Talk:Dead Kennedys

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

message: I have given it a bit more info, as it's just as relevant here as in the Biafra article, and tried to avoid partisan language. I also bunged in a bit more info on the reformed group.  Hope that's OK :) SRCK
Suggestion: Someone could post a more in-depth description of the trial which is pretty infamous among punk circles and first-amendment freaks... Any takers? I'll do it if nobody else does... -Anonymous coward
He was found guilty?  It wasn't a criminal case -- it was a civil case.  He was found liable, not guilty.
:There were at least two court cases. There was a criminal case (the FrankenChrist obscenity trial) that commenced in 1986.  The civil case came later, and involved disputes about royalies, songwriting credits, and corporate sponsorship. The criminal case is of great general historical importance as a first amendment (freedom of speech/expression) case. Many articles incorrectly state that 2 Live Crew were the first U.S. musicians to be criminally prosecuted for album (recorded media) content, but the Frankenchrist trial came first.  The importance of the civil trial is much more limited. (oopsI forgot to sign this) Vampyrecat 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor re-edit of "court case" bit

message: I like DK a lot, but this article is admittedly slanted.  Is there interest in writing a, perhaps, less passionate article?
*I would tend to agree. The WikiPedia is not, after all, a FanZine. There are other fora for that particular hobby. --Tirolion 14:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I removed this: ", and due to personal circumstances Peligro has been replaced by Steve Wilson in summer 2005 appearances (but the band hopes to have Peligro back soon)." from the article.
It is false; I just saw the Dead Kennedys at a local bar and D.H. Peligro was definetly there. It being August 11, 2005, he is obviously playing with the band during the summer 2005.
D.H. had briefly left the band in order to enter into rehab. This is both on the band web site, and various other official web sites. He was briefly replaced.- James
== The band's name... ==
...is "Dead Kennedys", not "The Dead Kennedys".  I'm updating the article accordingly. Darryl Thomas 12:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Peligro? 

message: A few weeks ago, I moved a lot of the resentment that has come from Jello concerning the reformed band into its own paragraph rather than everywhere he had an issue with something.  It's too bad that Jello can't be a part of the band, but it seems like they have moved on without him.  I find this reformation to be a new direction for these musicians; there have been plenty of bands that have switched lead singers before these guys (see Black Sabbath and The Doors for starters).  --Psycho78m 23:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Jello is being as cheap and petty as anyone... but I don't believe that the band has moved on in any real way.  They really do appear to be a tribute band at this point... I'm waiting for some new material to prove that feeling wrong... Xinit 19:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Jello is being cheap or petty. He's trying make a fair living by running a meaningful business, while the rest of the group live off royalties and milk as much as they can out of what they used to be, rather than continuing to develop themselves as musicians, or people. I also don't consider Dead Kennedys to be a group without Jello. He was the most influential member of the group, and to me, the most important part of the music. Of course, I'm obviously biased, but isn't everyone? — Soupisgoodfood 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh well.  I wish the band did make new material, though.  I would be interested to hear what they could do now.  Have they progressed over the 19 years they stopped playing with Jello? Could they rock as hard as they did with him playing new material? I wouldn't even mind one new song, even if it was a cover, and live at that.  But I guess that is up to them. --Psycho78m 06:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't really noticed much from the rest of the band. Some of them have done things here and there, and have even made a few albums, but I don't think there is anything noteworthy (from a music fan's perspective, not wikipedia). You could tell that they were wanting to move on to other things from their last albums (including Jello). Put it this way: how many times have you seen a re-united band go back into the studio and produce something that was anywhere near as good as when they were at their peak? — Soupisgoodfood 03:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, of course, was unable to have ever seen DK live.  I have been able to see a few concerts from 80-84 and in every one Biafra was the lifeblood of the show.  This is similiar to what happened with RATM.  Zach left and, while Tom Morello is very heavy into politics, they turned into a post-grunge pile of crap.  Now if only EBR and the gang would turn into a weird version of PiL, then I'd give them some credit.  Right now, they're just playing into Biafra's description of them by keeping the DK name and doing nothing but play old songs from over two decades past.  Hell, I can play DK songs.  The rest of the group will never recreate Biafra's presence, and without him the DK will never exist again.  Maybe EBR should've gotten Johnny Rotten to sing for them, he's nutty enough. -Sir Tonk 21:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: They are still a band

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

message: LGagnon is an admitted advocate for one side and appears not to know all the facts, please bear that in mind. For example, he doesn't appear to know that Biafra also approved, via a fax, the use in the Tony Hawk video, it is in the court documents. The following was posted to LGagnon's Talk page:
Dear LGagnon,
We noticed that you totally reverted the recent editing done to the following articles: Dead Kennedys, California Uber Alles, Holiday In Cambodia, Mutiny On the Bay, Alternative Tentacles, East Bay Ray, Jello Biafra.
As the original entries contained obvious bias and misstated facts, we believe that a total reversion does not conform to the ‘neutral point of view’ policy of Wikipedia. On your User page we notice that you list Jello Biafra as a hero, and perhaps you have reverted the articles with that in mind. 
However, Wikipedia is more than about advocacy. There were things in the above original entries that are factually incorrect, based on unreliable sources or are simply biased opinion. Please leave the recent edits alone until you know all the facts. And please feel free to contact us by email on any fact that you might question and we can work to resolve the issue.
Some of the original information looks like it simply came straight from Biafra’s press releases, but he was found to “lack credibility” by all the courts involved. Copies of the Court Judgment against Biafra are on public file in San Francisco, CA. You may not like some of the information in the corrected articles, but it has been found to be true by a neutral court of law and it is the public record. 
Thank you,
Bob
:You cited no sources whatsoever in your edits, Ray. Likewise, you can not judge for Wikipedia what is and is not a reliable source; Wikipedia is supposed to represent all viewpoints, not just the one that you and your fellow bandmates approve of. I may be a Biafra fan, and I may think you are a sellout, but that does not make me unreliable. In fact, I'm much more reliable than you, as you don't cite sources and delete info you don't agree with (including cited info). -- LGagnon 12:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Ray, please don't talk like you represent Wikipedia; you've only been here for a few days, and you are definitely not "We". I have held the Jello Biafra article up to scrutiny by other editors and administrators several times, and several have stated that it is near featured article quality. Additionally, claiming that I reverted the articles out of suspected bias is something an admin (or at least a reputable admin) would never do. Nor would they push the idea that certain sources are biased without providing their own sources to prove it (and no, I won't be get my sources from someone with an @deadkennedys.com e-mail address; that's not even allowed by Wikipedia's No Original Research policy). It's bad enough that you pose as an unbiased writer; it's even worse when you impersonate a Wikipedia authority. -- LGagnon 18:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You may be entirely right in your arguement, Bob, however as LGagnon said, I think we need sources.  I mean, I tend to lean towards your argument, but sources are just something that seems to be desperately needed for this and other articles relating to the band.  I know you're frustrated about this thing, but we should keep it civil.  --Psycho78m 19:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jello Biafra turfer 

message: Are we seriously going to keep the POV template in the article until someone changes it to fit Ray's biased views? The guy is just trying to get anything that suggests the possibility that he may have done something wrong removed. He's trying to make the article POV, not make it more NPOV. As far as Wikipedia's rules of verifiability are concerned, we can not reject sources just because we do not agree with the opinion expressed in it; that is exactly what POV editing is! I'm removing the POV template from the article until someone can prove that there is a legit argument for POV being in the article. -- LGagnon 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply added the template due to it's current Cabal mediation. Please contribute to the discussion. Either way, it would have been better to remove the template, and not do a revert due to the minor wiki reformatting I did. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What sources were used for the court case? Were they legit? I think that's the main cause of concern, since I remember a lot of the details were sort of kept out of the public's interest, and that on several interviews they have declined to discuss details.  I don't think that the little geocities-like page that talks about the case is a credible souce, and that's what was used for most of that part of the article.  Maybe they will post a list of concerns themselves instead of editing the whole thing?  We shall see. --66.106.60.11 03:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV problem?

message: There is a dispute that this article may not be fair and balanced, that it seems to be biased against East Bay Ray, Klaus Flouride and D.H. Peligro by ignoring their position and only reporting Jello Biafra’s. The article also contain factual inaccuracies. There is an informal mediation at this time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-27_Dead_Kennedys -- 70.132.52.197
:Whether it contains inaccuracies or not is disputed. Might I add, Ray, you shouldn't edit anonymously to make yourself look like you have support. -- LGagnon 20:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the factual inaccuracies that are rampaging in the article?  I've read it again, and the only inaccuracy that I can see is that it's flagged 'POV' yet again by User:Dead-kennedys.  If it's POV, please provide details here on the Talk page and we can hash out what the problems are here, and then we can edit the article like adults.... Xinit 01:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: My verdict is that a ongoing compromise needs to be sustained between both parties. If this cannot be realized, then the article will be reverted to a primitive state, and a NPOV rewrite will take place. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 16:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was already POV before "Bob" (East Bay Ray) astroturfed DK-related articles to make himself and the other members of the band look good and Jello Biafra look bad. Reverting the article to a primitve state would do just as much damage as allowing "Bob" to continue his non-POV edits. -- Cjmarsicano 21:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation case closed 

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

message: Please cite what bands EBR is responsible for having released on A.T. Thanks Rsm99833 20:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well he sort of helped start the label.  Also, welcome to Wikipedia.  --Psycho78m 06:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: East Bay Ray being responsible for releasing many other punk and alternative bands

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

message: I own a copy of a Dead Kennedys album not on the list.  "Nazi Pigs F**k Off" (the word is NOT bleeped in the title, just didn't know if it was appropriate to type here) is a live album recorded in Germany.  The sound quality in the 1st 3rd is *really* bad.  If there is interest in adding it, I can add it tomorrow....
:If it's the one I think it is, it's a bootleg of the "authorized" bootleg: A Skateboard Party, which is allread included in the discography (and is very available). So I don't see a reason to include it. Rsm99833 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing album in album list 

message: There is not, and never has been, an obligation on the BBC to allow an act who have a Top 30 hit onto Top Of The Pops. The Sex Pistols never appeared on TOTP for God Save the Queen and that got to number, ahem, two....Martyn Smith 18:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet this can be verified. Jello's biography on his official website gives the same info that was in this article. -- LGagnon 18:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It would help if you showed your sources for this. -- LGagnon 19:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted nonsense about Top 30 obligation on BBC

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

message: I agree that this article is definitely not NPOV. Several contributors like to suppress information about Biafra’s fraud verdict and his actions toward the other band members to create a pro-Biafra POV. Its ironic that they are protecting Biafra in the same way the right wing overlooks Rush Limbaugh’s drug abuse. These editors are not allowing opposing points of view. They do not protect any of the other band members with the same standard, they are happy to leave on any negative and bitter comment that Biafra may make about the other members. What’s up, are they in love with Biafra and jealous of the others?
:The Rush Limbaugh analogy is a preposterous non sequitur. No one is going take seriously this "in love with Biafra" nonsense. This site was originally intended to be informational, not a playground for aging studio musicians to further disputes with the only member of their now-defunct band who has managed to remain relevant. -- Caped Crusader 17:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: He is listed under "former members"
Former members: Ted | 6025 | Brandon Cruz | Jeff Penalty
Is there something I'm missing? --66.106.60.11 13:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeff Penalty on the infobox

message: Two consecutive paragraphs:
"Matters were stirred up even further when the three bandmates invited Jello Biafra to "bury the hatchet" in the form of a band reunion. Jello Biafra felt it was unprofessional because no one contacted him directly. In addition, Biafra was disdainful of the reunion, having long expressed his disdain for nostalgia and rock reunion/oldies tours in particular (with the 1996, corporate-sponsored Sex Pistols reunion perhaps fresh in his mind), flatly stating that the whole affair was an exercise in greed.
Several DVD's, re-issues, and live albums have been released since the departure of Jello. According to Jello, the live albums are cash-ins on the Dead Kennedys' name and Jello's music. Jello also accused the releases of the new live material being of poor sound quality and claims to not be receiving royalties from their sale or the sale of any Manifesto Records releases. The other band members deny Biafra's accusations, and have defended the mixes of the material as an effort of hard work."
"Biafra was disdainful of the reunion, having long expressed his disdain"? Could this be any more redundant?
An apostrophe is not used to create a plural noun. It is DVDs, not DVD's. There is no hyphen in reissue. "Jello also accused the releases of the new live material being of poor sound quality," is an example of egregiously poor syntax. Would someone like to proofread the article and clean it up, so that it might read as if it had been written by an adult? -- Caped Crusader 17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloppy content 

message: "The Manchurian Candidate, which used "Kinky Sex (Makes the World Go 'Round)", was a movie about an evil corporation, while "Police Truck" was used in Tony Hawk's Pro Skater because of punk music's close bond with skateboarding. The band says on their website that they still pay close attention to an anti-corporation ideology, noting that they have since pulled out of a show in Los Angeles when they found that it was being sponsored by Coors.[4] However, many fans, as well as Biafra, seem to deliberately overlook the band’s history to disingenously claim the above mentioned licensing deals prove otherwise."
Something that is never mentioned on the article page is the use of "Too Drunk To Fuck" (the remastered version) in The WB's Angel series. The episode aired on November 19, 2003. According to IMDB, that makes it season five, episode 8: "Destiny".
Would anyone who feels the band has been unfairly represented care to respond with documentation that proves Jello Biafra approved the licensing of "Too Drunk To Fuck" for this series, which was produced by 20th Century Fox TV and broadcast by Warner Bros.? I'll wait one week before editing the article for accuracy. -- Caped Crusader 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biafra has stated in the past that he doesn't approve of any of his songs being played in corporate media. All songs that have been played in it were approved by the other band members against Biafra's wishes. -- LGagnon 19:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm well aware of Biafra's statements. In an effort to maintain objectivity, I am asking for anything that might counter them. -- Caped Crusader 19:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate Licensing 

message: I've augmented the paragraph about the Frankenchrist criminal case and corrected some inaccurate information I found there. I have cited references. I would like to add a separate header for the Frankenchrist obscenity/First Amendment case because it is of great legal and historical significance. Also, it really has nothing to do with the civil case that gives rise to all the NPOV problems. I'm going to do it (make a new header) in a day or so unless someone tells me not to. Also, I am concerned about the lack of source citation for the statement that Jello Biafra says his house was raided. I don't doubt that it happened and I don't doubt that he said it, I'd just like to see a verifyable source for the statement. Vampyrecat 05:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ira Riener was the District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles during the time that the Frankenchrist trial was being prosecuted, but he was not the only lawyer who actually prosecuted the case. Ira Riener's name may appear on legal documents associated with the case but the motion for a retrial would have been filed by Michael Guarino. Oops, I forgot to sign this Vampyrecat 01:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Frankenchrist Criminal Obscenity / First Amendment Case

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

message: Again, Ray makes no attempt whatsoever to do any real editing and instead deletes information without doing any research. For the California Über Alles article, it took me 2 seconds on Google to find a legit source for the info he tried to delete. Could you please stop the biased edits, Ray, and keep in mind that we are supposed to do research on the topic to improve the articles, not delete whatever doesn't have a source at the moment and angers one person? -- LGagnon 05:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's evidence that you're Ray; you haven't proven otherwise. And no, your website does not count as a reliable source; it's a very biased one that does not cite its own sources for everything it claims. -- LGagnon 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ray's deletions

message: in the article there is a citation call for the entry "Many fans felt the three's lawsuit against Jello was motivated by greed" Here's one reputable source, though it may be considered POV. . There is also this , but I cannot find the original source.
:it is POV, Vale is a personal friend of Biafra's and they work together
::I don't know that those references are POV just because the journalist knows Biafra, because the issue, as I see it, is the claim that FANS perceived the lawsuit as motivated by greed. On the other hand, I don't know that the perception of fans is something that ought to be in a wikipedia entry. Vampyrecat 07:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for citations 

message: Will someone please clean that up. I'm at my three-edit limit. Thanks Rsm99833 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference #8 

message: Rsm99833, as you and others include Biafra’s claim he is anti-corporate, and one-sidedly imply the others aren’t, his choice of a large law firm that defend polluting corporations is relevant, you can’t delete it just because you don’t like it. My compromise offer is still good – these articles would be much more fit for an encyclopedia if the negative material on both sides was taken down; and the silly back and forth were left to the blogs and chat rooms, where they belong. - Bob 01:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time I checked, he used his friend, who defended him in the same trial as the 'FrankenChrist' trial. Aside from that, I don't see Biafra's name mentioned on their web-site, nore in any legal documents. It does not belong in there, other than to demonstrate extreme POV.  Rsm99833 02:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's talk about some REAL involvement here, "Bob".  Since you openly claim on your profile that you were Dead Kennedys' webmaster, then if you really want this article to have a neutral point of view. then given your past, you should openly recuse yourself from further editing/commentary on this and all other articles related to Jello Biafra and Dead Kennedys. Sorry for stating the obvious. -- CJ Marsicano 01:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: This article seems to be being used mostly to post self-serving press release comments or interviews from Biafra contrary to Wikipedia's neutrality policy and anything to balance them, or the editor, is attacked.
70.231.228.200 18:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Contrary to your self-centered beliefs, "Bob", neutrality was already in the article long before you came around. The only purveyor of POV is you, and no amount of sock-puppetry on your part is going to convince anyone otherwise. --CJ Marsicano 18:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and "bob", don't think that you're fooling anyone. Your I.P. number matches your email address, as well as the I.P. of your other accounts. And unless you can quite clearly demonstrate that these are press releases from Biafra, I suggest you drop it. Rsm99833 22:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I never said I would take it out. I said to stop making claims that press releases were being placed here, or drop it. And may I remind you that when you first swooped in here, "bob", that it was you who was putting up content- word-for-word off of the web site, then throwing a fit when others neutralized your handiwork. 
Now, let's talk about the current bit of editing you are doing. First, the statement is true, of historical value, and is something that he has said outside of the press release (one sentence does not back up your claim BTW)A simple google search of the phrase will demonstrate it. So like it or not, he stated it, he did object, and nothing is going to change that. You can place a sentence in to the likes of "which the band dismissed, stating...." or something to the likes of that. Rsm99833 01:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biafra Press Releases Being Pushed

message: I have no idea why an RFC was filed for this article on Oct. 5th. It seems to me that the vandalism is being reverted accordingly. Just don't give up Wikipedians. Remember the NPOV and the reliable sources and the article will be fine.--Connor K. 19:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bob", stop it with the anonymous sock puppetry and leave this article alone. No one here is buying your bullshit anymore. --CJ Marsicano 19:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: The graph that is currently in this article makes it look like DKs have been together continuously, but elsewhere the article says they disbanded in 1986 and reformed years later. Which is correct? --Design 03:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not actually sure what the timeline was put there for. Not only is it incorrect, but it mentions the years the Dead Kennedys were around in numerous other places in the article. Someone could probably take it down since it really has no purpose. Maximum 101 01:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: band membership timeline

message: Tomorrow, at 12:00 PST, I am going to remove the POV tag. Enough time has passed, and it's become quite clear that "bob" is the only one with any objections. Last time I checked, and I could be wrong here, one person yelling POV out of hundreds of editors isn't exactly a good reason to put up a POV tag, or keep one on for months. Rsm99833 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're at it, you should remove "Bob"'s lastest round of POV 'edits' as well. --CJ Marsicano 02:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of the pov tag 

message: "Biafra told an audience at a speaking gig in Trenton, NJ that the remaining Dead Kennedys have licensed their single "Too Drunk to Fuck" to be used in a rape scene in a Quentin Tarantino movie."
First of all, the song in question was licensed for Planet Terror, the segment of Grindhouse which was directed by Robert Rodriguez. Secondly, it was not the Dead Kennedys' recording which was used; it was a cover of the song performed by Nouvelle Vague, from their self-titled debut album. The soundtrack listing is located here: http://www.amazon.com/Grindhouse-Planet-Terror-Robert-Rodriguez/dp/B000NJL07K/ --Caped Crusader 14:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more licensing of material for films 

message: :Image:Californiauberalles single.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Californiauberalles single.jpg

message: :Image:Dk halloween.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Dk halloween.jpg

message: :Image:Ingodwetrustinc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done Xinit 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ingodwetrustinc.jpg

message: :Image:Live at deaf club.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Live at deaf club.jpg

message: Does anyone know why the performance of this song is cut up and edited so poorly on the album?Hoponpop69 05:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pull My Strings

message: Why are you calling this shit punk? Dead Kennedys are not punk. They are fucking racist. Their lead singer moron Jello Biafra used the N word in Holiday in Cambodia and now these clowns are all of a sudden punk? Dead Kennedys are nothing but a bunch of common criminals along with The Sex Pistols that should be jailed for life.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.223.120 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Kennedys are not punk...  

message: :Image:Dk halloween.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Dk halloween.jpg

message: :Image:Dkbleedforme.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Dkbleedforme.gif

message: :Image:DKNaziPunksAltCover.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DKNaziPunksAltCover.gif

message: Do we really need the Frankenchrist poster here?  I realize that Wikipedia Is Not Censored, but given that "Penis Landscape depicts nine copulating penises," am I the only one who thinks that's pushing it? Caswin 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album picture 

message: :Image:Live at deaf club.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Live at deaf club.jpg

message: I think the dead kennedys are art punk because they're more expermental and thier lyrics tell more of a story  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.124.132 (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  art punk 

message: The article references the hardcore scene as something along the lines of "a haven for free-thinking intellectuals". Don't mean to piss anyone off, but that seems like a bit of a stretch, particularly considering we're talking about a genre which was founded partly by bands like Fear and Black Flag. Apologies if this has already been brought up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkyKingston (talk • contribs) 01:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1986 Section Question 

message: As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this feature story about James Greene Jr.'s efforts to research and write a Dead Kennedys biography. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the article and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the external links section. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! Mike harkin (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article and I will think about how it might be used as a reference. I do think it is appropriate for the external links, but I won't be offended if someone else deletes it because it might be considered non-neutral.--Vampyrecat (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link suggestion

message: Hello Dead Kennedys Wiki editors. Sorry about my "vandalism" last week, but after reading the paragraph about the obscenity trial, I couldn't resist adding "well" before "jury," making it a "well-hung jury." I think Biafra et. al. would have gotten a laugh from it. But I know you it was your duty to remove it, so no worries. Happy holidays!  
(P.S. My dad is a retired S.F. attorney. One of his partners was Jello Biafra's lawyer. Because of this, the Kennedys and their friends used to attend the law firm's office parties at St. Patrick's Day and Christmas during the mid-late 1970s. Office parties used to be boring and stuffy, but when those guys and their girlfriends started coming, they became awesome! All the old stuffed suits were totally appalled and would gather on one side of the office, and all the fun-loving people clustered on the other end with Biafra and friends. I was in my teens at the time).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.196.237 (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankenchrist obscenity trial 

message: "You're Such A Fake" is not a Dead Kennedys song, this is a song by East Bay Ray and The Killer Smiles. Removing this from article.
86.40.236.182 (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New Material

message: Not sure what spaghetti western is in a musical context, but surely the link should not be to the Spaghetti Western article, which is about films? --81.23.54.142 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Spaghetti Western

message: For the section about the early years, specifically about 6025, we should put a picture up like this:https://californiasons.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/0403_eastbayray2.jpg
To show all five band members. 
There is another pic on google of the five members playing with 6025 wearing glasses, as well in the movie fresh fruits for rotting eyeballs, At the beginning there a better quality image of the picture I linked as well as another I haven't seen anywhere else.
Tell me what you think.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICommandeth (talk • contribs) 20:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  An idea for the early years section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dead Kennedys. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141225193550/http://eclypsoprints.blogspot.com/2011/11/dead-kennedys_25.html to http://eclypsoprints.blogspot.com/2011/11/dead-kennedys_25.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: They will be touring the U.S. again in the summer of 2016. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Touring again in 2016

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dead Kennedys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160311042325/http://www.alternativetentacles.com/bandinfo.php?band=deadkennedys&sd=kkxjjpq55vuxbeda@fa to http://www.alternativetentacles.com/bandinfo.php?band=deadkennedys&sd=KKxJJPQ55VUXbEdA@FA
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Dead Kennedys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714132609/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227000532/http://www.phillaw.com/casepdfs/Dead%20Kennedys%20Superior%20Court.pdf to http://www.phillaw.com/casepdfs/Dead%20Kennedys%20Superior%20Court.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227000532/http://www.phillaw.com/casepdfs/Dead%20Kennedys%20Superior%20Court.pdf to http://www.phillaw.com/casepdfs/Dead%20Kennedys%20Superior%20Court.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alternativetentacles.com/bandinfo.php?band=deadkennedys&sd=kkxjjpq55vuxbeda%40fa
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion