Talk:Jello Biafra/Archive 1

Did DK start touring in the late 70s or early 80s? The article says early 70s right now.

I've removed from Jello Biafra the sentence

Marilyn Manson similarly combined the first name of a female pop culture icon and the last name of a serial killer.

bcz it is only vaguely relevant to the article. IMO something derived from the 'graph i took it from, namely

Biafra was the name of a country which attempted to secede from Nigeria in 1966. After 4 years of fighting, and horrific starvation, Nigeria regained control of the nascent Biafran state. Jello Biafra came up with his name as a combination of a violent civil war and a consumer product, to highlight what he believes is a close relationship between consumerist capitalism and Third-World violence. Marilyn Manson similarly combined the first name of a female pop culture icon and the last name of a serial killer.

does belong in an article like Commonalities between Jello Biafra and Marilyn Manson, and more valuably, one like Forced conjunction to express unexpected relationships. And both Jello Biafra and Marilyn Manson should link to both of them.

But those articles should be written by someone surer than i about their being worthwhile. --Jerzy 20:19, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)

---

good job. i always wondered why the hell he called himself after biafra.

---

Biafra probably does believe there's a close relationship between consumer capitalism and violence in the Third World, but I've never heard that was the basis of his name. See [1]: "Jello Biafra picks his name at random out of a notebook. Years later, he says he chose it because he 'likes the way the two images collide in people's minds,'" and [2]: "liked the way the two sounded together." Hence, I've removed the comment unless someone has a source for it. RadicalSubversiv E 07:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Why is Jello Biafra "aka Governor of California" linked to Arnold Schwarzeneggar? --cprompt 06:20, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

It looks to me like the picture is of him doing an impression of the Gubernator... RadicalSubversiv E 11:52, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't really see it. Mind if I edit the caption? --cprompt 03:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Could he use more time in the gym? --Jerzy(t) 18:59, 2004 May 20 (UTC)

Feel free. RadicalSubversiv E 11:43, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Can his speeches be used at Wikisource?

Wikisource seems to accept speeches, but I'm not entirely sure whether Biafra's can be used. I'm not referring to his spoken word albums, but those he has done in public. For instance, this one. I'd like to include that as well as a few others of his (for instance, the H2K speeches) if I can. I'd like a second opinion about it first though. -- LGagnon 20:55, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I'd recommend that you write him and ask his permission. He's been known to be all over the map in terms of intellectual property rights. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

#36

According to the "Guiness British Hit Singles" book, the DK's most notorious single peaked at #36 on the UK charts, not #31. (Also, "Kill The Poor" hit #49 in Britain in 1980.) -- RMc

I cited my source when I added the chart position, yet you haven't. I'm changing it back until someone can come up with proof that my source was wrong. -- LGagnon July 3, 2005 05:46 (UTC)

Sister?

I've never heard anything about his sister running for mayor. Can someone provide some evidence for this? -- LGagnon 19:18, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Not his sister: reread the passage! -- Jmabel | Talk 00:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Recently added, recently cut

In 2004, Biafra started a band with former Platypus Rex member, Glen Daniels, and Smashing Pumpkin's drummer, Jimmy Chamberlin called The Fused Molecules. It reached minor success with the ska scene in southern Chicago, but the band eventually decided to go their separate ways.

I have removed this pending citation. I could be wrong, but I believe it is simply made up out of whole cloth. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Who the heck removed my mention of Joey Ramone suggesting Jello as a president and also eventually campaigning for jerry brown as president...It's true and intereseting so why remove it? (anon 12 Aug 2005)

It had no context; you added it in at a random spot in the text. There was also no dates given for anything and no proof (reference + citation) that it happened. -- LGagnon 01:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Personal life

I have moved the marriage info to the Biography section. I think the rest of this section should also be moved to somewhere else in the article, as it seems a bit redundant to have this section and the Biography section at the same time. -- LGagnon 20:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ordination is free

This article states "Their wedding was conducted by Flipper vocalist/bassist Bruce Loose (who had paid to join the Universal Life Church as a minister just to conduct the ceremony)..." Becoming a minister (i.e. ordaining) in the Universal Life Church is free (see its article) so he probably paid $5 to get the ID-sized certificate laminated with Church gold seal. Ewlyahoocom 17:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Marriage

Do we have a source for the claim that Biafra mistreated his wife? -- LGagnon 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I never heard anything about mistreatment. I always presumed that their marriage fell apart because of the Frankenchrist trial. Given that she ran off with Frank Discussion, I have to question her mental state though. -- Cjmarsicano 05:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What goes here?

A paragraph reads - Biafra was born in Boulder, Colorado, USA to parents Stanley and Virginia Boucher. Biafra developed an interest in international politics early on, which his parents encouraged him to learn more about. - and it stops right there. I'm not sure what to do with that. sidenote: ive seen him in concert, and he said that he used to visit a bar where Jon Stewart bartended. One of the odd jobs that Jon did after college was bartend at "Franklin Corner Tavern" in Trenton, NJ. He annouced it in Philadelphia, so this makes more sense. --Psycho78m 02:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You're going to have to elaborate further; I have no clue what you are complaining about. -- LGagnon 21:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Is your problem that it ends with a preposition? I don't think we have a rule against that, but if you like, you could reword the last phrase as "about which his parents encouraged him to learn more." I think the current wording is more colloquial, though, which fits the topic. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Offspring info

Shouldn't this appear earlier in the Bio section? It's supposed to be in chronological order. -- LGagnon 21:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

To quote Rollins, don't think about it, do it. --Cjmarsicano 21:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

i changed the attackers identity

The people who attacked jello at 924 gilman street were not skinheads, they were actually crusties. It's a group of folks who don't like to bathe or change their clothing all that often, hence the name crusties. I know they were crusties that attacked him because i was working security that night at the club. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.15.192 (talk • contribs) 21 Dec 2005.

I reverted you before I saw this. Next time you make a change that you explain on the talk page, put "see talk" as part of the edit summary.

Since we have no way to verify that you were working security, etc., is there somewhere we can find this in a citable source (a newspaper story, Maximum Rocknroll, etc.)? Meanwhile, I'll change the article to just not say who the attackers were. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It could be verified through MRR i bet, and also by calling 924 Gilman directly, their number is 510.524.8180 (the attackers, not whether or not i worked there since that seems irrelevant to the identities of the attackers.). I see now how things go down in history as facts when they are not. The source sited is wrong but since it's a source it gets repeated and then this could continue until there isn't any other refrence point other than the incorrect one. Not that i think skinheads are a noble group who shouldn't be blamed for anything, just in this case they were not the attackers. I don't know how to sign this and am not registered, but the "punk rock" name i went by while working the club was Jerme Spew. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.15.192 (talk • contribs) 22 Dec 2005.

Thanks. I'll try for MRR and hope they've got this, because as discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources we really can't fall back to unpublished eyewitness accounts, they are just too easy to fake; we've had some discussions about some sort of "bonding" to get around this, but never came up with a satisfactory way to do it. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the only publicly available archive of MRR is at the San Francisco Public Library. Does someone with access to that library want to follow this up and find a citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the IRS release of Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables?

"In June of 1979, Biafra formed the record label Alternative Tentacles with which the Dead Kennedys released their first single, "California Uber Alles". The label was created to allow the band to release albums without having to deal with pressure from major labels to change their music (although the major labels were not willing to sign the band due to their songs being deemed too controversial).[2] All later albums by the band would be released on Alternative Tentacles (with the exception of live albums released after the band's break-up, which were compiled from recordings in the band partnership's vaults, but without Biafra's input or endorsement)."

perhaps should read something like

"In June of 1979, Biafra formed the record label Alternative Tentacles with which the Dead Kennedys released their first single, "California Uber Alles". The label was created to allow the band to release albums without having to deal with pressure from major labels to change their music (although the major labels were not willing to sign the band due to their songs being deemed too controversial).[2] All later albums by the band would be released on Alternative Tentacles (with the exception of live albums released after the band's break-up, which were compiled from recordings in the band partnership's vaults, but without Biafra's input or endorsement and the very first LP "Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables" on the IRS label with which the band had a dissatisfying relationship with.)."

Corresponding to the band's history page at Alternative Tentacles as well as the bands bio page at Allmusic.com.

Thoughts?

Wasn't it released on Cherry Red first? I remember Jello mentioning this once in an interview, and I know I've seen a Cherry Red-released copy of it before. -- LGagnon 04:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was. In fact, IRS had changed the cover when they first released it here in the states, but Biafra and the band made them revert to the original cover. --CJ Marsicano 06:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Witch Trials

I thought Jello Biafra's first foray into spoken word was the Witch Trials, which according to a search I just did came out in 1981 on Alternative Tentacles. But not mentioned in your article or discography. - ?

I believe his bio at Alternative Tentacles mentions his earlier spoken word work. -- LGagnon 13:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Witch Trials EP would count as a spoken word release - it's actually improvised music. Cjmarsicano 13:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Witch Trials may be improvised, but Jello's lyrics (which are spoken on two tracks, sung on the others) are central to all four songs. Its been a long time since I heard it, but I remember I found it more compelling than his later spoken word work. It was a real departure from the DKs work which was going on at the same time. Queenjc 04:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Music Project evaluation

Jello Biafra has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision. The article's most important issues are listed below. Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.

The following areas need work to meet the criteria: None

The space below is for limited discussion on this article's prospects as a featured article candidate. Please take conversations to the article talk page.

• Pictures: Free pics would be nice

Anarchist

If "though not a promoter of anarchy" isn't using anarchy in the sense of social breakdown, what is it supposed to mean? I don't see how someone can be an anarchist and yet believe that people should continue to be ruled, as that's an utter contradiction. It'd be like saying "so-an-so is a vegan (but eats meat regularly)." Do you just mean he isn't actively attempting to overthrow government? If so, that puts him with almost every other anarchist, and doesn't need to be mentioned.

And "self-proclaimed" is POV. We don't call people "self-proclaimed" Christians or "self-proclaimed" Democrats, because it a) is redundant b) gives the sense that it's an awkward thing to be. Sarge Baldy 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The line about him not being a promoter of anarchy comes from the fact that he doesn't believe that mankind is ready for an anarchist soceity; this is mentioned later in the article. The point of having this mentioned was part of a previous compromise on how to explain that in the opening.

And no, it isn't a contridiction. He claims to be an anarchist in his personal life, not in politics. That is also why we have the "self proclaimed" part in there, as he doesn't push anarchism into his politics (at least not entirely). Thus, it is important to note that he claims that he is one in case any dispute comes up over whether or not he is one. -- LGagnon 21:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading further I'd consider his more of a communist perspective than anarchist, but whatever he prefers. I'd still suggest it be removed, as it's unnecessary and we already discuss his ambivalence to anarchism later on. I'd also still remove "self proclaimed" and provide a link sourcing that he identifies as anarchist, rather than redundantly explaining that he identifies himself as such within the article. Sarge Baldy 23:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

He seems more like a socialist to me, though he still allows for the captialist system (he is a business owner, after all), so either title doesn't really fit. As for changing that part, we've discussed this in the past and what we have now is the result of a compromise on how to handle it. For now, I'd suggest just writing a rough draft on this talk page of what you think we should add and we can further discuss it. -- LGagnon 02:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, clearly his politics is a bit hard to untangle. I'd probably call him more of a Yippie than anything. I had meant to say he was more a communist in the sense that he believes change needs to take place through government before the state should wither away. That's generally what communists advocate rather than anarchists. Still, that he considers himself an anarchist is enough for me. Maybe we could say something along the lines of "He describes himself as an anarchist [source], but his political beliefs are not easily pigeonholed." Although I'm not sure how to follow that. I don't think we should be spending too much time on his political beliefs in the header, but I'm also not sure how to easily summarize them. Sarge Baldy 05:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My suspicion here (and it would be interesting to see if someone could come up with some documentation) is that he declared himself to be "an anarchist" rather young, and hasn't wanted to back away from that statement because he still sees his politics as coming out of that tradition, but that as he's grown older his politics have become a lot more nuanced: still a very strong civil libertarian, still definitely on the left, still interested in anarchic experiments such as temporary autonomous zones, but now skeptical about society self-organizing along anarchist lines in the near future. I suspect that there is an arc that could be traced here, and that he has written enough (his spoken word pieces and speeches, as well as his songs) that one could trace it rather well, but I don't know if anyone really has, and to try to trace it ourselves in the article would probably get into the realm of original research. - Jmabel | Talk 04:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A self proclaimed anarchist

I think we should create a new category called "Self Proclaimed Anarchists" and remove him from the "American Anarchist" category. It is a joke, he was promoting Ralf Nader in 2000. There is no way he can be an anarchist of any type.

First, his name "Ralph". Secondly, who are you to impose your rules anyways? Rsm99833

this person is not imposing any rules, she/he is only given her/his opinion. period. -Cacuija (my talk) 03:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here that zoom sound? It's a point going over your head. Especially considering you're replying to a discussion post several months old, and is dealing with an article vandal.Rsm99833 05:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care about how old the discussion is and his/her comments don't seem to be vandalic. -Cacuija (my talk) 06:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

An anarchist who imposes rules? Are you sure you're an anarchist? But seriously, your definition means nothing to this article; Wikipedia isn't based on editors' POVs. -- LGagnon 00:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It was not the original author of the comment who talked about rules, it was the person who replied and you.... and if George Bush once retired makes a confesion that he considered all this life an anarchist. let's put him in the Anarchist Category. -Cacuija (my talk) 03:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Cats

The article doesn't seem to say that he was an actor. Hence, the categories actor-politicians and American actors seem to be inappropriate. --Gurubrahma 16:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a filmography and a few mentions of his film work here and there. -- LGagnon 00:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Article status

I came here to review your article for Good Article status, and it's an impressive piece of work. There are however a few problems:

• You weren't making optimal use of Cite.php, by reusing existing citations where they are repeated. I'm fixing that for you now.
• In my opinion, anything which is potentially controversial or which could be defamotary if not true should have a citation. This and a few other facts are missing citations. I'll add any where an existing source can be reused, others will be tagged with {{fact}}.
• You have narrative problems. His political activites are scattered throughout the article. I think that a reader ought to be able to read the section Political beliefs almost as a standalone piece. For example, the section says "In his address to the Green Party". What address to the Green Party? It's the first time you've mentioned it. The next line says "he chose Death Row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal (whom anti-death penalty activists believe was wrongly accused of murder) as his vice presidential candidate". You mean he ran for President?! That's the first occurence of "President" in the section. This is enough to fail the article under the criterion "it follows a logical structure". I recommend moving the bulk of the political stuff into that section, leaving a mention that he ran for mayor and president in the bio section, but moving the meat of the issue into the political section. Alternatively, replace bio with "pre-fame", and move everything else into "music" and "politics".
• Some more quotes from reviews - good and bad (assuming he ever got any bad reviews!) - would be nice should you push on to FAC, but I don't think their absence stands in the way of you achieving Good Article status.

I don't want to fail it, however, as it's in general terms a good article. Please fix the issues I have raised, then have another look at Wikipedia:What is a good article? to confirm that you meet the criteria, and let me know on my talk page. --kingboyk 07:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but looking at the final paragraph again (which was specifically mentioned in FAC review), I think I have to fail it. Fix the narrative and provide a citation for every opinion attributed to him. It should be an easy job. Let me know when it's done and I expect I'll pass it. --kingboyk 08:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A few notes on what you mentioned:

1. Cite.php was used for references while footnotes were put in a separate section. This was for readability, which cite.php does not take into account for footnotes.
2. On "controversial" citations, you seem to doubt that Jello is an anarchist. In this case, you are asking for a citation for a well known fact, which doesn't really need to be cited. Besides, it was already cited in the Political beliefs section. The Top of the Pops citation you ask for is poorly explained, so I have no clue what you are looking for there. As for that last bit about him donating his records, that can go as the person who added it never gave a citation for it.
3. I'll get to improving the Political beliefs section when I can. Previously, I was just trying not to be redundant by adding in already-mentioned info. I would strongly recommend against naming a section "pre-fame", as that seems POV (when does a life-long underground musician become famous?).
4. Usable reviews will be hard to find. AMG has the easiest collection to find, but I'm not so sure we should be redundant with that (we already have one of theirs for "Holiday in Cambodia"). -- LGagnon 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed your points to a numerical list, so I can answer them more easily. Hope you don't mind.

1. I appreciate that, and you can of course change it back if you don't like what I did - it's not part of the Good Article changes, just me trying to be helpful (and possibly failing :)). However, there was some logic to it. You had a stray bullet-pointed reference, which wasn't in any footnotes but was in the references section; you had cite.php reference-footnotes; and you had the other notes. It seemed a bit much, and I thought I'd consolidate it. I was doing what I think works in The KLF. Again, change that bit back if you don't like it - but please don't revert the other changes I made to <ref>, i.e. the abc thing.
2. I don't doubt it at all. I knew little about the guy until I read your article, and I have no reason to think you're telling porkies about him :-). I knew he was a musician, it clicked which band he was from when I read it, but I didn't know he was an anarchist. The point is, being an anarchist is in some ways controversial (rightly or wrongly), so I think it's best to have a citation for it (you could quite possibly reuse one of your existing sources). Since you're telling me this fact is well known, we can probably overlook it for "good article" status but I don't think the Featured Article reviewers would be so forgiving.
3. "Pre-fame" is my starting bid, I'm sure you could think of a better name :) "Background" maybe. Anyway, if you're not game for such a radical change: I wouldn't suggest redundancy, I'd suggest cut and paste. Let the earlier sections give a brief overview, and get into the meat of his politics in the Politics section.
4. Don't worry about that for now then.

I think you're only looking at a couple of hours work to get this fixed up, and if the above is fixed I'll award the "good article" status - you don't need to relist it. I also think you're well on the way to featured article status too. Good work! --kingboyk 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

East Bay Ray, is that you?

It's interesting to note that User:Dead-kennedys, who recently edited this article to remove certain info that looks bad for East Bay Ray, has been "cleaning up" the East Bay Ray article and has only made contributions to articles involving him and/or the band, making them look more favorable towards EBR. I smell an astroturfer. -- LGagnon 03:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over the changes. It's definite astroturfing. I'd change both the Dead Kennedys & East Bay Ray, and throw up a flag. Rsm99833 03:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What kind of flag? -- LGagnon 04:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A black one, of course! (No, I don't have a concrete suggestion, just a cheap joke.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations for political beliefs?

I removed the template requesting citations for Biafra's political beliefs. They're all pretty much clear on every one of his spoken word albums and in his 2000 Green Presidential remarks. --Cjmarsicano 23:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Biafra was not solely respopnsible for starting Alternative Tenetacles – “In 1981, East Bay Ray, Biafra and Michael Vraney formed Alternative Tentacles Records (ATR) as a partnership.” http://www.phillaw.com/html/dkappeal.html

“miscredited” is a loaded word here, information is cited that supports one view while important information that opposes it is omitted. The songs are credited according to the order of the Courts - “Biafra's testimony that the ownership interests in the recordings were documented on the albums lacked credibility. The evidence showed that the band worked collectively on the creation of its musical compositions and that they agreed to share the compositions as memorialized in their 1991 agreement.” http://www.phillaw.com/html/dkappeal.html#FN4

The article does not report that Decay Music say that Biafra has cashed his checks, again opposing information is omitted. http://www.deadkennedys.com/news.htm#040504 (Not sure that reporting both sides is even a good use of space in the article, though.)

Mediation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-27_Dead_Kennedys -- Bob

Well "bob", you have definitly confirmed one thing: The Greatful Dead's corporate lawyers were hired to best represent the "interest" of the band. Their other clients include Staples, Lucasfilm, SoDexo, And AmTrak.

And those checks, "bob"? Anyone who has had a checking account can say that none of them were processed by the bank. All they are, is a picture of some checks. No signatures. No cancellation, No nothing.

Also, "bob" what is not mentioned in those "articles" is two things- 1. Who was the A.T. accountant who was supposedly watching over all the transisions during the time in question, and 2. no mention of the various solo albums released on A.T. (which were promoted, but sold poorly).

I also find it interesting that one of the crying points raised was that the DK catalog was not being promoted, along with new releases. There's not a single label that does that- including Manifesto. That is, unless old material is being re-treaded, repackaged, and put out as a "new" product. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rsm99833 (talk • contribs) 5 May 2006.

You still have no proof, Ray

You've given no proof whatsoever that it's POV. It's not POV just because you don't like what Biafra says. What you are trying for is POV, and that is what it will be considered until you can give some proof to the contrary. We're not putting a NPOV warning in the article (especially not in the middle of a paragraph) just because the facts make you look bad. -- LGagnon 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Small removal

I've removed a small section taht we have had a complaint on the Wikimedia Foundation mail about. The complaint was not completely clear, so I have written for more informations. But in the mean time, please don't replace this without full and careful sourcing. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; I don't believe that Jello is still claiming anything on the receipt of royalties front, but he has done so as recently as 2002 in a press release... which I can't find in its original location on the website, but it is quoted on a pro-Dead Kennedy news web site. Not authoritative, I suppose, but it's old news anyhow. http://www.deadkennedysnews.com/words.htm Xinit 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's taken care of; Jello had an article about it on his website, which works fine for a reference about his opinion. -- LGagnon 20:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Mediation verdict

Bottesini, the mediator, suggests that we work out a compromise or the article will be reverted to a primitive state. There are several areas where I would like to suggest some compromises.

But before we start, two comments. Some people seem to feel that they have to cut down East Bay Ray, Klaus Flouride and D.H. Peligro a foot in order to make Biafra appear a foot taller. Not really necessary in my opinion, Biafra has many accomplihments. And there seems to be an assumption that just verifying sources makes an article NPOV, but that is not quite Wikipedia’s standard – “Verifiability is just one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are NPOV and No original research. All three are necessary for an article to be considered compliant.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

Anyway, here are some proposals.

1. Current:

“In June of 1979, Biafra formed the record label Alternative Tentacles with which the Dead Kennedys released their first single, "California Uber Alles".[3] Biafra created the label to allow the band to release albums …”

Yes, the label was started informally in 1979 by East Bay Ray and the other band memebers, but was formalized legally in 1981. The section of the Appeal verdict refered to in the footnote is entitled Factual Background, which means facts acknowledged by both sides to be true. So Biafra has acknowledged that East Bay Ray was invovled in forming the label. Biafra also acknowledged that Ray was involved until the mid-80’s, after which Biafra became the sole proprietor of the label.

Proposed change:

“In June of 1979, Biafra co-founded the record label Alternative Tentacles with which the Dead Kennedys released their first single, "California Uber Alles".[3] The label was created to allow the band to release albums …”

2. Current:

“… he claimed that he did not receive any royalties on the rereleases of their albums or "posthumous" live albums licensed to other labels by the Decay Music partnership,[17] a charge which Decay Music denies.”

In order to present both sides and permit readers to decide for themselves, there needs to be balanced information. As all of Biafra's press release is now available, so should the other side’s.

Proposed change: Add a footnote and reference after: “…Decay Music denies.”

“An Open Letter to DK Fans” http://www.deadkennedys.com/news.htm#040504 Cashed royalty checks DeadKennedys.com April, 5, 2004.

3. External Links section. Again, to provide a balanced view of both sides so the readers can decide for themselves, add links to http://www.deadkennedys.com and http://www.deadkennedysnews.com in the External Links section.

4. Current:

“… which miscredit songs that Biafra composed alone to the entire band (contradicting information on BMI's online database).

There is debate on this issue, miscredit is a very loaded word. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, it says “Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in.”

A discussion and compromise offer is being worked on and will be posted soon. -- Bob

Before we go any further...

The link to deadkennedys.com belongs with that band's site only, especially since Biafra is no longer a performing member of that band. And I already stated during the mediation that deadkennedysnews.com is a wholly biased, anti-Biafra site and this an unsuitable major source for a NPOV Wikipedia article.

The link regarding Biafra not being paid isn't completely verifiable because, as I said in my statement to the mediator, DeadKennedys.com only reproduced the FRONTS of four checks - there is no proof that Biafra endorsed the checks.

Everything else we can discuss amicably. I am going to be away from my computer tomorrow (5.13.06), so as the other major contributor to Biafra's article on Wikipedia, I would like for any major activity on this matter to be postponed until then. --Cjmarsicano 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As per CJ's comment, I think we'll have to put off changing the article for now; I myself will be busy this week too. For now, here's a few comments for each proposal:

1. This may work, though I'd like to hear CJ's opinion first.
2. Ditto.
3. We don't need links to those sites in the External links section. This is an article about Jello Biafra, not the Dead Kennedys. Add those to the DK article if you want, but not here.
4. I don't see the problem here. It merely states the facts. If you think the facts are different, prove it with a source. -- LGagnon 21:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll get back to both you guys (LGagnon and "Bob") on points 1 and 2 by Sunday evening (I'll be in NYC on 5.13.06 - crashing as soon as I post this comment). Regarding point 4, I added a slightly lengthy note to the reference section that should explain both sides of the songwriting credit issue, complete with a link to Biafra's compositions in that same database, which is open to the public. Since BMI.com is the official website of the performance rights agency that all six Dead Kennedys, including 6025 and Bruce "Ted" Slesinger, and is always up to date, it stands to that since such listings would be modified only in the case of an error or after the conclusion/verdict of a plagarism or similar civil lawsuit (the other DK's didn't sue to change the credits, an odd move since they claimed during the royalty dispute trial that they wrote the music), that BMI.com's listings are therefore definitive and official. Now I'm going to bed. Goodnight! --Cjmarsicano 02:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

1. This change has been verified so it can be done. Do you want to do it or shall I?

2. There is a responsibility to present both sides. There’s no proof for Biafra’s allegations. The real motive not to footnote seems to be to hide information that might put Biafra in a bad light, contrary to the guidelines WP:BLP. Let the reader view the checks for themselves and form their own opinion. Or, in the alternative, take the claim down and the checks won’t need to be footnoted.

3. DeadKennedys.com has a wealth of pictures of Biafra, DKs discography, lyrics to all the songs. etc. AlternativeTentacles.com is listed as a link and is used as a source, and it certainly can be said that it is a wholly biased, anti-East Bay Ray, Klaus Flouride and D.H. Peligro site. A double standard appears to be being applied. Claims against the other members are made in the article that come from Biafra’s site, the other band members have a right to respond to them, and the readers have a right to see those responses so the reader can decide for themselves.

If we take off Alternative Tentacles in the Template below, we can leave DeadKennedsyNews off, but DeadKennedys.com definitely helps supply information. (the template looks good, by the way) An alternative would be to take out references to all three sites.

4. Your position is that there is no controversy?!?! Even PunkNews.org recognizes there is a controversy. The BMI credits that you want to rely on were filed solely by Biafra without the knowledge of the other Dead Kennedys members, the forms were not reviewed or signed by the others. BMI themselves state that their database is NOT definitive, “The information contained in the database has been provided to BMI from a variety of sources, and BMI makes no warranties or representations whatsoever with respect to its accuracy.” BMI Conditions of Use

The BMI argument you are re-enacting was presented by Biafra and his attorneys to the jury and the judges but more reliable evidence and testimony showed that Biafra’s claim was not true, “Biafra's testimony … lacked credibility. The evidence showed that the band worked collectively on the creation of its musical compositions…” Appeal Verdict and Appeal Brief, Dead Kennedys v. Jello Biafra, Case No. A094272. These document are on file at the San Francisco California Appeals Court and can be checked.

The question for this article is whether you two want it to meet the standards for an encyclopedia or do you want to do advocacy? Right now, the article advocates one side and does not present the other side. Please re-read WP:NPOV Wikipedia’s guidelines: “Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted.”

The writing credit section needs to be rewritten so that the two viewpoints are fairly and evenly represented. -- Bob 19:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not getting back to this matter sooner (real life steps in again).

I agree with leaving the deadkennedys.com link in but not deadkennedysnews.com. AlternativeTentacles.com has to remain, obviously, since that's Biafra's label.

I just read the part of the appeal document referring to the songwriting credits. If what the band says is true, why did they wait so long to make such a complaint. And if it was fully legitimate, and the court declared it to be so, then the court would have ordered that the proper corrections would have been made in BMI's records.

I'd also like to point out, insofar as to the quality of Biafra's songwriting, something Joey Shithead Keithley wrote in his autobiography I, Shithead, about working with Biafra on Last Scream of the Missing Neighbors. I don't have the book in front of me so I can't give you a precise page number, but I remember the quote fairly well: "I find his former bandmates' claim that he didn't write any of his songs to be completely bogus. Biafra had no trouble coming up with music to compliment his scathing lyrics."

While I'm thinking of it, the text in question leads me to wonder if the four band members are confused as to whether they should be taking songwriting credit, which would lead to royalty payments, or arragement credits, which would not. Not to sound like I'm retrying the case here, but how Biafra (or anyone, for that matter) writes their songs is not the issue at hand here. I'm a musician and songwriter myself and I've written songs on guitar, piano and bass, and I've also come up with song ideas in my head and transferred them to guitar - not much different from Biafra singing riffs, melodies, and leitmotifs into a tape recorder, or even someone learning a song off of a record. If I were to bring a song in written on guitar to a band practice, and the entire band worked out a head arrangement, does that mean that the other members of the band got songwriting credit or arrangement credit? That would depend on whether they actually added something else to the song (a different lyric, a bridge, an altered set of chord changes). --Cjmarsicano 02:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, Alternative Tentacles should stay as an external link. What was meant was that it doesn't need to be on the Template as it is no longer Dead Kennedys' label.

Though it appears you are engaging in the song credit debate again rather than describing it, here are some comments:

The Biafra / D.O.A. record actually supports the position for band collaboration, none of the songs on that record were solely written by Biafra. [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:ouzyxdjbjolk Last Scream of the Missing Neighbors]

That listing on AllMusic.com contradicts what both the label and insert copy of the album, and BMI's database, say for those songs. Whoever compiled that entry for AllMusic.com only saw where "Power Is Boring"'s lyrics were co-credited to Biafra and Joey Shithead Keithley, and presumed that was the credit for the whole album. First off, "We Gotta Get Out Of This Place" is a cover of the Eric Burdon & The Animals hit. All of the other songs are by Biafra alone, except for the aforementioned "Power Is Boring" which was credited to just Biafra and Keithley on the CD and, on the BMI database, to Biafra and all four members of DOA at the time. (Curiously, the publisher on the song in BMI's database is Decay Music, not Biafra's own Maim That Tune - apparently this part must have been an error on some BMI data entry clerk.) --CJ Marsicano 01:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that there needs to be a change to the royalty income division, the Courts affirmed the 1991 partnership agreement, which was how the band divided things from the begining. Biafra tried to overturn that agreement to increase his share but failed, the shares remained the same. Record Label Drops All Legal Action Against Dead Kennedys, July 13, 2004 and Appeal Verdict, Dead Kennedys v. Jello Biafra, Case No. A094272.

I made no commentary whatsoever as to the royalty division - only on how Raymond Pepperell Jr. modified the credits on the post-ATR editions of the DK albums. I can't fathom where you got that idea from, Ray - don't give any more weight to those cocaine use rumors! --Cjmarsicano 01:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with the cocaine joke; the last thing we need is to have my work reverted by an admin who doesn't get the joke (not that the admin working on this lacks a sense of humor, but I've seen such here at Wikipedia before). -- LGagnon 02:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to everyone - I couldn't resist. I hereby rescind that joke. --Cjmarsicano 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

These changes appear to be where were at: the Alternative Tentacles founding credit, add the Decay Music footnote to the check debate, add the DeadKennedys.com external link (but not DeadKennedysNews.com, which will only go on the Dead Kennedys entry), and take off Alternative Tentacles on the template only.

Work still needs to be done on some wording to describe the songwriting controversy, but I think we've come along way.

Also, there is a person, Rsm99833, who you might want to keep an eye on as he may engage in changes that might upset the compromise. That could result in several articles being put back to a basic state and lots of work that has been done would be lost. -- Bob 19:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fuck you, "bob". If you look at my editing history and participation, you will note that I'm quite unbiased in my edits. Too bad you can't say the same, jackass.Rsm99833 19:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Tentacles was the label that all the band's original (that is, studio recorded) material was originally released on. It was founded by a band member, or as you claim, by two of them. It is in the "Related articles" section of the template, and it is beyond a shadow of a doubt related to the band. Thus, we have no reason to remove it. If you think it's a problem that the DKs are on another label now, then add the label; but do not remove AT just because you don't like it anymore.

Okay, a label will be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dead-kennedys (talk • contribs) 26 May 2006.

Also, you still have not explained why we need deadkennedys.com linked at the bottom. It has nothing to do with Jello. In fact, by your logic about AT, it shouldn't be there, as Jello isn't with the DKs anymore. -- LGagnon

Fair enough. By your logic, Dead Kennedys was Biafra’s original band and the band’s link needs to be included, just like Alternative Tentacles needs to be included - it’s a part of the history. -- User:Dead-kennedys

Actually, no. The link in the box is a Wikipedia link; it goes to the article to provide more info on the label they were on. This article already has a link to the DK article, which is enough for Biafra's article. The DK.com link is completely unrelated to Biafra aside from the fact that he was in the band, which we can get info on from their article. Thus, it still does not belong here, and it does not fit in the logic I was using. My logic would make a link to the Wikipedia article on the DKs required, which is already here. I'm removing the DK.com link until you can come up with an actual logical reason to keep it. -- LGagnon 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

DeadKennedys.com has a wealth of pictures of Biafra, DKs discography, lyrics to all the songs. etc. As we are keepng AT, we can keep this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dead-kennedys (talk • contribs) 26 May 2006.

And please do not threaten the editors, Ray. Rsm99833 has as much right to edit the article as anyone else does. His edits will have no effect on the compromise because he was not one of the involved parties. Do not threaten him out of editing, and do not threaten me into censoring him for your sake. -- LGagnon 20:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What threat? There was no threat. -- Bob 21:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If it was not a threat, then why did you threaten the possibility that the article would be reverted severely because of him? I could assume ignorance on your part of how a compromise works, but then again I think you should understand that by now.

As for DK.com, I'm not so sure we really need it just for pictures and lyrics. Those seem to be the only things on the site that this article (or the other DK-related articles) can't provide itself, and they work better to suppliment the DK article. I asked why this article needs the link, not what advantages (in this case, minor ones) it brings. If it doesn't need the link, then it can simply go to the DK article. -- LGagnon 23:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)