Talk:Dead Kennedys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Wikiproject_Punk This article is part of WikiProject Punk music, an attempt to improve articles related to Punk rock. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.

Contents

[edit] Intro

The intro is a little weird because it states when the band broke up, but there is no mention of when the band formed. Maybe it's just me, but that is a little wonky. This is supposed to be an intro and it's like the writer is assuming we know when the band formed, but that we need to be told when they disbanded. Meh?

[edit] Misquote?

"Hold it! We've gotta prove that we're adults now. We're not a punk rock band, we're a new wave band."

I have the cd, and I could swear he says, "Hold it! We're not approved for adults now. We're not a punk rock band, we're a new wave band." but maybe that is me mishearing it. Any have a citation or anything to back this up? Uselesswarrior 17:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor re-edit of "court case" bit

I have given it a bit more info, as it's just as relevant here as in the Biafra article, and tried to avoid partisan language. I also bunged in a bit more info on the reformed group. Hope that's OK :) SRCK


Suggestion: Someone could post a more in-depth description of the trial which is pretty infamous among punk circles and first-amendment freaks... Any takers? I'll do it if nobody else does... -Anonymous coward

He was found guilty? It wasn't a criminal case -- it was a civil case. He was found liable, not guilty.

There were at least two court cases. There was a criminal case (the FrankenChrist obscenity trial) that commenced in 1986. The civil case came later, and involved disputes about royalies, songwriting credits, and corporate sponsorship. The criminal case is of great general historical importance as a first amendment (freedom of speech/expression) case. Many articles incorrectly state that 2 Live Crew were the first U.S. musicians to be criminally prosecuted for album (recorded media) content, but the Frankenchrist trial came first. The importance of the civil trial is much more limited. (oopsI forgot to sign this) Vampyrecat 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing band member

There seems to be no information regarding the second guitarist/songwriter 6025. Having co-written half of the songs on Fresh Fruit For Rotting Vegetables and writing a handful of those appearing on later albums, he does deserve an honorable mention. Is there any information on this guy aside from a few appearances in early concert footage (blonde hair, sporting an ascot) and a few co-authored credits on the first album? (See: http://deadkennedys.com/bandmembers.htm -bottom)

[edit] POV

I like DK a lot, but this article is admittedly slanted. Is there interest in writing a, perhaps, less passionate article?

  • I would tend to agree. The WikiPedia is not, after all, a FanZine. There are other fora for that particular hobby. --Tirolion 14:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision of article

I've deleted a lot of the information about the royalties court case which was heavily biased in favour of Biafra and adequately covered in the Biafra article anyway. I've rewritten a lot of the passages that were obviously written by someone a bit too eager to write about their favourite band.

[edit] More People Named Jello

I think the revisions worked well because I find this article to be fine. It is short and to the point. However, why is there no discussion on why more people aren't named "Jello"?

Such a discussion would find a better fit on the Jello Biafra article, would it not? --Myles Long 17:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not his real name. Neither is Biafra. Biafra was a place that had some massacre (I realize I'm being ignorant, I should know more details but I don't have the motivation to research it right now, just look up Biafra to find out where it is and what happened. He called himself Jello Biafra as a way to link "happy" capitalist corporations like Jello with massacres.
I know that. FYI, Biafra was a secessionist state in Nigeria. I stand by my statement about why "more people aren't named 'Jello'" being more appropriate in the Jello Biafra article. Also, please sign your comments. --Myles Long 29 June 2005 18:29 (UTC)
There is no need at all for info in either this article or Jello Biafra's article on why there aren't more people with that name. Jello Biafra's article already contains an explaination about how he got that name, which is all that is really needed. -- LGagnon June 29, 2005 20:50 (UTC)

Actually Biafra was a country where a famine took place,and since Jello has no nutritional value..i guess it mae a starrtement--4.157.104.144 02:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Eric Boucher claims that he picked his name at random by flipping through a dictionary, however later interviews state that he appreciated the irony. Biafra is a region of Nigeria that experienced heavy fighting during their civil war. Given the satirical and political nature of the group I wouldn't doubt that Jello's name was chosen on purpose.

[edit] Final version of article

I've fixed the chronology and think the article's now balanced and effective.

[edit] 6025 information

6025, while he did write some of the material and was prominent in the early singles did not play beyond that. As it stands right now, he lives south of San Francisco, suffering from a disability. Other than that, not much else to say.

[edit] No Peligro?

I removed this: ", and due to personal circumstances Peligro has been replaced by Steve Wilson in summer 2005 appearances (but the band hopes to have Peligro back soon)." from the article.

It is false; I just saw the Dead Kennedys at a local bar and D.H. Peligro was definetly there. It being August 11, 2005, he is obviously playing with the band during the summer 2005.

D.H. had briefly left the band in order to enter into rehab. This is both on the band web site, and various other official web sites. He was briefly replaced.- James

[edit] The band's name...

...is "Dead Kennedys", not "The Dead Kennedys". I'm updating the article accordingly. Darryl Thomas 12:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes people. You should all know that. Look at the shirts. No "T". TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of the band's name, it is "Dead Kennedys", not DK Kennedys. They might have used it once or twice, but the name is what it always has been. I corrected DK Kennedys thing from the external links. --Psycho78m 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV about Holiday in Cambodia

Some anonymous person keeps on changing "rich people" to "rich liberals" in the sentence about the lyrics to "Holiday in Cambodia". This is POV, as there is no mention whatsoever in the lyrics as to what political stance the rich people in the song support. I have reverted for the 3rd time already and I hope by now the person who keeps on changing it gets the fact that he's butting his opinion into the article. -- LGagnon 01:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


"There is no mention whatsoever in the lyrics as to what political stance the rich people in the song support" - rubbish!!

"Playing ethnicy jazz to parade your snazz on your five grand stereo"

"Bragging that you know how the niggers feel cold and `the slums got so much soul`"

How can these lyrics be interpreted as anything other than a sarcastic aside against liberals/faux-liberals, those professing to care about black people and parade their ethnic credentials, whilst simaltaneously profiting from the system which exploits them? Please tell me your alternative explanation?

As you've no doubt guessed it is me making the changes, but it is also me who wrote the entire section on the Kennedys lyrics in the first place. You may define it as a POV, I think an article on the Kennedys without a few words on their lyrics is a bit pointless.

But, if you want to render the analysis of their lyrics as anodyne and half-meaningless due to some misguided attempt at balance, go ahead, life's too short for me to make this paragraph accurate again. Knock yourself out. -Ben G 16.24 September 20th, 2005

Conservatives do the very same thing you are talking about, yet you don't mention that. Like I said, you are pushing your own POV. -- LGagnon 20:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

But stereotypical conservitives don't, I 100% agree that it is targeted at rich liberals and not the rich in general. THe stereotypical rich conservative doesn't even care about poor blacks enough to make hypocritical statments. It's not his POV it's the Dead Kennedys POV, don't try to balence out POV lyrics. Johhny-turbo 04:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Jello lived in Marin. Have you ever BEEN to North Bay? It's FULL of rich people of whom at LEAST half are republicans and conservatives politically, yet DO play ethnic-y jazz on their five grand stereos and brag how they know the ... etc. All you gotta do is drive through Mill Valley. Anyone who thinks that those descriptions only fit 'liberals' must have never been to the Bay Area.
Again, this is just POV. You have no proof that the DKs hold that opinion, nor that they meant to express that opinion in this song. I'm changing it back until someone gives real proof and not just their own opinion. -- LGagnon 22:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You have no proof they were talking about rich people in general. The stereo-typical (key word) rich conservatives do not care about black people (remember the key word) but the steretypical rich liberal pretends to because their liberal Johhny-turbo 21:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

And who says that it has to be about a stereotype? Again, you are just imposing your POV onto the article, and again without any proof at all. You have no proof for your argument, and it is much weaker than my NPOV argument. Again, I am reverting this article. Do not change it back until you can give a solid argument (that is, one with proof). And unless you can cite a source, you're not going to make a convincing one. -- LGagnon 01:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is kind of sterotyping against all the rich people with the comments on the lyrics. You don't know that they held that opinion and it seems like you both are just trying to impose your opinion within the article. My advice...one of you get solid proof about their opinion and somehow work that into it. But hey...it's just my opinion. Do whatever you want. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To avoid further problems with this, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- LGagnon 05:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon is wrong; Biafra's stated in dozens of interviews that the song is meant to be a satire of rich faux-liberals. For one thing, it can be logically argued that in a satirical song, broad generalizations are used to evoke certain stereotypes; therefore, it's technically incorrect to assert that Biafra could have been referring to conservatives as well as liberals, since he goes out of his way to make references to "ethnicky jazz" and sympathy for impoverished blacks; it cannot logically be argued that this kind of attitude is generally associated with wealthy conservatives. Furthermore, Biafra's stated that the song is meant as a yuppie satire, and stereotypical yuppies tend to lean towards the (admittedly softcore) left. So as a compromise, I'll insert "yuppie satire," since everyone, including all members of the band who endorse the rough guide to music's DK mini bio referring to the song as "yuppie-baiting," agrees on that.
I'm ok with that compromise, but keep in mind that Wikipedia articles have to be based on outside sources, not opinions on logic. If Biafra said anything about it, give me a quote from him and a source for that quote. If you can't do that, you can't prove yourself right. -- LGagnon 00:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
right but wikipedia articles, like every authoritative source, are also based on general consensus and logic and things that are just plain accepted facts. Furthermore, language used to describe song lyrics, which are often poetic/abstract (ie it's not an essay), isn't based solely on hard information, but also widespread interpretation. I don't have specific Biafra interviews, but I've read countless interviews where he makes reference to it and it's intent, even if I havn't saved these articles. Furthermore the song is described in tons of music databases and critical analyses as an essentially anti faux-liberal/yuppie song: allmusic, rough guide to rock, record collector, mojo, Dead Kennedys website, AT website, Rolling Stone record guide, Encyclopedia of rock, etc. Not to mention virtually everyone I know who likes and is familiar with the song. In other words, this isn't exclusively a case of factual information, but concensus and interpretation. I could probably dig up a Biafra interview where he references it somewhere but I don't have the time and besides, in most interviews Biafra doesn't describe the intent of his songs, which are pretty explicit and self-explanatory in and of themselves.
Interpretation is opinion, which means it can only be added as such. If you want to talk about a certain critic's interpretation, that's fine as long as you cite the source. But don't add it as being the absolute truth unless you can get that info quoted straight from Biafra (along with a source). -- LGagnon 03:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
see, that's a pretty hard-line approach. "their music mixed the more experimental elements of English punk with the energy of the American punk scene" there's no source cited for this sentence, but I would say it's an interesting and accurate inclusion even if it's not based on raw data and facts. In fact a large part of writing encyclopedias is based on interpretation....and interpretation is based on opinion; they're not the same thing. peace
To some degree, yes. But if something is disputed (as in this situation), you need to be able to back your claims. -- LGagnon 05:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I think in this case you can back the claim by saying that the general consensus is that the song is targeting stereotypical post-60s left-centrists.
You can, in fact, give a citation for the general consensus. Find a source that claims this, and you have it. Otherwise, do not claim a general consensus that you can not prove in any way at all. -- LGagnon 04:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You're being a contrarian; if I asked for a citation for the idea that "The Dead Kennedys music is political," I would get laughed at. The point is, the subtext of the song is interesting and fairly obvious to anyone with even a basic knowledge of American politics, if you are disputing that it targets yuppies or left-centrists, then it's not because I'm "unable to prove" something that's distressingly obvious. Furthermore, you're the only person I've ever encountered in my life who denies that aspect of the song; furthermore, the fact that you're asking for a citation for something like this shows that you have no conception of how these articles are written. Go to the Sex Pistols page, there's tons of POV stuff without citations, but it's still and informative and effective article--look, they say "The Buzzcocks had more of a pop sensibility that the Pistols," and even if that is technically POV, it's silly to ask for a citation for something like that. If you disagree with the idea that the song is about left-centrist yuppies, then I assure you that you're in the minority; if you want a citation, read Rough Guide to rock's description of "Holiday in Cambodia" or allmusic.com's review of the song. You also know that the "Jerry Brown" targeted in "California Uber Alles" was in fact a liberal. There's so much information, just look. It's not up to me to provide a citation for something like this. I should also note that it's arrogant to request citation for a "general consensus," especially for something as esoteric as this, since finding one can be difficult even if the source is obvious. My citation is that everyone I have ever encountered in my life and everything I have ever read agrees with the "liberal" analysis of the song. You accuse others of enforcing their POV on the article, however the only reason you're resisting the inclusion that most people seem to agree on is that you are uncomfortable with the inclusion of the "liberal" label in the song's targets (the Dead Kennedys often targeted the complacent left in their material), which is your own POV. It's easy to just demand citations and constantly delete things if you don't get them, but I'd suggest that this tactic can backfire when you get into "grey area." -- 71.192.6.227
You don't need to give a citation for their music being political; no one is questioning that. If someone did, then you could easily cite any political track from their albums. But since no one is questioning it, you don't have to.
With this situation, where your claims are in question, you do have to prove it. You can't just force your POV into an article and claim it's right when someone says it's wrong and you not only can't prove it but refuse to do so. The burden of proof is on you, and you must deal with it or quit forcing your POV on the article.
And if you think POV without citations is fine, then you know nothing about how Wikipedia works. Check Wikipedia:Verifiability to find out how wrong you are.
I've read the AMG article plenty of times. Nothing is said of it. And you could try giving links to your sources instead of trying to get me to not check them by making it that much harder to find them. It makes it seem like you have something to hide.
And this is HiC, not CUA. We're talking about this one song, not all DK songs.
Anything obvious can easily be cited. If it's not citable, it's not obvious.
And your friends don't count as a professional source. Wikipedia is supposed to be academic, not sophmoric.
I'm not a liberal myself, by the way. I'm just trying to protect the article from POV.
Keep in mind, if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not those who deny your claim. Do your research or don't bother pushing this blatant POV into the article again. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability and the rest of the guides to citations so you can understand why your backwards claims about citations are wrong and against Wikipedia policy. -- LGagnon 02:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I don't want to get into a fight since I appreciate you rebuttal of EBR pathetic attempts to defend his sell-out; however, I think you're dangerously close to extremism and narrow-mindedness in your insistence that this is POV; POV, to an enormous extent, is impossible to ignore and a vast majority of wikipedia deeply reflects this; wikipedia also has a policy that vague, indirect POV, such as saying "many think that..." or "critics often cite..." is not totally acceptable either, but I think it is unavoidable to a certain extent. To just reiterate my point--you do not have the right to demand citation for something that's uncitable when you are the only person present who seemingly has a problem with it--your's is a highly exotic view of the song. The silly and childish accusation of making my sources deliberately unavailable is also irritating: go to allmusic.com--Dead Kennedys and click on the track "Holiday in Cambodia" with a large "R" next to it to read the review; the Rough Guide to Rock is one of the most widely circulated rock music compendiums in existence--easily available on the Rough Guide's website under "Rock" and "Dead Kennedys"--just because I don't post links doesn't mean they don't exist. "And if you think POV without citations is fine, then you know nothing about how Wikipedia works" if you think POV without citations is the do-all, end-all of this website, then you have no conception of music journalism, encyclopedias or reality. Wikipedia's rules are meant to guide the creation of articles, it doesn't mean that one hyperactive participant can demand citation for anything under the sun--if someone asked me to give a citation for this sentence, found on the Rolling Stones entry "The Stones had fused their influences into a signature, guitar-based sound that established a prototype for hard rock," I would be unable to do so because the only sources I could site would also be POV. If i put, "many claim" in front of that sentence, it would sound idiotic. The burden of proof in this particular instince is not on me--I'd actually challenge you to give me reasons how the song does not clearly reflect a satire of reformist liberalism. "If it's not citable, it's not obvious" incorrect--you're being unreasonably dogmatic and close-minded which is ironic for a contributor to this page; nothing is set in store--for example, how can you site a statement like the one above or a statement like this one referring to the Bad Brains: "They were also an adept reggae band, in a sort of Jekyll-and-Hyde arrangement, while later recordings featured elements of funk and heavy metal" since this involves inherently SUBJECTIVE ANALYSIS of the music, you can site critics' opinions; I gave you two citations that are both critics opinions for the Dead Kennedys song. "I'm not a liberal myself, by the way" then why the hell are you waging this silly war... "And this is HiC, not CUA. We're talking about this one song, not all DK songs" i recognize that they are two different recordings, however they were recorded by the same band and have similarities which I was attempting to highlight in an effort to support the near-universally accepted claim that HiC is a characterization of neo-liberal yuppies. "And your friends don't count as a professional source. Wikipedia is supposed to be academic, not sophmoric" look up "sophomoric" before you insult my friends, please--this borders on vandalism; as far as I'm concerned, my impression of people's idea of the song has as much or more value as your rejection of that idea. In any case since we've arrived at a compromise already I think this is pointless, I just take issue with it when contributors painstakingly pick apart and respond to all of my comments and just end up reiterating the original, narrow-minded view they expressed in the first post: that if a user questions something this nebulous, I as a defender of this generally accepted idea that no other user has a problem with am OBLIGATING to provide a factual citation for something that is not a fact and for which no factual citations exist (other than a confirmation from Jello Biafra himself--who would probably identify with the term yuppie and the concepts of "neo-liberals" and "softcore liberals" I might add); in addition, the song deals with STEREOTYPES--therefore the issue is over an IMPRESSION of a GENERALIZATIOn--asking, nay DEMANDING that I CITE a factual source of an IMPRESSION of a a GENERALIZATION is a hilarious request. -- 70.91.137.57

You need to calm down. The fact of the matter is, I have done music journalism, and I do know the rules of how it works. If this was a review, you could say you think it's bashing liberals. However, here you can't claim that you know what Jello meant in the lyrics without any proof, as Wikipedia is supposed to be reference based, not truthiness based. By the way, if you plan on becoming a good writer, learn to give evidence to your claims instead of just throwing several claims around at once; it'll help you win arguments. -- LGagnon 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Read what I said again more carefully--I did give evidence, quite specific evidence; attacking my writing and saying that it "needs to get better" was uncalled for. I was very articulate, I clearly explained my point; dismissing my entire, carefully written statement as "bad writing" is inaccurate and unnecessarily aggressive. I never said that you "didn't know the rules of how it works" and I never said that you had clearly never "done" music journalism. As far as the writing goes, this is a more in-depth and complex issue than simply "throwing around claims"-oftentimes when people have intellectual, open-minded discussion about the enormous amount of grey area that exists in the world, they will bat around a number of ideas in an attempt to reach a final conclusion. I'll say it again: demanding that I give a citation for an "impression of a generalization"--i.e., something very nebulous that is nevertheless a valid and frequently applied interpretation--is silly; if you have a serious problem with that inclusion--YOU have to cite reasons why you removed it as much as I have to cite a reason why it is there. I understand why you originally removed it, and I did change it to "yuppies" which I felt was more accurate; I have removed interpretations and widespread perceptions from articles before--and when I have done so, I have always cited reasons. Saying that you have the right to remove it by default is incorrect. I actually don't care about the liberal reference that much--in fact, I think focusing on the "liberal" aspects of the lyrics could potentially draw attention away from the message (certainly wealthy people are the subject of the song to a greater extent--and the references to wealth are nearly as fleeting as the references to liberalism--but they are there if you look) what bothers me is that you are sticking to an idea that is essentially editorial fascism. This is the most important part: Interpreting the lyrics of songs, even literally, is never, ever an issue of "knowing what the writer meant" or what he was thinking, even for a poltical band like this one; if this seems strange--stay with me. oftentimes, the writer won't even describe his own song, and would rather have the song stand on it's own--thus inviting interpretation. Widespread interpretation merits inclusion in an article like this. Direct interpretation from the author of a song (even in this case) is very rare, even nonexistent, since he wrote the song to express the point, he did not express the point and water it down into a song; Sometimes, an author's intepretation can even be unreliable--for example, say that a songwriter thought that his songs were not "protest songs" (Bob Dylan)--however, everyone else under the sun thought that they were due to reasonable, valid interpretation of his lyrics--then to say in an article on "Blowin' in the Wind" that this songs is "not a protest song because Dylan says it is not" would be inaccurate and confusing (read the lyrics to that song, they aren pretty ambiguous for a song so frequently labeled "protest"). Look at the entries of any famous songs--there are rarely citations for interpretations of those songs. I'm just trying to reach an understanding since you could conceivably do this to other articles and I don't think it's right--you cannot be such a stickler for something as abstract as widespread interpretation of song lyrics that are by default not easy to understand literally--go to the pages on Bob Dylan's songs and there are no citations--there are widespread interpretations of the lyrics present. Bob Dylan in general doesn't interpret or explain his own music and his lyrics are FAR more abstract and invite much wilder interpretations than the Dead Kennedys' songs. In addition, I think some historical background about the writer of these song lyrics supports the original claim: Biafra has frequently stated that in the late-70s he was frequently disillusioned with the whole neo-liberal, softcore yuppie culture--and Biafra was well known for attacking both the left and right in song--the Kennedys own Bio on wikipedia states this. Having this information increases the likelihood that the song could be about liberals--this, coupled with lyrics like "bragging that you know how the n*ggers feel cold and the slum's got so much soul" and "play ethnicky jazz to parade your snazz" further support the claim that the archtype represented in the song is a center-left yuppie. This, by default, makes it a valid intepretation that DOES merit inclusion--no matter what you or I may think--this interpretation is not far-fetched and is reasonable could easily be included here; since it is an INTEPRETATION, it is by default going to be POV--but all Wikipedia articles are a synthesis of a number of points of view--including this interpretation, especially in the song's specific entry--enhances the article and provides more depth and interest if it is done in an unobstrusive way that doesn't clash with wikipedia's POV policy. If you were to say: "The song is clearly a satire of the idiocy of liberals" this would be self-evidently ridiculous and POV; however, including a POV as an interpretation to provide insight is not against wikipedia's POV policy (ie, saying "the song, apparently lampooning rich, neo-liberal yuppies while portraying the horrors of the then-contemporary Khmer Rouge regime" this has a POV in it, but is not crass or incredibly subjective and is a valid intepretation with merit. I would be very surprised if Wikipedia admins thought this was too strong, and if they did, I would question their entire policy towards inclusions like this. I should also say that these glib, vaguely personal attacks--like this is some sort of schoolyard fight--bother me more than a little bit; saying that "I need to calm down" on cyberspace reflects more of an emotional reaction from you than from me--I capitalized letters to emphasize my point as clearly as I could--I wasn't yelling at you through cyberspace. Before you become angry with me again, read through my explanation of interpretation of song lyrics and at least Re-consider your ideas. I have re-considered mine--I originally was going to leave "liberal" in because I liked that interpretation, however I compromised and I see now that there are compelling reasons why "liberal" is too POV and isn't necessarily implied in or the point of the song--but the lyrics ARE THERE and interpreting them is a LARGE PART fact and a large part personal interpretation, making this more complicated than simply a "you must cite" issue, which is what I have been trying to say all along.
Just to add some more evidence; from the Wikipedia Neutral POV article: "Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate." Therefore, you're not wrong to request a citation, however Ive already expressed that it is an unreasonable request, since in cyberspace song reviews of hardcore punk bands are relatively rare; the closest is the Rough Guide to Rock's description of the song as "yuppie-baiting." Also from the POV Policy Page: "Neutrality dictates that there can be multiple prominent interpretations to the meaning or validity of a work, but often the contents can be objectively verified, especially in the case of modern documents." Also: "if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased." It's a bit of a stretch to call the original "rich liberals" inclusion "biased"--and you originally deleted it; certainly the "rich" implications in the song were just as pronounced as the "liberal" implications; when people explained the nature of the stereotypes in their interpretation of the song, you accused them of POV, but wikipedia's policy states that you must explain and compromise, essentially because "it is the implication that it is possible to characterize disputes fairly"--therefore, I think you're original deletion and flurry of POV accusations, compounded by your demands for citations (note that the official explanation says "preferably" with citations, not "necessarily") shows a crude, basic interpretation of wikipedias policies, especially because the characterizations of stereotypes and directly quoted lyrics from the song, were, in a sense, citations. Also note, the scuffle preceding my long speeches at the beginning of this dispute give the impression that the "liberal" label is not a highly anomalous characterization, since several users endorsed it; though wikipedia does state that "if a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" I think we can agree that in this case, it is fairly difficult since rock critics and professional music writers don't tend to afford a great deal of attention to Dead Kennedys and "prominent individuals" who provide detailed descriptions of Dead Kennedys songs and philosophical ruminations on the use and meaning of the word "liberal" in late-70s American politics are few and far between, esp. on the internet. Thus, this is an issue that can easily be resolved within wikipedia. Furthermore, using the word "liberal" does not necessarily make someone biased, since, again, this is an issue of valid and insightful interpretation based on definition of a word; therefore, strong evidence can be presented that the "liberal" description was acceptable
a) numerous endorsements from contributors
b) reasonable probability given the personality and various activities of the song's author
c) direct citations from the song's lyrics with reasonable interpretations
d) (correct) assertion that conservatives, stereotypically, are much less likely to be characterized as vocal anti-racists; mostly because racist tendencies throughout American history are usually labelled "conservative"

Just for the record, when you cite conservatives as being the targets for Biafra's lyrical attacks you often cite his reference to Nazis as proof. This is very offensive and factually incorrect. Conservatives, in the American pholosophy of politics, are people that believe in limited government, chacks and balances, and life, liberty and the pursuit of happines for everyone. But they, as a rule of thumb, do not believe that it is the governments responsibility to ensure that everyone has equall success.

It is quite natural to think that the band are liberals, as it is very punk rock to rage against the establishment and Reagan was the establishment during the DK era. it is another thing thour to link Nazis and conservatives.The term Nazi is derived from the National Socialist Party, very un-conservative. Furthermore, the view that the government should not give handouts to less fortunate minoritis does not make one a racist. There are many poor whites in this country as poor minorities. -- User:Martywake

"National Socialist" does not mean the same thing as socialist. They are two totally different concepts. It's the same thing as with "Democratic Republic" being used in dictatorships; the US is a real democratic republic, but those who are not (China, etc) still want to use the name anyways to look good. The use of the word socialist in the nazi name was meant to piggyback on the socialist hype of the time, not to actually signify their political leanings. If you think extremists are actually honest about their intentions, you still have much to learn about their ways.
However, the anti-minority sentiments are very conservative, reflected in current anti-immigration and anti-reperations policies. And yes, it is racist, because conservatives have learned nothing of white priviledge, the factor that keeps racism alive. By not admitting that white people have left black people in a poor state ever since slavery ended, never paying them back for the hard work that made white America rich, conservatives are pushing a racist agenda. -- LGagnon 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The Nazis weren't conservatives? They were very conservative in many ways, but that's another story. In his spoken word during and since his membership in the Dead Kennedys, he refers to George W. Bush as a Nazi, Reagan, Schwartzenegger, and other social conservatives. If that's offensive to you as a Republican, that's one thing, but if it's factually correct that he draws that analogy, it should be listed. -- Xinit 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] They are still a band

A few weeks ago, I moved a lot of the resentment that has come from Jello concerning the reformed band into its own paragraph rather than everywhere he had an issue with something. It's too bad that Jello can't be a part of the band, but it seems like they have moved on without him. I find this reformation to be a new direction for these musicians; there have been plenty of bands that have switched lead singers before these guys (see Black Sabbath and The Doors for starters). --Psycho78m 23:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Jello is being as cheap and petty as anyone... but I don't believe that the band has moved on in any real way. They really do appear to be a tribute band at this point... I'm waiting for some new material to prove that feeling wrong... Xinit 19:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Jello is being cheap or petty. He's trying make a fair living by running a meaningful business, while the rest of the group live off royalties and milk as much as they can out of what they used to be, rather than continuing to develop themselves as musicians, or people. I also don't consider Dead Kennedys to be a group without Jello. He was the most influential member of the group, and to me, the most important part of the music. Of course, I'm obviously biased, but isn't everyone? — Soupisgoodfood 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Ooh well. I wish the band did make new material, though. I would be interested to hear what they could do now. Have they progressed over the 19 years they stopped playing with Jello? Could they rock as hard as they did with him playing new material? I wouldn't even mind one new song, even if it was a cover, and live at that. But I guess that is up to them. --Psycho78m 06:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I haven't really noticed much from the rest of the band. Some of them have done things here and there, and have even made a few albums, but I don't think there is anything noteworthy (from a music fan's perspective, not wikipedia). You could tell that they were wanting to move on to other things from their last albums (including Jello). Put it this way: how many times have you seen a re-united band go back into the studio and produce something that was anywhere near as good as when they were at their peak? — Soupisgoodfood 03:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I, of course, was unable to have ever seen DK live. I have been able to see a few concerts from 80-84 and in every one Biafra was the lifeblood of the show. This is similiar to what happened with RATM. Zach left and, while Tom Morello is very heavy into politics, they turned into a post-grunge pile of crap. Now if only EBR and the gang would turn into a weird version of PiL, then I'd give them some credit. Right now, they're just playing into Biafra's description of them by keeping the DK name and doing nothing but play old songs from over two decades past. Hell, I can play DK songs. The rest of the group will never recreate Biafra's presence, and without him the DK will never exist again. Maybe EBR should've gotten Johnny Rotten to sing for them, he's nutty enough. -Sir Tonk 21:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

___________ I think the dead kennedys have been in decline since their reformation. They arent as anti-coporate as they used to be. I dont really think the band is the same without jelo. My brother went to see DK's live last year some time and said it was crappy compared to their old recordings. I quote him "Just a bunch of dousche bags running around pretending to still be the dead kennedys. They wont do nearly as good without Jelo"

That was my brothers opinion though so, ~End. -Zack Weaver. __________

[edit] Still anti-corporate?

"The band still pays close attention to their long held anti-corporation ideology"

That's funny. Just a few paragraphs above this, there is a somewhat POV paragraph attempting to justify their selling out of "Police Truck" for the ultra-corporate Tony Hawk series. Something here is a bit contridictory. Has East Bay Ray been editing this article? :) -- LGagnon 04:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Per the question on the main page, it is exactlty what they did. -- Rsm99833

The problem is that it says they are anti-corporate yet they participated in a pro-corporate activity (selling out their songs). They may claim to still be anti-corporate, but their actions say different. -- LGagnon 06:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, get rid of it or change it. It's pretty unfortunate that they did it, but I don't think they're in it for greed. It's just kind of screwed up. --Psycho78m 07:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I changed it around a bit, see if it works and edit accordingly. edit: please note that black flag also sold their songs to the Tony Hawk series, and I'm wondering about the double standard now. --Psycho78m 06:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion Jello Biafra was the driving force behind the DK ideology. Its easy to go "wow that’s a good idea we should do that" but when it comes down to it the only reason the DK took so long to sell out was Jellos determination not to the rest were just followers. I dare say there will be those that disagree but there’s always someone ready to disagree.

Oh yea California Uber Alles was used on an add for the "OC" god capitalisms so dirty

I don't think there's anything wrong with apearing on the Tony Hawk soundtrack. It allows people who have never listened to DK to hear their music. To quote Tom Morello of Rage Against The Machine: "When you live in a capitalistic society, the currency of the dissemination of information goes through capitalistic channels. Would Noam Chomsky object to his works being sold at Barnes & Noble? No, because that's where people buy their books. We're not interested in preaching to just the converted. It's great to play abandoned squats run by anarchists, but it's also great to be able to reach people with a revolutionary message, people from Granada Hills to Stuttgart." It's not like they were in a GM commersial. -- Grobgeld

I talked to the band last year, and they mentioned that they had recently pulled out of the deal with the Coors sponsored event, and I got the impression that the main problem was the corporation's rightism, so they might have a problem with being sponsored by Kraft (which is in turn part of Altria, which used to be Philip Morris, which should ring a bell), but not so much with, say, Google, which has a for profit charity arm.

[edit] East Bay Ray's astroturf

As I mentioned in Talk:Jello Biafra, EBR is astroturfing articles related to the Dead Kennedys. Be wary of edits by User:Dead-kennedys. -- LGagnon 04:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jello Biafra turfer

LGagnon is an admitted advocate for one side and appears not to know all the facts, please bear that in mind. For example, he doesn't appear to know that Biafra also approved, via a fax, the use in the Tony Hawk video, it is in the court documents. The following was posted to LGagnon's Talk page:

Dear LGagnon,

We noticed that you totally reverted the recent editing done to the following articles: Dead Kennedys, California Uber Alles, Holiday In Cambodia, Mutiny On the Bay, Alternative Tentacles, East Bay Ray, Jello Biafra.

As the original entries contained obvious bias and misstated facts, we believe that a total reversion does not conform to the ‘neutral point of view’ policy of Wikipedia. On your User page we notice that you list Jello Biafra as a hero, and perhaps you have reverted the articles with that in mind.

However, Wikipedia is more than about advocacy. There were things in the above original entries that are factually incorrect, based on unreliable sources or are simply biased opinion. Please leave the recent edits alone until you know all the facts. And please feel free to contact us by email on any fact that you might question and we can work to resolve the issue.

Some of the original information looks like it simply came straight from Biafra’s press releases, but he was found to “lack credibility” by all the courts involved. Copies of the Court Judgment against Biafra are on public file in San Francisco, CA. You may not like some of the information in the corrected articles, but it has been found to be true by a neutral court of law and it is the public record.

Thank you, Bob

You cited no sources whatsoever in your edits, Ray. Likewise, you can not judge for Wikipedia what is and is not a reliable source; Wikipedia is supposed to represent all viewpoints, not just the one that you and your fellow bandmates approve of. I may be a Biafra fan, and I may think you are a sellout, but that does not make me unreliable. In fact, I'm much more reliable than you, as you don't cite sources and delete info you don't agree with (including cited info). -- LGagnon 12:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
And Ray, please don't talk like you represent Wikipedia; you've only been here for a few days, and you are definitely not "We". I have held the Jello Biafra article up to scrutiny by other editors and administrators several times, and several have stated that it is near featured article quality. Additionally, claiming that I reverted the articles out of suspected bias is something an admin (or at least a reputable admin) would never do. Nor would they push the idea that certain sources are biased without providing their own sources to prove it (and no, I won't be get my sources from someone with an @deadkennedys.com e-mail address; that's not even allowed by Wikipedia's No Original Research policy). It's bad enough that you pose as an unbiased writer; it's even worse when you impersonate a Wikipedia authority. -- LGagnon 18:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You may be entirely right in your arguement, Bob, however as LGagnon said, I think we need sources. I mean, I tend to lean towards your argument, but sources are just something that seems to be desperately needed for this and other articles relating to the band. I know you're frustrated about this thing, but we should keep it civil. --Psycho78m 19:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV problem?

Are we seriously going to keep the POV template in the article until someone changes it to fit Ray's biased views? The guy is just trying to get anything that suggests the possibility that he may have done something wrong removed. He's trying to make the article POV, not make it more NPOV. As far as Wikipedia's rules of verifiability are concerned, we can not reject sources just because we do not agree with the opinion expressed in it; that is exactly what POV editing is! I'm removing the POV template from the article until someone can prove that there is a legit argument for POV being in the article. -- LGagnon 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I simply added the template due to it's current Cabal mediation. Please contribute to the discussion. Either way, it would have been better to remove the template, and not do a revert due to the minor wiki reformatting I did. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
What sources were used for the court case? Were they legit? I think that's the main cause of concern, since I remember a lot of the details were sort of kept out of the public's interest, and that on several interviews they have declined to discuss details. I don't think that the little geocities-like page that talks about the case is a credible souce, and that's what was used for most of that part of the article. Maybe they will post a list of concerns themselves instead of editing the whole thing? We shall see. --66.106.60.11 03:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

There is a dispute that this article may not be fair and balanced, that it seems to be biased against East Bay Ray, Klaus Flouride and D.H. Peligro by ignoring their position and only reporting Jello Biafra’s. The article also contain factual inaccuracies. There is an informal mediation at this time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-27_Dead_Kennedys -- 70.132.52.197

Whether it contains inaccuracies or not is disputed. Might I add, Ray, you shouldn't edit anonymously to make yourself look like you have support. -- LGagnon 20:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
What are the factual inaccuracies that are rampaging in the article? I've read it again, and the only inaccuracy that I can see is that it's flagged 'POV' yet again by User:Dead-kennedys. If it's POV, please provide details here on the Talk page and we can hash out what the problems are here, and then we can edit the article like adults.... Xinit 01:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation case closed

My verdict is that a ongoing compromise needs to be sustained between both parties. If this cannot be realized, then the article will be reverted to a primitive state, and a NPOV rewrite will take place. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 16:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was already POV before "Bob" (East Bay Ray) astroturfed DK-related articles to make himself and the other members of the band look good and Jello Biafra look bad. Reverting the article to a primitve state would do just as much damage as allowing "Bob" to continue his non-POV edits. -- Cjmarsicano 21:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Kennedy Curse"

Is there really any reason to have this header in place? If no compelling reason is given between now, and Wed, I'm removing it. Rsm99833 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The neutrality of this article

Is there anything left in this article that is being disputed as far as it's neutrality? Rsm99833 16:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are several thing in this article that are not neutral. Time is being spent for discussions on Talk:Jello_Biafra and some of that will be applicable to this entry. Work will start on it soon.
One verifiable change has been made, correcting the founders of Alternative Tentacles Records. Appeal Verdict, Dead Kennedys v. Jello Biafra, Case No. A094272. -- Bob 19:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, are there any other corrections, or parts that are in dispute? If not, I'll remove the boilerplate Friday night. Speak now, or forever hold your peace. Rsm99833 16:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Some other areas that don't seem to be presented according to the WP:BLP gudielines:
Polydor accusation is not sourced properly and no counter viewpoint given.
Songwriting controversy is not presented in a balanced and neutral manner. A compromise is being worked on Talk:Jello Biafra
Court case not presented fairly, one side is emphasized over the other. Other viewpoints, Music Industry News Network, Billboard. Same with “punk circles” PunkNews.org
The paragraph about licensing to Corporate companies is misleading. Biafra approved the use of songs in Neighbors, 1981 and Class, 1983 and approved the license to Tony Hawk May 5, 1999 Fax from Uli Elser.
No source given for why Brandon Cruz left the band.
Band first disbanded in February 1986, not December, last show with Biafra was February 21, 1986, Mutiny On the Bay CD. -- Bob 21:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Start making changes then.

  • Also, the discussion on Jello Biafra has no effect on this list.
  • While I did not post the Brandon Cruz material, he has stated why he left the band in various interviews, Usenet postings, and his Myspace mail. He's quite accessable for verification.

Again, make the changes you see fit. If they appear to be neutral, and not a copy of a press release, or information of off a web page, chances are, it'll stick. If not, corrections will be made by myself, and others. Rsm99833 22:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope Jello has read the entry on his band. He would love the amount of controversy his band is causing this far along! Martyn Smith 18:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really~~

Ok, have all points been answered? Have all topics been addressed? You have one week to speak now, else the disclaimer will be removed.Rsm99833 06:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to resolve the POV problems, this article should only present information that each "side" agrees about because the mediation failed. That may be difficult or perhaps impossible in the subarticle called "Internal conflicts" given the recent animosity over the civil trial.
Oops, that was me
I did it again. both the above were me. Vampyrecat 02:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Bay Ray being responsible for releasing many other punk and alternative bands

Please cite what bands EBR is responsible for having released on A.T. Thanks Rsm99833 20:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well he sort of helped start the label. Also, welcome to Wikipedia. --Psycho78m 06:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Assisting with the books and paperwork is definitly notable in getting the label started. However, it does not mean that he is responsible for any releases on the label necessarily. I'm sure "bob" can offer up one or two, if he actually did. Until then, I believe that the sentence is misleading.Rsm99833 16:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Kennedys being "Hardcore Punk"

I feel calling the Dead Kennedys as Hardcore Punk is false. In the wikipedia article it defines hardcore apunk as "a faster, heavier version of punk rock, characterized by short, loud, and often passionate songs." Hardcore punk is characterized by bands like Minor Threat and the Bad Brains, and the Dead Kennedys do not sound like them. There are hardcore bands that play at mid tempos, like the Reagan Youth, but the Dead Kennnedys do not sound like them either. The chord progressions in the dead kennedy's songs are not thrashy enough for it to be considered hardcore, and the refrains are not like any other hardcore band i've heard of. I like the dead kennedys as much as the next guy, but they are punk rock, not hardcore... i'm sure most people would agree with me on this. Dasilva 05:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Check the AMG link in the References section. Sorry, but unless you can cite a source saying they are not hardcore, then you can't argue for this to change in the article. -- LGagnon 15:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.discogs.com/artist/Dead+Kennedys refers to them as a "legendary punk band"
http://www.freedb.org/freedb_search_fmt.php?cat=rock&id=d207bf0e classified as punk, not hardcore
Dasilva 01:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Two no-name sources versus one reliable source. That's not a good way to prove your point. And might I add that punk is used interchangably with hardcore by many people, so even if your sources were reliable you still wouldn't have an argument. -- LGagnon 01:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Dasilva, but your sources are not really trustworthy, or accurate. Try here instead: http://www.trouserpress.com/entry.php?a=dead_kennedys Rsm99833 01:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, Reagan Youth was classicfied as "punk" in freedb.org, the other two you mentioned were called various things, including "hardcore" and "punk", but not "hardcore punk", from the few albums I randomly clicked. I couldn't see any genre info in discogs.com. Some groups may been more "hardcore" than the DK, and the punk trend may be heading (or has) in that direction, but that still doesn't mean that DK isn't classifed as "hardcore punk" anymore. — Soupisgoodfood 02:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hardcore is a subgenre of punk, which means all hardcore bands are punk. Just because in one instance one term was used over the another does not automatically mean one is right and the other is wrong. WesleyDodds 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that the dead kennedy's haven't to my knowledge ever idenified themselves as being hardcore, while they have repeatedly idenified as punk. Hardcore is generally indenified as being a particluar offshoot of punk (with east coast not west coast origins).

And yet they never denied it. Music experts have stated over and over again that they were hardcore. That's reason enough to call them that. -- LGagnon 01:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Dead Kennedys were playing punk before the hardcore genre ever came to exist is more than enough reason to avoid applying the label. Only the smallest modicum of knowledge on the subject is required to understand that Dead Kennedys were never, not in any sense, a hardcore band. -- Caped Crusader 19:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
They started playing before hardcore came into existence? That is blatantly false. Black Flag and Bad Brains (amongst others) were playing years before the DKs formed. I don't think you know enough about the history of hardcore to make such an argument. -- LGagnon 20:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
If you knew half as much as you think you do about the subject, you'd know that Black Flag's early stuff had a distinctly different sound than what they were playing around the time you were born. If you think Bad Brains were around "years" before Dead Kennedys, you seriously need to reconsider your qualifications for contributing to these articles. Once again, they didn't develop a hardcore sound until after the Dead Kennedys had already formed. Hardcore, as a genre in and of itself, was developed in the 1980s. You're out of your weight class here. -- Caped Crusader 20:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
And for the record, if you want a "source", familiarize yourself with the lyrics of "Chickenshit Conformist", in which Jello unequivocally distinguishes himself from the hardcore scene that had been forming. -- Caped Crusader 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all, personal attacks about my age are not appropriate, and personal attacks in general are a violation of Wikipedia's policy against them. Familiarize yourself with that if you plan on staying on good standing here.
Second of all, the "Nervous Breakdown" single by Black Flag was released the same year that the DKs formed. That song is hardcore beyond a shadow of a doubt. Different sound? Yes. Different genre? No.
I've given proof to my argument; now you give some yourself. -- LGagnon 02:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't have an argument. You say Black Flag and Bad Brains were playing hardcore years before the Dead Kennedys had formed. When called on that obvious fallacy, you revert to saying Black Flag released a single (it was actually an EP, not a single) the same year Dead Kennedys came to be. You haven't proven very much, and certainly not what you intended to prove. Dead Kennedys were Bay Area punk rock, and heavily influenced (musically, at least) by surf music. They were definitely pioneers who helped pave the way to hardcore punk, especially early NYHC bands like Reagan Youth and Born Against, but that's not what they played. It doesn't take much to distinguish Dead Kennedys' sound from that of hardcore punk bands, even those releasing material prior to the days of metal crossover.
Furthermore, there was no "personal attack" in my post, but rather a statement of fact. I suggest you heed your own advice, and adhere to the contents of the page you linked: "however, you should be very careful not to define "personally attack" too broadly, or to do this too frequently". I am in no way concerned about my "standing" here.
In the end, it's just one more glaring inaccuracy on Wikipedia. Nothing new about that. -- Caped Crusader 18:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't even see the arguement here. Who can honestly listen to Plastic Surgery Distasters, Bedtime for Democracy and most of all In God We Trust, Inc. and not classify the band as part of the hardcore punk genre? I don't think this is even a question of influence or importance within the genre, just the fact that the music is fast and thrasy in a way not found in first wave punk bands. 24.126.230.13 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 23:46, August 23rd, 2006 (PST)

Agreed. I would say the DKs are more experimental than a lot of other hardcore bands, but a lot of their music was clearly part of that genre, and they are typically considered an exemplary hardcore band. I don't see why this is getting so much attention. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 08:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the 2 above me, although i don't think id categorise them as a hardcore band either what with fresh fruit being pretty straighforward, kinda surfy sounding punk music. plus with all the experimental stuff you guys mentioned i think its best if they're put under a mulitude of genres. Seems like the best way to describe them and the best way to end all of this. --AnRK 15:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dead Kennedys being "Anarcho-Punk"

right now I just saw the DKs being labelled as anarcho punk, are there any sources for this? Jello Biafra is and was an anarcist back then and he did write most of the songs, but do much of his songs have any actual anarchist leanings?(except maybe nazi punks fuck off) And to prove he was watch the doco "anarchism in america" on google video, towards the end it shows jello biafra with dead kennedys talking about anarchism 222.154.55.65 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Seems like the more I think I know The more I find I don't Every answer opens up so many questions anarchy sounds good to me Then someone asks, "Who'd fix the sewers?" "Would the rednecks just play king Of the neighborhood?"-Jello Biafra.

Removed the "anarcho punk" tag.

[edit] Missing album in album list

I own a copy of a Dead Kennedys album not on the list. "Nazi Pigs F**k Off" (the word is NOT bleeped in the title, just didn't know if it was appropriate to type here) is a live album recorded in Germany. The sound quality in the 1st 3rd is *really* bad. If there is interest in adding it, I can add it tomorrow....

If it's the one I think it is, it's a bootleg of the "authorized" bootleg: A Skateboard Party, which is allread included in the discography (and is very available). So I don't see a reason to include it. Rsm99833 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Deleted nonsense about Top 30 obligation on BBC

There is not, and never has been, an obligation on the BBC to allow an act who have a Top 30 hit onto Top Of The Pops. The Sex Pistols never appeared on TOTP for God Save the Queen and that got to number, ahem, two....Martyn Smith 18:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet this can be verified. Jello's biography on his official website gives the same info that was in this article. -- LGagnon 18:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Done a bit of research, neither of the above is in fact strictly accurate. The truth is that the BBC *was* obliged to offer a TOTP performance to all acts who broke the UK Top 30, *except* if the record had been banned from being played *throughout* the BBC, as Too Drunk To Fuck (announced just as 'Too Drunk Too' during chart rundowns) and God Save The Queen were. Other victims of the BBC's censoriousness include Frankie Goes to Hollywood with Relax (song) and just about everything Judge Dread ever made. Martyn Smith 18:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you showed your sources for this. -- LGagnon 19:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous nonsense

Under the guise of "NPOV", some anonymous user keeps on adding claims that Biafra is "malicious" in a very POV way. He may have a source cited, but his sentences are written in a way that is POV against Biafra. Let's try to watch out for this one. -- LGagnon 01:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I agree that this article is definitely not NPOV. Several contributors like to suppress information about Biafra’s fraud verdict and his actions toward the other band members to create a pro-Biafra POV. Its ironic that they are protecting Biafra in the same way the right wing overlooks Rush Limbaugh’s drug abuse. These editors are not allowing opposing points of view. They do not protect any of the other band members with the same standard, they are happy to leave on any negative and bitter comment that Biafra may make about the other members. What’s up, are they in love with Biafra and jealous of the others?

The Rush Limbaugh analogy is a preposterous non sequitur. No one is going take seriously this "in love with Biafra" nonsense. This site was originally intended to be informational, not a playground for aging studio musicians to further disputes with the only member of their now-defunct band who has managed to remain relevant. -- Caped Crusader 17:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Penalty on the infobox

He is listed under "former members"

Former members: Ted | 6025 | Brandon Cruz | Jeff Penalty

Is there something I'm missing? --66.106.60.11 13:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sloppy content

Two consecutive paragraphs:

"Matters were stirred up even further when the three bandmates invited Jello Biafra to "bury the hatchet" in the form of a band reunion. Jello Biafra felt it was unprofessional because no one contacted him directly. In addition, Biafra was disdainful of the reunion, having long expressed his disdain for nostalgia and rock reunion/oldies tours in particular (with the 1996, corporate-sponsored Sex Pistols reunion perhaps fresh in his mind), flatly stating that the whole affair was an exercise in greed.

Several DVD's, re-issues, and live albums have been released since the departure of Jello. According to Jello, the live albums are cash-ins on the Dead Kennedys' name and Jello's music. Jello also accused the releases of the new live material being of poor sound quality and claims to not be receiving royalties from their sale or the sale of any Manifesto Records releases. The other band members deny Biafra's accusations, and have defended the mixes of the material as an effort of hard work."

"Biafra was disdainful of the reunion, having long expressed his disdain"? Could this be any more redundant?

An apostrophe is not used to create a plural noun. It is DVDs, not DVD's. There is no hyphen in reissue. "Jello also accused the releases of the new live material being of poor sound quality," is an example of egregiously poor syntax. Would someone like to proofread the article and clean it up, so that it might read as if it had been written by an adult? -- Caped Crusader 17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate Licensing

"The Manchurian Candidate, which used "Kinky Sex (Makes the World Go 'Round)", was a movie about an evil corporation, while "Police Truck" was used in Tony Hawk's Pro Skater because of punk music's close bond with skateboarding. The band says on their website that they still pay close attention to an anti-corporation ideology, noting that they have since pulled out of a show in Los Angeles when they found that it was being sponsored by Coors.[4] However, many fans, as well as Biafra, seem to deliberately overlook the band’s history to disingenously claim the above mentioned licensing deals prove otherwise."

Something that is never mentioned on the article page is the use of "Too Drunk To Fuck" (the remastered version) in The WB's Angel series. The episode aired on November 19, 2003. According to IMDB, that makes it season five, episode 8: "Destiny".

Would anyone who feels the band has been unfairly represented care to respond with documentation that proves Jello Biafra approved the licensing of "Too Drunk To Fuck" for this series, which was produced by 20th Century Fox TV and broadcast by Warner Bros.? I'll wait one week before editing the article for accuracy. -- Caped Crusader 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Biafra has stated in the past that he doesn't approve of any of his songs being played in corporate media. All songs that have been played in it were approved by the other band members against Biafra's wishes. -- LGagnon 19:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm well aware of Biafra's statements. In an effort to maintain objectivity, I am asking for anything that might counter them. -- Caped Crusader 19:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

They licence california uber alles to advertise the O.C. here in the UK, does noone else find that a little worrying? plus have they actually made an effort to write any new material? fair enough if they have but if not i can't see how they're doing anything other then riding the milk float until its wheels fall off and they become guitar teachers for the rest of their days or something --AnRK 15:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frankenchrist Criminal Obscenity / First Amendment Case

I've augmented the paragraph about the Frankenchrist criminal case and corrected some inaccurate information I found there. I have cited references. I would like to add a separate header for the Frankenchrist obscenity/First Amendment case because it is of great legal and historical significance. Also, it really has nothing to do with the civil case that gives rise to all the NPOV problems. I'm going to do it (make a new header) in a day or so unless someone tells me not to. Also, I am concerned about the lack of source citation for the statement that Jello Biafra says his house was raided. I don't doubt that it happened and I don't doubt that he said it, I'd just like to see a verifyable source for the statement. Vampyrecat 05:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ira Riener was the District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles during the time that the Frankenchrist trial was being prosecuted, but he was not the only lawyer who actually prosecuted the case. Ira Riener's name may appear on legal documents associated with the case but the motion for a retrial would have been filed by Michael Guarino. Oops, I forgot to sign this Vampyrecat 01:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DH's Recovery

I believe last summer D.H. was in rehab for a few weeks. Initially, it was noted on the DK site, but doesn't appear to be there anymore. Anyone remember this, or know where it's written up? Rsm99833 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ray's deletions

Again, Ray makes no attempt whatsoever to do any real editing and instead deletes information without doing any research. For the California Über Alles article, it took me 2 seconds on Google to find a legit source for the info he tried to delete. Could you please stop the biased edits, Ray, and keep in mind that we are supposed to do research on the topic to improve the articles, not delete whatever doesn't have a source at the moment and angers one person? -- LGagnon 05:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You must be confused, please do not call me Ray, my name is Bob. Sourcing is the responsibility of the person placing the material. And you yourself are very guilty of deleting much material that you personally don’t like, even though the material was based on reliable sources. -- Bob 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There's evidence that you're Ray; you haven't proven otherwise. And no, your website does not count as a reliable source; it's a very biased one that does not cite its own sources for everything it claims. -- LGagnon 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Failing

Some editors have fallen into the trap of believing “If Biafra says its so, it must be so,” which is not exactly an encyclopedic standard. It seems that during the compromise process, press releases and quotes from Biafra have been given undue weight as a source even though he has been proven to be unreliable and references to the court findings, a neutral third party source, have been deleted and labeled as biased!

What has happened to the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines in these Dead Kennedys’ related articles: Dead Kennedys, California Uber Alles, Holiday in Cambodia, East Bay Ray, Live at the Deaf Club and Mutiny On the Bay?

1. “All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.” “Undue weight.” “Information suppression.”

2. “Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” “It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates.”

3. “Articles about living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.”

4. “The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.”

5. “Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.”

6. “Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if: It is relevant to the person's notability; It is not contentious; It is not unduly self-serving;”

7. “Do not bite the newcomers.” “No personal attacks.” “Assume good faith.”

If theses policies and guidelines are going to continued to be ignored, the deletions, edits and reversions in question will be noted and used to ask the to the mediators and/or administrators to stub the articles according to the mediation judgement. Bob 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bob, I'm not sure why you posted the above. But I do know this: there are a lot of people here trying to make sure all related articles are neutral, or as close to it as possible. May I remind you, "bob" that since your arrival, you have whined and complained (w/o actually talking to anyone first), attempted to use press-releases as factual information, and have attempted to delete information that is both factual, provable, and cross-referenced. "bob", if you want to participate, by all means do so. But please don't have a temper tantrum if someone makes a change you disagree with. Instead, you can revert, and then bring up issue in the related discussion area. Rsm99833 20:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your statement is that you use an equally unreliable source: your band's website (that is, the "reformed" DK site). If Biafra can't be counted as neutral, neither can your band.
In any case, Biafra's quotes are not used as the factual truth. We merely quote him as having said something, rather than claiming that he was right (for instance, "Biafra says the reunion tour sucks" instead of "the reunion tour sucks" with Biafra cited). This is a perfectly neutral method of handling quotes which you can not change to suit your band.
As for the court verdicts, you have not always written those parts in a neutral manner. Citing a source is not enough; the info cited needs to be entered in a neutral manner rather than (as you have done) implying that one side is absolutely right just because a certain organization (in this case, the courts) says so. -- LGagnon 21:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, most editors are trying to be neutral but LGagnon and Rsm99833 (and Cjmarsicano) may be ruining it for them by using negative comments from Biafra's press releases and interviews about Ray, Klaus and Peligro that have not been verified by a third party and are, in a lot of cases, not relevant. And information that goes to Biafra’s reliability has been deleted and suppressed.

“Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages,” Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material

Biafra’s negative statements do not meet official Biographies of Living Persons policy because they: 1. do not meet verifiability and NPOV policies; 2. are not always relevant to the person's notability; 3. are contentious; and 4. are unduly self-serving. Using the subject as a source

When it comes to negative comments in an encyclopedia, Biafra does not meet the standard as a reliable source because: 1. Biafra was found to have committed fraud against his band mates by 12 jury members and 4 judges; 2. he was found to have acted with with malice towards Easy Bay Ray, Klaus Flouride and D.H. Peligro, and 3. he was found to “lack credibility” by the judges and jury who have no reason to take any side.

The above information from a neutral party, which bears directly on the reliability of the source, has been suppressed and deleted by LGagnon - 01:20, 12 July 2006 LGagnon (Talk | contribs) (revert; quotes are not adding information, but simply pushing insults to Biafra into the article). (And by the way Ray, Klaus an D.H. were not found guilty of any of the above.) However, he appears to have no problems with insults to Ray, Klays and D.H. - after claiming 'redundant,' Lgagnon lets stand two uses of self-serving negative comments by Biafra about Ray from a 2005 Nardwuar interview. Far from neutral.

Rsm99833 is also far from neutral, he has stated - “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) User_talk:Dead-kennedys

And Rsm99833 has added dubious negative material only against one side (and nothing positive for that side): Dead Kennedys - 01:57, 26 July 2006 Rsm99833 (Talk | contribs) (added clarification.) & East Bay Ray - 18:40, 26 July 2006 Rsm99833 (Talk | contribs) (clarification, rewording); 20:00, 14 May 2006 Rsm99833 (Talk | contribs) m (minor cleanup) & 03:30, 29 July 2006 Rsm99833 (Talk | contribs) - where he deleted negative material about Biafra but not East Bay Ray. Interestingly enough, shortly after Rsm99833 discovered the link to Biafra’s attorney, Biafra’s name was removed from the attorney’s site.

Another way to end this battle over negative material is to remove all the negative material, ON BOTH SIDES, leave a simple and short statement about the trial outcome, and leave the back and forth to the blogs and chat rooms, here it is supposed to be an encyclopedia. - Bob 23:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Bob", as far as my edits go, I concentrate mostly on vandalism and history. Now, a lot of it was seen with my own eyes. When it can't be verified, I leave it out(hence no mention of Pelegro's rehab stay). If something appears to be badly worded, or in need of clearer clarification, I take it upon myself to clarify it- just like you can. As per the lawyer, I looked over the site and documents, and found no mention of the law firm, so it was removed. And seeing that I don't get press-releases, I can't use them here now can I. Don't forget, I am the one that asked here if all sides had finally agreed on article neutrality [1], as well as disussing the finer points of certain phrases and entries [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. And if you must get down to it, here's are links to the last handful of edits I've done: [8], [9], [10], [11].
As far as the personal attack, I apologize. Sometimes I can be a bit hot-headed. Rsm99833 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology, but your actions in the future will speak louder than words. On another matter, your mention on this talk page is still invasion of privacy, please delete it yourself, and your previous posting, thank you. - Bob 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Asking a question of a public figure is not, by any stretch of the imgination "An invasion of privacy." No more different than people asking if Biafra is gay. Rsm99833 04:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

However, both would violate Wikipedia's offical policy, please see Presumption in favor of privacy.

Read the document a bit closer. It deals with articles, and not the discussion pages Neither are included in the article. Rsm99833 06:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You appear to be the only one on this topic, have some decency, in the long run it will only make you look bad.
I have no clue as to what you mean by "only one on this topic". I will say this though- I've been on here a long time. I have thousands of edits under my belt. Thousands. You, on the other hand, just arrived, have only a few edits- some of which are highly questionable. Please don't try to quote to me protocols & proceedures, when you are niether framiliar with, nor are able to follow them yourself. Thanks.Rsm99833 18:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
So Rsm99833 thinks he’s better than me. The topic is the first one right above these posting, presumption in favor of privacy. - Bob 01:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, considering that I know the protocols a little better than you, and participate A LOT more than you, then yes. Per your "favor of privacy", you'll have to get onto thousands of usenet providers, and convince them that they need to delete the the posts about his stay in rehab. Rsm99833 01:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Ray, you've given utterly illogical reasons to consider Biafra an unreliable source. When it comes to quotes from Biafra, he is the source. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wuoting him in this article no matter what his opinion is, so long as we point out that it is his opinion. Don't go around deleting his opinions, because then you'd be the one violating Wikipedia's neutrality policy. If you need further explaination, I'll go over each claim you made about him:

1. Biafra's quotes can be verified with sources and are; as we don't state his opinion as fact, it meets NPOV.
You are incorrect, there's more to it than that, the official policy is - “Just because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it. Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an article … information has to be sourced from reliable sources if it is to have a place in Wikipedia.” Verifiability: Other comments
2. He is relevant, as he was a member of the band. The former frontman of a band commenting on them is very relevant.
not him, some of the comments are not relevant to the band's notoriety
3. Contentious is no excuse; you're using an ad hominem fallacy here.
but that's the policy if using a self-published (or self-quote) source
4. Again, mere ad hominem.
1. ditto.
2. ditto.
Again you are incorrect, what you misunderstand as ‘ad hominem’ is actually Wikipedia official policy on self-published sources (which an interview would also be) - “Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as: it is relevant to the person's or organization's notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving;” etc. This information is also on the reliability page Self-published sources
3. Here, you are suggesting we favor the judges' POV over Biafra's. This would be a blantant violation of the NPOV policy.
It’s just silly to try to claim all sources are equally reliable, Biafra is obviously bitter at being caught defrauding the band and has a very obvious self-serving agenda, the jury members and judges had no agenda and are not self-serving, and are consequentailly much more reliable than Biafra. Again, from Wikipedia’s policy on evaluating reliability of sources - “Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?”

Face it, you can't delete Biafra from the article just because you don't like his opinion. We are working on neutrality here, not on whitewashing your band's history. -- LGagnon 02:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Another of Wikipedia’s official policies that you may not be aware of - “While a strategy of Eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.” Biographies of living persons Either negative information on both sides could come down as I first proposed or sourced negative information about Biafra that you do not like needs to stay up, not my preferred compromise but it seems to be yours, otherwise the article will be a canidate to be stubbed.
These articles cannot stand as is if you, and those few others, continue to misuse official policy because you have a need to advocate for Biafra. One could very well ask for proof that you are not in contact with him or on his payroll, a simple statement coming from you that these articles are neutral does not fly. - Bob 02:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
We (myself, LGagnon, Rsm and others) are not the ones misusing official policy - that would be you, "Bob". who has been cherry-picking whatever Wikipedia guidelines suit your fancy in order to push your POV edits as biographical material.
We are not the ones using POV press release material from an artist's website - you, "Bob", are doing that by using DeadKennnedysNews.com, the band's "spin" site, as one of your primary sources (if not the only primary source).
We are not the ones deleting information unfavorable to the subject - you, "Bob", have been doing that by deleting NPOV material about the subject at hand (seemingly in the hopes that we will give up and stop reverting your deletions).
We are not the ones using sock puppets (including a change of screen name as well as "anonymous" edits), and all at about the same times of the day/week, to carry out actions not dissimilar to the ones you have been taking ever since you registered on Wikipedia as "User:Dead-kennedys". Again, that's your doing, "Bob".
And finally, we are not the ones who have had a direct connection with anyone in Dead Kennedys on a regular basis for some time - that would be you, "Bob", who openly admitted on his user page that they worked for the band as their webmaster.
The record speaks for itself. NPOV was maintained on this article without problems until you, "Bob", came along and started causing them. Your initial choice of screen name here doesn't help matters, nor does your admission of a direct working relationship with Dead Kennedys as their webmaster. --CJ Marsicano 04:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead kennedys in Turkey

Just so we're clear, they played in Turkey for the RocknCoke Fesitval on September 6, 2003 at Hezarfen Airport.

  • Here's an interview (with pictures) where Ray talks about it: [12]
  • Here's a link to the festival they played: [13]
  • And if that isn't enough, here's the good results of hundreds of links that tie everything together: [14]

Any questions/comments? Rsm99833 23:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A footnote to a footnote? There seems to be an intent only in adding negative material about the other three, that is not neutral. There is an Undue Weight policy. Do you have evidence that the band was directly involved with Coke? Or that they were informed of the sponsorship when they agreed to go to Turkey? It's likely they were not informed. An innuendo is being made about the other three but Biafra's licensing to major films is being left out. What's that about? This whole issue is phony and really not worthy of an encyclopedia, leave it out.

Biafra's film stuff is mentioned [15].

As per if the band was aware of it, they were. I should know, I directly informed Brandon of it and the ongoing Armenian Genocide issue (and yes, it's all documented) [16] Rsm99833 02:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Again you make an insensitive mistake; in pictures of the show, it look like Jeff singing, not Brandon.
You should know this as you do a lot of edits, but it is Wikipedia's policy, in the words of Jimmy Wales, "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia" and "Articles about living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies." WP:LIVING - Thanks, Bob 02:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Brandon does have Ray's phone number, and was a member of the band when the date was announced. Moreso to the point, if there is going to be a statement that the band is anti-corporate and dropped from playing a show sponsored by Coors, a mention of their participation of a multi-national Corporate festival in Europe should be mentioned.

And considering that they had a link off of their web page to the site to purchase tickets, I highly doubt that the bands or ley represenetives of the band were ignorant that they were about to play a very large and very well-known annual European festival, and who was putting it on.

But more than that, there's their inclusion on Hellfest & Riotfest (both with lots of corporate sponsorship). Then there's the usage of Artist Arena for ticket sales. How much more do you need? Rsm99833 03:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for citations

in the article there is a citation call for the entry "Many fans felt the three's lawsuit against Jello was motivated by greed" Here's one reputable source, though it may be considered POV. [17]. There is also this [18], but I cannot find the original source.

it is POV, Vale is a personal friend of Biafra's and they work together
I don't know that those references are POV just because the journalist knows Biafra, because the issue, as I see it, is the claim that FANS perceived the lawsuit as motivated by greed. On the other hand, I don't know that the perception of fans is something that ought to be in a wikipedia entry. Vampyrecat 07:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference #8

Will someone please clean that up. I'm at my three-edit limit. Thanks Rsm99833 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the mentioning of the checks

It should be pointed out that those checks are not canceled. Personally, I'm beginning to think that whole section is starting to overshadow everything else. Rsm99833 04:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That claim is very irresponsible. You have presented no proof they were not cancelled other than your own bias and your allegation implies that Provident Financial is committing a fraud and a crime, which would be libel. Please note the last check for $23,000, that has Biafra's hand writing on it and his initials "without prejudice EB".
There's nothing to claim about it. The picture itself shows that they were not cancelted. anyone who has ever had a checking account can see that they have not been canceled. There's no proof they were ever issued, ony written. I can write checks all day to the queen of England & Rush Limbaugh. But ut doesn't mean that they will actually recieve those checks, or even have cashed them. Please note, thatthere is any evidence that the "handwriting" is Biafra's. Rsm99833 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen anyone who is so in denial that Biafra might twist the truth to protect his image. So report Provident to the authorities for stealing Biafra's money if that's what you believe. Oh by the way, Biafra failed to proof any fraud by Decay Music in the trial, but of course that's probably not good enough for you because only what Biafra says is true for you. - Bob 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, those checks aren't canceled. Anyone who has had a checking account can see that. If you want to prove the checks were cashed, turn them over. And BTW, your attempted bully tactics will not work here.

Checks are a lot of times cancelled on the back, mine are.

If I email Dead Kennedys and can get them to show the backs of the checks, will you three, CJ Marsicano, Lgagnon and Rsm99833, agree to my compromise and agree that Biafra is a very unreliable source, to say the least, and then work to set the Wikipedia record straight? Maybe for privacy’s sake, I could ask them to email jpegs of the backs just to you three if you promise to not to post them? What do you think? - Bob 01:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Not really. As previously stated, I believe that whole section needs a total re-write, because it overshadows everything the band really did. But if you can offer it up, what the hell. Rsm99833 02:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
In other words, you want to discredit anything Biafra says and only use the band and their more obviously slanted statements as the primary source of information on their history. I say no for the simple fact that a very dangerous precendent would be set in the process. In order for the article to be NPOV, Biafra's side has to be stated too, not just the Pepperell/Lyall/Henley triumvirate. -- CJ Marsicano 03:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No, please re-read. I said both sides quotes, not just Biafra’s quotes. - Bob 19:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC).
Oh, another thing... whoever Decay Music's bank is, is not to blame as far as the checks are concerned - they are just the institution that holds the partnership's funds in an account. Whoever is writing and issuing (or supposed to be issuing) them is the party responsible. And that would be Raymond Pepperell Jr., right? -- CJ Marsicano 03:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The bank is Wells Fargo. I understand Provident to be Decay's bookkeeper, and that's maybe what the other signature is, Provident's.
Well we agree on something finally, I too believe these articles need a re-write! But seriously, we need a compromise, why wouldn’t you agree to my proposed compromise? - Bob 02:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Because your "proposed compromises" are scattered all over the place. an edit on one article, an edit in another. Then, when legitamate edits are made (e.g the lawyer stuff), you go into defense-mode. If there are specific issues ON THIS ARTICLE you disagree with, then propose them or make them. HOWEVER, don't think for a second I won't revert anything that I think shows biased. Rsm99833 02:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Believe it or not, if Bob -- or anyone else, really -- would mail Dead Kennedys and get to see the backs of the checks (to see if they're legit or cancelled), that would be original research and, as such, not eligible for entry into WikiPedia. Weird, huh? --Tirolion 14:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biafra's corporate involvement

Rsm99833, as you and others include Biafra’s claim he is anti-corporate, and one-sidedly imply the others aren’t, his choice of a large law firm that defend polluting corporations is relevant, you can’t delete it just because you don’t like it. My compromise offer is still good – these articles would be much more fit for an encyclopedia if the negative material on both sides was taken down; and the silly back and forth were left to the blogs and chat rooms, where they belong. - Bob 01:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The last time I checked, he used his friend, who defended him in the same trial as the 'FrankenChrist' trial. Aside from that, I don't see Biafra's name mentioned on their web-site, nore in any legal documents. It does not belong in there, other than to demonstrate extreme POV. Rsm99833 02:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's talk about some REAL involvement here, "Bob". Since you openly claim on your profile that you were Dead Kennedys' webmaster, then if you really want this article to have a neutral point of view. then given your past, you should openly recuse yourself from further editing/commentary on this and all other articles related to Jello Biafra and Dead Kennedys. Sorry for stating the obvious. -- CJ Marsicano 01:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren’t you the one that made personal attacks about coke use? Now you are doing a personal attack again. Stick to the articles. - Bob 02:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The coke use reference was a joke relating to the real Raymond Pepperell Jr.'s long-rumoured drug use over the past several years - a rumour that apparently will not die. So get over that. Back to the real issue at hand: Pointing out that your own involved history with the band as their direct web representative makes you an unfit candidate for doing NPOV edits is not a personal attack. I would be pointing this fact out whether you were making positive or negative comments about them. I still feel that you should recuse yourself from editing all DK-related articles because of your past history with the band as their webmaster. -- CJ Marsicano 02:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No. You are using the ad hominem fallacy. I am trying to bring balance to these one-sided articles and am less biased than you are. However, if you, Lgagnon and Rsm99833 also recuse yourselfs, I would to. Maybe we could give some room for other people to have a go at it for a while, what do you folks say? - Bob 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I say, neither myself nor the other individuals you mention need to recuse themselves because unlike you, we have not had any direct long-term association with any of the individuals in Dead Kennedys. Your involvement with them as their webmaster is a key factor in your dumping POV content into the article. There have not been any problems with the article until you started causing trouble. We have been more than honorable and maintained NPOV in all DK-related articles long before you came along. The record speaks for itself. - CJ Marsicano 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Let's see..."Bob" shows up, and starts pasting into the articles various press releases directly off of the DK web site. Various people start altering or removing the edits. "Bob" responds by whining to the arbritration community, who don't take his side as he wanted. Next "Bob" attempts to bully his way, which doesn't work either. Next "Bob" attempts to accuse anyone that edit the article as being "biased" when edits are either neurtralized, or ballanced. It doesn't look good for you "Bob" Rsm99833 21:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biafra Press Releases Being Pushed

This article seems to be being used mostly to post self-serving press release comments or interviews from Biafra contrary to Wikipedia's neutrality policy and anything to balance them, or the editor, is attacked. 70.231.228.200 18:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your self-centered beliefs, "Bob", neutrality was already in the article long before you came around. The only purveyor of POV is you, and no amount of sock-puppetry on your part is going to convince anyone otherwise. --CJ Marsicano 18:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh and "bob", don't think that you're fooling anyone. Your I.P. number matches your email address, as well as the I.P. of your other accounts. And unless you can quite clearly demonstrate that these are press releases from Biafra, I suggest you drop it. Rsm99833 22:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please drop the insults and stop attacking other editors, I'm not who you think. It's a press release. If Biafra is willing to steal and lie to his bandmates, he certainly would lie to his fans. http://www.alternativetentacles.com/page.php?page=atlegalfund "For Immediate Release: January 14, 2002..." 70.231.228.200 00:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh there's no question who you are- you are "Bob" And what in that A.T. press release is being relected here? Rsm99833 00:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

relected?? it's press release material and you said you'd take it out. unless you now think wikipedia is for posting press releases? the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons page has a discussion about "let's find citations for all the negative stuff, and put it in there" club

I never said I would take it out. I said to stop making claims that press releases were being placed here, or drop it. And may I remind you that when you first swooped in here, "bob", that it was you who was putting up content- word-for-word off of the web site, then throwing a fit when others neutralized your handiwork.

Now, let's talk about the current bit of editing you are doing. First, the statement is true, of historical value, and is something that he has said outside of the press release (one sentence does not back up your claim BTW)A simple google search of the phrase will demonstrate it. So like it or not, he stated it, he did object, and nothing is going to change that. You can place a sentence in to the likes of "which the band dismissed, stating...." or something to the likes of that. Rsm99833 01:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I have no idea why an RFC was filed for this article on Oct. 5th. It seems to me that the vandalism is being reverted accordingly. Just don't give up Wikipedians. Remember the NPOV and the reliable sources and the article will be fine.--Connor K. 19:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that Jello biafra has an agenda to tear down the other band memebers because he got caught with his hand in the till, he is not a releable source.

"Bob", stop it with the anonymous sock puppetry and leave this article alone. No one here is buying your bullshit anymore. --CJ Marsicano 19:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] band membership timeline

The graph that is currently in this article makes it look like DKs have been together continuously, but elsewhere the article says they disbanded in 1986 and reformed years later. Which is correct? --Design 03:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure what the timeline was put there for. Not only is it incorrect, but it mentions the years the Dead Kennedys were around in numerous other places in the article. Someone could probably take it down since it really has no purpose. Maximum 101 01:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of the pov tag

Tomorrow, at 12:00 PST, I am going to remove the POV tag. Enough time has passed, and it's become quite clear that "bob" is the only one with any objections. Last time I checked, and I could be wrong here, one person yelling POV out of hundreds of editors isn't exactly a good reason to put up a POV tag, or keep one on for months. Rsm99833 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

While you're at it, you should remove "Bob"'s lastest round of POV 'edits' as well. --CJ Marsicano 02:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/a/Talk%7EDead_Kennedys_b2ae.html"