Talk:Iron Maiden

Untitled This article uses British english dialect and spelling. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

I have removed blatant, uncited (and incorrect) speculation from Claims of Occult References

I have removed this: Possibly due to these controversies, the band's later albums moved away from those themes to notably less controversial ones, such as film and literature (the album Piece of Mind and songs like "The Prisoner", which was based on the British television serial of the same name, "The Wicker Man" and "To Tame a Land", based on the novel Dune), wars and world conflicts ("The Trooper", "Aces High" and "2 Minutes to Midnight"); historical themes ("Alexander the Great" from Somewhere in Time and "Run to the Hills") and even human fears and emotions ("Hallowed Be Thy Name", "Fear of the Dark", and the album A Matter of Life and Death).

"Possibly?" - that alone indicates the section is speculation. There is not a single citation to even warrant wording it in a more acceptable fashion (if there even is one), and the section is incorrect - for instance, as just ONE example, on AMOLAD, "The Legacy" is about the devil, and in a good light (as it's from his point of view). Another example, "For the Greater Good of God" (AMOLAD) is about the evils of religion.

AFAIK, editors/contributors should not be entering their opinions that they think possibly might be right. If anyone believes I am incorrect about this, I would love to discuss it here.

'(Of course, that does not mean they worship the devil (nor do I believe they do), it simply means, as they have stated, they sing about a lot of topics - and in a more realistic way)'

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 03:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this smacks of WP:OR. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 10:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy to see this gone, but I'm absolutely baffled that you could interpret The Legacy as a song about the devil from his own perspective. To me, at least, it's a soldiers' perspective criticism of the upper echelon of the military and the propaganda that deceived them into trusting the generals and those who now, on their deathbeds, are seen for what they really were all along. Anyway, I suppose that's all irrelevant to the article... Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 14:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the removed material, it's clearly opinion, and incorrect opinion at that.

Possibly due to these controversies, the band's later albums moved away from those themes to notably less controversial ones... songs like "The Prisoner", which was based on the British television serial of the same name

"The Prisoner" is from the same album as "The Number of the Beast"! Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 14:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OOOPS! Sorry, I was thinking "Lord of Light" and not "Legacy" - sorry.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 15:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Genres (Heavy Metal and/or Progressive Metal) - DISCUSSION/CONSENSUS

An editor (or two) keep adding "Progressive Metal" to the genre list, which, as of the last discussion (see archives), is against the earlier decision to simply leave "Genre" as "Heavy Metal"

Though I dont have a particular opinion on the matter, to help stop the edit war that seemed on the verge of starting, I am opening a discussion here, and have notified the editor(s) involved so they may participate and will hopefully avoid 3RR or an edit war until a consensus is reached.

Anyone for the inclusion of "Progressive Metal" in the "Genre(s)" list (in addition to Heavy Metal)?

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources label them a progressive band? J04n(talk page) 03:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, reviewers have been using terms such as "progressive influences" and similar to describe their last two albums, but (and I have not been digging for such) I have not seen them or their albums being labeled as such. Is the criteria that they be considered a "progressive metal band" or that their music is being labeled as "progressive metal" or is it sufficient that their music is being labeled "more like progressive metal"/"progressive influences"? If the first, then I'd probably vote no unless someone finds a reliable source. If the second, I'd vote no unless someone finds a reliable source. If the third, I'd probably vote yes, as their music is being labeled similarly lately. But that'd be solely based on Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion of such stuff and not my opinion on what they play. My opinion on that is they are definitely heavy meta, with (lately, as well as sometimes in the past) influences of progressive rock thrown in. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 03:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Please stop trying to add "associated acts" to this page. The acts listed simply do not qualify under wikipedia standards. You don't add a name to the list just because they had a member or two in common, nor do you add solo acts.

I don't care if other wiki pages for bands make this mistake...that's no excuse to make the same mistake here. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Iron Maiden the truth about their sales records (Ultimate Discussion)

iron maiden the truth about their sales records (ultimate discussion)

first of all sorry my uppercase button is broke. (hope fix it this weekend or buy a new keyboard)

i`m surprised people called "vandalism" the facts. recently i was told i was vandalized because i change an exaggerating fan desire statement for a fact.

ok then discuss because according to robertmfromli there was a consensus among all editors. really? the editors were iron maiden fans of course they want iron maiden record sales appears just as higher as michael jackson or elvis. there was not a neutral opinion into the discuss. just stating from the poor bad sources they got to back up that statement which are ridiculous having in mind that references are pulled from one guy from the word magazine (not heard such magazine before), one blogger, one reporter from the credibility and faitfull skynews... hurray.... the last reference its the band's bio from their webpage that says 80 million not 100 million (which according to wikipedia this should not be taken as a reference granted because the source its not from an external party) and i agree with that remark of wikipedia because record companies are not dumb, they inflated sales figures to promotional purposes... can you imagine an iron maiden fan reading it and say -wow my band sold 100 million records without mtv, radio, commercials,etc,etc.. that's an old company marketing strategy that works perfectly well.

anyway. i *dare* anyone who proves iron maiden sell records by each album and their certification for it each by each and match 100 million records, i just want to see who`'s going to finish this discussion for once and for all, because as i said before, previous discussions were a joke (no offense) iron maiden fans searching on google sources, yes you found 3 sources, even you can find 10 but are any of those a good source?, **from a music industry organization**? proving the sales records are certified? its funny how iron maiden does not have any riaa certification and the u.s. represent the 40% of worldwide records., any ifpi certification? or soundscan certification? please someone let us know. i already did the exercise going album by album and i would tell you iron maiden could hardly touch 50 million copies, well i'm not a fan of maiden (maybe like the first two albums) that's why i'm neutral but that's it. 100 million records? Even 80 million, really? lets discuss this people right away!!! because vandalism its what is showing wikipedia article right now. wikipedia its not a forum of fans it is an encyclopedia i remember this to all the administrators and the duty for it, not because you did a consensus with a couple of guys that means take it as a fact granted. good day.

ps: do you think lady gaga has sold 55 million records?... with just one album?..... do you believe that? red hot chilli peppers, motley crue and other bands which has been there around 30 years has sold 50 million, so lady gaga beats all these artist with one album (the half of what maiden supposedly has sold in 30 years and like 20 discs)... so, what do you think? well according to wikipedia she does :) and the source?....no comment. think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therein8383 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Some replies to Robert: Hey I take the oportunity to reply a couple things here. 1) One thing you will also notice is that the RIAA has refused to certify Iron Maiden's sales ever since they told the RIAA member companies to go "f" themselves when asked if IM would jump in to their lawsuit to sue fans. --- Where are your sources? , you think RIAA the biggest music administrator in world its going to take it personal with Iron Maiden? so what's happened with all artists that have said the same?, RIAA or any certificated agency has banned them because of that, as far as I know sex pistols are the ultimate non-conformist band towards certifications and music adm, and they have their RIAA and RIAJ certifications. Your statement looks like a personal feeling. 2)Do you honestly think that since then, they haven't reach gold or platinum at least once on their BETTER selling albums? I doubt it, besides Number of the beast as their best selling album (which is the only one that was awarded with a certification) I dont think... brave new world would sell 10 million records. 3) That aside, a consensus has already been reached. -- Yes. a concensus with iron maiden fans without debate. Im huge fan of led zeppelin so I would do the best to keep this guys up whatever it takes. 4)EMI claims 80 million. That's correct, but as I said before record companies tend to inflates their records sales as an strategy as I explain before. Look at the article the "personal reference someone did" .."and a total of over 100 million records worldwide with almost no radio or television support." That part its fully 100% arguably. Iron maiden has not the looks of backstreet boys or something they are not attractive to mainstream, record companies know that, so what they do, let put it this way , we dont need tv, no radio, we are true musician and loook we have sold 100 million records. any misfit teenager (I was one) will be hook by this. 5) About the sources. You did a good work on google last night, are they good sources? (Im sorry I have to put this on caps) ARGUABLY AS THE BEST. Look robert, how can you put a reference of Amazon, really? You know what could possibly would fix that statement. said EMI claims 80 million, not saying Iron maiden has sold 80 million records. Don't you think? 6):::And now something to remember. (1) Wikipedia is NOT about The Truth - it's about verifiability in a reliable source. -- 100% agreed nobody has the truth but Im discussing the maiden record salles cos' the sources are not reliable from a competent musci organization but magazines, bloggers and tribute web pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therein8383 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC) --Therein8383 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss gentlemen

I'm posting this real interesant comment by --Deathmyname (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC) that could help to the discussion:--Therein8383 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Ok, i read all the discussion about Iron Maiden sales and Harout, i know the number 85 million or 100 million may not seem too realistic for a band that has had almost no support from tv or radio, but you have no source that says "Iron maiden 100 million album sales doesn't seem to realistic for a band that doesn't have a lot of certifications in other countries", you do have sources that claim iron maiden's sales are about 75 million, but we should believe a news paper, or the official band website and their record company that has been since 1931, it's true that they have may inflated the numbers to 100 million (and there are bunch of other sources that claim this too), but it should be definitly moved to the 75 - section, another thing , is that EMI and Maiden's oficcial website only talk about album sales, not records, that's why there are a lot of pages saying "100 million records sold under emi", but that may be a maketing campain, but we shouldn' t believe the news sources because, they might have inflated album sales, but again we don't know every copy sold from every album, and I think you either, so the only thing we could do here is suppose, so what I suppose, is that (as we don't know the exact number of copies sold by every album), we should not be trusting every news paper claim about their sales, we shoud believe what it's more realistic, their record company and their website, because even if we believe the news paper claim, we don't know if they're giving the exact information or what they believe, and even if their record company is lying, we know that with bunch of certifications in other countries, iron maiden sales should be about 75, 80 or 100 million and putting the numbers of album sales in every country (according to the certifications) like you did, doesn't give you the exact information of sales worldwide (or even close), even if we do that with THRILLER (michael jackson) doesn't come even close to 50 or 65 or 100 million sales or Linkin Park' s "Hybrid Theory", even including big bands that, if you put the RECORDS sales (including albums, singles and dvd's) doesn't give you the exact number of sales in every country (including new bands like Linkin Park or Coldplay), that most of reliable sources (like news paper, official website and records company claim) give in millions, the least you could do is put the album sales about 80 million because we don't know their total of RECORDS sold (that it might be 100 million records worldwide like other sources claim).

Was that enormous wall of text really necessary? Essentially all I've taken away from it is that you don't trust the sources provided, and that numbers from "competent music organizations" would be preferable to them. I agree, in principle, that reliable figures from a respected music sales monitoring organization would be optimal - but we can't seem to find any. In their absence, the sources available (at least one of which [1] does seem to pass the letter of the reliable sources policy) give a number that we therefore use. ~ mazca ^talk 22:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your most recent edit looks fairly reasonable to me; but I'm not sure how changing from some dodgy-ish sources that say 100 million, to some different dodgy-ish sources that say 70 million honestly changes anything. This figure is clearly in dispute. ~ mazca ^talk 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added a few more sources - ones that have been considered RS for other music articles. I have reverted the state to the previous state it was at when Therein8383 promised he'd talk about it first. There are two more sources (The Sun, and The Register) which I can add as well. If the debate is over the reliability of the sources, then the 100/80 figure has stronger cites than the 70 figure.

As for some of the other claims Therein8383 has made, I've already pointed out 12 platinum from the US alone on the Discography and album pages. Not sure how he missed them. But that aside, that's my stance on it. So...

ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Added "The Sun" cites... someone perhaps discuss which the weak ones are (Sky News, probably one). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that RIAA has issued five separate Platinum-awards to Iron Maiden's albums, that is one million each, and five million together for albums. The rest of the Platinums-awards have been issued to video-longforms, seven platinums, each at 100,000 units, 700,000 together--Harout72 (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC).

Correct... that's why I provided the link to Therein8383 though... so he could look at the actual certs. Anyway, he had an idea on his talk page which may be the "best" of all worlds - which we would require your (Harout72) help with - if we could get everyone to agree to it.

I've also suggested Therein8383 NOT revert the article as it stands (avoid anyone claiming he's edit warring). If people feel truly strongly that it should be reverted back to his change till discussion is completed (I suggested he allow at least a week - not a few hours), then keep in mind that I cannot, and I hope (for the same reasons) that Therein8383 does not - meaning one of you will have to do the revert - assuming we cant wait a week for discussion or for rewording the whole darn thing. So, if someone else truly feels strongly enough, please do the revert. If not, we can change it in a week or so once people have had a chance to weigh in.

I think I like Therein's suggestion, wordy as it may be, as it covers all bases, and may finally put this controversy to rest - otherwise we'll just end up back here again as the numbers keep bouncing. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly

Around four months of discussion has "disappeared"[2] - everything from April 28, 2010 to August 19, 2010 (note in the history I linked to that there were indeed a bunch of posts to the talk page, that are neither here nor in the last archive). Dunno how or why...

On that note, to Therein8383, my sincere apologies... I guess it must be difficult to find previous discussion that's not on the page or on the archive. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Should we be canvassing[3] for support to get our way in this discussion? I haven't, but I can if we're supposed to be doing such. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have sent a message (each message exactly the same, as I have copied below) to the most recent 6 (non-anon) editors who have edited this page (skipping the ones who have already entered this discussion, or that Therein8383 has already invited). I simply chose them in a row from this[4] as can be confirmed here[5].

The message I left was:

Iron Maiden: Discussion of Album Sales: 70m or 80/100m, or worded to include certified and (as claims) 70, 80, and 100

Hi, if you wish to participate, there is a discussion going on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iron_Maiden#Iron_Maiden_the_truth_about_their_sales_records_.28Ultimate_Discussion.29 with the above proposals for revising the lede's album sales section. (sig)

In addition, I left Petergriffin9901 a slightly different message here[6]

Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

70 Million, weaker cites?

• Strongly Support. Since Iron Maiden have a very low certified sales (see here), we should use the lower verifiable figures available to us, and that is 70 million in record sales or 85 million which is what we currently have Iron Maiden supported by at List of best-selling music artists.--Harout72 (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Harout I have 2 better sources below than the nytimes source you have. I'm ahead now.--Therein8383 (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

80/100 million, stronger cites?

• Support ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Reword to mention

Certified (per Harout72's research/tallies) and (per sources) 70m and (per sources) 80m and (per sources) 100m (with cites of course) ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Hey Rob and everyone. So here is the thing. There are definitely reliable sources listing 100 million (The Independent, etc.) however they list albums, not records, which is kind of a big stretch. Personally, I would say they sold around 40-50 million albums, but we have reliable sources claiming 100. Wikipedia runs on verifiability more than truth, so I would have to go with 100, solely because of its sources. And just as a side comment, I don't believe in that whole RIAA conspiracy. Their albums have peaked at very low numbers like in the 30s, 40s and even 100s, so thats why there are no certifications. So I support Robert with 100 because of superior sourcing. As for Lady Gaga, there is a big difference. Gaga has sold around 12 million albums, and the rest are singles, like 40 million. Selling singles are nothing like albums, for a record label to sell 40 million singles is around 40-50 million dollars in revenue (they don't keep all of it). If an artist sells 10 million albums, each costing from 10-15 dollars thats 100-150 million in revenue for the label (again they keep only around 30-40%). So when Britney Spears has 33 million album certifications the US alone, that is way more impressive than 40 million singles worldwide. Every album sold is like 10-13 singles sold.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points, and thanks for commenting. I currently/temporarily have removed my support of 80/100 for now pending support for including all the figures (including the certified figure, with the rest as "claimed in...") if it will end the constant changes to the numbers. If that proposal is tossed out, then I'd put my support back in the 80/100 claims as I've provided stronger sources/cites now. But I cant see any other method that will put this to bed forever - and that method, wordy as it may end up being, covers the low (certified) and the other claims that are well sourced - which probably is a more accurate portrayal of how Iron Maiden's sales are portrayed in the media and by certifications. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nathan, we are not to focus on retail value, we are to keep our focus on units sold. And whether an album or a single, we are here to look at the units each market has generated and not how much the record company can profit by selling albums vs singles. I hate to sound like a broken record but certifications don't lie. And Nathan makes a good point above emphasizing Iron Maiden's poor charting in the US. And that perfectly correlates with Iron Maiden's lack of certifications.--Harout72 (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Except their charting in the US has never been better. Fourth for AMOLAD, and First for TFF for instance. Not disagreeing with your other rationale, but since (and including) BNW, they've beaten all of their previous charting. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Some things I didnt realize till TFF came out (when I heard about the #4 spot they earned) - which apparently many others do not realize either (cant blame them, I'm a Maiden fan and didnt know till 2 months ago myself). Re: Iron Maiden's poor charting in the US. Here's the last ten years:

• TFF #4 in the US
• AMOLAD #4 (Rock)/#9 (overall) in the US
• Dance of Death #18 in the US
• BNW #13 (internet albums)/#39 overall in the US

Cites: [7]

Tours: 7 tours, 90% or more all sold out in the US.

Yes, Iron Maiden, in their first 25 years, did not chart very well in the US. But, since (after) BNW, that has changed dramatically. AMOLAD and TFF have beaten the chart positions of every other album they have ever released.

They've (in the first 25 years) also had four other Top 20 US charting positions. Not quite the poor US charting positions most people seem to think they have. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey you guys what about my sources?

OK guys Im glad this discussion has started, buy a cheap keyboard on radioshack in order to avoid offend somebody. My thing is; 70 million has been always Iron maidens number but for some reason now they are claiming 100 million... My sources were deleted (Thank you Rob ;) .. ) before any chance to discuss it. I found 6 of them, see below:

• THE SUN = http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/sftw/article1876135.ece
• REUTERS = http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE53E5B420090415
• IRON MAIDEN WEB PAGE = http://www.ironmaiden.com/index.php?categoryid=8&p2_articleid=1073
• BILLBOARD = http://www.billboard.com/news/iron-maiden-closes-integrated-deal-with-1003684293.story#/news/iron-maiden-closes-integrated-deal-with-1003684293.story
• IRON MAIDEN WEB PAGE = http://www.ironmaiden.com/index.php?categoryid=8&p2_articleid=831
• INDEPENDENT UK = http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/advertising/flight-666-iron-maiden-performing-at-a-cinema-near-you-1639972.html

Of course I found plenty of other sources which I consider as not reliable (Like radiorock, amazon, metalsludge.com, brazilian newspaper and like 30 more sources like those) First thing you notice is how the newspaper The sun contradicts what they are claiming, on one article they claim 70, and other (robert's source)they claim 80.

I think Reuters its a pretty good source coming from two identified journalist (Bob Tourtellotte and Dean Goodman)

My special one is Billboard source, as you know billboard its identified internationally and specializes in track music sales and charts.

What about the iron maiden bios? which its strange they are claiming 70 and then after claiming 100 according to Rob's source.

For me the best source so far its Billboard cos' these guys specialized on this matter.

I think I have some Advantage over Robert's sources cos' their sources are:

• THE SUN (I have one from them too. contradiction with my source)
• IRON MAIDEN WEB PAGE (I have 2 from them too. contradiction with my sources)
• THE GAZETTE (Newspaper). the thing about this source is that it comes from this guy called Al Kratina who it is not identified in the whole webpage to validate his profile (Not as well as the journalist on Reuters are identified), even the article looks like a soup lol, I mean they start talking of Maiden and then commenting other artists....
• INDEPENDENT UK (I have one from them too. contradiction with my source)

Its clearly my billboard and Reuters source are ahead.

Ps I still suggest leave blank the part of the 80/100 until we get a consensus or different redaction. cos' the 80/100 has not been discussed it before.--Therein8383 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

One thing that should be kept in mind about sourcing a sales figure is that the claimed figure must cover record sales, not just albums. Anytime one comes forward with a source that claims albums sales only, that source will always leave doors open for arguments. In other words, there will always be editors who will say, if they have sold 70 million albums, then it must be 100 million with singles and videos combined. Therefore, to avoid all that drama, we must source figures with articles that state Iron Maiden have sold 70 million records (meaning singles, albums, videos).--Harout72 (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Harout72 makes a good point. But I'd like to put that aside for a sec and look at the cites.

Therein8383, I am not sure I would claim Reuters a better source than a major non-US paper. That would make such a claim look like nationalism. Dont forget the other cites, btw. That aside, your other sources that are on par (The Sun and Independent) are dated earlier. I would suspect the newer sources would trump the older ones, otherwise we'd be arguing over changing the figure to 2 million by grabbing a 20 year old cite and claiming it's equally as valid; which gives the appearance of someone only wanting to use cites that support what they want the article to say - I know that's not your intent, but that claim gives such an appearance.

I've always been under the impression that if a source is deemed a reliable source, that if we chose to selectively pick older articles about them over newer ones, simply to support our POV that it becomes POV pushing which isn't permitted. I could be wrong though. There are those, who no matter how many times they read it, still think Wikipedia is about the truth by selectively choosing their cites while ignoring newer ones they dont like. Sadly, they are wrong. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert, You are right, you're sources are 1 year and a half earlier than mines, so that is why tried to point The sun sources void themselves, Unless maiden has sold 30 million in one year. Regarding the Reuters I still thing is a better source cos' the trajectory and coverage those guys have but is still a topic of discussion nevertheless I still thinking my sources are stronger (Billboard source is a killer) what I'm understanding here is that we have to separate the concepts of albums, singles, EP, Collections, videos, etc. It is probably if you sum all that Maiden could claim 100 sells (Taking in consideration Maiden has like 30 different types of album, collections, kits, movies, videos, clips, etc). Its like the lady gaga case; is it correct sum singles with records? so why don't we sum ring tones, shirts and itunes sold too... I would still think the only solution is re-write the paragraph and make all these remarks cos' the battle of what source is better is going to be far long specially when we don't count with straight forward information. --Therein8383 (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Therein8383, in this case, I'd presume a UK source is better than a US source, since it is a UK band. ;-)

But I agree, I sincerely think that rewording as you proposed on your talk page, is the best method to go to end this - otherwise we will be back here again in a month. :-(

Now... as for the current status, I think we can wait - or (as I requested above, if people feel so strongly) that someone other than you or I revert (well, undo now, as revert wont work since others have edited the article). BUT... another solution is to simply change the wording to "millions of sales"(cites for 70, 80 and 100) (no 70, no 80 no 100 - just "millions") until this discussion is concluded if people still feel strongly about changing that text before the discussion is over. Kinda sloppy, but if it will put people at ease for now, I'm for it... anyone else? Change it? Leave it till discussion is over? Dont care either way?

Anyway, related note: it seems Maiden has charted a lot better in the US than I thought (from reading various articles that downplay it). Because this page is already getting massive, I've listed their Billboard Top 200 positions here[8] with a link on that page to the cite. Not quite the same 30s, 40s or none that I've seen implied in other articles (like the recent ones discussing TFF's charting that seem to imply the others charted horribly).

Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've not commented here yet, but it seems like the most effective solution to this would be, as Robert said, to keep the exact phrasing deliberately vague, something to the effect of "the band has sold between 70<insert ref here> and 100<insert ref here> million albums during their career." Given the varied age and reliability of the sources, if an exact number is added, it seems likely as not that this whole discussion will get repeated on a regular basis. C628 (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say we go with a figure between 100 million and 70 million, that is 85 million record sales stated by The New York Times. It is a new article from September 2010 and it covers Iron Maiden's all records not just albums. For now; however, I think all figures from the main page should be removed until we reach a consensus.--Harout72 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Full agreement (as noted above) with the second part. If all else agree, would someone who is not me (or Therein8383?) make that change? As for the 85 million figure, failing a consensus to reword citing all claims or the 80/100 claim, I would put my support behind that as well. I am almost leaning towards it anyway to make it consistent with the "List of Best Selling..." page. I would also propose an additional compromise if there are people dead set on the 100m figure that reads (in better form than I can manage) something like this "...has achieved over 85 million sales^{NYT cite} with claims of over 100m^{100m cites}" - again, ignore my poor wording - I expect others can word that better. So... I think that brings us to:

1. Reword to include certified, 70-100 (each as claims with cites)
2. 70m
3. 80/100m (current revision)
4. 85m using NYT cite
5. 85m using NYT cite with mention of 100m claims by other RS's

I, btw, am VERY STRONGLY for including (someplace in the article) the certified sales number Harout72 has worked out (see his link to his research above). I am very against the article not being balanced by not having that figure. Having it allows the reader to decide for themselves what weight they wish to give the claims against the certified numbers. Though of course for accuracy, the sentence should read "more than x million certified sales" or "over x million certified sales"

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: To end the contentiousness of this change, I'd support #1 or #5. On stronger cites, I'd probably support #4 followed by #3 as the basis for claims in #2 can be found as early as Feb 2001 (using Google and date search). Which leaves me in a quandary... there are enough cites for all of them. Do I choose a proposal that will hopefully put this to rest for a long time, or choose otherwise? I have not decided and am open to others' suggestions and opinions on this. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we should pick one figure only to avoid confusion. Anyways, both the 85 million and the 100 million are claimed figures and not really achieved figures. And we'd open doors for more disputes if we stated achieved 85 million with claims of 100 million. As for the certified sales, if agreed upon, we could create a new page for Iron Maiden's certified page entitling it Iron Maiden's Available Certified Sales and post the certified sales on there, and link it to their main page.--Harout72 (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(Re: certified sales) What about as a collapsed WikiTable? Maybe in the discography section? Or someplace else? I still wouldn't mind a simple "more than x million certified" added to any section with a claimed sales figure, simply because it balances the claimed figures (directly where they are claimed). Low end (certified) <-> high end (claimed).

I'd also support picking one figure (and support general consensus whether it was or was not in agreement with my opinion), but, as is evidenced in the article history, it seems no one will accept that. The figure bounces a lot. I dont even remember who put the "wiki vandalism" note in the text (it's there now), but obviously someone feels very strongly about the 100m figure. That's my worry... I really dislike the wordiness of a "compromise position" to prevent constant number changes, but even when we reach a consensus here, if it isn't such a position, we all know that this will come up again - and probably very soon. :-( ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If we reach a consensus on the use of 85 million, and the figure gets changed, we can revert by pointing out to this discussion (or consensus if we have one soon). Anyways, I think we all would agree that all pages need to be watched regardless. As for the certified sales, we can always do that later, it's not a problem, let's for now decide on the use of the sales claim. Should we, in the meantime, remove the figures from the main page? The current sentence, by the way, makes no sense As one of the most successful heavy metal bands in history, Iron Maiden have sold over 80 million records under EMI and a total of over 100 million records worldwide with almost no radio or television support. Weather under EMI or claimed by a news service, the figure should only be one. I believe we should remove both figures for now. --Harout72 (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The sentence only seems not to make sense because it's not clarified with more information anywhere. EMI doesnt handle US pre-orders (I forget who's handled each, but I can look at my pre-order disks), and doesnt handle various other (non-US) markets. That would make the differing numbers (each valid or otherwise) make sense. EMI will have sold less than their total number of sales. But, even with (me) having that understanding, I also don't like the weird wording. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 22:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion its getting interested. The thing is we are getting too much assumptions (We should call Steve Harris to clarify this). I'm agree we should get that part of Maiden sales blank until we get the consensus, Millions of persons visit wikipedia everyday, most of them use wikipedia source to get their information, I have seen on my research lots of Maiden bios that are copied word by word from the current wikipedia article... EMI is claiming 80 million, its like mcdonalds reporting their burgers are healthy which benefit their name as a company but its only the FDA which is competent to validate that, same thing with a music certificate organization. The NYT source its pretty good but is still as good as Reuters or Billboard Source. --Therein8383 (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, how about if by tomorrow night (give a few other participants time to reply), if no one objects, we can remove the sentence until we resolve this discussion? And Therein8383: wish you'd posted that before I'd gotten a McRib!!! ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

sorry buddy. Sounds good to me let other people get involved.--Therein8383 (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me like the strongest cite we have right now is the 85 million NYTimes one, given it's undeniably a reliable source, as well as being the most recent, which would presumably mean it's the most accurate. Therefore, I'd personally support option 5 as listed by Robert above, given 70 million seems to have the oldest references, and I think there should be some mention of the claims of higher sales. Keeping it as is I think is a bad idea, 80 and 85 million are close enough that I'd rather choose one or the other, and 85 million has the stronger reference IMO. C628 (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to enter this discussion Robert. With such a wealth of contrasting figures available from various sources, I would strongly favour a deliberately ambiguous phrasing, centred on the 85m claim as in (4). My suggestion would be to re-word the text to:

As one of the most successful heavy metal bands in history, Iron Maiden have reportedly sold over 85 million records^{[NYT citation]} worldwide with little radio or television support.
A comment can be included pointing potential editors to this discussion. Trying to push the figure up is non-productive unless' accompanied by more reliable sources. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 10:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think previous re-word written by Axe could work to be honest, Its simply, its straight forward without getting too much dizzy with the whole 80 this 100 this, the only thing is the statement of little radio or tv support its very arguably but somehow is explained on the article so that is fine. We should see the difference of this word called record vs album, Maiden has sold 70 million albums... maiden has sold 85 records. Record is a single or track from an album. take care guys --Therein8383 (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I kinda like it as written by Axe as well. I agree the proper word should be records as well.

(TANGENT WARNING)I've always thought the words "albums" was kinda ambiguous anyway - and I have a tendency (when discussing such things) to use albums to interchangeably mean CDs, cassettes, 8Track, etc, regardless of the amount of content on each. I suspect others may as well - especially in the case of a Maiden "single" release, where the last "single" I bought from them was a mini-album ("Wildest Dreams"). What doesnt get mentioned (and isn't relevant to this article) is that most of their single releases are like that... 3-5 songs, so I often make such a mistake. If I was talking about studio albums, I'd say "they've got 15", but if someone asked how many Iron Maiden albums (as a general term) I have, I'd probably simply count them up, since I don't have a clue what the proper term is for a "single" that's not quite a single (as it contains as many as 5 songs).

Anyway, that's a tangent that I'm off on... that's what I get for posting before my first cup of coffee. If everyone is in agreement, I'd go with Axe's proposal until we can revisit this after TFF has been on sale for some decent period of time (and presumably more certifications are earned).

I do have one other suggestion though (Harout72, are you around? This suggestion was directed towards you as well for "The List of Bestselling..." article as well. This may be totally off the wall (remember, no coffee yet), but what if we make an infobox for the article(s) (this and "The List...") that sits on the talk page, and perhaps hidden on the article pages (so it's only seen when someone hits edit) that says "Before changing sales figures, please see previous discussions here (link to talk page archives). If you still feel the numbers need to be changed, please discuss on the talk page first." - and on the "List of..." article, maybe a non-hidden "Archive-Like" box for the artists that are contentious with a similar message and...

"Previous sales figures discussions:

• Iron Maiden (link to last)
• Some Other Band (link to last)
• Etc... (link)

Anyway, that's just a thought. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated side notes: Here's some other labels IM has published under: CBS, EPIC, CMC, Sactuary, Metal-IS!, Capitol, Sony (and I think Atlantic and BMG at one point).

Oh, and for the suggestion above for "List of..." I know there's an infobox already, my suggestion for that page was incorporating quick-links to the most recent sales discussion for contentious artists to hopefully help avoid rehashing the stuff over and over again. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Since we've already agreed upon the use of the 85 million at List of best-selling music artists, using that figure also here makes it both consistent and logical at the same time (as 100 million's too inflated). I'm not sure about the choice of Careful With That Axe's wording in the first part of this sentence As one of the most successful heavy metal bands in history, Iron Maiden have reportedly sold over 85 million records, not that I have anything against the band (and couldn't as I'm not familiar with any of their materials), but would it perhaps be better to re-phrase into something like Iron Maiden, one of the heavy metal veterans, who have been in the business for 30 years, have sold 85 million records, at least that could directly be supported by the article of The New York Times. As for the hidden message, I would agree to have it also on the List of best-selling music artists, not on the talk-page (as I know from my experience that it would not prevent future comments nor disputes) but on the list itself. Simply stating in the hidden message Please do not change the figure nor the source as a consensus has been reached amongst editors which could be found in Archive 15 (section 10) should be enough, at least for the List of best-selling music artists. For this page, I'm not sure what would work better, perhaps both on the main page and the talk-page.--Harout72 (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps changing it to "Considered one of the most successful heavy metal bands..." which is supported by numerous cites in the article to various awards (Top 10 metal band, Top 100 greatest..., etc, etc). Cite as needed... though, that brings up another debate. I've seen people go crazy over being very cite happy in the lede, and then guidelines that say DONT add cites in the lede, and instead add them in the body where the article goes into each in more depth. I lean towards citing the lede to prevent deletion wars and a ton of (cn) tags. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we're getting somewhere with this. A consensus (albeit a slender one) seems to be forming for a deliberately vague phrasing around a figure of 85 million. I also support Robert's suggestion of "Considered one of the most successful heavy metal bands..." which sounds less strained than the current spiel. Robert, why don't you go ahead and make the change, incorporating my suggested wording with your modification? At least for the meantime while discussion continues here, if necessary? Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 09:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

sounds good to me, somebody go ahead and edit the info and put the note directing to this discussion.--Therein8383 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey gang, sorry I haven't gotten back to this in a while. I'm making the change in a few minutes. I plan on adding (as suggested and discussed) a comment in the article next to the sales figure. It will be of course more appropriately worded than the one that's sat with the 100m claim all this time (I dont believe a confrontational note was the best way of handling that).

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion/Consensus Results: COMPLETE

 Done

Hey all, I have made the edit exactly as we discussed. Directly after the sales figure is the following hidden message:

NOTE (Date/Time Stamp): The sales figures (70m/80m/85m/100m) have went through extensive discussion on the article's talk page. It would be greatly appreciated, since this is such a contentious subject, if you would join us on the Talk Page and discuss before changing. Thanks from all of us who have engaged in the discussion to reach the consensus you now see.

The edit summary is:

Edited sales figures per consensus reached on article talk page. Please discuss any proposed changes on talk page before reverting or changing to help us prevent contentious editing on the article. Thanks from all of us who worked on this consensus

I've removed my "please come join the discussion" hidden message since we are done and it no longer applies. I have also removed the original message about wikivandalism and such - I dont think it was appropriate and was too confrontational, so currently, the "NOTE" above is the only hidden message in that section.

And I have left (for as long as this doesnt get archived) the message below (which I have broken out into a new section).

So... I think we are done for now... Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Iron Maiden Sales Figures: For those new to the discussion and/or are reading it after finding the note in the article

While I still fully believe, especially in light of the around half dozen other labels I've mentioned that Iron Maiden publishes under, that they have reached or exceeded 100 million sales, I do strongly believe that the NYT cite is a very strong cite, and I equally strongly believe that coming to a consensus and compromise is the best way to ensure the article is preserved in a non-contentious state - hence at this time, I am all for using the 85m/NYT figure.

As Harout72 has said elsewhere, in a few months we can see how TFF has done and revisit this situation as needed. Someday, somewhere, in a source equally as strong as the NYT one, a 100m or higher figure will be mentioned. Nothing in this conversation (as I believe everyone involved will agree upon) prevents us from revisiting the sales figures at that time.

In the meantime, we all (and I do think I speak for all of us on this) appreciate you stopping here to discuss proposed changes to that figure before simply editing it. Please create a new section to discuss any better sourcing or any new rationale that we haven't already covered. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Added Note IN Article Page

I have added a HTML commented (ie: hidden till someone edits) note into the article page, directly above the paragraph with the sales figures. It reads thusly:

NOTE (Nov 6, 2010): There is currently a discussion ongoing about Iron Maiden sales figures. Please join us on the Talk Page and discuss before changing. Thanks from all of us engaging in the discussion.

We can (and should) of course remove or modify it when it is no longer relevant. And I have no objections if someone thinks it is unwarranted and wants to remove it now. Best, R ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Note no longer relevant (since previous discussion has ended) and has been replaced with a more relevant note (see section above). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we add Prog Metal now?

With the release of their newest album, we have now had 4 albums from them that are described as Progressive Metal, I believe that only calling them Heavy Metal is now innacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by World wrestling federation ztj (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Can you provide some cites to reliable sources for everyone to look at and comment on? I've seen a lot that describe progressive influences in their music, but none that claim Iron Maiden is a progressive metal band. There's a big difference between the two. For instance, one would also have to include them in Classical Music, Soft Rock and a few other categories as well if we just used the "influences" logic because there are classical and soft rock influences in their music.

Also, related note, as this may apply for some others in the community... they've had 15 albums... if only one or two show progressive influences, and since their style is always evolving, it may be inappropriate to put them in that category simply because next album they may not incorporate such influences making this (TFF) a "one off" occurrence. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 18:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Budgie

Why is Budgie not listed under Iron Maidens influences? If you compare them, they sound very similar! If you listen to "Wildfire" by Budgie, you can clearly hear where Maiden got the idea for "Two Minutes to Midnight"! Steve Harris has stated that Budgie is a huge influence, and Iron Maiden has even covered "I Can't See My Feelings". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.16.226 (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Because I dont think any one has found any reference that shows Steve or anyone else from Maiden saying that. If you find such a reference in a reliable source, that's great! But if you dont, then even if we agree that they sound very similar, it's still just our original research which isn't permitted on Wikipedia. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 18:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

sales numbers and or portal

Hi guys have been watching the talk over sales numbers and i am wondering if its all settled? As i am the guy that does the portals (Portal:Iron Maiden). I was waiting to update the portal until this was all over. So is it? can i change Portal:Iron Maiden/Intro to what we have here or is there still a debate?Moxy (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moxy, the discussion is ended, and the results are here (and as noted there, already changed in the article). Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 09:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done.......portal has same intro has here now (again)(Portal:Iron Maiden.Moxy (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Moxy, you may wish to change "Studio Albums" from 14 to 15 to be indicative of their newest release that just came out this past September (see Iron_Maiden_discography). I've got no idea how to edit a portal page, otherwise I would have done it for you. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done i think you mean here right??--> Portal:Iron Maiden/Selected article/1.Moxy (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup! That's where I meant. I couldn't remember how to find the subpages being included/transcluded when I looked at the main IM portal page. Thanks for the quick response! Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Np User:Mazca jumped in and helped aswell...tks for catching that Mazca..Moxy (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem - ended up editing it exactly the same minute that you did, which confused me slightly! ;) ~ mazca ^talk 21:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Galileo

Articles written in the eighties in magazines described Iron Maiden music the best. There was mention of Lynyrd Skynyrd, Allman Brothers, Stevie Ray Vaughan, and other that the band spoke of. One of my favorites is from the band, Trapeze, a song called Medusa. What happens to songs that aren't played live? Deja Vu </\>75.203.13.58 (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pointless fancruft. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog for idle ramblings. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 09:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Lady Blah Blah

Iron Maiden's my favorite band, and Lady Ga Ga is quote possibly my LEAST favorite artist. That being said, I'm getting tired of anonymous editors taking out the passage which mentions (and sources) her love of Iron Maiden. It shows that Maiden's influence goes beyond metal performers. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)