTV) (Posted: Jan 20, 1983) "Coda is a resounding farewell from the greatest heavy-metal band that ever strutted the boards." http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/165410/review/5945716/coda

MICHAEL AZERRAD (May 20, 2003) "The Holy Grail of heavy metal" http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/15323568/review/6039344/led_zeppelin

Dave Grohl (Foo Fighters, Nirvana) Posted Apr 15, 2004 12:00 AM "Heavy metal would not exist without Led Zeppelin, and if it did, it would suck." http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5940050/the_immortals__the_greatest_artists_of_all_time_14_led_zeppelin Paulotanner (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Book: Hammer Of The Gods: The Led Zeppelin Saga
http://www.flipkart.com/hammer-gods-stephen-davis-led/0061473081-nmw3f97wu5 The members of Led Zeppelin are major deities in the pantheon of rock gods. The first and heaviest of the heavy metal monsters, they violently shook the foundations of rock music and took no prisoners on the road. Their tours were legendary, their lives were exalted--and in an era well known for sex and drugs, the mighty Zeppelin set an unattainable standard of excess and mythos for any band that tried to follow them. They were power, they were fantasy, they were black magic. No band ever flew as high as Led Zeppelin or suffered so disastrous a fall. And only some of them lived to tell the tale. "Hammer of the Gods" is the "New York Times" bestselling epic saga of the hard reign of Page, Plant, Jones, and Bonham--a spellbinding, electrifying, no-holds-barred classic of rock 'n' roll history that has now been updated to include the continuing adventures of the band.

Paulotanner (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What in God's name is going on in this article? The sentence should be what it was before, "Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands", Zeppelin were a metal then and they are still a metal band now. RG (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I tend to agree in part, but that sentence is gaining too much controversy and, in turn, becoming a target of ongoing vandalism (in the same way as the Beatles are sometimes unfairly labeled as strictly "POP music"; not rock n' roll, and writers of "good nursery rhymes"). Because Zeppelin is ARGUABLY a metal band and UNARGUABLY the pioneer of heavy metal music. --Scieberking (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Several metal links from allmusic are ERASED http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340296474&oldid=340256563

I really don' understand if alllmusic quote more than 5 times LZ = heavy metal and quote about hard rock: "while hard rock (for the most part) has remained exuberant, chest-thumping party music. Additionally, while metal riffs often function as stand-alone melodies, hard rock riffs tend to outline chord progressions in their hooks, making for looser, more elastic jams should the band decide to stretch out instrumentally. Like heavy metal, hard rock sprang from the mid-'60s intersection of blues-rock and psychedelia pioneered by artists like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and the Jeff Beck Group. Blues-rock and psychedelia were both exploring the limits of electric amplification, and blues-rock was pushing the repeated guitar riff center stage, while taking some of the swing out of the blues beat and replacing it with a thumping power. Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s, with the tough, boozy rock of the Rolling Stones (post-Brian Jones) and Faces, the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin, the post-psychedelic rave-ups of Deep Purple, and the loud, ringing power chords of the Who (circa Who's Next) setting the template for much of what followed. Later in the decade, the lean, stripped-down riffs of AC/DC and Aerosmith, the catchy tunes and stage theatrics of Alice Cooper and Kiss, and the instrumental flash of Van Halen set new trends, though the essential musical blueprint for hard rock remained similar."

Seem clear Led Zeppelin is not a progenitor of hard rock, is a father of heavy metal, because hard rock ALREAD EXIST before Zepp and your contribution is "setting the template for much of what followed". The hard rock exists before Led Zeppelin and became known withAc]DC, Van halen, Aerosmith, not Led Zeppelin. Atention to: while metal riffs often function as stand-alone melodies Led Zeppelin is HERE, in riffs function as stand-alone melodies NOT "exuberant, chest-thumping party music". Progenitors of hard rock???????? hard Rock progenitor are Jimi hendrix, Jeff Beck, Yardbirds. Paulotanner (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Paulotanner (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

very, very simple change
The very beginning, change "were" to "was", because Led Zeppelin is a single entity, and in that sentence it is being referred to as such. If the same problem occurs throughout the article, I think that should be changed as well. Chanman121 (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, but I'll leave the request open for a short time to make sure that others agree. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DISAGREED. No, that's illogical. A plural form is always used, for instance, The Who are an, the Beatles were, and so on. Also, examine most music magazines. They also use "are" and "were". --Scieberking (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As there is disagreement, I have disabled this request for the moment. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not an error. It is how British English grammar handles a group of people.  This has been explained on this talk page more than once before (in talk page archives now). See American and British English differences for more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the band is a single entity, and "were" is incorrect. HM211980 (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)HM211980

Heavy Metal Revisited: Your Suggestions
It is actually very unfair to label Led Zeppelin "heavy metal" in the very first sentences of this article, and the band has also found the term offensive. On the other hand, some editors are insistent on using that disputed sentence, and I respect their opinion. Here's one simple change I came up with, which may justify both the opinions, and the source is even more authentic than Allmusic or any other references used presently:

With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regularly cited as the progenitors of both hard rock and heavy metal.

(From Encyclopædia Britannica: Led Zeppelin).

Looking forward to your suggestions. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is unspeakable ignorance to suggest that Led Zeppelin are the progenitors of hard rock. Led Zeppelin formed in 1968 and didn't release an album until 1969. Hard rock was already thriving thanks to the likes of the Kinks, The Who, Cream, Jimi Hendrix Experience and many others from the Amboy Dukes to Steppenwolf to Blue Cheer to Iron Butterfly and more. 98.113.216.32 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey! Is that you? I just noticed that after seeing your talk page. Why don't you create an account or something? Nice to see you active on Wikipedia again, though. Yeah, your argument makes sense, but you're quite wrong, and the quote is from Britannica, and is by Susan Fast (one of the most respected authors on rock music), so I included it intact. And hey- your tone is kind of angry and accusatory again... I thought we were friends :)


 * Actually, Cream, Jimi Hendrix and Jeff Beck Group were not pure hard rock, but hard rock in its developmental stages- A cross of Blues-rock and Psychedelic rock. The Kinks and The Who's My Generation LP, being highly influential too, were more towards garage rock (and proto-punk).


 * According to Wikipedia itself: Led Zeppelin (1969) and The Who's Live at Leeds (1970) are examples of music from the beginning of the hard rock genre. The blues origins of the albums are clear, and a few songs by well-known blues artists are adapted or covered within them.


 * More examples, from a couple more "Idiots"- Allmusic: Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s, with the tough, boozy rock of the Rolling Stones (post-Brian Jones) and Faces, the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin, the post-psychedelic rave-ups of Deep Purple, and the loud, ringing power chords of the Who (circa Who's Next) setting the template for much of what followed. More


 * AlternativeMusic.Co.Za: Hard Rocks roots [not hard rock itself] can be found in the early Garage Rock and Psychedelic Rock.... British artists such as The Rolling Stones, The Kinks and The Who are considered by some to be the godfathers of hard rock [not hard rock bands], these bands defined the style of the genre..... It was the Led Zeppelin self-titled album (first album) released in 1969 which was considered the true beginning of Hard Rock. More


 * About.com: Led Zeppelin gave rock a darker, heavier tone, becoming one of the ‘70s’ most popular bands and helping to kick-start a new genre known as hard rock or heavy metal. More


 * A History of Rock and Dance Music Vol 1 by Piero Scaruffi: Hard-rock was still based on blues, like rock'n'roll had always been, but it was a faster, louder and stronger kind of music, that buried the suffering of the black people under thousands of decibels.


 * One can find the prodromes of hard-rock [not pure hard rock] in bands such as Cream (England), Blue Cheer (California) and Guess Who (Canada), that already emphasized amplification and centered the song around the guitar riff. And they were certainly a major influence on the British bands that "invented" hard-rock.


 * However, Led Zeppelin (2), formed by ex-Yardbirds guitarist Jimmy Page and Alexis Korner's protege` Robert Plant, were, first and foremost, children of the blues. However, the jams of Led Zeppelin I (oct 1968 - jan 1969) introduced a hysterical approach to black music that even blacks had never dreamed of (culminating in the epileptic zenith of Communication Breakdown). Led Zeppelin's sound was an extension of electric blues that relied on three factors: a faster, almost frenzied, pace; a loud and scorching howl that almost parodied the black "shouters" and had psychotic overtones; forceful guitar playing of great imagination with mystic overtones. The melodrama of songs such as Whole Lotta Love (1969) was continuously ruptured by guitar riffs and delirious vocals. Cream had played blues-rock as brain music: Led Zeppelin played blues-rock as body music.


 * If you're still not satisfied, we may ask for a third opinion. Sincerely --Scieberking (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to say that Led Zeppelin are considered ONE OF the progenitors of hard rock, or A progenitor of hard rock, I could accept that compromise. Several of your own quotes reflect that. But saying that Led Zeppelin are THE progenitors of hard rock is just plain ridiculous. The Jimi Hendrix Experience are a hard rock band. They released all three of their albums before Led Zeppelin released anything. The Who are a hard rock band. Their live sound is as hard rock as hard rock gets, long before Led Zeppelin existed. Cream are a hard rock band. They formed, released their music, and broke up before Led Zeppelin released anything. Any reasonably informed rock aficionado knows this. 98.113.216.32 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Been EDITED; as a compromise. Either way, it says the same thing. Yeah Kinks, Cream, The Who, Jimi Hendrix Experience, all existed before Zeppelin, were great bands, and along with Zeppelin, are the ancestors of hard rock, however Zeppelin eventually became bigger and higher selling than them all. They are all influential, great bands. --Scieberking (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

striking sock
 * Paulotanner. No article on wikipedia is a joke. Stop adding disruption to this article, otherwise you could be blocked from editing wikipedia as you did here and here. Your edits, being unconstructive, were reverted. The source for (one of the) "the progenitors of both hard rock and heavy metal" is from Encyclopædia Britannica and Allmusic. Don't remove my well-referenced content again. Thank you. --Scieberking (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

striking sock


 * First off, Britannica is far more authentic than AllMusic. Secondly, AllMusic says the same thing: Led Zeppelin are the progenitors/ancestors of both hard rock and heavy metal. There's no reason these sources shouldn't be used. Now stop adding unhelpful edits. --Scieberking (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic not said LZ is progenitors of hard rock, "The first seeds of heavy metal were sown in the British blues movement of the '60s, specifically among bands who found it hard to adjust to the natural swing of American blues. The rhythms became more squared-off, and the amplified electric instruments became more important, especially with the innovations of artists like the Kinks, the Who, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, and the Jeff Beck Group. Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin. Initially, Zep played blues tunes heavier and louder than anyone ever had, and soon created an epic, textured brand of heavy rock that drew from many musical sources." You change the firt paragraphy withou concensus Paulotanner (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC) striking sock


 * I've added the content after reaching consensus and placing a message on the talk page for a almost a week. Your statement "Allmusic not said LZ is progenitors of metal" doesn't make any sense. AllMusic was just founded in 1991, is merely an online guide for consumers (not a scholarly resource), however Britannica Encyclopedia is:


 * With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regularly cited as the progenitors of both hard rock and heavy metal. (From Encyclopædia Britannica: Led Zeppelin).


 * Secondly AllMusic credits Led Zeppelin as the ancestor of hard rock the same way it does for heavy metal: Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s, with the tough, boozy rock of the Rolling Stones (post-Brian Jones) and Faces, the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin, the post-psychedelic rave-ups of Deep Purple, and the loud, ringing power chords of the Who (circa Who's Next) setting the template for much of what followed. From


 * So stop adding unhelpful edits and reverting my edits now. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

striking sock
 * I'm neither trying to erase the history nor adding a WP:POV. You seriously need to read WP:POV and WP:V. I've removed NO sources. There were five previously and now are nine (four added by me). Led Zeppelin has been credited as one of the ancestors of both hard rock and heavy metal by AllMusic as well as other sources I've cited. Why are you just making a hodge-podge of AllMusic links over and over again. That does not prove anything. Watch out the article citations or the excerpts from the citations above that clearly say Led Zeppelin is the direct progenitor of both hard rock and heavy metal. To argue that the band had no influence on the development of hard rock is highly illogical and wrong. You're edit-warring with multiple editors and most of your contributions have been disruptive of which more than 70% were reverted by other editors.


 * I'm adding the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard for seeking a dispute resolution. Until then, please don't modify the article. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

striking sock
 * You clearly don't seem to know how to read "edit diff". I said "There were five previously and now are nine (four added by me)". --Scieberking (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally I find these genre arguments utterly pointless but I do have to question the notion that Led Zeppelin were "one of the progenitors" of hard rock. According to my dictionary, progenitor means originator or precursor. A quick search of some online newspaper archives shows numerous references to "hard rock" music in articles dating from late 1967 through 1968 relating to a number of groups both well-known and obscure with the more familiar ones being the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream, The Who and Steppenwolf. Led Zeppelin's first album was released in 1969. Now, unless Led Zeppelin also invented the time machine, how could they possibly have been a progenitor of something which was already in existence when their first album was released? Piriczki (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems you haven't read the above conversation:  They (Led Zeppelin) are regularly cited as the progenitors of both hard rock and heavy metal. Their sound has been imitated by bands from Black Sabbath to Nirvana. They also inspired hard rock bands to include acoustic elements in their music and were among the first to experiment with Indian and North African music. Page’s style—both his solos and riffs—has served as an important model for most rock guitarists, and Bonham is often cited as the model for metal or hard rock drumming. (From Encyclopædia Britannica: Led Zeppelin). Susan Fast, a highly respected music scholar, musicologist, and academic, is the author of that article. One can find the prodromes of hard-rock [not real hard rock] in bands such as Cream and Jimi Hendrix Experience. It was the Led Zeppelin self-titled album (first album) released in 1969 which was considered the true beginning of Hard Rock.  --Scieberking (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

striking sock

My reply to Paulotanner
You are urging me to reply in a stricter tone. You apparently don't seem to know anything about music, Wikipedia or anything. Just know how to show ignorance and cause disruption. Without reading any discussion, and ignoring the valid, authentic points, you're writing the same thing again and again while reverting the edits of other editors. That does not make any sense and is ridiculously deconstructive. You've a long history of disrupting articles on Wikipedia and more than 70% of your edits have been reverted by other editors. You've tried your luck on Them Crooked Vultures, Blue Cheer, among others, and all your edits were reverted. Now you're trying to disrupt Led Zeppelin article. An RFC was submitted to ask for suggestions from "other editors" so you're not eligible to vote.

Here's a revision by Camaron as of 17:53, 12 January 2010 when nobody got involved with that hard rock thing. Notice these five sources:


 * 1) ^ Chad Bowar, "Heavy metal timeline", About.com
 * 2) ^ Heavy Metal. BBC.com
 * 3) ^ Metal: A Headbanger's Journey. Warner Home Video, 2005.
 * 4) ^ a b c d e f g h i j Erlewine, Stephen Thomas. "Led Zeppelin Biography". Allmusic. http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wifexqe5ldde~T1. Retrieved 2008-11-11.
 * 5) ^ a b "Led Zeppelin Biography". Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/biography. Retrieved 2009-09-09.

These five sources still exist and I've removed NO sources. You can only attempt to fool people when I'm not around. Secondly, what you think is an absurd source? Britannica Encyclopedia? The most authentic and scholarly encyclopedia ever written?? The hard rock was in its developmental stages until Led Zeppelin 1 was released, which is often cited as the true beginning of hard rock. Thirdly, who's "removing" other ancestors of hard rock, or even heavy metal? The sentence clearly says "one of the progenitors of", not "the one and only progenitor of". Let me again clear this with a couple of sources:


 * Allmusic: Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s, with the tough, boozy rock of the Rolling Stones (post-Brian Jones) and Faces, the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin, the post-psychedelic rave-ups of Deep Purple, and the loud, ringing power chords of the Who (circa Who's Next) setting the template for much of what followed. More


 * AlternativeMusic.Co.Za: Hard Rocks roots [not hard rock itself] can be found in the early Garage Rock and Psychedelic Rock.... British artists such as The Rolling Stones, The Kinks and The Who are considered by some to be the godfathers of hard rock [not hard rock bands], these bands defined the style of the genre..... It was the Led Zeppelin self-titled album (first album) released in 1969 which was considered the true beginning of Hard Rock. More


 * About.com: Led Zeppelin gave rock a darker, heavier tone, becoming one of the ‘70s’ most popular bands and helping to kick-start a new genre known as hard rock or heavy metal. More


 * A History of Rock and Dance Music Vol 1 by Piero Scaruffi: Hard-rock was still based on blues, like rock'n'roll had always been, but it was a faster, louder and stronger kind of music, that buried the suffering of the black people under thousands of decibels.


 * One can find the prodromes of hard-rock [not pure hard rock] in bands such as Cream (England), Blue Cheer (California) and Guess Who (Canada), that already emphasized amplification and centered the song around the guitar riff. And they were certainly a major influence on the British bands that "invented" hard-rock.


 * However, Led Zeppelin (2), formed by ex-Yardbirds guitarist Jimmy Page and Alexis Korner's protege` Robert Plant, were, first and foremost, children of the blues. However, the jams of Led Zeppelin I (oct 1968 - jan 1969) introduced a hysterical approach to black music that even blacks had never dreamed of (culminating in the epileptic zenith of Communication Breakdown). Led Zeppelin's sound was an extension of electric blues that relied on three factors: a faster, almost frenzied, pace; a loud and scorching howl that almost parodied the black "shouters" and had psychotic overtones; forceful guitar playing of great imagination with mystic overtones. The melodrama of songs such as Whole Lotta Love (1969) was continuously ruptured by guitar riffs and delirious vocals. Cream had played blues-rock as brain music: Led Zeppelin played blues-rock as body music.


 * According to Wikipedia itself: Led Zeppelin (1969) and The Who's Live at Leeds (1970) are examples of music from the beginning of the hard rock genre. The blues origins of the albums are clear, and a few songs by well-known blues artists are adapted or covered within them.


 * According to AllExperts, a sister site of About.com, which keeps the older version of Wikipedia's hard rock article (later modified and removed references of by User_talk:98.113.216.32), "Hard rock came into existence when British groups of late 1960s like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin mixed the music of early British rockers with a particular kind of Blues-rock, typified by an aggressive approach to the blues. Led Zeppelin's eponymous first album, released in 1969, is a good example of heavy blues-rock which represents the true beginning of the hard rock genre".


 * With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regularly cited as the progenitors of both hard rock and heavy metal. (From Encyclopædia Britannica: Led Zeppelin).

All sources, being most authentic and WP:RS, are quite clear now.

UPDATE: A few more semi-legit sources:


 * Along with Deep Purple, as being considered as the first hard rock band, Black Sabbath, and Led Zeppelin's first album in 1969 revealed the real beginning of Hard rock milieu to the world. More


 * While I don't subscribe to the oft-repeated gospel that Led Zeppelin invented heavy metal—the MC5, Steppenwolf, Ted Nugent's Amboy Dukes, the Stooges and many others were all mining the same musical territory at the time Zeppelin launched—there's no question that they largely defined and solidified the hard rock style. More

--Scieberking (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Striking Sock

opinion as regards the two versions of the lede
Please if you would, comment as to which version is preferable and more closely complies with WP:LEDE. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: See for the proposed text.  harej  02:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The current version. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I also vote for the current version. I not only personally agree with it, but it is inclusive enough to cover all arguments. And speaking of arguments, the people in this lengthy "heavy metal" genre discussion have put a great amount of intellectual effort and passion into the discussion, but we have to ask ourselves if this kind of controversy will ever find a resolution. I don't think it will. That's what makes genre discussions so tricky - it's usually a matter of opinion and genres themselves have very loose and vague definitions. And things get even trickier for bands like LZ who willfully transcend/ignore genre labels. It's time to call a truce in this intellectual arms race. D OOMSDAYER 520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This comment has been copied to the relevant section above. D OOMSDAYER 520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not uninvolved; ineligible editor


 * Vote for second option/current version - : I vote for the current version. I not only personally agree with it, but it is inclusive enough to cover all arguments. And speaking of arguments, the people in this lengthy "heavy metal" genre discussion have put a great amount of intellectual effort and passion into the discussion, but we have to ask ourselves if this kind of controversy will ever find a resolution. I don't think it will. That's what makes genre discussions so tricky - it's usually a matter of opinion and genres themselves have very loose and vague definitions. And things get even trickier for bands like LZ who willfully transcend/ignore genre labels. It's time to call a truce in this intellectual arms race. D OOMSDAYER 520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not uninvolved; ineligible editor


 * I actually don't mind the current version, personally. Paulotanner's right, though, that hard rock did essentially exist before Zeppelin. (Albert Mond (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC))


 * I think the lead paragraph has several problems and needs to be rewritten. As I mentioned above in Heavy Metal Revisited: Your Suggestions, it is difficult to justify Led Zeppelin being a progenitor of hard rock when that music style was already in existence and recognized as such when Led Zeppelin's first album was released. Despite the source, I just can't get past the chronology. Also regarding the Britannica article, it contains contributions from two other editors and the "Editors of Enclopedia Britannica" (which are site visitors) so it can't be ascertained whether that particular passage was written by the primary author. Susan Fast wrote a book on Led Zeppelin, In the Houses of the Holy: Led Zeppelin and the Power of Rock Music, which doesn't appear to mention anything about them being a progenitor of hard rock although it does make a reference to Led Zeppelin as the progenitors of heavy metal.


 * The rest of the paragraph has problems as well. The part about "indiviualistic style" is vague and uninformative. Not releasing singles in the UK is noteworthy but I don't think it is of such importance that it belongs in the lead. Also, the mention of "album-oriented rock" might be confusing to some readers in the US where this commonly refers to a radio format popular in the late 1970s. I think the contributor meant to say that Led Zeppelin did not favor singles because they wanted people to hear their songs within the context of the album, rather than suggesting something about a radio format. Piriczki (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hard Rock was in its "earliest" and "nascent" form until Led Zeppelin's eponymous album and The Who's Live at Leeds. Zeppelin, may not be the initiators, but undoubtedly are one of the progenitors. Please see the sources below. Secondly, according to their policy, all user contributions to Britannica are peer-reviewed, so there sin't any reason we can't use the source. Thirdly, we're not discussing the authenticity of the Britannica article here- it is purely authentic. They'd remove if it was false and misleading. Susan's other book is totally irrelevant here. Moreover, "album rock" and "album-oriented rock" are two entirely different things. --Scieberking (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Susan Fast's In the house of the Holy says: "The song (Black Dog) represents a defining moment in the genre of hard rock, combining the elements of speed, power, an artful and metrically clever riff". Source An ancestor is the one who is the root of, or "defines" a specific thing. So your claim that "(her book) doesn't appear to mention anything about them being a progenitor of hard rock" is absolutely wrong. --Scieberking (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree the current edit is heavy on links but I do like the lede as is. Too many people think "Heavy Metal" due to their radio songs and numerous "heavy metal" copy acts, when in fact that were extremely multi-dimensional. Sdiver68 (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the lead works as it is. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In Brief- I vote to keep assertion that Led Zeppelin is regularly cited ONE of the progenitors and trim down the number of citations to 2 or 3 sources. The original sentence (before the revert war) claimed that Led Zeppelin were THE progenitors of hard rock and heavy metal, which isn't really a defensible position. On the other hand, they really were responsible for influencing later groups so the sentence shouldn't be deleted. The properly qualified and referenced assertion does belong in the lede (lead/introduction). This is a bit of a mess and I'm not sure where I am supposed to put my comment so forgive me if this is the wrong spot. Vampyrecat (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Lede: Compromise
How about this: "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regularly cited as one of the progenitors of heavy metal, and to an extent, of hard rock music."

Also, we can cut some of the (nine) references that are currently being used. Maybe five could be taken and other four be removed. Please share your thoughts. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the revision when there was 17 refs, which is overkill. Per WP:LEAD there shouldn't be many (if any) refs in the lead.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 19:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're absolutely right. That edit was by Paulotanner and his IPs such as 200.219.132.37. --Scieberking (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just choose the strongest two or three and take the rest out, anything that is not controversial or anything that is also cited in the body of the article doesn't need a citation in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please have a look:


 * With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regularly cited as one of the progenitors of heavy metal, and to an extent, of hard rock music.


 * You might need to view the code so as to see which references I've selected to use and/or omitt. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well its locked now, this article is locked again I would leave it locked and get a couple of experienced writers from the project and rewite it in a decent way, raise it up to good article status and then keep it locked, with flagged revision only. As it is now the article is like a toy being tossed around.Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone understands: lead sections shouldn't require citations, per WP:LEAD. Any important information must be sourced in the article body. Sort out the article body first, then figure out what to do with the lead. Also, you shouldn't have to sort something five times. If you're citing something five times, it's either overkill or you're really trying to push something. For general comparison, compare this article to one of the band Featured Articles I've written, R.E.M.

As for the whole debate about hard rock and metal: metal has been extensively studied and written about to the point where it's very well-defined, while hard rock has historically been treated more as a broad term that applies to any sort of aggreesive rock (not only metal, but punk annd certain prog and alt-rock artists). I also think it's funny that one of the sources used in this lead example is Allmusic, which also goes on elsewhere on its site about how important Zeppelin is to metal. Just some things to think about. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, that's what I'm saying. Zeppelin is the pioneer of both heavy metal and/or hard rock. That's what the sources say. Like the About.com dude Tim Grierson says, "Led Zeppelin gave rock a darker, heavier tone, becoming one of the ‘70s’ most popular bands and helping to kick-start a new genre known as hard rock OR heavy metal" More.


 * REM is a totally different kind of animal, though. The bigger the thing, the more controversial it gets. Thank you very much for your opinion, Wesley. --Scieberking (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I mentioned R.E.M. as an example of what a rock band article should look like. Also, the band are comparable both saleswise and influence-wise. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 50 million vs. 200 (or perhaps 300) million record sales. This ain't a public forum but any rock aficionado knows that R.E.M. isn't the same league as Zeppelin. The two groups are only comparable because both are John Paul Jones influenced... You're right about the tidy appearance of article thing, though. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps but that is all content for expansion in the body of the article, for the lede its enough to say they are a rock band taking from multiple genres or whatever it was. Have a look at the Bob Marley lede. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also for that matter the R.E.M. article, how many citations do you see? Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree with Off2riorob, but we need not to discard the fact that Zeppelin are the progenitors of hard rock and heavy metal. Something should be there like the second sentence of Bob Marley's article mentions "Marley remains the most widely known and revered performer of reggae music, and is credited for helping spread both Jamaican music and the Rastafari movement to a worldwide audience", plus he played very limited genres mostly reggae and ska. Marley's article's semi-protected for months, while the Zeppelin article's been a target of the worst type of vandalism for years. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked for semi on Marley and I was the person who worked on it to keep it as a good article a few months ago. Off2riorob (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great Off2riorob! Scieberking (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, thats one of the things you learn if an article gets harassment and a lot of vandal type edits and you are trying to make it good then at the right moment ask for semi and then when it expires and it happens again ask for semi again but for a length of time, Gordon Brown is protected until after the election. With flagged revisions on the way soon ish there is a bit more acceptance especially with blp's that they need protection, especially with highly viewed articles like this, it gets ten thousand views a day, this article need to be good to reflect the wikipedia in a good light.Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note for when the page protection expires, the term "certified units" was deleted from the lead somewhere along the way and needs to be restored to the passage "including 111.5 million in the United States." As it reads now, one could easily get the wrong impression that Led Zeppelin sold 111.5 million albums in the US. Piriczki (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree with you Piriczki. Why don't you use editprotected tag? --Scieberking (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to express my opinion about this. I have not read this part of the discussion, thus I'll just comment the current wording. "...progenitors of heavy metal, and to an extent, of hard rock music." ... the part saying "to an extent" is a total weasel wording. What exact kind of extend are you talking about? How big is that extent? Such things must be specified by sources. You can't water down statements by adding "to an extend". The only thing you need to do is to leave out the "to an extent" part, which is not encyclopedic and not explicit. = "...progenitors of heavy metal and hard rock." Cheers--  LYKANTROP    ✉  15:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Lykantrop, for your opinion. I'll wait and let other editors comment on this issue. Regards. Scieberking (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree it's weasel wording. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Been removed as per Lykantrop's suggestion. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

First you changed the first paragraph without consensus. In fact, you broke the agreement signed that preserved its stable. Lykantrop: "It seems that the problem is solved..Therefore the lead section will be kept as it was before: "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre." instead of "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first bands that participated in the foundation of heavy metal music, therefore helping pioneer the genre."-- " Two. You no consensus to change the text still deleting the following sources: Heavy Metal in Allmusic: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655 Iommi biography in allmusic with explicit reference to Led Zeppelin is one of the creators of heavy metalhttp://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:anfqxq85ldke Third. "Britannica Encyclopedia? The most authentic and scholarly encyclopedia ever written??" Britannica is not specialized in music, contains a partial view that omits the HISTORY. She has the value of a allmusic which is targeted at music, and even has details like magazines Kerrang, Hit Parader, Creem, Roling Stone, Metal Hammer. Not bibliography for MUSIC. It can be excellent just any subject, but when she trangride the HISTORY it loses its value. "The hard rock was in its developmental stages until Led Zeppelin 1 was released, which is often cited as the true beginning of hard rock." The Hard Rock has existed without the Led Zeppelin I with Hendrix, Jeff Beck, The Who and he existed with or without Led Zeppelin. At the time of Led Zeppelin 1 and there were already looking cites Led Zeppelin 1 as true beginning of the hard rock is making value judgments and again ignoring the story. Led Zeppelin 1 is cited as the beginning of heavy metal and the difference is striking. "Thirdly, who's "removing" other ancestors of hard rock, or even heavy metal? The sentence clearly says "one of the progenitors of", not "the one and only progenitor of". Let me again clear this with a couple of sources." Answered by fellow up on that page: ""According to my dictionary, progenitor means originator or precursor. A quick search of some online newspaper archives shows numerous references to "hard rock" music in articles dating from late 1967 through 1968 relating to a number of groups both well-known and obscure with the more familiar ones being the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream, The Who and Steppenwolf. Led Zeppelin's first album was released in 1969. Now, unless Led Zeppelin also invented the time machine, how could they possibly have been a progenitor of something which was already in existence when their first album was released?" Therefore if he did not create the hard rock it is not "one of the progenitors" of it and keep it in wikipedia called original research. Or better change history. Stop cutting and pasting sentences and let people know the TRUTH. Paste the complete sentences. I'll bold the facts show that Led Zeppelin is one of the parents of hard rock. showing that he exist without Led Zeppelin. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:217 "Hard rock is a term that's frequently applied to any sort of loud, aggressive guitar rock, but for these purposes, the definition is more specific. To be sure, hard rock is loud, aggressive guitar rock, but it isn't as heavy as heavy metal, and it's only very rarely influenced by punk (though it helped inspire punk). Hard rock generally prizes big, stadium-ready guitar riffs, anthemic choruses, and stomping, swaggering backbeats; its goals are usually (though not universally) commercial, and it's nearly always saturated with machismo. With some bands, it can be difficult to tell where the dividing line between hard rock and heavy metal falls, but the basic distinction is that ever since Black Sabbath, metal tends to be darker and more menacing, while hard rock (for the most part) has remained exuberant, chest-thumping party music. Additionally, while metal riffs often function as stand-alone melodies, hard rock riffs tend to outline chord progressions in their hooks, making for looser, more elastic jams should the band decide to stretch out instrumentally. Like heavy metal, hard rock sprang from the mid-'60s intersection of blues-rock and psychedelia pioneered by artists like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and the Jeff Beck Group. Blues-rock and psychedelia were both exploring the limits of electric amplification, and blues-rock was pushing the repeated guitar riff center stage, while taking some of the swing out of the blues beat and replacing it with a thumping power. Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s, with the tough, boozy rock of the Rolling Stones (post-Brian Jones) and Faces, the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin, the post-psychedelic rave-ups of Deep Purple, and the loud, ringing power chords of the Who (circa Who's Next) setting the template for much of what followed. Later in the decade, the lean, stripped-down riffs of AC/DC and Aerosmith, the catchy tunes and stage theatrics of Alice Cooper and Kiss, and the instrumental flash of Van Halen set new trends, though the essential musical blueprint for hard rock remained similar. Arena rock also became a dominant force, stripping out nearly all blues influence and concentrating solely on big, bombastic hooks. During the '80s, hard rock was dominated by glossy pop-metal, although Guns N' Roses, the Black Crowes, and several others did present a grittier, more traditionalist alternative. Old-fashioned hard rock became a scarce commodity in the post-alternative rock era; after grunge, many guitar bands not only adopted a self-consciously serious attitude, but also resisted the urge to write fist-pumping, arena-ready choruses. Still, the '90s did produce a few exceptions, such as Oasis, Urge Overkill, and the serious but anthemic Pearl Jam." Let's be very clear he says that he comes before the led Zeppelin with Cream, Hendrix and Jeff Beck. He says that it is influenced by punk, he says he came up with The Who, Stones and the respect of Led Zeppelin he merely speaks of an aspect of the band and not the band ("the blues-drenched power and textured arrangements of Led Zeppelin"). If Allmusic say: "Hard rock really came into its own at the dawn of the '70s" then it already exists, LED ZEPPELIN IS NOT ONE OF THE PROGENITORS. The logic is confirmed in the preceding sentence: "pioneered by artists like Cream, Jimi Hendrix, and the Jeff Beck Group". You are forcing your point of view distorts the logical interpretation of the text. In addition to suppressing the more than 5 sources that cite Led Zeppelin as heavy metal and not hard rock. "AlternativeMusic.Co.Za: Self-explanatory Source worthless. You're showing sources of no relevance. Are worth anything written on the Internet now? http://rock.about.com/od/rockmusic101/a/RockHistory.htm in discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Led_Zeppelin#heavy_metal_first_please You wrote:"The First Source is NOT highly reliable and written by a semi-professional, Chad Bowar, who may appear to be an accountant, looks can be deceiving. About.com guides are notoriously controversial and they hire amateurs, more clearly "freelancers who work online and set their own schedules, giving them the flexibility to work when it suits them". But You fall in contradiction using the same About.com. You use "A Brief History of Rock Music" Omit this title that says much about the content of the text http://rock.about.com/od/rockmusic101/a/RockHistory.htm and omits "Although there are debates among experts, most consider groups like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple to be the first heavy metal bands." Let's compare the curricula, as Chad Bowar with over 20 years of experience aprece not worth anything? Your "A Brief History of Rock Music" Http://rock.about.com/bio/Tim-Grierson-46190.htm Against http://heavymetal.about.com/bio/Chad-Bowar-17543.htm? Ask people read and compare the curriculum of both and draw your own conclusions. It is clear that Tim omits the story to summarize the history of rock and in the case of hard rock in one single band: Led Zeppelin. This is the font that you bring? When it suits you speak evil of about.com. And yet you use a summary of the rock for defending your point of view? "A History of Rock and Dance Music Vol 1 by" "One can find the prodromes of hard-rock [not pure hard rock] in bands such as Cream (England), Blue Cheer (California) and Guess Who (Canada), that already emphasized amplification and centered the song around the guitar riff. And they were certainly a major influence on the British bands that "invented" hard-rock." Who is more respectable this book or the allmusic? Who is more respectable this book or the biographies of Led Zeppelin? The biographies of Led Zeppelin are more specialized or not? The biographies of the LZ they call heavy metal right? This book can be considered more relevant than than the blockbusters films Some Kind of Monster, Metal a Headbanguer's Journey? This book has the level of research and know-how of a Kerrang, Hit Parader, Metal Hammer? Why their sources without regard must be taken into consideration given your POV, and mine that are more than 30 years there are not taken? Why Wikipedia is much more consistent and referenced in the article heavy metal? Because the article hard rock loads: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009)This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (February 2009)" Why you omit facts, breaks the story and does not respect other opinions. Let's see: 98.113.216.32 Says: “The citations refer to heavy metal, not hard rock, which is appropriate since hard rock predates Led Zeppelin by quite a bit, thanks to the Kinks, The Who, Cream, Hendrix and many others.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339703212&oldid=339483085

98.113.216.32 Says:”I don't care what Susan Fast says. She's objectively wrong and her cite is the only one that says something so appallingly ignorant.” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339703212&oldid=339633935 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339989416&oldid=339980499 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=339994623&oldid=339992496 Showing you erasing allmusic source who points to heavy metal http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340256563&oldid=340001920 Again erase two allmusic's heavy metal sources http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340316313&oldid=340296474 POV again against History and Allmusic http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340501235&oldid=340452794 8 sources realible erased by you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Led_Zeppelin&action=historysubmit&diff=340501235&oldid=340456747 ERASE the allmusic heavy metal links! This is absurd! And Hit in one single source, Allmusic says more than 5 times heavy metal and you cross all quotes. How many editors you are in edit war by imposing their point of view? Who do you think you fool omitting the History? The history show manyprogenitors not Led Zeppelin. The wikipedia will use from untrusted sources to promote their personal interests? "You've tried your luck on Them Crooked Vultures, Blue Cheer" And to finalize your ad hominem. Can you read? read what I wrote I'll introduce sources of ALLMUSIC, I regarded reputable sources, not use of summaries of rock or personal blogs pra defend my point of view. Read if you can Them Crooked Vultures compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Them_Crooked_Vultures&diff=prev&oldid=327024384 with Them Crooked Vultures in Allmusic http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kbfpxz9gldhe Styles Pop/Rock Hard Rock Alternative Pop/ Rock Alternative/ Indie Rock Stoner Metal Heavy Metal Blue Cheer http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Cheer&diff=prev&oldid=324707410 compare with Blue heer in Allmusic http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gifqxqw5ldde http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:2690 This is POV or not? "I actually don't mind the current version, personally. Paulotanner's right, though, that hard rock did essentially exist before Zeppelin." (Albert Mond (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)) "I think the lead paragraph has several problems and needs to be rewritten. As I mentioned above in Heavy Metal Revisited: Your Suggestions, it is difficult to justify Led Zeppelin being a progenitor of hard rock when that music style was already in existence and recognized as such when Led Zeppelin's first album was released. Despite the source, I just can't get past the chronology. Also regarding the Britannica article, it contains contributions from two other editors and the "Editors of Enclopedia Britannica" (which are site visitors) so it can't be ascertained whether that particular passage was written by the primary author. Susan Fast wrote a book on Led Zeppelin, In the Houses of the Holy: Led Zeppelin and the Power of Rock Music, which doesn't appear to mention anything about them being a progenitor of hard rock although it does make a reference to Led Zeppelin as the progenitors of heavy metal. The rest of the paragraph has problems as well. The part about "indiviualistic style" is vague and uninformative. Not releasing singles in the UK is noteworthy but I don't think it is of such importance that it belongs in the lead. Also, the mention of "album-oriented rock" might be confusing to some readers in the US where this commonly refers to a radio format popular in the late 1970s. I think the contributor meant to say that Led Zeppelin did not favor singles because they wanted people to hear their songs within the context of the album, rather than suggesting something about a radio format." Piriczki (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC) "Greetings. I just wanted to bring up a couple of arguments to Scieberking. First thing is, that the band's opinion about their genre is not relevant. The band's opinion is not a third party reliable source. Many bands do not agree with their categorization as heavy metal, including AC/DC, Motörhead among others. The other thing is: how do we know that the "allegation" (as you call it) that they are a heavy metal band is disputable? Your attitude is that the heavy metal genre "beyond any doubt, is disputable". I personally do not know whether it is disputable or not. To find out the answer, whether the heavy metal genre is disputable or not, we need to look up to the sources: To illustrate one point, I will pick one of the above presented reliable third party sources: Allmusic Led Zeppelin biography. This source states: "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band." This is not only an explicit statement that they are a heavy metal band. This statement also includes the word "definitive", which is crucial to illustrate this point. This word indicates that the author is conscious of other bands that can be heavy metal (or are disputably heavy metal), but that this one is the "definitive" one: "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band." Except for this source, many others can be found stating defacto simply "Led Zeppelin are heavy metal": "one of the first heavy metal bands" (BBC), "the most influential and successful heavy-metal pioneer" (Rolling Stone) To illustrate the other point, we need reliable third party sources that state something in the manner of "Led Zeppelin is not a heavy metal band" or at least "it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin played heavy metal at all". But don't forget that statements such as "Arguably the first true metal band, however, was Led Zeppelin"[1] do not support this point. That statement says that it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin was the first metal band, or not the first one. But it does not say that it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin play heavy metal at all. A source that states that Led Zeppelin is hard rock and blues rock also does not support this point, as well as multiple such sources don't" (WP:SYNTHESIS) "So to illustrate your point, the only thing you need to do, Scieberking, is to present third party sources, reliable at least as Allmusic, BBC or Rolling Stone, that state explicitly "Led Zeppelin is not a heavy metal band" or at least "it is arguable whether Led Zeppelin played heavy metal at all".-"- LYKANTROP ✉ 23:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC) "don't understand how fan's opinion is relevant. Try to elaborate on some statements written by proffesional music journalists. A fan's statement such as "Only morons categorize Zep as heavy metal" does not seem to be reliable enough for an encyclopedia. You should try to come up with a counterweight to Allmusic, BBC, Rolling Stone "Led Zeppelin was the definitive heavy metal band", not some random fan's opinion. If you fail to do so, there's nothing much more I can discuss.--" LYKANTROP ✉ 11:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC) "What you brought up, Scieberking, is one musician's opinion and, again, the band's attitude. That is not really satisfactory for me. One more thing that I wanted to say is: Wikipedia also does not make compromise in its content to prevent vadalism. Neither can Wikipedia just change or compromise what the sources say to prevent vandalism, nor can Wikipedia hide the important facts. The only tool to prevent vandalism is reverting it, not altering the content that is backed up by sources. I think I've said pretty much everything. Most likely, I won't be online for the next couple of days so have a good luck with the discussion. Cheers.--" LYKANTROP ✉ 14:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC) "It seems that the problem is solved..Therefore the lead section will be kept as it was before: "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first heavy metal bands, helping to pioneer the genre." instead of "With their heavy, guitar-driven sound, Led Zeppelin are regarded as one of the first bands that participated in the foundation of heavy metal music, therefore helping pioneer the genre."--" LYKANTROP ✉ 14:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC) "It is unspeakable ignorance to suggest that Led Zeppelin are the progenitors of hard rock. Led Zeppelin formed in 1968 and didn't release an album until 1969. Hard rock was already thriving thanks to the likes of the Kinks, The Who, Cream, Jimi Hendrix Experience and many others from the Amboy Dukes to Steppenwolf to Blue Cheer to Iron Butterfly and more." 98.113.216.32 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC) "The Jimi Hendrix Experience are a hard rock band. They released all three of their albums before Led Zeppelin released anything. The Who are a hard rock band. Their live sound is as hard rock as hard rock gets, long before Led Zeppelin existed. Cream are a hard rock band. They formed, released their music, and broke up before Led Zeppelin released anything. Any reasonably informed rock aficionado knows this." 98.113.216.32 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC) I do not invent what I enter in wikipedia, I use the most reputable sources. Unlike you that distorts facts and did not follow any contrary opinion. Tsc, tsc, you are in fight againt all... and ERASE reputable sources. Paulotanner (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:TL;DR. Most users won't read all that and those that try may be left with their head spinning. Please stick to the key points and use paragraphs a little more, rather than clogging up this talk page with huge walls of text. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Scieberking corrode the article
2 sources to hard rock one to heavy metal?????? There many heavy metal sources and few hard rock. Tsc, tsc... Scieberking changes the stable version of 1 paragraphy and rape the History with your personal point of view. Paulotanner (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

GOCE
Mlpearc  pull my chain   'Tribs  16:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All redirected & disambiguation links fixed.


 * Thanks for taking the time to do all this stuff. Again, great work! Scieberking (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Jake Holmes Lawsuit
I removed the phrase which stated the Holmes is "claiming" that his song came out two years before Zeppelin's. That's a fact that is not in contention. The issue is whether or not the Zeppelin song infringes his copyright. IHeardFromBob (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's also uncontested the Anne Bredon wrote Babe I'm Going to Leave You so one can't fairly say she "allegedly' wrote the song. Dazed and Confused as explained above isn't as certain, that song can wait until the result of the court case.  IHeardFromBob (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

IF DEEP PURPLE IS CONSIDERED HEAVY METAL TO WIKIPEDIA, THEN SO SHOULD LED ZEPPELIN!!!!!
C'mon wikipedia wake up! Led Zeppelin were heavy metal pioneers, DAZED AND CONFUSED, COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN, WHOLE LOTTA LOVE, IMMIGRANT SONG, BLACK DOG, THE ROVER, KASHMIR, ACHILLES LAST STAND!!!!!!! These are all prime examples of classic metal. They set the blue print early in 1969, they are as we all know, more influential on the genre than bands like Jimi hendrix, iron butterfly, and Cream. Although they did help with adding more distortion and such, Zeppelin did more. As stated in the Heavy metal article on wikipedia: "Led Zeppelin defined central aspects of the emerging genre, with Page's highly distorted guitar style, and riff based sound, singer Robert Plant's dramatic, wailing vocals" also not noted: Jones and Bonzo's amazing backbeat.

Please put it back to the way it was: Hard Rock, heavy metal, blues rock, folk rock (I don't even agree that they should be considered a folk rock band, but you don't see me complaining about that! Just add heavy metal as the SECONDARY genre. Trust me, i know they should be considered Hard Rock first, heavy metal second, by today's standards... but don't just take out metal, because in YOUR opinion you don't think they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.77.77 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree Led Zeppelin were heavy metal pioneers and I listed the Metal: Good Times Bad Times Dazed and Confused Communication Breakdown How Many More Times Whole Lotta Love What Is and What Should Never Be The Lemon Song Heartbreaker Ramble On Bring It on Home Immigrant Song Since I've Been Loving You Out on the Tiles Black Dog Misty Mountain Hop Four Sticks When the Levee Breaks No Quarter The Ocean Custard Pie The Rover In My Time of Dying Ten Years Gone The Wanton Song Sick Again Achilles Last Stand Bonzo's Montreux Wearing and Tearing We're Gonna Groove

This songs are the classical metal from seventies. If Led Zeppelin is called by so many sources and references as one of the first heavy metal bands. I do not understand how it is placed here on wikipedia. The wikipedia denies the sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.22.126 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And your sources (or arguments) for each song being Heavy Metal are? We can not settle this without a clear definition of what Heavy Metal is, and even if we could, it would be Original Research. CentraCross (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Zeppelin were not considered to be Metal in their time; we can't go by "modern" definitions of the term. The choice of Rock or Hard rock in the infobox is sufficient, otherwise we'd start listing sub-genres, not unique genres, and the infobox is supposed to contatain a concise description of the type of music an artist or group created.   R ad io pa th y  •talk•   15:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I agree OP, but heavy metal is in their infobox, isn't that enough? Besides, Wikipedia isn't about what's true, but what is verifiable. AmeriBrit (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As the Heavy metal music article indicates, the terms were used pretty interchangabily into the 1970s. A solution might be to stop using the infobox to imply a hierarchy and put then in strict alphabetical order, as many articles do.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Much as this is my suggestion, we need to try to get some kind of consensus before any more order changes. If there are reasoned objections to this plan please put them in this thread, so we can keep the discussion together and in a logical order.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with SabreBD's suggestion. Using alphabetical order is an ideal solution. Scieberking (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I likewise agree, and just so everyone's opinion is considered, see this, which was stuck at the top of the page.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   23:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, I'll redo them now when i've heard you agree. (Some IP reverted them, if we're still discussing Semi-Protection.) CentraCross (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

They're fine the way they were. They've been fine the way the were for five years. They are a hard rock heavy metal band that has some blues-rock songs and a few folk-rock songs. No other band article is alphabetized... no need for this one to be. If you want to take the discussion up at the musicians project to put genres in alphabetical order... and get a consensus to do so... then it will be that way for all articles. But testing here sets no precedence. Wiki libs (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't disagree with your characterisation with the bands genres, or order of importance, and I am only suggesting this as a compromise, what is more if a regular editor disagrees with the emerging consensus then we are unlikely to make this change. However, and I may have missed this so please do link me too it, I cannot find any guidance on this in the musicians project, or perhaps there is a general guideline I am unaware of, which indicates that order of importance is the desired use.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles Article (which is FA-Class, and concerns a possibly even more multigenred artist) cites only two lables in the genres box: ROCK and POP(which even is under debate). See how simple it can be. If we can't agree on the Genres Issue (which I sure hope we will though) we could Simply just lable Led Zeppelin "Rock", It would be sufficent for most readers. CentraCross (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order of Genres
As mentioned by SabreBD below, we could simply put the genres in Alphabetical order and ignore their different significance. DO NOT CHANGE THIS EDIT WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT HERE! CentraCross (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No. It was fine the way it was before. Zep played hardly any folk rock, much more hard rock and metal (as the sources will say). They were bluesy in their earlier days, but later dropped that. KEEP IT AS IT WAS. 75.57.75.150 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

===Transplanted from IF DEEP PURPLE IS CONSIDERED HEAVY METAL TO WIKIPEDIA, THEN SO SHOULD LED ZEPPELIN!!!!!===
 * As the Heavy metal music article indicates, the terms were used pretty interchangabily into the 1970s. A solution might be to stop using the infobox to imply a hierarchy and put then in strict alphabetical order, as many articles do.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Much as this is my suggestion, we need to try to get some kind of consensus before any more order changes. If there are reasoned objections to this plan please put them in this thread, so we can keep the discussion together and in a logical order.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with SabreBD's suggestion. Using alphabetical order is an ideal solution. Scieberking (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I likewise agree, and just so everyone's opinion is considered, see this, which was stuck at the top of the page.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   23:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, I'll redo them now when i've heard you agree. (Some IP reverted them, if we're still discussing Semi-Protection.) CentraCross (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

They're fine the way they were. They've been fine the way the were for five years. They are a hard rock heavy metal band that has some blues-rock songs and a few folk-rock songs. No other band article is alphabetized... no need for this one to be. If you want to take the discussion up at the musicians project to put genres in alphabetical order... and get a consensus to do so... then it will be that way for all articles. But testing here sets no precedence. Wiki libs (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't disagree with your characterisation with the bands genres, or order of importance, and I am only suggesting this as a compromise, what is more if a regular editor disagrees with the emerging consensus then we are unlikely to make this change. However, and I may have missed this so please do link me too it, I cannot find any guidance on this in the musicians project, or perhaps there is a general guideline I am unaware of, which indicates that order of importance is the desired use.-- SabreBD  (talk)  18:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been watching the genre battles on this article since 2003... and it is a ongoing battleground for musically impaired pov pushers trying to gut or add their opinions into the mix. There have been dozens of good-faith ideas put forward to try and stop the constant bickering over the template. field. And going alpha seems like a good faith plan.... but... if you think it will stop any edit wars... it won't. Whether they are in alphabetical order or not won't make a difference to a musically impaired vandal trying to blank out heavy metal.... or add progressive rock.... or some other foolishness. It's good intentioned... but it will fail. As for putting the field.... or any field.... in alphabetical order....that is a discussion that needs to be put to WP:MUSICIAN. If there is a consensus over there to go alpha... then great.... 1000s and 1000s of articles to change. But for now there is no rule to do that. And this article shouldn't be the place to try and create one. In the end... the only way to stop genre warriors on Wikipedia.... is to remove the ridiculous genre field in the first place. We had a glorious 10 days back in late 2008 when the genre field was removed from the template.... and it was the absolute BEST time period that any/all music article have ever had since Wikipedia began. If someone wants to open up a new discussion to kill the field once and for all... I will gladly march and support that proposal. And there a lot of other veteran editors who would gladly fall in to that plan. Cheers! Wiki libs (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It was never my intention to revolutionise infoboxes, just to find a compromise in this article. We could argue about whether common practice without any sort of guideline prevents us from adopting an alphabetical solution here, but frankly its not worth the candle. Going alpha can never stop the POV pushers, as any order cannot stop deletions and additions, and in anycase just provides a defensible position. If I ever feel like pushing the rock up the mountain for alphabetical order (or no genres) I will let you know. I have taken a small bite of the cherry over the even more vexed issue of genres in song info-boxes and that is not going very far at the moment, but those issues lie outside the scope of this article. Give the objections to alphabetical order, I think we have to say we defend the status quo unless a new consensus is found here.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying Alpha is the Optimal solution. However, until we have aquired new directives from WP:Musicians or elsewhere, or have reached a solid Consensus, we need a temporary solution. And it's much better to use alphabetization (for reasons mentioned below) than to use an Uncited order of genres which is under debate. Redo the alpha, and mark out to the other editors that it is a Temporary solution. CentraCross (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Thing is this: YOU CANNOT PUT GENRES IN ANY ORDER OF SIGNIFICANCE WITHOUT PROVIDING SOURCES THAT CITES THAT PARTICULAR ORDER! IT IS SEVERE ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND HEAVILY BIASED! Alphabetical order can be sourced by every English dictonary ever written, is completely NEUTRAL and SO much simpler.

Counter-Arguments to That?

CentraCross (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

We should not simply put them in alphabetical order unless we are to do that for every band. It is highly misleading. Most sources have already been cited within the first paragraph, so it's redundant to put them again in the infobox. And above all, when posting comments, avoid typing in caps; it is heavily immature. 75.57.75.150 (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's just go for Rock in the infobox; the article goes into enough detail.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  01:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just removed the genre section. Let's end this, seriously. 75.57.75.150 (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And of course, Radiopathy had to change it back. Why do we even need a genre infobox? We talk about it in the article. 75.57.75.150 (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I Did mention the simple "Rock" Lable below, but as it says, I only want to use it as a "Last resort", if this debate is totally unsolvable, and the voice of an IP who makes partial insults is hardly gonna get to disrupt the current stability. CentraCross (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Corrected box again. any listing order debates need to be proposed/discussed and agreed on at the template discussion page. No precedence for order can be set here. Wiki libs (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And PS to Radiopathy. I am 100% in favour of just 'rock' in the box... as long as we get a strong WP:MUSICIAN consensus to "just rock" every single infobox on the Wik that it would apply to. An admin, who I won't name, tried to steamroll a second version of the box that actually split genre into a second field called "musical style" Similar to AMG... but he did the change.. and started implementing without discussion/consensus... so it was killed quick. And to the IP who suggested no genre field at all.... it was a done deal for 2 weeks back in 2008... it was a perfect 2 weeks... and then a bunch of peabrains whined and cried about not having their battlefield to play in... and it was put back. As mentioned... any of these debates are welcomed on the template talk page... but this isn't the place to make new rules. Wiki libs (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki libs

I Fully Understand, respect and appreciate your Arguments Above, and agree with that we should not change the Layout of the Template If there is a Wikipedia rule against that.

But if that is the Case - you mentioned "no layout changes" - what is the Actual "Layout" for the previous order? (Hard Rock, Heavy Metal, Blues-Rock, Folk-Rock) It must have appeared like that for a certain reason, maybe you could tell us what the current Layout is? Is it "Order of Significance"? Is it the order that certain editors prefer (=Original Research!)? Or was it just the first that came to mind?

There must be a specific guideline for what Order Layout should be used, applying to and currently in use on all templates, otherwise I don't see how you can come talking about "Layout Changes".

Yes it is a change in the specific templates layout, but unless there is a Policy-Approved, General rule for in what order (by what condition) genres are to be listed in EVERY Template - You cannot dismiss it just because there's no Project-level consensus to have Alphabetical order. After all, there's no such consensus for any other order either, is it?

If, however, I am wrong, and there happens to be such a Consensed Guideline concerning (OBS UNCITED!) ordering layouts, You should have no problem at all showing it to us, using a "Wikipedia:" page to link us to this information. Until this information is provided we will stick to using alpha.

Read the Hidden Note, as well as my Comment Above. As they say, the Alpha rule is TEMPORARY, and will be able to change:
 * 1) If and when there are such directives from WP:Musicians or another Wikipedia Project (-Page). The above mentioned "linked" Page is just a such, and I will gladly accept its directives If they reflect CONSENSUS.
 * 2) OR If there Is a clear and stable Consensus Reached Here.

As I said: Until Any of this Occurs or you Provide the above mentioned Information, We will stick with the Alphabetical Order.

Have a nice day.

CentraCross (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to take your proposal for template formatting to WP:MUSICIAN and specifically the Musician Template talk page. Hope that helps. Wiki libs (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you are using the same argument I replied to. If you have anything else to say - say it. You have not answered any of the questions I posed above, and you have not provided any of the Information I asked for. In other worlds, you haven't supported or strenghtened any of your arguments - you have just stated them over and over again.
 * With all respect I have to say that if you can't provide anything new to the disscussion I suggest you leave it until you can. CentraCross (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, Stop bitching about WP:Musicians Now.This is what they said. CentraCross (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be using "BUT IT'S NOT CITED" as an excuse to change the content to... well, really, whatever you want. You're not nearly as justified as you seem convinced you are. -- King Öomie  15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all - I'm not changing it to "Whatever I want", I'm changing it to Alphabetical order, simply because it is far more neutral than the other order.


 * Second - Let me explain about the "Uncited Ordering". The genres themselves are clearly cited, and are to be included. However, there is no source provided of any kind suggesting in what order they should be listed. Instead certain editors have decided to put them in a certain order, without even telling us what it represents. I asked if it was Order of Significance. If it is, some one should be able to find a source that cites this order, but no one has. Therefor I consider it to be Original Research. If this order is to be accepted:
 * Explain what it means. You have to note on the Talk Page what this order represents.
 * Find a Source If it is an order whose meaning can be considered Encyclopedic - It has to be Verifiable, which requires cited sources. If it is Encyclopedic (which Order of Significance is) and not Verifiable - It is simply not allowed.


 * And could you please explain further what you mean by me not being "justified"? CentraCross (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD. You'd do well to note that the proper course of action is to discuss a proposed change to consensus before enforcing it like you're reverting vandalism. There's a fine line between OR and common sense, and frankly, I think you're on the wrong side of it. You can't just hold a change in place for days until everyone accepts it. I think you'll find that there's always someone up a little later than you to change it back. -- King Öomie  14:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A) You need to wait for dialogue when you open a discussion at the template talk page. Illazilla's opinion is valid... but it is only one opinion. And remember... you are putting a proposal to place genres in alphabetical order. And unless you get a clear consensus to do so... then that rule will not apply to any music articles... oncluding this one. Wikipedia is built on the input of many. Please be patient when waiting for replies. You are located in Australia and are several time zones ahead of many other regular contributors to the Wik. Also, B) How is your quest for alphabetical order 'neutral' when you are only attempting to impose it on one article? Wiki libs (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest putting a notaforum tag at the top of this page. This genre issue, which has been discussed and settled (with the same result) numerous times has become too problematic and is a magnet for new or anonymous users who continually wander into old discussions and unnecessarily re-open issues that were settled long ago. Many of the comments on this page are completely unproductive, if not unintelligible, and some seem to be arguments that have spilled over from other articles or even other web sites. Piriczki (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I know it's just one opinion, but there was only One editor (Wiki libs) who kept refering to WP:Musicians, so that was just a move against his, for which, apparently, one supporting opinion was enough ( I haven't seen him having any other editors backing up the WP:Musicians issue). It was NOT a move against the whole community or whoever you think I'm trying to "Outprove". So could we just drop that particular issue?

However, to get back to the main problem of Alphabetization: First of all I have to say I'm a bit dissapointed that so few editors has chosen to participate in the debate. How are we supposed to reach any major consensus if no one seems to bother? You are correct, we have to wait. But in the meantime, we still need a temporary solution. Are we simply going to use the old order, even though it is the source of half the debating on this article? I am not trying to get my opinion through - I am simply trying to solve the issue, even if it's just temporarily. So if it turns out that Alphabetization isn't acceptable in the long run: absolutely - I totally accept that, and I will gladly help finding a solution that is. In the short run - we have to attract editors (preferably does who were present when the genres were first added) who can give their opinion and help reaching consensus. Thereby we can come up with a long term solution. While we are waiting, there must be a temporary solution. We have come up with some:


 * To use alphabetization.
 * To use the simple "Rock" lable
 * To Remove the genre box altogether


 * And of course the very Innovative solution of not doing anything despite the problems there are.

Do we have any other temporary options? If you have any alternatives please tell us them. CentraCross (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you briefly re-explain how moving the band's 2 primary genres the end of the list will stop musically impaired IP trolls from blanking them? I am all for ending an edit war. But simply moving the description of the style of music that the band plays most of the time to the end of the list won't stop young children from blanking them. As previously stated, I am 100% in favour of removing the field completely (a discussion for the WP:MUSICIAN talk page) And I am also in favour of using the parent "Rock" as a descriptor.... again... if there is a glowing consensus from the WP:MUSICIAN project to do so on every single rock related article then let's do it. For this article... how is listing heavy metal last going to stop peabrains from trying to delete it? Wiki libs (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You say they Play these Genres "Most of the Time". Can you verify that? After all - That's exactly what this is all about. CentraCross (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Trump card it's not. Again, WP:OR versus common sense. You're taking an essentially arbitrary ordering and making it equally arbitrary, but in a different way. Why not order them randomly? Or by linked article length? Or why not leave them the way they've been for years? -- King Öomie  19:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So then it's a battle of policies? Sure we could keep the old order, but not unless somebody explains what it stands for. And you still have to cite such statements. If this had been in the main text:


 * "Led Zeppelin played more Hard Rock and Heavy Metal than they played Blues- and Folk-Rock."


 * it would have been challenged and removed in thee seconds. No one would write that without sources, yet it says so in the genre box. How can that be allowed? In this case OR is superior to (Your) common sense. CentraCross (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I say play these genres most of the time because that is what the article says and it is supported by countless reliable sources. It is what the articles relating to the band's albums say... and it is supported by reliable sources. It is what the hard rock and heavy metal article say...and it is supported by reliable sources. Your first edits to Wikipedia using this current account of yours were to put argumentative POV statements into the heavy metal article about Led Zeppelin despite the fact that your arguments were opposite of what the references support. (your edits weasel-worded a claim that Deep Purple were "widely considered main founders of the genre") So your new tactic, under the guise that it will reduce genre vandalism (which it won't) is to re-order the list to try and make hard rock and heavy metal come last... again... going opposite to all reliable sources which support the fact that, yes, that is what the band played most of the time. They did play a fair share of blues-rock style... at least one or 2 on each of their first 4 albums + a couple more after that... and they touched on folk rock on at least a half dozen recorded numbers. They have couple of track that have rhythms rooted in reggae and calypso... 2 or 3 tracks showing African and South Asian tonal qualities... at least one track that has a bit of country feel to it. But that doesn't make them 'World music'... it just means they played hard rock and heavy metal with a wide palate of influences. And how can I say that?.... because that is what all the references say. If it goes against your agenda then that is too bad. But to try and mask that agenda under some sort of 'anti-vandalism' veil.... that isn't fooling anyone. If you can get alphabetical order as a consensus guideline for all music articles... great. But there is zero 'vandal-security' or 'neutrality' in your proposal... when you are attempting to pov push it into only 1 article on Wikipedia. Wiki libs (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OKAY, let's stop all this superfluous argument. I strongly support the simple "Rock" label. Does anybody agree? Regards, Scieberking (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I support it... but it will not stick unless it can be put as a rule across all music article related to the subject. There are a few other "iconic" hard rock and heavy metal bands who have had their genre field changed to just 'rock' in the hope it would make them "calm"... and this article is certainly calm (other than the occasional musically impaired IP who blanks out heavy metal). But the result is that those article now have IPs showing up almost daily and adding genres that weren't even there prior to the 'just rock' agreement. And the only way to stop those types of trolls... is to make it a project wide ruling and not just a rule for a single article. I am not trying to block any noble suggestions... and 'just rock' is noble... but I have been here for almost 8 years and have watched these patterns before. "Just rock" is a common sense solution. But IP trolls don't use common sense. Change the article to just 'rock' and within a few days some anon will stroll through and add something completely retarded like progressive rock... and then the chain will begin. Just sayin.' PS: One suggestion to make it stick though.... re-activate the LZ project... wake up at least 20 of its still-active members... get them to agree to just 'rock' across ALL LZ pages... and get a promise that all will actually patrol them and not just turn a blind eye... do that... and maybe it will work. Otherwise... all it is... is a "make-work" suggestion. PPS: If you are going to do it for the band article.. then it must be done for all band member articles as well... all albums.... and all songs. Wiki libs (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think simply keeping "rock" in the infobox is completely unnessecary. The current four genres are fine and sum the band up pretty well. Even featured articles like Godsmack's, AC/DC's, Metallica's, etc., use multiple genres in the infobox to describe the group's sound. RG (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

pic
i would recommend to put the pic on the infobox back!


 * 1) led zeppelin dont play anymore as a band
 * 2) the first pic was a good black and white pic with the member in order.

so i replace the photo with the good ol' one-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Plural form
Led Zeppelin were an bla bla bla. LZ is plural?? aved,188.147.164.147 (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Led Zeppelin were British. See WP:ENGVAR-- SabreBD  (talk)  22:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The picture... seriously?
What was wrong with the old picture? The black and white one that showed them all? Like, come on! You barely see Jonesy! The rest of the picture is fine... sure, Jonesy played bass more than the keyboards, but compared to other band pictures on Wikipedia, it sticks out... for example, compare it to the front pictures of The Beatles, The Doors, The Rolling Stones, and Queen (etc... I've only named a few, but I know every major band on Wikipedia has a picture that shows every member...)... compared to those, it sticks out in the way that one member is largely obscured... a picture that shows only 3 members out of 4 shouldn't be the front picture... background people are more visible than Jonesy in this one! Okay, well... Over some time, I have found 11 pictures I think are quite superior to this one... here they are... we could pick the best out of these and possibly replace the current one... Number 1 color live in Kezar 1973 Number 2 color live in LA 1975 Number 3 color live in LA 1975 Number 4 color live in Chicago 1975 Number 5 color live in Chicago 1975 Number 6 color live in Detroit 1973 Number 7 color live in Detroit 1973 Number 8 bw live Montreal 1975 Number 9 bw live Leeds University 1970 Number 10 bw live Philadelphia 1970 Number 11 color live Royal Albert Hall London 1970

Please consider the points I've brought up, what I've wrote, the pictures' display of every member, and the time and effort I've spent to do this.

99.239.192.185 (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Concerned everyday Wikipedia user


 * I have only looked at a few of your images, but already I notice that some have explicit copyright notices on them. Copyright is the big problem here. Wikipedia cannot simply use any image its editors fancy. I am sure most editors wish this was not the case and would like to have a better image. However, those are the limitations within which we have to work. Please see WP:COPYRIGHT. If you can find a better copyright free image perhaps you can point it out to editors here.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, if we could email the copyright holders and ask for permission, maybe that could work... I know that number 2 and 3, photos by Frank Melfi are on a a website that shows his email address where one could contact him... so, if we email Frank Melfi and ask for permission, we could have the ability to use two very good photos... 99.239.192.185 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, if he's willing to release his photographs as free images. Why should he do that? He's in the business of selling them. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So, I think for now, I'll email Frank Melfi and ask for his permission on number 2 and 3... if we are allowed, we might as well start deciding which one is the better one to replace the current one... although... if permission is allowed, how do I show everybody he said yes? That's a main concern if anybody is going like "no way would he let his pictures be used"... any suggestions?... also, if he does say yes, how do I transport the pictures here?99.239.192.185 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How is not really an article issue so I will reply on your talkpage.-- SabreBD  (talk)  00:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, for an untold reason, I do not have access to creating an email address... so can someone email him for his permission to use the 2 photos for me?99.239.192.185 (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we at least switch the first Chicago picture and the second as the second has Jones on bass and actually in the picture?LedRush (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Working to good article status
Just to say that in light of the considerable long-term work and particularly recent improvements in this article (not least Scieberking's considerable efforts in incorporating reasonable suggestions) that this is surely getting to the point that we should be looking at GA (and eventually FA) status. I plan to work through the Good article criteria, and all the linked pages, over the coming weeks and see what might need adjusting to meet these. If any editor wants to do the same, or take a look any part of them, then the attempt is all the more more likely to be successful.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For everyone's consideration: I purposely wrote the Featured Article R.E.M. to serve as a model for articles on rock bands of major importance. I strongly suggest using it as a rough guide for however you choose to proceed. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's really helpful. I will take a close look as I go through. Thanks.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's totally awesome, Sabrebd. I'd be glad to help with pretty much anything and everything. Regards. Scieberking (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see all the enthusiasm. As I offered in the section above this one, we would do well to start by taking a big pair of scissors to the article and cutting out everything that shouldn't be there. First off: the "Songs in other media" section. Scieberking had trimmed the section after my request, but I really think it should all go. Even that rollercoaster bit is trivial for a band of this stature.—indopug (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can help you to clean up the reference stuff. I am good at it :)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the section.—indopug (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but how about trimming or removing the "Allegations of plagiarism" section, and taking the information to the relevant songs' pages. If you talk about plagiarism - we previously had a similar section on Bob Dylan's featured article - but it was eventually removed. Even the articles of the worst blatant plagiarists (with minimal originality and skill) in pop music don't have such sections and I don't want to name names... :) Scieberking (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. As it stands, the section is a POV dump. Unrelated question: is Coda a studio album or a compilation?—indopug (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool, I'll work on that section soon. Coda is a studio album as this section explains in detail. Scieberking (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone for their efforts so far, already a big step closer to GA I think. I also agree over the plagiarism section. Notable enough to mention, but the detail is probably not notable here as it would be on the song/track pages.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Creating a seperate article for this material is a better idea than entirely removing it from this encyclopedia.
 * Also, "Copyright Issues" might be more neutral title, the current one is somewhat harsh. IHeardFromBob (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not notable enough to create a new article for. What's more, nearly every fact is mentioned on individual song pages. Scieberking (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Legal issues of well known artists are indeed notable, particularly when it relates to their creations . In fact, it's arguably the most prominent section of the Andrew Lloyd Weber article. This issue has received attention in US popular media. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any wiki guidelines which would prevent duplicating material, and even if there is one in practice this is often not the case.  IHeardFromBob (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Andrew Lloyd Weber isn't an ideal article. See the history of Bob Dylan, a featured article. Scieberking (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that the material be reinserted here, I concur that this article is better without it and has a better chance at FA status with it removed, and I'm certainly not nominating the Weber article for anything, I used Weber as an example for the notability of this topic. I likely could also have used Deep Purple. I will take your suggestion and view the Dylan article, perhaps another article on his own issues should be created as I've suggested doing here.  Alternatively, maybe a Copyright Issues in Modern Music article can be created covering any examples. IHeardFromBob (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've recently checked out Mick Wall's When Giants Walked the Earth from my library. As it's the most recent and from the looks of it most objective full-length Zep bio out there, I'll gradually be incorporating refs from it into the article in the next few days, replacing less-than-stellar refs and debunking old myths in the process (for example, the real reason the band changed its name to Led Zeppelin is because they were hit with a cease-and-desist order from Chris Dreja over the New Yardbirds name). WesleyDodds (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been meaning to pick up a copy. It will be useful if it debunks the old myths. I suppose then there is an issue about how we handle those. Do we state the myth and then say, "but x (reliable biography) indicates that...", or just state the factual version? Quite a few refs that are valid probably need replacing with the most reliable sources available, so that will be a helpful process and no doubt you can check the facts on the way.-- SabreBD  (talk)  08:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * When Giants Walked the Earth is not at all reliable. IMHO bad press to milk some cash. Main source of most books is the same ole Cole ramblings. Scieberking (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cole is sourced, but so are all the band members, Grant, and contemporaries, and their assertions are compared and contrasted with one another, which goes a long way toward making it more objective than, say, quoting Cole's book directly (even then, Cole's mainly quoted on the partying details, and little of that will need to be mentioned anyway). As far as debunking long-held myths, it's best to be straightforward and simply outline the most reliable account, only mentioning the old explanations if the sources themselves mention it. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am fine with that approach to myths, which also tends to stop these issues having disproportionate space.-- SabreBD  (talk)  11:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Musical style section
The most important thing this article is currently missing is a "Musical style" section. These are pretty essential to any music band or solo artist article, and a musical artist article really isn't complete without them (for instance, Nirvana (band) is undergoing a Featured Article Review right now, and given it was promoted before the Pixies and Smashing Pumpkins FA articles demonstrated the value and ultimate necessity of these sections a few years back, one of the main things I've had to do is craft a musical style section for that page). I've found the best way to create these sections is to do plenty of pre-writing--that is, visualize what needs to be in the section and how to arrange it before actually putting it down in the article. I typically do this in my head when I'm the primary contributor to an article, but since at the most here I'll just be helping with some reference material (I have quite a few guitar magazines that discuss Jimmy Page's work, and to a lesser extent that of John Paul Jones), I suggest we brainstorm in a new section on this talk page, and then work out a draft on someone's user page. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tribute bands and albums—I don't think this information warrants inclusion at all. All major acts have had tribute albums released in their honour (as well cover bands), so there is no need to mention this here (see how The Beatles doesn't mention them). What do you guys think?—indopug (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if The Beatles article doesn't make a mention, most featured articles do. Scieberking (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which ones? I know that the R.E.M., Radiohead, Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Joy Division, Stereolab, Kinks, Sex Pistols FAs don't have them. Of course, we shouldn't be doing or not doing something solely on the basis of other articles, but how is a list of tribute bands and albums not trivial? Especially when we have already mentioned that such great acts as Sabbath, Queen and Aerosmith count the Zep as their primary influence. Also, are there any reliable sources that highlight these tribute albums and acts as a unique/notable sign of Zeppelin's importance?—indopug (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've written a "Musical Style" section in a very tight time frame (as I'm quite busy in real life), which is original and uses reliable sources. Open to suggestions, feedback and modifications. Scieberking (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice, that's a good start. I suggest cutting down on the outright praise ("Led Zeppelin are among one of the most musically diverse bands in rock history" and "Led Zeppelin IV ... is widely considered to be a masterpiece and a landmark in rock history"), cause this section is for an impassionate discussion of their music alone; not its influence or originality. Also I suggest less focus on individual songs (looking at the excellent section in the model article R.E.M.).—indopug (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with cutting out the praise. The focus of these types of sections is to explain what defines the band's music and how the band crafts it; we don't need a blow-by-blow of each album and the styles contained, only what it necessary to describe major shifts in the band's style or approach for people unfamiliar with the band to get an idea of what they sound like. Currently needed: details about lyrical topics (Sex! Tolkien!), Jones' role as a multi-instrumentalist, Page's dominance of the studio environment, and in particular a breakdown of Page's guitar style. And given this is one of the legendary live bands, we can also take a page from Joy Division and create a subsection describing its live performance (particular its penchant for improv and stretching out songs). WesleyDodds (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Outright praise?... I think these are historical facts. Not my personal viewpoint, but you can find such stuff on nearly every book, scholarly publication that has been written about Led Zeppelin. You guys feel free to water down the "outright praise" and edit the page. After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Cheers. Scieberking (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to say well done on drafting something so quickly and to endorse the points on praise (which might be seen as puffery in a review). Also it might be best to keep the organisations completely based on influences/themes and avoid, wherever possible, a list of albums in order as this might be seen a just rehearsing the band history in another form.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The praise more justifiably belongs in the Legacy section. Stick to keeping it explanatory in the musical style section. Also, don't forget to include page numbers when citing a book. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I just realized that this article is over 100kb. A little trimming couldn't hurt. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That may be even more true if we get around to adding the style secion. That being the case can I suggest that any pruning is probably more valid towards the end of the article, where references are thinner on the ground and there is a lot of detail and quotations that will seem odd (if they dont already) in years to come in the context of the history of the band.-- SabreBD  (talk)  12:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The most obvious section in need of a trim is "2007 reunion concert and subsequent rumours". I'd also like to remove the third paragraph of "influence on other musicians"—basically a list of musicians' names, redundant to the Steven Pond quote in the previous paragraph (we could add another about the band's influence on 90s alt-rock). Agree?—indopug (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No. I think we're already done with Legacy section. Still I'll see what I could do. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Just made a few trims to the 2007 reunion concert and subsequent rumours section. Scieberking (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We have done some good work here making some sections more concise, but I have to come off the fence here and say that looking at the last three sections on Awards, Influence and Cultural significance, and particularly comparing them with the way this is handled on The Beatles and R.E.M, I think that these still need some major trimming. There is really a lot of repetition: the first section tell us how influential they are, the second that they have influenced different genres and then goes on to list the bands in the genres. I think we would be better off with a short summary of awards etc (as per The Beatles) and then something that states their influence on music once. I personally don't think the critic's comments are very helpful as they seem to spend more time criticising other bands than indicating anything new about the subject of the article. If we feel that more on their cultural signficance is notable perhaps we should think about another article on Led Zeppelin's influence on popular culture, as per The Beatles' influence on popular culture.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Sabrebd. I think that Robert Christgau's quote is really, really vital for "Cultural Significance" section. The "Legacy" section has already been trimmed and looks okay the way it is. Thanks Scieberking (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm with SabreBD on this. Accolades, musical-influence and cultural significance are actually three intertwined aspects of Led Zeppelin's legacy. However the current Legacy section treats them as completely independent elements (by the dividing the section into sub-sections)—hence the "lot of repetition" that SabreBD points out. Also, see David Bowie for a concise, elegant section on the profound influence exerted by that artist.
 * As for awards, do we really need to list individual accolades for a band that we state to be "one of the most powerful, innovative, successful, and influential bands in the history of rock music"? I think only the Grammy Lifetime Award, Rock Hall of Fame and UK Hall of Fame need mentioning.—indopug (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. The subsections are helpful to navigation and putting the information in a comprehensive form. Also, I've recently made some trims to "Awards" section. Scieberking (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I know this might not be welcome news, but I have taken a careful look these sections and I am pretty sure I can get this down to something much the same size and similar tone to the sections in The Beatles and David Bowie, just by removing the marginal information and repetition. Looking carefully at the quotes a lot of them just say the same thing again or are actually not saying any significant about the band at all. The Robert Christgau quote is a case in point. The only new thing it says about the band has just been said rather better by Jim Miller. I know it may seem like the best way to underline the importance of the band is to have a lot of quotes and to outline their impact in general, but in fact a few well-chosen quotes and facts are are lot more powerful in conveying this. Its a much more mature and encyclopedic style and probably best if we want to get GA or FA status to start thinking in this way. Again additional evidence can always go in a cultural significance article and need not go "to waste".-- SabreBD  (talk)  16:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No. That ain't repetition, rather supporting (expert) opinions. Scieberking (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have created a draft in this sandbox [now removed]. It would be really useful if editors could take a look and comment here as to whether they think this better reflects good encyclopedic practice. I think this version says it much more concisely, in neutral language, but with more force.-- SabreBD  (talk)  22:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite having some punctuation mark issues, I think it is better than the current one. But please remove The role of Led Zeppelin is seen pivotal in fostering the transition of the late sixties rock movement from the central form of mass youth music to its macho, sexual '"cock rock" form, as a male form of expression.[40][39][41]; The band are ranked number 1 on VH1's 100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock[47] and Classic Rock's "50 Best Live Acts of All Time". &mdash; was; Led Zeppelin remain one of the most bootlegged artists in the history of rock music.[49] &mdash; you wrote the same above. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 22:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(undent) I think you went too far the other way while removing the quotes. I suggest:
 * I would get rid of the mentions to the specific bands they influenced. Especially since they influenced paractically every post-70s band.
 * Reinsert the quotes about Zeppelin about their influence on the business aspect of rock.
 * Reorder the info, I see the opening paragraph better off as being a summary of their complete legacy—extraordinary sales, influence on music and live performance, re-shaping the business of rock music etc. Then we can write a paragraph about each of these.—indopug (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Dealing with each of the points raised so far:
 * I can see the point over the bootleg sentence, I was unsure about that one myself, although I thought it could be argued to be one of the characteristics of the band's career. I will remove it unless someone puts a serious counter-case. Not sure what the objection to the Vh1 and Classic rock polls is, as it seems legitimate evidence of they way in which they are regarded.
 * On the sentence on their role in creating macho cock rock. I would make a bit more of a case for this one, as I saw it as legitimate academic comment (although I haven't check the sources here - just kept the sentence as it was. However, perhaps this needs to be linked to their role in the creation of stadium rock and important to AOR radio. Which brings me to:
 * Reinserting the quotes on their influence on business. My problem here was that the quotes didnt really nail this down clearly and (particularly the Oldam quote) deal with things that really mean very little without a lot of further explanation. The Kalodner quote (or most of it) could possibly go back in, but perhaps we need a sentence here that explains the business and stadium rock aspects.
 * On examples on bands. Perhaps it is because I was party to the severe reduction of these references already, of which there were until recently a very long list, but I felt that this handful of important examples just underlined the points made with the minimum of fuss. It would be useful to get some other views on this. I am certainly flexible on the matter.
 * Given Zep is so influential its influence can help define entire genres (heavy metal, grunge), I think it's best to keep the details about musical influence as broad as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Wesley, just to be clear, was that agreement to remove the examples?-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Zepellin's dissolution in 1980, I think there a fewer rock acts that haven't been influenced by them than those that have. I also disagree about "handful of important examples"; I mean, Velvet Revolver—WTF?—indopug (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure quite what reordering is being suggested here (its often difficult to describe). Is it just a matter of mentioning the business and cultural legacy in the opening sentence and then creating a paragraph break after that?
 * I will wait for further comments and then try to apply the points where there seems to be consensus.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have produced another draft implementing what seem to be the non-controversial changes. Still some more to do here when the other issues are clear.-- SabreBD  (talk)  10:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this draft of the section is excellent, very close to what I had in mind. (I have replied above regarding the specific examples of bands)—indopug (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am pretty much fine with that too. Lets consider the examples of bands to be a moot point, and not closed, for now. I take the point about some of the bands and I think perhaps I will do a trawl of their influence on different genres and see what I can come up with. I will post this version later, unless there are any serious objections, we can still keep editing it on the page and that way it might get some improvements from editors who might not want to get involved in this discussion.-- SabreBD  (talk)  13:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictures
I am wondering if there is a reason that the second half of this article is so short of pics, given that so many are free on wiki commons. Just to flag up that I am going to try to overhaul these, filling in some of the major gaps if there any points editors want to make. It strikes me that it would be good to get at least one good pic of each member in here somewhere.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there were so many free Zep pics. We should use the best, although we might want to hold off until we overhaul the band biography, given this might result in some redrawing of the subsections. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Ok lets keep it in mind until the things that might impact on sub-sections are largely sorted. Then we can perhaps debate which are the best pics and where to put them.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If somebody could find a free picture of John Paul Jones from the 70s, we could make a composite image of the band-members (see Siouxsie and the Banshees, Blur (band), The Beatles) for the infobox.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be great if we can get one. Having looked for sometime through potential copyright free sites I am starting to think JPJ spent the 1970s behind a piller. We could also use something in the early part of the article, ie the later 60s. But it may be impossible to find that in a copyright free form. In any case it looks a lot better than it did previously.-- SabreBD  (talk)  11:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)