Talk:Biff Rose/Archive 2

Archive 2 of the long and tempestuous Biff Rose discussion. Peruse at your own risk.216.244.7.12 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars

I noticed the back and forth on this page has resumed. I also noticed the previous discussion was archived. Why? As it is, the current version of the article is the one that was agreed on by general consensus. Please discuss any proposed changes here before making them. And stay civil. Marcuse 04:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

sock puppets

Sojambi pinola-Sojambi Pinola is proven to be the same as poster 69.112.0.166 69.112.0.166

here's the proof.... (cur) (last) 07:52, 17 September 2005 Sojambi Pinola m (→Compilations - sorry...that was ME...not logged in. I am leaving the POV comments in for now, but please discuss them.) (cur) (last) 07:44, 17 September 2005 69.112.0.166 (→Compilations - This is the correct title of this LP.) (cur) (la

from the September 13th 2005 edits of Biff Rose article Mickey muos 20:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw is at it again.Stephen Espinola 23:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

From the archive

I'm reposting this from the archived talk. This is where the discussion left off before things became un-civil. Please discuss proposed changes here before making them:

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)

Sockpuppetry

I have just banned several sockpuppets created for the sole purpose of avoiding 3RR on this article. I will not hesitate to ban any others that show up, along with the users who create them. Think twice before you try such a stunt. Owen× ☎ 01:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, OwenX. I'm sure that was time consuming, and I appreciate the effort.

For the record, by intention, the ONLY username I use is Sojambi Pinola. User:69.112.0.166 is not a "sockpuppet" of me, usually it IS ME, when I have forgotten to log in or when my computer logs me out for some unknown reason (sometimes I have two browsers open and mess up). I am not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes when that IP address comes up. It's a goof that pops up statistically infrequently, given the number of posts this "drama" has generated. And the guy claiming otherwise knows it, too.

"Jonah" just created a user named Stephen Espinola. That's a version of my birth name, but that was not my post. It would appear he is acting in a hostile and deliberately misleading manner. -Sojambi Pinola 07:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That is an accurate description of matters, as far as I am aware. I have permanently blocked all of the Jonah Ayers socks that I have found, and OwenX has temporarily blocked Ayers for disruption. The example of Ayers shouldn't be followed by anyone. Socks are allowed on Wikipedia, but any attempt to use them to abuse practices like editing by consensus or 3RR is strictly forbidden.

On the bright side, this article looks better now than it ever has. Thanks everyone for the good editing under hostile fire. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

the new version reads well now. I expect it to be taken down. I will rewrite it. 216.175.120.24

I've protected the article now to have a "cooling down" period; I noticed a lot of reverting. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected; hopefully things have cooled down. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Retrieved from the archive:

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)

Again, I think that is the real issue. User:216.175.126.203 is making an assessment in the new version that Biff's web writings are anti-semitic. Biff claims, on the other hand, that he is "pro-Jewish and anti-Zionist." By the rules of Wikipedia, you are supposed to find outside criticism if you are going to make such claims of anti-semitism. So, in other words, a correct sentence would be more like...."Critics have accused Biff of making Anti-semitic comments on his website. He contends that he is pro-Jewish and anti-Zionist." That would be NPOV. Problem is, you have not yet found outside criticism making that claim. Find that, and that sentence as I wrote it would be factual and NPOV. -Sojambi Pinola 06:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, this yahoo group seems to have been started with the specific intent of "getting back at Biff" for something: It includes messages that exhort its members to rewrite this Wikipedia article to make claims of antisemitism. Two contributors in particular seem to be doing most of the dialoguing, though at least four email names are used. You need to join to read the articles. I have archived them in case the group is taken down.

This somewhat out of date "links" page [1] brags about creating a fictional identity ("Bill Roberts") with the intent of duping Biff. Note the references to "lapdogs." The tone is very similar to that of an ongoing, multinamed contributor to this article. Make your own conclusions. --Sojambi Pinola 07:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You know what Steve, if I wrote that I'd tell you. I'm not Walter, and I'm not a non new orleanian. I live in post Katrina New orleans, and I'm writing what is certainly true about Biff. You can say that I wrote all the htings on the web you want to, but that doesn't stop the fact that you are imbecilic in pointing out things I did not write. You question my stylistic merit, I've been writing for Offbeat for years, my ex wife writes for it too. I also write for a small music magazine called Spin. Jesus, you really area fruit. A total nut. Phone calls... how in the world do you know who called you? Phone calls, supposedly similar articles that when read prove not to resemble a damned thing I've written on here. You want my name so bad? It's Josh. Ask your pal biff, maybe he can figure it out. Tell him Snapperhead said hello too. Man. You are really incredible... the things that pop up in your head.216.175.127.126 06:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

WILLMCW

info on editor Willmcw's official admonishment by wikipedia officials 1. Willmcw admonished Willmcw is admonished to extend respect and forgiveness to users such as User:Nskinsella (Stephan Kinsella) who share the burden of being notable enough to have articles regarding them be included in Wikipedia. Passed 7-0

2. Error by Willmcw Willmcw has in at least one instance been caught up in the struggle over the content of political articles and edited inappropriately, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#David_Duke.2FLudwig_von_Mises_Institute Passed 7-0

3. Harassment of Nskinsella Willmcw has inappropriately quarreled with, and been involved in disputes regarding the articles concerning, a controversial and knowledgeable expert who is also an Wikipedia editor, Nskinsella, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Evidence_from_Nskinsella. Passed 7-0

Throw the book at me

It is apparent that I'm bein g singled out by a corrupt administrator, and a sock puppet of rose. Look at User:Willmcw's page and see how the official wikipedians ruled against him. also note on Biff Rose's own website the dialogue established between User:Sojambi Pinola and Rose himself. The POV that has been developed in the article is relentless and I've edited it out. There is no need for all the links that double and triple prove rose was on carson, so I have taken them down. I noted that there are more links from Rose's entry than for Jimi Hendrix's entry, and this is absolutely ridiculous. It is time to realize that rose is a minor artist of very little note who only found his way on here because someone chose to write negative POV about him that proved to be untrue. If that first negative article was not written, Rose would not be on Wikipedia. In light of the recent mishaps in the editorial process in general, and those of User:Willmcw in particular, it is time for Willmcw to recuse himself from this entry. And Sojambi pinola should no longer edit the entry as he is basically the voice of rose, which violates the wikipedia rules against autobiography- and as Sojambi Pinola is working in conjunction with Biff rose, as seen on the biffrose.com messageboard then he should no longer be allowed to edit here in any way.Jonah Ayers

I certainly commit to not putting any opinions of Rose by David Duke into the article, and if user:Nskinsella participates in editing here I will show him appropriate respect. Thanks for your interest. -Willmcw 08:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Jonah," I will remind you that the links were put up there because the article had been heavily edited by you. The only way that I could corroborate the facts I wanted to include was by putting up links. This article has been more heavily challenged than the Hendrix article because of your agenda of minimizing this artist. Hence, more links were required.

This article has contained serious accusations --and flat-out libel-- about a living person, at a great many points in recent time. Circumstantial evidence suggests that you may have written some of the most serious claims under a different username. The claims under username Jonah Ayers are serious enough, as well.

It would be NORMAL for any living artist to be somewhat concerned that such libel about him is being posted at Wikipedia mirror sites all over the web. Hence, I don't think it's strange that Rose has written about it on his message board. Rose has had no direct input on the actual content of anything I have written. He did, however, express reasonable positivity AFTER a specific item was re-worded in a less libelous matter. I don't think that's so ominous. This is real writing about a real person in the real world, and these writings have real consequences. Wikipedia isn't a playpen; people actually read this. If similar claims were printed about a living artist in a newspaper, it would be reasonable for the artist to demand a retraction from the paper....and get it.

-Sojambi Pinola 14:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe this is still going on. Jonah, you are entirely mistaken about whether Sojambi can edit given connections to Biff. Biff Rose himself would be welcome to edit this article. If you go over to the arbitration page WP:RFAr, you will see that two cases were recently settled in favor of editors working on pages about themselves ... and the arbcom even took into account how unusually stressful it must have been for those editors. Derex 19:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved from above Derex's post to a chronological location:

I agree real writing, not lame kiss me's from some fan boy bent on on telling one side of his hero's story? Real like taking interest in Biff's "controversial" use of words and phrases such as "stupid nigguh" and "Dirty kike", both of which you know appeared on his website messageboard, as well as the frequent and derogatory usage of the word "nigger" in his later lyrics. You're absolutely right. He should be accountable for the thingss he wrote, and not things about him that aren't true. Those things are true, and he can't use you to avoid the truth that he's written and and recorded. The more rose's sycophants try to pigeonhole him into "Controversial artist" categories the more they deny the true implications of the racist and anti semitic actualities of Rose's work. If you can call it work. I call it hate fueled bile. But as an editor on here I avoid landing my opinion of his worth on the artist, and just include the sentence that seems to cause so much consternation with the one person here, that one person being sojambi pinola. Rose is using anti-semitic language in a negative fashion, as well as racist terminology. This is not merely 'Strong Language' this is beyond that. Well beyond that. And real people should read real writing that addresses rea linstances of racism and anti semiticism. Really.

As for your baseless 'Circumstantial Evidence' where is it? When? How? Are you sure you have the right person here? From looking at your own posts, you've dug up a whole website dedicated to not liking Biff Rose. maybe one of the members over there is to blame for these wrongs you claim have been written about your dear kind hearted Biff rose. for that matter why? Because far as I see it, Rose's own words enact the phrase give em enough rope pretty damn well... or if you're a bit thick- he incriminates himself so much no one needs to make up stories about him. You accuse me, yet you show no proof, and that is very fascist and republican of you. For a fan of an ex hippie, you certainly seem more at home firing off loose conjecture that you can't back up. You're a disgrace to wikipedia when you behave as such, and so I implore you to stop these false allegations. I write one simple sentence about Rose- he's written racist and anti semitic lyrics and in the screeds he posts on his website message board. Don't pin your own misanthropic take on the world on me. AS far as Rose being able to demand a retraction, he wouldn't get one, the words nigger and kike appear in derogatory nature throughout his website and his later lyrics. It's very clear. Retractions come when the point the article made was untrue, and the point the article about Rose makes is that he writes racist and anti-semitic lyrics and websites. That is true. The real deal, so to speak. Thanks for reading Stevie. Now, my little manchurian candidate, work your mojo.216.175.114.219 07:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I accuse "you" yet I "show no proof"? Please explain: Which "you" are we talking about here? Gently stated, perhaps you would help your case by logging in and signing a name to your writings (which is what I do on the rare occasions that I post something accidently as an anon IP). "Someone" around here seems to be creating multiple identities to get their agenda across. (The evidence of that appears obvious to at least five administrators who have gotten involved.) Is that "someone" "you"? Or a different writer around here? The situation invites exactly the sort of guesswork that I took part in, above. If it ain't you, then I am talking about a different writer or writers, and you can move on and let it pass. I did not name names (though there aren't even names to name today). You will notice that I said "make your own conclusions." I make no claim that I am correct. Hey, maybe you are right and Rose has somehow inspired several groups of people to behave in exactly the same way, using the same internet tactics, against him.

Moving on to more important matters: If you can find NPOV outside criticism, with citations, stating others finding his writings controversial, there is a place for that in the article. But your sentence as it stands is POV. On this discussion page you talk about "frequent and derogatory usage of the word 'nigger' in his later lyrics," but you have still not provided a single recorded lyric to begin to back that up. ("Frequent" implies usage in several songs, as well.) I'm sure you have listened to Rose's CDs, but I wonder which ones they are. It would improve the quality of our discussion if you could be more specific about recorded lyrics.

Rose is very specific and careful, in some of his writings, to distinguish between "nigger" and "niggah"/"nigguh". My understanding of his take on it: the first word is the word of the outsider/oppressor. The second word, either spelling, is the version reclaimed by the wearer of the word....the word AS USED BY African Americans in rap songs to address themselves and each other....in other words, the word AS USED by people who self-identify as black....Which Rose sometimes does. He has a lyric in a song called "Chicago" that goes "thank God I'm Black inside." His take on Judaism is similarly complex. When Jesus went into a temple and kicked things around, was he anti-semitic? No, he was a Jew shaking up the Jews. Biff's talk of "kicking asses" is possibly to be taken in this light, as there is an ongoing thread in Rose's work exploring walking Jesus' walk. Do I agree with it? Do you disagree with it? Not important issues here.

Whether you agree with Rose's take on it is not the point. That would be your criticism and interpretation of it. His take on these things is complex and unusual at the very least, and your sentence does not begin to reflect that complexity. It is a POV and an original criticism, which you are stating as a fact. That does not follow the rules of Wikipedia. The sentence you have repeatedly inserted is not "one simple sentence," contrary to your above statement. It's loaded, and it is a serious charge.

It might be helpful for you to read this Wikipedia section on rewriting potentially biased sentences.

Next topic: Your choice and use of the phrase "kiss me" (to describe my writing) is interesting to say the least. Furthermore, it is less than civil to call me a "fan boy" and to call me Stevie (my name is Steve). To call me a "disgrace to Wikipedia" probably qualifies as a direct personal attack, as does your calling me your "little Manchurian Candidate". Please read this link on the No Personal Attacks policy of Wikipedia, and please refrain from this behavior. Whoever "you" might be.

For the record, I'm not a Republican (and usually vote lefty), though I side with Clarence Thomas on the issue of Eminent Domain. --Sojambi Pinola 17:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Look you can use the apologiust theory all you wish, and quote and cite references all you want... the cold hard facts of the matter are that Rose uses language that is racist, and no matter how you spell nigger/nigguh/niggah when a white person calls a black person nigger, szadly it leaves a lasting impression. Ask Rose if he would sing those songs in the desire projects... I think not,. you might come up with one or two black people that think he's harmless but the vast majority, like oprah, would ask that he refrain from using the word, let alone use it in a derogatory sense as he does on numerous poists and in his lyrics. Yo ucan write all the long winded chimes that you want, iuf you carefully read my post, it does not personally attakc you, it simply urges you from using behavior that would imply idiocy, I urge you to continue your efforts, but to try to make them more enlightened, as you say your leftist, I would like to see you try to understand this point of view. But no you willfully try to steamroll over this case. it won't work.~`` --[[User::66.229.184.236|66.229.184.236]] 22:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, which of "those songs" do you mean? Please cite examples so we can discuss them. Is it steamrolling to ask you to provide examples of your lyric claims?

I read your previous post carefully. I continue to feel that the names you used to describe me --as I listed them-- count as insults and personal attacks. But I appreciate that your tone is more civil in your latest posting. --Sojambi Pinola 00:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

there has got to be a better way

is this real? Someone needs to address the dishonesty being espoused here.Lyndon fan one 23:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"Mary", what did you find "suspicious" about the word "US" vs. "American"? (Either is fine, and your change seems innocuous; I'm referring to the warning note you tagged to your revision.) What are you "alerting" admins about? And "Jonah," I notice that you are still making changes without discussing the points I have brought up. I still invite you to supply those lyrics examples.

Someone reading and perhaps participating in this discussion page is disturbed enough to have left an obscenity-laced message on my phone at 1:40 am EST a few days ago. There is at least one other recent phone call to another person as well, following this pattern.

This was also left this on Biff's Message Board as Jimmie Jazz. The writer posted over there using an IP also used for some recent reversions. (216.175.114.219) The writer appears to be referring to his use of Wikipedia. An earlier message was taken down, but it seems to express a threat towards Biff regarding an upcoming LA show. Rather than a "simple" dispute over content, I find this enitre drama to be a rather upsetting pattern of stalking:

jimmie jazz

Date Posted: Dec 23, 05 - 11:54 PM

Message:

much like last time you white devil, you over look the obvious, I've bee nsurfing on a neighbors computer waves, you f tard. there's two ip's i can latch on within five inches of my own **** modem. jaisus, how stupid do you think i am. Look at the wikipedia listings for all those ips, there are like thirty different ones, for the range of my neighbors wifi... can you get any dumber. And just because it's out of atlanta doesn't mean I'm in atlanta. I'm not, I'm in... Is it denver, or Watts, or am i still in nola?

I'll see you at arthur fest, I'm not afraid of your fans, I think it'll be fun wathcing you cower between other cowards. A flaming fist of fury you turned out to be, flaming, but no fury. The hints? Josh? Jules Van Sanborn? Cohen? yo udon't know me by now? I love playing your cds to the hard core 'niggahs' as you like to call em, their faces go blacker than i've ever seen when you start spewing your 'raps.' Good times. test me, am i lying?

-Sojambi Pinola 09:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

very interesting. very very interesting. I especially like the wya your quoting some message that was 'taken down' from the site. Was it ever there to begin with? You certainly try to stir the pot. also, you are now officially biff's mouth piece. i read in a message over on that website where Biff said "steve espinola is my voice on the wikipedia website, what I say he writes.' very nice don't you think.216.244.0.13`

Oh, as of the time of this entry, it's still there: click and see. Maybe it'll still there when you check. It would be nice to get a second witness for the record.

"Officially Biff's mouthpiece"? No. I'm "officially" working from a place of honesty and integrity to the best of my imperfect abilities. Whatever approving or disapproving things Biff says about my actions are out of my control. And yes, it is nice when an artist in question feels more accurately represented. Sojambi Pinola 07:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

well whatever you think is best, because it is quite clear you believe i wrote the original smear against Rose, about the child porn or whatever, but that isn't the case. i write about the anti semiticism, and racism. as do others. you might not fight me forever on this one but you will fight others.Jonah Ayers 00:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Jonah, you are changing the subject.

Saying "It's on your copy, give it a spin" in the Edit Summary of a revision is not discussion of the lyrics. On my copy of what?

"You might not fight me forever on this one but you will fight others." Meaning what? You will use other usernames? Whether or not you did _all_ the old edits, you have certainly used several sockpuppet usernames/identities and IPs to edit this article. It's been confirmed by a higher-up at Wikipedia who can see info that we can't.

Removing content from this discussion page, as you did a day ago, is inappropriate. And you know it.

Who created a username that consisted of my home phone number last week? Evidence is now hidden to protect my privacy. Discussion is here among other places. --Sojambi Pinola 17:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sojombi Pinola what about writing lies? As you did the other day when you posted a false header to the article. Go be self righteous somewhere else, your actions here are far from virtuous. Your biggest asset here, User:Willmcw has been severely upbraided and almost suspended by the wiki admins, so stuff the whole superiority spiel. How do we know you didn't do the phone number scenario yourself? Sounds like something you would do. Also, your edits on Fleetwood Mac are pretty sloppy, and poorly written. Do you think maybe you could go over there and fix them, and stand guard to that site's entry while you're at it? It might be interesting to note that biff's listing has more reference links than theirs. 216.244.0.13 20:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

References and Racism

In order to trim some of the references, I've put inline references to those that simply list a fact (such as a TV appearance), and I've taken these off the list. I've left the references that link to reviews and commentary. I've also re-written the racism sentence to make it more precise and hopefully appease both parties so that the bickering will stop. Marcuse 22:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Marcuse, the links don't work too well in the most recent version, and are less specific than before in your earlier revisions of today. I still contend that the reference to Anti-Semitism is POV. I don't consider Jonah's actions bickering. Whoever posted under that IP, directly above, is harrassing me with their references to my other edits. I don't think "appeasing" this person is really the way to go. Work with your conscience about what makes for a better and more encyclopedic article. --Sojambi Pinola 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Update....Marcuse's links working OK now. "Anti-semitism" charge still not supported by outside criticism and is POV in my book. --Sojambi Pinola 22:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• OK, the refs should work now. As far as the antisemitism, Jewmanity.com speaks for itself, it is obviously offensive to some, and it obviously has alientated fans. That to me seems accurate. I'm not going to fight for my version, I actually think any of the three would do, I was just offering and alternative. Marcuse 22:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to work with you on your change. It is not inarguably anti-semitic; it is, however, "controversial." It's not obvious to me that Jewmanity.com has alienated "fans," though it has alienated you. But you are co-writing the article. Perhaps there is a way to work that in, but it's gotta be NPOV. I was checking out the NPOV page, or one of the related pages that I included links to not too far up above, and it offered some possible ways out of our quagmire. Let's work on it here, on the discussion page. --Sojambi Pinola 22:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think sojombi's work is disengenuous, i do think marcuse's edits are workign to a finer point, and anyone who thinks that the hwole of jewmanity wouldn't be offensive to someone is definitely a bit skewed. But I'm gonna try and be nice, because I respect the work that's being done here. Now, as for the recordings I think it would be important if User:Sojombi Pinola could wheedle down the list to 'important' records and not non album singles that are wholly lost. whittle it down to his major works, and not list ones that even Rose is on record as disavowing...216.244.0.13 00:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is important to not that most people regard the word "nigger" in whatever spelling or pronunciation when used by whites to describe blacks to be an ethnic slur rather than merely racial stereotypes. So I will want to make the article read about Rose's usage of the ethnic slur rather than stereotyping.216.244.0.13

• Jonah and Steve- First off, nobody's edits here are disingenuous, unless of course you are not editing in good faith. Which nobody here is, right? Second, culling the list of recordings is not necessary, why not have a complete article? Third, Rose's use of "nigguh" is ironic, much like the word "nigger" is used in the movie Blazing Saddles, and I don't think anyone would call Mel Brooks a racist. As far as Jewmanity.com goes, I really do think it is somewhat offensive to Jews, not just "anti-zionist" as Rose claims, but I guess that's my opinion. As I said before, I don't really care much either way. If you want to reword it give it a shot. If you read the articles in the SF bay guardian, the author does agree that his material may be somewhat alienating, which is why I included the reference. Marcuse 00:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I do think the edits are disingenuous, as Sojombi erases anything he did not write, which is extraordinarily calculating... as well as his uninformed view of Rose's usage of racist terminology being hurtful to others- both of those make his work here disingenuous. As far as "culling" the list, the very addition of self released and undocumented recordings is unwarranted. Are all bootlegs included for The Grateful Dead, no, but ones that are mindful of their excellence are. The inclusion of the recording in one take is superfluous, and does not make for a better article. It would be better suited for a mike nesmith piece. What is happening here isn't merely an argument over anti semiticism is that this article has been taken over by Sojombi Pinola who has a direct relation to Rose, and appears to be subverting the wiki rule of self editing by using the rose message board and other means of direct communication to vent rose's ovwn bias on into the article. I find it strange that this isn't addressed and more severely dealt with. Why must we be forced Sojombi's edits? They always negate the one thing that most other editors, including User:Willmcw and yourself, grudgingly agree, that Rose is possesing a background of using lyrics and wording on his websites that is Anti Semitic and Racist. But what's more disgusting is that sojombi is using this rose article to foist his own opinion on all others that read wiki, and passing it off as Neutral Point of View, or NPOV. Frankly I'm tired of all the who struck john and the political back stabbings of the thing. Everything that sojombi Pinola has accused other editors of he has been guilty of himself, from breaking the 3RR to attacking other editors, to masking information about Rose in faovr of a, forgive me for the pun, a rosier read. By including records which weren't released on a national level, if even regional, the implication being, hey if you self release a disc, and get a friend to write about it, you can make an advertisement of it over at wikipedia.org- People are regularly banned for doing just such things. By listing these "self released" editions of rose's "work" a statement is made, to the effect of that, and is blatantly against the rules of wikipedia.. moreover Sojombi Pinola, under his other given name Steve Espinola, writes about Rose, and even undertakes professional tasks for Rose, such as agenting and managing aspects of rose's career, on his own website, Espinola/Sojombi Pinola talks of getting gigs for Rose, and does the same in a conversation that was on Rose's messageboard but may or may not have been taken down. my point, as lumbering and long winded as it is, is this, by allowing User:Sojombi Pinola to continue his onslaught of edit wars here, the message that is being sent is an unvirtuous one, and in times where wiki watching groups are sprouting up left and right, it might be wise to focus more strongly on those who are too overtly struggling against any edits they make, for this lends a fascist note to this excellent yet seemingly flawed process of creating a new way to share and disseminate information, for free none the less.216.244.0.13 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

216.244.0.13, (and Mary Hope as well), please differentiate between User:Sojombi Pinola (with an "o" as the fourth letter), who is confusing sockpuppet of someone or other, and User:Sojambi Pinola (with an ("a" as the fourth letter), to whom I believe you are actually referring. Thanks.

Unless I am just blind --which is possible-- no variation on the word "alienating" appears in that article. Marcuse, can you point out the paragraph in question?

See User:Derex's earlier comments indicating that Rose himself could edit the article if he so desires. That ain't what is happening here, but if it gets to that point, it's OK by Wikipedia rules.

What constitutes a "self-release"? Didn't we settle that one already, wayyyy back? The article Michelle_Shocked includes several of her self-released, only-sold-at-shows albums. I figure if someone has had nationally-distributed works, readers of their article may be interested in their additional releases. Why limit ourselves? Is it really so hurtful?

Is it really necessary to call my edits "disgusting" and "fascist"? Surely, 216.244.0.13, you can be more civil.

I have given you plenty of opportunity to bring examples of objectionable recorded lyrics to the table. Your refusal to do so disappoints me, though it is your right, of course. Most of my reverts have occured in the absence of substantiation or citation of your claims. Bring your lyrics here, and we can analyze them together.

--Sojambi Pinola 02:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen for the word nigger on his recordings, it's their, you have them, try and explain it away all you want. I'm not the only one, and it's been recoutned by revieweres. Look at his websites, and the wordplay of the title of one of his last recordings which includes racist wordplay. It's apparent that your edits have been "Fascist" of nature because you only let edits survive if they've been written by you. That's very fascistic. You can be as smarmy as you like, but you attempt to author something solely when the nature of wikipedia is to share authorship. not to mention your inability to be honest and deal with your relationship with biff and working as his mouthpiece. I am now going to put the previous message back into record here for rebuttal to your response which skips over the message... I do think the edits are disingenuous, as Sojombi erases anything he did not write, which is extraordinarily calculating... as well as his uninformed view of Rose's usage of racist terminology being hurtful to others- both of those make his work here disingenuous. As far as "culling" the list, the very addition of self released and undocumented recordings is unwarranted. Are all bootlegs included for The Grateful Dead, no, but ones that are mindful of their excellence are. The inclusion of the recording in one take is superfluous, and does not make for a better article. It would be better suited for a mike nesmith piece. What is happening here isn't merely an argument over anti semiticism is that this article has been taken over by Sojombi Pinola who has a direct relation to Rose, and appears to be subverting the wiki rule of self editing by using the rose message board and other means of direct communication to vent rose's ovwn bias on into the article. I find it strange that this isn't addressed and more severely dealt with. Why must we be forced Sojombi's edits? They always negate the one thing that most other editors, including User:Willmcw and yourself, grudgingly agree, that Rose is possesing a background of using lyrics and wording on his websites that is Anti Semitic and Racist. But what's more disgusting is that sojombi is using this rose article to foist his own opinion on all others that read wiki, and passing it off as Neutral Point of View, or NPOV. Frankly I'm tired of all the who struck john and the political back stabbings of the thing. Everything that sojombi Pinola has accused other editors of he has been guilty of himself, from breaking the 3RR to attacking other editors, to masking information about Rose in faovr of a, forgive me for the pun, a rosier read. By including records which weren't released on a national level, if even regional, the implication being, hey if you self release a disc, and get a friend to write about it, you can make an advertisement of it over at wikipedia.org- People are regularly banned for doing just such things. By listing these "self released" editions of rose's "work" a statement is made, to the effect of that, and is blatantly against the rules of wikipedia.. moreover Sojombi Pinola, under his other given name Steve Espinola, writes about Rose, and even undertakes professional tasks for Rose, such as agenting and managing aspects of rose's career, on his own website, Espinola/Sojombi Pinola talks of getting gigs for Rose, and does the same in a conversation that was on Rose's messageboard but may or may not have been taken down. my point, as lumbering and long winded as it is, is this, by allowing User:Sojombi Pinola to continue his onslaught of edit wars here, the message that is being sent is an unvirtuous one, and in times where wiki watching groups are sprouting up left and right, it might be wise to focus more strongly on those who are too overtly struggling against any edits they make, for this lends a fascist note to this excellent yet seemingly flawed process of creating a new way to share and disseminate information, for free none the less.216.244.0.13 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Jonah, Self-released albums are a legit form of body of work. So, yes we must list them. Stop deleting material. Now, Sojambi, as far as the article in the SFBG, you are correct there is no mention of the word alienating. So, fine leave your edit as is. Now, as I asked before, please explain why you think Jewmanity.com is not easily interpreted as antisemitic? I pose this question, would you sit down with your Jewish grandmother and browse Jewmanity.com? Please answer this honestly. Most likely you would say no. Why? Because she might get offended, as would a bunch of other people. So why is it wrong to say his websites are antisemitic? Marcuse 02:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Biff's websites are not anti-Semitic because he is not against Semites. That's the simple version.

I don't know what my Jewish grandmother would have made of Mel Brooks' The Producers, or Hogan's Heroes, let alone Jewmanity.com. Then again, as she co-wrote "Beer and Skittles--A Friendly Modern Guide to Germany" [2] in 1932, she might have had a very interesting take on it, were she alive. (She thought Hitler was a "dangerous fool" in that period, and wrote as much in some letters from the time.) I certainly would have sat down with her to find out. She was smart, a witty, interesting writer, and she didn't take anything at face value.

--Sojambi Pinola 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• To say it is not anti-semitic because he is not against semites is ridiculous. The term "anti-semitism" in its current usage in the US refers to animosity towards Jews. There is nothing in Jewmanity.com that states he is against the state of Israel or Zionism but really is in favor of Jews. What I see in the site is a bunch of pages using Hebrew scripture and fake pictures of Hitler in New Orleans. The subtext reads along very familiar lines of Jews wanting to take over humanity and such. In much of his postings he uses the same subtext. No mater what you say, the subtext is there. In 1964 Supreme Court Justiice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . ". As with antisemitism one does not need to say "I dislike Jews" to make a statement anti-semitic. And to say this is not adding a specific POV. I really want to see the irony in Jewmanity.com, but no matter how I see it I always come to the same conclusion, even when I don't take it at face value. I re-worded the statement to say that some material is potentially anti-semitic, to leave it open. Marcuse 16:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I find Judge Stewart's 41-year old ruling to be problematic, and if I recall, the ACLU does, too. I personally find our currently elected officials' voting records and policies --and the last few State of the Union addresses-- to be far more obscene and pornographic than some movie of a group of consenting adults making the beast with five backs or whatever. Which is to say that what is offensive is highly subjective.

Let's actually look at Jewmanity.com and see if there is any reference to "Jews wanting to take over humanity and such."

Here's the "taking over" that I see:

"Hitler thinks about taking over the jukebox (AC/DC)"

"Hitler decides to take over Lucky's bar."

"Biff explains to Hitler who plays drums that he can't be taking over country after country. Only country band after country band."

"Hitler takes over Romano cheese."

There is no reference to Jews taking over anything. Not even implied. Hitler is portrayed as the personification of evil, yet is shown to be fallible, petty ("Hitler hits on chicks"), perhaps pitiable, and is mocked. The edgiest moment, "Hitler designs the new Reichtag Synagogue", is still no more tasteless than the moment in The Producers when Jews walk out of "Springtime for Hitler" while Zero Mostel cackles. It is NOT straightforward, and it is not obvious NPOV. More later. --Sojambi Pinola 18:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"His controversial use of racial stereotypes on his newer songs has been hailed by his critics as an edgy critique of race relations in the United States." That's also a little imagined, no? :) It's still not in that article. Look, I'm not in favor of positive POV any more than negative POV. They're both inappropriate. The fact is, you don't have much evidence, positive OR negative, of what his fans and critics like or don't like about his work. Keep it real and NPOV. --Sojambi Pinola 19:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I guess you are right on both counts. The whole thing just seems....distasteful. And clearly I'm not the only one that feels this way. I will revert to my original sentence then. Marcuse 19:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Sources of Criticism

We are not here to provide artistic criticism, to decide if a subject's creations are anti-semitic, or to decide anything else. We're here to summarize verifiable information using a neutral point of view. If there are reliable sources which call Rose's songs "anti-semitic" then we should say so. If there aren't, then we shouldn't say so. It's that simple. -Will Beback 20:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this link [3], email forums are not considered wikipedia:reliable sources. However that's the right idea. Thanks for finding it, but we need to do better. Also, if no one has commented on it then it isn't controversial. -Will Beback 22:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally with Will that the use of controversial should be removed. It should read, use of racial stereotypes, or even , critics have noted his negative use of racial steroetypes, which is backed up by the article that Marcuse found.216.244.0.13 23:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Marcuse did not find an article. He found an email and that is not an acceptable source. -Will Beback 23:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That is the opinion of a professional music critic. wherever it ended up being published is secondary to being the honest opinion of a critic. now here's another negative response to Rose, [4]216.244.0.13

Emails and blogs are not reliable sources. -Will Beback 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course the high bias link from abnove is reliable. it is a magazine and will tried to imply that it wasn't so I'm going to repost it here [5] 216.244.0.13 00:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

heres a site that likes him despite calling him a crypto racist. not a blog, a web magazine. different [6]216.244.0.13

That looks to me like a forum, which is not reliable either. -Will Beback 23:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha!! High bias pays their reviewers, and is in fact a magazine. So not a forum, where all posts are open to others. Nope busted will. totally busted. 216.244.0.13 00:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are their reviewers, and who is the editor? What is your source for them being a "magazine"? If they are then they are certainly acceptable. -Will Beback 00:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Reading more closely, it looks like all the reviews are by one person, Michael Toland, who is also the editor. In other words, it's a one-man website. It's not really a very reliable source, but if it is the best we can do, and if other editors aggree it is acceptable, then we might include it. -Will Beback 00:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I like your tactics. but no, dig a little deeper, you'll find the truth buddy. will i'm surprised, usually your thoroughness is somethign to talk about. not this time216.244.0.13

• For once I agree with Jonah. I think my source [7] is as reliable as many as the reviews posted in the links section. It is from a well-regarded online folk music forum by a well regarded music critic who has been writing about music for years. If you want we can email the guy and have him confirm that he is the source of the post. Would that do? As far as the review found by Jonah, I also think it is a valid online magazine. The problem with that is that it says nothing about racism or whatever, just that he doesn't like the music. So it's not relevant here. Marcuse 01:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between what we include as "external links" and what we use as sources for the article. The standard for links is lower than for sources. Please read Wikipedia:reliable sources. That's our guideline. I'm not sure why a contemporary review of Rose's work would be irrelevant. -Will Beback 01:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• OK, here's a quote from Wikipedia:reliable sources:

An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion.

When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence (see Harvard referencing) or using a footnote.

My claim that an established music critic [8] has claimed that Rose's work has racist and antisemitic elements fits both of these criteria. If you want further confirmation that this is indeed his opinion I will go ahead and email him, asking to confirm the quote.

Thus, there is nothing unsourced in the follwoing paragraph:

Rose's later work differs from his early recordings. His controversial use of racial stereotypes on his newer songs, as well as anti-semitic language in his official websites [9], have alienated some of his former fans and music critics [10].

Marcuse 02:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The email doesn't say that the songs are racist and anti-semitic, it says that the rantings on the website are. The CDS are described as "hategul garbage." If we can verify that Mike Regenstreif actually said it, then we should quote him precisely. And recall that a single critic is not plural "critics". The correct version would be

• The "hateful" lyrics of his later songs and his use of racial stereotypes and anti-semitic language in his official website, www.biffrose.net, has been condemned by a music critic, Mike Regenstreif.[11]

If that is what the critic said than that is what we should write. -Will Beback 02:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like a plan, I will go ahead and email Mr. Regenstreif to verify. Marcuse 02:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

more than one critic has lambasted rose, I gave an article that Beback agreed upon, so more than one critics can be sourced. 216.244.0.13 05:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

also of note is the article that is generally postive from San Francisco that states Rose's stuff isn't for all, which alludes to his racist language, when it outlines the title knight wigguh and nippie higger.216.244.0.13 05:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's inaccurate paraphrasing. The article says "politically incorrect," and "racist language" is your take on it, not the article's. --Sojambi Pinola 06:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Toland's review doesn't mention anything about racism, etc. Instead he says that the reviewed album will seem to some like the "height of wit" while it will "irritate the fuck out of others". I'd hardly call that "lambasting". If we agree that it is a usable source we can probably summarize it as an unfavorable review. -Will Beback 07:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jonah and I were editing at the same time just now, but we were both unaware of it. I was aiming at one draft, but it got saved in pieces, stitched with parts of Jonah's version like Frankenstein's Monster, hence it may look like a rapid revert war. On this rare occasion, it was not.

That said, Jonah, can you explain your tendency towards making sure we know which releases are "small"? Water Records has pretty significant distribution, actually. The comp was reviewed in Entertainment Weekly and is being carried in Collector's Choice, a high-profile reissue catalogue. Your organization of the discography seems designed to diminish the artist's work; and that, in turn, makes it appear that you have an axe to grind. Why do you hate Mr. Rose so?

I'm also getting confused about which article we are discussing. Which is Toland's review? Is that also a San Francisco article? --Sojambi Pinola 07:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The "hateful" lyrics of his later songs and his use of racial stereotypes and anti-semitic language in his official website, www.biffrose.net, has been condemned by a music critic, Mike Regenstreif.[11] Dang, Will, that really presents the view of his lyrics as "hateful," and the perception of his language as "anti-semitic," as if they were fact. Isn't there a more balanced way of putting this? What do you make of my version of a few minutes earlier? --Sojambi Pinola 07:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that was sloppy writing. I've edited it to properly reflect the source of the assertions. -Will Beback 07:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to your version, which covers more ground. I don't like "controversial", because it implies there's a controversy. -Will Beback 07:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I tell you what. If you stop breaking the 3RR wiki standard maybe you wouldn't incur such radical edits. As it stands, the view will be a strong opinion of a respected music reviewer. It is difficult to take you seriously when you cna't seem to offer others the same appreciation. If you would simply allow another view in this article, other than your own, there would be none of this problem. I don't hate Biff Rose. on the contrary i enjoy some of his early material, though it is obviously lifted from other styles. What irritates me and offends me so dramtically is your almost fascist- almost Isaid, so don't take it personally as an attack because it isn't one- stance that only your wording of something can be the correct one. I do suggest you grow a pair. that's a joke, not an attack. But really, the dang it will line is a little much for a discussion, it's like your a child who has been slapped on the wrists, or didn't get his way. This is a shared project sojombi, not your own personal playground. i've stopped trying to reword other sentences without a group approval. What you want to change about small is typical, there is no way that water or collector's choice could be called large record labels, or even large indie's especially in today's market where many 'independent' labels ship hundred of thousands of records each month. the labels that biff is associated with, from the beginning to the later era of his career are small indies. That is in no way a slight against the man. many excellent bands have come from small independent labels, one of which, a little band from aberdeen washington called nirvana, changed the course of music forever, and opened the door for larger independent record companies. so, to regroup, grow apair, and laugh a little. biff isn't as wonderful as you might think. but he's certianly not all bad. it's the violence of his anger that is of note, how he changed from hippie oriented singer songwriter, to angry anti semitic and racist lyricist that should be noted in the article. It's of note. Please try and refrain from abusing the 3RR rule as well.Jonah Ayers 07:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a violation of the 3RR by Pinola. Please list the four diffs which constitute the violation. -Will Beback 07:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

will we're wathc ing youJonah Ayers 22:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Grow a pair"....of what, Jonah? Ankles? Breasts? I like my breasts as they are, thank you very much. I feel my psychic breasts are rather large, as I am a rather caring nurturer. Much like you, you know? Thank you for the --as you say-- "joke".

Hmmm....an anonymous editor of this article used that unusual phrase of "grow a pair"....but it wasn't...you.....? [12]--Sojambi Pinola 07:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

pair

one more thing. I haven't got an axe to grind, as you say, with rose. nor have I implied anything by correctly categorizing his releases. many of his works are out of print, and many of them are self released, and therefore hard to get. it is important to note that, as fans and intereste dpeople alike should know about what is easiest to attain. You can't punch in the urban folk record on amazon. but you can get the water reissues. as for being a high profile label, Colelctors choice is hardly high profile. A high profile label today, sad to say, is one of the majors. not even hep indies like matador and merge and alternative tentacles can claim high profile. not when the majors, and the large independents are dealing with millions of records a year. millions, my friend, millions. By trying to call me an enemy of rose you to oare attempting to influence the opinoon of others. But i must say this I do not hate Rose's work. I hate the incessant attempts at trying to gloss over a very real part of his recorded work, his hatred of jews and blacks, and other minority groups, including women and hispanics. if you would like the article to include only his earlier work, where these themes did not pop up, I would be willing to only allude to his websites, which should be noted because fans might be shocked when they enter into these realms. look around the world wide web, there are hundred of reviews about rose's later works, in blogs, which shouldn't be used as source for the article, but still adrotily and matter of factly call rose out on his hunristic racism and genreally angry sense in his later works. This is not merely my opinon, but that of many others, on line, which tends to lead most people to believe that it is then fact. look past your own worship of rose, oyu'll actually be able to tell that while he may have once been technically proficient at the piano, his style was a mishmash of others who were not only technically proficient but also creatively inspired. that said, his ditties, because that is what they are, have been interesting at points, and even fun. He owes very much to those who came before him, more so than the likes of say, albert ayler, or hendrix ,both artists who acknowledged an allegiance to those who came before them, but who were also able to blwo the roof of those works, and stamp their own creative visions with a fierce individuality that to this day makes their music vibrant and original. Rose's work tends to allude to those who lent their influience to him, rather than extend beyond that influence, which creates a sort of creative vacuum. Yo ucan grab from many different places, and stitch together those ideas in order to make something new, but where others may take that to the next level, such as in the case of miles Davis whose originality was imbued bythe influence of previous players such as Dizzy Gillespie and Fats navarro as well as the great clifford brown, and who then ascended those influencesz, and Rose who uses the style of barrelhouse and cole porter and joseph newman, and simply creates a pastiche, rather than a style based upon. Take Professor longhair, certainly derivative of other new orleanian musicinas, Jelly roll and even king oliver's band, and probably some of that great early louis armstrong after his stint with oliver, not to mention the brass band marching clubs. but what he did with those influences was wholly different, establishing much of the foundation for rhythm and blues in his dandy piano stylings. rose on the other hand simply exists as a fringe artist, who though interesting to a degree, has never really made something as transcendent as the aforementioned artists. So there you go. It's not that Rose is untalented in my eyes, it's that his clearly angry and in some sourced cases hateful lyrics, and anti semitic/racist websites are an afront. By denying the existence of these issues is abominable and incredibly one sided. You are not the only judge of biff rose's music. other's have written concise opinions on the matter, but where opinion is the heart and soul of creative output, it isn't in the case of racism and anti-semiticism. ignoring that aspect of Rose's career is very dangerous. That is why the word fascist gets thrown aorund on here, because each time you remove other people's viewpoints on the matter you begin to construct a very narrow minded entry on your friend Biff. It seems that your close relation to the man has marked your ability to be open minded in regards to the article about him.Jonah Ayers

I now suddenly see that this is very important work that you are doing, Jonah. Thank you for explaining it to us and saving us from this affront of a grave angry hunristic dangerous pastiche. Also, I almost bought something that was out of print, and self-released, and --while interesting-- non-transcendent in the objective realm in which art exists; you saved me from this wasteful error. I shall buy a brass band marching club CD instead. Catch you on the flipside. --Sojambi Pinola 08:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh you're so cute. i'm glad you like to denigrate other music forms with insipid and droll comments like "saving us form this affront.." and "you saved me from this wasteful error, I shall buy a brass band marching club cd instead." oh very cute. and good luck. maybe your musical taste will be better for that purchase. may i recommend the hot 8? they are surprisingly interesting and devoid of angry hate fueled screechings. also, the phrase "grow a pair" has been featured in numerous sketches on the recent episodes of a show called Saturday Night Live of which you might have heard. it has also appeared in an episode of Larry David's show, Curb Your Enthusiasm, which you may or may not have heard. Regardless, it is apparent that many millions of people have heard, and then used the phrase grow a pair. I'm sure it has even been used in talk pages and discussion forums throughout this fine site, referring to people, much like you, who are unable to get past their own emotional baggage and get a tad bit cranky and down right wonky at times. fear not, I might mine as merely a joke, as in Damnit Sojombi, why don't you grow a pairJonah Ayers 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am enjoying the brass band marching club CD you encouraged me to explore. Thank you. Back to the subject at hand. "Though lauded by pundits, Rose's negative reviews go back as far as 1972..." etc etc. You could probably say that about any artist. They will have positive and negative reviews. That strikes me as a rather skewed way of framing things, though. You are defining him primarily by his negative reviews. Do you really think that's an accurate, balanced evaluation? Who are these "pundits"? You will notice that in my last version, which Marcuse reverted to, I did my best to include both the negative and the positive. I don't think it was one-sided at all.

I will remind you that I have made an invitation for you to bring in some of these "negative" racial lyrics you have complained about in the past. Perhaps they actually exist. Or perhaps we are each interpreting things a certain way? --Sojambi Pinola 20:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"unable to get past their own emotional baggage"....hmmm....food for thought, for sure....

I think, for now, I will leave the current version up as a portrait of you. There's so much blessed..."you-ness" in it. :) You have earned it, and I am getting enjoyment out of it. --Sojambi Pinola 21:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could leave it up as the accurate portrayal of Biff Rose that it is. Sources cited where your own versions contained som much pure conjecture it seems oyu actually for a moment alienated each and every editor oyu had counted as an ally in this shared authroship debacle. You truly are narrowminded, the lyrics have not been in question in the most recent edit, it is the language that he uses on his websites. tsk tsk sojombi, you really are flailing wildly.216.175.114.62 22:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Many of the singles are unsubstantiated as released. they will have to be removed.Jonah Ayers 22:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Incomprehensible Mess

It is sad, Jonah, that your uncooperative attitude has resulted in the article being butchered beyond comprehension. It is full of catty little remarks, reads terribly and really reflects nothing about the artist except your own petty little perception. Great job! See how far cooperation can get us? Marcuse 22:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, and make sure you add the proper license to the photo, otherwise it will be deleted. Marcuse 22:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

oh baby you make mess i have to clean it up. photo wiht lady is uncopyrighted. also, the photo of album cover has not been released, so we will have to erase that photo. i will do so now, to keep article out of illegal space.Jonah Ayers

• Whatever dude. You must be so excited to be starting the third grade! Marcuse 01:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Be Civil is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the additions of the pics, and the discog as it stands it is very clear, and offers all singles, I don't believe a new heading revert will be in order, though Sojombi seems to think it nice. I would also suggest that marcuse try and follow Robert McClenon's advice. Jonah Ayers 00:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• You are right Jonah, it must be rough being such a victim of such aggressive editors. If I could only understand your pain... I'm so sorry I was un-civil. Marcuse 01:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• do you ever get tired of trying to run things around here? you've come out against every single person who edits here, those who agree with you, those who write the article, those that don't agree with everything said. You say nasty things about them, and then try to bully them through reverts. i once thought that you were the best editor on the article, regardless of our differences. no I never wrote anything about Rose and children, I joined the board after that. No i didn't say nasty things until they were said about me, and i regret having done so. I'v e done wrong things and have admitted them, but I do not pick fights with my allies, my enemies and my fellow editors, as well as admins, in one single week. That's what you do. there's something very very wrong with that. I didn't even call the admin over to address your statement, he found it all on his own, as i suspect this is behavior you exhibit all over wikipedia. Good luck with that attitude. At least sojombi tries to sass. You need to relax. you even argued with sojombi over noodles houses in a city he lives in that you do not. that's just weird.Jonah Ayers 03:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I guess it is just weird. You are correct once again. How could I ever have doubted you? How? I now realize that it is YOU, you Jonah who are the victim in all of this. How could I have been so blind? How could I? Now I see the error in my ways. Thanks Jonah, for the eye opener. Marcuse 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced quote

I removed the quote by critic Mike Regenstreif. I emailed him a couple of days to verify that the quote was his and he has not responded. Until this quote can be verified I am removing it from the article. Marcuse 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Not unsourced anytmore- I also emailed Regenstrief. I'll put it back in soon.216.244.7.12 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Jonah, Please post the email in question. Otherwise we can't confirm it. Remember that falsely attributing something to somebody can be construed as libel. Marcuse 12:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't posted it, so quit throwing libel around, you big nosepicker you!!! not an insult, you post your love of nosepicking on your user page. NOSEPICKER!!!!!! and don't think you caught me in a trap, that was user:216.244.7.12 who posted that about the article. you're tricky, but not that trickyJonah Ayers 22:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing in bad faith

While most of us editors have been working towards a consensus on the article, editor user:Jonah Ayers has been sabotaging this process at every step, editing in bad faith and misrepresenting his edits in the edit summary. For example, in edit he claims to be rearranging the discography, but the actual edit basically substitutes most of the text for his prefered version. In this other innstance [13] he accuses an editor of vandalizing the article by deleting a picture (which he did not) and then claims to re-add the allegedly deleted picture in the edit summary while replacing the entire text of the article. Combined with his malicious, mean-spirited attacks on other editors, his aggressive use of sockpuppets and anonymous IPs, I suggest he recuse himself from this article. I will be happy to recuse myself as well if he agrees to do the same. Marcuse 01:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

ok, I agree to recuse myself from this article. I will pass the torch to someone else.Jonah Ayers 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Jonah, this also goes for your sockpuppets, including user:Mary Hope, who we all know is you. This has been confirmed. Marcuse 20:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well i guess if you refuse to believe in Mary Hope, then i choose not recuse. It's that simple. Someone who hasn't edited versus someone who has. your loss!! i'm backJonah Ayers

• It's not a loss when nothing was gained to begin with. It's that simple. Marcuse 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• speaking of bad faith it is now illegal to flame people as unidentified people on line [14] luckily my driver's license actually says Jonah Ayers. I think sojambi and marcuse and will beback will all need to adopt their real names here. otherwise these antagonistic postings under nom de plumes can prosecuted in court.Jonah Ayers 00:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Didn't you previously claim that your real name is Steven Espinola? -Will Beback 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • you know Will that could be construed by jonah ayers as flaming, and you could be taken to court. 216.244.7.12 04:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That could be construed as a legal threat, and anyone making one could be blocked from editing. -Will Beback 04:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Now let's please drop all this and get back to discussing the article. -Will Beback 05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That could be construed as a threat will, which in wiki land can also be determined as un wiki like and you could be brought up to the admins much like you were before you surreptitiously changed your name. AS for legal threats, I don't believe any were made, i merely pointed out that with the new law, Jonah Ayers could theoretically bring you into a court on charges of that most ludircous law, which states that anyone found to be annoying can be sued. That's that, you can try and manipulate the situation in any fahsion, and true to your nature, you have used your opportunity to be almost agonizingly patronizing, irritatingly smug, and mindbogglingly suspect in your biased approach at using wikipedia. I applaud you for your complete lack of self control and inability to be anything more than annoying- uh oh, I'm going to be taken to court for annoyingly calling someone else annoying. ouch. Now, let's talk about the sierra club, what exactly is your relation to them?216.244.7.12 05:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)