Talk:Led Zeppelin

Album Sales

I think I've found more than enough third party reliable sources from the most famous/circulated publications to re-add the 300 million figure:

• BBC News
• CNN
• Official Press Release 1
• Official Press Release 2
• The Guardian
• The Daily Telegraph
• Daily Mail
• The Sun
• The Washington Post
• Star Tribune
• Daily Mirror
• Herald Sun
• The Independent
• Bloomberg L.P.
• SPIN Magazine
• Time Magazine

Scieberking (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion, not for announcing that you are single-handedly changing disputed content without discussion. This has been discussed before and these sources have been cited before. They are contradicted by a like number of other reliable sources, including some of these same publications. See Talk:Led_Zeppelin/Archive 5#Disputed accuracy of worldwide album sales. Piriczki (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your main quibble was that the 300 million figure is never officially supported. Now I've got proof. I'm actively taking part in discussion that's why I've got this section here - not a big fan of sock-puppetry and other unethical tricks like you did previously- If we've this much reliable sources, there's no way we can deny 300 million album sales, which is being used everywhere including wiki projects of other languages. Why don't you change Queen to 150 million then? Scieberking (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right about Queen, I corrected some glaring errors there recently but hadn't checked the 300 million claim (though it is preposterous). Taking a quick look, it appears that figure morphed from some previous uncited total of "records" sold (which included singles). The 300 million has probably made its way into reliable sources by now.

As far as this article goes, the 200 million figure was often mentioned in news reports, particularly when the DVD came out in 2003, but then in November 2005, a couple articles about the Polar Prize appeared showing 300 million. This was after 300 million was added to Wikipedia by an anonymous editor without a source (see diff). Did the total suddenly jump from 200 to 300 in two years? They just blew right by milestones of 225, 250 and 275 without mentioning it I guess.

One thing to keep in mind is that almost all worldwide sales figures are estimates. That is why they are always expressed in large round numbers such as 100 million, 200 million, 300 million. A common rule of thumb for estimating worldwide sales is to take U.S. sales, which can be determined with a reasonable degree of accuracy, and double it. According to the RIAA, Led Zeppelin has sold 111.5 million certified untis in the U.S. (the term "certified units" is unique to the RIAA due to their method of counting each disc in a mult-disc album). The adjusted total comes to about 90 million albums sold. Led Zeppelin IV accounts for 23 million of the total or about 25%. If that percentage held for the rest of the world, and IV has sold 37 million worldwide according to wikipedia, that would equate to about 148 million total albums sold worldwide. Looking at it the other way, if the 300 million figure is to be believed, IV would have sales of 75 million worldwide, which it apparently does not. The numbers just don't jibe if you ask me.

Anyway, with the rules being what they are, I suppose a Wikipedia article can contain anything that can be sourced even if the source is possibly or even likely inaccurate (in my opinion).

The sockpuppetry thing was unfortunate. Got sucked in trying to make some simple corrections in the face of what turned out to be an army of sockpuppets. Speaking of sockpuppets and impersonation, I noticed someone has posted comments using my Wikipedia user name in discussions that you participated in with some other familiar Wikipedians Paul Erik, Uncle G and HexaChord, see [1] and [2]. Just want to let you know that wasn't me you were having discussions with, just so there's no confusion. Piriczki (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Piriczki, the thing is that there's NO single policy on Wikipedia why we shouldn't mention the well-referenced 300 million on this article, to be on the safe side, if it's being mentioned on nearly every other article including Russian, French, German, etc. etc- a figure that itself comes from the most reputable newspapers and magazines. I'm sorry about mentioning the sock-puppetry thing that was kinda irrelevant here... I've always respected you as a fellow editor and even awarded you a barnstar. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't post this one either. I'm with Robert Plant on this one, I think it's 200 million albums too. Piriczki (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, that's funny... dumb impersonators! Scieberking (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin did not sold 300 million albums. They sold a lot in the US, but also there the figures are very inflated. One of their compilation boxes sold 1 million copies, but was certified diamond, because the box contained 10 discs... So, It's better to say 300 million units instead of 300 million albums. A lot of reliable sources talk about 200 million albums:

• http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=12479
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562875/Rock-group-Led-Zeppelin-to-reunite.html
• http://www.led-zeppelin.org/reference/discography/index.php
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1318654/Led-Zeppelins-Robert-Plant-folks-latest-hero.html
• http://www.robertplant.com/index.php/press/my-screaming-led-zep-days-are-over-ex-hellraiser-robert-plant-on-becoming-folks-latest-hero/?spid=2
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/29/musicnews.music
• http://www.ledzeppelin.com/news/2007/10/25/mothership-two-cd-very-best-collection
• http://www.polarmusicprize.org/led-zeppelin/

200 million is definitely a more realistic figure.Christo jones (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

300 million record sales for Led Zeppelin is not inflated. The available certified sales of the band are almost 130 million units alone. That is way more than ABBA (only 54.5 million) - 370 million is being claimed, and Queen (only 87.8 million) - 300 million is being claimed. In addition, their first record was out in January 69, so approximately 30-40% of their records have gone uncertified due to numerous markets establishing their certification systems after early 1970s. In addition, threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; so you gotta find a WP:RS that declares 300 million record sales for Led Zeppelin is inflated. There's nothing else we can do. Scieberking (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the mere fact that wikipedia asserts that Zeppelin has sold 100 MILLION more albums than Pink Floyd is ridiculous. Sure, wikipedia is verifiability and not truth (no one knows that, not even the most "reliable" sources, as we have seen here), but do you all know that wikipedia is the first hit in any google search and has been for years? Don't ignore that essential fact and god damn do something about it. Maybe: 1. State that the number of sales is speculative and present all of our so called conclusions (300, 200, 130 etc.) 2. Make this too authoritative site take responsibility and state that the 300 million figure possibly has its origin in wikipedia itself. That is the best wikipedia can do now, instead of guessing and spreading false information as it had done, and which this article is a prime example of. Revan ltrl (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I love Pink Floyd, but I would be shocked to learn that they sold anywhere near the number of albums as Zeppelin. Do you have any reliable sources to back up your "ridiculous" belief?LedRush (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure above cumulative sales, but Mick Wall books details sales for individual albums. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, Revan ltrl! I also like some Floyd's stuff, but that doesn't mean they have sold more than Zeppelin. Their certified sales also suggest this. Scieberking (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You all comment on Pink Floyd - I'm not questioning how good they are and my comparison doesn't stem from my opinions on the bands. What about the solution I offered, that would be better than the current state of the page.

And LedRush, your apparent 'shock' in learning that Floyd has sold even near as much as Zeppelin just shows how ignorant you are. Floyd's 70s studio albums have all sold two digit million sales - their four best selling albums quite surely outsell Zeppelin's top four. And don't call me ridiculous again - I didn't comment on you. Should I be shocked over the fact that you guys base your doubts on Floyd's sales on how 'good' you think they are? Why are you insistent on missing my point - you're stating a lie, basically, when you could state what I suggested, which would be for everyone's benefit (including wikipedia's reliability). Revan ltrl (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you need to settle down. You said that Wikipedia's information was "ridiculous". I used quotations on the word ridiculous to let you know that I was talking about your words/opinions on Wikipedia. Even if the quotes weren't there, the sentence would merely mean your opinion is ridulous, not that you are. You know, like you've called all of our opinions ridiculous because we agree with Wikipedia's current content.

Also, I never said I based my opinion on Floyd based on how much I liked the music: I mentioned that I love Floyd so you wouldn't discount the opinion as that of a hater. But the fact is that, in the US, Floyd had two monstrously popular albums (which sold less than Zeppelin's biggest sellers) and two very big albums which, combined, still don't surpass the number of sales as Zeppelin's 6th best selling album). The tally for Floyd is 23m, 15m, 6m, and 4m. And for Zeppelin, 23m, 16m, 12m and 11m. And Zeppelin still has two other diamond compiliations in the US. I stand by my initial statement: it is shocking to me that someone would think that Floyd sold almost as many albums as Zeppelin seeing as how much more popular and relevant Zeppelin is. But, whatever, this doesn't impact the current conversation.

PS, please don't accuse of us lying. It is a personal attack and against WP policy. Also, please don't attribute opinions to me which I have not stated.LedRush (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Revan ltrl- you're all about personal attacks and baseless, unreasonable arguments without any reliable sources. If you continue like this, you'll get another block soon. Scieberking (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Somehow you manage to tilt your argument to Floyd's and Zeppelin's sales in US alone, while I mentioned sales in general. Nicely done. Let me quote you: "it is shocking to me that someone would think that Floyd sold almost as many albums as Zeppelin seeing as how much more popular and relevant Zeppelin is". Well, I stand by my belief that you base your out-of-proportion perception of these bands on your opinions on the bands. Explain how Floyd's 10 million fans on Facebook stand out as less relevant that Zeppelin' million? Well, your view is very very ridiculous and out-of-date, dearest wikipedia editor, Floyd surpassed Zep in the 70s.

It's very easy: you can either post this, uh, untruth, or post an estimation: 130-300 million albums. Take into account that the site you sorry lot represent is the first hit on google - take responsibility. Don't linger like worms and comment on my side points. But I know you insist on being projections from Kafka's The Process. Revan ltrl (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Scieberking, is it this argument stated above that you find "unreasonable", presenting an estimation instead of a myth as truth? Where is your reason there?

And the guy who presented the sales figures for Zep, that strategy was a bit obvious, wasn't it? You said two diamond compilations? I see one, and that is the boxset which has sold 2,5 million copies, which makes it a diamond release, not because it has sold 20 million or whatever a regular album has to sell. I see no other diamond certifications in Zeppelin's discography, only a few 1x or 2x platinum ones. A comparison between Zeppelin and Floyd albums not angled like yours, would look more like this: Dark Side of the moon stands at 45 million - Zeppelin IV at 32 (that's a 13 million difference). The Wall stands at 23 million (in the US, couldn't find worldwide here at wikipedia in my minute-long search) - Zeppelin II stands at 16 (according to you; still, a 7 millioin difference to Floyd's favor, AGAIN). Floyd's Wish You Were Here stands at 13 million - Zeppelin's (I'm guessing) Houses of the Holy at 12, but a first favor to Zeppelin, since it has probably sold a bit more worldwide. Your deliberate exclusion of worldwide sales also omits The Division Bell (12 million). I mean, you have demonstrated your extreme tunnel-vision, but do you see how Floyd's and Zeppelin's sales shouldn't be that imbalanced? Do you see it? I honestly believe that Floyd have sold more than Zeppelin and remain extremely more relevant and vital in new and newer generations, doubtlessly. Revan ltrl (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this the silent treatment or is it just that you don't have anything to come with? Because I understand if you don't. OK, I'll put aside my fright of how your critical thinking is lacking to the max and how you all subordinate to wikipedia regulation like small Moseses, and how little consideration you take into the fact that wikipedia, this second hand (often false - there is a reason universities and such despise seeing 'wikipedia' in the footnotes) information tool, is treated like some kind of truth by everyone, especially the reliable sources it uses in order to create these vicious information circles a la Led Zeppelin. I'll put this aside and ask if you can offer me a regulation that says that, in the case of contradictory information by reliable sources (e.g. the album sales), the higher number shall be picked? Is there also a regulation that talks against one's critical thinking, i.e. DIFFERENTIATING between what's reasonable, plausible, fair, whatever, and what's NOT. Please enlighten me, oh you mighty. Revan ltrl (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, when you personally attack other editors and make poor policy arguments, they don't reply? That's so weird. I think you've gotten all the replies you need above.LedRush (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha, so sarcasm is your last resort? I guess wikipedia doesn't have regulations against that. Extremely admirable! I know that I completely killed off your arguments about Led Zeppelin's sales, but don't feel bad, even if they were weaker and the strategy more obvious than, uh, something that is very weak and very obvious. But, then again, do feel bad.

Let me analyze your answer: when you personally attack other editors. Don't just spit that out, man, GIVE THE FIRST EXAMPLE. and make poor policy arguments. Which arguments? How are they poor? I referred to mere common sense, and you didn't answer ANY of my questions, but crawled away with the silent treatment and answered with sarcasm. Very admirable. Then you have the nerve to post on my personal discussion page similar claims. Check that answer on my wall and answer there please. Here, explain why you think that appealing to the common sense of the human mind and shedding light on vicious circles that originated in wikipedia are poor policy arguments. Please have the decency to explain yourself, I have. Revan ltrl (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

From above: "The tally for Floyd is 23m, 15m, 6m, and 4m. And for Zeppelin, 23m, 16m, 12m and 11m. And Zeppelin still has two other diamond compiliations in the US." This remain 100% true. If you want to show me sources that contradict this, I'd be interested to see them.LedRush (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and in case you can't scroll up the screen, I've listed your personal attacks on your talk page. Hopefully that discussion can stay there.LedRush (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

LedRush... are you trying to infuriate me? I almost feel sorry for you. Where is the logic in numbering the sales for Zeppelin and Floyd IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ALONE, as you do here, as an argument in a discussion that deals with their sales WORLDWIDE?! There is no way in Hell I will accept that argument as a sign that Zeppelin has sold far more than Floyd. I am very aware that Zeppelin has sold 111 million in the US, and Floyd 75 million, but that is OF NO CONSEQUENCE in this discussion. I repeat: SALES WORLDWIDE. Geez! I will repost my answer to your listing American sales: First I mention that Zeppelin has one and not two, as you state, diamond compilations (check their discography here at wikipedia), and the one that is certified diamond has sold 2,5 million copies and not 10, because it is a boxed set, check its page. What I answered: A comparison between Zeppelin and Floyd albums not restricted to American sales would look more like this: Dark Side of the moon stands at 45 million - Zeppelin IV at 32 (that's a 13 million difference). The Wall stands at 23 million (in the US, couldn't find worldwide here at wikipedia in my minute-long search) - Zeppelin II stands at 16 (still, a 7 million difference to Floyd's favor, AGAIN). Floyd's Wish You Were Here stands at 13 million - Zeppelin's (I'm guessing) Houses of the Holy at 12, but a first favor to Zeppelin, since it has probably sold a bit more worldwide. Your deliberate exclusion of worldwide sales also omits The Division Bell (12 million).

I checked wikipedia articles for these numbers, so there are your sources, God knows if they are true or false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revan ltrl (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we don't have worldwide sales numbers for the Zeppelin albums (except IV) on wikipedia, so I just used an undispituable and non-estimate numbers: those for the US. And seeing as we are trying to discern whether or not the estimated world wide sources are accurate or not, it seems to make sense to compare concrete data, and not compile estimates.LedRush 17:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Zeppelin albums might not have the figures for worldwide sales, but several Floyd albums do, e.g. the ones I used, so there is no point in dragging Floyd into the US just because Zeppelin then looks as the biggest seller - to the contrary, it would be more accurate to take Zeppelin's US sales and compare them with Floyd's worldwide sales, as I did, which then shows a more accurate comparison between the bands' sales. And then it is quite important to add that Zeppelin's biggest seller has worldwide sales stated (32M), while Floyd's second best seller doesn't (23M). The current information wikipedia offers is outrageous (the 100 million difference between Floyd and Zeppelin (and Queen, for that matter)), so that is why my argumentation that an estimation should be used between sourced numbers, instead of a wild guess at the best sales figure and dismissal of the lower figures who are as well-sourced according to wikipedia standards. Revan ltrl (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"it would be more accurate to take Zeppelin's US sales and compare them with Floyd's worldwide sales, as I did, which then shows a more accurate comparison between the bands' sales". Could you please explain why it is a better to compare numbers for the whole world with just sales in the US than to compare precise and accurate numbers from the same territory?LedRush (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was very clumsily written. Nevertheless, one of my strives was to contradict your main point: "I love Pink Floyd, but I would be shocked to learn that they sold anywhere near the number of albums as Zeppelin". Anywhere near. Are you shocked yet? Because I suspect you weren't that well-oriented in how big a band Pink Floyd really is, and if you were, it must have been in the US alone, which is one country; there is a world outside of it. As I have stated, I am very aware of Zeppelin's 111 million and Floyd's 75 million in the US, and I have already (two times) presented clear numbers that wikipedia offer in their articles. I found your comparison between the two bands' US sales extremely angled, manipulative and misleading, not proving anything; there is no need or logic in compare two bands' sales in one country in a discussion of worldwide sales - it makes it accurate to say that one of the bands suffer, and one prevails. There need not even be a discussion of the US sales at all; as far as I know, that country keep quite a good monitoring of album sales, and there is no point in arguing against the 111M vs 75M figures. Hence my clumsily written statement, which you responded to: "explain why it is a better to compare numbers for the whole world with just sales in the US than to compare precise and accurate numbers from the same territory?" First of all, you make an unfair and illogical distinction between "numbers for the whole world" and "precise and accurate numbers". Is there a difference between numbers and precise and accurate numbers? If I were to argue against you on this point, you don't offer precise and accurate numbers, because they are rounded off to the closest million, and I might even take this as an implication towards the numbers I offered as false; after all, you haven't commented on them whatsoever. But I intended the clumsy statement to state that there are numbers that contradict your main point, very much at that. There are precise and accurate numbers for both bands' best selling albums worldwide: 45M vs 32M. There are only US numbers available for their second best selling albums: 23M vs 16M. There is already a 20 millioni difference to Floyd's favor, so it is pointless to restrict a band's sales to one country when as precise and accurate numbers are available to its worldwide sales. It boils down to if wikipedia will keep posting a 100 million difference between Floyd and Zeppelin (which is outrageous), or apply some critical thinking and plain reason (which are not poor arguments) and go for the better sources or present an estimation instead of an untruth, and being aware of it on top of that. Then, maybe articles of Queen and Abba, for example, could follow this example; after all, there was one guy that posted some accurate numbers, stating that they can't be posted for some reason. Revan ltrl (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this the silent treatment again? Anything wrong with my post? Revan ltrl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have commented before but this discussion ceased being productive a long time ago. Discussion of other groups, such as Pink Floyd or Queen, is completely irrelevant here. The facts are: in 2002 Billboard reported Led Zeppelin had sold "nearly 200 million albums." (see [3]) According to Atlantic Records, as of 2003 Led Zeppelin had sold "sold some 200 million albums worldwide." In April 2005, Robert Plant said that Led Zeppelin had sold 200 million albums (see [4]) Then, in September 2005, this unsourced edit was made to Wikipedia even though no published sources supporting this claim existed at the time. Before long the bogus figure began to appear in other sources. Now, if a group, which broke up more than 20 years earlier, and had sold 200 million albums up to that point (2003), suddenly sold 100 million more albums in the next two years, it would be the greatest achievement in the history of the recording industry. They would have outsold everyone during that period, they would have sold more albums in 2 years than all but a handful of artists have sold in their entire careers. It would have been the story of the decade in music but somehow this fantastic feat has gone unnoticed. Why is that? Because it never happened. Piriczki (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So, I did another search and it seems like the 300 million number is cited far more than the 200 million number. Is your argument that this is a question of circularity, and that the 300 million came from Wikipedia? I guess it's possible, but it seems unlikely when comparing established sales in the US among the relevant groups.LedRush (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am firmly convinced this is a case of circularity and that the 300 million came from Wikipedia. Again, attempting to justify a sales figure with comparisons to other groups isn't a sound argument and only muddies the water. Besides, comparing U.S. sales to worldwide sales for different groups is like comparing apples to oranges. For one thing, Pink Floyd and Queen were together longer and released more albums than Led Zeppelin. Queen's popularity in the U.S. dropped precipitously after 1980 and they never toured here again after 1982 while they remained popular elsewhere so I would expect U.S. sales to be low relative to worldwide sales, especially compared to Led Zeppelin who were particularly dominant in the U.S. Another example of that would be Abba who was very popular around the world but not so much in the U.S. Pink Floyd's top selling albums, Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here and The Wall haven't been certified in the U.S. since 1998, 1997 and 1999 respectively so their last reported U.S. sales would be low relative to a current worldwide figure. As far as the respective Wikipedia articles go, the 300 million claim for Queen looks bogus and it appears that figure morphed from some previous uncited total of "records" sold (which included singles). I don't know what the actual total for Queen is, but whatever it is, it is irrelevant to this article anyway. The 200 million figure for Pink Floyd is according to EMI so I don't see how that can be doubted or trumped by any other source, just like the 200 million figure from Atlantic can't. Piriczki (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No your totally wrong there mate. Zep's total certified sales alone is 130 million, while Queen is 87 million and Floyd around 100. So Zep absolutely has edge over and beats both. They've sold more than 300 million records, if not albums. Get over the fact. Judaispriest (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The total certified sales mentioned are what's called original research on Wikipedia. What's worse, people are using them to draw conclusions about other figures based on various assumptions. My point above was that attempting to justify one sales figure by comparing other groups doesn't help, it's apples and oranges. That's why this discussion has gone on forever and has accomplished nothing. Piriczki (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Look. In order to reach anywhere near the actual sales we look out for the certified units from the official websites of every major market in the world. That's the most logical and wise thing we can do to help things. I've stated those calculated figures for Zep, Queen and Floyd. Providing solutions and actually doing stuff works here, merely complaining about it only makes thing worse. Judaispriest (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

More than about 65% of web pages or news sources mentioning Zep's sales will mention 300 million albums as LedRush and Scieberking clarified above. However there are some sources (such as http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/09/led.zep/index.html) that state 300 millions records and I think we can rightfully use the term. Judaispriest (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You refuse to see the big picture, how wikipedia works outside its own confines, and take responsibility accordingly. Sure, the swarm intelligence and contribution is extremely admirable, but is it impossible to infuse some swarm common sense as well? If we are in such a disagreement, post an estimation, for example: estimations of the band's worldwide sales range between 130 and 300 million. Does that break any regulations? Is it a violation against common sense or sources or wikipedia itself? Maybe your sensibilities? I hope none of the above.

Btw Piriczki, I would think that a dedicated wikipedia editor (as you all here are, wiki-awarded group of fine gents) would hurry to contribute to a discussion not being "productive" and making it instead more productive instead of waiting. Because you try exactly what I tried with the fine gent LedRush, state that the 300M figure has its origin in wikipedia (circulation you guys obviously call it - I don't have the wikicabulary and don't want to frankly), and apply some common sense into the discussion, only you offered a couple of sources - so, wikicabulary and some sources - I'll try those tricks next time. And as for the comparison of album sales between the bands, it's not like apple and oranges, because the two best selling albums had worldwide sales and the two second best albums had US sales and so it contributed to indicate reasonable difference. It worked as an indicator of the absurdity of the 300M figure. No need seeing Pink Floyd as an orange compared to an apple, but as a variable in a very simple equation. Hence LedRush's and Judaispriest's arguments reduced to how many times one figure has been reported over another.

But how about posting an estimation? There is no shame in that, Jimbo Walesians. Revan ltrl (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No one should be posting estimates or employing "simple" equations. That is known as original research and does not meet Wikipedia standards. Rather than irrelevant comparisons and fan boasts, this discussion should focus on verifiable facts and address such obvious questions such as why did their record company say they had sold 200 million albums? Why does their Official MySpace Page say they've sold 200 million albums? Why does Robert Plant say they've sold 200 million albums? Why are there no published sources prior to the unsourced edit in 2005? How could they possibly have sold 100 million albums in two years? Until these perplexing questions can be answered satisfactorily, this article will remain in dispute. Piriczki (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Their officials also said 300 million and all your questions have been answered already above. Judaispriest (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I acted on the basis that your questions have been answered and dismissed - this article has already stated 200 million albums with your already used examples as sources but was changed back to 300 due to errors in wikipedia policy (the "standard" you mention) guys like LedRush and Judaispriest use to their advantage. So you're basically a rerun of a former discussion. I find it funny how you elevate wikipedia regulation at the same time as you use common sense - it is you who dismiss my ways as unproductive, yet you raise the same (according to you and wikipedia unnecessary) questions in hope of, what, changing something? You should then know that wiki regulations renders this discussion unsolvable and step in line behind LedRush and Judaispriest, since there is nothing in wikipedia that, maybe, says that one source can outdo the other? Don't be a walking paradox and no need in adding the very well-known arrogance to the faceless, disembodied discourse you all use as dedicated editors - this only fuels my disgust for discussing with you guys, even if one of you may argue for the same goal. SO, my point, which it has always been: rather a sourced estimation (and perhaps a small explanation in the article about the circulation occurred - at least that's not original research haha) than an untruth. I still think EMI and Plant weigh heavier than the combined forces of the other sources. Revan ltrl (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about you guys, but I feel we settled on 200. Revan ltrl (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Judaispriest (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I may not be opposed to giving the range, seeing as it is expressed that way on the list of best selling bands page. The earliest 300 million number I can find is in 2006 (well, I can find earlier but they aren't RSs). Judaispriest, can you find an earlier one?LedRush (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I could but wasting time on that'd be totally unncessary. 300 million record (not album) sales is an official figure, which, verified by tons of RS, is highly logical and acceptable. It does not go against ANY wikipedia policy. Judaispriest (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you define number of records sold as opposed to number of albums sold and what impact does that have on the total? Exactly how do you define "records" versus albums? Is a source that states "records" somehow more reliable than those that say albums? Why? By the way, none of my previous questions were ever answered. Piriczki (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Records means albums+singles+CDs+DVDs+vinyls+everything. See Talk:List of best-selling music artists. Thier official myspace page as well as some official press releases also stated 300 million number. All your questions have been already addressed above. Judaispriest (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Zeppelin are famous for never having released any singles - a format that adds much to the astronomical worldwide record sales of, for example, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, and The Beatles. And their discography overall does not sum up - far from it. Led Zeppelin IV, according to the 300 figure, and being their biggest seller at 32 million copies worldwide, represents a supposed 10% of their sales... What is the rest 90% out of the other 8, or whatever it is, studio albums? Have they, together with a few compilations and DVD releases, sold 270 million copies? That, in turn, supposes, roughly, an average of 30 million copies/studio album. And if they have achieved that, why wasn't it reported, as Piriczki stated - news media would earn a big buck off that story. Why are you even trying to justify that number logically when it can't be done - the number is not acceptable in any logical sense; the Reliable Sources-argument weighs heavier here, stick with it.

I also have a question that hasn't been answered: is there anything in wiki regulation that addresses contradicting reliable sources and if circulation (and logic) should be instrumental in choosing, in the case of ambiguous reliability, the logical source? Revan ltrl (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

First off, Led Zeppelin IV sold far more than 32 million copies. 37 million is mentioned in List of best-selling albums worldwide, but its more than that also. See this. Secondly, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band sold 32 million+ copies, where does rest of their 1 billion sales come? Their total certified sales are 246 million; only 24.6% of their total 1 billion. Zeppelin's certified sales is 130 million; about 40% of their total certified sales - 300 million. So obviously, the sources for 300 million records are most reliable than anything else. Judaispriest (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm rarely this unconvinced, Judaispriest... I mean, you are aware that the certifications list you linked doesn't add to 32 even? But you just know that it has sold more, and that their certified sales work as a true indicator that they have indeed sold 300 million albums. The comparison to Beatles is completely and utterly worthless. I mentioned that the single format is nonexistent in Zeppelin's catalogue, hence the 300 million figure being outrageous - it can't be made out of their catalogue. Beatles, on the other hand, is one of the most successful single-releasing bands of all time. This is from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Beatles%27_record_sales: "In 1964, the Beatles had the never-matched total of 15 American million - selling records (9 singles and 6 LP's), representing US sales of over 25 million in 1964 alone." "'I Want To Hold Your Hand' sold nearly 5 million records in the US by 1968, making it the best selling single of the 1960s." "The 'Hey Jude' single had sold over 3 million copies in America in its first 2 months of release." By 65, they had sold 100 million records worldwide. By '66 150. By '69 300.By '72 545. Do you see how comparing Zeppelin to the most successful band of all time is, like, not beneficial for your argument? Beatles was first and foremost a singles band, hence their billion-scale sales, Zeppelin was not. Revan ltrl (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, please guys, I'm beginning to take these silences that follow my comments as compliments. How about a "Hey, Revan, I see your point, but my argument is backed by all these reliable sources y'know, and I kinda want Zeppelin to have sold 300 mill...". Well, I would also want that, but it can't really be true by merely wanting. Both me and Prizcki have pointed out questions that can't be answered with real information and which argue strongly for the fact that 300 million is too much. So, having common sense ruled out from a wikipedia conclusive discussion (because we know circulation is the answer to why so many sources have the 300 figure), there are only reliable sources left. But several reliable sources state different numbers, most either 200 or 300. So, do you all agree on trying to reach consensus on which sources that should rule out the others? Because, as I understand it, wikipedia regulation doesn't offer any advice for these situations, to go with the most logical sources, the biggest figure, the the sources that are superior in number... Revan ltrl (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, you really need to quieten down. The 246 million certified sales of Beatles also include their singles. So you have a baseless argument which sane editors prefer to ignore. The answer to your complain that you get ignored. Think about it. Judaispriest (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Could I get some feedback? This is unbelievable. Prizcki, please enlighten him of how little sense he makes. He's not only introducing his post with a "Lol", he implies that Beatles has sold less than Zeppelin... that my arguments are baseless... that any "sane" editor would ignore my post... He's clinging to the last shred of defense he can scrap together... i dearly hope, for your sake Judaispriest, that it's only a facade of pride and not a true conviction you have of which you say. You arguments are demolished, ACCEPT IT! It is not possible NOT to see the logic in what I wrote! Think about it! And I don't fucking care whether you think I'm loud, I'm just trying to get my fucking point through and I'm met with the common sense of god damn Jehovah's witnesses. Revan ltrl (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that your lack of civility, your horrendous logic, and your poor writing skills are more to blame for lack of responses than anything else. Judais priest has made his arguments above, and I'm not sure that restating yours requires him to repeat what he's already said. I feel everyone has made their positions known here, and consensus has not been reached.LedRush (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha, geez. You both attack my logic but refuse to actually comment on it. Pure insults. The civility blame, fine, I frankly don't care whether you find me uncivil or whatever. But please, you're both such poor losers, I can't believe it. And my logic and writing, Ledrush? I would want to tell you that they are self-experienced on your behalf and that you're merely projecting them on me. But fact is I'm a member of Mensa and write A papers in academic writing, so please don't even try feeding me your sorry bullshit. You're both barking from some small corner of shame. Pitiful. Revan ltrl (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"But fact is I'm a member of Mensa and write A papers in academic writing, so please don't even try feeding me your sorry bullshit." That you felt the need to write this is absolutely hilarious. I actually laughed out loud. That the irony is lost on you is quite sad.LedRush (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mensa International, huh? I won't be surprised if a person like you claims to be a member of Skull and Bones, or even Ordo Templis Orientis maybe. ROFLMAO. Judaispriest (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Or was it a misspelling in your "A Paper" and you actually meant "Menses".... ;-D Judaispriest (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't lie. And yes, I felt it was totally necessary. Mensa and A-graded papers in Academic Writing correspond perfectly with what you intended to insult, so thanks for letting me outdo you... once again. And it's not like you would comprehend any explanation to how you are wrong, so two concrete facts more than sufficed for me. And I find it highly amusing, and understandable, that you find Mensa membership that out of reach so you have to compare it to such absurd groups. But, as I said, understandable, it is long proved that common sense and intelligence is pure jibberish to you two. Thank you also (both of you) for this amusement... Just what I needed in between two Mad Men episodes. You continue to shrink, it's great! Revan ltrl (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you needed three follow up edits to insert more insults and to fix grammatical errors.LedRush (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you were a member of this organisation, you would not even write this crap above, stealing user's time.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who you're referring to, Pumpkin, but I'm met with total ignorance when trying to deliver an actual suggestion for this discussion. And LedRush, you keep pondering that, track my every move in this festering slime pit of a site and chuckle to yourself for every revised post... might as well make a hobby out of it, since I strongly doubt you have anything that even resembles a life out there. Lucks to you, buddy. Revan ltrl (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL.. what a loser! GreatPumpkin is referring to you. And I personally know LedRush. He's a legendary surfer. All he has is cool buzz, some tasty waves, and he's fine.... :-P While you, as we all know, are you a filthy cave troll... A complete waste of oxygen Judaispriest (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Noting that User:Judaispriest has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Scieberking. Piriczki (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to add the 300 million figure to this article all I ask is that you find a source that PREDATES its first appearance in this very Wikipedia article. It can't be done. It's a prime example of Wikiality. 71.183.238.217 (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Folk rock

Just picking brains here about something: it's well-known that Zep loved and was heavily inspired by contemporary British folk artists like Roy Harper, Bert Jansch, Sandy Denny, etc., but has anyone ever classified them as "folk rock"? For starters, Allmusic doesn't. Is the inclusion of folk rock in the infobox because there are lots of sources calling them folk rock, or is the rationale simply that they incorporate folk into their rock? Because it's not the same thing, and I doubt any overview of the folk rock genre would include Zep. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Allmusic is crap. It lists pure "Blues" as one of the two genres of Led Zeppelin. So are you going to call them a "Blues band"? I copy paste this from archives:

• "Where's the sense of reviewing an album filled with material that every right-thinking human being must already own? Well, let's not forget those over 80s and under 20s out there who may have yet to experience the full majesty of the band who set the benchmark for stadium-packing epic blues/folk rock. And, on the eve of the most hyped reunion gig of all time, Mothership lays it all out in chronological form". Cynical re-packaging, maybe...but oh, what a back catalogue! by Chris Jones of BBC

• "A real test of endurance, for sure. This is rock music, pure and simple, and they were very much a rock band. They weren't a one-trick pony - a number of their tracks have a distinctly folk-rock feel - and they really enjoyed what they did. And almost all of their songs are about love, in one form or another". Jon Downs of Blogcritics

In addition, "The Routledge companion to Britain in the twentieth century" by Mark Clapson describes them as, "LED ZEPPELIN - Rock, blues and folk-rock band".

Judaispriest (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Blogcritics a reliable source? Also, note the context of the quote--"have a distinctly folk-rock feel"--not quite the same thing as "is a folk-rock band". Additionally, are there any sources that discuss Led Zeppelin as part of the history of folk rock? After all, Smashing Pumpkins have been called a grunge band and Radiohead a Britpop band on occasion in offhand manner, but any source that actually deals with the genres will explain why these are inaccuracies. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, some songs are folk rock. Please listen to Led Zeppelin III; almost all of them are folk rock. Folk rock is a fusion between the folk music and rock music; folk music describes the music for the "folk"; looser, fruity songs with (mostly) the acoustic guitar as the lead instrument and instruments like harmonica, accordion, sitar, bagpipe and many more; yes that's apply. It would be better if you would think logically and not view another website (please stop this "is-this-reliable-or-not?"-crap); this is crazy...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This "'is-this-reliable-or-not?'-crap" is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. "Listen to the album" isn't good enough. Also, "fruity songs" . . . ? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Listen. Blogcritics might not be a highly reliable source, but still a WP:RS according to the criteria. Ask any time on noticeboard. Secondly, who the heck is calling them a strict "folk-rock band". Beatles played psychedelic rock and that doesn't make them a "psychedelic rock band". I totally agree with GreatOrangePumpkin. They played some folk rock songs, and the genre is rightfully listed there. Scieberking (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Whining does not help, WesleyDodds. Blogcritics has editorial oversight. Blogcritics is not largely user-generated. Satisfies every policy. Everybody on Noticeboard will agree. It runs on the same model as NY Times' About.com. Besides that, its only one of the sources provided. Scieberking (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about whining? Assume good faith. It's a basic question. Also, beyond the reliability of this one source, it's really important to get a broader examination of sources, because three examples (two of which are reviews) aren't all that convincing when it comes to determining if there's consensus by sources declaring them a folk rock band. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Initially, as a semi-retired editor, I was hesitant to get involved, but just can't tolerate nonsense. I would repeat my previous suggestion; putting "Rock" as the sole genre in the infobox just like the other major articles do. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, in simpler words, some of their material is folk rock, but that doesn't make them a strict "folk rock band" or a purist "folk group". Led Zeppelin defies categorization. For the record, there's been a consensus to keep "folk rock" in the infobox after lengthy arguments (see archives) but I still suggest the simple Rock label. As per your wish, here is an "overview of the folk rock genre (that) would include Zep", penned by well-known American music journalist Richie Unterberger who also happens to be a leading contributor at Allmusic:

• GREAT MOMENTS IN FOLK-ROCK: LISTS OF AUTHOR FAVORITES

• Even your Allmusic junk says, "its [Led Zeppelin's] areas of expertise were heavy metal, hard rock, blues-rock, and folk-rock". Divinity: Led Zeppelin. Notice how accurately this order is being preserved on Wikipedia!

• David Fricke, former managing editor of Rolling Stone and one of the most well-respected rock critics, mentions "folk rock" of Led Zeppelin in his article Led Zeppelin Reunite The Full Report From David Fricke.

Here's a few more reliable sources:

• Led Zeppelin III Review: An underrated work by any reckoning by Greg Moffitt of BBC

• Led Zeppelin 1970: A Banner Year for Page, Plant and the Gibson Les Paul Standard by Ted Drozdowski of Gibson

Regards, Scieberking (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Scieberking, nobody is arguing that Led Zeppelin didn't incorporate folk/folk-rock into their records. The question is, whether that folk-influence necessitates us adding "folk rock" in the genres tab. In your own words, "that doesn't make them a strict 'folk rock band'"—then why list folk rock at all?

I don't mind listing just "Rock" in the genres, although my first preference would be to include heavy metal as well—the band's defining genre.—indopug (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, Scieberking. I'm not trying to be difficult or antagonistic about this, so there's no reason to use wording like "Even your Allmusic junk". This is just something that needs to be addressed with some thought at some point or another on the road to getting this article to FA-level quality. As for the "subgenres/just Rock" issue, I'd be down with Indopug's "Rock, heavy metal" suggestion, although we should probably link to "hard rock" too. The point of the genres field is to link to pages that provide additional musical style context--the rock, metal, and hard rock articles all devote sizable portions to Led Zeppelin. We also need to consider the categories at the bottom of the page, which everyone seems to forget about. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I said that calling them a strict folk rock band would be untrue, but I also think all the above sources easily qualify the mention of "folk rock". "Gospel" is listed in the infobox of Dylan's article. Does that make him a gospel singer? Hard rock, heavy metal, folk rock are all subgenres of Rock, right? So listing "Rock, heavy metal" would be just plain stupid. Scieberking (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not stupid per se; it's simply general and specific at the same time. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it would. It is okay the way it is. Scieberking (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with calling them folk rock is that the number of sources used to back of this statement are far fewer than those that call the band heavy metal, hard rock, rock, blues rock or even progressive rock. Putting folk rock in the info box is a clear case of undue weight.LedRush (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is - not many people will argue against the fact that the band made some folk rock songs in their career. There are songs spread throughout their career in that genre, as well as on most of Led Zeppelin III. I don't think the "Genres" section of the infobox necessarily needs to be something the band were labelled as, but rather an indicator of what their music was labelled as. Whatever the consensus comes to, I strongly believe hard rock should not be touched (contrary to what some in this discussion are proposing), as it's pretty much the genre that the majority of their music falls under and it would be a complete oversight to omit. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Point of clarification: the material on LZIII drew from contemporary British folk music, not folk rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Elvis is more commonly known as a rock 'n' roll singer, but should "country" and "gospel" be removed from the article's infobox? Of course not, because he did some stuff related to those genres. I'm finished with the discussion. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To repeat:The problem with calling them folk rock is that the number of sources used to back of this statement are far fewer than those that call the band heavy metal, hard rock, rock, blues rock or even progressive rock. Putting folk rock in the info box is a clear case of undue weight.LedRush (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with this. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How does "rock, heavy metal, hard rock" sound then? The change from the status quo being that two very specific sub-genres (blues-rock and folk rock) are replaced by the overarching rock genre. This de-emphasises elements of the Zeppelin Sound that were present in only a few songs and albums. The prose, of course, can cover the blues- and folk-derived aspects of the band's music.—indopug (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. It has the added benefit of actually following WP policy on requiring reliable sources and not giving undue weight to minor theories and opinions.LedRush (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I can support that. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I support his too. Seems fine to me.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering that they haven't done even one heavy metal album (as opposed to songs), your suggestion is very one-sided and misleading. Considering that they have their foundation in blues, and which they never discarded, it is essential to include that one too. And considering that Led Zeppelin III and Led Zeppelin IV don't contain any heavy metal or hard rock (except for possibly "Immigrant Song") but almost exclusively blues rock and folk rock, it would be for the best to include folk rock as well. So basically, as it looks now, but with blues rock and folk rock - the genre box at its current state is a representation of 25% of their sound, not to mention that heavy metal and hard rock is impossible differentiate between in Led Zeppelin - they're the same, they overlap. Revan (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

GreatOrangePumpkin, I saw on your talk page that you're a pianist and expert in music theory. How can you then I agree with not having blues rock in the genre box? Their trademark is exactly that, the blend of rock and blues. Don't you think the current status is very narrow, one-sided and misleading? Revan (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the term "rock" in the infobox describes the different, not much used genres like folk rock and blues rock. These where mostly used in the beginning of its musical career, like in the debut album or the second, where hippie music (folk rock, blues rock, everything all together) were standard musical genres and covering classic blues songs totally normal. As indopug explains, merging "blues rock" and "folk rock" in "rock" is understandable, since they both are sub-genres of the "rock" genre. In contradistinction to the currently termed genres, the genre "hard rock" is self-evident and has been used from the beginning to the end of its career. "Heavy metal" was used mostly at the beginning (I, II, Physical Graffiti), and is therefore important, because Led Zeppelin's heavy guitar sound, fast, rough drum beats and Plant's strong voice power is an indication, that they were one of the first bands with heavy metal sound. There were much bands influenced by Led Zeppelin, including Black Sabbath. If you hear the albums "Black Sabbath" or "Paranoid" you will hear an element of resemblance in concord, timbre, rhythm, melody, dynamic and form. Short: Hard rock because its main genre; Heavy metal because important for other bands; Folk rock and blues rock was merged to "Rock" because sub-genre, not much used and sometimes merged together.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I know all of the albums you mentioned by heart, and I know that you exaggerate Led Zeppelin's importance on the two Black Sabbath albums you mentioned. I also know that Black Sabbath discarded the blues element right in the first song of the first album, and elaborated on the already existing "hard" sound of the era, transforming it into real heavy metal, by, among other things, detuning the guitar and bass to a low C#. But this isn't a discussion about Black Sabbath. Your first point is not true; blues rock and folk rock were used extensively, by no means less than hard rock or heavy metal. For all I know, their harder and heavier themes were most often than not used within the confines of blues. The blues element was never discarded by Led Zeppelin, but prevalent in all of their albums. They always had the standard blues songs in their albums, from the first one to Physical Graffiti. The same goes for folk rock - all of their acoustic songs - never discarded, but prevalent in all of their albums up to Physical Graffiti.

You assign each of the terms in the info box its own distinctive function: hard rock is supposedly "self-evident" and works as its own genre, but really, it is as much a sub-genre of rock as folk rock and blues rock; heavy metal is supposed to work as an indicator to Led Zeppelin's importance for other bands in that genre, and not as a description of their own sound; blues rock and folk rock should be merged together because they're "not much used", but which they are, very much so even. I don't see the point why readers who scan through an article should make these associations and differentiate between terms' function. They shouldn't. The info box should present a quick summary of what the band sounds like and not be a representation of something needlessly complex that only a few users think sounds fair. The inclusion of blues rock and folk rock (instead of just rock, maybe), in addition to hard rock and heavy metal of course, would make it 10 times more clear and accurate. Revan (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I just saw that the info box looks like how I suggested. I don't know if someone changed it without notifying, or if one of you did it. But I think it looks much better like that. What do you think? Revan (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I still think that the old order was way more logical and relevant. See the IP attacks, that's why... Scieberking (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I see... then it would be better to revert it like it was before. I realize that "Rock" is too generally, so the reader don't really know which sub-genres are meant. I don't care if it is just "rock" or "blues rock and folk rock", but, you see, the readers don't like it that much.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I mean and tried to state in the above discussion. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume "the old order" is when blues rock and folk rock are included? Revan (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, way more logical and relevant. Revan (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You can find tons and tons of RSs which call Zep a heavy metal band, but I doubt you can find one that calls them a folk rock band. But even that's not the real point. Per the agreement above, and per WP:UNDUE, I have to disagree continue to disagree. Folk music is such a minor influence outside of the third album, and it is not substantiated by RSs.LedRush (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello LedRush. I think I've made detailed replies to these "heavy metal band" / "folk rock band" and "not substantiated by RSs" arguments. Please see above. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but those replies have also been refuted above. It simply undue weight to put in the info box when the best you can do is find the sources you've found.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. More clearly refuted by lame arguments. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Folk rock is warranted by all of their acoustic songs. Check their catalogue. Revan (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would rather check RSs than conduct original research.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That is obvious. Though wikipedia is built on original research whether one likes it or not, whether it is against its policies or not. Some things are certainties. No one would dispute folk rock as genre. It's painting by numbers - one draws a line between their acoustic lines (among them Stairway to Heaven) to folk rock. It's not really arguable, in a logical sense. Revan (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though you have, against a few editors' opinion above, ordained the correct answer, I still say we should just follow WP policy on this.LedRush (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, NO such policy exists on Wikipedia. Radiohead is not an "electronic music group". Elvis Presley is not a "gospel singer". Bob Dylan is not a "country singer". And these are all featured articles... Regards, Scieberking (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The policy I invoked was WP:UNDUE, though I would now point you to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each of those statements seems eminently more realistic than this one (well, maybe not Elvis, but I barely know his music, so I can't really comment either way). All I know is that if you have thousands and thousands of sources which call a band a "rock", "hard rock" or "heavy metal" band, and the only RSs you can come up with for folk rock say that they have some songs influenced by folk rock, it seems pretty obvious to give UNDUE weight to an opinion. Just deal with this in the text.LedRush (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is mostly for Deletion/ Creation discussion and have you read this "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.'" and other guidelines that clearly point out that the policy itself is hardly relevant here? How about WP:SENSE and WP:IAR? Regards, Scieberking (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I like those two as well, but only the second one helps your argument.LedRush (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Explain how I "against a few editors' opinion above, ordained the correct answer" and why I shouldn't be insulted by the extreme choice of words. I would call this an attack, by your standards. Revan (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. You told me the answer without any proof at all. You merely stated that it was obvious. To make points, usually you need to provide some sort of basis for that opinion.LedRush (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: the first of the two links also helps his argument. Don't dismiss it. As I've said, having folk rock is painting by numbers, mere common sense, and doesn't need to be dismissed because someone keeps score of how many times the other genres have been cited. Isn't that illogical? I'd say it is. You could have a billion sources saying heavy metal without having them excluding folk rock. The genres are in no competitive game against each other, even though some would like to think so. Revan (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the genres are in competition. As I've argued above, I don't believe that there are enough sources to merit inclusion in the infobox of a genre which has influenced a handful of songs. I can find sources that say Led Zeppelin was influenced by reggae, progressive music, and Caribbean music, but I'm not sure that they should go in the info box (though progressive music is makes more sense to me than folk rock).LedRush (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't either. Of course reggae shouldn't be included because they made one reggae song in Houses of the Holy, or Caribbean music because another song shows an influence. But folk rock hasn't influenced only one song, or only a handful of songs. The genre, as a representation of their acoustic songs, is one of the main undercurrents of their sound, like blues rock and hard rock, throughout many albums. That can easily override the lack of journalists spelling out "folk rock" to the reader. Revan (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate genre-labeling, and most respectable bands hate their music categorized within a genre as well. But when you have Joan Baez influencing LZ to record "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You", not to mention songs like "That's the Way" and "Going To California" in their catalog, I would object to labeling them as "Folk Rock" about as much or as little as I would object to labeling them as "Heavy Metal". Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 21:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Alas, nothing can override things not being in RSs on Wikipedia. That's one of, if not the, central tenet of wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"...it reminds its maker of 1970's Led Zeppelin III, an epic LP that augmented the iconic band's hardriffing blueprint with more reflective folk-rock leanings." Is "leanings" too vague to include them as folk-rock? Doc talk 22:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, absolutely. In Scieberking's and Revan's, no. I just don't see having a handful of songs with folk-rock leanings or influences as enough to include folk rock in the info box. If gives undue weight to the influence, imho.LedRush (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

How about "Led Zeppelin’s mix of blues, folk and rock brought them huge success...". Are we talking about reliable sources or opinion? Because you're quite right that it only needs to be in reliable sources (with citations) for inclusion. Again, I despise labeling bands, infobox or no, but I seriously doubt that "Heavy Metal" has any more place in the infobox than "Folk" or "Folk Rock" when talking about the mighty, diverse Zep. Doc talk 22:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention folk-rock or blues-rock at all. It does support the idea that these genres influence their music, but it doesn't come close to justifying it in the info box, in my view. And if you don't think that people call Led Zeppelin heavy metal, just do a google search on "Led Zeppelin" and "Heavy metal". I don't think that Zep is metal, but everyone else in the world seems to.LedRush (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You're both for grand personal statements with no real credibility to back it up. OK, just to align with the course of personal opinions flowing, I share the classic artistic viewpoint of not putting much importance on labeling an artist's music - everyone must have "their own sound". Simultaneously, I find it quite pretentious. It is as if the artist in question's creative process gets diminished and crippled if fans and media labels his or her music. At least "conscious", "caring" fans think it does. A tad ridiculous. Music can always be labeled to some extent, as an idea, an indication, a vague definition of the sound. I have my own band, and I always say we play rock towards heavier things like metal, somehow experimental and progressive, and I refer to a few bands that are influences. Why should someone else's labeling bother me? It doesn't cripple us when we rehearse. Of course, having endless discussions about some mere sub-genres in a box is also ridiculous when taking a step back and reflecting.

As for your objection to my statement, LedRush. Wikipedia already has tons and tons of original research in their millions of articles, good ones and featured ones. Do you need a RS that states that a chair is a basic commodity with four legs, a back and a seat? No, I'm not saying our discussion has the same level of certainty. I'm just saying it's painting by numbers in lack of a thousand sources. We have two. As for Led Zeppelin and folk rock songs, the number of songs very much exceed "a handful". I counted 18 from their first to Physical Graffiti that can easily be labeled folk rock. This is a consistency in their sound shown throughout many albums and not an eclectic leaning which they're also known for, like reggae. I don't know how much you guys know about actual music, but never downplay blues' role in Zeppelin's music. Consider it an advice for discussions in your real lives. Revan (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

300 million

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This issue has been handled. Further discussion is not helping to improve the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

---

To all supporters of the 300 million sales figure, I have a simple request for you. Find out WHERE the known vandal who initially added it to this article got it from. Had to come from somewhere, right? Otherwise, it's just vandalism with nothing to back it up. Find a source that predates its entry in this article. Any source. I don't even care if it's a reliable source. We can get to that later if you ever find anything, which you won't.

It is obvious to most impartial observers what happened. A vandal made up the 300 million sales figure and added it to this article. It remained there for months with no citation and no reverting. Sloppy journalists then used Wikipedia as a source and promulgated the phony sales figure. Now those articles are being used to support the initial vandalism. How anyone can support this is beyond me. Do we want truth in Led Zeppelin's article, or do we just want whatever makes Led Zeppelin look as awesome as possible? Do we want to be encyclopedia editors or fanboys? 206.216.34.251 (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we could discuss this more constructively if we did not engage in repeated personal attacks on each other.

Having said that, we have sources from early 2001 that say that Zeppelin sold over 200 million albums.[5] It is possible that with renewed popularity, a few new compilations and a new live recordings, that an undetermined "over 200million" became an undertermined "over 300 million". This is not necessarily a gain of 100 million records, as some have claimed. It could be 55 million (246-301).

In 1997, Led Zep has sold only 63.8 million in America.[6] In 2001, they had sold 103.5,[7] an increase of 40 million in the US alone in 4 years. It seems entirely plausible that from 2001-2005 Zeppelin experienced an explosion in global sales similar to what was experienced in the US from 1997-2001.

But in the end, global sales are estimates, so perhaps the nature of the people conducting the estimates has changed...I don't know. While I concede that it is possible the 300 number originates with Wikipedia, I don't believe it is proven, nor do I concede it is likely. And because the majority of incredibly reliable sources indicate the larger number, I think we are well within WP policy to state both numbers as the article does now (in fact, I think we are within policy to keep just the 300 million number, as others have argued for above, but I'll leave that argument to them.) LedRush (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, find a source that says 300 million prior to that figure's first appearance in this article. Did the known vandal who added that number have a crystal ball? Where did he get that number from? That is the crucial question. The RIAA updated their sales figures. That does not mean that Led Zeppelin sold 40 million albums between 1997 and 2001. That you could actually think that that's a reasonable scenario just shows how ignorant you are on this particular issue. Atlantic Records says that Led Zeppelin has sold 200 million records. Led Zeppelin's official website says that they have sold 200 million records. Who says 300 million? Sloppy journalists from the likes of CNN who use Wikipedia as their source. Notice how they never say where the number comes from. Ask yourself where someone writing copy for CNN would go to get Led Zeppelin's worldwide sales figures. There is no worldwide body for tracking such sales. They didn't go to Atlantic Records for the number. Atlantic Records says 200 million. They didn't go to the band's official website for the number. That also says 200 million. So where did they go? Have you noticed that some CNN articles says 200 million while others say 300 million? There are CNN articles from 2007 that say 200 million while CNN articles from 2005 say 300 million. Why is that? Where are they getting their info? Wikipedia, that's where. It just depends on what Wikipedia is saying at the time that the article is being written. Wikipedia is their source. The obvious truth of this is staring you in the face, you just have to detach from your obvious fandom long enough to see it. The only source we should be using to verify Led Zeppelin's worldwide sales is Atlantic Records. That means 200 million. 206.216.34.251 (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your argument requires a lot of assumptions, and I don't necessarily agree with them. Also, the official website says over 300 million here [8] and here [9]. That you claim that it doesn't shows: 1. you're cherry picking or not good at finding the numbers; and 2. you don't read the prior discussions on this topic.LedRush (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the pervasiveness of wikiality can be unsettling. Notice the dates on those articles. Both well after the initial edit in this article. So I ask again, was this vandal psychic? Could he see the future? You accuse me of cherrypicking, but you've done the same. See here [10]. Notice the date. There is far more legitimate support for the 200 million figure since it comes from Atlantic Records itself. The 300 million figure is a prime example of wikiality. I could never support an article for good or featured article status that has not excised such an egregious example. 206.216.34.251 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In March 2003, with the announcement of How the West Was Won and the Led Zeppelin DVD, Atlantic Records stated Led Zeppelin "has sold some 200 million albums worldwide." At that time their U.S. sales, according to the RIAA, totalled 105 million certified units (or 88 million albums). Since then they have added 6.5 million in certified units, bringing the total to 111.5 million units (or about 91.5 million albums). Total worldwide sales of 100 million albums during that time period seems highly unlikely, if not inconceivable. Piriczki (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I've presented the facts in a very different light than that. Regardless, it seems like the current approach in the article, citing both numbers, is a reasonable compromise. Do you have an edit suggestion, or are you just arguing the merits?LedRush (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• It definitely seems like a fair compromise to cover disagreeing sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm convinced there is circularity but since 300 is now found in what are considered reliable sources, a range of estimates will have to do. Piriczki (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather we take a stand against such an egregious example of wikiality. I'm not going to let some vandal succeed, if I can help it. I will never support this article for good nor featured article status as long as there is wikiality in it. This [11] is wikiality. That's what happens when we don't excise vandalism promptly. I ran that howler to ground. Purged it from four different Wikipedia articles. I regret that I'm apparently too late to stop it in Led Zeppelin's case. Wikiality lives. Especially when editors let it. 206.216.34.251 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't help but find it ironic and amusing that you settled with what I suggested all along. Standing ovations, guys! Revan (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I deem it necessary to state in the article that the 300 million sales figure is speculated circulation (stating that no source before the vandalism has stated 300 million), since the vandalism that started it not only affects the discussions here back stage but the information presented in the actual article. It is important not to forget that wikipedia does not have sovereign status that excludes it from the events it presents, but is a functioning element in the events. And no, it is impossible that Led Zeppelin has sold 10 million records a year for four years, completely outrageous. Sloppy journalism is an eternally more accurate explanation. Revan (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How about a parenthesis after "while other sources state sales of more than 300 million records" naming that none of these sources predates an unsourced and false entry made by a vandal at wikipedia in 2005, followed by the analysis that the 300 million sales figure implies that Led Zeppelin's sales sky-rocketed within a few years to impossible proportions after 200 million had been stated officially. The estimation is given in the article, but there is no need for the two figures to be equal. The vandalism that occurred is now significant to the band itself and warrants address. The goal is to eliminate 300 million altogether. Revan (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Another possible way of disrupting the balance that is now present between the two figures as a first step towards elimination of the 300 figure is to start off the sentence with "According to Atlantic Records and Robert Plant, the band has sold 200 million . . . while other sources state that" etc. I'm going to take the liberty to disrupt the balance unless someone objects soon. Revan (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Because we have just concluded a compromise on this issue, one which led to your block, I resisted comment as I felt the suggestion was merely a plan to incite more flaming and edit warring. I do not agree with any such edit and would rather the article go back to using the most recent RSs for the number of albums than citing an old article on what Plant thinks about how many records he's sold. Also, I find the reopening of this issue so soon after a consensus was reached as improper. I would also remind that you have been warned by an admin to stay away from me. Seeing as you know me almost exclusively from this article, I would ask that you try and remain civil and adhere to WP policies.LedRush (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I am not sure why you've gone from (incorrectly) gloating that the compromise was your idea merely 2 days ago to finding the compromise unacceptable now.LedRush (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Imagery suggestion

For the main page Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin discography, and the picture for Wikipedia: WikiProject Led Zeppelin, I highly suggest using the portraits from the How the West Was Won (Led Zeppelin album). I believe that there are many similar portraits of concept art around the concept of that album's art. This gives a good, equitable look at each member of the band, kind of like the image for Wikipedia: WikiProject The Who.Hoops gza (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

...Except the image you suggest isn't a free image, and you can't use album covers to identify anything but the album. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If we could use album covers the article would be full of them. Sadly they are not normally used outside of articles on the actual album.--SabreBD (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)