Talk:Biff Rose/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Controversy 2 from user talk:Steve espinola 3 Picture 4 Response/Page Protection 5 The Hitler Pic 6 Why so controversial?? 7 Progress 8 New Edits by Jonah Ayers 9 Yet More Edits 10 Unprotected 11 Trimmed somewhat 12 Sources needed, etc 13 Rewrite 14 Racism controversy 15 Checking in 16 Revert counts, by user 17 Unexplained Deletions 18 Um... 19 Could someone explain this? 20 Marking edits as "minor" 21 Biff Rose Anti Semitic and Racist Tirade on his website posted here for your perusal 22 New citations of Biff Rose on web 23 Continual reversions to non-sourced negative sentence 24 What the hell? 25 page protection? 26 Edit Wars again 27 Unbearable

Controversy

I wonder what exactly are the reasons this guy keeps rewriting his account? What happened in Florida that some people don't want us to know about? What's going on here?

[<--unsigned by Dearth vader 23:14, 5 July 2005 (UTC)]]

who is doing the talking up there?

[<--unsigned by 216.175.121.239 06:37, 8 July 2005 (UTC)]]

Can anyone explain why the page is being edited so intensely? One of the pillars of the project is our obligation to edit from a neutral point of view. Rose is a real person who did a number of notable things, which is why we have this article. Let's just try to to the best job we can in writing a concise, comprehensive summary of the available sources in a NPOV manner. There is room for good, bad, and indifferent material so long as it is properly sourced and presented. Whatever we do, let's please use this talk page to discuss controversial edits. Wikipedia works on consensus. Thanks, -Willmcw 06:35, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently some of Rose's recent albums have been self-released. That doesn't mean he didn't record and release them. They are still a part of the record of his life. I've added "self release" to the last three, and we can annotate them further if necessary. But deleting them is uncalled for. -Willmcw 19:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

. . . . .

I agree with Willmcw! Hooray. There is a significant precedent of important artistic works being "self-released"....witness much of the work of Sun Ra in the 50's-70's, and many albums in the D.I.Y. punk movement starting in the 70's.

Small note: "Buddha" is not a record label, but "Buddah" was, in the late 1960's, early 1970's. They had a number of hits singles and LPs.

As for the question "Can anyone explain why the page is being edited so intensely?" A great many entries, under several different names and IP addresses, are the work of an obsessive fan/anti-fan/stalker of Biff Rose who has been doing similar work elsewhere on the web (myspace.com, Biff Rose's message board, private emails, etc.) using the same or similar IPs to the ones here. The ongoing claims of NAMBLA and a crime in Florida (you will notice that it was upgraded from molestation to a "disappearance" in later drafts) are libelous, highly destructive, and a sham; that is why they keep getting removed. This same vandal (who, ironically, created the initial entry for the sake of making the Florida claim appear "respectable") uses slanted/back-handed language such as "journeyman," " "flash in the pan" and "sank from view," and removes significant achievements out of spite. The article is still not all that well-written in a couple places. Some of the original, somewhat misleading sentences remain, as my early edits were basically a quick band-aid to deal with the libel.

I'm appreciating and enjoying that this has taken on a life of its own. Wikipedia is cool!

I am not Biff, but I would not mind giving out my real name, email address, and, privately, even my work phone number if it will put some of these issues to rest. I will not do so yet because I do not know the etiquette of Wikipedia.

-Sojambi Pinola 05:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Your personal information will not help. I don't think you're Rose. From the little I know of Rose, you sound too sane. ;) Let's all try to keep a nice, encyclopedic tone here. Libel is the legal responsibility of the author, not Wikipedia. Unsourced derogatory allegations should not be added and may be removed. -Willmcw 09:51, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

from user talk:Steve espinola

Can you please explain your edits to Biff Rose? They appear to express a negative POV towards the person. -user:Willmcw 06:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC) [edit]

For willmcw

I think its time youstopped trying to rearrange my words. Teh information contained on the biff rose site colelcts the pertinent info. It is not a billboard for his achievements, but an overview of his career. I think records that were pressed and sold are of worth. Ones that were not around in copies more than fifty or a hundred are not. I've interviewed Rose, I know which ones sold and which ones didn't. You can beef up a discog with murky details, but it won't help the whole wiki crowd. Stop being bullheaded, and agressive, because though you've been given power through edits, you have also become that which you supposedly fight against. Yo uare not allowing the newer versions of this piece to come to life, but instead are so closely guarding the information disseminated from within that you ahve become like a fascist. Terrible!!! - user:Steve espinola

Why do you delete the number of "Carson" appearances? Why are you deleting the name of his biggest song? What does it matter to you if the records sold 10 or 10,000 copies? Do you have some personal animus towards Rose? Please note that your personal feelings, and your personally-obtained interviews, should not be used to influence the article. It's a biography, and should present a comprehensive picture of his life. It's not a place to gain revenge on someone you don't like. -Willmcw 20:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Once again I ask why material is being deleted from this article. -Willmcw 22:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The vandal is using the name "Steve Espinola" now. But he ain't Steve Espinola. I am. sigh.

[<--unsigned by 216.57.63.47 20:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)] Was User:Sojambi Pinola, not signed in.]

Can you please register some username, then go to my user page, user:willmcw or the user page of user:Meelar and send one of us an email from SteveEspinola.com? Doing so will establish that you are the famous Espinola. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:26, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

actually, I, too, am Esteban 'Steve' Espinola. Which is why I ended up using that as the name I edit under. Look under my name, I've done edits on numerous articles this week, since I joined up. Mmmmmbo had me over to the Biff Rose site, as I have written some music criticism. I went over to his website, and was surprised to find some lyrics that could only be construed as racist. I ordered a disk, from old, and got one from new, and it is quite clear the later years has been a hateful time for Rose. It's important not to let your own opinions ride through the entries, so I have added words such as detractors and critics, though Willmcw keeps adding niceties that make it seem as as if the whole of Rose's ouvre was happy go lucky. It is not, and so should be noted, this strange turn toward angry old man, with particular venom toward minorities. I have also noticed that this 'other' Steve Espinola has his own website linked to Biff Rose's and therefore is probably what you call on here, a sockpuppet. the connection between the 'other' Espinosa and Willmcw is not as clear, though they seem to communicate with some regularity. I hope all who read this will check out Rose's music, old and new and his mulittude of websites, because the answers are inside his words and web presence. In regards to email, I can email you form my earthlink account. It will identify me as Esteban 'Steve' Espinola. Ok. thanksSteve espinola

I could have sworn I responded to this here....apparently I only did elsewhere. I object to the version of the page that has been "frozen." It is a distortion, it reduces the accurate acheivements of Biff that have appeared in several earlier versions, and it is the product of a guy who has been posting to the page under at least 13 usernames. My name is actually Steve Espinola, and I am a biographer of Biff's. I can prove it by more than just a name attached to an email address, as I have already done for one Wiki editor. That there are two apparent "Steve Espinola's" here is no accident. This other fellow took on that username because he objected to my removal of his false, libelous statements: among them, claiming Biff was wanted in Florida on serious felony charges. Biff lives in New Orleans at a stable address, and would be easy to find if the police wanted him. The statements were false. I comment below on the claims of racism and anti-semitism; it's not a simple issue, but it's certainly not dealt with well in the current version.

The picture, by the way, is NOT from his debut but from his 1970 third album.

Now, how can we get this settled and the page improved?Sojambi Pinola 05:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Picture

We just uploaded a picture from one of Biff Rose's many sites, and now the article is locked? What does that mean? Oh I see. Anyhow, it seems as with everything that he touches, a controversy has erupted.Peter Pie Peter Pie 23:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Response/Page Protection

Hello, I was asked to take a look at this page by Steve Espinola. I've protected the Biff Rose page until the dispute can be settled. I don't know who is right/wrong, but remember to keep in mind the non-point of view policy. If he is generally known as an anti-semitic, then that could be mentioned. Also, I've removed the picture because it seems doctored/fake- Hitler obviously wasn't around in 2004. Finally, keep in mind WP:3RR- this rule applies to everyone. Thus, please try and solve out this dispute. Once you do, you can contact me or another admin, and we can unprotect it. One final note- you may also wish to try WP:RfC, where you can garner input from the Wikipedia community. Hope this helps! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry if I feed the trolls, but I completely cracked up when I saw that Hitler pic ;_) it was just too hilarious to be in that context. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The Hitler Pic

I discovered that User:Steve espinola uploaded the Hitler pic which User:Peter Pie used to vandalize the Biff Ross article. I view this as solid proof they are operated by the same controller. Based upon the vandalism chains I have followed over the last few days, I will also further motion that all of the following accounts are operated by the same controller:

• User:Sojambi Pinela
• User:Mmmmmmbo
• User:Peter Pie
• User:Steve espinola

(all were created since August) HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Update: Two more sockpuppets of this operator: User:Dearth vader and User:Jonah Ayers — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 22:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on that. Yes, A new user adding to the article a photo that was uploaded three minutes earler by "another" user is too much to believe. FYI, the photo is really on one of the Biff Rose websites and I believe the mustache and writing were added by Rose. While the intent of adding the photo to the article seems to be to make Rose look bad, I don't think that this particular "contribution" is true vandalism. However there are plenty of instances of vandalism by other newly-created users. -Willmcw 20:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, HSo xMule, for researching this guy. The picture was part of a photo essay created by Biff, and is an example of some of his edgier material. Hitler shows up in some of his songs as the personification of pure evil. One of his songs starts "Sometimes I feel like the mother of Hitler," and the second verse starts "Sometimes I feel like the mother of Jesus." The point being that we all have a light and dark side to us, and the potential to do great harm and great good. Much as Hitler is lampooned in Mel Brooks' "The Producers", this photo essay shows Hitler reduced to being a drunk in a bar, practicing drums, trying to manage a country band and "taking over Romano Cheese." The first page of the essay reads "Now that Hitler is once again on the loose, sweeping a rein of terror through the streets of New Orleans, it is up to the rest of us to save the world from total destruction." Even when initially disturbing, Biff's stuff like this can also be pretty funny. And some of it just stays edgy. I'm Jewish, as are many of Rose's friends, and I thought this particular essay was funny.

Taking the picture out of that context was, as far as I'm concerned, part of the mystery-user's attempt to paint a distorted, simplified, negative portrayal of Biff. Now how do we get this page unfrozen and fixed up? Signed, not Sojambi Pinela, but Sojambi Pinola 05:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's work on a "temp " page until the main page is unprotected. Talk:Biff Rose/temp. I've copied the existing text in there. We an edit it and then use it to replace the main copy. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think some agreement needs to be made. Just went over and tried to fix some of the writing at the new Biff Willmcw put up. Horrible style really. Haven't even addressed the other issues. Why? Because no one seems to want to admit that Sojambi Pinola is a mouthpiece for Rose. Why would he say anything negative about Rose. I think Rose hada really interesting early career. I do. Molly is pretty cool, and so is the whole carson thing. What I don't understand is that according to Wikipedia procedures, are we allowing someone to be so blatantly fawning over an entry about his close friend. IT seems to be very one sided. And to the least , having seen Rose's websites, the lyrical postings too-- maybe including how others don't always see his genius in regards to the racist statements could be included. I don't know many people who are african american who stand for a white fellow singing about niggers. That's just too loaded nowadays. Even in the form of theater, this is so controversial, it has the possibilkity of getting someoen grievously injured, in New Orleans, in New York, where Steve Espinola writes from. Now Espinola says he's a jew, and that hopefulyl means that he has read some of Rose's decidedly anti Jew screeds, and learned how Rose did not mean them. Explain. IT's time to stop trying to sugar coat his life. By doing that you do a disservice to Wikipedia.Jonah Ayers 17:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't remove factual information from the article. If you want to add factual, NPOV informaiton about Rose's views on race or religion, then go ahead. I'm going to revert your last edit to the /temp version, since it mostly seems to have removed info. The Korean War stint seems to be the only new info, which I'll restore. -Willmcw 18:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Since I know you're not Ayers, espinola, vader, mmmmmbo, et. al., I will simply refer to you as Bob. OK Bob! I would love *one* piece of veritable confirmation (e.g. from a newspaper of report) that any of the things you say about Biff are true, esp. in regard to the pedophilia accusations. See, I figured such a character who we're supposed to believe 'fled the country' would have at least one article about his supposed escapades. Yet there is a dearth of information on the subject. So, why not just stop spreading FUD and go terrorise some one who can permban your entire IP range? — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 22:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, regarding the Korean War, if Rose was born in 1937, and the war ended in 1953, then it appears that he would have been on 16. It is possible that he served, but it would be unusual for someone so young. Do we have a source for it? Thanks, - Willmcw 22:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Korean war fact is inaccurate.Sojambi Pinola 01:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Why so controversial??

OK, could some one *please* clarify something for me? I had never even heard of Biff Rose until I followed User:Steve espinola's trail of desecration here, thanks mostly to vandalism on User:Willmcw's talk page. Is there any reason why this guy's bibliography would elicit so much sockpuppetry? Is it just some fringe article some perv can get kicks on defacing w/o real fear of admin punishment? I mean, xMule had its share of vandalism back in the day, but it was just dozens and dozens of random IPs over and over again. (is it possible to protect one's talk pages from vandalism? :-/) — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 22:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I explain it pretty thoroughly on user:Steve espinola's discussion page. It's a guy who has had a vendetta against Biff for a long time for some reason. He is operating under that username because I (birth name SE) began trying to remove the libel from the early versions of that article. As to why he is vandalizing other articles, I really don't know, unless he is just trying to appear like a deep Wikipedia contributor. I suppose it could be to make me look bad?

Another way to answer this is that Biff's art illicits strong reactions, out of proportion to his current level of mass-media fame. Not many people know his stuff (compared to commerical "top 40" "artists") but those that connect with it, positively or negatively, _really_ connect with it. He's a pretty radical and unusual artist, and has managed to keep a following in spite of a lack of corporate backing. Two CD compilations of his stuff will be coming out on reissue labels this year, so you may be hearing more about him soon.Sojambi Pinola 01:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

(Umm, I meant to say "elicits," not "illicits." Ha ha!) Sojambi Pinola 08:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Progress

Good to see you all are making progress on the temp page! When you think its ready, just contact me or another admin, and we'll unprotect it (Willmcw, I know you're an admin, but I strongly advise you not to unprotect/edit it, for obvious reasons...). I haven't had the time to check out claims of rule violations/impostering/sock puppets, but if you need to, I would recommend either WP:AN or WP:AN/I. THanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Flcelloguy. I've posted a note on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Biff Rose-related sock puppets regarding this problem. I have gone ahead and blocked the obvious sock puppets, leaving one account (user:Jonah Ayers) that doesn't seem to have been designed to mislead. With all of the editors using just one account apiece I think we can edit more harmoniously. Unless other editors object, I think we can remove the page protection anytime. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be less antagonism here as well. Jonah Ayers 01:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe you were the only one to resort to directly-issued vulgarities, outright fallacious POV accusations, shadow accounts, and the one who caused others combined extra work in the double, if not triple, digits. I thought the tone was nice enough. BTW, please learn to indent your talk comments for clarity. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 01:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's all work together in a civil manner. There has been some talk about a reluctance on my part to add material that is negative about Rose. As long as we can properly source criticism and present it in an NPOV manner then I have no objection to any criticism of Rose. The trouble, I would imagine, is that there hasn't been much written about Rose in the last while. But if we can find a reviewer who says the songs are off-color and the singer is off-key then that's appropriate to mention. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Are there any outstanindg issues we need to resolve, or can we unprotect the article now? -Willmcw 00:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm on a very slow connection so I can't switch between pages easily right now. My comments include paraphrases.

The temp page is _much_ better than the frozen page. But i have some concerns and corrections:

Biff arrived in Hollywood in 1965, not 1966. He had become (former Limeliter) Glen Yarborough's opening act.

"There's only two ways to handle women, and no one knows either of them."--this is printed on a Biff Rose album cover but Rose attributes it to someone else. On the other hand, "McDonald's Hamburgers" is an actual line of Biff's that gets quoted a bunch. Why was this removed?

I feel that J.A. is still inserting subtle back-handed material into his revisions. Adding "even" to "profiled in Time" is backhanded; "found work on" these late 60's programs makes it sound like he was something other than a starring guest...which is what he was.

The current comments about Biff's later work remain simplistic and reductive. A slightly earlier version (not by me, by the way) hit the mark a bit better. I feel J.A. should really find some references to back up his claims of these criticisms. I'm not opposed to the subject being dealt with, but we are reducing hours of varied recorded material to one controversial component of it. Still, this version is far less objectionable than most earlier drafts. If we can agree to considerate tinkering, I'm up for unfreezing it. I'd have to wait 'til I get to a better connection (in a week or so) to show the changes the way I would recommend them. Sojambi Pinola 06:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"Considerate tinkering" is what Wikipedia is all about. Regarding Rose's later work, we need to follow the same standards as with any article. We cannot make up our own criticisms and any POV needs to be attributed. Which means we'd need to find some noteworthy critic who has made a criticism (using the term broadly - a critic can say nice things too). Why don't you give a holler when you're ready to start working and we'll see abuot lifting the protection. Of course anyone can tinker with the temp page in the meantime. Cheers, -Willmcw 16:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

considerate tinkering is cool with me, but I don't think this is going to work if every time someone mentions rose's lyrical propensity for hateful words like nigger and kike- his usage not mine- you two change it to say how you feel about him. I've written the admin who originally froze the account about this before, and will message him again today. I fear Sojambi Pinola's explanation and intention are not as unbiased as he likes to make it out.Jonah Ayers 22:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

More time for what? Nobody has been discussing anything. By all means take as much time as is needed. Regarding characterizing Rose's lyrics, I don't think I've specifically ever removed anything about them. However, any addition should be sourced and NPOV. Basically that means we need to find a critic who has called the lyrics hateful - we can't say that on our own. -Willmcw 22:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

JA, can you please make the edits that you think are needed to the "Talk:Biff Rose/temp" version? Thanks, -Willmcw 00:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Much discussion that should be happening here is happening on fcelloguy's page instead: [[1]] One point I make on that page is that the issue of Rose's language usage is complex, worthy of critical discussion, and that Wikipedia is probably not the appropriate place to engage in such original critique.

I hope the comments that follow can be considered "civil" given the situation.

"Jonah Ayers," in regards to your comment: "I fear Sojambi Pinola's explanation and intention are not as unbiased as he likes to make it out." One could obviously make a similar claim about you and magnify it several times. I certain do have an intention, and I have been clear about it: I want to minimize the damage and libel, blatant and subtle, that you are doing under the username "Jonah Ayers" and any other username. I intend to do this by holding you to the NPOV rules of Wikipedia. I really don't mind saying that I would happily have you banned if I were able to conclusively demonstrate that it is you who has been vandalizing Wikipedia under other usernames, including my birthname. IF there is some amazing series of coincidences that makes my belief off-base, I apologize, and I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me; and that you will at least acknowledge to yourself that my mistake is understandable, given the circumstantial evidence.

Speaking of which, under the username "Jonah Ayers," you are continuing to revise and remove comments I've made on discussion pages; primarily, my accurate documentations and attributions of your comments and behavior. Again, I address this here: [[2]] .

I certainly have biases. Everybody does. Given the circumstances, I am doing my best to put my biases aside and abide by the spirit and letter of the rules of Wikipedia.

All this said, if you are able to make edits to the page, and participate/discuss in a give and take manner, I will do my best to work with you. Will you agree to the same?Sojambi Pinola 04:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• I made an edit to the temp page regarding his controversial departure from the Tonight show. I think it is an appropriate addition, since he (ie. Biff Rose) seems to make a big deal about it in his webpage, and I have seen the episode mentioned several times elsewhere, and it seems rather fitting, ironic and humorous, indicative of BR's unwillingness to fit into the mainstream, while at the same time fitting into it perfectly. Marcuse 19:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The adition looks ak, but how do we know that he was banned from the "Tonight Show"? What's our source? Is it Rose himself? Thanks, -Willmcw 22:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the ultimate source is Rose himself, I'll reword the edit to reflect this. Marcuse 16:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Some editors have commented that the article needs more critical viewpoints, but I don't see anyone adding that info. If there is anything that needs to be in the article, now is a good time to add it. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:09, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well the shoe definitely fit on this one - see below. I thought the edit automatically identified the writer so here ya go: oceanchild 18:48, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I am new to this he said/he said situation, so I ask your tolerance if I have added anything incorrectly. I felt impelled to add this, as it was sent in a personal email from Biff himself on Sept. 2. It was sent to a great many people, so please disregard the idea that it was a personal plea to just me. Biff, by the way, was fortunately out of town when Katrina hit.

It should help you decide how you want to present the Carson "issue", as well as picking and choosing the sockpuppets.

"please check out williamMcm addition to wikipedia and know that it is time i spoke out....my relation to the Tonight Show is/was as a peasant to the aristocracy....i dressed simply,,,street clothes..johnny wore a suit and tie...i sang my songs and did little patter and followed Robt. Christgau's teaching "minimum requirements for stardom is a year on the Tonight Show". I did my year and left town....I never had any ideas of a "career" or "careering"..I had things to say..to stare right into the camera's eye..say them...sing them...leave town....They let me get away with more than anybody has gotten away with on the Tonight Show because they loved me and I have a loveable and convincing way of imparting what many may consider ..and DO...very controversial stuff...like saying "nigger" on the Tonight Show...the word is included in the poem Black Cross by Jos. Newman, Paul Newman's uncle..I did it in Dec. 1969..the NBC censor Jay Otley said, "I'm gonna let you DO that, and I'm from Virginia..." Then my next appearance was March 1970..I sang Jesus and Mary Magdalene..a song written by someone else..I added some lines but the matter was so-o-o-o- controversial...still the beauty of the song and lyric is stilling and it's time has come...it was just ahead of its time back then in 1970.....the line "Jesus and Mary Magdalene I know they had a good time...singin' and dancin' ..making love in each other's eyes...." after the show..I bought a red VW van for twenty eight hundred and seventy five dollars cash from Europa Motors on Coldwater Canyon Blvd.. money I'd made on the Johnny Carson Show.... and hit the road for six years with a piano and couch in the back playing every bar and saloon in No. America...I returned to Hollywood in 1976 where Jeff Wald, Helen Reddy's husband said, "Oh, Biff's back..hey Biff...you got some small change waiting for you down at A and M...(to wikipedia: I took out the amount he was paid - oceanchild) I was surprised..I didn't know you made money in the record business after the initial advances..I figured they just stole it....I heard from Nick Venet a Producer...he had called the Tonight Show inquiring about Biff Rose...they had received a letter from someone that said..."Biff we like you but we don't like you singing about Our Lord..." The song about Jesus and Mary Magdalene shocked them..it shocks no one today....everything was always hunky dory on the Tonight Show and the idea of my being "banned" is stupid....

also tell them that to learn MORE about MARCUSE and Jonah Ayers and Bill Roberts who are all (to wikipedia: I have taken out the fellow’s name - could be libelous? - oceanchild) and we both know.his "ideas" about biff rose ( me) are stupid and based on jealousy and rage that things just didn't go HIS way in HIS ideas about what a STAR should be...or "do"... simply press biffrose.net....and read all about it...."

• I really don't give two hoots about this article and Biff Rose, other than at some point I tried to contribute with a photo and correct some vandalism, but please feel free to remove all my contributions, including the photo, and DO move on. I'm not any of the aforementioned user's sockpuppet and do not carry any specific agenda regarding Biff Rose, and I certainly do not claim to having an ounce of musical talent, so I really can't be jealous of anybody's singing career. Oceanchild, now that you have it from the source himself, why don't you incorporate this into the article? Cheers and good luck man, Marcuse 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

New Edits by Jonah Ayers

I noticed that this user attempted to remove various NPOV statements and "extraneous information", but I object to several of the edits. First, removing the name of the one hit song "Molly" is not removing extraneous information. If you look at any of other musician's entries, such as The Beatles, their hit songs are mentioned by name. I would suggest putting this back. Second, removing the fact that he appeared in "The Kraft SUmmer Music Hall" but not that he appeared in "The Mort Sahl Show" seems random, either remove both or neither. Third, removing more accurate descriptions of his piano styles takes away from the article, it's like saying that the fact that Elvis played rock'n'roll is beside the point. Fourth, removing the fact that he spent a large part of his career touring in a bus named "bird" is equivalent to removing the fact that BB King's guitar is named Lucille. Fifth, why are the self-released albums removed?

It seems like this user has removed useful information from the article for no good reason, at random and on a whim. If he has some justified reason for doing this please mention it here before removing other people's edits. Again, I have no particular agenda regarding Biff Rose, but I don't like people using Wikipedia to air their own personal vendettas, or whatever they are. I am not a sockpuppet of Willmcw, Sojambi Pinola, Steve Espinola, Biff Rose or anyone else related to this article, so don't even go there. I suggest reverting the above mentioned edits to improve the quality of the article, and will do so unless anyone has a logical objection. Any opinions? Marcuse 17:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I reverted that edit. If we can add notable criticms of Rose that'd be great. But I don't see any reason to remove factual info. -Willmcw 20:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I see wherre yo utwo are coming from. But NPOV here is not what you think. What is being written here is poorly done. Extracting the looseliimbed info about Molly and about the songs is gobbledy gook which you don't find in the middle of other posts of similar length about other artists, muscians, etc... We don't read about David Salle's habitual coffe shop lingering, or of Rodney Bingenheimer's VW bus. So why is it neccessary only in Biff Rose's article to know the name of a bus he lived in, it gives no true insight into the article. Comparing Rose's van to BB King's guitar would make sense if it were something he utilized during his career, and kept it up, as a symbol, but the true fact is that Rose had the bus for a few years and it's never been as solidly identified with his persona as Lucille was to BB King's. On to the Molly issue. The description of the song has no merit, other song writer's don't includde this sort of maudlin tripee on their entires on this site, and I feel that Rose's should not be altered accordingly. It's useless, and has no true bearing. The fix I wrote helps to expound on the grander themes of the entry, that the song was a hit, that it was covered by John Denver. Reverting back and forth is an edit war. And for some reason Willmcw thinks this is funny. But as their is no true belief in your edits to my own, I feel it is my duty to revert it back. If this keeps up I will again alert the original adminisrator who froze the account, and it will stay frozen. I believe removing the molly POV will help in getting past this part of the creation of a worthy entry. The self released records need to be put into a self released category. In this day and age, and in previous ones, self releasing means you have paid to produce your record, and are therefore not truly in any music scene, but a fringe element. I will again revert now.Jonah Ayers 17:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Also funny that Bag of donuts is referred to as me, as is Marcuse. Neither of them are in anyway related to me. Fun to watch thoughJonah Ayers 17:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have no problem with most of the new edits just recently added by Jonah, and they seem like a good compromise. There are a couple of things though. First, one of the records in the discography ended up with strange formatting and should be fixed. Second, I have an issue with the phrase: "His critics lay claim to the idea that Rose is not enacting any theater, rather that the bigotry is real, citing Rose's repeated use of the words Nigger, and Kike." Mainly with the fact that it claims that his critics cite his use of derogatory terms, but there is no source as to who these critics really are. Can you add a citation to a published review where critics actually complain about his bigotry? Otherwise the statement reflects your point of view and should be altered to be neutral. Marcuse 18:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I fixed some formatting issues and reorganized the last section to make it more neutral. If you feel strongly about including "Nigger and Kike" in there do so, but "derrogatory and racist" language seems to include these terms, and there is no need to repeat them since they are, in-fact, derrogatory and racist. Other than that, I think it looks pretty good, anyone alse have more to add? Marcuse 19:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've got a little downtime at work so I'll address some of the ongoing debate.

Re the quote: "However, it is important to note that Rose's later music is different in tone than [sic--you mean "from"] his earlier work. His frequent use of derogatory and often racist language in his music, has created much controversy among Rose's audience. " Again, I believe that this sentence is POV masquarading as fact. In my critical _opinion_, there is no more true "racism" in Biff's lyrics than you will find in a typical, commercial rap record (or a Richard Pryor or Lenny Bruce routine) using the same language. I might hear it as street-talk or taking on of a voice. (e.g.: Biff's reference to the word "Nigger" on the Tonight Show was a line voiced by a ignorant character in a socially critical poem about a lynching, which was also covered by Bob Dylan on the 1962 Gaslight Tapes.) Context is everything. My _opinion_ differs from the statement in the article, which makes me suspect that this statement is also critically subjective, an opinion. And your opinion does not belong in the article any more than mine does. If you can find a citation that justifies the words "frequent" and "derogatory," there may be a point to this. But for the most part this is an original critique and goes against Wikipedia's policies. (Also, there shouldn't be a comma before "has". Subject and predicate are not separated by a comma unless it is a set of commas off-setting a clause.)

Jonah, your comments on this page: "In this day and age, and in previous ones, self releasing means you have paid to produce your record, and are therefore not truly in any music scene, but a fringe element." This is inaccurate. Examples: Tom Lehrer self-released his first two, classic, studio albums in the 1950's, and they sold like hotcakes, led to a famous off-Broadway revue ("Tomfoolery"), and remain in print. Ani DiFranco self-releases all her records and they have sold millions. Many acknowledged "classics" in the punk/hardcore genre were self-released, (there was a "D.I.Y"="Do It Yourself" scene) as were most of Sun Ra's most influential and discussed works. On the other hand, some albums released on major labels don't even sell in the hundreds. In this day and age of a collapsing recording industry, self-releasing is often the only place that chance-taking artworks can exist without anti-artistic corporate meddling; it is also a prerequisite for any larger-label releases, which are often simply re-releases of these works.

Along those lines, several of Biff's recordings from his self-releases are about to be re-released on a European compilation with significant distribution. Some of the listings in Biff's "self-release" category were actually financed by outside investors. Another is a re-release of a nationally-distributed live radio broadcast. They are _selling_ from Biff's website, which strongly implies that there is an audience for the work. Mojo magazine, among others, reviewed "Bone Again" favorably when it was released, and at least one song from it was played repeatedly on a nationally syndicated radio show. The "importance" of the distinction, and even the parameters of the distinction, exist primarily in one's head. I think the CD release categories should be removed/merged into one.

You can't have it both ways: If he is part of a "fringe element" --one that implicitly has no impact, "scene", or audience-- how could he be creating "controversy" for his "audience," as you also claim? This seems like an internal contradiction. Your need to categorize certain works as a product of a "fringe element" suggests that you have a set agenda to diminish Mr. Rose's accomplishments by any means necessary. That alone takes your work out of the realm of straightforward imparting of information into the realm of POV, or even intentional slander. Please try to keep a cap on this impulse for the sake of this encyclopedic article.

The bus "Bird" is referred to in several of Biff's recorded live monologues as an implied symbol of the hippie lifestyle. I don't have a strong feeling about keeping it in, but it is not exactly a superfluous detail. Leave it out, that's fine. I think you have a case there.

The statement about Biff being "banned" is not backed up by the quote by Biff submitted by Oceanchild. Biff merely says that he was controversial, got a single negative letter from a viewer of the show, and that he left town in a VW bus to tour. I quote: "Everything was always hunky dory on the Tonight Show and the idea of my being "banned" is stupid."

Lastly, Jonah, I will gently remind you of your above statement, "There needs to be less antagonism here as well." Using such terms as "gobbledy gook", and the threatening tone of your posting in general ("If this keeps up I will again alert the original adminisrator who froze the account, and it will stay frozen"), is not really in the spirit of friendly debate. Please work on your tone as we work on this. Thank you. - Sojambi Pinola 17:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Fine, but I don't think that separating commercial from self releases really implies anything about fringe elements as Jonah or Sojambi suggest, so I see no harm in leaving that as such, but feel free to correct whatever you wish. Next, I think to say that he uses derogatory language in his lyrics is not out of line nor inaccurate, no matter what the lyrics in hip-hop records are. Obviously some of Rose's audience feel offended by this and it is not a bad thing to acknowledge this, without diminishing Rose's work. Finally as far as the Carson thing goes, in his website Biff even notes that he wasn't invited back because of what he sang, so that's where I came up with him being banned. Seemingly, the email produced from ocenachild contradicts this, and if that's the case, as I said before, feel free to incorporate this into the article. I would suggest that you two (Jonah and Sojambi) stop bickering about each other's "tone" and finish revising this article. I also say bring back the bird note, I agree with Sojambi on that one. Marcuse 18:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yet More Edits

I'm going to go ahead and make a draft based on some of my suggestions, on the Talk:Biff Rose/temp page. Jonah, think of it as merely a proposal/work in progress rather than a "revert." We can work from there and continue debating if need be. If you or whoever else changes it, it will still remain in the "history" and can be referred back to. (As is the case with all other drafts, of course.) -Sojambi Pinola 23:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• The changes sound good to me, somehow I have a feeling Jonah might not be happy with them, especially regarding Rose's later career. Where did you draw most of this new material from, do you have sources? Also, has anyone looked at these so-called profiles from Time and the NYT? Marcuse 01:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I added as many online citations as I could find with my limited time. I don't have the date of the NY Times profile handy, but I can add it soon. I used some other musician articles on Wikipedia as my guide, and found that I am using no more detail, and often quite a bit less, than other comparable artists from the late 1960's. The citations that are missing will probably be easier to fill once the new Biff Rose compilations are reviewed in the next couple of months. - Sojambi Pinola 02:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am not happy, and as long as I'm posting and fcello has this frozen we are going to stay at loggerheads. When I post things and change them, I am rebuffed.So I have stopped changing other peoples additions, unlike Sojambi Pinola who tries to make it seem like Rose is a happy go lucky sweet heart of an old man. Then removes wuotes and other informqation that was written into the posting. One look at his websites will prove Rose is an angry misanthropic man. Sojambi Pinola is attempting to steam roll his way to a victory of edits- that's not what this site is about. This is not only unreasonable, but vicious and deserves some sort of punishment. I can't believe that I'm the only person to hear the racist sentiments in Rose's work. Reviews of Rose's reissued albums will not change the racism inherent in the later versions. Also, Sojambi Pinola has posted under numerous names, why isn't this being looked into.Then he says that Marcuse is my sock puppet. It is so strange that such a loose nut can be given such creedence. The very fact that this editor admits to being so close with Rose underlines his lack of NPOV, he is biased toward Rose, and anything he doesn't think fits on this site he then removes regardless of the veracity of said item. Oh man this is so lame. Leave the criticism in, then we'll reach some consensus. That's all.

[<--Unsigned by Jonah Ayers 04:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)]

Now, Jonah, as I said, this is a work in progress. Nobody needs to chastise or punish anybody, and we are trying to avoid accusing people right now, yes? We are _discussing_. Let's all turn over a new leaf.

Why did I change things? I tried to restate what I felt were your main points in a way that would cause less friction, and would hopefully be acceptable to you. I was trying to help us break out of a rut. I knew you'd add stuff back in, and expected and implicitly invited it. No problem just yet, that's part of the process! Then we can all discuss your additions, and you can discuss mine and weigh in on them. Since most of the quotations were "one-liners," I changed the word "quotations" to "one-liners." Let's compromise. We can have a "one-liners" sections and a "further quotations" section, where you can quote things regardless of context to your heart's desire. What do you think? I'll try a draft. Thanks for not deleting much.

Please explain why you moved early 60's albums to the "CD-era albums" list. That strikes me as an obvious inaccuracy. CDs were not commercially available until the early 1980's. What does everyone think? Marcuse, how about you? And Jonah, will you weigh in on what I wrote above about "self-releases"? Let's have a good, calm debate.

You write: "I can't believe that I'm the only person to hear the racist sentiments in Rose's work." The point is, whether or not _you_ hear it, Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. If you can find a published criticism, then you can attribute it, otherwise it is "original criticism," which is simply against Wikipedia policy. It's not a matter of the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of your perceptions, it is the subjective nature of them.

Again, as you said earlier, less antagonism, please. We can be your friends-in-editing, Jonah!

- Sojambi Pinola 05:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Until you revert back to a more logical form of editing this isn't going to be friendly you are obviously unable to sperarte your POV from any edits, and I aks that you recuse yourself, and let others form it. Your questions are baseless if yo uare simply going to again STEAMROLL over anything you do0n't write yourself. That isn't editing, and isn't going to get the one were editing to replace the frizen one. until you can better present yourself, I'll revert. You say subjective, I say Racist, I wrote in edit, some critics, using a NPOV tone, you erased that. That is against the policy of wikipedia.. so you are in fact refuting yourself. Not good. All albums that are self released will be categorized as such. Fast eddy, Wascals don't exist as true record labels, but as fan pressings of Rose's rambling gooseberry hunts. Therefore, all self released are put in theri proper places. His real releases are categorized ahead, because they were the ones that were most easily accesible when rose was of any ocncern at all to a record buying public. His sales are under 50 a year if that. So, there you go. I've got more than fcello involved now, so it's going to keep the language or we stay here on the discussion page. No one liners, I think the lead off should be the quote Bag of donuts placed in the lead position. I'm unmovebale there. As you have been in trying to eradicate any listing of rose as a racist antisemitic angry old man. I think you are the one that takes things out of context, when you misplace quotes, and bury them deeper in the piece. Let the quote speak for itself, how out of context can it be.. the very sentence itself is offensive. It's not out of context, you are. So we are back to the same old same old. I shall jsut try a completely new edit, with rewrite and all until you can muster up your senses and come to a compromise, which I already offered you. Also, you need to learn how to write if you are going to continue to edit this. Jonah Ayers 07:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• I Promised myself I would leave this article alone, but the arguments going on above are a bit over the top, so once again, here are my two cents. I'll try and mediate. First, I think separating the discography into commercial and self-releases seems like a logical compromise, it does nothing to demean the artist and it is factually accurate. Plus, in general, I usually find self-released albums more interesting than commercial releases, so I even see that as a plus. Having someting like CD era, LP era etc. seems forced, since often LP's get re-released as CD's. Second, I think "Summer Kraft Music Festival" should be re-added. Although it was a brief series in the 60's and an offshoot of the "Kraft Music Festival" it does seem to have some reknown and had did feature lots of good comedians such as Richard Pryor, Flip Wilson and was written by George Carlin. So I think it merits being put back in. I think that the arguments regarding the discography and the earlier career should be solvable since both of you seem to mostly agree, so why don't we fix those parts up and agree not to change them anymore. Now as far as the later career, things seem rather irreconciliable at present, but there is no need to make childish re-edits, such as "the pc crowd is offended, etc.". I say let's write the factual part first and again leave it as is as its own paragraph. Then we can add a paragraph that basically espouses both sides. Sojambi, no matter what the context is, using derrogatory language is always going to be offensive to some, even if it is not to you. Jonah, I agree with Sojambi that you can't take this completely out of context and go as far as to say Rose is a complete racist misanthrope. Yes, I find his work a bit offensive, but one can also tell he's really out for controversy (which obviously he's caused) rather than truly being a racist a la Klu Klux Klan (which you make him sound like). I think there is room for both criticism and support. For some issues it is impossible to write from a NPOV perspective, so the next best thing is to add BOTH perspective and leave it at that. One more thing, I wish you guys stop thretening each other, since this really doesn't help in improving the article. For what it's worth, that's my two cents. Marcuse 13:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I really believe I avoided threatening Jonah in my last posts. Jonah, you are continuing to act in an antagonistic and accusatory manner. Elsewhere, you accused Willmcw of being a _promoter_ of Biff Rose, [[3]] which is an apparently intentional falsehood. Please stop.

My understanding of Wikipedia is, if it is POV, it should not be included, period. In other words, if Jonah wants to talk about "pundits" and "critics," he should source or quote these outside criticisms, rather than include his POV and pass it off as a fact. Listing Rose's accomplishments, as I have, is not POV. My most recent draft was a significant expansion of the article. For the most part, I kept your contributions, rewording them at most, removing POV material at worst. Putting the date of the Time article in the article would be considered a decent citation by most.

Again, Jonah, please engage the points I have debated on this page about "self-releases," and explain why you have un-corrected my typo corrections and removed my links. Thank you. - Sojambi Pinola 00:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well its useless. This whole thing is useless.216.175.113.48 03:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I am Peter, and whatever Walter and their crew are up to, it is best to let things be, time to move on, and all that ensures.I seek the heart

Unprotected

It's been weeks and weeks, so I've unprotected to let some people, you know, edit the article instead of just talking about it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Trimmed somewhat

I trimmed the article somewhat because it was full of unsourced stuff and some rather blatant fandom. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I looked at the rewrite. While it looks promising, we can't use any material from that in this article because it isn't verifiable. We don't put anything in a Wikipedia article that can't be verified. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Sources needed, etc

Here's a list of items removed and the reasons:

• "Biff Rose was one of the greatest and most talented musicians and comedians to appear in the early 1960's"
  • We can't say he was greatest and most talented, but we can report that some significant commentators have said this, if they have. Sources needed.
• "Biff Rose arrived in Hollywood in 1966, with a banjo on his knee."
  • "Banjo on his knee" is unencyclopedic. The date needs a source.
• "There he found employment working as a sketch writer for television variety shows."
  • Source. Which shows?
• "Eventually, Rose took up with the songwriting he developed during his youth growing up in New Orleans."
  • Source? New Orleans is just about acceptable because it's on the allmusic.com bio. Songwriting developed as a youth, well that's another matter.
• "Rose's great work was embraced by the hippies, and even non-hippies found his zany writings and performances to be the panacea to a wounded world. Rose himself wrote the most interesting songs of the time- ignoring record label pleas for him to record more mainstream fare."
  • POV, and as far as "embraced by the hippies", far too vague. Which hippies?
• "In the meantime, Rose began writing lyrics and combining them with the carnival like sounds he produced on the piano. A testament to Rose's popularity, his songs were covered by a variety of entertainers, looking for a national audience. Much of Rose's music was comedic, often prodding the political climate of the time."
  • This reads like a cosy review article. We're writing an encyclopedia. "A variety of entertainers" is pushing it a bit if we're talking about Tiny Tim and the early Bowie. Who else? Source? The comic nature of his music and lyrics is okay, though.
• "He appeared twelve times on Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show" from 1968 to 1970."
  • Source?
• "Bill Cosby's Tetragrammaton label released his debut in 1968. Rose also recorded albums for United Artists, Pacific Arts, Sweet Jane Limited, and the Buddha label. He returned to recording in 1996 by self-releasing the angry "Bone Again" CD."
  • Covered in the discography
• "It's important to note that these later recordings contain what many consider racist, misogynistic and anti semitic lyrics. He himself consistently refers to all the "conflict" as "theatre" on his website. His detractors equate that Rose's explanation panders to his racist hate speech."
  • Needs source. "It's important to note that..." is also a classic weasel phrase. The sentence would read better and be just as true (if it is true) if that was removed.
• "Most fans of Rose completely disagree with the racist tag. This man is a genius at social satire. His ability on the keyboard is not lacking either. Wiht each pluck of the ivories, Rose sends out delicious goodness to the world, truly attempting to better the world by pointing out the irregularities and sadness that encapsule us all. Biff Rose is in no way a racist. Anyone that would say that has to be a total fool. Listen to his early records, Listen to Molly the song of a clown. John Denver covered his recordings for god's sake."
  • Extreme POV. Source for the John Denver cover would be good.
• "My words are just some antics."
  • Unsourced.

I also removed most of the links to external websites because they seemed to be full of nonsense. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 05:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You do understand that the "blatant fandom" you are quoting is a parody edit written by a sockpuppet of a recurrent vandal, yes? A perusal of the history of this page will make that more obvious. Also, the "nonsense" you are talking about is the official websites of a surrealist comedian, so, of course there is some "nonsense" there. Those are legit sites that even the disagree-ers were agreeing on.

Other than that, I think you have done a very good job of taking out the unsourced and POV stuff. I say that even though you removed a lot of what I wrote. More below.... Sojambi Pinola 21:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

Looks promising. Comments.

• "Biff Rose was born in October 1937, and grew up in New Orleans. He served briefly in the Army. By the early 1960's, he was a comedian and folk musician. Rose was apparently profiled in The New York Times (1964) and Time Magazine (January 29th, 1965) though the articles have not been found. He toured extensively as the opening act for Glenn Yarbrough of the Limeliters. By 1965 he had landed in Hollywood, working with George Carlin as a sketch writer for television variety shows like "The Mort Sahl Show" ."
  • Sources?
• "An underground hit"
  • Does that mean it didn't sell? Remember this is an encyclopedia. We're after solid facts here, not opinions.
• "His songs were recorded by Pat Boone, John Denveractor Sajid Khan, and Dorsey Burnette."
  • Sources?
• "Rose appeared on Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show 12 times from 1968 to 1970. He was banned from the show, according to Rose's website. He also performed his songs on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour [[4]], American Bandstand [[5]], and Hugh Hefner's Playboy After Dark [[6]]. He emceed the Atlantic City Pop Festival of 1969 [[7]], and the Atlanta Pop Festival of 1970 [[8]]."
  • This is excellent, I missed it first time through. Well sourced. Including it.
• "The 80's began, and Biff Rose drifted. After disappearing from the scene, Rose returned, in 1996, withhis first new recordings in almost 20 years- these were self released. He has since self released three other disks. His more recent records have continued his experimental, questing approach to songwriting, according to his pundits. It is important to note Rose has ruffled the feathers of the pc crowd, using language that others deem racist and anti semtic-words such as Kikes, Jews, and Niggers, pepper his later songs, where his fans call this "playful imagination" his critics remained horrified at Rose's ability to curry grace with such angry hate filled songs. Rose tours intermittently, playing small venues and the occasional summer festival."
  • Still somewhat POV, and not well sourced.

That astrological chart is just sad. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony, a few comments:

• For the sake of the historical record, I uploaded, for a few minutes, what I believe to be the most factually complete version of the article, since the "temp" page disappeared for a few hours and I didn't want all my work to go to waste. However, since I cannot offer immediate online source citations for a lot of the material, I replaced it with an updated, cite-able version of the excellent edit you supplied. Perhaps as I am able to find online sources for more of my statements, I will return them to the article.

• I changed the caption on the photo. That picture is from 1970. It is the cover of Biff's third major label album, not the first from 1968. A quick trip to Amazon.com will verify this.

• I added a couple of links pointing to 1969-1971 reviews by Robert Christgau that verify that Rose is a comedian as well as a singer-songwriter. They also confirm additional Tonight Show appearances predating the one listed on the Tonight Show site. Most of the 1960's Tonight Show tapes were destroyed long ago, which is explained on the Carson link.

• I removed the statement that Rose was banned from the Tonight Show. It is NOT verified by a perusal of Biff's site, and Biff is quoted DENYING this elsewhere on this discussion page.

• Biff released two albums that were collaborations, so I added the names of his collaborators, which are part of the album titles. Easy to verify on any page selling the albums.

• Can't easily verify the 3 rare early LPs online right now, but they come up on EBAY once in a while. I have copies and can supply scans if necessary.

• Again, most of the external links were the legitimate websites of Biff Rose. They seem "nonsensical" because, as a comedian, Biff's stock in trade is irreverence, or at least the appearance thereof. Wouldn't it make sense to put them back? They prove that Biff is still writing and performing, a fact I added. -Sojambi Pinola 21:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Another couple of points:

• "The Johnny Carson Show" is actually called "The Tonight Show." Any objections to changing it?

• Here's evidence that John Denver recorded Biff Rose's "Molly" [9].

• Two pieces of evidence that Pat Boone recorded Biff Rose songs: "What's Gnawing At Me" and &amp;quot;Molly". [10] and [11]

- Sojambi Pinola 00:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think the latest version by Sojambi Pinola in the temp page actually was better sourced and more complete than the current version. Sources do not necessarily need be online sources, if some of the info is gleaned from liner notes of out-of-print records that's fine too. I also think there is room for some descriptive sentences regarding Rose's musical and comedic style as well as influences, and these can come from Rose himself (ie. from his website) or simply from the music itself. Why does it have to SAY somewhere that he played piano where it is obvious he played piano? Just because this is an encyclopedia doesn't mean writing has to be dry and limited to a list of facts. There is room for context and what not. As far as the anonymous user who keeps adding his extreme POV paragraph, please stop as you know this is only going to be reverted. Please cite a real source for the criticism. Marcuse 14:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Sojambi, I think your stuff sounds fine. You're right, I found Biff's stuff nonsensical at first but I see that is his form of humor. I think I'm more or less done here, because my main concern was to make sure that the article was mostly verifiable fact. I think my effort worked okay as a first cut but I am more than pleased to find people more experienced with the material who can fix my errors and add stuff to make the article better. I agree with Marcuse that on top of the factual bedrock there is room for a description of Rose's style, which may necessarily be slightly subjective. On this subject it's always best to cite named reviewers in the trade press where possible, though I'm aware that because of the length of Rose's career and the fact that his heyday was the sixties and early seventies this can be difficult. And I thought researching Seals and Crofts was difficult! --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Racism controversy

I took this bit:

• It is important to note Rose's later work differs from his early recordings. Most notably Rose uses stronger language in his lyrics, and in some cases uses outright racist and anti semitic terminology. His fans claim this is social intercourse. Critics do not accept this trite explanation, and insist Rose believes the words he sings.

"It's important to note that" is unnecessary and sounds like an expression of opinion, although it isn't really. It's not necessary to describe the opinions of unnamed defenders and critics, just describe that fact that the lyrics are controversial. The reader can make his own mind up. So it comes out as:

• Rose's later work differs from his early recordings. There is strong language in his lyrics, and he makes controversial use of racial stereotypes.

Of course we all know that a writer doesn't always hold the opinions that he expresses in a song, and we're used to that ambiguity. Someone who was interested enough from reading this article would be able to get hold of his later songs and listen to them and make his own mind up, but we could say the same of John Lennon, Jacques Brel, or just about any writer. Does Brel really hate Les Flammandes, or is he just expressing a distaste for a certain kind of Flemish politics? You probably won't find much about the opinions of Brel's fans on this subject in the Brel article. -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

While I applaud your efforts to raise the subject of our debate up to the level of wordsmiths such as Jaques Brel, and John Lennon, a single listen to the later works will acquaint you sufficiently to the lacking stylistic qualities included in Rose's later work. The comparison falls far short of relevance considering the level of ingenuity and intellectual sincerity of Lennon and Brel versus the angry hate fueled ditribes of Biff Rose. What is of note is that when people like David Duke and those of the White Power movement use the same kind of language in similar situations, it is referred to as hate speech. But when apologists try to slip Rose into the role of a linguistical and theatrical creator who shouldn't be bound by any guidelines, I myself have a hard time disagreeing. Artists should be free to speak as they please, everyone should be...but when someone is unable to separate bitter anger from clever wordplay supposedly promoting thought through his "conflict" theater, in the words of john Lennon, "don't you know you can count me out." The important thing here isn't the sentiments Brel used to power a larger work, but the larger workt of Rose's later career, totally imbued with his racist and anti semtic idealogy. Bypassing those issues would be akin to ignoring Lennon's pacifism, and heroin addiction, or Brel's ebullient songs, or his portrayal of the seedier elements of life with a harrowing honesty as well as an honest appreciation of their purpose. Rose on the other hand mostly pokes fun at people less fortunate than him, or merely different. Kike and nigger, words he uses with an alarming regularity, do not impart wisdom. In some cases, as with Patti Smith in her excellent Rock and Roll Nigger, there is the ability to devalue those words. Biff Rose's usage is not akin to that kind of interpretation. Instead, his songs during his later period exterpate any of the hippie ideaology his earlier works prescribed. And it might due you some good, Tony, to check out Brel's career- he expressed manyu views concerning the people of his hoemland- many not so flattering to them. In his wikipedia entry, this is noted. And Not by me.Jonah Ayers 04:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• While many people think Rose is Racist, I do not. I think he speaks for americans, which John Lennon didn't do, as an emigre. True americans understand the natural world Rose speaks of, the honest world, the clean american world. Rose is a hero , a working man's hero unlike the one Lennon might have been, and who is jaques brel anyway? He ain't american, or a freedom fighter. Rose breaks with tradition and speaks his mind, and shames those who aren't as witty.Master of edits 03:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[restored comment] John Lennon never would have used a word like "nigger" in his lyrics, that's for sure. ;) -Willmcw 05:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

the above comment has been deleted at least 4 times by someone other than its author, willmcw. this is the 3rd time that i have restored it. i'm just about annoyed enough by this to get real interested in the trouble here. and the sort of people who delete other people's comments should, statistically speaking, not be happy about that. Derex 15:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

So let your witticisms fly. Rose will not die. Rose will rise and his naysayers will be laid open to their own murky places. Biff is a good man. An honest man. who likes his drink, and lost his home due to Hurricane Katrina.Master of edits 03:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw your smarmy jibe is just that. I have removed it because it didn't add to the discussion.216.175.112.9 02:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove other editors' comments from this talk page. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've removed Willmcw's POV sarcasm because it was not helpful and was actually injurious to points being made. He said that john lennon used the word nigger. And it is true, but linking Lennon's use of the word- refering to women being the nigger of the world, to Rose's racial slur usage is inconcievable, and by adding that POV he breaks the rules of wikipedia. Again, admins have been alerted.Jonah Ayers 06:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw is right, Nigger is ok for white people to use, in reference to black people, because black people do it all the time. When LEnnon refers to women as niggers, it's like when Biff calls the southern neihgbors dumb niggahs out for a buck. It doesn't matter if he means it- it's for arts sake. He's like Lennon because he doesn't care what people think of him. Biff is excellent and you should just let him write and say what he means, if he means nigger he means nigger and John Lennon would be proudd that someone called those mean old neighbors of biff's what they were in the first place. Willmcw is right because women are sort of second class citizens jsut like niggers are. They are. And Biff knows it. He sings about it. We hear it. It is so.Master of edits 06:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw your smarmy jibe is just that. I have removed it because it didn't add to the discussion.216.175.112.9 02:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well sourced on his website? Check it out, he uses racist terminology all over the place. Check out his lyrics from his 90's output onward, there is quite a bit of racism and anti semiticism.216.175.119.92

216.175.119.92 and/or Jonah Ayers. You are each not abiding by the NPOV rule. Tony Sidaway's version dealt with the controversy by describing it, not refereeing it. Please explain how yours is an improvement. Thank you. - Sojambi Pinola 07:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Sojambi Pinola, first off, I'm me.. address me as me, and quit implying there are more than me, or I will start addressing you as a sock puppet of Biff Rose. Want to start that whole thing up again? Your track record doesn't help. Edits on the rose page are because, for some reason, you believe that if Biff picked his nose near a speedway in the late sixties or seventies , it's worth calling a festival and mentioning. Why do you care? Biff has no career as of now. I care because he writes mean spirited things about jewish people. And African americans. If you call his life a career, I think that's a stretching things. So since you are determined to add any info you can find about Rose, I'm willing to edit that info into a readbale- another thing YOU don't seem to care about- article on the man, that is based in his achievements- good, and bad, as well as his lyrical morass.Jonah Ayers 18:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• I reverted the article to the original text by Tony Sidaway, which although pared down seems fair and reads best. I kept the corrections made by S.P. in the names of the releases. Please do not remove the names of the record labels. This is standard for other Wikipedia musician related articles, and is helpful for someone trying to find old recordings. Please do not change this again. As far ast the last sentence, I think Tony's version reads best and agree that it describes the controversy, allowing the listener to make up her mind. But change it back if you feel strongly that your version was better. Marcuse 02:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Jonah, I apologize for confusing you with 216.175.119.92. I have proven repeatedly that I am not Biff Rose. I must admit that I am frustrated with the actions of both of you, and wish you were more willing to debate the specific issue of your POV contributions. Again, it's not a matter of whether or not you are "right," it's a matter of whether your first-person critique abides by the rules of Wikipedia.

In recent drafts I have agreed with the efforts of others to remove POV material, including anything of mine that could conceivably fall within this category. I am asking you, gently, kindly, to work WITH these people on this issue. I do NOT want to fight with you. I merely want to talk about the use of POV in this article. What was wrong with Tony's NPOV description of the controversy? Forget about me for a minute. What was wrong with Tony's?

The sentence in question, as written by Tony, is as follows:

Rose's later work differs from his early recordings. There is strong language in his lyrics, and he makes controversial use of racial stereotypes.

You have re-written it several times. The current version is:

Rose's newer recordings contain strongly racist and anti semitic language & sentiments contained within his.

I _am_ frustrated by the feeling that you do not want to discuss this in a friendly debate matter; as you know, I have reported this to others, and I have asked others to keep a watch on our discussions. That said, I invite you again to talk, not about either of our track records, but about the immediate work at hand. thank you. - Sojambi Pinola 06:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

So sorry that you feel frustrated. Also sorry that you feel the need to try and disassociate yourself from Biff Rose... while you may not be in fact Biff Rose, your postings on his website confirm that you write to please him, and therefore you are in fact a sockpuppet, as you espouse things from his POV, instead of a neutral one.

Maybe you should remove yourself from editing this post. No maybe about it, I think you should recuse yourself, do to the friendship, and nature of your relationship with Rose. I also am astounded by the fact that you claim to be jewish and are totally comfortable with Rose's tone in regards to any person who is Jewish. This is unforgivable. It seems funny to me, too, that you are completely unable to digest the thought that there very well may be more than one person who finds Rose less than charming. Especially regarding this quote form his website the other day, "Dear Steve...I don't know your motives in telling mesomething like that....AND IN CAPS...I suspect it'syout liberal New York jewish nature kicking in...." * [12] on the message board posting titled 'oh christ not paul williams again'

Tony's edits seemed to cast nary a descriptive note in response to the rampant anti-semticism found in Rose's lyrics, jokes, and website message board. So instead of telling us how bad you feel, why not simply remove yourself from this discussion. It's clear you've taken things too far on more than one occassion, where you edited another person's talk page, as well as edited the same article under two different identities. Instead of complaining bitterly how you think others are not adhering to Wikipedia standards, perhaps you should focus on your own self adherence to said standards. Police yourself, and let the article state the facts, not your 'Rose' colored version of them.Jonah Ayers 03:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• The version, as it stands, is not a complete sentence and makes little sense: Rose's newer recordings contain strongly racist and anti semitic language & sentiments contained within his. How about this: Rose's later work differs from his early recordings. He makes controversial use of racial stereotypes through his use of racist and anti-semitic language in his lyrics. I agree with Jonah on this one. Rose's use of language is certainly and unapologetically anti-semitic and racist, and he does little do dispel this in any of his websites and little statements he regularly puts out. This makes me think that in his case he does hold the opinions that he expresses in his songs. I feel uncomfortable defending his use of language and stereotypes as a mere rouse. But putting in that his use of stereotypes is "controversial" is about as much benefit of the doubt I would give Rose. Marcuse 02:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to fix the last edit of Jonah's, in accordance with Marcuse's notation that it ended in an incomplete sentence, as well as his concern that by regarrding Rose's views towards those who he adresses with the 'strong language.' I'll discuss this with Sojambi. And a careful read of this page shows that Jonah Ayers has addresses the issue on numerous occassions. Maybe Sojambi has become to attached to the issues at hand to actually read what has been written. IT would do all of us good to let the matter drop. The version that is posted looks good to me216.175.112.9 02:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"And a careful read of this page shows that Jonah Ayers has addresses the issue on numerous occassions." Please quote the specific sections where there is agreement that these statements are NOT POV.

216.175.112.9, please identify yourself by a username.

and Marcuse, please email me. Thank you. - Sojambi Pinola 05:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Speaking of my "involvement," and the implied "lack of involvement" of the other writers, I found this on the yahoo group "Biff_Rose," [13], which is moderated by two specific Denver citizens who have a grudge against Biff Rose. It suggests that most of this Wikipedia activity is an active campaign, not the work of disinterested editors:

"From: ">

Date: Fri Sep 9, 2005 11:47 am

Subject: go on over to wikipedia...

and post lucid comments on the biff rose temporary page, because the real page is frozen. :::::Biff's henchmen steve espinola, aka Sojambi Pinola is trying to make Biff out to be a human.

Don't write lies, simply write that his lyrics are not only racist but anti semitic. thanks

everybody

• Sojambi Pinola, it appears you placed an email of an editor on here, which is against the rules. I have removed it. I will keep removing it, even if you only write half of it- it is best to keep anyone involved in this discussion out of harms way. By indentifying someone, even partially, you are going against the rules of Wikipedia. Please note, I have noted a number of administrators of your actions, and am going to resort to an official action toward you if you persist in breaking the rules of Wikipedia. 216.175.112.9 03:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

What "rule" prohibits reposting messages from internet forums? Please do not delete comments from talk pages. -Willmcw 06:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Steve/Sojambi is getting a little out of hand here... he's trying to push other websites on to Wiki- I've brought Biff Rose's website up, any of them, because it's logical to deduce information for the article from them. But trying to fight another website, and say that everyonje who doesn't like Biff is only two people in Denver is ludicrous. I've never been to Denver. My email is easy to get, I'll send it to you Stev/Sojambi, but I've never been to that sitre, until after you pointed it out, and now it's clear that their are more than just me editing here at this site who do not like Biff and find him anti-semitic. It's entertaining to see you weasel around online....Jonah Ayers 22:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Later comments on the same Yahoo board make a little too much effort claiming that they are not the work of the specific board members. Earlier articles, going back to 2003, celebrate identities made up by members which were used to "trick" Biff Rose. Decide for yourself....

- Sojambi Pinola 05:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have decided you need to be watched closely, and as I said I have notified the wiki administration about your behavior. Notice too, that Willmcw has been addressed. His edits have proven to be vindictive. See his talk page. And behave!!!216.175.112.9 03:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Regading Jonah's lates version of the last sentence: Rose's newer recordings contain Racist and Anti-semitic language in their lyrics. While this version is accurate, and clear, it still needs some context. It reads like a warning sticker on a CD cover. It is like saying: "Shakespeare's works contains anti-semitic verses". And leaving it at that. What is needed is a bit of context. While I'm not in the business of defending Rose, at minimum say it is controversial. I've changed it to: Rose's newer recordings are more controversial. They often make use of racial stereotypes and contain Racist and Anti-semitic language in their lyrics. Marcuse 14:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

SOunds good to me without the often. I've removed it. I am content so far.Jonah Ayers 22:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Jonah, Why not the "often"? Not ALL his new songs contain racist language. Again, why don't we say, ALL of Shakespeare's plays are anti-semitic? Why is this so black and white for you? You're starting to sound like George Bush! But whatever, I'll leave it as you left it. Marcuse 01:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Marcuse, I'm sorry you get offended when I get particular with your edits. This is simply a matter of importance, getting the wording right. I don't think you should get offended---this is after all a place where anyone can make an edit. I have changed the entry once again, to more wholly emulate your desires, b starting the sentence with, "Many of..." It isn't you I'm worried about. Despite your attitude in regards to how it shoudl read, I think you have been the voice of reason for this, and so I am trying to make peace here, and write it in a manner that I hope you too will appreciate.Jonah Ayers 02:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's go back to the days of polite disagreement. I think there is much more to the thing than what we have been writing of recently.......216.175.112.9 03:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Checking in

I've been asked to check in and see if I can't help out a bit.

I am not an admin. I have not read very much of the history here, but realize there are hot terms like racist etc. being thrown around. Also, I see that people are talking and exchanging ideas about edits, so that is a good sign. You may not even need me.

I have noticed a charge of vandalism, somewhere. Please be very careful not to misapply this term with respect to disputed content. Vandalism and bold editing -- even removal of text -- are entirely different things. This is not aimed at any particular user.

Lastly, I am going to carefully review edits which go to the 3RR policy. Remember that a revert is any edit (except a vandalism revert -- see above) that undoes the actions of another editor. It can even be adding back what an editor decided to delete, and it can include other additional non-related edits, and, on its own, can be entirely justified. But even entirely justified reverts, if more than three, break the rule.

The best rule of thumb is to limit yourself to one revert per article per day. That usually avoids any possibility of an edit war. If you've already made your revert for the day, may I kindly suggest you stop. paul klenk

Revert counts, by user

To help out a user, I have counted the reverts and listed them below, so he can evaluate them.

Remember, not every edit is a revert, and reverts are allowed as long as they do not accumulate or fuel an edit war. Also, reversions made "just after" the 24-hour period can be counted in that period, if they are too close. The edits below were not evaluated for their "validity" or quality, as this is not the issue in a revert war. Additionally, no edits were found that can be described as vandalism; such edits do not count towards reversions.

Time period represented: Just over 24 hours. Nothing before that period was analyzed; therefore, some of these reversions could qualify as violations if they are added to any previous reverts.

Jonah: 1RR

• [14] Basically "undoes" the refactoring preceding it, a refactoring which was not itself a revert (not that it matters).
• 00:03 19 Sept.

Marcuse: 1RR

• [15] This is also a reversion. It "undoes" Jonah.
• 10:25 19 Sept.

216.175.112.9: 1RR

• [16] Deleted two links added by someone else. This "undid" their work. Also additional non-revert edits.
• 22:49 Sept.

Willmcw: 1RR

• [17] Re-added links deleted by someone else. This "undid" their deletion, and counts as a revert.
• 01:44 20 Sept.

Master of edits: 1RR

• [18] Among many other edits here, this user removed many links added by others. This is a reversion. Did not bother to check the very re-worked text; the reversion is there in the links.
• 02:02 20 Sept.

Jonah: 2RR

• [19] More undoing of additions and deletions in the links and reference sections. A revert; body of article not analyzed.
• Current version [[[User:Paul Klenk|paul klenk]] 08:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)]

Congratulations! It doesn't look like anyone is in any danger. Jonah, my best advice is to not make any more reversions until a day or so has passed. Feel free to made other edits -- unless you are unclear what a reversion is, in which case you should not make any edits at all, just to be safe.

This is one person's opinion. If you disagree with any of this, feel free to say so. paul klenk 08:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained Deletions

Jonah, I've noticed that you have tried to delete several links from the article without explanation. In one case a separate editor "Master of Edits" vandalized the article and you kindly reverted it a few minutes later, except that when you reverted it you left out the links you were originally trying to delete. What gives? I think that it is a sound policy that we agree to discuss material in the talk page before deleting it with no explanation. Please stop behaving so erratically. thank you, Marcuse 18:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I only reverted to one of my edits. I hadn't realized we still needed all those references as they weren't going ot be included in the article. It seems to me we don't need the extra information- much of it is extraneous and unneeded. If we somehow found the time article that would warrant an inclusion, but the things that are being included are just silly spots on the web. Do we really need every silly website referenced on this entry? Seems a little much. All of the info is unsourced as well. Do we need a list of who performed on playboy after dark? I think not.Jonah Ayers 22:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

For the time being we don't need to worry about extraneous info. We are still establishing the details of Rose's career and having references, even those which only substantiate a single performance, are helpful. -Willmcw 22:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Willmcw, more info is better, especially if it backs up facts in the article, which both of those references do. There's no harm in leaving them. Marcuse 01:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of you are right. The details of Rose's career are not addressed by the referenced material. Only things that Sojambi likes from earlier in Rose's career. And they don't explain his later work, or earlier for that matter. I think they ae window dressing and take away from the article.216.175.112.9 02:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are they not addressed by the reference material? They are direct links to sources that confirm all the facts in the first part of the article. Rather than criticize other user's contributions, why don't you add some that support material that you would like to include about his later or earlier career? How does saying that his recordings are "lo-fi" help the matter? Is this your opinion or do you have a source? The discography section already says they are self-released, so adding it here is redundant. If you are basically going to disregard any of the discussion that is been going on in this page, and write whatever the hell you want, then I'm simply not going to waste any more my time contributing to this article. It seems like what you really crave is getting attention and riling everyone up, congratulations man, you win. Marcuse 02:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not taking the rap for that. I changed it to work with you Marcuse. Mr. IP address isn't my take on things. Jonah Ayers 03:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Whatever. I'm not even going to bother explaining why you are way out of line. If you are not Mr. IP address, then I suggest that you should take it up with him as to why he is making it seem quite obvious that he is you. Seems like the other editors got bored with your antics as well. Good luck with the article, its all yours. Marcuse 13:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oh please, spare me the waterworks. I have worked with oyu. I'm not up to any antics. This is ridiculous. Get over yourself. You do good edits. I considered you an ally. Jonah Ayers 14:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil. This is official Wikipedia policy. If anybody editing this article can't respect the people they're working with, maybe it's time to go edit another article for a bit. We need to keep our cool and not accuse one another of bad faith. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Um...

...is there a reason a three-paragraph article is getting people so riled up? Bring in new content. There's so much to do with this article without deleting anything. paul klenk ^talk 14:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I brought in a lot of content before, covering his early 60's career to the present, and it was all deleted. Perhaps some of this made sense, as it could be considered "original research," which goes against the rules of Wikipedia. The article now consists solely of things that can be proven with internet citations --which is why it concentrates on his late 60's career-- plus one claim of racist lyrics on CDs that is not backed up by any citations of outside critiques of his work.

Jonah, thank you for offering to send me your email address (above). I await it. - Sojambi Pinola 15:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Could someone explain this?

This edit doesn't seem entirely right to me. A lot of factual information seems to be removed without explanation. What's up? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• I seems like specific editors are deleting sentences pretty much at random in order to get other editors to break the 3 revert rule and get blocked. I don't think the content of the article has anything to do with it. Is there an official way to deal with this? Marcuse 11:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Marcuse, you may be on to something. I've been trying to communicate with one of the editors, but I can't get any explanation. This is all quite odd. paul klenk ^talk 11:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well for now let's assume that there's a sensible explanation that we do not yet know. The damage in this kind of dispute tends to be caused by misunderstandings and the resulting fallings-out. We're all in the big tent that wants to write a good, comprehensive article about Biff Rose, although we may disagree on how to do that. Let's just keep that common aim in sight, treat one another with respect, and resolve our differences with courtesy. It's not just the right thing to do, it's Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Marking edits as "minor"

Jonah, it may have been a mistake, but you cannot mark an edit as "minor," as you did on the Biff page, when it obviously changes so much content, especially disputed content.

Minor edits are for adding wiki edits, correcting spelling or spacing, and suchlike. This is why this feature is not made available to new accounts.

When you abuse this feature, you also abuse the trust of your fellow editors, and they will become less and less willing to work with you. Please keep this in mind.

paul klenk ^talk 22:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this one was in good faith, though you are quite right that it was an improper use of "minor" tag. It looks like Jonah simply reverted his previous edit. It's fine to mark a self-reversion like that minor, so long as you note it in the edit summary. As a personal aside, I find it astonishing how much effort is being put into a page about a fellow virtually no one has ever heard of or would remember if they had. Derex 00:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Derex, this "reversion" has been going back and forth and back and forth, a long, slow and nasty edit war. You are also right that he should have written something in the edit summary (which he didn't). Jonah came to me before asking for help. I'm trying to protect him, not the article. He has now left a message on my page, which, I believe, establishes his IP as being no longer a suspected sock puppet but a confirmed one. paul klenk ^talk 03:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

oh, no doubt. in this particular instance, it looks like Jonah made an edit one minute and undid it the next. so, i'm just saying that it doesn't look like johah was trying to conceal anything by misuse of the minor tag in this instance. often, when someone misuses the tag, concealment is the intent. Derex 03:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks sort of Derex. If you listened to Biff's later records, as I was forced to o na few occasions, you'll get the anger and ethnic slurs that can in no way be listed as theater. They are infuriating. He's a horrible drunkard and a nasty man. Anyone writing otherwise doesn't know him well. That's why I continue to edit here. I have to right the wrongs that Sojambi Pinola- a known friend and therefore Sock Puppet of Rose's.Jonah Ayers 02:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• It is interesting that the edits that were re-reverted have nothing to do with Rose's racist lyrics. They are factual things about his early career, and it seems like the only purpose you have been reverting them is to "get back" at Sojambi Pinola. If for whatever reason you consider him your so-called nemesis, please take this somewhere else, as it is really wastes everyone else's time. Finally, I do not appreciate being called a backward F*ck [20] on your talk page, this I consider a personal attack. Please stop threatening me and other editors who have tried to help you out in the past. Marcuse 11:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Jonah, did you leave that message on my talk page? paul klenk ^talk 04:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't appreciate folks acting as such, Marcuse. I never threatened you once, and that terminology is in itself an underhanded threat, by accusing me, you offer me to the wolves. It proves your methods are indeed suspect. As for you Klenk, nope. Should stymy you all for a bit. Oi. Now, the Rose postintg, the information included on rose's listing is superfluous at best, but mostly excessive. Check out his former songwriting partner's listing here. I think by writing al lthe extraneous crud on his posting it gives the allusion that he was a 'star' as Sojmabi Pinola wants. I take aim at this method off editing because it is not what other 'stars' have on their own articles here. It is part of what is a larger form of POV and I take pride in pointing it out and fixing it. My edits are not reverts or extractioins, they are fixes to the POV that Sojambi has placed into the article. It is in no way needed to mention the names of the songs of Rose that Pat Boone recorded if they are listed in references. That is redundant and unprofessional. It makes the entry look amateurish. So I will remove them.Jonah Ayers

Please don't remove relevant information from this article. -Willmcw 18:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Not quite a first timer here. Read a lot of this argument. Even posted. Edited some too. I come from the middle of the road to get here. There's a lot of fire, smoke, and coercion. Mostly Pro Rose. I could be Pro Rose maybe, maybe not. Whatever. I gotta say- There is a LOT of what Jonah Ayers calls extraneuous information. Come on people!!! Other articles here don't have coverage this intense. Read The Ringo Starr one. It's a gooder. But he was a Beatle. Could be relevant if the dude hada career past the 70's. Oh well. You people fight. I think my ideas will come out slowly. But who is this guy? Who is he? Went to his websites and I still ain't got a clue. No clue. I seek the heart 03:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The entire text consists of five sentences. How can that possibly be too much information? Also, you have only one non-Biff edit. What's this "Pro Rose" stuff? There aren't any "sides" here. I'm not even going to pretend that I don't think you're a Jonah sockpuppet. Sue me. Derex 04:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Biff Rose Anti Semitic and Racist Tirade on his website posted here for your perusal

The following rant was found on Rose's messageboard feature of his Biffrose.com website. It was signed by him, and has his email address above it.

"Dear Slave Rebel claiming to be FREE REBEL.....what's this "....zeitgeist of 'that era' you speak of...?"""" Dylan's "era" is 60 to 65 and then he's finished....his magnum opus is john wesley harding in 1969 where he "...falls in the arms of a priest"...hiding again in a ...masked and anonymous..posey....which is all he is in trying to find an identity now as a nostalgia BUFF in the face of my nostalgia BIFF..I lay a rose on the grave of the un-insightful and go for the BIG ONE...not DYLAN or CARLIN...their managers are pipsqueaks....next to matthew mark luke and john for the BIG ONE...and my name and idea is BIGGER than the BIG ONE meaning Jesus Christ rose. with a BIFF like when you "GET" it you'll see more clearly how limited those nostalgia buffs are..carlin and dylan have gotten so-o-o-o-o-o close to money power fame and glory they don't have a

• • • • • in' clue who they are or what to do....carlin

will tell jokes and shy away from the eighth dirty word....NIGGUH! I will pick up th slack ..move on to the ninth dirty word...CUNT and form the TENTH dirty word...as my prod, company and prod your ass into the 21st sentry....Nigguhcunt Prod...I will shift the end of the world to merely th N of the WORD...and those who have affection for those old farts will die with their affections like those who continued to sing Stephen Foster songs...I dream of jeannie with the light brown hair after 1900 when Scott Joplin entered the scene with a new musical lick....it's RAGETIME folks....dylan and carlin to name two are relics of the past ...I am a relic of the future...Dylan is trying to re-make the story ...again and again of WHY he "changed" his name.....last nite on PBS it was because there was "...anti semitic" feeling when he came to Minneapolis...in his book CHRONICLES he shows what a jive ass liar he is when he writes ( I paraphrase)......"I'm going to tell it to you right straight....there was a biker with the San Bernadino Angels named Bobby Zimmerman...he was killed when..." but hey, folks ..stop the show...he says he's going to give it to us RIGHT STRAIGHT? You mean he wasn't giving it to you or me or US RIGHT STRAIGHT ALL ALONG..????...then ***** that son of a ***** jew piece of pschitt no offense meant I'm sure none was taken for trying to be CHRISTIAN when what's CHRISTIAN will HIT you like A BIFF and suddenly you will see the world turned UPSIDE down like everybody did you grasped in a twinkle and a lighten-ning bolting from the heavens a swipe of understanding as to how the very lowest can be equal and moreso with the so-called HIGHEST....dylan and carlin to name two are the very highest and brought low thru the power of the LOWERED and I am HIGHERED by the Lowered....now shall we go slower? ...shall I start over? .....let's take it from the top...we're here to edjucate people...or just leave out the jew of edge-jew-cate and simply EDGE-=cate the people....do you really think the jews are going to control the story of the 2nd coming of christ with me around...?...think again....have a 2nd helping of who's controlling the story and thru what means...and welcome to the electricity of the world wide web.....remember..we have only RUSSIA to ICON-vince....they have held steadfast with the InterNYET and refuse to ICONtact GOOGLE...but prefer GOGOL......and now a spatial note to Steve Espinola....my new religion was called "Your Heart" and th ONLY DOT COM/mandment was to fill your heart...Saint Gregory of Kansas City said, "Wa-a-a-al, Biff if'n ye gonna start a new religion ya gotta have some sort of sacrifice....." so-o-o-o we decided to sacrifice the new religion and keep your heart.... N of story.....as for the red and white t-shirt....send this e-mail off to Mark in London to remind him he is aces up on the release of the Biff Rose compilation cd...with the red and white t-shirt flying above the self-portrait......shifting the red and white against the blue ...skies to re-focus american patriotism so that it reflects more american praytriotism and the dot com/mand to be "Take up thy T-shirt and follow me" instead of taking up the old wooden cross which is heavy and which jesus is supposed to have done for you anyway......as for the true cross....only one small chip remains...so you don't have to carry the cross on your shoulder..you only have to carry a chip....and as for your faith being as that of a mustard seed...let it be for this th"

It cuts off there. This is for all those who demand proof of his Anti Semiticism and Racism beyond his lyrics on his later Home recordings. Note how he tries to manipulate his usage and then just launches right in using Jew asa derogatory phrase to describe Bob Dylan. Jonah Ayers

First of all, to be strictly technical, it proves nothing about the content of his LYRICS. I just listened to his two 2004 albums yesterday. Absolutely NOTHING on them that could be considered hateful to any race. One love song to a black woman, another love song to a Korean woman....both songs mention their races, and even make puns (eg. "my career" becomes "my Korea,") but they are inarguably non-sarcastic and loving songs.

Second, I could spend some time taking apart what he's saying here, and perhaps I will more, later. He mentions that "Nigguh" is a dirty word. The most charged thing he says is some challenge about whether Jews can "control the telling of the second coming," and I honestly can't explain what he is talking about. From my experience, he is, at times, capable of equal-opportunity misanthropy, but I have not noticed him _excluding_ any particular race or religion from his tirades.

So, on balance, still doesn't count as legit evidence as to the content and intent of his CDs. Now, how's about that lunch meeting, Jonah? And what of the email address you promised?

-Sojambi Pinola 20:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My email in your hands is not something I look forward too. You have vandalized other users pages. So no, I think not, in retrospect, I thought you were more peacable. You aren't. No email for you. I DON'T WANT TO MEET YOU!!!!!! Got it? Good. You are a bore, and a bully. It is laughable that anyone should take your biased opinion on Rose's lyrical content. You are friends with the man and converse on his message board with him, as well as fraternize with him. Your take on his racism and Anti semiticism is without merit, because it is so clouded by your friendship with him. I disagree with your take on Rose. Also the lyric my career turning to my korea is plagiarized from an earlier recording by Pavement, of which he denies ever hearing, but others attest that he received from a bartender in the 9th ward of New Orleans at the time of said record's release. Get with it man, the guy you put on a pedestal is a racist anti semitic rip off artist, he ripped off Joseph S. Newman, Lord Buckley, Paul Williams, and now Pavement. He's a schmuck, and a putz. Jonah Ayers 00:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That guy can write. I'm very impressed. There is a style of writing that turns up in the early parts of last century, specifically in Finnegans Wake, and in the 1960s in Dylan's novel tarantula, and in Brian Aldiss's novel, Barefoot in the Head. To complain that the above is "antisemitic" or "racist" is ridiculous. It's punning wordplay, unfettered, drunk on language and ideas. Great stuff!

Hmm, maybe I should get a hold of some of this guy's work. --Tony Sidaway^Talk

Oh Jonah, please. (rolls eyes.) -Sojambi Pinola 05:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

New citations of Biff Rose on web

In the wake of a just-released CD compilation, much of the non-citable information I had included in the article, later removed, is now citable. Biff is being hailed as a cult hero to the New Weird America music movement, spearheaded by Devendra Banhart, who is gushingly quoted. Might this be time to re-migrate some of this information back into the article? This press release [21] is basically the liner notes of the compilation, written by Bay Area musician Thom Moore. A Bay Guardian interview link provides additional detail.

There is plenty of precedent on Wikipedia for articles that go into extensive detail on the artists in question. Check out the Mike Nesmith, Bruce Springsteen, and Jimi Hendrix articles.

How can we proceed peacefully forward, here? thank you. -Sojambi Pinola 22:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Look biff Rose is nowhere in the league of those people. He was an unknown. Even Paul Williams, hiscolooborator has won awards, an oscar even. Rose isn't worthy of more than a small mention, becauseit turns into POV- that's against the rules here. I'm not gonnaargue, just telling you why changes are made. I will keep your references, list them to high heaven for all I care. But leave the article to pertinent info.. not one take of roast beef. It's useless info. Link it.Jonah Ayers 06:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Mike Nesmith is an interesting individual and this article is made more interesting by including his brief participation in Rose's life. Regarding the description of Rose's lyrics, if we can find a notable critic who describes them then we can quote the critic. But we shouldn't try to characterize or critique the lyrics ourselves as that would be original research. Regarding "stand-up comedian", I see that being added and removed. Is he? Was he? What's the deal? (I'd figured he was more of sit-down comedian). Cheers, -Willmcw 07:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, this turned into a bit of an essay. Please bear with me.  :)....

On a literal level, you are right, he'd tend to "sit down" at the piano. But the "stand-up" designation is still the correct one in terms of genre: He is not a comedic character actor, for example. So the article link reads "comedian," but clicking the link brings you to the page on stand-up comedians, which begins: "A stand-up comedian or stand-up comic is someone that performs comedy in an informal way, talking to the audience with the absence of a fourth wall. It is usually done by one comedian and usually with a microphone." At least 3 1/2 of Rose's albums fall into this category. Someone looking for his songwriter albums might be mystifed when they plunk a record on their turntable and he never gets around to singing on it. I've had that experience. His early fame was as a stand-up comedian; he was successful enough at this to be profiled in a full-page article in Time magazine, and the Wikipedia article used to reflect this. Not only was he successful, but on the basis of the existing recordings, his comedy was strange and unique. It would appear that some of his Tonight Show success was the result of combining these two disparate talents (comedy and songwriting), as reflected in the Robert Christgau reviews. It is a shame if this "can't" be included in the article, insofar as describing, non-critically, what his act consisted of.

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to give information to people. Personally, as a music fan, I am always looking for more information on artists that spark my interest, whether or not a million other people find them important yet. In fact, I find that some of the most interesting artists are the less well-known ones. I got to know Biff Rose as a person only after I'd spent the better part of a decade tracking down most of his albums, which I was able to do even in the case of the "self-released" ones. The records were distributed, and they did turn up in record stores in the days before internet distribution. Roast Beef, for example, is not a "famous" album, but I continue to bump into songwriters and music fans who have bumped into it and hold it in extremely high regard. Can I find a citation that claims that? No, I have only my personal experience to go on. I have made friends with people, and ended up in more than one band, simply because we were both aware of the existence of this album. It is a unique work, and it deserves mention; Rose is high-profile enough, beyond that album, for it to be of interest to people interested in his other work.

This strange idea that someone's article should be of a length merely proportional to the size of their fame does not make much sense to me. That would imply that we are just filling up a formal space to reflect someone's "importance," as if importance were an objectively measurable quantity; but that is an illusion. The way I see it, as long as the information is potentially interesting to several people, NPOV (which is key), and accurate, it has a usefulness. Nonetheless, I am still limiting myself to information that has a connection to "reputable" sources, no matter how illusory I find that. The Mike Nesmith connection is an example. Roast Beef is interesting beyond the Nesmith connection, but the Nesmith connection helps give it context and legitimacy.

Rose is an artist who doesn't tend to repeat himself; therefore, it may make sense to describe at least some of the breadth of his work, even if he doesn't sell as much as, say, Peter Frampton, who tends to record in the same genre each time out. The article becomes more useful if it helps people wade through his releases to find recordings they will like (or will even choose to be challenged by, through a more complex listening interaction). As his work is now being re-released by "legitimate" labels, it seems perfectly valid to supply some such information in the context of this encyclopedic article, as long as it can be done tastefully. A guy who managed to influence the work of both George Carlin and David Bowie probably has something interesting going on, whether or not he was able to capitalize on this in a business sense. (Or whether he was even primarily interested in such a limited, myopic definition of "success"....which, apparently, was not the case.)

Here's another example: Bill Fay. The Bill Fay article is basically a stub. One could argue that, given the guy's original commercial failure, that's all he deserves. I disagree. I recently learned of this guy's music, and I love what I have heard. He is a formerly unknown artist who is getting rediscovered, and I wish someone who knows more about him would expand this article. For example, the band Wilco covered one of his songs in their movie "I Am Trying to Break Your Heart." This should be mentioned in that article. How do Bill's albums differ? Which of the four available CDs should I buy first, given my tastes? I think that would be useful info, but I'm not the guy to do it.

One could argue that if an artist like Fay is getting his music re-released nearly 40 years later in spite of its commercial failure, there is probably something there beyond nostalgia. That's a pretty tough fence to leap over, and he has done it. So, it would appear, has Rose. They both have followings without the benefit of hype, and that is a particular test of quality.

Several bands on Wikipedia have not only articles, but articles devoted to each of their albums and even individual songs. A couple of people have taken it upon themselves to write articles on each of Styx's albums, which were famous once but considered to be crap by a great many mature adults.  :) I have no problem with that....Someone must find that interesting. Given that scale, I find nothing problematic with expanding this article a bit.

As to the idea that Rose is an "unknown": Given that Bruce Springsteen is name-dropping him in his interview, as linked, one might have a little problem characterizing him as unknown.

-Sojambi Pinola 12:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I can not believe the amount of adulation you throw on a second rate racist who can't even make enough off his Bowie connection to live on... He's a wastrel. With a past, but jesus chirst Espinola, get a grip, life is more than what you think it is, and the sad fact is that with a quick glance to Rose's message board, and a slight listen to his records, you can tell he's a pissed off misanthrope. Search a little deeper and you fgind out about how he abandoned his kids, and delve just a little bit more, which you calim to have done, and you're going to discover he's justa pathetic drunk,a class a alcoholic, his discourse, his interpesonal relationships all point to his alcholism. To top it all off, I've worked in the record industry, sales, management, and this guys records show up in the trash bins more often than in the used bins. If you found them, you found them because you were the only one looking. Get over your pride. Try the golden rule on for size, convince your friend Rose to try it too.216.175.115.53 01:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Holy Jesus, who is this guy. Anyway, my friend called me over. Here I am. Being mentioned by Bruce Springsteen in the seventies is like being called a writerby Jaqueline Susan- meaningless. So give it up. You a mess.17.255.240.202 17:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Continual reversions to non-sourced negative sentence

Jonah, you keep reverting the article to a version that contains unsourced negative comments about "Roast Beef", and you keep removing the "comedian" link.

Reviews of the record were not favorable, and it faded quickly. Where is your evidence? That comment is not true.

What is going on? I spent a lot of time today trying to open up discussion here --that is a thought-out essay I wrote up there-- and you are not really participating or even responding to the points I am making. There's no debate going on. It makes it difficult or even impossible to work with you, and that's NOT what I want. The last revert, by Fvw, said "Please don't remove content, and add sources for claims you add." You ignored that plea. I don't even know that user!!

Please revert your reversion until we discuss this. I'm taking this very seriously. If reverting the reversion will not work for you, please suggest an alternate strategy whereby we can work together. -Sojambi Pinola 05:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a very long page. About Biff Rose, and why we should or shouldn't like him. Why should we like him? Why shouldn't we like him? You people talk to f'ing much.216.175.112.9 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

what? you mean the article, 3 brief paragraphs. or the talk page, hella long. Derex 18:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

What the hell?

I don't like to think about if he didn't. The Abbey bar.But you people have taken this to a whole other level, a new degree of worship. I've seen the man perform. I've seen him call a black man nigger to his face. I had to stop serving him on numerous occasions in NOLA. When I moved, I never dreamed I'd think of him again, but here he is. And here all you are. This guy was a minor footnote, not a genre defying artist. He's a shyster, you know, trying to find a way to make a buck. There's not a lot more to it. Someone compared him to James Joyce, and it's obvious to me that dude has come off his rocker. This is Biff Rose, quasi racist bar patron. He spends most of his time in bars. Not writing. The words are stream of consciousness. Oh my god, you people are really in need of something to do with your life. Chill the f out. Write a new article or something. But give this one the ghost it came in on.Mary Hope 19:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

page protection?

This page is the subject of endless pointless edit wars with someone who apparently has an axe to grind. The article is perfectly fine. My god, it's only 3 short paragraphs. How much is there really to debate over? Can someone just protect the damn thing for a week in hopes that this will stop? I know, I can just ignore it ... but it's a stupid waste of time for everyone having to police this nonsense. Derex 20:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

announce: this is starting to really tick me off, just on principle. i don't care about biff rose. i do care that somebody is wasting everyone else's time because they have an axe to grind. so jonah, heartseeker, various ip's, whoever you are, i am ready to put a stop to this ridiculous nonsense. i believe there has already been an rfc on this, so i'm about willing to haul your butt and your sockpuppets before arbcom on charges of personal attacks (your vandal list, etc), sockpuppetry in attempt to create the false illusion of a consensus, continual undefended reversions, and general asshattery. your friend, Derex 22:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Derex, I sympathize. Thank you.

Mary Hope is yet another sock puppet. You have the evidence.

I'd really like to remove the "racism" paragraph. It has been unsourced all this time, it is NOT an accurate reflection of the scope of the work, and the only person who wants it in there is the person making personal attacks and using tons of sockpuppets. Over 15 by my last count.

For clarity: "I seek the heart" is a sockpuppet. "Hopeseekr of Xmule," on the other hand, is an editor like yourself who got caught up in this by accident.

-Sojambi Pinola 20:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• I wouldn't take the racism part outright, I think Tony's rewrite a while back is a fair compromise:

Rose's later work differs from his early recordings. There is strong language in his lyrics, and he makes controversial use of racial stereotypes.

I think many of us (other than Ayers) do find his persona and overall style somewhat offensive, and one look at any of his new material confirms this. I've read why you think it is not offensive, but many would disagree. In this case it is fair to put forth both sides of the issue. Marcuse 21:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not the addition of racism info I object too, though that ought to properly sourced. Frankly, it would be more surprising to me if he weren't racist, purely from a statistical perspective of his age and location. I'm from around there, so I know how common it is. What I object to is the continual deletion of factual information about his career, that might be somewhat positive. But, I'm just frustrated and irritable. Forget it. As to Mary Hope, she doesn't strike me as a sockpuppet at all, neither through her comments, her home page, her edit history, or her writing style. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's quite a leap. Or did you email some evidence ... haven't checked in a while. Derex @ 21:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a leap at all, Derex, and yes, I did. Please check for a very complete rundown. This person has been doing this sort of thing by email for well over a year, and he has posed as "waitresses" before. It's a rerun.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but, respectfully, have any of you actually heard the CDs in question? I agree with Derex that it is not sourced, and there's good reason for that. In all versions, the statement amounts to original criticism.

There are plenty of non-racist whites in New Orleans. -Sojambi Pinola 23:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course there are. Lots of my friends are. I'm just saying it's wouldn't be at all surprising if he is, because it's very common. Pick some random fellow of that age off the street in mississippi or nola, and there's a fair chance he's a racist. You'd be amazed at the conversations at the 'country club' among 60-something lawyers who assume everyone present shares their attitude. It's really fairly shocking. However, it does not matter a lick if Rose is racist is unless it shows up in his music or public performances. His personal views spoken in a private context have no place here. Without hard evidence of racism in the works for which he is notable, I don't care and I don't think it's relevant. Nobody's say-so is enough; it needs to be sourced. I do think the 'nippie higgur' album title, or whatever it was, suggests there might be an issue here. I'll check out the Mary Hope thing, been avoiding my mail this week; it was a pretty good effort if it is a puppet. Kudos to the perp for that. Derex @ 23:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Marcuse writes: "In this case it is fair to put forth both sides of the issue." My understanding is....unless we can find _outside_ criticisms, then _neither_ side of the issue belongs in the article. And no-one has found such outside criticism. My viewpoint doesn't have more right to be in there than anyone else's. NONE of our viewpoints should be there.

Backing up a little: There are two issues here, getting mixed together. One issue is...does including "too many" citable facts amount to POV? In other words, if the article is "too long" or "too detailed" does that make the artist "too important"? Many of the deletions that are occuring are occuring on that alleged basis, not on the racism-issue basis. Then the issue becomes, if we are cutting out a bunch of provable, factual stuff, what place does this factually-vague-yet-serious allegation have in the article?

The other issue is...is Rose actually, factually a racist, and is that the CRUX of his most recent work? I'll admit that it's not a simple question to answer, because he certainly plays with volatile material.

Saying that (I paraphrase) "given his age, race and location it is statistically likely that he's a racist," is, obviously, not decent evidence to make a decision on. The guy was also a hippie who wrote a song predicting an alien arriving on earth with "half a million colors in his face" --showing our racism up as silly-- on his second album ("Color Blind Blues"). He and Harry Belafonte hugged on the Tonight Show and it apparently caused ripples at the time. Based on his past AND present, it's not a clear shot. He says a lot of things now on his website that contain apparent contradictions, at least on a surface, knee-jerk level. I could post a very anti-racist email he wrote a month ago. It's complex; one could write a long essay on it if they cared enough.

And especially because it is complex, I think it is ONLY fair to mention it if we can find reviews which approach the issue. Otherwise, it is POV. If both sides of _our_ issues are there, it is simply TWO POVs, not NPOV. Remove the topic altogether, you remove the POV. To repeat myself: Until we can find outside criticism, the topic has no place in this Wikipedia article.

For example: I'd be happy to write about the sound of Biff's newer music, and what my interpretation of it is. There is plenty about his new work that differs from the old...plenty that is innovative, difficult, and interesting. In fact, I did write about it, but all that material was removed. And checking into Wikipedia's policies, I'd say "rightfully so," as it amounts to 'original research.' But...and here's the big but....if that stuff has no place in the article, neither does the implication of racism. That's also original research or original criticism, and it has no place in any Wikipedia article. It skews and minimizes what the material is about, and it amounts to an unsubstantiated allegation, with no evidence that the writers have even bothered to listen to the complete albums in question. You could quote a paragraph from Huckleberry Finn or even "The Color Purple" and claim that the writers were racists, without being terribly clever....and obviously, you would be wrong. So we should stick to the simple, proveable facts.

See this: What is excluded from articles

and this: Neutral Point of View

-Sojambi Pinola 05:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me just respond to the comments about my "statistical" phrase. What I am saying is that it would be utterly unsurprising, so I don't think it should be dismissed as an outrageous suggestion off the cuff ... like I would be instantly inclined to dismiss the child molestation charge without a cite. Moreso because his album title is suggestive. Also, an easily verifiable cite is difficult because his lyrics are not on the web. However, I have never suggested that the fact there are plenty of racists provides any basis in the least for asserting Rose is one. All I am saying is that I don't think it's a crazy issue or a surprising one for someone to bring up. I'm not sure why that statement is being misintrepreted so.

I am also very clear that I don't care what his personal views are, only how it affects the work for which he is notable. I think it has no place here at all without proper sourcing. Now, that said, do we need a citable "controversy" to mention it? I think not, if his music contains self-evidently and obviously racist statements. Mentioning racial issues or names or making sarcastic political commentary or any of that does not count. It has to be indisputable and clearly sourced, and someone here that I trust on this (i.e. a long-time editor) needs to check it. In that case, I see no more difference is stating his music contains such language than to saying Jimmy Buffet's music talks about sailing. That would not be "original research", it's just stating a fact.

I also think that someone here is out to smear Rose, and the constant removal of factual material on the faux basis that this is too long is clear evidence of that to me. The "well said" below does not refer these comments, I jumped in because I felt my "statistical" comment was being misinterpreted, and that bothers me very much. I'm a social scientist, so I'm accustomed to making such statements neutrally. Derex @ 13:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well said. I agree. In particular, we need to restrict ourselves to reporting criticism and not doing the criticizing ourselves. If I hear a song I can't say, "It sounds like cats fighting" or "It's the most fantasmic sound ever!" I can say that Rolling Stone" magazine said those things (if it did). Willmcw 09:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• The sentence I suggested does not say he is a racist, what it says is that he makes controversial use of racial stereotypes. Even the title of his latest release says this, terms like the 'nippy higgur' etc clearly are trying to push the envelope in terms of race. If you consider his official websites and the little performance pieces within them and things like "Jewmanity" as part of his overall work, then again, it is obvious that he is making controversial use of racial stereotypes, for whatever purpose it may be. You don't need a critic to tell you that the white house is white, when it is obvious that it is. This is not my POV, it is factual information taken from his work. As I said, feel free to put it into context, call it theater or what you will, but do acknowledge it. As far as the article being too detailed, it is ridiculous to claim that a three paragraph article has too much information, leave that as is, and please add more. If you wan an example of ridiculous amount of detail, check out Terri Schiavo. Marcuse 13:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Decent points, all! Great!

Looking again at this paragraph:

Rose's later work differs from his early recordings. There is strong language in his lyrics, and he makes controversial use of racial stereotypes.

I still don't think the combination of sentences is exactly fair. It implies that use of racial stereotypes it _the_ thing that makes his new work differ. I appreciate Marcuse's suggestion to try to put it in context, and to add more.

If that temp page is still there, I may try some more rewriting and adding and see what people think. Thanks for the feedback. -Sojambi Pinola 15:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Go for it, but please be considerate. I have no problem putting this in context. Truth said, his lyrics do seem relatively mild compared to what is on his websites, which he tones down significantly in his lyrics. I'm not one to be easily offended, and my instinct is to basically dismiss comments like his. But it seems like I am not the only one uncomfortable defending his use of race in his work. Here, for example, is a commment from the SF Bay Guardian about how some people might not appreciate song titles such as "Chinky Gee" or the cover of his new album (scroll down to the bit on Rose's upcoming performance). You can't ignore his obsession with race in his later work. As far as antisemitism goes, no matter how many times I look at Jewmanity.com, I really cannot see this in any other context - sure he makes fun of Hitler, but he also implies Jews have an unhealthy obsession with Hitler. I really can't make heads and tail of it, and as a jewish person, it makes me very uncomfortable. Would you sit down with your jewish grandmother and browse Jewmanity.com? Any religious jew will also be offended by the disrespectful use of Hebrew scripture as a background to the site. I mean, do you have a better interpretation of this material? But OK, none of this is mentioned in his lyrics, so do as jew wish with it. Marcuse 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I will be considerate, and I also welcome your continued help and feedback. I'm likely to wait a week. Thanks. -Sojambi Pinola 04:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit Wars again

I see that this article is the subject of content disputes. I see that there have been too many reverts that use as an edit summary that they are reverting vandalism. Removal of content that is the subject of a dispute as to whether it is correct or encyclopedic is not vandalism. Claims of vandalism, when there is a real content dispute, are personal attacks.

Can we please try to summarize what the content issues are?

I see one content issue, which is that the statement that recent Biff Rose songs have racist content is a POV. A statmenet that a writer has claimed that they have racist content is NPOV. Robert McClenon 11:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The removal of material by Jonah Ayers is vandalism in the sense that it was not a matter whether the material he repetedly removed was correct or not. This material is actually factual info and well sourced. He was just removing random bits and pieces from it because he basically felt like it, not because there was a dispute about the factuality of the content. If you want to see a little bit about personal attacks, please go to the aforementioned user's talk page. Marcuse 13:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone created a username of "Sojambi Pinolla" --extra "l"-- and made some familiar-looking edits. For the record, it wasn't me. Probably goes without saying. zzzz. Sojambi Pinola 05:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Unbearable

I can't take it anymore. This chess match has got to stop. Why won't you others help? I had some helpers. Now they all have abandoned ship. This shouldn't be so difficult. We need to rally round and put an end to Jonah's big whale of a tale. Biff is not a child molester. He is a star, a bona fide star. He is not anti semitic and is not racist. HE sleeps with black girls because he says their pussy tastes better, and I'm a jew, and a latino. One of his best friends too. So you see, Jonah is making up things and posting them as truths. Biff might use the word 'nigger' to devalue it, and sometimes calls me a 'heeb' in joking. He is not an offensive person. Rather, he reinvigorates hateful words with wit and charm and brilliance. Sojombi19:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the wit. Sojambi Pinola 22:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to further anonymous rewriting of the "racism" sentence, I have removed the sentence in its entirety, pending actual discussion. I'll take a stand: We need to come to actual consensus here or leave it out. Unless we are going to include that discussion as part of a more well-rounded article, it casts an unfair and unbalanced pall on Rose's work, and seems to me to be a obvious, deliberate attempt to undermine. The person doing it, under all his names, is not acting in a community-oriented manner.

(in case _anyone_ missed it, "Sojombi" with an extra "o" is not me either.) Sojambi Pinola 05:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Whoa there, Steve. Where we last left it, you had offered to put Rose's racism in context, but to plainly delete this hardly seems in the spirit of community you mention. I am requoting what I said earlier as a point for discussion and re-adding the original sentence without the anonymous deletions:

• Go for it, but please be considerate. I have no problem putting this in context. Truth said, his lyrics do seem relatively mild compared to what is on his websites, which he tones down significantly in his lyrics. I'm not one to be easily offended, and my instinct is to basically dismiss comments like his. But it seems like I am not the only one uncomfortable defending his use of race in his work. Here, for example, is a commment from the SF Bay Guardian about how some people might not appreciate song titles such as "Chinky Gee" or the cover of his new album (scroll down to the bit on Rose's upcoming performance). You can't ignore his obsession with race in his later work. As far as antisemitism goes, no matter how many times I look at Jewmanity.com, I really cannot see this in any other context - sure he makes fun of Hitler, but he also implies Jews have an unhealthy obsession with Hitler. I really can't make heads and tail of it, and as a jewish person, it makes me very uncomfortable. Would you sit down with your jewish grandmother and browse Jewmanity.com? Any religious jew will also be offended by the disrespectful use of Hebrew scripture as a background to the site. I mean, do you have a better interpretation of this material? But OK, none of this is mentioned in his lyrics, so do as jew wish with it. Marcuse 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Marcuse 16:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

My stand is this, leave it as I've left it, everyone who reviews rose's work admits his later recordings are rife with it. Most places throw his stuff out when they hear it, but the ones that toe the isn't that cute line even announce his predilection for angry language.216.175.115.53

Who're you? -Willmcw 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm the guy whose edits you keep reverting.216.175.115.53

• Jonah, I think the way you left it reads like a warning label on a CD containing profanities. I think the way the sentence has been written before by others is accurate, since not all of his songs deal with race, and to say his later recordings are "rife" with racism is inaccurate. Plus, it would give you more credibility to stop using an annonymous IP. Marcuse 17:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are the two versions:

• Rose's newer recordings are more controversial. His later songs make occasional use of ethnic stereotypes and contain racist and anti-semitic language in their lyrics.
• Rose's newer recordings contain ethnic stereotypes and he uses racist and anti-semitic language in his songs.

Why is the anon so intent on making this change? They seem roughly equivalent. -Willmcw 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies, Marcuse and everyone. I was fed up with Mr. Multiname's lack of working with the rest of us. The main reason the sentence is there, in any form, is because of this character's insistence on it, which I don't put much stock in at this point due to his generally inappropriate behavior. Obviously, my solution was not very effective, either. I flew off the handle, and I am sorry.

The proposed version I had the least problem with was yours, Marcuse, as posted earlier on the board:

Rose's later work differs from his early recordings. There is strong language in his lyrics, and he makes controversial use of racial stereotypes.

What do people make of this one? I don't think it was ever actually posted. It feels like a decent compromise for now. Would you like to do the honors, Marcuse?- Sojambi Pinola 23:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all. That sentence waters down the sentiment completely. I've rewritten it, and posted my version, which explains the matter in one sentence.216.175.115.53 20:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not about sentiment. It's not how you feel about Rose's lyrics, it's what's in them. Please give one, concrete example where he uses something which most people will agree is anti-semitic language in his song lyrics. One example. Marcuse 22:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That is right it isn't about sentmiment, so where rose's language is inappropriate I have pointed it out. Websites are where it is anti semetic. Steve Espinola aka Sojombi Pinola is the one who has attached sentiment and POV to his postings about rose, becoming completely unable to separate a freindship with the man from a NPOV account of the man and his work216.175.115.53 17:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)