Talk:Led Zeppelin III

Use of discogs

Your attention is drawn to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 171#www.discogs.com : "I think it's pretty obvious that this not a reliable source. You can use it as a starting point for your research, like the IMDb, but do not cite it on Wikipedia. Editors like myself will automatically strip out any citation to Discogs" (from administrator NinjaRobotPirate) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 247#Discogs : "You can certainly cite the liner notes, but you don't need a link to Discogs - people can find it themselves if they need to verify. Information on Discogs that isn't in the liner notes would still need some kind of reliable source." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd thoroughly recommend discogs.com as a staring point, before rushing off to buy that over-priced original vinyl copy from eBay. It often has details correct that AllMusic has wrong, and often has items AllMusic has never heard of (especially vinyl issues in other countries). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, Allmusic has gone the way of the dodo bird as far as I can tell. That's why I never really understood the value of including any critic's opinions on an album or artist's wikipage, it's just opinion, not fact. Cheers! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Confusing wording

This bit: "Out on the Tiles" was written by Bonham, who came up with the idea for the riffs that run through the track

Well, he didn't write the song entirely? He came up with the title phrase but AFAIK Jimmy wrote most of the music and Robert the lyrics. Can this be reworded to be more accurate? Jules TH 16 (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Changed to "mostly written". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Zacron

@Perpetual24: What makes blog.musicroom.com a reliable source for a good article? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Hi Ritchie333, I know the article is correct because I personally know the people involved in that day's shoot(not the band). I believe the article was written by Andy Murray (https://4-tunes.com/about-us/) who I'm sure you would consider a very reliable source. He was a student at Leeds Poly whilst Richard Drew (Zacron) and Martin Salisbury were lecturers there and went on to have a very successful career in the music industry. Hope that clears things up.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetual24 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"I personally know the people involved in that day's shoot" - then you have a conflict of interest which may lead people to suspect your judgement is clouded, even if you believe it is not. Wikipedia is based on what is known about by the highest-quality sources (in this case, Dave Lewis); particularly since there have been accounts (particularly by Richard Cole) that have claimed to be true, only to be debunked (particularly by Jimmy Page) as completely false. If the information is correct, why hasn't a reputable book source cited it? Of course, if a reputable book source has cited it, great, we can use that - though I still think it doesn't require that much information as it's not a key part of the article. Ojorojo, do you have any thought on this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I checked some sources that I use and can't find any mention of Salisbury. Unless there is a reliable source (by the WP definition) for him, he can't be added. Even as a footnote, it would need something more than an unattributed blog as a source. An unanswered post in 2012 at the bottom states "This is the first time I have seen the photographer credited. all the press coverage gave credit to Zacron.", so it appears that others were unfamiliar with the claim as well. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Hi Ritchie333 and Ojorojo, I do appreciate your apprehension and vigour on this matter. I would not want to allow something untrue to be posted either. This is why I am trying to correct the post. Regarding personal interest, I see your point but this works both ways. It was in Zacron’s own self interest to advance his career and fame by telling an untruth. He did not do all of the illustrations on the LP cover either, he was assisted by Gloria Simons and John Daffen but that is another matter. The truth is easily misrepresented or glossed over. The Wiki article stated Zacron took the photographs, he did not. As such I am seeking to correct an untruth told be Zacron. I’m sure you agree falsehoods should not be perpetuated by Wiki. I would imagine Dave Lewis interviewed Zacron to research his book and was mislead. This a link to two photographs from the shoot by Martin Salisbury. They feature Jimmy Page with Zacron, demonstrating that Zacron was not the photographer: https://www.tumbral.com/tag/Zacron Here are three more examples where Martin Salisbury is credited with the photography: https://megarockradio.net/2020/11/18/led-zeppelin-led-zeppelin-iii-this-day-in-music-4/ https://wncmusicacademy.com/led-zeppelin-iii-reaches-1-1970-november-18-2015/ https://internetfm.com/today-in-rock-history-october-5/ There is little more I can do to prove my case, short of contacting Andy Murray and Dave Lewis, which I will try to do. I could get in touch with Charlotte Martin (Page’s girlfriend) as she was there for the shoot but feel that should be my last port of call. Thanks, looking forward to hearing your response. If you consider it is still not appropriate to credit Martin Salisbury could I ask that you ensure no credit is given to Zacron for the photography or illustrations. He was the designer of the cover and used other people’s work to fulfil his brief. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetual24 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Perpetual24: Ritchie333 hasn't got to this yet, but as a Wikipedia rated good article, it shouldn't have this info with source links to a blog, so I've removed it for now. The restored wording doesn't say who took the photos, so "no credit is given to Zacron for the photography or illustrations". Thanks for your patience. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Genre warring

There's been a genre war on this article over the past month and I wish it could stop. "41.246" is uncooperative. @Tkbrett should we do something? Carlinal (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Carlinal: Yes, the disruptive editor has been hopping IPs, leaving page protection as the only real option. I applied for page protection at WP:RPPI this morning. Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 15:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to confirm the comment from one of your earlier edits: 1991 version of Led Zeppelin: A Celebration by Dave Lewis is available through the Internet Archive. The text you quoted is indeed from page 49 (need a free account to access) and "Psychedelic folk" phrase is not in the book (there are 4 results for just "psychedelic" but they are unrelated to this album). AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 17:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that. Looking through the edit history, I see that Arwawe made this unsupported change back in 2018! Tkbrett (✉) 17:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to update, "41.246" also has the username HighPriestOfSaturn. Still uncooperative. Carlinal (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Binksternet, would you be able to help? I am on mobile and cannot easily report the new account, HighPriestOfSaturn. The editor's IP was blocked from editing this page for a month, but they circumvented that by creating an account and have continued to genre war. Tkbrett (✉) 12:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Heads up, Favonian range blocked the IP address from this page on the 25th, a few hours after the THPoS account was created. ——Serial 12:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Ping Favonian. Tkbrett (✉) 13:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at WP:ANI. Tkbrett (✉) 15:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Cool, this one is already wrapped up. Read a bit of it, thanks again so much for your efforts. I do find "whispy folk rock" to not constitute "psychedelic folk" on the basis of an adjective of a noun and not as a set phrase. "Psychedelic folk" is an established label while "whispy folk rock" is not. And I also find HPOS's explanations to constitute as original research. But enough talk, the genre parameter really is one of the least important details in any song or album article and this was definitely a genre warrior-based edit war. Hopefully all of this can be put to rest. Carlinal (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"We are your whispy folk rock overlords." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"How soft your fields so green, whisper tales of gore" Carlinal (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not like the Wikipedia is set on stone tablets, and things do change but IMO the genre of a a 54 yr-old classic rock album is about as settled a matter as can be. What an odd thing for this IP user to war over. Zaathras (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

As a user whose favorite bands include the Beach Boys, AC/DC, and the Who, I have to admit being a little jaded from any fandom related to classic rock. Y'know...boomer behavior and all. And since Led Zeppelin fits on TV Tropes' Law of Fan Jackassery, I could not be less grim about it. It's classic rock. Any articles related to such artists are bound to attract more...insistent folks around here. Carlinal (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The Songs section states: Led Zeppelin III marked a change in focus for the band, from late 1960s hard rock to a psychedelic folk and acoustic sound. The source (Lewis 1990 p49) doesn't mention psychedelic or folk. Should that sentence also be removed? Schazjmd (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have forgotten to actually change that. Tkbrett (✉) 22:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)