Jump to content

Talk:Jimmy Page/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

S. Flavius Mercurius

also known as Charles Obscure, S. Flavius Mercurius

!!!!!!

can i know who wrote that

is that a vandalism or he is known with these names

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

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

seperated or not

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

any news?

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

Jimmy and Jimena are divorced, as of 2008.

Les Pauls #1 and #2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 1)When Gibson made the 2004 signature they concluded that based on its construction it is a 1959. They originally though it to be a 58 but have stated otherwise know since they were able to open up the guitar. Also in an interview with Walsh (http://gc.guitarcenter.com/interview/joewalsh/) it is stated to be a 1959. He wouldn't get confused on the year when he only had it less than 10 years after it was made.
  • 2) There is no serial number on the guitar because the neck modification Walsh had on it erased the number so i am not sure what registry you could be looking at.
  • 3) The number one les paul is the guitar he used the most. That is the one he is showing in the video and handing over for gibson to make the signature model after. And it only has one push pull for out of phase. The #2 had all the extra push pulls and switches under scratch plate. Page in the video clearly shows the one push pull. The #1 is the 2004 signature model.
  • 4)why is everyone bring up acquired and given again. i am not arguing that fact...
  • 5) Also the higgs.com says the 2004 signature which is the #1 les paul is a 1959. Zoso313 (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

:::I have read the Higgs.com article and it says that it is a '58. It says that there is confusion that sometimes causes people to think it is a '59. Perhaps a re-read will clear that up for those still thinking '59. Joe Walsh never calls it a '59 in the Guitar Center article. The author of the article does. Like the other Gibson link I think that could just be a typo. Walsh probably never new what model year he owned. This model/year confusion is similar to the confusion over George Harrison's red Les Paul. His was always thought to be a refinished '57 Goldtop when, in fact, it is very likely that it was a refinished sunburst '58. Is there a link from Gibson that specifically states that they "thought" it was a '58 but now "know" it is a '59? The neck on No. 1 was shaved down significantly from its original state. A '59 or a '60 wouldn't have had near as much neck to shave as a baseball bat '58 neck would have so there would not have been that "significant" difference that turned Walsh off and made him keen to sell it in the first place. GripTheHusk (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Striking socks Rockgenre (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Zoso313, you can upload your picture using imageshack where no registration is needed. TheQueenCorner (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very strict about image sources. You can't just upload an image you've found somewhere on the internet and upload it claiming you own it. See: WP:FAIR, WP:COPYVIO. You need to clearly own/source images yourself. Or find them in the any of the available library sites that host free-use images. The photobucket image works great for this conversation. But it cannot be used "live" in the article because it against the rules to purposely link to an external website hosting images. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You can't upload it to Wikipedia itself as a display image, but you you could just load it to an image host and link it to the discussion area in case one certificate wasn't enough evidence. Is there anything else required in order to change the guitar date to 1959? Also, Tony Bacon's Book of Electric Guitars was published in 2000 which was before Gibson's inspection of #1 a few years later. TheQueenCorner (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The picture i have is of the same exact certificate, but the press release should be enough and its not a typo since the certificate is the same date( 1959). Zoso313 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

1960 Les Paul Custom (Black Beauty)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johnny Ramone and "punk" guitar, The Stooges, Mc5

Hi, I've been told i need to post here on the factuality of a claim, though cited,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See, not to offend anyone, but he didn't like these types of guitarists at that point it time, and didn't want to be like them. Shernoff was just speculating. --DavisHawkens (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Shernoff was clearly speculating, based on the text being referenced. I guess the issue is whether or not we want to include the speculation in the article. I vote for 'no'. Luminifer (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --DavisHawkens (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Above i meant as far as I know that its false.--DavisHawkens (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC) And for it to stay in I think there should be a better or more direct source stating the inspiration--DavisHawkens (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If nobody chimes in with a meaningful argument otherwise, here, on the talk page, we're going to have to assume implicit consensus, as there are no counter-arguments presented here. Luminifer (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

:::I had posted this directly to User:DavisHawkens' talk page but will copy it here to help all editors understand why it is wrong to remove cited text. And also to bring to everyone's attention that there is a video source with Johnny Ramon stating that he his own downstroke picking style came from playing Communication Breakdown constantly in his 'garage band' years prior to The Ramones. The original post is:

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

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

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

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

-Just read some mixed quotes from JOhnny Ramone, some that says he liked Page, but other times he was getting away from that and those other bands being his thing... So i guess its a mixed bag at the end of the day... --DavisHawkens (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I might suggest something like "at times, Johnny Ramone has acknowledged that he was influenced by Page, but at other times has flatly denied this" if you really feel like it. Luminifer (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, that would be good... I think u might be able to add it, yeah he seems to give a mixed response...--DavisHawkens (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any of the interviews to use as refs - I think it would be fine if you did it. Luminifer (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The quotes and links, and references are just above..--DavisHawkens (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion for a wording option is poorly composed (very unencyclopedic). It has the writing style of a junior high school student. You can't deviate from a cited text to create you own version. The wording that is already in the article is fine. And with Aussie Ausborn's suggestion it can be expanded slightly.

:::"Dictators bassist Andy Shernoff suggests that Page's sped up, downstroke guitar riff in "Communication Breakdown" is one half of the inspiration for guitarist Johnny Ramone's punk-defining, strictly downstroke guitar strumming. Ramones confirmed this in the documentary "Ramones:The True Story" (add book and video references here) That is as far as that content should be taken. And as watered-down as it should be taken as well. If you can find a quote from Ramone saying he didn't like Page it could be added as Ausborn's point/counterpoint agruement AFTER that other text. But it should be brief and referenced clearly. After that there is already too much text on the subject. I will change the text to match the references and clean out some of the off topic parts.(the part about Paranoid is completely useless in this article) Someone else can be polite and correct the video reference to the proper cite-video template for the documentary. Fair Deal (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If u don't mind me asking FairDeal, just to clarify, What exactly did Johnny say in the documentary, what were his exact words in the doc.? I'm reading alot of mixed information... This documentary is of interest to me... --DavisHawkens (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Fair Deal's compromise is the most common sense approach to the section and his/her wording should not offend anyone. 202.20.0.166 (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
What is Fair Deal's compromise? If you mean the current phrasing where it not accurately reflects the citation, that was actually my compromise if you check the actual history. If you mean something else, can you please elaborate? Luminifer (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Either way, I think the article is still trying to drive home the WP:POINT that Jimmy Page was more influential than he is. Luminifer (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Note: If u feel this "Point" is too in-depth, I will work further to condense, or if u feel its to POv Page inventing Punk... etc.. Just trying to fix... Please fill in the source and clarify what Johnny Said in the documentary... If there is a youtube link for the video, that would be swell, so i could follow up...--DavisHawkens (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a controversial topic. I think it definitely violates WP:NPOV to present references/statements that praise the subject of an article and to leave out contradictory statements. Why don't we remove the Johnny Ramone bit entirely? It really doesn't add a lot to the article. There are countless people influenced by Page (many more verifiably and absolutely), and they are not listed. I would argue that if anyone has a WP:POINT it would be whoever put that text there originally (ages ago).Luminifer (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is controversial, and am trying to keep it netural... also when i said "Point" i may have been referring to the wrong policy...--DavisHawkens (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If the only issue with the earlier reference was that it wasn't formatted correctly I have remedied that with the proper citation template. Also note another quick quote and reference was added. Hopefully this issue is now killed once and for all. You people have wasted a grand amount of time over nothing. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I am directed here from the BLP noticeboard and have just read the above discussion. I should note that I am uninvolved in this dispute, something of a fan of Jimmy Page's music myself, but not a highly experienced editor. I think I can safely say this is not a serious BLP issue (well it can't be as Ramone appears to have died in 2004, and there's certainly nothing negative being said), and more of a neutrality dispute. After the recent edits, the article seems to be making it clear that someone has said this about Ramone, not that his technique definitely came from Page. So it's not such a big deal I don't think, at least as the article is now. I guess there are two questions, (i) is the bit about Ramone given WP:UNDUE weight? (ii) Are the sources giving this text WP:RS (reliable sources)? I think the answers are probably "Yes" and "No." Not that I feel it really matters terribly -- there are plenty of other problems in the article that could be looked at first. My feeling is that Page's influence probably goes significantly beyond what the article shows, and this thing about Ramone is probably fairly minor. Does this help? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The biggest issue with any "Infleunces" section is that sometimes they balloon into fanboy cruft and peacock praising. This article's influence section is actually quite good... in that it directly quotes people and has a reliable source for their quotes. If someone wanted to be prickish and want to include negativity.. for negativity's sake... they could always add in that Jack Bruce says “Fuck off, Zeppelin, you’re crap.”... but what purpose would that serve?... none really... unless someone wanted to prove that Jack Bruce is a whiny old jealous prick whose inner envy of Jimmy Page is massive and he can't stand the fact that anything Page has been involved with has outsold anything he has done by 100 times over. But... like the superfluous Ramone "what-ifs" that sort of detail is better suited for the Jack Bruce article and not this one. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I pretty much agree here... However, isn't it sort of 'example creep'-y to have a 'theoretical influence' listed when it's so much easier to simply list actual influences (i.e. people who acknowledge the influnece directly rather than people theorizing that other people are influenced)? I feel that listing this, and not listing so many other influencees, may also violate NPOV. Luminifer (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
But, and this has been stated before.. several times, listing influencees of Johnny Ramone in an article NOT about Johny Ramone... is un-required overkill and superfluity. You wouldn't go to the Eric Clapton page and talk about Eddie Van Halen stating that he was his main influence... and then go on to list every other influence that EVH had when the article is supposed to be about Clapton. There is no NPOV vio there. If it's a direct quote... like this article has... and it's cited... it's just a simple little fact. Having the third party mention in this article is a bit awkward.. but... in the context that it is used... it just becomes a bit of poetic prose to act as an introductory sentence which gets expanded on on the next 2 lines... and then DONE, STOP, MOVE-ON to next influencee. Any section in this article could be trimmed. But it should still read well.. always. I've contributed to a lot of FA's. The initial aim should always be "cold, stale, referenced facts." But after that is done the article needs to have a complete "prose-wash" to make it read well. Small bits of artistic license can come into play then. That is the role that lead-in-to-Johnny line fulfils on this page. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry libs. I must have said that confusingly - I thouhgt saying influencees would make it clearer. What I mean is that Jimmy Page has influenced a LOT of people. There is no denying that. I'm sure that we can get a lot of notable people Page has influenced, and get first-hand sources where those notable people say "Page influenced me in such and such way". Given that, it seems odd that we need to include a second-hand influence at all - Page is so influential it seems like example creep to include anything but a first-hand referenced influence. Luminifer (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: First hand reference: "Page influenced me". Second hand reference: "Page influence this famous person who is not me". Luminifer (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
In addition, I'd like to state that I'm pretty neutral on this - I'm just trying to offer a compromise that might please everyone. However, a quick google shows more people citing that Ramone liked page than otherwise. Personally I don't know enough about the subject - all of the google sources (and even some that were put on the page) are not top-quality sources. Luminifer (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I actually wanted the Ramone being influenced by Page in there, and that he was inspired I actually added it to a point, but the vagueness of the Ramones- The True story footnote was not clarified whether he directly stated it, and thats what i thought was questionable, because i asked whether he directly stated it or not, and whether thats were he got it... There are numerous quotes that state his playing style was due to The Stooges, Mc5, and that he didn't want to play like the likes of Page, Jeff Beck, and I think that should be added to the article... That his technique was inspired because he couldn't play like him and didn't wanted to... Like a Response of sorts..thats what i added... This article is claiming that the downward Punk strum technique came from Johnny trying to play like Page... You see theres contradictory information that states otherwise, And I wanted that clarified for sure before that was given the full go ahead,.. But this article states directly that it came from Page... but I wanted that clarified that Ramone stated that... Thats a taboo thing to put in, and i wanted full clarification... or an ammendment stating it was because he didn;t want and couldn't play like the likes of Page... Ths sources that I listed above also state his playing was a backlash of sorts to this playing as Johnny thought the late sixties was to into solos and technicality.... You see whats presented is only one side of the story... when theres clearly more than meets whats already listed... An ammendment of sorts is still in order and the reliability of some of the sources on Page's wiki are a little questionable...--DavisHawkens (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, nothing more in order here. See above talk. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Unless you can come up with a way to very briefly and succinctly say what you want, we should either leave it as is, shrink it down (I'm all for that), or remove it entirely.. Luminifer (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Other than that, yeah, i'm kinda tired of debating this as well...--BernardMackintosh (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess we have two issues that are both being badly presented. (A) Ramone liked Page.. This one is pretty easy to back up it seems. (B) Communication Breakdown was the inspiration for the whole punk movement. This seems harder to back up, and is in my opinion more dubious :) I would not object to your change. Luminifer (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

2008 Divorce

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

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

Tim 10-22-09

Recent edits

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

If you read above, you will see that user Luminifer has shown reasoning why the information was questionable e.g. 'example creep' violation of 'WP:NPOV', and that it was forced in by sockpuppetry by accounts Wiki Libs and DavisHawkens. I also find it odd why admitted sockpuppets (Piriczki: admitted to be Les Fleurs de Lys :, is still editing, possibly 202.108.50.14 one of many IPs that have never been used before and new accounts created were strangly trying to keep it in, considering the circumstance it was forced in, and given it is said to be within violations according to the above reason. --RazerCrane (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Piriczki. RC's edits are suspicious, and lack an explanation. I've restored the sourced content. Perhaps we should take RC to WP:SPI. Deserted Cities (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It does not matter that Wiki Libs put the text in or anyone else. His sockpuppeting behavior has nothing to do with this, nor does Piriczki's. We block the sock, and the person engaging in the behavior can be allowed to continue editing under certain circumstances. I've reviewed the history, and what I see is removal of referenced content. RazerCrane, you do not have consensus to remove the material—yet. You are welcome to start a reasoned discussion about its removal that does not involve other editors and their behavior. Discuss only the merit of the content, if you would. If you continue to remove it, you will receive a longer block. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Texas, which forms Part of Greater London?

can somebody correct his birthplace? Pelzkragen (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No Introduction Necessary

This is a pre Led Zep album released in 1968 on Spark (SRLM 107) - I bought one in Leeds in the mid 1970s for 10p, they had piles of them! Also features JPJ (bass) on Everything I do is Wrong, Think it Over, Dixie Fried, Fabulous, Breathless, Lonely Weekend and Burn up. Although, this is pretty straight RnR "Burn up" has JP drawing in his Yardbirds and Zep sound to the track. And then there's Clem Cattini with a nice light touch not to mention Albert Lee (guitar), Jim Sullivan (guitar), Nicky Hopkins (piano) and Keith David de Groot (vocals). Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.75.24 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Wedding to Sharon Darlene Horsechief

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

Life within Led Zeppelin need expansion

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

Poor Wording in "Personal Life"

"From 1986 to 1995 Page was married to Patricia Ecker, a model and waitress. They have a son, James Patrick Page III (born April 1988). Page later married Jimena Gómez-Paratcha, whom he met on the No Quarter tour in Brasil.[107] He adopted her oldest daughter Jana (born 1994), and they had two children together; Zofia Jade (born 1997) and Ashen Josan (born 1999)." 

In the sentence "He adopted her oldest daughter Jana (born 1994), and they had two children together; Zofia Jade (born 1997) and Ashen Josan (born 1999).", the wording makes it sound like he had children with Zana because "they" in this case refers to both Page and Zana. A suggestion would be to replace "they" with "Page and Gomez-Paratcha" so as to clarify just whom you are referring to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.31.89 (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I.Q.

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

Need for new pic?

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

Notable guitars

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

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

LEGACY?! ...what legacy?

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

Dunlop Cry Baby?!

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

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

Jimmy Page

Was he part of the orchestra that played back up for Shirley Basse on GoldFinger? Signed motorcyclemalady@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.124.25 (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Irish Ancestry

His mother's maiden name is Gaffikin, which is an Ulster surname, derived from Gavigan. Would anyone object to adding the category "English people of Irish descent"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icegrommet (talk • contribs) 10:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Skiffle Genre Needs added

There is a YouTube clip of Jimmy at age 13-14, in 1957 on BBC1 playing "Skiffle" music, and the genre should be added to the sidebar. Here is a reference to the video: Jimmy Page 1957 [1] NativeSonKY (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal Life: chronology?

The personal life section jumps around between 1972 and 2008 quite randomly. Perhaps it should be arranged in a more chronological fashion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.234.196 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Genre order

More appropriate to leave heavy metal last, as Zeppelin are hardly known as a heavy metal band nowadays. Definitely more blues and folk. 108.81.33.59 (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The relevance/worthiness of genres are set by the citations and references. They are not, like 99% of this project, set by what we think, feel or believe. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Why no notes on Plagiarism allegations?

This guy is arguably the biggest rip off artist in all music.

"Led Zeppelin, notorious for stealing songs from obscure sources and sampling other people’s music, have been nominated for induction into the Songwriters Hall of Fame. They are on a strange list that also includes Madonna, whose songs have all been written by others including Stephen Bray and Patrick Leonard." Below is a not inclusive list of the songs in question, many of which resulted in lawsuits or monetary payouts.

Babe, I’m Gonna Leave You 1969 - Anne Bredon Babe, I’m Gonna Leave You 1960 Dazed and Confused 1969 - Jake Holmes Dazed and Confused 1967 Black Mountain Side 1969 - Bert jansch Blackwaterside 1966 How Many More Times 1969 - Howlin’ Wolf No Place to Go 1959 How Many More Times 1969 - The Yardbirds Smokestack Lightnin’ 1965 Whole Lotta Love 1969 - Willie Dixon You Need Love 1962 The Lemon Song 1969 - Howlin’ Wolf Killing Floor 1966 Bring It On Home 1970 - Sonny Boy Williamson Bring It On Home 1963 Hats Off to (Roy) Harper 1970 - Bukka White Shake ‘Em On Down 1937 Hats Off to (Roy) Harper 1970 - Oscar Woods The Lone Wolf Blues 1936 Since I’ve Been loving You 1970 - Moby Grape Never 1968 Stairway to Heaven 1971 - Spirit Taurus 1968 Custard Pie 1975 - Sleepy John Estes Drop Down Mama 1935 Custard Pie 1975 - Blind Boy Fuller I Want Some of Your Pie 1940 In My Time of Dying 1975 - Josh White Jesus Gonna Make Up My Dying Bed 1933 Boogie With Stu 1975 - Ritchie Valens Ooh My Head 1959 "I can't quit you baby" - Willie Dixon 1953 "Bring It On Home" - Willie Dixon 1966 (Dixon received an out-of-court settlement) "You need love" - Willie Dixon 1953 (Dixon received an out-of-court settlement)

Led Zeppelin also paid a settlement to the publisher of Ritchie Valens' song "Ooh! My Head" over "Boogie with Stu" (from their album Physical Graffiti) which borrowed heavily from Valens' song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.143.11 (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you have provided no reliable sources at all for your claims, there is currently nothing here that can be added to the article. Since your unsourced claims are also potentially defamatory, under WP:BLP they should probably be oversighted to remove them from the history of this page. Suggest you provide them here quickly if you have any. Dwpaul Talk 00:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Genre section in infobox

I have changed genres as Rock, blues and folk.

1) So there is no controversy over any of the sub genres, especially heavy metal.

2) It has been done for JPJ

3) It follows the genre template for the infobox musical artists. Template:Infobox musical artist#genre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalichudali (talk • contribs) 21:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Lori Maddox

Speaking as an avid enforcer of WP:BLP, this looks like a pretty solid source for the Lori Maddox story. Any reason why we shouldn't use it on the article? --John (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Because his fanboys and PR people are blocking it, and Wikipedia allows stuff like this to happen on a regular basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.108.7 (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I did wonder at that. We need to thrash out a compromise here on the talk page because it seems too significant not to include. --John (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
As an equally avid enforcer of WP:BLP, I fully agree with John above. I removed some of the content I considered non-encyclopedic, but the two reliable sources provided as references, Pan Macmillan and The Independent, are precisely that, reliable sources, and I'm pretty sure that their respective legal departments are well aware of what constitutes libel if that is the concern here. The edit summary given by the user who deleted the content – "no charges were ever laid" – is obviously not a valid reason for removing the content, which should only have been removed if it were "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The article in The Independent was published in 2007, and Page's lawyers have had plenty of time since then to refute the charge if they deemed it necessary. But it's actually irrelevant, beacuse our task here is to reflect, NPOV, what independent, reliable sources have already reflected in public. Wikipedia policy regarding BLP is clear on this : "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." (WP:PUBLICFIGURE).--Technopat (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Have since restored the content - perfectly sourced - with a minor tweak to "soften" it.--Technopat (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh... so now casually sandwiched between descriptions of various houses that he's owned, is a brief mention that he was accused of doing something highly illegal and morally reprehensible. I think there should at least be a mention of whether or not Page has denied the allegations or whether Lori Maddox has taken any sort of legal action or anything like that. 108.28.169.30 (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Wkipedia is not censored.

That's hilarious.

There should be a whole separate entry on the Lori Maddox affair. Far more minor subjects on Wikipedia have entries with pictures and dozens of links. This is censorship, plain and simple. 2601:9:2780:1E3:221:E9FF:FEE0:8C3C (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 2601:9:2780:1E3:221:E9FF:FEE0:8C3C (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The following paragraph was deleted several months ago under the rationalization of WP:BLPCRIME. However, BLPCRIME does not apply when both the person and the allegation have been covered by notable sources. I therefore think that the coverage should be re-instated as it has been covered by multiple sources (such as rolling stone), even if the truth of the matter cannot be established. It should be covered not as fact, but as a notable allegation, which is fair game for famous individuals. Wickedjacob (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

In his Led Zeppelin unauthorised biography Hammer of the Gods, Stephen Davis has alleged that Lori Maddox related how in 1972 Richard Cole kidnapped her on Page's orders and brought her to the Riot House when she was a 14-year-old.[1][2] Maddox claimed she fell in love with Page almost immediately. She also told how she had to be locked up, albeit willingly, most of the time so that word of this illegal relationship could not get out.

References

  1. ^ Davis, Stephen (2005). Hammer of the Gods: Led Zeppelin Unauthorized. Pan Macmillan. ISBN 9780330438599.
  2. ^ "Led Zeppelin: There was a whole lotta love on tour". London: The Independent. 7 December 2007.

Multi-instrumentalist?

In the lead section, Page is described as an "English musician, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, and record producer". However, after doing a little research, it appears to me that Page is purely a guitarist. Despite not knowing a lot about him, I believe the word "multi-instrumentalist" should be removed. Kranix (talk | contribs) 18:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the only member of Zeppelin who fits that category is John Paul Jones. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Jimmy Page's first solo single featured him playing guitar, bass guitar, and harmonica. Page also played harmonica and sitar during his years of session work. When he joined the Yardbirds, he did so as a bass player first. During his time with Led Zeppelin he also played mandolin, banjo, theremin, hurdy-gurdy, and overdubbed synthesiser (he owned an ARP synth and Hammond organ). During the Page & Plant years he played a Mellotron on "Shining in the Light". 216.171.205.9 (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Potential IP Vandalism

There's a repeated pattern where an IP address user will make an edit to the page to delete the section regarding Lori Maddox (see above), immediately make an additional minor edit to the page (such as correcting a spelling or grammar mistake) and these will be the only edits that user will ever make. To me this seems very much like an experienced individual (or individuals) deliberately editing a page to remove a sourced entry which potentially reflects badly on the subject of the page (often using spurious and incorrectly followed wikipedia policies to justify their edits) while doing the bare minimum to avoid having their edits reverted by the vandalism prevention bots.

There have been at least half a dozen incidents of this so far, plus one incorrect addition of a Disputed tag (without any such dispute being started on the talk page). I'm raising this just so people know to look out for it and are ready to revert the vandalism if it happens. Personally I'd be happy to have a proper Dispute raised so it can be discussed and resolved properly but that's certainly not been the pattern of the IP edits so far (many of whom later end up blocked as being proxies). Antonine (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Lori Maddox revisited

The Lori Maddox incident is no longer covered in this article; was there a consensus to remove it.? --Zfish118 ⋉talk 06:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  • WP:NOTSCANDAL - "Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." 91.65.193.206 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    • See the above debate on this page. This is something in a published biography and given the nature of what was alleged it's significant enough to merit a mention as an allegation. It's not just gossip, it's not being presented as undisputed fact, but it is significant enough and has sufficiently citable sources to merit inclusion. If you think this isn't the case then restart the debate above rather than just make changes unilaterally. It also looks rather suspicious when you're not a registered user and have no prior edits. Antonine (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Added another reference. I suppose there will always be questions about Cole's recollections, especially about the whole 'kidnapped'aspect. Karst (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Maddox/Mattix

I don't want to get in edit wars, but the current understanding is clearly that the girl was called Mattix. It's not just Thrillist, but also Metro (http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/27/jimmy-pages-ex-lover-claims-david-bowie-took-her-virginity-when-she-was-14-5647078/) and Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2915901/Led-Zeppelin-heyday-girlfriend-14-limos-young-groupies-middle-class-girl-25-fallen-71-year-old-Jimmy-Page.html). Jalwikip (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those are reliable sources. And other editors on the Talk:David Bowie page considered it all to be unreliable I'm afraid. Karst (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going into a discussion on whether these sources are reliable. But the women has a Google+ page (https://plus.google.com/116441264649926535585/posts) and a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/lorimattix) that says "Lori Mattix". Of course it's possible she has changed here name and in the 70s she actually was called "Maddox", but hey, I won't try to fight the reality distortion field any longer (here nor on the Bowie talk page). Jalwikip (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Relationship with Lori Maddox

I have edited the article several times in the interest of clarity to better define "illegal relationship" so that the reader understands that in California the age of consent is 18 and that is what would make a relationship of this type illegal---as in a violation of the law which is specifically detailed in the California Penal Code 261.5 PC. Readers need to understand why the term "illegal" applies here in the biography and under which jurisdiction the act is subject to because the same behavior may not be illegal in other nations or jurisdictions. If this same "illegal activity" were done by a politician or other person; Wikipedia would obviously permit this pertinent fact to remain no matter how unflattering it might appear. The constant removal or editing of this clarifying information is in my view vandalism and failing to clarify why this relationship was "illegal" (ie., female younger than the age of consent) is fair and factual information. Under the California penal code a person under age 18 can not legally consent to a sexual relationship even when that under-aged party submits to it willfully. These laws exist to protect children and the history is what it is so leave that information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A89C:CC00:390A:54F2:CFDC:5366 (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The original version (simply "illegal relationship") may have been more concise, but I agree about expanding it. There's no harm in elaborating why it's illegal. clpo13(talk) 23:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I do not see "illegal relationship" to be concise at all. That is like saying "Mr Smith was stopped for illegally driving a vehicle"-- without mentioning the fact that Mr Smith stole the vehicle. In the interest of making everyone fully aware that in California the law recognizes no defense or excuse for sexual relationships with minor children, I feel that the article needs a bit more in elaborating as to why this was illegal. As I mentioned before, in other cultures and other parts of the world people under the age of 18 are legally permitted to consent to sexual relationships, so this needs to be expanded in such a way as to make it less vague. Do we need to bring up other notable cases in California where celebrities such as Roman Polanski and Michael Jackson were either prosecuted or criminally investigated for similar acts and/or alleged acts in order to make the point here that Jimmy Page's wilful conduct was considered criminal? If Wikipedia is to have any credibility, these biographical articles must be much more than "puff pieces" being edited and controlled by adoring fans. So how about changing it to: "Illegal relationship with a girl under the statutory age of consent in California"? This just makes much more sense, especially to a global audience who might otherwise have to guess why the relationship is being described as illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A89C:CC00:35FF:DE5B:ED04:B51F (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The source clearly says Lori Maddox was 14 years old. The source clearly says that the relationship was being kept secret and for obvious reasons; because sexual relationships with children (people under the age of consent) are ILLEGAL. This would be considered illegal criminal activity, child abuse, sexual abuse, statutory rape--- choose any terms you like, but it was that due to California's penal code (i.e., criminal statutes). The article starts out with people agreeing that the relationship was "illegal" but then fails to explain why it was illegal under California law. And now you go and edit to make it even more vague and possibly send the false message that sexual relationships with 14 year old girls and adult men is not illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A89C:CC00:6440:F9B0:35A8:B39F (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Source does not use the word illegal. So any use of WP:OR to state in wikivoice it was illegal is a violation of the WP:BLP. Biographies of living people are subject to discretionary sanctions. Consider this your *only* warning. As the subject has neither been accused or convicted of a crime, stating they engaged in illegal acts is a BLP violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The source claims that Lori Mattix herself admitted to a "relationship" with Jimmy Page which Page and his handlers were interested in keeping from the public. Mattix herself also claimed to having her virginity previously taken by David Bowie. Many sources from that time have called 14 year old Lori Mattix a groupie who followed this band. The allegations from the Rolling Stone article and others are that this "relationship" was sexual and would therefore under California law be considered a statutory rape of a child victim. Since the wiki page includes the Lori Mattix story, it should be made clear what the "secret relationship" was about and the alleged illegal activities by Mr Page otherwise why have the mention of the Lori Mattix relationship in the firt place? Lori Mattix was not a notable public figure then or now, clearly the notability is about an alleged illegal relationship and therefore why it is included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A89C:CC00:B022:7A20:51A0:5650 (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Source does not use the word illegal. So any use of WP:OR based on California law to state in wikivoice it was illegal is a violation of the WP:BLP. I suggest you read the associated links. Unless a reliable source refers to it as illegal, we do not do so. Nor do we allege criminal behaviour. This is the third time I have told you this. I will not do so again. Note BLP violations are exempt from WP:3RR so I will just revert any non-compliant edits by yourself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
So them my question to you would be this: If another source is provided which uses both the terms "illegal" as well as "sexual" in regard to this so called relationship between Mr Page and the alleged under-aged Hollywood groupie Lori Mattix, then that will be permitted to remain the the wiki article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A89C:CC00:B022:7A20:51A0:5650 (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
It depends on the source. Absent an actual criminal charge, BLP's generally do not contain allegations by third parties of 'illegal' behaviour. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but quotes from one of the parties involved would not be considered 3rd party would they? And also why is the entire 'Hammer of the Gods" not considered a 3rd party in the first place based on what you are stating here? And what of the numerous photographs taken of Mr Page in the company of teenaged Lori Mattix along with other well known Hollywood groupies like 'Sable Star'; do these not have any bearing on at least the theory that there was a relationship going on between Page and Mattix? Since they photos are probably copyrighted---although shared all over the internet they probably can't be included in the wiki article, or can they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A89C:CC00:B022:7A20:51A0:5650 (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
So why all the fanboy re-edits regarding this topic? If Maddox was 14 and Page was 28 we all know what the means. Just because no criminal charges were filed--- we still know what that relationship was. According to Richard Cole, Maddox AND the date this alleged relationship took place it means Maddox would have been 14 and Page 28 years old. No need to gloss that over; it is linked to statements made in books and news articles, and it clearly says "alleged". Stop trying to clean up the language so to make it seem like "private hotel relationships between a adult men and teenaged girls" are as nebulous as the Page fanboys would like to maintain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.117.222 (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Page/Archive_2&oldid=1265208346"