Talk:Iron Maiden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iron Maiden article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	Iron Maiden is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 31, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 8, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 9, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted November 4, 2006 Featured article review Demoted January 14, 2007 Peer review Reviewed Current Status: Former featured article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Heavy Metal      (Rated B-Class) Heavy metal Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, an attempt to improve articles related to heavy metal music. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia. WikiProject England      (Rated B-Class) England Portal This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

This Arts article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents 1 Influences 2 17th century torture device?? 3 Urgent!!!please read!!! 4 Maiden covers performed by other bands 5 Archived 6 Logo/Band Picture 7 News Item Inappropriately Included in Article 8 Made In Tribute: A Tribute To The Best In A Whole Goddamn World! 9 2007 Tour and some other things 10 Infobox image 11 All CD's creates an artwork 12 Genre(s) 13 Too many dividers? 14 Significant Edits Imminent 15 A Matter Of Life and Death 16 Punk overtones? 17 Question 18 New Tour 19 Iron Maiden tourography 20 Fair use rationale for Image:Iron Maiden - The Number Of The Beast.jpg 21 Fair use rationale for Image:Iron Maiden - Powerslave.jpg 22 Fair use rationale for Image:Iron Maiden - Fear Of The Dark.jpg 23 Fair use rationale for Image:Iron Maiden - A Matter Of Life And Death.jpg 24 Number of the Beast 25 Michael Kenney 26 "Bring Your Daughter..." B-sides 27 Hmm 28 English English makes no sense 29 my last edits were deleted? 30 deleted AGAIN? 31 Iron Maiden Sound Description Paragraph 31.1 Features in almost all Iron Maiden music 31.2 Features in some Iron Maiden music 32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iron_maiden_%28torture_device%29#Requested_move 33 Somewhere Back In Time 34 Requested move 34.1 Survey 34.2 Discussion 34.3 Vandalism 35 Charlotte The Harlot. - Number of Installments? 36 QUESTION about "Influence" 37 Album sales 38 Proposal: Reason for relplacing the original lead singer 39 Grammar Police! 40 Painbearer's/Mad Hatter's changes 41 New Wave of British Heavy Metal 42 Heavy metal music 43 "Wasting Love" 44 Tours? 45 Years active 46 History of Rock

[edit] Influences

IIRC in early interviews Harris was always citing Tull, Priest, Sabbath, and UFO. 65.51.22.212 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 17th century torture device??

It says under "The early days (1975–1978)" [...] and so the group was christened after the 17th century torture device.[3]

But the page for the torture device clearly states this was not invented until the 19th century??

85.165.206.77 (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article in question is currently disagreeing on that subject. Flaminglawyer (talk · contribs) 03:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent!!!please read!!!

well its not really that urgent, just a change if anyone can make it please. when you search for "iron maiden", you get taken to the disambiguation page. could anyone please change this so that when you search for iron maiden you get taken to the bands page, and then theres an option at the top of the page to be taken to disambiguation? thanks

thanks to whoever that was. btw im adilghanty

I'd like to disagree here. I feel that a search for iron maiden should go to the disambiguation page first, not to the band. If the purpose of wikipedia is to be a neutral source of information, then it should not alter search results based on personal bias. 128.12.194.20 06:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ok see your point (adilghanty again) but honestly most people searching Iron Maiden would be looking for the metal band; unlikely that theyr looking for the others, but i could be wrong:P

I see the point. But it's easier to write "Iron Maiden (band)" than "Iron Maiden (torture device)". So In my opinion, it should go to the disambiguation page. Urik urgenturgent u suck and charleton heston and maiden rulz roflcopter carelton dude lolz--E tac 06:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't think it is unreasonable to have the band be the first result that comes up. Just a guess, but I'm thinking that the vast majority of searches for "Iron Maiden" are for the band and not the torture device. BryanJ 03:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maiden covers performed by other bands

Since a lot of bands seem to have covered songs by Maiden, I'd suggest a section which lists all these. A seperate article would be fine too. I guess they are very likely to increase so an a seperate article would be good.

Here are some i could think of now:

• aces high - children of bodom
  
• children of the damned - therion
  
• Fear Of The Dark - graveworm
  
• Flight Of Icarus - etos
  
• powerslave - darkane (mistagged a lot as CoB)
  
• the trooper - CoF
  
• wasted years - helloween (couldn't confirm this)
  
• Entire Number of the Beast - Dream Theater
  

all songs from, A tribute to the beast album all songs from, The Piano Tribute to Iron Maiden album and Numbers From The Beast album

there'll definitely be lots more —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.1.192.6 (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

There already is a page dedicated to them (check the bottom of the page) -TheHande 10:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't see this seperate page you're talking about. I can only see "Numbers From The Beast" and "Piano Tribute" mentioned under "See also". IMO, there's enough Maiden covers to make a separate article for it.

Agreed. Plus Hallowed be thy Name was done by Cradle of Filth. Tom walker 10:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If I remember well there was an article like that, but it must have got in the way of deletionists. :-( --x-Flare-x^{Talk) 18:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What about The Trooper by Sentenced, often mistaken as being covered by Children Of Bodom Vulcan5978 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Vulcan5978Vulcan5978 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A whole variety of stuff by some string quartet... Benhudson4 10:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think there is a hip-hop tribute to iron maiden

And there's “Remember Tomorrow” by Opeth --Evilone 10:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentenced covered The Trooper during their melodic death metal era. I have never heard of a CoF cover of that song. Zouavman Le Zouave 06:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archived

It was high time to archive the talk page. -TheHande 10:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo/Band Picture

Should I add the bands previous logos and pictures of the band line-up over the years in the biography section? And shouldn't the main picture be the band's current logo and a screenshot of the band from their latest album? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Defunct Lies (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] News Item Inappropriately Included in Article

Why is there a press announcement under Download 2007?
"Following the official announcement this evening on BBC Radio 1's Zane Lowe show"
Can anyone confirm the actual date of this? --Chrisirwin 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Made In Tribute: A Tribute To The Best In A Whole Goddamn World!

http://www.discogs.com/release/384453

Shouldn't that album "Made In Tribute: A Tribute To The Best In A Whole Goddamn World!" be mentioned? It's a Maiden cover album by various death/black metal atists. I couldn't find it mentioned in the article (didn't read it all, just checked a bit). :p

[edit] 2007 Tour and some other things

Figured it made sense to refer to the new tour as a tour not 'download and the odd other gig' since that's what it is and that's what Maiden's calling it.

Lets divide up history a bit better. Firstly we can slap dates on it. I think for now the basic thing ('creation' 'early success' 'golden age' 'experimentation' 'decline' 'reunion') is fine...but lets clearly divide it into eras a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Elfoid (talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Infobox image

Wheres Nicko? Hopefully a free use image can be obtained with the entire band.--E tac 11:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Or Bruce, for that matter. I'm going to see if I can find a free image to replace it. --Mark ^(Talk) 17:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was the old one removed? I thought that was preety fine190.48.29.68 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The old one wasn't fair use. A user who is currently blocked from editing Wikipedia evaded his block to try and re-insert it with a false edit summary about being administrator approved. But it was still a policy vio and was reverted. Free use images will always win out over images that are fair use. If a better pic is desired then someone will have to go out and take one themselves. 156.34.221.2 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All CD's creates an artwork

Okay, my english sucks so this will maybe suck but I hope that you will understand. If you have all Iron Maiden cd's and in order so you can see the back of the record sleeves, doesn't that form some kind of artwork? --Jocke666 13:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, with the 1998 remastered editions. It's a closeup drawing of Eddie. Hardly important enough to be put into the article though. -Mark ^(Talk) 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth adding to the Iron Maiden discography article though, it would be better than having the Different World single cover on it on the top.--E tac 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre(s)

I think we need to have somewhat of a vote on what genres Iron Maiden fall into, as there seems to be a lot of arguing on the page. I think the three current genres sum Maiden up best - Heavy metal, NWOBHM and Hard Rock. The other ones that are repeatedly cropping up are progressive metal, classic metal, power metal and speed metal, although I especially disagree with the last two. Thoughts? --Mark ^(Talk) 15:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I go for Heavy metal and NWOBHM only. Iron Maiden have a lot of influences from other genres, and some of their songs have elements that incidentally could be labeled as progressive metal, classic metal, speed metal and Hard Rock, but those influences should stay out of a strict genre definition. Additionally, I think both terms are the universally recognised main genres where the band is usually labeled, thus being excellent candidates for consensus -- · Ravenloft · ^{· (talk) ·} 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

HM and NWOBHM are enough. The rest are either false or just simple superfluity. 156.34.222.15 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. --Mark ^(Talk) 22:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that they should also be labelled prog metal simply because their last three albums plus seventh son of a sevent son and the x factor are very proggresive.

I think Iron Maiden are heavy metal, at their core. That's the only one we NEED up there. Anything else is a nicety. Them and Def Leppard are the only real survivors of NWOBHM and both have changed hugely since then - we can't really judge if they fit any kind of mould for 'NWOBHM survivors) so they fit in there. It means I think they must have the 'classic metal' tag though too - as genre definers.

Iron Maiden's never really done anything hard rock. Some Virtual XI could be called it, but nothing else. The album's un-characteristic sound for the band, low sales, experimental nature and the fact that it only JUST could be called hard rock means I don't think so. Speed metal too...Be Quick or Be Dead's bloody fast, but other than that, The Trooper, Aces High and Run to the Hills I can't think of any.

A Matter of Life and Death is a progressive metal album in a lot of ways. The X Factor, Virtual XI, Brave New World and Dance of Death all had elements of it too.

NWOBHM, Classic metal, progressive metal and heavy (The Elfoid 09:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Infact, after more thought...let's divide it up by era. List NWOBHM/Punk-Metal (early material), classic/heavy metal, progressive metal (recent material) (The Elfoid 13:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

Heavy metal and NWOBHM are the only 2 genres that should be in the infobox. Technically NWOBHM isn't even a genre - it's an era, but IM are tied to it so closely that it might as well stay. Classic metal is one of those "teenage twit" genre labels invented to try and appease young people who can't grasp that heavy metal started in the 60s and not the 80s. Prog metal shouldn't be used simply because the band have never played Prog metal in their entire career. Keep it simple it's just an infobox. Heavy metal/NWOBHM and that's it. Fair Deal 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with the above; keep it as Heavy metal and NWOBHM. It's template guidelines to give the most general genres and discuss others the band may be associated with in the article to avoid confusion. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 21:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, they are DEFINITELY prog metal. Even Nicko McBrain admitted it [[1]]. Matt-san 11:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He never uses the term Progressive metal in his interview. He makes a comment about one album containing "progressive stuff" and that's it. And the album he's commenting on is not a progressive album in any way. Even with elements of, as he calls it 'progressive stuff', the album is still a straight heavy metal album. The band's first 2 albums contained "punk stuff"... but they certainly weren't a punk band. Any genre other than heavy metal and NWOBHM is just superfluity and clutter. Previous concensus is still the best way to convey the information. 156.34.142.110 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe their later work is very much "progressive metal" by the wikipedia definition. If Queensryche are considered pioneers of the progressive metal genre then Iron Maiden's later works fit, and they are also listed on "Progarchives"[2](One of the biggest prog sites). It would make sense to put "progressive metal" on their later albums. Zanders5k 03:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Progarchives is an amateur fansite and and does not make for a good source. Read WP:RS. Professional publications and books are good references not online fanzines and webzines which are rampant with copyright violations. 202.160.48.156 04:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned out one "term" that had been incorrectly used in the past. Like Motorhead and Def Leppard and similar acts the term is beeing identified as just that... a term. The field is for genres. I've argued for keeing it their in the past but... consensus is consensus and the term is being rm'd from every other page so I jsut made this one consistent. 156.34.216.115 (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I Think it does the band a disservice not to list them also as progressive. With every release since Bruce and Adrian returned they have continued in the progressive vain of SIT and 7th Son (not to mention the x factor). In countless interviews various members have emphasized the progressive nature of the band, and of course the major influences on band founder Steve Harris are early Genesis, King Crimson, etc. Sure, they are part of NWOBHM (a better and more descriptive label than simply heavy metal), but what really separates them not only from other New Wave bands like Def Leppard, but also bands like Judas Priest, Motorhead etc, is the epic/prog nature of the song structure, and the focus on issue and literature based lyrics. A lifelong fan and follower of the band, I think we should use the term progressive to describe them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.230.27 (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you anyway, as I don't personally think they're much of a progressive metal band. But even if their more recent albums are progressive metal, it's still not really appropriate to put the genre on the band page as that. The only term that really describes them for the duration of their career is "heavy metal" and I think that should be it. Maybe you can get a consenses to call some of their waftier albums (I'm thinking The X Factor or A Matter of Life And Death) prog metal if you really wanted to, but it's still not a great word to put on the band page since it simply doesn't describe a large amount of their material. ~ mazca ^talk 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Iron Maiden are british heavy metal Grandoldman (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the term Progressive Metal best reflects the band, they are not strictly heavy metal, it is such a general term that really does little to separate them from so many other band. Sound and influence (on) they have much more in common with bands like Dream Theater (who often perform thier songs) 70's Rush, Queensryche, etc then they have with say Motorhead, The Scorpions, etc. The band's own statements reflect this, and if I were to describe them to the uninitiated (as I assume wiki is supposed to do), this gives a much more vivid portrait of what Iron Maiden sound like and represent. -Will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.230.27 (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with progressive metal is that it is wrong and does not apply to them. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 09:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many dividers?

I think that splitting it up album by album's too much. I also think that it should be split up differently. While I am aware Dickinson's arrival was the most important lineup change, I think 'Early Days' should cover the first three albums. Following this we should have the Piece of Mind - Seventh Son lineup's albums. I know it only removes one divider, but I still think it would be a valid change.

If people approve this, perhaps others too? We could easily put Iron Maiden/Killers under one heading, Piece of Mind/Powerslave, Somewhere in Time/Seventh Son, No Prayer for the Dying/Fear of the Dark and The X Factor/Virtual XI. Why? There's few major changes during those times, particularly to the band's sound. Since the reunion is worth of it's own paragraph and the newest album (it's their most critically acclaimed since Seventh Son, and sales are the highest they've been in a long time) too I suppose Dance of Death should get one. Unless someone thinks we can stick it into the 'reunion' paragraph.

Early Days, Classic Era, Troubled Times, The Blaze Bayley Era, Reunion and A Matter of Life and Death/Recent Events as dividers?

(The Elfoid 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Significant Edits Imminent

Just a forewarning - I'm gonna make this article less biased and more streamlined towards IMPORTANT details since it's bloated a bit. One paragraph per album is excessive given they each have their own page. (The Elfoid 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] A Matter Of Life and Death

"A successful North American and European tour followed, during which they played the album in its entirety, a first for the band. The band have announced that a live album recorded from this tour will be released" This seems a little off, as I believe Powerslave was also played in its entirety but I'm not sure. The quote is not cited anyways, just wanting some clarification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.166.228.229 (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

No, Powerslave was never played in its entirety. There are a couple of songs from that album which have never been played live such as Back In The Village and Flash Of The Blade, if I remember correctly Andyjohnston.net 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In my knowledge, it was the first time they played it entirely live (ie in order), however I could be wrong. Mark ^(Talk) 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't provide a citation, but I know the band repeatedly went on and on about the idea of playing it in entirety being a first. Maidenfans.com/imc has old setlists, go look there.

But do we need to say that a live album will be released? After Maiden got back together in 1999, they said each album tour from then on out would have an accompanying live album - which it has (Brave New World/Rock in Rio, Dance of Death/Death on the Road, A Matter of Life and Death/new live album). Given we already know that, why add this?

(The Elfoid 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Punk overtones?

Although Iron Maiden are a heavy metal band, influenced by Thin Lizzy and Deep Purple, their earlier music had punk overtones...

I am referring to this line here. Is it really necessary? I for one do not hear their earlier music as being punk music.. — Prodigenous Zee - 15:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. The line has often confused me. Agent Blightsoot 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be removing it if nobody opposes. — Prodigenous Zee - 04:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove! Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 11:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that was punk about early Maiden was the vocals on the first 2 albums.--E tac 20:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A record label approached them saying they sounded kinda punky and their singer was punky, and they'd get signed if they went "full punk". And the band mentioned how Paul Di'Anno looked and sounded very punk too. He exaggerated this later, so it probably comes through in lyrics he wrote too. Music journalists on the Early Days DVD mention them sounding punkier too. (The Elfoid 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

I see. I'll change it accordingly. — Prodigenous Zee - 08:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR unless there's a reliable source? ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 18:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Although Iron Maiden are a metal band Paul Dianno always said he was more into punk music rather than metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.196.154 (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Shouldn't the torture device get priority over the band? Don't get me wrong, I love Iron Maiden and Heavy Metal, but the historical significance of the torture device seems to outrule a band, no matter how badass...Cameron Nedland 13:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No. The band is much more notable than the torture device, there are so many more people searching for the band when inputting Iron Maiden, than are searching for the historical torture device. ≈ Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 13:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, searching for 'Iron maiden' gives the torture device. 'Iron Maiden' gives the band, thats how it should work giving priority to the torture device. ≈ Maurauth ^{(talktome)(wha?)} 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then.Cameron Nedland 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How many torture devices sell 85 million albums? :P (The Elfoid 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

After listening to their recent stuff, I'm starting to think about merging the articles. -- Stormwatch (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps going out on a lmb, but i think the first album demonstrated what happens when you combine 70's prog influences (harris) with punk attitude and energy (Dianno, Murray). Intentional or not, the first album does sound sort of punkish... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.230.27 (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Tour

Maiden have announced a new tour Matter of the beast. Combination of The Number of the Beast (25 years since release) and new album AMOLAD. Should this be added somewhere?? Vulcan5978 19:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

A sentence or two'll do fine (The Elfoid 22:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Iron Maiden tourography

Thank you to whoever directed me to this page.

Who is deleting the Iron Maiden tourography link, and why?

Reference: http://maidenshows.ryasrealm.com/masterlist.htm

I am a published historian who has been working on Iron Maiden's tourography for the past 2 years. In my research, I have collected and reviewed thousands of primary resources to correct commonly propagated errors about Iron Maiden's tours coming from people like Mick Wall, Paul Stenning, and Iron Maiden Holdings, LTD. I have made approximately 100 corrections regarding the dates and locations of Iron Maiden's tours. If you go to the web site, hover your cursor over any date/location listed in yellow/orange or dark orange and you will see a text box come up which shows the citation for that information. 87% of the dates/locations are substantiated by one or more pieces of primary evidence. I am still in the process of validating just over 200 dates/locations with some sort of reliable evidence. You can also read my historical evaluation of Iron Maiden-related primary sources and secondary sources at http://maidenshows.ryasrealm.com/masterlistresearchnotes.htm.

If you take the time to look at the web page, you will see that I have made every effort to make my results verifiable and reliable by using thousands of sources. I have a degree in history and next month I will have finished my graduate degree in history. My university recognizes and approves my work and findings. I am a scholar who specializes in Iron Maiden.

My link and my findings are in line with Wikipedia policy. I am a published historian who specializes in popular culture (Iron Maiden being one of my foci). My link provides valuable information relative to the topic without violating the policy.

I don't understand that with my credentials and the transparency of my work that anyone would want to delete the link. The Iron Maiden page references Mick Wall extensively, but Wall does not cite his sources (making him unreliable). He also plagiarized half of his book from Gary Bushell's "Running Free" without citing Bushell and making the same errors in the band's tour dates and locations that Bushell did. Paul Stenning does cite his sources, but he does not use any specific citations, but instead, only lists a few works cited at the end of each chapter, which is unacceptable. Neither of these authors which the page cites extensively have done any real primary research. They have merely copied from the work (and the errors) of others.

So, tell me: why cite Wall and Stenning, who have no credentials and are not even published by any serious publisher, but not allow a link to a web page that has passed university and national historical guidelines, has passed historical review, and has passed peer review by many dedicated fans (who were kind enough to contribute to my research)?

Why not? It does not violate policy, and it adds something valuable to the page.

---

I vote we keep it (The Elfoid 16:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

It isn't verifiable information... doesn't meet WP:EL requirements and should not be allowed. The link loader falls under what can best be described as "dubious Essjayitus". See any/all history behind former admin Essjay to better understand "unqualified credentials" re: expertise and reliability. 156.34.142.110 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good, well researched source that adds to the article, so I'm for it being linked to in the article.

Also, I fail to see what part of WP:EL it doesn't meet - on the contrary it satisfies the

"Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article"

criteria greatly, and should also be at least allowed under

"Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources"

in my opinion. Thoughts, anyone? Mark ^(Talk) 13:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, excuse me for editing this post instead of adding to it. I do not know how to add to post without making a new post with a new subject.

Mr. 156.34.142.110 - aka Peter Fleet, it looks like you are not being reasonable. You have two other people who agree with me that the link is scholarly. Markdr reiterates my point. My question to you is - what credentials do you have that give you the right to be the scholarly determinant of Iron Maiden's history? None. You are a middle-aged IT student at TriOS college, not a historian. I am. Likewise, Metal Hammer's printing that Iron Maiden will have reached its 2000th gig in June 2007 is wrong, too, because journalists are not historians. Metal Hammer did not verify its information or post any sources for it. I emailed the editor about this and got no response.

So, with 3 against 1, I believe that falls under Wiki policy that you, Peter Fleet/156.34.xxx.xxx have to leave the information there unless you want to formally take things higher. I belive that any future changes by you will be considered vandalism at this point. Do not accuse me of Essjayitus, either. http://www.wwu.edu/cms/WWU.History/Advising/teachingasst.html Notice the email address for me, Ryan LaMar, wsu@ryasrealm.com - it ends with the same URL as the Iron Maiden link I am insisiting should be added. You can contact anyone on that university list and ask them about me and my credentials (only the top graduate students can be teaching assistants).

Peter, if you want to be reasonable, then let me do the scholarly thing on the Iron Maiden page and make edits in my area of expertise - tour dates and locations. I understand your concern for the rules, but my link follows the rules and adds valuable information to the site. I will hold no ill feelings toward you if you allow honest and knowledgeable people to make Wiki a better place.

Finally, I apologize to Maurauth for thinking he was behind the insistent removal of the information I corrected. Maurauth, I am sorry for the scathing comments I made to you on another forum. darthrya 12:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. The main page for those who haven't bothered to check states quite clearly "1. If you link my site to your site, you must link this page. This is for two reasons: I need to make sure potential traders read these rules first, and I have my stat tracker on this page. So do not link my index2.htm page!". The discog page itself makes some pretty wild claims which basically claims "Their wrong - I'm right" - We do not do "The Truth™" as I'm sure you all know.--Alf ^melmac 17:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very frustrating to see that a lot of people would rather assume I am wrong than investigate my work to make that decision. No historian automatically dismisses someone without making some sort of investigation. I suggest you investigate my work and tell mw where I am wrong. Email me every mistake on my site that you find at wsu@ryasrealm.com. My tourography work is about getting the right information to the fans. Also, please explain to me the issue with my parent site. I do not see how that violates Wikipedia rules. I'm not linking the parent site, just the tourography page. --Darthrya

I'll admit I'm one of Wikipedia's more forgiving members, but as someone who's been involved in a lot of debates on matters such as this I would say the information cannot be left out entirely. It's damn useful. Plus there are other sources that support this (MaidenFans.com/IMC is a very respected website for instance). (The Elfoid 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

The DMOZ link, as placed by Admin Wiki alf negates the need for all links other than the band's official website. If any tour history information needs to be linked it can be placed on the DMOZ site and it will be covered under the global DMOZ link found here. 156.34.210.243 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the DMOZ link is a potential solution. I will use it. However, it does not negate any of my prior arguments. 156.34.xxx.xxx, you have made no effort to refute my findings on my site. Sure, my claim to be the best source for the tourography is very audacious, but the fact is, NO ONE has been able to refute my overall findings. Occasionally, someone brings to me some evidence which suggests a particular date/location is wrong (a little less than 10% of them are still not backed up by any sort of evidence), but I use that evidence to correct the mistake - a mistake originally produced by the band. I started this project using the official tourography of the band and went down, date by date, and verified or refuted the information based on primary evidence. In my process, I've found that the information put out by the band to be very problematic. Anyone who blindly accepts any band's own version of their tour history is an idiot because most bands just look at old itineraries and print them as fact without any concern tour changes (Maiden is especially bad at this). My project is very much like Wikipedia - its accuracy is reliant upon the contribution of others. So far, thanks to the contributions of hundreds of people, it is the most accurate tourography on the web. It is recognized as the benchmark among fans at the IMOC and Maiden Fans United, and another popular site - Maidenfans.com - references my site.

Now, I challenge you to act like a gentleman and take the time to talk this out with me if you disagree. I'm tired of having to work around you because you refuse to talk directly to me. Just to let you know, I fixed the 'violation' on my parent page pointed out by Wiki Alf. It now states that anyone can directly link the tourography page without having to link the parent page. No conflict of interest there. In the future, please do not accuse me of being like Essjay - comments like that are libelous, especially when I have given you means of verifying my background. Email me at maidenshows@ryasrealm.com or wsu@ryasrealm.com. (Darthrya 09:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Iron Maiden - The Number Of The Beast.jpg

Image:Iron Maiden - The Number Of The Beast.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Iron Maiden - Powerslave.jpg

Image:Iron Maiden - Powerslave.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Iron Maiden - Fear Of The Dark.jpg

Image:Iron Maiden - Fear Of The Dark.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Iron Maiden - A Matter Of Life And Death.jpg

Image:Iron Maiden - A Matter Of Life And Death.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of the Beast

The article says:

The tour's US leg was marred by controversy stemming from an American right-wing political pressure group that claimed Iron Maiden was Satanic because of the new album's title track

Was the tour really "marred" by that controversy? If anything it probably gave the band free publicity. thx1138 09:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Saw a documentary on the making of the album and Dickinson described how at one concert a person was walking around carrying a cross. The yanks also burned their fair share of Maiden records. However, wether that guy with a cross was just a sole incident and wether the outcry caused by the album(-cover and misunderstood lyrics) had any baring on the tour itself is difficult to say. Some references would be helpful. -TheHande 16:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't really marr the tour itself - it still went ahead fine. Might have marred the feeling that followed the band, or the atmosphere. But in terms of organising and playing gigs, no (The Elfoid 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Michael Kenney

Whoever keeps listing that Michael Kenney has been playing keyboards with Iron Maiden since 1988 STOP. He has been playing keyboards with Iron Maiden since 1990. Alterego269 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be Mr. 156.34.xxx.xxx. He has no class or tact, and personally, I think he's a drain on the community-spirit of Wikipedia because he refuses to work with people about differences. However, he is right on this. Michael Kenney was part of the Seventh Son of a Seventh Son tour in 1988. I have several dozen bootlegs of the Seventh Tour in which Bruce introduces him to the crowd. Darthrya 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Alterego, the confusion may have arisen since you didn't see him on the Seventh Son album credits. Maiden played their own keyboards on the album, so someone had to have played live keyboards. Which also leads to a further question: who played keyboards during 1986/7's 'Somewhere on Tour' tour supporting the Somewhere in Time album? (The Elfoid 11:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

There weren't keys on the SIT tour. The band used guitar synths. Darthrya 06:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I know they did on album, wasn't sure about on stage (The Elfoid 08:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Same on stage as on the album. Your original question had me second guessing myself! I had to confer with my fellow live show experts and review some of the videos and audio recordings in my collection. darthrya 21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Bring Your Daughter..." B-sides

The article states the 'Bring Your Daughter..' was sold in multiple formats with different b-sides. To be fair this just repeats what I have read in several other places, but I am concerned it is something that has been quoted so often it has become true, despite the fact (I believe) it is not.

What is true is that the single was released in the UK in a number of different formats, 6 in total, if my memory serves me correctly (which would actually make it inelligable for the chart under today's rules). 7 and 12 inch versions, 7 and 12 inch picture discs, casette and CD. It is also true that the 7" and 7" picture discs had different cover artwork.

However there were not, as I recall, multiple B-sides. The 7", 7" pic disc and casette all had 2 tracks (B-side was 'I'm a Mover'), the 12", 12" pic disc and CD had the addition 3rd track 'Communication Breakdown'. This seems to be confirmed by the article on the single itself. In terms of the number of tracks Maiden had followed this format since the '2 Minutes to Midnight' single.

The first occurence of completely different b-sides on different formats occured with the (relatively unsuccessful) single 'From Here to Eternity'(I Can't See My Feeling was on the picture disc, but not on the CD which had 3 completely different b-sides.

I will willingly admit to being wrong if someone has a copy of the BYD single with another track on it, but otherwise this should be changed Sanctuary73 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm

When searching "Iron Maiden" it now goes directly to the torture device page, despite that having a) less interest in it b) not even the main name (this page isn't even "Iron Maiden (Band)". I can see why a disambiguation page may be ok for the first page when searching, but not the torture device surely? Lethesl 12:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English English makes no sense

"Iron Maiden are a band"? No, Iron Maiden is a band, a single entity, it is something. How about fixing the article to the more logical way? I mean, "The Beatles are a band", that's right because the name is in plural, and since each member is a Beatle, together they are The Beatles; but in this case here, you can not say that each member is a Maiden (which would sound very awkward anyway). Just my 2 cents. - Stormwatch 18:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but it's simply a convention of British English that band's are referred to as 'are'. I don't know why and how this developed, but for me, being British, this is second nature and anything else - such as the US 'Iron Maiden is...' sounds wrong to me and I expect most other Britons. And since the article discusses a British band, WP:ENGVAR dictates that British English spelling, grammar and style is used. Thanks, Mark ^(Talk) 20:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you, Mark. It's not an American convention, it's correct British English. It might "sound wrong" to most people, but most people aren't that hot on their grammar. Saying "Iron Maiden are a band" is like saying "red are a colour". Band = noun. A noun "is". There's nowhere in WP:ENGVAR that I can find that supports what you're saying. Cardinal Wurzel 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No your example is misleading, as you are meaning "the many shades that we can call 'red', so one can say "reds are colours", which I believe is correct, at least in British-English speaking countries. A more aposite example of a phrase would be "personnel are involved". The guidance WP:ENGVAR is there for good reason, (it states "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." I suggest taking this talk there instead of splintering opinion into individual pages editors to check the consensus on this. I also checked against a colleague for current British usage by asking him to add the correct parsing of the verb 'to be' in the sentence "Pink Floyd a band" - after some moments he replied "are" I asked him why not "is" he says "certain nouns are automatically plural"--Alf ^melmac 06:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, your example is misleading. "Reds are colours" is obviously correct, but that doesn't affect my previous point. But you're right, I've taken it to the talk page of WP:ENGVAR, where there is not yet any agreement... Cardinal Wurzel 11:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

we are iron maiden iron maiden are a band —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the british wiki though. Tabor (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. You know English originated in Britain, right? This isn't just for people who speak American English, it's used by people who speak British English, Australian English etc. - read WP:ENGVAR. Funeral 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my last edits were deleted?

Maiden's reduced success in the 90s is well chronicled. Chart positions are on Wikipedia already, grunge's dominance of the rock scene is generally very accepted. The stuff about Dickinson's voice I'm sure can be proved via citations but I'll accept as possibly dodgy. The rest though...it's all real (The Elfoid 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

The article lost its FA for not being referenced. Rather than adding huge chunks of poorly written original research the goal should be to try and reference all the poorly written original research that the article already has... in abundance. 156.34.209.108 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think grunge's influence on hard rock/heavy metal is pretty well chronicled though, right? (The Elfoid 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

I believe it is. But it still needs to have inline references in order to be added in otherwise its just personal opinion. The article should have the already existing content referenced first. It already reads like it was written as a book report by some slow 17 year kid. It doesn't need anymore fluff or surefluity. 156.34.212.57 04:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Satisfied now? I know the 3 links on punk are ALL from allmusic but I was in a rush. Will find varied sources later (The Elfoid 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] deleted AGAIN?

I cited sources from allmusic.com. allmusic is used to help in writeups on albums, describing their reception from the expert musical press. If they're not reliable as a source of information, who the hell is? Descriptions of Iron Maiden's style are hard to find and I found several on the sitehttp://www.apple.com/ Apple that gave some. (The Elfoid 04:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Allmusic.com is definitely not authoritative. Quote books, magazines or real music press, please. No real expert would ever say that Maiden had anything to do with punk when punk was clearly the enemy back then. Please check the biographies in the list, both official or unofficial and you'll find exactly these considerations. Trencacloscas 04:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Allmusic's referred to repeatedly throughout articles within the scope of wikiproject metal (at least 3 links on the heavy metal page alone) actually. And I referred to a book in my last edit too. Steve Harris also mentions how Paul was fairly punkie in the Iron Maiden early years DVD and thatthe press picked up on it. Punk was an "enemy"? What? They bore similarities to punk being part of the NWOBHM which was spawned by similar situations to punk rock. They didn't have any personal feelings towards punk, that I can tell. It was just a genre.

And the phrase 'pretend to' is just...ridiculous. At least allow that to say 'perceive' please. Why would anyone think to themselves "hehe I'm gonna say this is like punk"? It's not really a lie I think anyone would justify making. It's not like you can profit from it, or promote the band or anything. No one pretended anything - just cuz an opinion is controversial doesn't make it a lie.

(The Elfoid 14:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Iron Maiden always had more to do with progressive music than with punk, there are recognized influences in their music, so why not put that instead? Anyway, Steve Harris statement: "I would never cut my hair and go punk, it would be against my religion" when punk was the hype thing and nobody wanted heavy metal acts around should be enough to avoid any doubts. Trencacloscas 20:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Punk took rock music back to the streets. OK so it was more complicated, but that's it at it's most basic explanation. NWOBHM did for heavy metal what punk did for rock (which was mostly arena rock at the time). NWOBHM was metal's punk as punk was arena rock's punk if that makes any sense to you (badly worded I know). That's where the similarity came from. Also, Paul Di'Anno had never heard or liked any heavy metal before he met Steve Harris. (The Elfoid 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, I don't agree at all. Punk destroyed the spirit of good, well-crafted rock and roll. NWOBHM tried to recover the spirit of Purple, Sabbath and Zeppelin, but there is a million miles of difference between a "punkier feeling" and saying that punk rock had anything to do with NWOBHM or Iron Maiden. Anyway, it shouldn't be even mentioned at the head of the article. That's the reason why I will erase it, just to avoid mention also the progressive element right away. Please feel free to place it anywhere else and I will do the same.Trencacloscas 19:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know it is possible that my next comments could in some instances be better suited to Trencacloscas' Talk Page but I am hoping if any third party opinion is presented, it could help end an argument which I feel is not going to solve itself without external assistance between myself and Trencacloscas.

Wikipedia is not your private work you're in total control of. I've found substantial evidence (i.e. allmusic.com and a published book - both of which that are used throughout wikiproject metal) to suggest NWOBHM music fused elements of punk with heavy metal. On re-watching the BBC's TV show Seven Ages of Rock I can tell you that that program, produced by highly capable professionals at the BBC also coroborates with my statement. Stuff that appears on the BBC has to go through strict quality control, allmusic.com is written by a huge group of editors and the book I mentioned was published as an authentic guide. The sources together make it undeniable that the NWOBHM had punk influences.

Upon further searching I have found a fourth source - as well as a published book, a professional critic group's website and a TV show, Amazon.co.uk (another very well known website) states similar. "This opening sonic salvo from Steve Harris's East End stalwarts pretty much defined the late 1970's post-punk rebirth of rock traditionalism known as the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal." in an Amazon.co.uk review (reviewed by the company, not by a user). In a review for the band's second album it says "KILLERS is based on more straight-ahead heavy metal, departing from Iron Maiden's 1980 self-titled debut, which had more of a punk edge". Many other websites selling Iron Maiden products sell the same (http://www.7digital.com/artists/iron-maiden, http://cd.ciao.co.uk/Killers_Remastered_ECD_Iron_Maiden__40102). Punk is not very in right now - kids listen to smooth pop punk not stuff like the Sex Pistols, so saying it's punklike is not something they'd obviously say as a lie for commercial reasons. Steve Harris has also said that the press frequently saw them as punky.

The heavy metal article on Wikipedia itself agrees, as does the one on NWOBHM and several others I have found. You're in disagreement with a LOT of pages on this here encyclopedia. I've found in a quick search a total of 35, and I remember seeing more in the past, that rely on allmusic.com as a reliable source. The ideology and aesthetics of taking rock music back to the street came from punk. The rougher approach taken as a result lead to the same rough "homegrown rock" feeling that punk gave off.

Steve Harris' songwriting was not heavily punk influenced, I accept this. Dave Murray/Adrian Smith who also recorded with Paul Di'Anno are the same. They can't have ignored it 100% since it was so big at the time, but it wasn't really their thing. But Paul Di'Anno's voice was suited to punk stylings, and Steve Harris himself has said that when Paul realised his punkier voice annoyed the rest of the band he played it up and sounded punkier. He wasn't a metal vocalist - he wasn't into metal until he joined Iron Maiden.

Your comments on the progressive elements I never had a problem with - the band frequently refer to it as such. You're attempting to cut some kind of "delete my comment, delete yours, everyone's happy" approach and that's somewhat petty. As is telling me what will be deleted - you get banned from Wikipedia for reverting an edit three times in quick succession. Neither of us is allowed to do that.

So in summary this is what I present as evidence:

• Numerous music selling websites (run by professionals)
• Allmusic.com (run by professional critics) - [[3]]
• A book (written by a professional, published after going through strict editing)
• A BBC TV show (that has been through numerous quality control groups and features interviews with lots of important members of the music industry)
• Quotes from Steve Harris and Dave Murray about the press of the day calling them punky and saying Paul Di'Anno had a punkier style than the rest of the band
• Paul Di'Anno's statements that the early albums had a punkier sound (which he does on the Early Days DVD in reference to how the cover art for the albums is appropriate for the punky style [Eddie looks like a punk on the first album cover] they used at the time)
• The work of numerous wikipedians to put punk's influence on NWOBHM on the map (it's mentioned on heavy metal, NWOBHM, thrash metal, a load of other NWOBHM band pages)
• My opinion as an individual and a fairly long term member of Wikipedia

And that's not convincing enough ("Quote books" - done. "magazines or real music press" - cyber-based press is still the press since it's profit making written content (allmusic makes money from the advertising banners on the website - it's not a free resource) and Iron Maiden themselves make reference to the press of the time) What do you have to counter my numerous sources with? Your own opinion. You can't just delete things freely like that. While an issue like this is in discussion you should leave a page as it was originally rather than play with it, to avoid an 'Edit War'. If an Edit War begins, everyone gets in trouble.

If you continue to cause a problem I shall notify an administrator of an 'Edit War' where they can see my points and compare them to yours. I note on your discussion page you have had similar troubles with multiple users, involving you making edits they disagreed with without ample discussion or appropriate behaviour:

• User:Anger22
• User:TheologyJohn
• User:Denstat
• User:Redvers clearly had difficulty with your understanding of the rules also

This difficulty in getting along with other users, and applying your personal judgement as if you can make the decisions about what happens on Wikipedia is both unfair and against policy. Please accept my points, or come up with a VERY suitable argument to counter it (you asked for books as sources, I gave you one, you ignored it? I don't think you're even respecting my opinion at all with behaviour like that and it makes it very difficult to respect yours.

Thank you. (The Elfoid 14:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)).

Given your level of hostility, I won't answer you or your ridiculous threats. You can quote hundreds of sources about your beloved punk rock, I can do just the same quoting hundreds of sources denying any punk influences, including direct declarations of members of the band. The case is that your claims are not suitable for the head of the article. I can also quote hundreds of sources asserting the progressive influences in Iron Maiden including direct declarations of the members of the band but, as I pointed before, I don't think the head of the article is the proper place to mention them. That's why I suggested you to put it elsewhere in the article. There is only one undisputed truth: Iron Maiden is a heavy metal band, and that's what the article should intend to reflect in the first place. Any other influences can be mentioned later in the article. If you wanna "notify the administrators", go ahead, who's holding you? Trencacloscas 01:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears I misunderstood you, I apologise. I can put it further down in the article and you don't mind, provided it is not in the head of the article? "That's the reason why I will erase it, just to avoid mention also the progressive element right away. Please feel free to place it anywhere else and I will do the same". I thought "I will do the same" meant you would do what you had done so far - delete it - wherever it was.

I do believe that some mention to both the progressive references and to the NWOBHM-flavour of the music should be in the header though. Iron Maiden's music is pretty distinctive, I've even had people ask me what genre it qualifies as, or had metalheads tell me it's not metal at all. The only major surviving NWOBHM bands are Iron Maiden, Saxon (who've faded almost into utter obscurity) and Def Leppard (who became a pop rock band in the last 15 years). So the punkier, rougher, simpler approach to music that may confuse people should be referred to. The same is true of progressive influences. I think however, only a sentence on each would be required. Something about how the changing of tempo and multiple time signatures - along with guitar harmonies, bass-led songs, gallops, Bruce Dickinson's operatic style (and I guess you could argue about the other vocalists being particularly unusual in style too), it is one of the band's distinctive features. A long sentence mentioning both punk influences via the NWOBHM and Di'Anno and progressive influences because Harris wanted the music to be more sophisticated would be good.

Infact, an entire paragraph in the head about the various features of their sound would be good. Would you help me to write this?

Sorry about the confusion in my last comment.(The Elfoid 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

No problem. But I still disagree. Iron Maiden never had that "punkier, rougher, simpler approach" you suggest. It is way on the contrary; not punkier but classier, not rougher but heavier, not simpler but more elaborated. It's the sheer difference between their music and the punk rock element current on their days what captured and recaptured metalheads attention back then. And that's also the core of the NWOBHM sound: if a NEW Wave of British Heavy Metal was born, it means that the purpose was recapturing the "heavy" side of it all. Recapturing from who? From punk rock, who was the trendy thing at the moment. Anyway, as you mentioned, it is debatable, and that's the reason for not putting it right at the beginning where it can mislead people not familiar with the band. Jethro Tull, Genesis and the whole progressive element is far way more recognizable in Iron Maiden music (even through the election of covers) than punk but I'd rather not put that in the forefront of the article. Hope we can find some middle ground about the whole thing so the article may look better. Trencacloscas 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My point was more the sound the band produced than the songwriting, in terms of punk influence. Anyway, we can draft it on here (I'll start a new paragraph) and then add source citations later.

[edit] Iron Maiden Sound Description Paragraph

[edit] Features in almost all Iron Maiden music

• Guitar harmonies
• Progressive elements (time changes, tempo movements, complexity of compositions etc)
• Unusual strength of bass (almost like a lead instrument)
• Operatic vocals (Bruce Dickinson-era only)

Bah! I object to the term "operatic". Seems it's applied to any heavy metal singer who can hold a note for more than 3 seconds. Bear in mind I think Bruce is one of metal's best vocalists and Maiden has been my favorite band for over 20 years, but the term is just asinine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.33 (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Features in some Iron Maiden music

• Progressive elements (In 'epic' songs it becomes much more apparent)
• Punk influences (Paul Di'Anno-era only)
• 'Live sound' (mention how well known the band are for frequent live releases or something?)
• Triple live guitars (1999-present only)

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iron_maiden_%28torture_device%29#Requested_move

Editors may wish to comment above, the intention of that article is to move Iron maiden (torture device) to Iron maiden, and move Iron Maiden to Iron Maiden (Heavy metal band). ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 09:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, the move never mentioned to move the band if the brackets were to be removed. Reginmund 06:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somewhere Back In Time

The last paragraphs referencing the new tour are not very faithful to what Iron Maiden official page says. I think it should be revised. 80.28.202.37 10:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I agree too--E tac 07:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Even though, I do not believe in the evil King Odmontius, I do believe that Iron Maiden Will rule the world of heavy metal for 3000 years. Master Redyva (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, lol. But it was still vandalism and had to be removed. Also, why isn't this article a featured one anymore and what would need to be done to turn it back into one? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charlotte The Harlot. - Number of Installments?

The FotD section claims that "From Here to Eternity" is the fourth installment in the Charlotte the Harlot saga. I challenge this claim.

"Hooks in You" is not part of the saga. Other than a reference to "number 22" there is no relation to Charlotte. Furthermore, the line "I got the keys to view at number 22" indicates a real estate viewing of an empty house. Even if it is a reference to 22 Acacia Avenue, Charlotte is long gone. The song is certainly not part of a saga, but merely an oblique reference.

This would make "From Here to Eternity" the THIRD installment of the saga. At least here she's mentioned by name. Wcudmore (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

All the above is true. Can't remember the source, but Bruce himself said in an interview that "Hooks in You" isn't about Charlotte, but instead about a piece of real estate that had a lot of chains and S&M fixtures. Ynot4tony (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] QUESTION about "Influence"

Should the "Influence" portion of the article be deleted? The language of the section leaves a little something to be desired (esp. for an encyclopedia) and the lack of sources make it look like a paragraph in a "bottom shelf" metal magazine at the local convenience store. It's just a laundry list of metal bands. Master Redyva ♠ 19 December 2007.

---

I deleted the entire "Influence" section for two reasons:

1. It was not well documented and contained some non-factual information.

2. It was not well written.

Mikepope (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Agreed. Unless a band member cites a reference, it should not be listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynot4tony (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Album sales

I see there is a reference, and I've read it, and it says more than 100 million albums, but that seemed waaay too much, and I think it is actually an overstatement. This source for example: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003684293 says it is approx. 70 million albums. And it is dated to December 12, 2007, so quite a fresh source. Gocsa (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Those sources are based on old information. About 2 1/2 years ago the BBC were stating 80 million albums. The 70 million was popularly touted when they re-united in 1999 and figures don't get revised too often - it's hard work! I put in the 100, if it does get removed, at least put in the 80 since the BBC IS a credible source.(The Elfoid (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Oh, I see. Ok then.:) I've never thought they sold that many records.:) Gocsa (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, a hundred million is way exaggerated even though there's a source claiming it. There are definitely more sources stating that Maiden have sold round 60 million Albums, so please correct that :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.216.234 (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Reason for relplacing the original lead singer

I just watched a special on VH1, 1/25/08, about 9pm cst. It was a 4 part series on the History of heavy metal. I believe I was watching Part II which contained info on Iron Maiden. They gave the reason for the original singer's replacement as a result of his lack of abilities*--vocal range, showmanship, etc.-- rather than his cocaine use/abuse. I don't even remember them saying anything about his use of cocaine.

If I missed this info in the Wikipedia article, I apologize for not reading more deeply.

This post is not associated with an edit/change to the subject page. I am not an editor. I just wanted to propose the inclusion of this particular viewpoint-which inspired me to listen to the band more than any other influence.

• I don't see this as "negative material about living persons." I am more interested in how many different views of "the facts" there are.

75.133.168.137 (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can not remember which documentary I saw, I think it was Wasted Years, but it seems the cocaine use was brought up. I need to see if I can find it.

Master Redyva ♠23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar Police!

Come on, people! Did none of you pass to second grade? Everywhere on this article, lines say things like "Iron Maiden are" or "Iron Maiden think" when (since pronouns that represent a group of people/things, such as band or class or cult, are considered to be singular) those lines should be saying things like "Iron Maiden is" and "Iron Maiden thinks." Could someone who has some time on their hands go in and correct this? Flaminglawyer (talk · contribs) 03:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Iron Maiden can be treated as either singular or plural. English, thankfully, doesn't have any offical body, like the Académie française, regulating usage, vocabulary, and grammar. If that's what you want, then move to Paris.

That's the British style, and since it's a British band that's why it is kept. Personally (being from Canada) I agree with the style you mentioned but this is wikipedia's policy. Dan (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:ENGVAR British subject=British sp./gr. . Contrary to the previous post... most Canadians using the proper "international" English version as well. Which means we pluralise our group nouns and we use correct spelling for words like humour, honour, colour, centre, recognise, socialise, enterprise and such n such. If a band is from the United States.. "It is a band" (or was)... if they are from anywhere else in the world(incl. Canada) "They are a band"(or were). 156.34.216.55 (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The OED, Britain's preeminent dictionary, prefers the ending -ize to -ise: "[...] some have used the spelling -ise in English, as in French [...] But the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Greek -izein, Latin -izare; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. In this Dictionary the termination is uniformly written -ize."

[edit] Painbearer's/Mad Hatter's changes

This space is reserved for Painbearer's rationale on why the IM article should be changed as drastically as he is recommending. Once we have that rationale we can, as a community, decide via WP:CONSENSUS on whether or not those changes will be advantageous for the article. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may add a comment. My personal POV is that A) the removal of all the album title sub-headers was a good thing. B) Moving the peacock praisings and accolades up into the lead section was not a good thing. I have no opinion on the removal of the "album related fine details"... they were cited content and cited content has some weight BUT... it may have been content better suited for the album articles and not the band article. Someone else may comment on that. All those sub-headers and sub-sub-headers... that edit did not offend me any at all. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am waiting and I will be waiting for 2 more days before anyone makes some kind of contradictory statement. If that doesn't happen, then we will do it my way. Mad Hatter (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your way? As someone who is just passing by (after reading some comment about Iron Maiden and Wikipedia), I wonder where consensus is with your comment (anyone who comes by here and finds no discussion about what you are referring will likely think the same). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Painbearer/Madhatter please do not set ultimatums. That is not the way things work here at Wikipedia. They're incredibly unconstructive. I may opt for a WP:RfC because of your behaviour citing this instance as an example. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for acting this way, but I do a lot of work on Iron Maiden page. So, I made some major changes. Before deciding to revert them, let's first discuss them. I got the impression that: A) The removal of the title sub-heads is a GOOD thing. B) Anything else has to be discussed. We can pass without revert at least this time.

Regards: Mad Hatter (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Wave of British Heavy Metal

New Wave of British Heavy Metal is a genre. Michael Kenney appears to be more than a hired hand, as he has worked on mutiple albums (since since 1988) and has been the live keyboardist since Brave New World. Please see pages for NWOBHM and Michael Kenney. Master Redyva ♠

NWOBHM is a term not a genre. Try adding it to the Motorhead article and see how fast Admin Wiki alf removes it. The page itself makes no claim at being a genre. It was an era of time (1979-1981) when many British "heavy metal" bands came to prominence. They weren't playing a new or unique style of music. They were playing just plain ol' heavy metal. NWOBHM is a term. And Kenney, long term employee or not, has never been recognised as an actual "member". 156.34.220.124 (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Although genres are not precisely definable, genre considerations are one of the most important factors in determining what a person will see or read. Many genres have built-in audiences and corresponding publications that support them, such as magazines and websites." "Genre is a common concept that has great commercial and aesthetic importance, but it also continues to frustrate fans, artists, composers, and critics who don't want to be pigeonholed, for instance. There is always disagreement about the definition of a genre, and it is impossible to list all genre categories in existence. For further examination of these general issues, see Negus 1999 and Holt 2007. (Also see Music genre.) It really appears that NWOBHM is a sub-genre of Heavy Metal music. I wonder why you dislike the term and why you dislike Michael Kenney? I also noticed under Members, it lists Mr. Kenney as "Michael Kenney (Only live)". ("NWOBHM is a term." I wonder if this is sound. "Genre" is a term. ) Master Redyva ♠ 17:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against Kenney. But the field is for band members and he isn't a band member. And NWOBHM is not a musical genre. It is not a musical style. It is an era describing a group of bands from England. No different than British Invasion. You won't find that "term" in The Beatles, Stones or Kinks infoboxes... because it isn't a genre. You won't find arena rock listed as a genre anywhere either. The field is defined as a field for musical genres. And these terms do not, or should never appear in these boxes. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"What Is New Wave Of British Heavy Metal?" (Please see: http://heavymetal.about.com/od/heavymetal101/a/top_nwobhm.htm, http://en.allexperts.com/q/Heavy-Metal-2854/New-Wave-British-Heavy-1.htm http://germany.real.com/music/genre/New_Wave_of_British_Heavy_Metal/) (Also see Music genre.) Master Redyva ♠

About.com??? See WP:RS. Chad Bowar???? see WP:NN and then read WP:RS again. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Allexperts.com??? better read WP:RS again. Essentially a blog site that pages heavy metal experts most impressive credentials are that he has been to a lot of heavy metal concerts???... it's almost funny. An English entry by who??? on a german website for real player software. It might as well be Amazon.com. And before you start reading low quality amateur fansites like metal-archives.com... don't. Those websites are aiming low for readership since the only ones who are regular viewers are level four basket weavers. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"level four basket weavers," this is your arguement? (Are you serious?) You are very kind. There are a lot of people who believe NWOBHM to be a musical genre. Those three sites are examples of people who support this idea. It also appears that users on Wikipedia believe the same thing (ie the minor "edit war"). I am also lead to believe this is going to be an ongoing issue and undoing edits is only a short term (very short) fix. Also : "Although genres are not precisely definable, genre considerations are one of the most important factors in determining what a person will see or read. Many genres have built-in audiences and corresponding publications that support them, such as magazines and websites." "Genre is a common concept that has great commercial and aesthetic importance, but it also continues to frustrate fans, artists, composers, and critics who don't want to be pigeonholed, for instance. There is always disagreement about the definition of a genre, and it is impossible to list all genre categories in existence. For further examination of these general issues, see Negus 1999 and Holt 2007. (Also see Music genre.) It really appears that NWOBHM is a sub-genre of Heavy Metal music. Master Redyva ♠

The above reasoning is more than valid. It is not a genre anymore than New wave of American heavy metal is. No different from Brit Invasion or Arena Rock. It specifies a span of years or a timeline for heavy metal music. But is not a different style of music itself. Fair Deal (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Kenny's an off-stage touring musician. See The Who and Rolling Stones for the best explanations of why he's not REALLY in Iron Maiden.

Now, NWOBHM. Motorhead's not a good example; from what I saw on the talk page, it had nothing to do with it being a genre or not. He made no mention of that. Arena rock and British Invasion were vague umbrella terms - British Invasion for a period when British bands became huge in the USA, arena rock for a type of commercial yet heavy rock music. NWOBHM had a characteristic look, style and sound that was unique. To say it was an era not a genre is like calling the punk bands from 76-79 (or whenever you think punk started and finished) a "movement" and "era of music" just because it was so unique to the period. And I defy anyone who says punk is not a music genre.

However, 156.34.220.124 is a well respected/popular editor who I've seen in a number of discussions (most of which I avoided, but that was since I didn't know enough to take part) win arguments because he's smart enough to construct a better argument than other people, whether he's right or wrong. As he did with me on the AC/DC talk page, he'll somehow manage to convince you you can't stop him. When I had a discussion with him on that page...my argument was that we cannot claim AC/DC are heavy metal. I was supported by 6 reliable sources highly respected within the area (some of which are frequently cited accross Wikipedia to an almost worrying degree) that agreed with me, along with 2 quotes from AC/DC themselves, and I still couldn't rally enough support to get anywhere. I had AllMusic.Com, respected authors Garry Sharpe-Younge, Sleazegrinder, Ian Fortnam and Sian Llewelly, 2 members of AC/DC themselves (both a founding member and one who joined later) and a quote from the SeattleWeekly website (not a strong enough source to claim a point on it's own, but another one to add to a hefty pile). I also had a majority of past opinions agreeing with me. I think he had a quote by Christe implying they were metal (despite a quote from me where he specifically states without a doubt they are not) and another by Garry Sharpe-Younge which I had a more clearly defined quote of a similar nature to counter with. Somehow, despite me saying "we can't call it heavy metal point blank, though we can say it is debated" and him saying "we can say it IS heavy metal as a plain statement of fact in the infobox, you just mention how some people disagree", he managed to beat me into submission. And I don't give up arguments without a big fight. So I know for a fact that whatever supporting evidence anyone finds, 156.34.220.124 has won the argument and we should give up. I've made my stand with some above statements, so I'll put that edit on, now I see who the opposition is though, I wouldn't have typed it had I known. (The Elfoid (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Heavy metal music

"Heavy metal has long had a worldwide following of fans known as "metalheads" or "headbangers". Although early heavy metal bands such as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple attracted large audiences, they were often critically reviled at the time, a status common throughout the history of the genre. In the mid-1970s, Judas Priest helped spur the genre's evolution by discarding much of its blues influence. The New Wave of British Heavy Metal followed in a similar vein, introducing a punk rock sensibility and an increasing emphasis on speed." This is from the Wikipedia page Heavy metal music. I hope this helps. 66.162.207.31 (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A) That text says nothing about it being a genre and... more importantly.. B) Wikipedia can never be used as a citation for itself. Along with WP:RS try reading WP:CITE and WP:V. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Wasting Love"

The power ballad comment/line might need a citation, as well as the fourth installment of the Charlotte saga (Charlotte is mentioned by name in 'From Here to Eternity') , but is that ground enough to delete? Master Redyva ♠ 19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So, the policy is, "When in doubt, let it stand?" Nah...when it doubt, something should be removed.

C'mon..."is perhaps one of the band's only power ballad"... I repeat, "IS PERHAPS ONE OF...".

Doesn't such weak wording, coupled with a vague (and subjective) term like "power ballad", convince you that this "fact" should just be scrubbed?

Is the lack of citation about the "4th installment" enough to merit deletion? OF COURSE! If it is in dispute AND can't be cited, it should be deleted.

However, I'll meet half-way on these points and do a little re-wording. See if that's agreable? Ynot4tony (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I reworded the section, but it sounds a bit wordy, like a run-on sentence. The more I think about it, the more I advocate removing the reference to "Wasting Love." It hasn't been played live since the FotD tour, and therefore seems to lack relevance today. Then again, it was released as a single, so I'm not entirely rigid on its removal. Your thoughts? Ynot4tony (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Looks much better. Kudos. The wording is much better . Master Redyva ♠ 16:27, April 16, 2008 (UTC)

Someone added, "...the only one to be classified as a ballad." Classified by whom, I ask? Where is this invisible authority on what rocks and what is wussy? And for the record, "The Journeyman" fits the definition of ballad far, far more accurately than "Wasting Love", for cripe's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean that you've never heard of the International Ballad Classification Service?! But seriously, I was wondering the same thing. I certainly see no reason there should be a mention of it being "classified as a ballad" without there being a source, as that's just an editor's opinion. ~ mazca ^talk 22:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tours?

Shouldn't there be articles on the bands tours? Escpically For somewhere back in time?

What, such as Somewhere Back In Time World Tour, Brave New World Tour, World Slavery Tour? They're there already! ~ mazca ^talk 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Years active

I noticed that someone has edited "years active" to: "Last Thursday - present" Is it someone who's joking about it, or have I missed something?--80.203.75.2 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Rock

Paragraph 2 in the "History of Rock" section is a very large, impenetrable block of text. Good for hitting someone over the head with, but difficult to read. I strongly suggest that someone who actually knows what they're talking about when it comes to Iron Maiden (in other words, someone who isn't me) edits/rewrites this textual roadblock. --MQDuck 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)