Talk:Jimmy Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jimmy Page article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit]  ?

I removed the sentence about his "supposed child" being a drug user because of his "scrubby-ness." Adamlazzara (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Who exactly is this "noted guitar historian Robert Lynch" ?A google search on him throws up few hits related to guitar. And the relevant hits all seem to be ( going by the date of publication ) regurgitations of precisely two wikipedia articles - the ones on Jimmy Page and Al Di Meola. I suspect that these are vanity edits. Can anyone come up with some evidence of his notability? And wher are the references for his comments on Page?(70.56.218.159 05:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

I was wondering that myself. A book/magazine ref should be found soon to add some V to it or it should be turfed. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 11:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Changed "Brian Pool and the Tremeloes" to the correct spelling "Brian Poole and the Tremeloes". So what if I'm a pedant?{unsigned|67.68.48.171}}

Also, Ritchie Blackmore played lead guitar on 'Just Like Eddie' by Heinz - not Page. Page would never ever have played sessions for Joe Meek because of his disliking of the way Meek worked and how the guitar sound was compressed and speeded up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.141.215 (talk • contribs)

  • Actually Page is confirmed to have done many sessions with Joe Meek, including Screaming Lord Sutch's 'She's Fallen In Love With A Monster Man'. Blackmore did the lead work on 'Just Like Eddie,' but Page played on Heinz' 'Digging My Potatoes.' ScottSwan 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Heston is in West London - not North London —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tori tait (talk • contribs)

It's very long, which is good, but it has no sections. It's almost as bad as a run-on paragraph or something.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.198.36 (talk • contribs)

Where is that black-and-white picture of Jimmy Page? 'The image cannot be found' now, despite any image searches of 'Jimmy Page wikipedia' that might suggest otherwise.

Whoever knows what I'm talking about and knows where to obtain it, please post the image where it once was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.204.66 (talk • contribs)

There is No evidence that jimmy page used ANY other drugs besides heroin....

there are photographs of him smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol

[edit] Regarding biography

It seems to me that the existing biography was largely ripped from Page's official site. Shouldn't this be remedied? Also, I think there should be a proper discography here, given Page's stature in the musical world. --Zoso 00:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


That isn't Page's official site. To my knowledge he doesn't have one. El cactus 04:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


It says that he has been active since 1957, being born in 1944, making him 13 when he started. However, in the biography it says that he first picked up the guitar at age 15. In my humble opinion, this is contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.234.182 (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

- the biography is wrong, his first public appearance is on the huw weldon show in 1957 (you can see this on youtube)

[edit] Violin bow

I would like some info on the bow incident... When/Where? Mention it in the article perhaps? Redwolf24 10:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy Page used a violin bow on his guitar many times, it wasn't just a single incident, infact I don't know a show where he didn't use it :) - although given the huge amount of LZ shows there must have been a few. He mostly used it on their song "Dazed and Confused", but also used it during "How Many More Times" in earlier performances (they stopped playing this live in around 1970, I think). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.7.203 (talk • contribs)

- this point will be well known to anyone who has seen the dvd. he also used the violin bow in the yardbirds, mainly on "dazed & confused" (there is a live version of this on youtube) but also on "tinker tailor soldier sailor" on "little games". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.70.235 (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

During some of Page's session work, he worked with a string ensemble. One of the violin players asked Page if he had ever considered using a bow on the guitar. Page said that it would not work because the bridge is not arced like a violin. But later, Page tried the technique and adapted to his legandary stage shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.35.75 (talk • contribs)

The violin Player was father of David MacCallum - famous for "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." in the 60s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.6.107.209 (talk • contribs)

Not that this is relevant at all, but it also completely destroys the bow... :-P Firenexx 01:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Actuallly it doesn't destroy the bow unless you REALLY use the bow hard like Page did (he would really wail on the thing). It does however cover your guitar and strings in rosen which is a pain if you try and start to pick the strings again. You can really get some interesting sounds by using it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzlydog (talk • contribs)

Page would often have his roadies either bring extra violin bows on the road or scope out a restringing shop, as his bow would become, as Firenexx put it, completely destroyed. :) Ledzepluvr 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The bow was definitely used on the studio versions of Dazed & Confused and How Many More Times, both on the first album. Speculation has run rampant that it was also used at the beginning of In the Light and In the Evening. With the former, its plausible that it is a bow on an acoustic guitar, but this has never been proven. With the latter, speculation is that it is actually a Gizmotron used. As far as live performances, the bow was used from the beginning until 1980. At first it was used in both D&C and HMMT, and then cut down to just D&C. In 1975 Page broke his hand, and for the first few shows of that tour they played HMMT and the bow was once again used during that song. Then in 1977 D&C was dropped altogether, but Page still whipped out the bow as part of what some call a "noise solo" as that's about the only way to describe it. In 1977 it led into Achilles Last Stand, and in 1979 it led into In the Evening. Hope that helps! --Cooleyez229 07:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guitars listing

Under the guitars listing there's a Gibson "Black Beauty" Les Paul Custom. I'm assuming the listing refers to the one that was stolen from Page in the late 60's or early 70's (can't remember which, think it's the latter). Now, since he technically doesn't own the guitar, I was thinking that this entry maybe should be removed. I don't mind doing it myself, but I don't really want to edit articles if I'm unsure how others feel about the change. So please just share your thought. Raflmoe 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The "Black Beauty" was recently remade in '07 as a gift for then what was the upcoming 02 Arena, and this was by gibson (I found this out in December 07's Guitar Mag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.68.165 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This list doesn't indicate itself as being a list of Guitars Jimmy Page currently owns. I'm sure some of the other guitars may have been sold or fallen into various states of disrepair (he doesn't play them all constantly, after all. Some of them have to sit around in storage closets.) Therefore, it would seem it is just a list of "Guitars," or, more precisely, guitars that he's played a significant amount in the past. I don't think a change is necessary. You might want to note (This guitar was stolen in ____ (whatever year)) next to the guitar there, and put a source in the links at the bottom of the page. This would be harmless and I'm sure a lot of Page fans would be interested in this knowledge. firenexx 15:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In the guitar listings, it is stated that he uses a "Harmony Acoustic". This acoustic is a mid 1960s Harmony Sovereign Dreadnaught Acoustic. While I'm not 100% sure, I believe this may be the guitar that the acoustic tracks of Stairway to Heaven were played on (I own one, and the similarity is amazing), but I could be wrong. christian.elliott 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlikely instruments

I removed "recorder, flute, tuba, computer keyboard, and airhorn" from the "other instruments" section- I've never heard or seen anything about him playing the instruments, and some of those just seem silly. If you can find a source for that info, feel free to add it back in. -albrozdude 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese ancestry

This article says that Jimmy Page is 1/8 Chinese. I have pretty big knowlege of the subject, but I have never heard such a thing. Does anybody know wether it's true or nor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.116.53.58 (talk • contribs)

That bugged me too. The only place(online) that says it, besides here, are the spam info pages that link all the info directly from wiki. Your probably pretty safe to turf it. IMO Cheers! Anger22 21:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have just written to the guy that added this and asked him to provide references Mikus666 21:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
ya know, i actually did always notice that he looked a bit eastern. but, of course, we need a ref. Joeyramoney 22:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've seen pictures of Jimmy's mother and she definitely looks part-Asian. I don't know of an official source for the info, however. ScottSwan 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Led Zeppelin

Shouldn't their be a larger section on his work with Zep? All we have now is about three paragraphs. About a fifteen year period. Yeah. :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.42.51 (talk • contribs)

that's why led zeppelin has it's own page. Joeyramoney 22:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Led Zeppelin III

In the subtitle "Aleister Crowley/Occult Interests" it says that Page pressed two sayings into the front and back covers. I have a vinyl of this album, and nowhere that I can see does this exist. The article on the album itself doesn't contain this bit of info either. Has anybody heard of this, and if so, where is it on the cover? Plus we need a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.239.147.121 (talk • contribs)

My father has the album, and I don't recall seeing it, and, since there's not any source, I'm going to remove it. M2K e 14:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read somewhere that there was some Crowley quote; possibly 'do what thou wilt and it shall be the whole of the law', that was pressed into the vinyl itself? But I'm not sure about the reliability of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El cactus (talk • contribs)

It was SCRATCHED into the run-out first few hundred LPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.6.107.209 (talk • contribs)

I have a copy of an original Led Zeppelin III with the inscriptions. It has Do What Thou Wilt pressed on Side One and So Mote Be It pressed on Side Two. They are etched in script letters into the vinyl where the playing space runs out. I have also seen the album with only one of the inscriptions pressed on one side. I think there are probably more than a few hundred out there, but I am not sure.

It's true. The plates used to press the records must have been changed at some point. Earlier pressings(?) have it while others don't. I have one of each. The one without was produced after the with different product numbers. - Rockthing 16:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy had the two sayings inscribed on the first few hundred LPs without the other band members knowledge, and if I remember correctly, was removed when they found out.

[edit] Edit the Non-Music Interest Section

That section is ridiculous. Can you people stop ruining wikipedia, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.42.156 (talk • contribs)

What's wrong with it? Grymsqueaker 16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Personal life" section?
Is there any information whatsoever that Page is a football fan or that he is interested in Chelsea FC? Personally, I don't feel like a reference to the Chelsea website is very substantive. - Rockthing 16:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I recall DISTINCTIVELY a Page/Plant interview in which Plant raved on about football (his team being West Brom, I believe) but Page said he himself never had any interest in the sport. So the Chelsea reference is highly dubious!

[edit] Welsh?

I was just curious as to why Page is listed under Wikipedia's "List of Welsh People." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Registered user 92 (talk • contribs)

Yeah. He looks half Asian to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.81.39 (talk) 05:06:05, 7 May 2007

[edit] PLAYED WITH KINKS

I think it is somewhat obvious to anyone who has listened to Page's session work in detail, and also to that of the early Kinks, that Page played more than one guitar solo on their releases. The solos on played on not only "You Really Got Me", and "All Day and All of the Night", but also to "I Need You", sound very similar in both tone and composition to Page's session work around that time for bands like The Primitives and The First Gear. If the solos do belong to Dave Davies, it was quite an amazing anomaly and coincidence as he has produced no other guitar solos that I am aware of that sound anything like them. The assumption that Shel Talmy would have just brought Page in to play some chords borders on naive. Shel was in the business of hits, and Page was his ace. Yes, the official versions of the events are that Dave Davies played all of it and Page just kind of lurked in the shadows or played some fuzz notes...or Keith Richards insists that he (Richards) played the solo on "Heart of Stone", but admits to copying it note for note from Page...but, oh, wait, Page did play on the alternate track that was released much later on the Stones Metamorphosis album. Again both solo sounds alot more like Jimmy Page in 1964 than Keith Richards - in fact Keith Richards really did not show the ability to play scales like that until perhaps much later, if ever. These explanations, at best, seem weak. Well if these guys were playing these solos, what did Page do then? Play some rhythm guitar and offer advice on solos? Rhetoric aside, the strongest evidence that Page did play these solos is the music itself. There are definitive elements to the sound and note selection that point intractably to Page's style at that time. In any case, at the very least the assertion in the article that it is a fact that he did not play on these recordings should be changed. This is not an NPOV. Considering the fact that the issue has been debated amoingst rock journals for decades should at least put this information in the realm of dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickiron (talk • contribs)

There can be no disputing the fact that Dave Davies's frantic guitar solo in on the record ("You Really Got Me"). You can almost hear Ray urging him on. In an interview though Ray said that there was another guitarist on the record. If this is the case then they were either in the studio or there was an overdub. This additional guitar was either Jimmy Page and/or Big Jim Sullivan. The Musician's Union did not allow overdubs but they did take place regularly. There had been earlier attempts to record "You Really Got Me" and I suspect that Dave may have picked up a few hints from Jimmy Page (who was more of a rock guitarist than Big Jim Sullivan) at these earlier sessions. Overzeal 10:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Styling

His styling listed is OBE, Officer of the British Empire; however, the categories at the bottom of his page list him as Commander of the British Empire. Which is it, Commander or Officer Gorovich 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked through some links, and according to the one referenced in this article[1 he was made an Officer, so I went ahead and changed his category from Commander to Officer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorovich (talk • contribs)

- it is OBE, which he got in 2005 as founding patron of the abc trust (from the abc trust website) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.70.235 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bands

Oughtn't it be mentioned that he was a member of [The Outlaws]. It says so on the Outlaws webpage, and its apparently important enough since Ritchie's page has it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shigaon (talk • contribs)

  • Page was never officially a member of [The Outlaws]. He only did some sessions with them. ScottSwan 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

this article has been vandalized --24.61.34.214 03:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No kidding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs) OMG!

Sarcasm much. Avianmosquito (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy

The article says 'One of Jimmy Page's Les Paul Custom "Black Beauties" is now owned by Dan Hawkins of The Darkness, due to the fact the guitar was too heavy for him'. Is that 'heavy' as in, like, really heavy, man? Like, too heavy even for Jimmy Page?? Now that's heavy!!! --Thoughtcat 13:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC) A response, During his time with led zeppelin page usually appeared skinny and frail (mostly latter in the 70s) but that is why it was to heavy for him. Although jimmy is still the gutair god #1 IMO.67.165.246.163 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


i think it has more to do with the fact of him being, like, 70 years old than with him being thin and frail 30 years go —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Led Zeppelin Career, etc.

I feel like this should be treated more chronologically. It's really all over the place, with a mention of 'Death Wish' coming at the end after his collaboration with 'The Black Crowes'.

Also, I've never heard of him doing the soundtrack to Death Wish III. Does anyone have a citation for this?

  • IMDB credits Page with "original music" for Death Wish 3. No soundtrack album was released, however, and it is believed that the movie used music that Page had recorded for Death Wish 2. ScottSwan 18:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)



In general there is a lot of unsubstantiated information throughout the article.

Something drastic really needs to be done about the flow as well.

This is a topic which I feel confident about and would like to see presented in style. This is a really good start. It just needs some second opionions (that aren't anonymous) and a little polish. I hope to put some serious work into mostly rewording and reworking whenever I have time. Now is not the time, but I look forward to working with any regular editors of this article.

- Rockthing 16:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere recently that Page collaborated (or at least jammed) with the amazing jazz bassist Jaco Pastorius. Does anyone more knowledgable about Page know if there is any truth to this? If so, it would definitely be a candidate for inclusion in the Post-Zep section...that would demonstrate a dynamically different side of Page's musical abilities (jazz fusion). I hope someone can help...

Perhaps [1] is where you should be at. Get a friend to help you if you have never used it before! [2] Candy 06:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Candy: Is there any need to be rude? Of course I've googled that information, it just seems slightly implausible, so I was wondering if anyone had actually verified that the rumors (as reported on the site you very obnoxiously linked to) are in fact true. By your link, I suppose you're suggesting that I should believe everything I read as a result of a google search? I pity you.

See my page for a response to your comment on my user page. Candy 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My respnse to your comment here is:

1. Sign your name (see Wikipedia help) 2. Try using specifics rather than make me or other editors scramble around to see what you may mean 3. I don't see the relationship between my comment and that you believe everything I believe everything on the web is true 4. No need to pity me.

Candy 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

For CANDY: (See also your user page...and be careful about calling yourself "editor") Here is my response to your comments from your user page:

A RESPONSE:

Perhaps you don't like using your name and like anonymous comment? -I asked a question before adding to a webpage. I'd seen rumors and all sorts of webpage/bootleg claims that Jimmy Page performed with Jaco...nothing credible and nothing actionable.

Perhaps you don't like citing sources? -I like citing sources. That's why I asked the question. You googled and linked to a non-reputable webpage, not a credible source. I had already done that myself, prior to your rude comment, many times. I was asking for credible information. That was clear.

Perhaps you like to actually refer to anything specifically? -This question does not make syntactical sense in English.

Well, as you don't seem actually bothered to be specific I assume you are not bothered about being serious. -I have no idea what this sentence is referencing. I have been very specific with my question and also very specific in addressing your unwarranted rudeness. My effort was to not add heresay to Page's website; you googled and linked to a non-credible source and rudely dismissed my comment on the Page Discussion page. You were rude, not me.

I don't think you should be bothered about my rudeness but think about your lack of specificity and the fact YOU can't be BOTHERED. -I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems that you are responding to your previous sentence, which didn't make any sense, so is this meant to create a conversation with yourself?

And no, imho it doesn't show a dynamically different side of Page's musical abilities. -To suggest that Jaco Pastorius is akin to any type/genre of music that Jimmy Page previously played or currently plays is a completely idiotic statement. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong and very uneducated. Jaco completely revolutionized the jazz world; he invented his own instrument by reformatting the existing model of the electric bass to generate a new tone...and his playing with Pat Metheney and with Weather Report ushered in a totally new type of jazz...dubbed "fusion". Jimmy Page has never been associated with any type of jazz, and, if you consider his work in the blues to be in the same ballpark as jazz, you've obviously never heard any of the mid-1970s through mid-1980s fusion that Jaco created...Page's ability to musically jam/communicate with Jaco in a live, or otherwise, setting highlights a different style for certain.

Perjaps YOU can help us by EXPLAINING what YOU mean. -I've already explained pretty accurately with my question on the Page Discussion page; you might have convoluted things by being rude and by googling a non-credible site. Google is obviously not the best way to research or to find credible information. You suggested that I either (1) use google to "research" Page and Jaco (I already had, which is why I was asking for more of an "expert" opinion from someone who might have already researched the rumors, the different non-credible websites) OR (2) find a friend to show me how to use google (which was rude and unnecessary). Your suggestion that google be used at all implies that you believe that google should be used to locate credible citations for Wikipedia edits...anyone who uses google knows that alongside useful information a TON of absolute crap comes up in response to any search...

The suggestion that Google is a viable source of credible information to support citations is a flawed statement. As this is the supporting statement for your rude comment, your comment is easily dismissable...you have made a very silly and very uneducated assertion that google be used and be trusted to deliver factual information. Perhaps it is you who needs help from a friend in conducting research.

It shouldn't matter that I am anonymous...YOU MADE A PERSONAL ATTACK AGAINST MY INTELLIGENCE WITH YOUR COMMENTS. SHAME ON YOU, CANDY!

You made your rude attack public, so I'm happy to expose you for what you are right here on this page, too. 72.84.195.236 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your IP address appears to have been blocked due to repeated vandalism. If you wish to discuss this further than please contact me when you have access to Wikipidia again. Candy 06:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I use a shared IP address. I had nothing to do with the vandalism, which, by the way, seems to have ceased and (knock on wood) not started again in 2007. A quick review of all of the 2007 contributions from this IP address, most of which were mine, confirms this fact. I'm not sure what else there is to discuss. You were unnecessarily rude. You can admit to that anytime, and an apology might be a keen idea...

72.84.195.236 21:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that in reponse to my supposed rudeness you have attacked me on two fronts (here and my own page)., In addition, you have perverted what I said (I have not suggested google is a suitable source I merely implied you use it to start your investigation as you didn't seem interested in using any reference to submit for discussion - whether google or otherwise). I also, have not taken to shouting (which you have done above im copious amounts). You claim I made a personal attack against your intelligence. First of all, you are in an impersonal address and therefore cannot be attacked personally as you are not even registered. I made a respose to a vague comment. Try to see the difference ... person to comment. Furthermore, it is not possible to attack intelligence which is an abstract concept in itself. You have clearly misrepresented me by claiming that my comment was uneducated. You have no basis for that. Silly it was for sure and tongue in cheek but further than that you cannot say. I have made an apology on my page to you sumply for being rather sarcastic. On the other hand, your tone I find quite obnoxious and unwelcoming. Surely, the response to something which is taken as a slight is to question how I meant it (remember assume good faith) not to blast me. Candy 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology portion of your note on your talk page. I don't appreciate the "but I also want to say..." portions that you have left here. I did not attack you at all. I pointed out that you were incredibly rude...that YOU did not "assume good faith" with my question...that you assumed it was a chance to belittle someone.
I did not mean the "uneducated" comment so much as an insult...I meant it as a statement of fact...your opinion about Jaco's music not highlighting a different genre for Page is an uneducated opinion...obviously you don't know enough about Jaco, his music, or what significance his music holds to support that opinion. That's fine. Jaco is outside of lots of people's musical lexicons, just as Jimmy Page is probably not tops on jazz experts' lists...that was my point, it seemed an unlikely combination, an unlikely jam session...tons of assertions available via google that it did happen, but I wondered if anyone had actually heard any of the purported recordings, etc. (probably that would only take somebody with bit-torrent download capability, something my internet service provider doesn't support). So, your opinion was uneducated...and your rudeness did not assume good faith.
I didn't "pervert" anything you have said. Anyone can read along my line-by-line response and observe that to be true.
Your argument about "attacking intelligence" is not even worth dignifying with a response. If you want to close read my phrasing, try copy editing your own comments (esp. if you want to keep calling yourself "editor"). You admitted on your talk page that your comment was rude. It was an attack, and was unwarranted. Insofar as you obviously assumed it was a chance to belittle someone else, you yourself have blatantly violated the spirit of the Wikipedia community.
My comments are not unwelcoming or obnoxious. I have not made any snide remarks to rival your "try google" statement that started all of this. You behaved like a jerk, and I am simply calling you out for it...and also demonstrating that you have no entitlement to talk down to me (whether or not I have an anonymous IP or named account)...it violates Wikipedia's mission, and besides I know more about the issue at hand (particularly the significance of Jaco) than you do, so what possible grounds does that give you to pass judgement? You would have done well to not reply at all to my initial question, you should have let someone with experience, knowledge of a recording, or an expert knowledge of Page or Jaco's bootography give the requested details...instead you've been rude, and now you're trying to save face, but it's just not going to work. You messed up. Give it up and move on. Try to be more respectful and more productive as a Wikipedia editor in the future.
72.84.195.236 00:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Charles Obscure"

Does anyone have a source for this "Charles Obscure" alias? I've never heard of this before. IrisKawling 19:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • that was the alias Jimmy used for "Hats Off To (Roy) Harper" (Trad., arr. Charles Obscure). Seems to be some kind of inside joke. In recent years that songwriting credit has been changed to "Page/Plant/Jones/Bonham". ScottSwan 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok thanks for clarifying but is it really that notable to be in the infobox? IrisKawling 04:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think a credit for one song on the entire Led Zeppelin catalogue warrants an inclusion as an alias on a biographical infobox. It's not like a nickname commonly used to refer to the indivudual (eg "Bonzo" for John Bonham) Edelmand 02:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This artcile needs a lot of citations. It needs facts substantiating. I started doing some of this and will come back another time and slap a cite needed banner. In addition, the second and third parargraphs in the intro may need to be quickly cited as they seem like original research or very obscure. Candy 08:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added the Knebworth Concert

The line-up for this concert wasn't known until the morning of the show (that is tickets were bought not knowing who was playing). When Plant was announced, Page wasn't mentioned. Unfortunately, I can't find any good reference to back this us ... yet. The one I did find was untrustworthy (it missed out at least two songs that Plant did with his band - Going to California and Tie Die). However, I can vouch for the accuracy of the tracks. Notably as well, Page had lost that paunchy beer belly that he had at Live Aid and looked more like his younger self. Candy 08:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Albeit with some gray streaks! Additionally, and it might be too much to mention in the article, and I can't find an article to back this up, but I've read before that Wearing & Tearing was rehearsed for Knebworth eleven years prior. --Cooleyez229 07:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclic referencing

I just noticed the reference to the Ultimate Hellraiser TV prog for channel 4. Having seen the programme I didn't think it particularly good. But the main concern is that I also saw a recent one called "God gave rock and roll" which was about the relationship between (mainly Christian) religion and the blues /rock and roll. Guess what came up? Well "Stairway" and back masking and Led Zepellin being an occult band. The odd feeling I had was that part of the research had been done using Wikipedia (and from older PoV edits).

My thoughts are: What if the info was taken from Wikipedia? As TV progs don't cite sources I guess we will never know! If someone now uses a TV prog as a ref in Wikipedia to try to validate a citation doesn't this become a cyclic feed?

My question is, is there any Wikipedia policy or guide to avoid this or discuss this? Thanks, Candy 10:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glyn Johns

I notice that the following was added and then removed:

"Famed producer Glyn Johns, who was bitter over the limited credit he thought he deserved for producing an album with Page, once went to a Page concert just so he could go backstage before it began and tell Page what an insufferable jerk everyone thought he was. In typical Page fashion, it has been rumoured that Jimmy forgave Johns for the insult and immediately tried to patch things up. Johns refused and threw a tantrum. Jimmy called security and had Johns escorted out of the building. The two have a very difficult relationship to this day. "

Can someone explain why? The above is taken almost verbatim from "Hammer Of The Gods" by Stephen Davis, and is therefore considered to be "factual" enough for this page. One might say that it elude more to Led Zep., but seeing as it has more to do with Page's personality traits, then it sits well here. Nexus Icon 09:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Les Paul bought from Joe Walsh

This page has Page's #1 as just a 1958 Les Paul while #2 is the 1959 that Page bought from Joe Walsh. I was thumbing through a Guitar World from March of 2004 and it was talking about the recent Gibson Jimmy Page limited edition "#1" Les Paul and went on to describe that #1 was from Joe Walsh and is the one that's wired out-of-phase depending on how the push-pull tone knob is situated. So which is it and are there any references that say that #2 is from Joe Walsh and not #1? My reference again is from Guitar World March, 2004.

I'm not sure. I've heard it was #1 and that it was given to him by Walsh. I'll have to look into it. --Cooleyez229 07:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of inacuracies here: (1) Both his #1 & #2 Les Pauls are 1959 models - the '1958' thing is a myth that has been circulating since the 1980s. #1 has no serial number which makes it hard to be 100% sure but there are details one can study, & the most popular opinion with guitar experts is that it's a 1959 (2) It was in fact the #1 guitar that he bought from Joe Walsh for $500 in April 1969 - Page confirmed this himself in the interview Gibson guitars did with him at the time of the JP signature Les Paul model. The interview was run on the Gibson website for a while & was on a DVD given as part of the "case candy" with the original run of the signature guitar (3) Regarding the custom switching, #2 was customised first, & has 4 push/pull pots plus two switches under the scratchplate (photos have been seen in a number of magazines); #1 only has one push/pull pot, which switches the pickups in & out of phase with each other.User:Huw Owens 14:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Huw Owens 01/05/07

[edit] Age listed in "Formative years" section

There is a passage that reads "At the age of 17, Page appeared on Huw Wheldon's All Your Own talent quest programme...." This was changed from "At the age of 14..." by 72.66.76.127 (see DIFF). Is this an accurate change or an incident of fact-altering vandalism? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

video of the performance is available on youtube. he certainly looks closer to 14 than 17.

[edit] Drug use?

For the citations for drug use are b.s. there is no evidence for the quotes that this article has in them. In fact there is no evidence AT ALL of any other drugs used by him though out the 70s, beside heroin in late 75 early 76.67.165.246.163 16:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what you mean by "there is no evidence for the quotes that this article has in them". Have you actually consulted the sources which are cited? I have, and the citations are correct. Edelmand 12:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok then please feel free to tell me Exactly what drugs he used before heroin in 1976..!(67.165.246.163 19:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

The specific drug or drugs he used before 1976 are not mentioned in the article, so why are you asking me? The fact that Page himself stated that "for me drugs were an integral part of the whole thing, right from the beginning, right to the end" would logically mean that his drug use (whatever drug or drugs those were) was not limited to late 75 early 76, and was present throughout the 1970s. I stand by my statement that the quotations cited, far from being "b.s.", are correct and accurate. Edelmand 12:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

well you or other people should find out what drugs he did before 76

Why put the onus on me or "other people"? If you are so keen to find out specifically what type of drugs he did before '76, go ahead and do the research, find a source, and cite it accordingly. Edelmand 14:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been under repeated attacks of vandalism by User:Central2 who also edits as IP 67.165.246.163 (talk · contribs) which has been blocked for 1 month for repeat violaions of several Wikipedia policies. Referenced content, no matter how controversial, is still referenced content. Removing/altering referenced content is vandalism. Wikipedia is not here to be used for hero worship... just cited information. If anyone has a dispute over the references themselves those judgements are not to be made on the main article. If anyone has differing information with regards to this disputed section and it has verifiable citations it can be added as a contrary view. But if Central2, or anyone else continues to delete referenced content they will be reported to an administrator. 205.174.170.244 14:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits as 67.165.246.163 have been accidental; a simple matter of not being logged in. I have NOT removed any referenced content whatsoever. If you still believe I have, please provide direct quotations. The reverts you are making refer to members of Led Zeppelin being involved with cocaine (which isn't even in the referenced content, let alone being true at all). Reverting back to accurate content. User:Central2 9 August 2007

At second look, I am not and am in no way associated with 67.165.246.163. The edits related to this account are not mine, and I have never been blocked or warned on Wikipedia to my knowledge. Maybe a shared IP address? User:Central2 9 August 2007

Would just like to state that all material in section 'Drug Use' in the current revision (as of 15:37) is referenced and accurate (this accuracy including the references themselves!). User:Central2 9 August 2007

Central2 and 205.174.170.244 please be aware of the amount of times you have reverted, or partially reverted, to what is, in essence, the same versions. Central2, the version you are reverting to removes names (as in this edit) given from cited material, which others have attested on this page as having verified. The following diffs are your edits following edits by 205.174.170.244, at points both of you brand each other as vandals (diff1, diff2, diff3 diff4. If you are unaware of the policy about Wikipedians who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, please read it before making further edits as the policy is enforceable by being blocked from editing. Thanks--Alf melmac 19:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connection to Crowley?

I note the very detailed description of Page's interest in Aleister Crowley and Thelema. I also note that Page is included on the List of Thelemites, but that he is not explicitly stated on this page to have ever been involved in Thelema or included in the Category:Thelemites. If anyone can verify that he ever was a real adherent of Thelema, and add such to the article, it would be greatly appreciated. Alternately, if you can't find evidence which explicitly states his adherence to Thelema, please say as much and I will remove his name from the list. Thank you. John Carter 19:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He's not supposed to be in List of Thelemites, I'll remove him. IPSOS (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the status of allegations of Page's plagiarism? I'm surprised that no mention is made of this in the article.

See: http://www.furious.com/perfect/jimmypage.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.102.4.222 (talk) 13:39:01, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

What is the status of allegations of Page's plagiarism? I'm surprised that no mention is made of this in the article.

See: http://www.furious.com/perfect/jimmypage.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.102.4.222 (talk) 13:41:27, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Is there any referenced content available from a reliable source? Legal documents or court documents or settlements that can be used citations? The non-notable source of the furious.com blurb would not qualify as a reliable source for any information regarding supposed plagiarism. 142.167.93.132 15:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I notice my comment on plagiarism has been removed.

As wiki itself cites Page's stealing of the trad song 'Blackwaterside' (learned from Bert Jansch), and Page's ripping off of licks from Jansch and Davey Graham are well known to anyone with any span of knowledge of UK guitar music I thing this is another sad example of blind zealotry preventing any word of criticism on wiki.

Page is an infamous plagarist but we can't acknowledge that on wiki!!!

Roger 15.01.08 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

TBH I think that the plagiarism thing is completely out of context. You have to put yourself in the era and understand how the process worked with guitarists and musicians at the time. Many of these bands and musicians jammed a lot together. They would take parts of each other's songs and simply use them. It is clear that some of Page's guitar compositions were either derivative of, paid homage to or stole sections. However, this was not unusual. It wasn't necessarily though of as bad or an abuse of copyright as usually what came from it was something very different.
Rather than accusations of plagiarism it is always better to state facts such as whether he was taken to court. The court results or cout of court settlements. The following article gives some indication of the history behind the plagiarism accusation. (I consider the article to have a fair amount of fact and sets the scene for the era but is often disjointed and incoherent structurally in places.) Happy reading though. I particularly like the comment ""Whole Lotta Love" is obviously, as Steve Marriott pointed, a direct nick of the Small Faces take on "You Need Love." The lyrics are basically the same as the Muddy Waters version." If you read the two sets of lyrics it gives a whole different understanding of basically. --Candy (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Candy. It should be pointed out that the blues was a music form that liberally borrowed from each other since the first blues song was ever strummed on guitar. Remember before World War I, the idea someone could copyright music with lyics, and receive royalties for it was unheard of. Dixon's publishers could copyright it because the tool was there for them to be used. They just happened to be the first to use it. Specifically though, the issue involving "Whole Lotta Love" hinged on the similarity of lyrics, not the music, so it's relevance in this case to Page who didn't write the lyrics is minimal. Allegations of copyright infringement are best handled in courts of law, and not on the pages on an encyclopaedia. It opens up this encyclopaedia to the possibility of being sued, even if some other source has said it. MegX (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also the Jeff Beck Group's You Shook Me vs. Zeppelin's. Beck pretty much gave up on being a 'rock star' in a band after that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drug use edits

I remove the header "Drug Use" and changed it to "Cocaine and Heroin abuse". The reason for this is that many substances are psychoactive (which is a reasonable if not definitively inaccurate definition of drug). Alcohol, nicotine and heroin are all drugs. As the section did not refer to all his drug use (certainly alcohol was also one) it seemed to be better to redefine it as his abuse (rather than use) and name the specific drugs alleged in the section. I feel that this makes it more specific and appropriate. Candy 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

so he didn't abuse alcohol and nicotine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discography

Hi there! I'm in Wikipedia Italy as Luketheduke and I'm one of the biggest Led Zeppelin collectors in the world. I did the most comprehensive discography ever made and I'm trying to give a strong help on understanding Led Zeppelin + members to the newbie. Note that it's for the official releases only and not for the illegal bootlegs. I really don't understand why you cut my link: did you really look at my discography? Nobody ever made it, there's no book or anything similar. And you don't consider it important or interesting? c'mon let me know why ... Thanks luke p.s. please don't say a word about external link, because it's full of links (not all so interesting or updated as you think, i.e. Jimmy Page at Discogs, what is this mess of official not official singles album etc?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.204.109 (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL 156.34.214.13 10:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I read and re-read more than once the link you wrote (who are you?) and now I'm 100% sure that my site is correct (www.vjez.com) and these links MUST be cut off: # Jimmy Page at the Internet Movie Database ; # Jimmy Page at All Music Guide; # Jimmy Page at Discogs. Just to mention: they are totally commercial, useless, with a big amount of commercials, they are not unique resources etc. My site is 100% unique and there's nothing similar in the whole web. If you can prove that, you're right and I'm wrong. This is a three years hard working, of collecting infos, images, of checking different editions, of contacting collectors worldwide etc to give an idea of the vastity of the records made. It's only the beginning and you don't consider it interesting. You're not a LZ fan at all, for sure ... No words. Luke (one feedback received: "Very nice Site you have. I have always wanted to see one like this. All the best Pet.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.218.222 (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skiffle

I changed this entry from "skiffle group" to "skiffle duo" because I have seen the episode of Huw Wheldon's program in which Page appears. You can see it too on the BBC documentary "Dancing In The Street". After playing his piece, Page is asked by Wheldon if he played any other style of guitar, to which Page replies, "Yes, I'm learning Spanish guitar as well". Wheldon then asks Page if he is "...going to play skiffle..." when he grows up, to which Page replies: "No, I'm going to do some biological research". Classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.11 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A DEGREE OF MURDER

wHY HASNT ANYBODY NOTED THAT JIMMY PLAYED GUITAR FOR BRIAN JONES' SOUNDTRACK MORD UND TOTSCHLAG( A degree of murder)THEY WERE GOOD FREINDS AND THER SOUNDTRACK I AVALIABLE THROUGH WATCHING THE FILM ON DVD. tHIS WAS IN 1966-67

[edit] Nazi uniform, pedophilia

Should there be mention of Page wearing jack boots and a Nazi officer's cap during his performance in Chicago on April 7, 1977? Also shouldn't he be listed as a pedophile since he had a relationship with a fourteen year old groupie named Lori Maddox? THIS IS NOT TROLLING 142.167.73.151 not even close.

Pistolpierre (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Nazi hat is no more notable than the members of Monty Python dressing up in complete Nazi uniforms... or Mel Brooks dressing up in a Nazi uniform. And his relationship with Lori Maddox has been mentioned in the article for a long time already. He cannot be labelled as a pedophile as he has never been charged with anything even remotely close to that. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and not a soapbox for personal POV pushing WP:POINT and violating WP:BLP with false and unreferenced claims. 142.167.87.205 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying that Page, a known occultist, dresses as a Nazi for reasons of comedy? How can you dismiss the fact that the Nazis were occultists? If Page had a sexual relationship with a fourteen year old girl he is a pedophile because it is against the law to have a relationship with anyone under the age of 17 or 18. I am not POV pushing or trolling. This is common sense. You are false to say I am making false and unreferenced claims considering his relationship with Lori Maddox is mentioned and cited.Pistolpierre (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
His relationships are all mentioned in the article. And unless he was charged with a crime, on WIkipedia he can't be labelled as anything. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin and is not labelled as a pedophile. What were the laws at the time of Page's relationship with Maddox? If he had commited some sort of crime he would have been charged with it. As per WP:BLP you can't make any accusations of anything with proper citation/verification. As for the hat... he wore a hat. What was the reason? Was there supposed to be some sort of message behind it? All that is known is... he wore a hat. No orignal research allowed. 142.167.87.205 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
A pedophile is someone who has sex with a child. Therefore Page and Jerry Lee Lewis were pedophiles. Yes he wore a Nazi hat. What is your point? You said he was imitating Monty Python and Mel Brooks?Pistolpierre (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Dressing in Nazi costume does not a Nazi make. You would need to make a much better case for this. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Siouxsie Sioux from Siouxsie & the Banshees dressed in a complete Nazi uniform replete with swastika armband, not just a cap and boots, including the lyrics to one of her songs which goes, "Too many Jews for my liking." Of course David Bowie was also seen giving Hitler salutes while in Germany and Ian Curtis from Joy Division is reputed to have referred to Rudolf Hess as "the prince of peace" (Hess' prisoner ID was 31G-350125, which was the number used by Ian Curtis in the song "Warsaw Aged 93"). The Hess article mentions it but not the Ian Curtis one. Amazing how other artists articles are whitewashed, yet Page wears a cap and boots on and off during one tour and is immediately branded a Nazi. How quaint... MegX (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
So it's all fun and games to dress up like a Nazi? What is your point? Nobody has "branded Page a Nazi". It is worth mentioning considering his interest in the occult was shared by Nazis. What about the pedophilia aspect of his relationship with Lori Maddox? According to at least one bio I've read about her, David Bowie took her virginity at age 13. So Bowie and Page are both amused by Nazis and both are pedophiles?Pistolpierre (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If you believe what you are saying is true, why don't you mention that on the Bowie article? My point is you seem to be singling out Page, when there are far more worse examples of Nazi behaviour from other artists such as Ian Curtis and Siouxsie Sioux. Page never wrote anti-semitic/pro-Nazi songs like those artists. MegX (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
They're clothes. You'll notice the amount of discussion this is getting, which is basically the only use of anything connected to the Third Reich. Also, National Socialism was a system of government, not a cult. The majority of Nazis didn't have any interest in the occult, and in fact were probably against it, though that's just based on their treatment of people with interests in the occult.--Beetle (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Dressing up as a Nazi is in fact fun and games, unless one is a Nazi. Until you can find a reliable source for Page being a Nazi, this accusation is nothing but trolling. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
For the 2nd time, nobody is saying Page is a Nazi!!! He dressed up like one. The picture taken by Neal Preston is in the Led Zeppelin box set for God's sake! If that is not a reliable source, nothing is. Do a search for Jimmy Page and the image comes up on many search engines. I am not a troll and am tired of this discussion. Clearly you haven't even read this entire discussion thread.Pistolpierre (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy Page wearing a hat on April 7, 1977 is inconsequential trivia, and unencyclopedic. Your connection of this to occultism is WP:SYN, and a bit of a stretch. We have sufficient information in this article to demonstrate Page's "connection with the occult", and claiming the hat adds to this is original research, and silly. Please stop adding it to this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you even understand WP:SYN? It appears you don't. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. In a billion years the rules of logic will not allow you to claim that a section dealing with Page's interest in the occult and pagan symbols is not related to him wearing a Nazi cap with a pagan swastika. The relationship between the two is obvious to anybody who knows that the Nazi swastika was a pagan occult symbol. Why haven't you commented on the pedophilia aspect of his relationship with a 14 year old groupie?Pistolpierre (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you keep changing the subject? It's because you are a troll. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
??? Changing the subject? Did you even read the subject of the discussion? It says "Nazi uniform, pedophilia." You are ridiculous to call me a troll. You still haven't commented on the second part of the discussion.Pistolpierre (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The first part of your trolling was already dealt with by an administrator. You cannot label a person as a criminal when they were never charged with a crime. Wikipedia has numerous policies in place; WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP etc. On Wikipedia, unless they were charged with a related crime, you cannot place a libellous accusatory label on anyone... anywhere. David Bowie, Mick Jagger, John Phillips, Bill Wyman, Ted Nugent, Jerry Lee Lewis, Joe Perry, Steven Tyler, Jimmy Page, Alice Cooper etc... were any of them ever criminally charged with being a pediphile? No... no they weren't. And by Wikipedia's own policies... they cannot be labelled as such. Page had a relationship with Lori Maddox. And it says so in the article. By Wikipedia's rules... that's all that can ever be said about the subject. No charges, no labels. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the same can be said of issues involving plagiarism. Plagiarism is dealt in a court of law to decide, not on the pages of an encyclopaedia. MegX (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I am tired of being called a troll. Don't be ridiculous. Wikipedia's own article on pedophilia defines a pedophile as somebody who violates the state statutes against having sex with a minor. Therefore Bowie, Jimmy Page, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc. are all pedophiles. There is nothing even remotely controversial in this. You left out a big part of Page and Bowie's relationship with Lori Maddox. The fact that she was 13-14 years old and such a relationship was in violation of California state law.Pistolpierre (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
And when were any of them officially charged? Never... debate done. Move your box somewhere else. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


100% agree on your plagiarism point MegX.in spite of your anti-anon comment on Fnlayson's talk page If there were no charges/court appearances re: supposed plagiarism... then the rest is just original research and can be deleted completely. Both here... and especially in the Led Zeppelin article itself. If it doesn't have a ref that meets WP:RS.. it should be gone. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That comment wasn't directed to you even if you're editing anonymously :) Why dont' you register? MegX (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Debate done? Are you kidding? This is not even close to being soapboxing. Why are you commenting on a separate discussion about plagarism completely unrelated to this subject? For the second time, Wikipedia defines a pedophile as anybody who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescents or has sex with a minor. Are you assuming that at 13-14 Lori Maddox was not pre-pubescent? What does them never have been officially charged have to do with them being pedophiles? Page and Maddox have admitted the relationship existed and that they hid the fact in order to avoid Page's arrest. Are you unaware of this?Pistolpierre (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No charges though. Then again the bars and hotels which served Lori alcohol were not charged by the police either, for serving alcohol to a minor. Are you going to list every one of them for commiting this offence? I doubt you will. Since you've chosen to single out Page, yet not mention anything about this on the David Bowie article, one can only assume you have a grudge against Page. Have a nice day. MegX (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Girls of 13-14 are very rarely pre-pubescent. __meco (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember that Jimmy is a rock star, not a politician. For all we know he just did it to provoke people. Besides, labeling someone a Nazi just because he wore a hat and boots for less than 3 hours in an aroused state is laughable at best. I believe it was the result of poor decision making and a moment of bad taste. Nothing more. 84.48.233.145 (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We need more pictures!

This article needs more pictures of Jimmy Page. 66.44.181.31 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no free-use images available at Wiki Commons. People try and upload stolen images from the interent all the time. But they are copyvio and will always be deleted. If you want to go up to Mr Page and ask him to pose for a picture feel free to donate it to Wikipedia. Unless someone does that...there will never be a picture here until after he dies.(when a fair-use picture may possibly be allowed) 156.34.225.77 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You can get images of Jimmy Page by emailing Atlantic Records. They keep stock photos and will let you use promo images of Jimmy Page provided you tell them it's not for profit. They're not too difficult to get if you ask nicely. MegX (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)