Jump to content

Talk:Jimmy Page/Archive 2

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

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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Jimmy Page. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

Jimmy Page played the Theremin and the Mandolin too.

Jimmy Page played the Theremin in the song 'Whole Lotta Love' and he also played the Mandolin as seen is several shows in 1977 when Led Zeppelin played 'The Battle of Evermore'. These can easily be seen on Youtube. He also did backing vocals in 'Whole Lotta Love' too. Bloshicana (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

His theremin playing is mentioned in the article where it is supported by a Guitar Player article source. But, curiously, his mandolin playing is not mentioned, so I think you'd need to add a reliable source, i.e. something better than a quick mention here of YouTube videos. But these are hardly instruments for which he is notable, so not sure that either should appear in the infobox. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nobody is saying he doesn't but, Per Infobox musical artist#instrument, secondary instruments should be brought up in the article body, only primary instruments go in the infobox. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Page regularly (always?) played the theremin in concert, so it's not some obscure instrument that he happened to use on one recording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.98.60 (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is not what instruments did Page play or not play, the issue is which are primary and which were secondary, period. Primary instuments can be listed in the infobox, secondary instruments are to be brought up in the article body. Per Template:Infobox_musical_artist#instrument Mlpearc (open channel) 22:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Not really here, is he? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC) p.s. it's spelled with two e's.
Should be (IMHO). Mlpearc (open channel) 22:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jimmy+page+theremin&biw=1440&bih=759&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiN6Mq8ztjOAhXCOhQKHbCBD10Q_AUICCgD

Enough said. To suggest the theremin wasn't a notable instrument of Page's is ridiculous - and really petty and wrong to remove it, as it is well documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.98.60 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Who has said that ? Are you reading what is here ? Mlpearc (open channel) 22:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The infobox guideline includes:

the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance ... exclude any unnecessary content.

"Key facts" is mentioned twice. Playing a theremin is not a key fact in the article. The sole mention is "Page also played a theremin." If this were an important point, an entire section would be devoted to his theremin playing – techniques, critical commentary, testimonials from other players he has inspired or influenced, etc. To include theremin (or mandolin, banjo, steel guitar, etc.) in the infobox alongside guitar would overemphasize its importance. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Harmonica

I think you should add harmonica to the article per his interview here: [2] Any thoughts? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting interview. Instruments mentioned in the infobox are those that the subject is notable for. Jimmy Page is not notable for his harmonica playing. Karst (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree. John Bonham played spoons and castanets on "Bron-Y-Aur Stomp"? But we don't include those in his infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Correct, we dont include minor (or rarely used) instruments in the *infobox* however it may merit inclusion in the article proper. Was it a one-off? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I also agree, all notable instruments Page plays should be mentioned, but only primary instruments go in the infobox, in this case "only" guitar should be in the infobox per Template:Infobox_musical_artist#instrument. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

God bless the child...

God bless the child... who edit protected this page. Cheers! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I've started a related conversation at ANI : see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV pushing IP on Jimmy Page Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016


THIS HAS TO BE WRITTEN IN THE LEGACY AND INFLUENCES

[1] Alex lifeson said, "led zepplin was an enormous influence and jimmy page particularly for me was probably the biggest influence as a buddying guitarist. When that first record came out in early 1969 or in the fall of 1968 in canada i remember going down to therecord shop and standing in line and waiting to get a copy because it was only available in import and immediately went over to geddy's and we sat and listened to it a million times over. How many more times was the one song that had the biggest impact on me. It was such a cool heavy song and then jimmy page played the first time the guitar solo with a violin bow and that just absolutely blew my mind. Of course i ran out and got a violin bow and tried to emulate him and what happened really was i got all the sticky rasin all over my guitar strings and i had to take my guitar strings and i had to take my guitar strings and boil them because i couldnt afford guitar strings."

Bijaykhanal (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Not Done - Lifson is already mentioned in the article. The above it perhaps better placed in his article. The Youtube link does not work, likely copyvio. Karst (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Editors please stop editing relationship with Lori Maddox

Many contributors have attempted for years to clarify the relationship between Jimmy Page and Lori Maddox/Mattix aka: "Lori Lightning" who was a well known Hollywood groupie familiar to many in celebrity and Rock and Roll circles in the Hollywood Los Angeles area in the early '70s. In the article in mentions "kidnapping" which actually defames Jimmy Page and creates a sense of willful violence which DID NOT OCCUR. My edits in order to point out that under-aged Lori Maddox was a groupie is only to show to anyone unfamiliar with the incident does not get the impression that Lori Maddox was just some young girl abducted off the street. If the 'fan boys' would just leave this alone it could finally be put to rest. Otherwise a WP article will be created about Lori Maddox which will include many references to her own words in interviews and other main stream articles which talk about the so called "kidnapping/Riot House" incident which would be much less complimentary to Mr. Page and his personal decision to have a relationship with a 14 year old girl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:CC96:7FFD:5F77:AD4C (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article for three days to stop people edit-warring over this. Frankly, I think we could delete this entire paragraph and the reader's understanding of who Jimmy Page is and what he does will not be lost and it will be a stronger adherence to BLP. Discuss. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks and I agree the section should be removed - I kept it as it appeared to be the consensus. The Maddox affair has been an issue since 2013 as Archive 2 of the Talk page demonstrates. Since then the section has been reverted numerous times. In July 2016 a stable version emerged after this discussion. There is a clear pattern where where an anon IP appears, accuses the other editors and changes the language of that specific paragraph without discussing it on the Talk page or trying to reach consensus. Hence the request for permanent protection. Karst (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is a "stable version"??? That just sounds like weasle-speak to me. What Mr. Page actually engaged in at the time was under California Law, as it is still, a crime. However in the interest of clarity all I did was point out that Lori Maddox aka "Lori Lightning" was at the time well know as a teenage Hollywood groupie who in her own words lost her virginity just prior to meeting Jimmy Page by fellow rock and roll star David Bowie. What was included in the last edit was just clarification that Lori Maddox was not forcefully kidnapped, or violently abducted by Jimmy Page's road manager. For anyone who might have thought that was the case was the reason for the added clarification. The other parts of my edit also reiterated the "under-aged" aspect--- as in illegal activity of the type of relationship anyone over 21 would be having with a 14 year old girl. Some of you guys crack me up with your overt protectionism of Jimmy Page. The history is what it is and it is Mr. Page's history, even if this type of behavior wasn't uncommon at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:C0B9:61EE:DB07:8054 (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm generally of the opinion that it is UNDUE, however almost every biography mentions the relationship. What *is* certain is that Page was never charged, questioned or even investigate regarding anything 'illegal'. Which is what the various (probably same) IP's have been trying to insert over the years. Either by over-emphasising how young she was, overt comments towards 'illegal' activities as the above IP does here etc. So frankly if there is consensus to remove it completely, great. We are not a red-top gossip rag. If its due to stay, the minimal factual description as has been reverted to multiple times is the least objectionable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is just more weasle-speak. Just because Jimmy Page was not charged does not make his behavior (having a presumed sexual relationship with a minor child) not illegal. In more than one interview Lori Maddox has said her relationship with Jimmy Page was sexual--- THOSE ARE HER WORDS. Does that mean they really happened? No. All the reasons why charges may have never been brought may be many. The police at the time probably never knew about the relationship (it was as the WP article says being kept secret). This is not gossip, this story is corroborated by MANY sources and perfectly fair game for a WP article. It is if fact in the article. It is not "over-emphasis" to point out that Lori Maddox was under 18 years old and Jimmy Page was nearly 30 years old---those facts based on the year this allegedly took place are not "over-emphasis". I find it so ironic that in today's world where even "sexual" communication (texting/sexting) with a minor can land someone in prison, and rightfully so, that having any meaningful inclusion of the facts surrounding the Maddox story is being considered distasteful. My challenge to any TRUE Wikipedia contributor would be to ignore the systematic attempts by the hordes of Jimmy Page 'fan boys' and/or planted "P.R" people from Atlantic Records from continuing to slant this article in order to mitigate the damage to Page's character for ever having even considered having a inappropriate relationship with a child. Any true Wikepedian should want to EMPHASIZE the fact that Maddox was under-aged AND that a relationship of this type was illegal, regardless if any criminal charges were ever filed or not. To do otherwise only discredits Wikipedia from being a source for information no matter what that information may be. If all the Jimmy Page article is going to be is a "puff piece" then what makes Wikipedia different from some fan magazine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:EC92:3EEC:D2F7:6889 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Dismissing others as fanboys and planted PR people is not helping your case and does not demonstrate that you are here to reach consensus in any meaningful way. Neither do you seem to be willing to adhere to the policies that Wikipedia has outlined on biographies of living persons. In essence, your behaviour simply supports the case for permanent protection of the page. Karst (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Speak to the issues being disputed in the article which is Jimmy Page having an illegal relationship with a minor child and the clarification of that in the WP article. This isn't about me or my "behavior", nor is it about the defenders of Jimmy Page (people I have called fan boys and/or PR people for Page). This is about including in the article CLEAR language about the incident with Maddox, and that it was illegal. The "consensus" should be about credibility in Wikipedia articles and not about avoiding the uncomfortable reality of a "culture of sexual abuse" with women and children in our society or by rock and roll stars in the '60s and '70s or beyond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:a8b4:a700:ad45:3955:9b88:6717 (talk) 00:28 2 November 2016 (UTC)
People have spoken to the issues and responded, over a period of time. You appear not to be listening. Many editors have told you 'no' now. I suggest you take this page off your watchlist as it is highly unlikely you are going to get your way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Since July 2013 to be exact. And it all points at Richard Cole as the source again. Who is deemed to be wholly unreliable. Karst (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
So are you seriously going to claim that Richard Cole is lying about what Lori Maddox (the willing victim) has said IS TRUE for the past 40 years? There are many photographs of Jimmy Page with Lori Maddox from that time. And while they do not prove an illegal sexual relationship, one would assume they corroborate the FACT that a 28 year old man was not just hanging out with a 14 year old child to talk about comic books. I think you are proving my theory about 'fan boys' disrupting this WP about Page. To reiterate the point: LORI MADDOX has said she had sex with Jimmy Page and other rock stars when she was a child. Unless your claim is that Richard Cole is paying Lori Maddox to lie then I don't see where you have any credibility in your last assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:64FC:709D:486D:A1F6 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Time to end this conversation. The IP is exhibiting classic IDHT behavior and is approaching, if not already, a BLP violation, verging on defamation. General Ization Talk 21:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not as au fait with the Zep backstory as I really should be (the only good source I have is Dave Lewis' book which is about 25 years old now) but I'm familiar enough to know that I wouldn't trust Richard Cole as far as I could throw him and it should absolutely never be used in this article as a source - ever. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the controversy is here. It's pretty easy to simply google Jimmy Page Lori Maddox to see pictures of them together when she would have been a teenager. There's also a Rolling Stone story about her and another story about her and David Bowie. It's pretty well accepted that they had a relationship when she was in her early teens, Cole's account notwithstanding. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
You are correct, there is no real controversy here, all of this information is already out there and has been for decades. What is at play here is likely 'PR' firms for Mr. Page and Atlantic records attempting to "clean up" the WP article. In a video interview widely available on Youtube groupie Lori Maddox can be seen discussing her relationships with Jimmy Page and David Bowie. Maybe in the interest of "consensus" somebody with access should link that youtube reference to that section of the article about Lori Maddox and thus allow readers to decide for themselves and then have their own opinions on the behavior of Mr. Page and his so called "willing victim" Lori Maddox. Otherwise a WP article probably should be made about Lori Maddox where her own words and links to many more interviews would be provided which would not therefore be a conflict with WP biographical policy, which I don't agree exists anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:40D2:A606:AD3E:6FE7 (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
An article Maddox is unlikely to pass the general notability guidelines and has previously been deleted. See this AfD. Karst (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Weasle speak" or not, this has gone on long enough and I'll add longterm semi-protection to the article. There is a general sense that this violates or can be seen to violate BLP, and that's enough to deem the IP's edits counterproductive, to put it mildly. IP, no matter what TRUTH you're advocating, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that means that such things need to be hashed out on this here talk page--it's as simple as that. When there is a consensus that the content is fine and should be included, it will go in. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • And since this has been going on for a while, I see no reason for the semi-protection to have an end date: it will end when it ends, and/or when an administrator deems it's ended. Next admin: no need to ask me or notify me--if you think it's time to unprotect, go for it: I trust your judgment. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that. If nothing else, this will require that the IP-hopping OP actually register an account and maintain some continuity (and assume some responsibility) if they want to edit this article further. General Ization Talk 16:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Just an observation based on the previous talk page discussions linked above and diffs in support. In the July 2013 discussion, John (an admin) said this source (still being used in article) "looks like a pretty solid source for the Lori Maddox story." And this content is what was in the article at that time. The content has been removed and the wording tweaked over the years and "illegal relationship" finally emerged as a stable version. In this diff, July 2016, Only in death removed the word "illegal" with an edit summary of "word not used in source", which was technically true because the Rolling Stone source was at the end of that sentence. However, the other source listed above and which was in the article at that time and had been since July 2013, cleary states - She also tells how she had to be locked up, albeit willingly, most of the time so that word of this illegal relationship statutory rape could not get out - and then in the July 2016 discussion, it was repeatedly argued that "Source does not use the word 'illegal'" and it's WP:OR, in spite of the fact that the other source did support the content, but it just wasn't placed at the end of that sentence. So, I understand this is a content dispute and consensus will decide what wording and/or sources will be used, but just to be clear, there has been a source in the aricle for at least three years, and is still there today, that describes it as an illegal relationship and statutory rape. And the Rolling Stone source would also support identifying Maddox as a groupie. Here's another source from NPR that says he was committing statutory rape.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The issue with the Independent article is that it is largely based on Cole as a source. The Ann Powers article is very interesting, but more of an Op-Ed piece. It would have be useful if there had been some sort of court case. The arguments by Only in death are compelling and apply here. Without a response from Page himself or any charges being brought it is going to be difficult to be specific here under BLPCRIME. Karst (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
My comment was not meant to endorse or validate the IP's agenda or edit warring, nor was my comment an endorsement of Richard Cole. It was merely to provide some background and context in how/why this content dispute has developed and simmered over the years, and that sources have used those descriptive terms. My personal opinion is that this content should be removed, Page will be remembered for his music, not this. And if the consensus is to retain the content, then there should be a response from Page about the book, since it's mentioned in the article. Besides his quote about throwing it into the river, in 1994, in an interview with Mat Snow from Mojo (magazine), Page said some pretty harsh things about Cole and the book.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
False logic. To say. "Page will be remembered for his music, not this" is just about as absent of clear thought as saying,"Caesar will be remembered for unifying Europe under Roman control and not for crucifying 2000 slaves." WHAT HAPPENED HAPPENED and personal choices to engage in illegal behavior with children is something noteworthy. The only reason it is being suppressed is because Page's PR people need it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:4D2E:8775:CF97:190 (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with most of the editors above. The disputed section should be removed and the article permanently protected. 172.10.43.16 (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be tons of sourcing about the Lori Mattix (note spelling) story. There's an interview here where she talks about the "kidnapping" (not an actual one in my reading, she got in a limo with Page's manager to an unknown destination until she reached Page's room). There's a whole chapter about Mattix in Pamela Des Barres' memoir "Let's Spend the Night Together" that discusses Mattix's encounters with Page at length, and the band's concerns about her being underage at the time. I don't know how relevant it is to the overall Page biography but I'd say it's well documented. (Note, I have nothing to do with the other IP, I got here because of the ANI thread). 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The 2015 Thrillist article has the headline "I Lost My Virginity To David Bowie" - that hardly comes across as a a reliable source, I'm afraid. And while Kaplan presents an entertaining read it all amounts to very little. The Bowie aspect was removed from his page (see the discussion here). I agree with your assessment on the 'kidnapping' and that this is too strong a word. Karst (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like the July 2016 "stable" version was this and the edit war at the time was 2605:* wanting to state Mattix's age in the section multiple times instead of once, and also to infer illegality by reference to the California Criminal Code. 2605, the problem with referring to the criminal code is WP:SYNTH, i.e. we're not allowed to draw conclusions like that by ourselves (the conclusions have to be sourced). It occurs to me, another issue might be that many of the accounts come from Mattix herself, and her own reliability isn't that clear. But Des Barres corroborates some details in the VH1 documentary made from the book mentioned above (youtube v=SnViqstGsYs starting 7:20 in the video). Des Barres also uses the word illegal in her book and makes clear that it was a real issue at the time. 2605, are you willing to reach some kind of compromise wording? That's what wiki editing is about. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Des Barres is not a neutral source - she is a jilted ex-lover of Page. YouTube is not considered a reliable source. 172.10.43.16 (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Well wouldn't you say Lori Maddox is a reliable source? She is the 14 year child who was kidnapped and taken to Jimmy Page's hotel room. And while Youtube isn't generally a source, if the Youtube video is a documentary where a person is heard saying what occurred, that's just as reliable as a notated source on a wikipedia page as far as I'm concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:9073:3898:EB8F:9306 (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It is a WP:PRIMARY source. As this is a BLP article and it involves a contentious issue that had led to the permanent protection of the page, I would be very reluctant to include it here without any secondary sources. Karst (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
There are scores of sources about the illegal relationship between Jimmy Page and Lori Maddox. Not only Maddox's own testimony, but the corroboration of people who worked for Jimmy Page/Led Zeppelin, club owners in Hollywood, other groupies, PHOTOGRAPHS OF PAGE WITH MADDOX--- just lots and lots of sources pointing to a relationship that if true would be considered statutory rape of a minor child. Clearly that would be a very ugly reality, however continuing to ignore it and worse still allow PR people for Page drive the narrative is complete sham for anyone who wants Wikipedia to be an unbiased source. I don't understand what the problem is here? Mr. Page like all of us made his own choices in life, it is not up to Wikipedia to shelter him from those choices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:F94D:7DB:AB3E:50D7 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:LASTWORD much? Karst (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2016

Page later married Jimena Gómez-Paratcha, whom he met in Brazil on the No Quarter tour.[171] He adopted her oldest daughter Jana (born 1994) and they have two children together: Zofia Jade (born 1997) and Ashen Josan (born 1999).[172] Page and Paratcha divorced in 2008.

Jimmy Page never married Jimena Gomez-Paratcha. They were together but never married. And so they did not divorce in 2008 as they were never married. Please change this. I know this to be a FACT. Paddyknows2016 (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done-Can you provide a link to a reliable source, so it can be verified before it is added? If not, the change won't be made. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Lori Maddox alleged statutory rape by Jimmy Page discussion

Not enough details on the Lori Maddox rape. Same girl who by her own admission was raped (statutory rape under California law) by David Bowie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:B1DF:B3B0:28B4:A6BD (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the place for salacious WP:POV. Why not try somewhere more sympathetic instead? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 21:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jimmy Page. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2017

In the "Legacy and Influence" section, there is a typographical error in the first sentence. The phrase "musical piers" should read "musical peers" Charleschace (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

BLP Discussion

Due to the ongoing issues RE Maddox, I have opened a discussion at WP:BLPN in order to get a wider BLP-centric viewpoint. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you seriously revert my edit on a talk page? He raped a child - that's established in sources and is clearly stated on the page as it currently exists. Whether he was charged or convicted is irrelevant; if reliable sources said that he took a pack of gum from a store without paying for it, it would not be a BLP violation to discuss his shoplifting. I was merely asking why his child rape was listed under "Partners" as if a child could (either by law or by common sense) meaningfully consent to be the "partner" of a fully-grown adult. Roy Moore's similar child molestation is not hidden away in a "Personal Life" section; why is Page's? 50.79.5.81 (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
It's very much not "irrelevant". But, for info, perhaps you could share those sources here? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The sources are already in the article. The paragraph I'm discussing is already in the article. I do not believe it needs major changes, though I would certainly not protest if it got longer and went into more depth. However, it absolutely should not be the third paragraph under "Partners". A rape victim is not a partner. 50.79.5.81 (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd disagree. Unfortunately, many rape victims are partners, or at least start off as such. I think it might still be useful to assess the sources here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Contentious claims whose sole source is an "unauthorized" celebrity biography are to be avoided. Collect (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That's one of three sources given. Also, it's already there, and has been, in roughly the same form, for years... or rather it was, until someone deleted it without discussion less than a minute ago. All I am saying here is that a 14 year old cannot consent to be anyone's "partner", and that the paragraph in question therefore belongs in a separate section. I really don't understand why people are leaping out of the woodwork to say that someone who is - according to his exhaustively vetted Wikipedia page! - a child rapist should not be called a child rapist, but that's not even the issue here. 50.79.5.81 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
(ec) I agree, and I've removed that section per WP:BLP. The book is an extremely weak source for basically accusing a living person of kidnapping and sexual conduct with a minor. There are citations to articles by the Independent and Rolling Stone, but their sources appear to be just the same book. Additionally, our text was almost a word-for-word plagiarism of the Independent article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
That text has been there for years, and half of the archived talk pages were about coming to the consensus that it belonged there. Removing it without discussion simply because I asked it to be moved to a different section is clearly uncalled for. How can something be "based on one source" but also be plagiarized from a different source? It's not a WP editor's job to fact-check the Independent and Rolling Stone - they are, to my understanding, both well-established as reliable sources. 50.79.5.81 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm just saying that Page has no convictions for child rape. And I'm crawling at best, not leaping, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Poorly cited BLP material can be removed on sight, same as copyright violations and vandalism. It is absolutely our responsibility to assess the sources we are using. Even normally reliable sources can produce garbage, and we shouldn't use them blindly and without common sense. I just explained that the Independent wrote about this, citing the book. Their article is still a copyrighted work that can be plagiarized. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Roy Moore also has no convictions. A substantial section of his article is devoted to the recent allegations of child molestation, which came out long after the statute of limitations in Alabama and cannot and will not ever be prosecuted. Wikipedia has means and methods to handle this sort of thing in biographies of well-known living people. We cannot and should not call say "Jimmy Page is a child rapist", but we do have to recognize that multiple fact-checked publications have repeated serious and credible allegations which amount to child rape. It is frankly irresponsible not to do so. Please, by all means, clean up the material that amounts to plagiarism, but removing it is not an appropriate response. 50.79.5.81 (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Best discuss Roy Moore at Talk:Roy Moore, as he is just WP:OSE? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm merely presenting him as an example of how allegations of child molestation can be handled without violating BLP. As OSE says, "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." 50.79.5.81 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jimmy Page. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

TIME TO REVIST JIMMY PAGE'S RELATIONSHIP WITH A 14 YEAR OLD GIRL

The page needs to be improved to provide more detailed information on Jimmy Page's relationship with 14 year old Lori Maddox (Mattix) given the current interest in sexual abuse cases in the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.249.19 (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Bass guitar

Someone added bass guitar to Page's "Instruments" and then it was removed. It is pretty well known that he played bass guitar with the Yardbirds so I think/feel that it should be added back. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, but you need to find the source of this so that it can be added. Danny231 (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Session work

It says in the article that Jimmy quit doing session work in 1966, but he still guested as a session guitarist on other people's records as late as 1975. If you look at his Discogs profile, you will see what I mean if you click on Instruments and Performances, meaning instrumentation and/or performance. True that Led Zeppelin was his priority, but neither he nor John Paul Jones abandoned session work altogether and hey, even John Bonham did session work in his own right. 203.221.15.210 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Page appeared on You Bet Your Life - posted 7-4-13

Small "factoid" and new trivia for your next party conversation - in my early 20's and while watching late night TV after work one night, I watched a re-run of Groucho Marx' old show "You Bet Your Life". A young teenaged Jimmy Page was on as a guest with a rather large Gibson jazz-style guitar - perhaps a L5. It was blonde-finished (hard to tell with black and white TV). Jimmy already had some long hair going on, and Groucho was quite courteous in his interview. Jimmy played a little bit, and even then he was amazing. I would guess Jimmy was roughly 16 - 18 years of age - the show likely recorded between 1962-1964, just prior to the Yardbirds. I have only come across a few other people who know of his appearance on "You Bet Your Life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liljimpea (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Beck, Annetta Beck & Jimmy Page

Jeff Beck's sister Annetta introduced him to Jimmy Page in Epsom when both were teenagers. Both had homemade guitars.

←Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Lori Maddox

I'm really confused why there's no mention to her at all in the article, not even listed in the "Partners" section. I looked over the archived discussions and 90% of that seemed that the only real debate was on HOW she should be included, so as to be neutral and not come across as too inflammatory (or to be too biased in protecting Page's reputation) but there is no real explanation for leaving her out altogether. Even Rolling Stone admits that he was sexually involved with her, not to mention own testimony regarding their time together. On top of that are multiple secondary sources. Even IF someone wanted to argue (somehow) that Ms. Maddox, the Rolling Stones, and all of the secondary sources on the matter are not reliable, that hasn't stopped Wikipedia from including allegations against other people, such as Bill Clinton or Donald Trump and simply labeling them as "allegations" and letting the readers for deciding their validity for themselves.

Basically my question is: how do we include her in this article in a good way and NOT just remove all reference to her completely? Et0048 (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Well assuming you have read archive 2 - which includes numerous comments from myself and other editors over the years regarding this, the problem is not including information, its that once it is included, it basically attracts constant editors attempting to turn it (the section) into a hit-piece. Frankly the only reason I didnt revert it when it was removed (as it had been in the article in one form or another for a number of years) is that I thought it was worth a try just leaving it out. Its largely irrelevant to the subject in the greater scheme of things and is basically (admittedly well-documented) gossip. Since the article has been stable for what, 4 months now, I would suggest if you want to include it - to do it formally via an RFC. Firstly just an RFC that is simply 'should she be mentioned' then if that turns out yes, propose a wording and take it from there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I very strongly agree she should be included - pretending a well-documented allegation doesn't exist isn't NPOV any more than claiming it as certain truth is - but not in the "Partners" section. A teenager cannot consent and cannot be an adult's "partner". 50.79.5.81 (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a clear consensus that the answer is include in response to the question "Should Lori Maddox be mentioned in the article?"

Snow Rise noted, "as a review of the talk page archives demonstrates that it the specific description which has often frustrated efforts to add the information". How Lori Maddox should be mentioned should be discussed further.

Cunard (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Per @Only in death:'s request, I have formally included a request for comments regarding Lori Maddox's inclusion in this article. The reasons I give are listed in the above "Lori Maddox" section. To summarize them briefly, his involvement with her is well-documented. Even the Rolling Stone publication has admitted to the facts of the nature of their relationship. The biggest reason she has NOT been included, according to the discussion above, is because of the back-and-forth edit warring that went on regarding HOW to include her. I believe that the difficulties in reaching an agreement on how to include her in the article do not justify leaving her out altogether.

For the reasons above, I have created this request for comments to answer the following question: **Should Lori Maddox be mentioned in the article?** (We can leave the "how" to a later discussion IF the consensus here is "yes." For now, I just want to see if there is a consensus that she SHOULD be included). Obviously my vote is "yes." RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC). Et0048 (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2018 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2019

Jimmy Page's birthday is today. He is 75 now. Mind editing his age, Wikipedia? 74.134.73.254 (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

associated acts in infobox

Before I start meddling with it, I figure I'd ask about the seemingly random order of the listed associated acts. They do not appear to be listed in any particular order. Surely, Mr. Page is most closely associated with Led Zeppelin, and after that, the Yardbirds? I suspect search results, and any other metric we could contrive, would reflect this. Failing some sort of consensus on order of importance it seems it should be either chronological or alphabetical. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Height?

How tall is Jimmy? Trying to compare against, say Angus Young at 5'2", or Hendricks at 5'11", as per their preferences of guitars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.35.147 (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Upgrade Partners section to controversies

Look it is pretty horrifying that the fact Jimmy Page committed statutory rape on a minor, is just casually mentioned in a section about "Partners"

Please rewrite the section.

2607:FEA8:591F:BD00:F18B:73E4:975F:BE00 (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous Legacy of Jimmy Page

There is absolutely no evidence Yngwie Malmsteen was influenced in the slightest by Page, that given link leads to a general artist page on Allmusic that says NOTHING about his influences. Malmsteen has gone on record countless times mentioning Ritchie Blackmore, Uli Jon Roth, and Jimi Hendrix...he has never once mentioned Page, and even his references to Led Zeppelin are very rare and never particularly complimentary. This needs to come down, as it is feeding the public false information without a leg to stand on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRogers666 (talk • contribs)

It might be helpful to resolving this issue if you could clarify where in the article it says that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Alleged rape of child history

Can the section dealing with Jimmy Page's involvement with raping a child be expanded upon? There must be more this very important detail in his history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5B02:703C:94B4:DBAB:E093:20A4 (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It's given due coverage, more would be WP:UNDUE. What kind of pervert wants more details about a rape, anyway? Skyerise (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This thread should be headed "Alleged rape of child history", as there have been no charges, let alone any conviction? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Bass Guitar

Page is known for being the temporary bass guitarist for the yardbirds, therefore he is known for playing bass guitar, there are also images of him playing the instrument — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80s Sam (talk • contribs) 11:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2021 and 14 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Drealynne. Peer reviewers: Majids21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2022

Hi, this is Dr. Tim Hughes, of the London College of Music at the University of West London. (You can check my CV at academia.edu here: [3]) Before I moved to LCM, I worked at the University of Surrey in Guildford (where Led Zeppelin played their first gig under that name). I see that you've listed Jimmy's honorary doctorate that he received from Berklee, which is certainly prestigious. However, his first honorary doctorate came from the University of Surrey on Friday June 20, 2008. I was fortunate enough to be his guide for the day. I'm sure that he and his family would appreciate its inclusion, as it's essentially his neighbourhood university. It was important to him at the time, I think, but even more so for his elderly mother, who attended the ceremony. So I'd appreciate it if you could add that, perhaps just before his appearance at the Closing Ceremony of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing later that summer.

All the best,

Tim 82.15.107.18 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you can provide a source for that then it can be added. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Here's some. I'm not going to vouch for their reliability, though.
[4]
[5]
[6]
Kiwipete (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
It's confirmed on University of Surrey's website: [7] IndigoBeach (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2022

"Page is prolific in creating guitar riffs and his varied style involves various alternative guitar tunings, technical, and melodic solos coupled with aggressive, distorted guitar tones as well as his folk and eastern-influenced acoustic work."

This sentence does not read properly. Perhaps a word has been omitted after "technical", or perhaps the comma after "technical" should just be removed. A comma after "riffs" would also benefit the sentence. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:178:C78D:1A4B:8DBF (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a link to a ecommerce shop, not an information resource about him. Should we allow this? 2001:4C4C:2083:BD00:0:0:0:1007 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I think we shouldn't, because of WP:ELNO. So I have removed it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://youtube.com/_vztAmtWZI8

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2024

Addition of the following in quotation marks to the Signature Models section of the Guitars subheading in the Equipment and techniques section:

"In 2024, Gibson revealed an exclusive to Gibson Garage London and Gibson.com recreation of Page's 1969 EDS-1275 double-neck, limited to 50 total models as a Collector's Edition version. Said recreation, according to Gibson themselves, utilises "new 3d scanning techniques and ultra-precise Murphy Lab aging techniques" in order to make the guitar as close to the original as can be tastefully achieved. Each model is individually played and signed by Page himself.[1]"

This is the only edit I request. TheCrusader6472 (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.gibson.com/en-GB/p/Electric-Guitar/Jimmy-Page-1969-EDS-1275-Doubleneck-Collector%E2%80%99s-Edition,-Signed,-Exclusive/Cherry

Discography (with Robert Plant)

The Honeydrippers: Volume One, (with Robert Plant) Release: US 24 September 1984, UK 12 November 1984 

    Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Honeydrippers:_Volume_One

No Quarter: Jimmy Page and Robert Plant Unledded, Release: 31 October 1994 

    Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Quarter:_Jimmy_Page_and_Robert_Plant_Unledded BronyraurME (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@BronyraurME: What's your point? - FlightTime (open channel) 17:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Buddy Holly didn't play a Telecaster (early life section)

"but his first solid-bodied electric guitar was a second-hand 1959 Futurama Grazioso, later replaced by a Fender Telecaster, a model he had seen Buddy Holly playing on the TV and a real-life example of which he'd played at an electronics exhibition at the Earls Court Exhibition Centre in London." - is simply wrong.

Buddy Holly DID NOT play a Telecaster, no photos can be found, no verbal writings that say he played a Tele, it is well known he was a Fender STRATOCASTER guy. NO WAY Jimmy saw Buddy playing a Telecaster. Hemidean (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Page/Archive_2&oldid=1259496217"