Talk:Brian Jones Presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka/Archive 1

Archive 1

references

I finally got some references up; will later try to add more meaningful info about the music since the album covers are not usually the main part of these articles.

I'm wondering if this article should have followed the normal capitalization style of lowercase letters for words less than four letters long? If so, maybe I should redirect it. I was following the capitalization a previous version of the article had used without thinking. Send me a note any time with suggestions. Emerman 15:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the "Jajouka Rolling Stone" book by Stephen Davis should be included as a reference. Although it contains recognisable people and events, it is quite clearly a novel: it is subtitled "A fable". If it were a work of journalism, it would be an acceptable reference and the "facts" it contained could be accepted or disputed on a factual basis. As a novel, it merits no such consideration. Jonur 13:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[Refactoring self - Emerman] I agree not to use it as source for this article. It was mainly part of a reading list for me, not source here, and I forgot it was about the second album anyway. It may have mentioned this album at the beginning but that's not important. Emerman 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

re: hoping for more references for Pallenberg comment and early history info

Eventually I hope someone will list some references for the comments in the earlier album's history re: "anita pallenberg" statement so that it isn't up there without any source; I didn't write that part; everything in the part I wrote has sources such as liner notes: I will add footnotes soon. There are plenty of sources given for the later information but no sources given for the info from the original part of this article. I don't dispute those comments like the statement by Pallenberg but would like references included. If anyone sees a fact wrong, let me know. Thanks. I have photocopies of all the articles I cite. They should each be in the microfilm section of your local library. My microfilms are very hard to read so I don't think they'd photo well for a JPG; recommend people go to the library like I had to do. I can try to type out parts of the articles related to anything in there. The liner notes to the second album are things I can send jpgs of the recording date and release date if anyone cares; those were just background facts of trivia that aren't important. The "Jajouka: Up the Mountain" article info is something I can try to photograph and show a jpg of if the microfilm page isn't too dark. I listed the page number; had to go to the library. Emerman 07:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[Refactored excess by me]: Additionally, more info on the music would be very helpful. Emerman 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Found a good book related to this work

[Refactored self] While the Jajouka Rolling Stone book was a fictionalized account related to the later second album (and that book is not relevant here as Jonur pointed out and I agree), I learned of a different book by Davis called Old Gods Almost Dead that is a factual history of the Rolling Stones group and mentions the recording. I learned of it from Frank's joujouka.net site. Emerman 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Master Musicians of Joujouka 1971? 1967? 1950?

User Svest Admin on MMO J and related , I think, has been emailed scans of the sleave notes including artist credits for Master Musicians of Joujouka Brian Jones presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka, Rolling Stones Records 1971.

The Lp was recorded in 1967 and released in 1971.That puts Emermans assertion that this group cant include this disc in their discography in a different light.

Furthermore and much more importantly it proves that the name was being used by a Hamri group nearly 30 years before Emermans credited date of "forming" in the MMOJoujouka article.

In light of just this several of Emermans "facts" will have to be changed across all the pages he has been editing. opiumjones 23 20:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry svest if this posting leads to your page being filled further. User:Opiumjones 23 23:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The debate over factual accuracies

Following the multiple discussions and comments that i've been receiving re this issue, i suggest everything related to this subject to be discussed here so parties can reach a concensus. Please organize your ideas and feel free to proceed. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarify the issues in dispute please

This is a very interesting discussion, but the exact issues in dispute are unclear. Could Emerman please give a concise summary of his claims. This issue is very sensitive because so many of the parties are still living, and at first glance I wonder if this is the correct forum to resolve them in. It doesn't appear that there is any dispute concerning these issues any where else in the public domain. The argument here also seems very one-sided, and interested parties should be given notice of the dispute here, and have an opportunity to respond. My particular interest in this is over the effect of Westernising native tradition, and the international law implications. I'm going to post notice of this case to some specialists in human rights and native law, such as early Irish and native American, and see if there is any precedent on these issues. I'll get back to you in a while. I would advise caution in proceeding too hastily with this matter. I'd also suggest narrowing discussion to one forum, since it is being cross-posted over numerous pages such as Master Musicians of Jajouka and The Master Musicians of Joujouka and even Jajouka Tuathal 21:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[Refactored long answer by me]: I am not claiming to be party to a dispute and don't know about Irish law but I have a number of reasons I tried in good faith to disambiguate. See history file for lengthy detail involving band names and protecting the reputations of groups and spelling issues. I was worn out and stressed trying to list all the reasons. Gist was that there was a name change in 1972 by the band making the album and they continued making records and they were involved in a reissue in 1995 but there has been dispute about that involving contentious statements made in old edits prior to redirect by a party related to a band that uses the same spelling as the first album did before the name was changed in the reissue. Emerman 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal documents and Wikipediaa???

I have emailed Admin on advice re documntation which impacts on this but has a wider legal bearing for the Joujouka community and for the musicians living and dead and their dependents. How does one prove issues here without exposing peoples legal documents? opiumjones 23 01:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[Refactored by long excess comment by me]: You do not need to be providing personal and private documents. Bios would be cool though. Emerman 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Structure and supervision needed

Emerman. I asked for clarity and restraint. Only one thing is clear; that you fail to grasp the potential legal ramifications of your actions and statements, and you seem incapable of restraining yourself from intensifying this discussion, before Admin have had a chance to review it.

Opiumjones. I would ask that you refrain from making any more statements whatsoever until there has been communication from Admin.

Irish law and native American law may or may not be directly relevant here, but no doubt current American and Moroccan law are. But let's let Wikipedia rules and regulations kick in here before we get too carried away.

I recommend both parties seek an Advocate from the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates The current waiting time is approximately two weeks.

In the mean time, here is some advice from Wikipedia Wikipedia:Resolving disputes:

"A simple solution to a dispute is to stop having it — by leaving the article and/or bringing in an outside editor. This is particularly helpful when disputing with new users as it gives them a chance to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's policy and culture. Focus your contributions on another article where you can make constructive progress. Avoid going back to the page of dispute. Respond to questions about it on your user talk page and direct the questioner to take their issues to the article talk page to keep all relevant discussion in one place.

"Take a long term view. In due course you will probably be able to return and carry on editing it, when the previous problems no longer exist and the editor you were in dispute with might themselves move on. In the meantime the disputed article will evolve, other editors may become interested and they will have different perspectives if the issue comes up again. Tuathal 14:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the idea of an advocate. Otherwise we will be going around in circles. As I said elsewhere, although Emerman thinks she/he can write the story of Jajouka/Joujouka on the basis of written sources, the fact is that much of the history is not written anywhere, and the written sources that do exist are by people whose command of the local language was limited at best (to the best of my knowledge). Therefore, the "written sources" approach probably fails in this context. Jonur 15:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not a party and I am not able to participate further due to my responsibilities at home. Good luck with your debates. I have done all I can to help the articles because my time that I wanted to spend footnoting was interrupted by people who wanted talk page conversations I had to answer so I never got to do the footnoting. Good luck with it all. Your advocate can deal with the views of both of the bands. I do not represent one band's view or the other's; I have merely tried to sort both out via research. The parties seemed to be more represented by Frank Rynne's posts and the other manager's, Cherie Nutting, and another person, BK Lisenbee posting early on before I noticed this situation. I'm done with this discussion as I have responsibilities at home and I just missed another appointment on account of this. I simply cannot spend the time here a single day more period. And I ask that Tuathal refrain from adding text and links to any of my posts anywhere in wikipedia as I accidentally discovered he has done at another talk page to helpfully add links and such to comments I made pointing here. I request Tuathal, who has only made a few edits in wikipedia, please read more about editing, as we all including me have a lot to learn on the guidelines. I can't come back to see what he adds to my posts and I know he means well but please don't do that; edit your own posts. Thanks everyone and goodbye. Emerman 15:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Emerman. The clear policy of Wikipedia, in an event of a dispute, is to "keep all relevant discussion in one place". You have been posting bits and pieces of your argument across numerous pages, and even creating new ones. While this one is the only one so far with an offical notice of dispute on top, it clearly extends beyond here. And from my brief review it would appear that you are doing a lot more than simply editing. For instance, you created a page for Opiumjones/Frank Rynne which seems to be fairly subjective and is badly researched, by your own admission. It is quite surprising, now that there is an opportunity to resolove this matter, and get to the bottom of the central issues, that you are choosing to remove yourself from the equation completely, and have no input into the final decision of these matters that concern you have raised. It would seem we are all relatively new to Wikipedia, and should all take time to review the Guidelines here in detail before proceeding. Tuathal 15:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[Refactored excess length comment by me and stressed out tone Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]: Excuse me, I answered people where they raised the concern and sometimes I write comments about an edit I have on an article I'm working on -- i did that before anyone started saying to go here; to me, this article is not the right place for any of this to begin with since the original debate occurred elsewhere but it's fine with me; it only got brought here just the other day after OTHER people moved things here, not me! And I never tagged this page, Frank asked for that, so stop trying to ascribe the "concern" to me. If I were talking about a particular article such as a village, I talked at the village name page just like other people have done. It is not my fault that other people started putting a matter related to what I thought was a different article over to this page. I answered where asked to but it was not my idea that this is a "dispute"; it was Opiumjones 23's and Fayssalf's. I make comments on talk pages related to edits I make like everyone else and those were not about disputes when I made comments about my edits. The original comments went on at the Master Musicians of Joujouka talk page which is where I thought all the talk was going to be but fayssalf decided to direct everyone here, not I.

[Refactored]: I also basically asked not to have my comments added to or changed with a well intended link and made other lengthy comments and was stressed out. I think I mentioned T's experience level and bio. Emerman 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Emerman. I added one link to one comment by you, because your reference was incomplete and unlinked, and sent me looking at the Pipes of Pan page. I had to spend my time doing that because this debate is scattered, messy and unstructured. And for the record, I have never removed any comment, and don't appreciate your insinuation that I would. I also regret your unfounded allegation that I am not neutral, and your ethnic assumptions. My surname is Salafia, which is certainly not Gaelic, and my recent interest here stems partly from research on the Islamic history and meaning of my name. From your contributions, you reveal a long intererst in these matters, and a good deal of personal involvement and/or knowedge of persons involved...spanning years. Rather than striking out with personal attacks on others, please simply calm down, take a break, and let this be until the appropriate parties are involved. Tuathal 17:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tuathal, I had started to reply longer with more explanation earlier but I can't seem to say anything without writing to excess and taking up too much space so edited it down. Mainly came in today to say I came in because I was notified in email someone was awaiting admin or the parties or something and I suggested he tell the jajouka band folks and others who've talked like BK Lisenbee that the discussion is now on this page since they may not know. I'll hope to just not have to log in any more to look here because I don't want to think about this any more. I'm taking my books back to the library because I ran out of time to edit and footnote. Keep in mind we aren't supposed to edit other people's comments even to add links, that's all I was asking, but we all have a lot to learn on the guidelines, I realize. Thanks.

I'll do as you suggest and leave it be until the appropriate parties are involved because I don't want to be part of a debate. I don't want to have to look in here again. I'm not editing any of the articles since a day ago and want to be on with my non-wikipedia life for health reasons and because I'm behind, so I can't look in here. I hope unbiased admin will be involved if needed. Skilled researchers with experience editing music articles and a music attorney editor would be appropriate. [Refactored here: had explained reason for mention of bio detail for Tuathal Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)].

Apologies for the confusion. You can do whatever you want, as far as I'm concerned, including help him if you feel like it; these articles are not something I have time to care about further. I had been at first concerned about the POV in the article before disambiguation was done from finding the articles from a link on a website. I am sure I am not perfect and didn't do everything perfectly but tried to do as well as I could. I was at one point confused by a passage in a Davis book about one personality's theft and firing but now regard that one book as fictionalized so I discount it.

I'd like to see people in here working on these articles who have edited a lot of music articles. I worked my rear off on these articles for two weeks getting research, and I asked for help from frank too in email, while your edit history isn't about music editing. I've tried to do a lot of music article editing over time even if I didn't do it well. I hope better music editors than I come in, go to the library (not just the internet, folks!) to get all the articles, add more references, and make them great articles.

[Refactored for length my comments here] Emerman 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Respect the process and the Five Pillars

Emerman. You are making arguments and presenting opinion, under the guise of 'fact', before the dispute process has kicked in. This is most disrepectful to all the parties involved here who are trying to be civil and patient. My compliments to them for not taking the bait here. This is no longer an editing discussion. This is a dispute relolution process. While you claim not to be a party, you are in fact repeatedly making your case...prematurely.

For the moment I am trying to act as a mediator here, and to be honest, even protect you from making statements you might later regret. I am also trying to get this discussion to a point where there is a framework within which to reach the best solution and summary of facts relating to these topics. I notice you display the Five Pillars on your Talk page. In case you haven't looked at the lately, they can be summarised in relevant part as follows:

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments.

- One gets the feeling that there is a lot of personal opinion circulating on this one, by individuals who are very close to the issue in real life. The difference between some of those people is whether they are using their real names or acting anonymously, like you. It would seem your cloak allows you to give yourself permission to present what is your opinion, to the detriment of someone real who has personally withdrawn from the argument and asked for order and administration. But you persist in carrying this debate on an on, ad infinitum. This detracts from the credibility of your alleged 'facts' and shows you have an extreme personal opinion on this matter that you are determined to present.

2. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.

- I believe a cool-dwon period was declared, but not in so many words. Perhaps it is time to do so officially? Please allow two weeks for Advocates to be engaged. You are snubbing this entire pillar by refusing to cool down and rejecting dispute resolution.

3. Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community.

- By your ceaseless editing and commenting, I believe that you do not accept the fact that this page will be edited after you leave. You will always want to get the last word, as you do on this discussion page. In my opinion you should disqualify yourself from future editing on this topic, and let it go, because you are too personally involved. Frankly, it seems like it would be good for your health.

4. Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Stay cool when the editing gets hot; avoid edit wars and follow the three-revert rule; remember that there are 1,601,376 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

- I am sorry to say that in my opinion you have broken a number of the above tenets. I'll spare you the particulars. Please be civil...and respect the process and others.

5. Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. But remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity.

- You may think I am biased in my approach here, but I am honestly trying to mediate here, and I do not have any opinions one way or the other regarding the subject of this article and dispute. Hopefully I will learn enough facts to form a valid one. But for the moment I am spending all my time simply trying to get some kind of order here. And you keep arguing. Please remember that whatever you write here will be here forever. And the effect some of these discussions can have on real people will also last forever, long after you have found a new topic to edit.

So, you see that there is a real problem here at the moment, and we are not moving forward at all. Isn't this situation exactly why they wrote the Pillars? Let's lean on them and see what happens. Tuathal 20:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[Refactor lengthy reply by me Emerman 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]: Note: In case it is not clear, I am not interested in editing the articles on this topic myself and I have not been involved in editing them in a couple of days. If anyone else has been editing the articles, feel free to use semi-protect to prevent people from editing who are using anonymous IPs, and I reverted anonymous IP edits who had left out frank's band from an article the last time I edited an article itself and put his band back in. Thank you. [Refactored: explained I did not want to be editing the articles if possible and wanted to excuse self. Emerman 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)] I do not want to be part of it. And yes, it would be good for my health not to be in the discussion. Emerman 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution: What Do you Want in the Articles?

Please discuss your fact disputes below if you have a fact dispute. I have no concern about what you put in the article and will not be editing the articles in the future or mediating. Or wait for Advocates two weeks from now, if some have been contacted, which no one has made plain. Thanks. If I offended Tuathal, I apologize. Arguments stress me out. I'm sorry if there have been any errors disambiguating; it was hard to do.

I get the impression from a talk page that Frank is trying to work something out with the other parties, so perhaps people should wait till Frank has more to say below in case he works something out privately with the parties. I do not know what is going on. Emerman 23:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There are now at least three related articles, including this one, with notices that state 'The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.' You are central to these disputes, and it is disappointing to find out you have no desire to participate in the given Wikipedia process for resolving these types of disputes. I have appled for an AMA Advocacy position, but will not be working on this case, because I am new to it. From what I can gather from Frank's talk page (no doubt you wouild have too) is that he has requested an admin, and is awaiting his/her arrival. Apparently all parties are respecting that process, except you. Instead you continue to carry on a one-sided debate, making inflamatory accusations. That is why I continuously respond to you... Everyone else is silent. What I don't see on Frank Rynne, written by you, is anything to do with Trinity College. I looked into this matter when I received a second friend request recently from a different Master Musicians of Joujouka/Jajouka myspace account than the one I already had. But I am not on trial here. You are. As are others. Nor will I be deciding the outcome. But I would like to make a positive impact on the process. If you want to keep writing, go ahead. I've said all I can for now. Tuathal 03:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer is in an article in The Handstand, bottom of the page, which I evidently didn't get into the article because I kept getting interrupted from finishing anything due to being asked to state "claims" on this page and then being told to be quiet when answering. I appreciate you aren't going to be deciding the case and if by chance you don't know Frank, my apologies but you have not been friendly but instead have been accusatory even when laying down guidelines. I myself suggested the fact/neutrality tags be put on all related articles if needed at one point when talking to FayssalF's page. This is not about trials and adversarial process. It's about seeking consensus on what goes into the articles.

Frank's page, I thought, indicated he was considering things with one of the parties. I hope he and the party work it out. I'm not interested in bickering in here, and only you are arguing with me as you have mentioned, which is not a positive development. I've already repeatedly stated I am not perfect and I grant that any change desired to one of my edits can be made without contention by me. If you care about my health and are unbiased, as you claim, then please stop bickering and picking at my comments. I hope FayssalF will be more involved in mediating since he is an admin. If you respect the process, please allow the admin who started the process to do his work instead of heating up things with blaming.

FayssalF/szvest previously asked people to discuss what fact problems are in the article but you inadvertantly stopped the process he began when you first called me in to state claims without asking anyone else to, then told everyone to cool down and not talk without your being asked to mediate. Mediators are normally admins. Szvest, whose advice was sought by several of us on this, is the recognized admin/mediator here involved in the consensus discussion previously until another admin helps out.

You and I are the only two people on this page who seem to need mediation or to cool down since your sudden arrival arguing with me. Emerman 03:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC) [Refactored for length: suggested that cool down just be about me and Tuathal and others talk about article. Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

Repeating location for people to state their dispute

If there are disputes on facts, please discuss sentences you'd like changed below, seeking consensus since it appears there is a lack of consensus, or go and edit the articles. I'm not challenging any changes that might be made and am not party to the debate (am not well and not interested in debating facts). I am also not a mediator, obviously. If you prefer to wait two weeks in case there will be Advocates, then talk about what you want done here in two weeks, whatever. Perhaps Frank and the other parties will come to terms privately. Thanks. Or admin Szvest can advise further how to proceed. Emerman 06:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Libel??

Anonymous US user has just reverted some changes by another anonymous user alleging libel. I presume that the libellous part refers to the royalties not being paid to the villagers. That issue is contentious and Wikipedia is not the right place for it. Nevertheless, if it can be shown objectively that there was a dispute, and that such pickets did take place, then those facts should be included since they are part of the album's history. (How many albums arouse public protests?) Whether royalties were paid or not is probably outside Wikipedia's scope until the issue is settled and the facts are known.

This is one of the reasons why I propose total neutrality about the village name (Joujouka/Jajouka) in the village page since the spelling is the primary means of distinguishing between the two group that are in dispute. It is not Wikipedia's place to take sides, and it would be wrong for the two sides to use Wikipedia as a battle ground. There is no place here for accusation or allegations. Nevertheless, facts are fine. The dispute between the two groups of Master Musicians is a fact. The events in that dispute are facts (e.g. newspaper reports of pickets, etc.), if we can get references. Let's stick to facts, OK? Jonur 12:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

We are not supposed to create history or become the main publicity arm for some claim of "controversy" about a living person mentioned in the removed statement, but to reflect the prevailing view of history reported in reputable news media. Major articles from the period would need to be found that mentioned both the album itself and a picket to reflect it as a widely reported "fact". If we ever find major articles from the period that mentioned a picket and they don't also mention this album then it would not belong in this particular article. Living people are involved. Presume less and find multiple sources. People will say and do many things to get publicity. That doesn't make everything people say or type a fact. Also, it would seem that the village name has nothing to do with what either band calls it in their music articles but what the current official spelling is that's used by the government of Morocco if someone can find out. 128.241.41.1 14:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear anonymous US user. I agree that this is no place for controversy. As I said (and you concur), newspaper articles would have to be found to back the story of pickets, etc. What you say about people looking for publicity cuts both ways. Wikipedia should not be drawn into the dispute among the MMoJ. However, that does not mean accepting the views of one side and denying those of the other.

I have not yet seen any published article that takes a neutral stance on the MMoJ split (admittedly, I have not read everything that has ever been written on the subject). It seems journalists tend to fall in on one side or the other. As a result, there appears to be a lack of journalistic impartiality.

As for the village name, I suppose the official Moroccan spelling (whatever it is) should prevail when Wikipedia refers to the village itself. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the two factions in the dispute distinguish themselves by the spelling of the name, so that cannot be ignored. Jonur 16:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Primogenitor

Joujouka tradition is pre-Islamic. Does anyone know if local custom recognises primogenitor, or if there was a different law of succession? In early Irish law, there was a principle called tanistry, and it involved election, rather than right. Bloodline, however, was taken into consideration. But there were many candidates, which led to a lot of fighting, uncertainty and treachery. Early Ireland also say professions being handed down generation to generation. There were legal families, music families, etc. Is this the case locally in Joujouka? Tuathal 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove redirect from Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Joujouka

Having reviewed this matter in some detail now, I propose that the redirect be removed from the Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Jones_Presents_The_Pipes_Of_Pan_At_Joujouka

The present "Brian Jones Presents..." page is a travesty for such a monumental work of art. This is the first world music album. This is the first album the Stones put on their label. It is an historical work of fine art and music, which also captures an historical event. But its potency and integrity are being hacked up and diluted down by this entry, for modern commercial purposes.

There should be a separate page for the original album since it is an original work of art, which had its own name, and its own artwork, given to it by its creators. Brian Jones and Hamri created this album, with Brian mixing, Hamri doing the artwork, and both of them putting the project together, with a little help from their friends. They recorded the musicians who were in the village, and it is really irrevelant what you want to call that band, then or now, for purposes of the album page. The band name is not on the cover of the album; the village name is, and the artists who created this work of art called it what they called it.

Can you imagine finding the entry for Never Mind the Bollocks under Never Mind the Bollix, because it was rereleased twenty years later by a stranger to the original production, who changed the name and picture? One cannot retroactively change the name of an album, or any other work of art, and that is what is being attempted here.

Presently, a reader doing a search of this encyclopedia for information on the album by Brian Jones is led to a page about a different album, essentially, full of strange pictures and names, where there is actually no information about the original album worth talking about other than a picture of half the cover and the date of release.

The original album should appear first and foremost in its original form, with its original name, cover, and credited musicians, along with the fully cited factual story behind the making of the album, contemporary to the release, not the reissue.

The reissue should be a footnote at best, on that page, with a link to a the present page. There should be no conflict at all on the page for the original album because it is a unique historical document, or object d'art, that is completely self-contained. Nothing we can do or say here can change it, nor should we. It should be presented in its original form, as the primary source it is.

The present page should be very short indeed, containing one line saying "This is a reissue of Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka" album and link to it.

Or, it should simply redirect to the original, instead of the other way around. Tuathal 03:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The specific proposal here, in case I'm not clear, is to remove the redirect tag and then to start editing the history of the album on the correct page. For the moment, we should start editing the present page as if it is the originally named page, and then transfer the article when the redirect tag is removed. Tuathal 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[Clarity refactoring and for length re my reply]: The band's name changed in 1972 and the reissue followed the name change spelling. Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking that the statement about this being the "first world music album" is incorrect. Check out Bali: Music from the Morning of the World, recording by David Lewiston in 1966 and released in 1967. This predates Brian Jones' LP in both the recording date and release date. http://www.amazon.com/Bali-Music-Morning-Various-Artists/dp/B000083GHL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevingarrity (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Letter from Stones to Gysin, 1969

(Jo Bergman, Rolling Stones office to Brion Gysin 18th Feb 1969)

Brian asked me to write to you about the progress of the JouJouka album. When Brian returned from Morocco last year he edited the album and prepared the art-work together with designer, AL Vandenburg. The cover looks beautiful and has Hamri’s painting on the front and one of his son’s paintings on the inside cover. Brian spent a considerable time in the studio editing the material and this was finished about the end of September. The art-work and the tapes for the album were then sent to our New York office. Klein, who looks after business affairs for the Stones in America, promised to handle negotiations for the album and make sure that is was released in the best possible way with the right sort of promotion. During the time that Brian was in Ceylon, we made repeated inquiries to Klein to find out what was happening, and since Brian has been back he has also been in touch with Klein. Klein’s office keep telling us that are arranging everything, that it will be done etc., but we have heard no concrete facts about what label will release the album and when. I know that Brian is most anxious that Hamri and the musicians should be aware of the state of the album, and that Brian has been trying to arrange its release. Brian sends his regards and will write to you soon himself.

Bill Wyman, Stone Alone, (London, 1990), p. 515 Tuathal 16:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See who owns the album and who licensed it to Point in 1995. Rolling Stones did. Nobody disputes it came out as "joujouka" in the name in 1971 or that Gysin's 1964 essay was included in the liner notes. Also Palmer, an expert on the subject, spelled it "jajouka" in pre-release in 1971 in an article and several times later including in the Foreword of a 1987 reprint of a Brion Gysin book called The Process which includes a characterization of Hamri. The 1987 book shows a 1967 original copyright. There is a 1969 original issue of the Gysin work The Process I found at a library which also spells it "jajouka". The band itself called the group "master musicians of jajouka" beginning with the second album and ever since regardless of this effort to make the spelling on one album cover have such significance that you attempt to say it's how the village is spelled. Show it on a map we can all find in a library spelled that way sometime. So far I mainly know of a letter, an album cover, a couple of articles, and then Frank's band released an album in 1995 using the spelling. But maybe there's more to know.

These articles should be handled only by experienced music admin. [Refactored for sensitivity reasons]: There are sensitive issues involved regarding COI re: many parties editing the related articles, possibly and because of contentious opinions added to articles in 2006. Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

One album, not two. Reissues belong in the article about the album with the most current spelling of it in print. The spelling is different currently because the band since 1972 and including the current version of the band as seen in their own official pages such as at myspace, spells it "jajouka" and so do the owners of the album, The Rolling Stones. They spelled one way in 1971 and ever since then it's been Jajouka and same on maps and geographical books, and in references in Steel Wheels and in soundtracks. Emerman 12:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, a 1970 Gazateer at libraries lists the village as "Jajouka". Morocco: Official Standard Names Gazetteer No. 112 (1970). United States Geographic Name Division, Washington, at 447. Also, the "ah" sound as shown in the "Jahjouka"/"Zhahjouka" id card discussions, is emphasized in a 1966 spelling: "Zaryuca", no "jou" first syllable sound. "Tangier" (Sept 1966). Map of North Africa 1:250,000 (Series P502, Edition 1-AMS, sheet NI 30-1). United States Army Map Service, Corps of Engineers. Beyond that, I have nothing more to say. [Refactored for sensitivity]: It seems there is no map showing Joujouka as an official spelling but I'd like to find one. Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Past versions of this article

[Refactored for sensitivity reasons my comments]: Please see the article history file on the Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka album for 2006 opinions inserted in article. Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Other topic: I can provide specific source citations to maps on display at college map libraries from 1937/1941/1942 ("Jajouka") and 1966 ("Zaryuca") and a 1970 official Gazetteer ("Jajouka" with coordinates) if someone would like to see them. I also have photographs of maps.[Refactored self Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

P.S. A note about some things I haven't done right myself: 1. get too excited in arguments about any topic including these, 2. impatience, 3. not doing the consensus process as well as should have be done, 4. harsh tone more than intended, 5. replies too lengthy, 6. edit self too much after posting, 7. failure to finish footnotes after arguments started. Probably more too, as I relearn guidelines. But I have wanted the articles to end up good. I hope that Tuathal will work toward the end of making them the best they can be. I don't have a complaint if someone such as T works to make the article good. I just have some apprehensions about it, hopefully unfounded. Regards, Emerman 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous COI link added to article connecting wrong band to album

[Refactored for sensitivity my comments]: I had here objected to linking to a particular group in the edits by Tuathal when this seemed unwarranted and I mentioned problems with patterns of edits by two people. Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Emerman. I'm surpised to see you editing, and from the length and style of your edits I have to say I am a litle concerned about your health. There is no conspiracy here, as you allege. I have been in touch with various parties, as you have, to try and see why this issue is so contentious, with a view to resolving the conflict. I deeply resent your personal attacks and want to record here that I am making a formal complaint about this. Not only that, but I actually didn't add any link to Frank's band of 1994, nor did I attempt to. Please show me the entry you are making this allegation about.

I haven't seen the prior history on this, and to be honest I think it is a waste of time going back and looking at it. The present article needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. The first step in doing that is removing the redirect tag so that the name of the original album has its proper entry. That article should be about the album, and not what happened 30 years later. I am not going to do much more editing until the redirect is removed. Then, if somebody feels there should be a full article for the pipes at jajouka then they are free to do it. But it is essential that there be a solid factual foundation from which everything else should flow logically. And that is the simple historical fact that the album was called Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka. Naturally, there will be contentious issues along the way. But they all be resolved logically if there is a clear beginning point. Tuathal 12:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[Refactored for sensitivity reasons my comments] I said here that it seemed people wanted to relegislate the 1995 rerelease and said my actual edit change to the article was nto lengthy, just my talk page comments. Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the length of your comments, not your editing, which must be up to about 15,000 words in the last 2 days. You did say you were not going to edit anymore. Now you are editing. You said you are stepping out, and now come back more furiously than ever. I have no knowledge of what happened with Frank and you or Frank and Bashir, and I really don't care. That is personal business for others to sort out that does not belong here. My purpose here is to create a factual encyclopedia entry for an album. The name of that album is Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka. According to the sleevenotes it was recorded by a group called Master Musicians of Joujouka. I think all the sleevenotes should be put online, as the only primary source in this article. In order to neutralize the article, there should be no link to either group currently in existence. But there should be a link to both at the bottom, and a link to the reissue. Only information about the 1971 album released by Rolling Stones Records belongs in the article itself, if it is truly to be a factual article and not an attempt to promote either current band. Tuathal 14:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My length has nothing to do with what is going on here. But to get to the gist and ignore the fact that it appears conflict of interest will continue to be an issue forever in these articles, I'll try to start a Request for Comment below. Emerman 15:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment:

This is a dispute about album covers belonging in this article and title/name spellings. Emerman 15:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• [Refactored because it was thought not well done by Tuathal]: I said the current album cover needed to be included in the article and the official village spelling but I went on too long explaining concern that it all be left to admins re: problems with partisan stuff and COI potentials. Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I completely reject the allegation by Emerman that I am acting in bad faith with regards to this article, and I would like to know exactly what 'false' information I have put on the article. I say Emerman is the one acting in bad faith here as he admits himself he is is acting out or continuing a long personal dispute with a third party here, in Wikipedia, and I refuse to get involved in it. I am not a party to it, and I do not want to be. I am completely new to this debate and I utterly reject his blatant attempt to discredit the work I am doing by creating a false perception of an elaborate conspiracy. I would ask him to stick to the facts and wording of the article itself. I also request that he stop referring to arguments that took place last year, since many people here I imagine know and care little about them. This discussion page is about an album that was recorded in 1971. It has recently become a discussion page about other related disputes over two different bands, and a different album cover, names and record company. None of these things existed in 1971 and they do not belong in an article about a 1971 album. Anthing less detracts from the legitimate work of art created by Brian Jones and the musicians. All of the pettiness has distracted from the original purpose of the article; to describe the content, production, and history surrounding the making of the album. Every single event that happened after the release is completely irrelevant to this album page. I don't know how issues with conflicting names can be resolved, but they occur long after this album is released. Because links seem to be the most contentious issue, I have removed links to any band in the body of the article and added links to both at the end. There should be a link to the reissue as well, but there cannot be as long as there is a redirect, as it will only link back to the same page now. That is the only way I see this dispute can be resolved, and that is the way I am going to edit the page. I hope others will join in that endeavour. Tuathal 18:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[Refactored for length my reply. Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)] I did not in the dispute listing above in this RfC state "bad faith", by the way. But I do see that your edits have not been neutral and you resist efforts to follow the rules in an RfC and to state the full history of the dispute and seem confused about how to do things, to assume good faith. The entire point of the dispute has bearing on both last year's edits that were discussed places like the talk page of Master Musicians of Joujouka in the archives prior to now. Both Frank Rynne and manager for the other band, Cherie Nutting, and other parties like BK Lisenbee took part. All relevant discussion for the dispute were moved here from there by FayssalF and he should confirm this fact and not allow the history of the dispute to be removed and turned into something else. This is a dispute that needs resolving. This is an RfC about the article, not about Tuathal. I do feel nobody should be editing this contentious, sensitive article but admins however. I did not use the phrase "bad faith" in my dispute statement though. Emerman 18:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Emerman. This RfC is not being performed in good faith. The dispute resolution process was started ages ago, and there was supposed to be a cool-down and there have been requests for admin and advocates. But having ignored all the guidelines and repeated requests for calm you suddenly spring this RfC business, while in the same breath make a load of new allegations about me and others. Then you use the RfC to say I cannot respond to them. It is what we lawyers call an abuse of process.

I strongly suggest you learn what a Wikipedia:Request for Comment is before initiating one. Here are some of the instructions:

- Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the article talk page with a brief, neutral statement of the issue.

- In the relevant topic area listed below, link to that section on the Talk page.

- Sign entries with the date only. Use five tildes.

- After all parties agree the issue has been resolved, strike it from the listing.

You have broken the first rule of RfC by failing to make a neutral statement of the issue. Instead, you have repeated your one-sided argument. The idea is create consensus and I doubt very much many people will consent to your unique presentation of the issue. You have also repeatedly broken the first rule of Wikipedia, which is that Wikipedia is not a blog. Your recent rambling entries, which only serve to create confusion and discontent rather than consensus, simply do not belong here. Finally, you have made a number of false statements and personal allegations based on wild speculation, rather than cited cources. Footnotes please.

1. You wrote: "You then entered suddenly and told Frank to let you do the talking and to be silent..."

I entered and asked everyone to calm down and stop making inciteful statements and engaging in personal, and possibly libelous attacks. Everyone, including Mr Rynne, took my advice. You didn't. Instead you carried on with your rambling presentation of what I believe to be largely 'original research', which has no place here in Wikipedia. Every time I asked you to calm down you did the opposite, in what I can only describe as a compulsive manner.

It is not original research to go the library and cite a map properly and even photograph it there. It is original research to quote from a personal letter without citation however. Nobody on this page had made any inciteful statement prior to your arrival agitating for me to state a claim other than Frank's claims higher up the page if you'll review what actually happened in order. Frank then talked on his page and then you and Jonur began making edits [refactored self for sensitivity here Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)] that tended to push toward a non-official spelling of the village being in other articles. Emerman

2. You claim I "tried to draw me into a conflict here".

I tried to get you to calm down, and hold off making any more comments for a while. You refused. Then I asked you to do exactly what the RfC process asks for, i.e. state your claim in a concise manner or make a concise statement of the issue. You again did the opposite, and began making personal attacks, false allegations, and presenting scattered, illogically sequenced research to support one side of an argument. It clearly wasn't going to work, as I had no idea what the argument was about. Then I asked for a cool-down period, and again you kept continuing with discussion. Finally, after spending a great deal of time researching the issue I decided to edit the page, as a way of moving ahead and creating common ground. You have yet to point out a single false claim in my edit of the article.

I pointed out that you removed the most recent album cover from the article and will again explain below this. You do seem to notice my points and restate everything I say as though it is just attacks which of course tends to make me have to restate my point. Emerman

3. You then wrote: "Then you claimed you were mediating..."

I don't know what it takes to get you to actually listen, or consider that you are not the most important person in this debate. I came in, not at anyone's request and saw chaos. I asked for order. Eveyone respected that request, except you. So, I became the target for your abuse. When I responded to your false allegations you then said you did't see me as neautral. How could any reasonable person be neutral to your rude and groundless attacks? The obvious fact to anyone reading the thread is that you just don't want to stop talking about this, and you weren't going to let anyone have the last word. At that point it became impossible for me to unoffically mediate.

I'm not here to attack but to explain that there has been a pattern of abusive editing of the actual articles over the history that were damaging to the other band and you interrupted disambiguation that was occurring to correct the past problems by commencing a conflict on this page with me which I realize was not intentional. I was not involved in "chaos" on this page until you started addressing me on several pages to draw me here to talk and then told me to stop talking. I didn't think I was the most important person here either but you specifically asked me to state a claim. I do agree that I and you seem to have chaos when we talk and this is in part my fault for not understanding you well enough, not all your fault. Emerman

4. "...you appeared to be acting as lawyer to frank rynne..."

I am not a legal advocate for Mr. Rynne, and indeed I am confused as to why this whole debate seems to be about Mr. Rynne. I can find no record that he has ever managed the musicians. If I were his lawyer I would be engaged in a lot of activities, none of which would be editing Wikipedia pages, and engaging in long casual discussions with you in this forum. You seem to forget that I am using my real identity here, and you are not. You are somebody who is using the shield of Wikipedia anonymity to make damaging statements about my character and the charater of other living people here, who I do honestly sympathise with more and more, as a resault of yout outrageous behaviour.

I'm not saying your character is bad. I am saying that you aren't experienced enough, nor is any non-admin including myself, to be editing this very sensitive article. Your past article edit interests seemed to be about writing about oneself so I viewed that as not experienced. Emerman

I thought you were a lawyer from your bio and timing and now especially after seeing your edits. This same idea was echoed in the "jajouka" people's comment but perhaps it's only they and I -- or them seeing me say that earlier -- who thought you were advocating like a lawyer and maybe only two people think it, not everyone. Sorry if I tended to think that but because you're a lawyer the argument method seems that way. I also realize you're not likely his actual lawyer. To me it looked like you were advocating his positions though and working in a legalistic manner toward me. I did not mean you were actually hired by him. I don't think you are. [Refactored self for sensitivity Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)] Yet you have no cares about what was in the article attacking a living person prior to the mid January disambiguation. You don't even find it relevant, only comments about you concern you. Emerman

If you feel it's damaging to you, then I can remove all my statements on this page entirely. I'm not here to damage you in anyway. So I'll remove my statements if you feel they are damaging you. That's not my intention. I just don't feel like the edit situation on these articles is being handled right because it affects band's careers and people's lives, am not here to upset you personally. Emerman

Re: Frank Rynne, he is listed in allmusic.com as producer on three albums for Master Musicians of Joujouka, and deals with their websites, which is managerial work, also the Hamri site is run at joujouka.net. We need all of us to be removed from this and let admins deal with it. It's too contentious and too sensitive. I'm not trying to attack you for your personal work; I'm concerned about edits in this article only. I'm sure you're a great lawyer in your real life. Emerman

[Refactor self for length, sensitivity Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)] It appears you and I should not be talking at all since you view everything as a personal attack when I am discussing what is happening in the articles. Emerman

5. "You suddenly sought AMA arbitrator status at the same time"

Again you are imputing a lack of good faith (i.e. bad faith) into my actions. It was I who informed you of my application. I applied to be an AMA arbitrator because it sounds like a fun job, and a way of getting to know the rules of Wikipedia, which is a fascinating community. I have to say, you make a very bad ambassador, but that thankfully are not representative of the kind, courteous and goodnatured people I have otherwise encountered here so far. it clearly states that a new advocate cannot engage in a case without supervision, so there is no way I could advocate in the present dispute, nor would I want to. I am trying to leaqrn the rules, and learn more about this issue at the moment.

You mentioned it after I brought it up because of the timing occurring right after your arrival here suddenly acting as mediator instead of an admin and stepping in suddenly without having any prior discussion in the article and not being an admin. [Refactor for sensitivity]: I said admins should be doing the admin tasks not us. Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

6. "I did not in the dispute listing above in this RfC state "bad faith", by the way."

Immediately prior to the RfC you made a number of allegations against me, including that I had not acted in good faith. That is the same as saying I acted in bad faith. My response to that is that this RfC is not created by you in good faith, as it is not neutral, and you have not stopped making attacks against me. In fact it is designed as a way of preventing me from responding to them. I think we should erase it and let somebody like Svest write the RfC is there is to be one. Doing it your way is making it impossible to reach consensus. Emerman

I'm not attacking you; I'm trying to point out that this article needs to be worked on by admins and not people who seem to have agendas for any party, and the "jajouka" band thing I read below seems to want people not affiliated working on these either. You're accusing me of bad faith too and you made accusations about me previously in an intimmidating and unpleasant, chastising fashion in place of admins while complaining that you are new and I'm a bad ambassador. The only claim of "bad faith" stated on this page has been made by you about me. Emerman

Finally, I would like to point out that you have not referred to anything in the current article that does not belong there. If you have objections to the article, please be specific about them, and stop personalising this. 20:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[Refactor self for clarity and sensitivity]: I did in fact say that the article needed both album covers and I will perform an edit to show you what I meant. I did do the RfC in good faith, contrary to your accusation and I provided information about the history. Further history about the dispute that Szvest asked be brought here on behalf of Frank R is available in the Talk pages and archives for Master Musicians of Joujouka, Master Musicians of Jajouka, Jajouka, as well as the edit histories for Joujouka and Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka before the redirect. The problems that caused the January disambiguations include that the "Master Musicians of Joujouka" group article, edited by the band producer, had made all mention of the well known group with the named spelled "Master Musicians of Jajouka" redirect to the Sub Rosa group, plus the village was being spelled "joujouka" despite there being no geographical standards indicating this for an encyclopedia. Specifically you removed the current album cover and you changed the spellings of the band names and village names in this article to reflect this article as it appeared prior to disambiguation, although with less of the opinions. You also have changed the village name to a name that does not appear on any maps and helped with user Jonur to create the idea that an encyclopedia can use two different spellings throughout in order to be "neutral", which does not seem the normal way encyclopedias do things re: consistency. [Refactored for extreme length, sensitivity, mentioned patterns of problems that I saw mentioned in band manager's reply. Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Master Musicians of Jajouka

The Feb. 3 comments posted by band manager Cherie Nutting was alleged to be a serious problem by Tuathal and since wikipedia says to remove things when someone refers to a libel issue, I'm removing it. If she wants it put back up, she or we can put it up. I'm not trying to imply anything she said was actually libel and the comments remain in the History file. Emerman 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Walking on Brian's grave

Emerman. Your latest edit, which removed the image of Brian Jones from his own album page, and his own personal note about the album, shows the perversity of the current situation. I am not going to get into an edit war with you. Work away. The entire picture here is very clear.

Cherie. I do not represent Frank Rynne, but I am shocked that you would involve Wikipedia in a dispute that clearly needs to be resolved elsewhere. If I am trying to represent anyone here it's Brian Jones, whose legacy is being trampled on by the very people who claim to inherit it. I don't know why you and your people didn't just go ahead and change the name of the album to Bachir Attar Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka.

Awaiting admin intervention. Tuathal 14:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tuathal, Please do not remove my replies: ask me to. (But admins can remove whatever)

Dear T, you removed some of my replies saying they were unsigned even though they were indented. I have put them back. I did say I would remove any that you found were in some way harmful to you but I did not give you permission to remove my replies. They all could easily have been seen under the edit history to have been made by me, but I realize you aren't very experienced and do not blame you.

Now as for the edit; it was clearly marked as a reversion to the previous state before you removed the current album cover and stuck in an additional picture from the first album, and I mentioned such changes should have awaited consensus, but you didn't want to participate in stating alternate views in an article RfC, just wanted to argue in the Commments, so that's fine; eventually admins will review it all and make the changes they see fit. Perhaps they will choose to not use the latest album cover correcting the spelling to the band's later spelling, but that's for them to decide.

There's no problem I have about that Jones photo being there too additionally (rather than removing the current cover like you had), but I was reverting to the state prior to your adding in village spellings that are not provable on a map or geographical standard, links you added to Frank Rynne's band's wikipedia article about a band on Sub Rosa that started recording 23 years after this album by Bachir Attar's father was released (talk about walking on someone's grave, what about the grave of Bachir Attar's dad being walked on?). The reverted state shows both album covers, not just one; you try to leave out the current one because it displays the current way the record label spells it.

I in the past also reverted fallaciously reasoned edits by the "jajouka" band crowd Nutting manages to the "Jajouka" village page article, so I've been even handed, and I've even warned one of their anonymous IPs that started with something like "149" not to remove Frank's band's name and Hamri from the afticle on the village.

[Refactor self for length, sensitivity] Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article should have more about the music added of course and the Jones photo is not something bad to have if there is room for it too, but not by removing the current cover. And it's incorrect to use a spelling from 36 years ago that was changed by the Rolling Stones (who own the album) and Point Music on the album in 1995 to another spelling. It was not appropriate to use the old spelling's coincidence with Frank's 1995 Sub Rosa group to link the two as though that's the current official spelling. Even Bachir Attar was associated with that old spelling once in a 1989 Rolling Stone interview, but his father and he both have used the "jajouka" spelling since the 1972 second album recordings. The current version of the Brian Jones production was changed to the "jajouka" spelling and the last of the original band leader's musicians all play in Bachir Attar's group, and he himself played with the group prior to his dad's death too. There's nothing wrong with displaying the current album cover as it is available and also showing the old one and getting more music info in. The extra text info about the later album cover from its liner notes doesn't have to be included; it was added in place of snide info about Bachir Attar and the "squatter family" that was put into the article in 2006 that did not belong. That's the info Nutting has reiterated on this page that she had to answer in the past, and which she prevoiusly answered on an older talk page archive for Master Musicians of Joujouka. This page was designated by Szvest to handle all the disputes from the various talk page discussions (Master Musicians of Jajouka, Master Musicians of Joujouka, Jajouka, and the past edits on Joujouka, Mohamed Hamri, Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka, but this page got instead filled up with conversations you started with me.

I am the one who told you I wouldn't do an edit war with you previously; you said you didn't know what was wrong with the edits and so I showed you and pointed out it should have been only changed drastically (i.e. name spellings, removing the later album cover) by consensus. [Refactor for sensitivity self. Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]. I hope sometime you might check out the Trinity College map library because I'm sure they have a good one, most university libraries do. Perhaps you will find "joujouka" on a map. I have not been able to locate such a map myself, only the "jajouka" spelling which is why the band from 1971 changed their name spelling in 1972 and ever since then, to match that of the village's official name. As for this being a matter to decide elsewhere than wikipedia, someone shouldn't have been using wikipedia to put negative opinions about Bachir Attar into articles and talk pages here related to this one in the past; wikipedia was used to make claims such as Master Musicians of Jajouka archives talk page and in past edits of this article before it was redirected. If there hadn't been edits by the other producer to that end and if other people had not previously continued to agitate with new edits to restore the predisambiguation spellings, opinions and controversy focus in various articles recently, we likely wouldn't have seen her reply again on this page that's hard to find for computer newbies like her who used to be talking in a different archived page before Szvest moved the discussions.

Your comment suggesting Nutting rename the album with Bachir Attar's name in it is remniscent of (but not the same as) past contentious comments by someone else on a talk page, such as the false and misleading info in a past version of this article someone once had put in an article that said the reissue album listed the artist as "featuring Bachir Attar" when it in fact does not. The current album cover and spelling were only shown in addition to the earlier album cover for NPOV balance and for accuracy. [Refactored by me Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

Wikipedia must always avoid presenting any sort of incorrect info that might end up misleading people; we need to get the story right. It's appropriate to point to the band the record company recognized as connected to the work rather than use wikipedia to change that. It is inappropriate to point to a different band's article in a link from the album article.

If you feel the Rolling Stones and Point Music were in error to designate Bachir Attar's group that contains his dad's musicians as the right band to lease it to, that should be worked out elsewhere than wikipedia. Nutting just listed the facts after having people previously cast aspersions in slanted articles in the past here which we've been trying to get to be leaving out opinions and sticking to facts and official current spellings & consistency, disambiguating where necessary.

More info should be added about the music to the article but I didn't get to do that due to all the constant past discussions about album cover niggling, but I left a good reading list that others will find useful for future footnotes and info; also the various liner notes will help provide info.

[Refactored: said I would not be editing away and was awaiting admins too. Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]Emerman 22:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unsigned edits of my comments

Emerman, Cherie, or whoever you are. I removed unsigned edits from my comments. They appeared to be statements made by me. I am not debating this further until there is a Wikipedia intervention. Now you have alleged fraud. This is very serious indeed. I ask that you withdraw the comment and apologise immediately. Tuathal 23:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I said that wikipedia must avoid having fraudulent info up in our articles and we must get the articles right, which was a general statement not about you, and the sentence did not mention you. I will look at the sentence using that phrase to make sure it's crystal clear, but it was about how we do articles and was not about you. *I have now gone back to make sure it's crystal clear I'm not meaning any attack. It was in the same paragraph with something I said to you, so I have now tried to paragraph break to make it clear and I say we must avoid "incorrect" info instead of "fraudulent" since this was bothersome to you.

I did not intend antagonism. It seems that every communication between us involves reactions. Can't you calm down eventually if you want to go into AMA stuff? The experienced admins like Szvest seem to generally be calm and courteous, even friendly, not antagonistic or hostile. Friendliness to create calm would help with AMA endeavors if you pursue them in the future. However, I can see that my own tone problems must be creating some of your reactions and I'll try to work on that. For the record I don't think you've done anything horrible. I just feel that all the articles need intervention by admins, which I in fact called for several times well before you higher on this page. I said previously several times I'd prefer admins be doing the work here.

And please do not snidely refer to me as Cherie. I have nothing to do with Nutting's chopped up writings that have shown up in the middle of articles like, I think, the Jajouka village article (or the Master Musicians of Jajouka one), and I once removed one of her article edits that Jonur and I had discussed over to a talk page. I have reverted some of the "jajouka" people's writings in the past. And I have avoided calling you and Jonur "Frank" and I have made edits that neither of the two bands would like, while your edits favor one party's views for whatever reason rather than encyclopedic consistency. I included both album covers, not just one. My concerns have been encyclopedic standards and accuracy, not an agenda for Brian Jones, Frank, Hamri, Nutting, Bachir A, or anything but accuracy, official standards and consistency. I am not an admin however so I am not perfect in knowing all the rules. I hope admins who know the spelling standards here will eventually look in and get things right.

My indented replies were signed at the end and they were NOT "edits" of your comments; they were indented replies to each numbered point with a longer reply at the end, signed at the end. I did not feel any need to sign every single paragraph, nor do you. The indentions indicated a reply, and normally people do not sign until the end. I have since made sure to add signatures to each paragraph in the replies you removed and you could have seen in the edit history that no one had edited but me. They were in fact not unsigned if you looked at the end and now they are multiply signed. If you begin to want me to sign all the paragraphs at the later section I can go back and do that too.

I already told you I did not blame you over the removals because you already said in the edit summary why. I could have screwed up one of the indents previously and not had enough colons for spacing or something but you could have marked it as by me or told me to, whatever. There is no reason to say I was editing you by my adding indented replies. You removed my remarks -- I have not removed or edited any of yours, and my replies are up again. I did not say I was angry about the mistake. Please calm down.

I also mentioned to you I do not plan to merrily edit away on the article you had previously altered and I will let the admins do the future work. Admins will look over these articles eventually since both of us have asked. Emerman 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

revert User:Emerman anti Brian Jones POV, request disambiguation and page lock

Request disqmbiguqtion to allow for creation of reissue page for 1995 reissue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuathal (talk • contribs) 00:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Request page lock as well. There is one album, not two. Please do not complicate the issue by trying to use multiple unofficial spellings for a village with an official name and an album that has one name currently although it once had a different one before the band changed its name in 1972. Please go for accuracy and current official names. You said you were not going to edit war and you should have waited for consensus when you knew this was contentious and a band manager has even come into complain both here and at the Master Musicians of Joujouka talk page archives in the past, where both band managers were arguing. Emerman 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also please do not refer to me as in the present subject heading of having an "anti Brian Jones POV". I have nothing but respect for Brian Jones and recently rented a film about him. I am a huge fan of his work. My concerns about POV had to do with similar patterns of edits to those pre-disambiguation by a producer for one album in your locale but I presume that was coincidental. [Refactored for sensitivity Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)] The current album cover is not something Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones would have had this attitude toward, given the Rolling Stones are the people who rereleased the material via a license to Point. Emerman 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologizing for my tone problems

Regarding the contentiousness in the air, I would like to apologize for my part in the communication problem on this page. I am sure that my tone in speaking to him needs improvement. And I'm totally responsible for my tone problems, not Tuathal. He is only responsible for his own comments. I think I need to improve how I communicate.

Additionally I had no problem with his inclusion of the Brian Jones album cover. As for the Rolling Stones changing the album cover for their rerelease on Point of their material, that name change had to do with the band changing its name in 1972 when it recorded its second album. They couldn't have two names. The same band continued and the Rolling Stones recognized them in Steel Wheels as being the same group led by the father of Bachir Attar when recording Steel Wheels. The same musicians present when the band leader died in 1982 continued afterward using the Jajouka spelling. Bands that have had two names have to pick one sooner or later. This does not need to be a nightmare article. I'm just seeking consistency and accuracy. I agree the info about the album's music is most pertinent for the text. Emerman 03:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Talk:Brian Jones

A dispute has broken out on the Talk:Brian Jones page, between Emerman and myself about this debate. Both Emerman and I edited the Brian Jones article in the last month, and yet Emerman is trying to have my comment deleted from the discussion page there, saying it is not relevant to discussion of that article. I have noted that discussion about the dispute should take place here, not there, but that a notice of the discussion here is necesary on that page, in order to give interested parties a chance to edit and help resolve this dispute. I also put a notice on Talk:The Rolling Stones for similar reasons. My response onTalk:Brian Jones reads as follows:

This is a very important issue for Jones and Stones fans particularly. Here is an example of the wholesale neutering of the article being done by Emerman, where he takes out all kinds of information about Brian and replaces it with recent, contentious materials about the people who reissued the album in 1995, and removed Brian's picture from the cover. Contrary to Emerman's claims, Rolling Stones Records did not reissue the album. They licensed it out, and it was not their idea to change of the cover and name. Basically the same group of people who took Brian's picture off the album are now busy taking his picture and notes off the Brian's Wikipedia album page, and erasing what really were Brian's dying wishes, as he passed on a month after producing the album. It appears to be a way for them to sell some of their other, less notable albums. But this discussion is taking place on the Talk:Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka page, not here, as agreed in dispute resolution process.

Tuathal 05:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Since we're quoting, let's quote the whole thing

Tuathal said at the Brian Jones talk page that people behind the 1995 release were removing his edits, and I'm not a person behind the 1995 release, so I wrote the following reply there since he has been quoting a part of it above:

Subject heading: Comments made about people "behind the 1995 rerelease"

I am the person who reverted a series of edits by Tuathal on the Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka article, requesting that he wait for consensus and admins before making contentious edits. I am not in any way related to the 1995 release, which was actually rereleased in fact by The Rolling Stones, who own it. The Master Musicians of Jajouka and their band manager also talked in the talk page but they did not make any reverts to Tuathal's edits though their anon IP folks might have been editing prior to his edits. I reverted his edits because he had removed the current album cover and had started adding non-official village spellings. The band name was changed to "Master Musicians of Jajouka" in 1972 when a different album producer made recordings released in 1974 of the same band using the official "Jajouka" spelling on the maps and used by the villagers, and the band kept that spelling ever since, including after the death of the band leader. In 1995 there was a rerelease put out by The Rolling Stones on Point Music reflecting the Master Musicians of Jajouka spelling.

Tuathal's edits have been reverting the article to remove the current cover and include the spelling on the original album which is also now used by a band that released work in 1995 on Sub Rosa by that same spelling, produced by a fellow who was listed in an article in The Handstand as having gone to T's school before, so that confused me and he probably meant well. The spellings sought by Tuathal do not reflect geographic standards or the official village name, which is Jajouka on the maps. True, it was spelled Joujouka in the first album, but this was not what the band called itself after that on later recordings. Thus the 1995 rerelease spelled it different. The Sub Rosa group seemed last year to want to see the "joujouka" spelling used everywhere in Wikipedia. Someone last year had redirected the Master Musicians of Jajouka's band article to the article about the Sub Rosa group, written in part by their producer at that time before disambiguation in Jan. 2007. Also "joujouka", a name not on any map we've seen so far, was being used in place of "Jajouka" for the village article till recently. (Note however I think the band on Sub Rosa may possibly claim to have started before 1995. I only mean I first know of their work via the 1995 release. I make no comment about when they actually started because only they know that. Hamri managed them and he himself dated back a long time in the village in doing different tasks related to the village and organizing music.) Things are getting more neutral POV now.

Tuathal says he is doing his changes out of the love of Brian Jones but it was very similar to things that have been done in the past by another party so I got confused. I simply reverted to a previous state prior to his sudden arrival at the talk page arguing with me. He does not have a lot of experience and I try to understand that maybe he is simply confused. Since his sudden arrival in the talk page, he and I had regrettably quarrelsome conversations. I do not have anything against him and I think that both he and I simply don't do well in these sort of contentious disputes. However, his going from talk page to talk page to make arguments accusing me of being a party "behind" the 1995 reissue is untrue plus he started the "edit warring" by removing the current album's cover after disambiguation without asking anyone during a period in which an admin had been asking for parties to present views. But again this may just be lack of experience and I try not to blame him for that. Surely he means well and I've just not communicated well with him. I should blame myself for at least half the communication problem. Or maybe he refers to edit warring by others prior to his and my edit dispute.

My concern is encyclopedic consistency and the official current name, and including both album covers, and not misleading people into a link to a band that had no connection with the album. Disinterested, neutral admins are needed to work on that page if you know any, not vote stacking thing. Thanks.

Also, the comment he made about "strangers" rereleasing the album does not seem to apply. The Rolling Stones assigned the album to Point Music and the band involved in the lease, Master Musicians of Jajouka, is composed entirely of musicians who played with the original band leader from the original group at the time of his death. They are the current band and recognized by the Rolling Stones on Steel Wheels as such (check the liner notes for spelling of group). The Rolling Stones own the album still. This complaining about the cd rerelease has been a constant theme of an interested party in past debates on other talk pages and regarding edits to the first version of the article which attacked a person leading the band the album was leased to. [Refactored for sensitivity by me Emerman 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)]

I have nothing against Brian Jones, contrary to what he said, and I had nothing against the liner notes being included. I simply asked the current album cover and official village spellings be reflected and not removed by him. So currently it's close to what he wrote except for adding the current cover and the official spellings which I assume he doesn't want. I hope wikipedia spelling consistency admin gurus check in eventually. Emerman 03:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The comment above is relevant to the Brian Jones page because both myself and User:Emerman have edited the Brian Jones article in the last month. I added an image and some info and links on Feb 1. A POV Edit on Jan 10 by Emerman of Brian Jones Page where he removed a link to one band and replaced it with another, rather than simply adding the second band shows prior use of this page for advancing his views. I did not invite any discussion here anyway. I simply wanted to direct interested users to where the discussion is taking place at Talk:Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka

This is a very important issue for Jones and Stones fans particularly. Here is an example of the wholesale neutering of the article being done by Emerman, where he takes out all kinds of information about Brian and replaces it with recent, contentious materials about the people who reissued the album in 1995, and removed Brian's picture from the cover. Contrary to Emerman's claims, Rolling Stones Records did not reissue the album. They licensed it out, and it was not their idea to change of the cover and name. Basically the same group of people who took Brian's picture off the album are now busy taking his picture and notes off the Brian's Wikipedia album page, and erasing what really were Brian's dying wishes, as he passed on a month after producing the album. It appears to be a way for them to sell some of their other, less notable albums. But this discussion is taking place on the Talk:Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka page, not here, as agreed in dispute resolution process. Tuathal 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[Lightly refactored for sensitivity this section. Emerman 17:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)] Despite the misleading description above, I did not say that Rolling Stones Records was the reissue label, I said the Rolling Stones, who own the work, licensed it to Point Records and the Rolling Stones did authorize what was done. In fact Brian Jones' essay was in the reissue too (although I see in my copy the village spelling was corrected to the official one in the rerelease; I see no reason to do that in the article quotation of the liner notes though). The Stones also themselves spelled it Master Musicians of Jajouka in their 1989 Steel Wheels album with the survivors of the band that was involved in the original album. The so-called "wholesale neutering" edit he refers to was a clearly marked "reversion" to a version prior to his wholesale respellings and removal of the newer album cover pending consensus process and he ignored the RfC process I had asked for then reverted again. I since then just readded the new album cover rather than completely revert because I agree with most of what he has done other than leaving out the newer album cover with the spelling reflecting the band's name since 1972 and I also believe the official village spelling should be used consistently throughout wikipedia except when quoting something such as Brian Jones' original notes.

His comment about POV is about my disambiguating to remove the slanderous previous opinion statements from 2006 versions of the article attacking the other band that had been put in by a producer for another group that adopted the "joujouka" spelling for their 1995 album; I never claimed to have done more than to begin the disambiguation.

He started changing the article to remove the later album cover, having no previous music article edits prior to the village name spelling crusade, while using my reading list additions without adding any footnotes re: the information provided. There had not been any footnotes in the 2006 version either and it still needs footnotes for the page number the Pallenberg statement's from. He interrupted the admin's dispute resolution process and has come in here presenting me as a Rolling Stones hater and framing my actions whatever way is convenient in a place that is not appropriate for this discussion. The band did change its name in 1972 and the Rolling Stones recognized the change in their 1989 album liner notes and by later authorizing the release on Point Music to be done with that same group's oversight. I see no reason to be thinking the spelling did not reflect their wishes, but agitating over this spelling has been carried on for some time by another party places like Wikipedia articles and talk pages where he pointed to a PDF attacking Bachir Attar (Master Musicians of Joujouka talk page archives) and these arguments by Tuathal are exactly the same sorts he was making. There is nothing wrong with displaying the current cover and spelling for the album shown as well as the old album cover except to someone dedicated to worrying over the spelling.

When it is listed the old way it appeared prior to the band's name change of 1972 and prior to the rerelease cover of 1995, this creates a problem with potential linking the band name spelled the old way as though it is connected to a group that is heavily disputed as being connected and wipes out the band that was in charge of the rerelease. At most there could be a mention that a group adopted this spelling in 1995 in honor of the album and link to them that way rather than remove the current album cover and spelling and imply the two bands are the same because that is misleading and not fair to the group that actually was assigned the license for reason of having been the remaining members from the original group. I just think this is weird to be trying to act like anyone in the village pronounces it "Joujouka" unless he can show us maps that spell it that way. The official spelling is normally used in encyclopedias, and the village is actually spelled Jajouka according to maps and official gazetteers. Every time I say anything, I see it later restated a negative way so please read things the way I intended them. Thanks. Emerman 05:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

sand box editing

Before I saw Tuathal's commentaries in the talk pages again, I had actually come in here to suggest he and I work on some versions in a sandbox at my user page if Szvest could remind me how but there's probably no point to that suggestion unless Tuathal might be interested in a cooperative approach. [Refactor for sensitivity and unncessary extra comment. Emerman]

Anyway, if T would like to de-escalate I'd gladly experiment with him on a sand box till we could get a resolution together (and we could invite others to work on the sandbox with us); we really should also be deleting arguments clogging up talk pages intended to discuss how to do other articles instead of treat them as bulletin boards for bringing people here. I suppose we could add a reference to a band adopting the name on the album (Frank's group) or else remove the link to the other band (not both) but I don't know he would try working on it in a sandbox with me. Szvest could remind me how to do that since he mentioned sandboxes before. Other de-escalation ideas would be to remove contentious remarks if a resolution is ever agreed to since T seemed concerned about some of them. The whole talk page is contentious though, not just the MMOJ band manager's remarks he mentioned, and all of it could stand to be removed with an edit summary called "Old Contentious Remarks" - just an idea. Emerman 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Emerman falsely attributed 1995 rerelease of this album to The Rolling Stones

In the last round of major editing done by Emerman, this time on the The Rolling Stones page, I noticed that he had inserted the following statement:

Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka, was an album produced by Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones band in 1968, released in 1971 and reissued on Point Music in 1995 by the Rolling Stones (emphasis added).

Emerman states above that: "Despite the misleading description above, I did not say that Rolling Stones Records was the reissue label." While he did not attribute the rerelease to Rolling Stones Records he quite clearly did attribute the rerelease to The Rolling Stones. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Cherie Nutting manager of Master Musicians of Jajouka clearly shows in her Statement above, it was she and her ex-husband Bachir Attar who were behind the rerelease on the label owned by Philip Glass. After years of pleading with the Stones for rights to licence the record, they finally got a hearing. It was their idea to remove the picture of Brian Jones and other materials Brian had put on the cover and replace it with a picture of Bachir, and change the name of the cover to match the name of Bachir's band. Emerman's statement would have you believe that the Stones initiated this process. And while there are claims that the Stones approved the name change, there is no evidence to show they were happy with the new cover, or were even aware of it. I haven't heard the new album, but I also was informed that even the music on it is not the same as the original, so there is a good argument to say it is an entirely different album.

Emerman has falsely accused me of bad faith and conspiring with Frank Rynne, a person associated with Master Musicians of Joujouka, who are currently releasing albums. This is untrue. While this debate has been going on here on Wikipedia for a year, I only joined it in the last two weeks, despite the fact I have been registered with Wikipedia for almost a year. I joined the present debate because I received a myspace request from Cherie's band recently, and was surprised because I already had a myspace friend of a band with a different spelling.

A review of all of Emerman's edits will show that he continues to impose a POV that is exactly in line with that of Cherie Nutting and strongly suggests he has assisted her in waging a campaign against the curent Master Musicians of Joujouka, and Frank. He even went so far as to create the Wikipeda entry for both Frank Rynne and Cherie Nutting, both of which further the Nutting/Attar or No-Brianer agenda. In the process of competing with the other band and developing links to their own band and goods, Cherie and Co have repeatedly denigrated the role of Brian Jones in this whole process, and hijacked the goodwill associated with the first highly successful release, to further their sales of the reissue and other albums by Bachir. Yet, they are indeed strangers to the original because none of them were involved in its creation in any way whatsoever. Bachir was an infant when the original came out. Yet, his picture is on the cover of it now, along with the name of his band.

Clearly, there is room for both albums and they both have their legitimate place in the world and in Wikipedia, as do both bands. There should be separate pages for each, rather than pages that only reflect Cherie's band and Cherie's 'reissue'. I am not against sandboxing, but feel there should be two: one for the original by Brian, with the original cover, history, notes and so on, and another for the rerelease. This is the only way I can see of neutralising this debate, and honouring all parties for their respective contributions. So Emerman should sandbox the reissue and I am happy to do the original. Tuathal 11:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding from all I'd read was that the Rolling Stones decided who they would reissue it to and they had put that Master Musicians of Jajouka band on their 1989 album Steel Wheels too. Rolling Stones biographer Stephen Davis seemed to view the band as the current edition too in his 2001 book about the Stones I had found mentioned on one of Frank's sites in the past and got from the library. I didn't perceive who they chose to reissue it to as the crisis you do because they owned and controlled the work, but I'll keep an open mind to this charge about the album.

My edits to all the various articles related to this subject, of which this article is not one I spent as much time on, is not in line with Nutting's POV, given that I've removed some of her edits before (and edits by people who seem to have a POV against Frank Rynne or Hamri) at other articles (like Master Musicians of Jajouka and Jajouka) and people like user Jonur have said her band wants to not mention the other group in things like the village of Jajouka article, my edits showed it's clear I think Frank's band and Hamri belongs in the article about the village so you have not reviewed all my edits at all given my work on the topic involved a lot more articles than just this one that you have focused on; to me this was one I spent the least time on and started a starter stub disambiguation on it and spent more time on other articles.

For this particular article, I have mentioned last night it seemed to me that Frank's band's spelling for his band in honor of this album cover's spelling would be something that might be mentioned in passing, and I would think the "jajouka" crowd would disagree with that statement by me given their past edits of the village of "Jajouka" article. So I'm not in line with the views of their edits in various aticles.

Where I have agreed with their comments generally is that I can't find "Joujouka" in official standard spellings because I've looked on more than online maps since when I started. I expected to find both spellings and didn't, re: how to spell the village and my past professional editing work on the job involved spelling consistency so following one spelling is what I'm used to doing for work. I can see from liner notes on Steel Wheels and the reissue album that the Rolling Stones accept the Master Musicians of Jajouka as the current band.

Also, the MMoJajouka band has listed its name that way since their second album, and I do not understand why you are saying "Nutting"'s group are strangers because they have the surviving personnel from the period just before the original band leader died. For similar reasons, I didn't understand all the bickering from Frank's Hamri people on a JoeAmbrose.net hosted PDF he posted a link to in a past talk page from when I first arrived at the various "jajouka/joujouka" related talk pages. So because I don't understand how some things a producer has agitated about and posted opinions on directly into articles in the past could be correct, in certain points my opinion matches the other crowd, yet in some points I disagree with them and am more inclusive of both views than the other group. I have mentioned I thought admins should work on it and they said "more knowledgeable people" so that is another similarity, otherwise I have differences with the "jajouka" crowd's past edits to articles and have included sources and detail they would not have in other articles, nor do I think they'd have made a point to mention things with the same emphasis I did even in this particular article.

Also, re: these things you mention about who released the album, I thought the owners have a complete say about what is done with it, but you say otherwise without explaining how that would be. Nutting mentioned it was "the record company" who decided what would be on the cover, so your statement is unfounded blaming that on Nutting. And how you could say that because there's "no evidence they were happy with the results" means therefore the Rolling Stones weren't happy with it, is like saying because no one's shown evidence Joe is happy about what Bill said yesterday that Joe must be unhappy about it. Should I contact the Rolling Stones and ask? The Rolling Stones are not on record complaining about the album. A personal grudge of the original illustrator mentioned at a PDF posted in past talk page discussions at Master Musicians of Joujouka talk page archives is what made this reissue an issue prior to your bringing it up again.

What is different about the music? That would help me do the reissue entry. Ending the dispute would be good, since I, like you, have other things to think about than wikipedia.

Also, I did not say you conspired with Frank and had bad faith. You launch into this trying to present it as you against me, which it is not, and which wikipedia rules say we're not supposed to do. I said "surely he means well" about you and that I thought you were not experienced in one paragraph, which was to say I didn't think it bad faith. I said that this however is the same sort of argument I witnessed when I arrived at the "Master Musicians of Joujouka" talk page around early January when there was one page for both groups in an article written by a producer who had been inserting opinions instead into articles occasionally (though he probably just didn't know the rules). The sort of commentary of yours in talk pages along with Dublin IP edits in the past, seeing your bio and immediate chastising way of talking to me while claiming to be neutral, led me to think you were conducting some sort of hostile feud, which I couldn't understand and you hadn't been editing music articles before. So that's why I thought that at the time. I have a history of writing articles on rock music here though I'm worn out on all that now.

The order of the Frank Rynne and Nutting articles I started coming about was that Szvest disambiguated the MMOJ articles and more info was added to show the difference between the groups including the producer and label for Frank's group needing to be mentioned in the history since they're in allmusic.com. After Frank became relevant for the disambiguation, an article seemed to be relevant given how Szvest often adds red links for new articles to key names, so I tried to throw in things I found on the internet to start an article stub on Frank, as did Szvest and Jonur. It was a stub and I hope some additional sources can be found for it by others. Later, when I got to this article, the people involved in the liner notes and crew of this group seemed relevant, so I eventually also tossed in things from liner notes and articles online about Nutting; one page had her biography on it, so it took very little time. I never got around to having time to do Bachir Attar's article which would take a lot more time to look through scads of articles and interviews I've glanced at on the web. Frank's article is longer than Bachir A's, listing every book thing listed on the internet. That was not about furthering an agenda, and if you don't like the two articles, you could delete both as far as I'm concerned; I really do not care about either of the two articles. I didn't see anything bad about my article stub on Frank and invited people to add to it via a stub marker; that means people with more sources and detail should add it. I don't have more than some internet things I found.

Now that I've explained myself, I am glad to go ahead and proceed with T's suggestions on sandboxes.

Could you please explain to me what the difference is in the music from the original to the reissue? Please point me to the differences if you can learn them. That will help the reissue article since it's probably going to be more boring than the original album article. I think there may have been an additional cd included with the original release on Point but anyway, I think the main issues that make them significantly different are the name spellings and album package, the cover, and who's involved, and it's not worth it to me to have all that in one article any more though it seemed apppropriate in the past.

As far as I'm concerned the reissue one doesn't need a lot of stuff done to it by me; I wouldn't intend to spend much time on that, nor do I really feel like it should be a second entry unless we find a difference int he music and precedence here for separating reissues. I am not sure that mentioning either band should be done in either article or linking to either band either, to avoid further disharmony. I think that if we ever get done with this, we should remove all this blathering and certainly it should not be on talk pages about other articles.

I believe the Jones and RS talk page comments by both of us should be removed other than a very brief statement without slanting or attacking anyone. Instead point people there without detailed explanation to this page or else to our sandboxes if you can give me a URL. I'll put my sandbox URL on my user talk page and you can work with it but I do want to find out if two articles are actually merited before any final acts beyond sandboxing are done.

I will also drop a note to both parties in email asking the difference if any in the music from one release to the other. That would be important. I hadn't heard about that. I have a copy of the reissue and the original here. I have bought everything by both groups. I will try to find a wikiproject album admin to tell me about how reissues are done here. Emerman 13:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Emerman. You have the records there. Why don't you listen to them and see if there is a difference in the music?

While you are going to great pains to appear to be reasonable in this dispute, your latest edits show that you will never be able to reach consensus, and insist on a winner-take-all scenario: (add current album cover and official spelling of village) (remove links to bands) (remove link to wrong band in error and leave message on talk page). You have decided which is the 'right' and 'wrong' band and what should be at the end of the link to Master Musicians Of Joujouka, and this is, ironically, a band called Master Musicians of Jajouka. Meanwhile there is a real band from the village currently releasing albums under 'Joujouka' that is being denied its rightful Wikipedia entry.

The present album page is being manipulated by you to vaildate one band and invalidate the other. Since you cannot come to terms with a neutral solution within one page, then the only option is to create two pages. Your version still reads in a very confusing fashion, and gets into boring, petty explanations of minutia about name changes before there is any information about the album and history. There are two separate records here. You removed Rolling Stones Records as the label in the album box, when it is in fact the label for the 1971 album. And to leave the new label names in the entry for the 1971 release would also be an incomplete entry.

Clearly there needs to be disambiguation here. I fail to understand why Emerman is so against the idea of two (or ultimately four) pages, since it would resolve this for one and for all. Then it would be no problem for the reissue to link to the band of the same name, with a note about the other band and original album; and for the page about the original release to link to the band whose name is on it, and reference the other band and issue too. That I believe is the best Wikipedia will ever be able to do. It is then up to the real parties to this dispute to reach their own solution, elsewhere, and let us get on with our lives here. This is not a proper forum for ultimate resolution of these realworld issues. There will only be further escalation unless Emerman is actually willing to accept a compromise solution for purposes of this Wikipedia entry, as I am, rather than insist on a Final courtroomlike adjudication of these issues.

This is an encyclopedia. Names matter. Each band has chosen its name. Let each band and album version have their own name and corresponding slug, and link to others in a nonpartisan way. It is the redirects that are causing chaos here. Tuathal 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tuathal, I have already concluded that splitting can be validated by past practice at the encyclopedia that makes original covers important but had been trying to make sure the albums were substantially different. You were the one who suggested the music is different. I wish you could tell me how so I could know what to listen for or look for in the song listings as I commence my sandbox discussion for the later reissue -- it helps explain the differences to know how the music is different. I will try to see what you meant. Perhaps the two band's reps will write me about the differences.

I have not taken a winner take all idea at all. I suggested neither group be linked and it's a fact who the Rolling Stones chose to rerelease it which you seem to be angry about and rely on name spellings. I included both album covers unlike you and suggested mentioning the other band took the spelling of the album, however not to imply they own it (to say the other band owns it is obviously heavily disputed). If you must link, then link both. I think it would be better to link neither. I had considered unlinking the "Jajouka" band from the edit I had up too but thought we would get to that. I guess what you are doing is disputing that the "jajouka" spelled band should have it in their resume, and that is contrary to the actions of the Rolling Stones in leasing the album.

But I am ready to move ahead with splitting because it takes too much energy to debate this. If you could help me with my sandbox, I would appreciate it.

As for my supposed boring entry, the current last edit to the article does not have anything except what you yourself wrote other than adding the later album cover with the current spelling and using the official village spelling; the text does not discuss the album name change except for what you authored. The previous initial disambiguation did have a discussion of the change differences but that was not something I felt was important to include and didn't in my last edit of the other day. A reversion had been done previously by me just to get into discussing, not because I was married to discussing the later reissue's changes but its changes had been discussed in a negatively opnionated way in 2006 by the other band's people editing it so I had originally started disambiguation by moving to NPOV and not including opinions attacking anyone. Emerman 14:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In short, I agree to split and to be done with this stuff. And yes, names matter, and the fact both groups "chose their names" does not mean the Sub Rosa group worked on the first album -- however their original manager Hamri designed the cover - that's for sure. The spelling issue should not mislead people. It seems that to avoid "winner take all" issues you are raising then both bands have to be linked on this album or it will never end. Especially since the exact same band on the first record changed to a different spelling in 1972 and the current band using that "Jajouka" spelling (who are composed of musicians from the last band of the band leader of the original album before he died) has occasionally been interviewed using the "joujouka" spelling too, such as in 1989 in Rolling Stone interviewing Bachir Attar. Emerman 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Rereading your final sentence, I guess that's what we should do. Emerman 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok to split

Go ahead and commence your split in the non partisan way you suggested. I'd rather not get involved in editing this stuff after today. Tuathal, could you take it upon yourself to keep things nonpartisan in the two entries once this gets started in future weeks so I can avoid looking at this stuff after today? (What I mean is, if you see anon IPs making all sorts of changes, I hope you might try to look in about that occasionally in future weeks after we get this done. I don't want to.) I think you know how to keep things right. Do you want to start out with sandbox edits? I'll try to start a sandbox. Emerman 15:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandboxing

Excellent! I'm glad we are finally finding common ground, and propose we either create four sand-boxes or divide up the pages. You edit the reissue and Jajouka, and I edit the original and Joujouka. Then we have a final round of debate and seek consensus. I said the current entry on the album page is 'boring' because it reads, from the top, as follows: "Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka, originally named Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka, was an album produced by Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones band in 1968, released in 1971 and reissued on Point Music in 1995 by the Rolling Stones. The album was a recording of the Moroccan group the Master Musicians of Jajouka, as they have been known since their second album following this one, as led by Hadj Abdesalam Attar in performance in their village, Jajouka." I didn't write any of this. You did, and it takes the reader straight into the quagmire of names rather than the story about how Brian Jones produced the album. A simple tag saying (see Brian Jones Presents The Master Musicians At Jajouka) at the top, coupled with a note on the bottom and link to rerelease will deal adequately on the page for the original album. You can get into all the name stuff on the rerelease page, but I feel it really doesn't belong up front on the original album page. You also again make the misleading statement that it was "reissued...by the Rolling Stones." If it were, then it would be on their label, not another one, and we wouldn't be in this mess. I agree, both bands have to be linked to on all pages. So, I will get to work on my two sandboxes and get back to you here when I have them ready for discussion. As for the difference in the music, I honestly don't know what the difference is, but will try and find out. But for starters, could you confirm that the songs are the same name and order? It might be useful to give the songlist and credits to individual musicians on both album pages, whether the same or different on each album. Take it easy Tuathal 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tuathal, I'll print this paragraph out for notes. Please advise also as to what to remove from talk pages. Frank wrote me a note about libel regarding me (this is evidently not about the Nutting comments you yourself mentioned elsewhere) and I don't know what he refers to - it was in reply to me asking him about music differences. But as far as I'm concerned, anything and everything upsetting to anyone should be removed immediately. Wikipedia does not like removing info but it also says "of course remove libel". Even though I didn't write anything libelous, I don't have time to sit trying to judge what he refers to. If he is upset and says "libel" I don't want it up and it's not worth being up. Could you make a suggestion regarding how to remove things that disturb him? I am totally amenable to removal of anything and everything I said, maybe with a link left to "past discussions" pointing to the history file or something rather than have stuff up bothering him. Perhaps old talk pages too. He in the past contributed some negative opinions on one or more of them and seems to have forgotten this. Perhaps simply refactoring skillfully to indicate Person A and Person B presented arguments on what to include in the articles and leave out all opinions people find offensive (which is most of the chaos). The old MMoJoujouka and MMoJajouka archives and talk pages should be refactored too and any other place with discussions annoying people in a fashion regarding "libel". Emerman 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: sandboxes - two seem sufficient. Why don't I just make comments and edits to your sandbox if you're going to make one anyway or vice versa. Sandbox edits don't hurt anything. I am running out of energy on this anyway. Emerman 15:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a minor change above where I said Joujouka instead of Jajouka, re linking from original page, in case you printed that paragraph for notes. I have to take break now and will try and get a sandbox up in the next day or so. Meanwhile, can we get consensus here to remove all redirects? As for removing potentially libelous materials, I suppose it is up to Frank to decide what he wants removed, and will get back to us on that privately.Tuathal 15:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring is a term admins use to shorten long articles to a shorter form, which admins normally do. Here someone mentioned they were upset and used legal terms in an email. Refacoring could be a matter of simply blanking the page and saying to see History file for detailed discussions and then typing a summary of the issues, who debated and what was decided to do. The rest is contentious jabber and I'm not married to anything I've typed as far as feeling it needs preservation or that I couldn't have said it much better. He demanded I change my comments. I guess I'll go and look at refactoring myself and will include notations about each change I make at the spot I make them.

Also I think we should remove all the stuff by both on the Brian Jones and RS talk pages whose pages say they are about proposing changes to those articles not this one (as with any talk page). I didn't want to write anything there anyway. I will refactor my comments on related pages to just not mention anything he's going to be upset about. Nothing I said was important to me to have up permanently and you've already taken in the gist. Emerman 15:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm not sure about the etiquette regarding refactoring, or removing comments from Talk pages, but I think that is something for an admin. I'd also like to respond to your perception that I am angry over who did the reissue. I'm not at all, but rather frustrated at 'how' it was reissued. It has sown the seeds of deep needless dispute, as it was not simply a reissue but a rather major overhaul. Again, a song by song analysis will help to highlght the extent of the changes. I don't have the reissue myself so I'm sorry I can't help with that. Tuathal 16:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I had not had time to refactor every sensitive word (like "angry"); it was hard to do the refactor and I'm not tied to saying you're angry (I'm happy to remove that but you had some perceptions in there that I was having to respond to that I'm not happy you put up either and which are offensive to me, though I haven't refactored your things at all). I think we could try to eventually ask an admin to refactor the entire page to just get to the points in dispute, the decision at the end rather than the personality issues since people were making legal remarks in email and elsewhere. To me, the only point of the talk page is to get the points in issue up and the resolution, without comments about each other especially where people have been bandying about libel. Now I've gone out of the way to look toward the feelings of Frank and of you on this page and I hope the feelings of myself would be thought abuot with regards to refactoring and removing the need for people like Nutting to have replied since her remarks are not up now but she obviously felt they were needed due to things that were said and being done. So refactoring of the whole page and related pages is in order with simply a statement of the need for reworking, what the main issues needing doing were and the resolution without opinions attacking people. Emerman 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The two previous mentions at the Jones and the Stones talk pages now point here. Defamatory issues there (provably false comments by T about me being somehow related to a reissue and stuff attacking others) are no longer a concern there and people know to look here to improve articles as you suggested. I hope your comments on this page will eventually be refactored by you or you can ask some admin because your accusational comments, often not true about me, forced me to have to leave some stuff in defending myself that I'd rather have refactored out but couldn't yet until yours are refactored. I will try to finish my sensitivity edits to myself elsewhere after receiving a worrying email (not from tuathal). Also, I did not libel anyone because all my comments I have ever made at wikipedia were believed by me to be true and fair comments, but I do not wish anyone to feel upset enough to even write me such a thing so sensitivity to it is my concern. The wiki Libel page says the policy is to remove anything that someone calls that anyway without me trying to prove it's not libel. I don't have time to work out what is and is not what the person was viesing as "libel" so I'll refactor for sensitivity my own comments on related pages. I have no desire to upset any one even if I was trying to do fair comment to explain my edits and concerns and was saying things I believed are true. Wikipedia talk pages are not worth court and this discussion in particular is not. It's supposed to boil down to what we need to do to the articles, not bickering about each other obviously. I think T and I agree on that. An admin should refactor the remaining contentious comments and get the page back to simply discussing the fact we're splitting the articles and why without all the other blather that includes personal attacks or accusations.

If you see anything I said that bothers you that needs refactoring tell me or do a refactor yourself to a problem comment in a personal sandbox for your user page and I can look it over and approve it or do it. Also I'm assuming the edits you concerned yourself with at the BJ and RS talk pages prior to resolution today here were edits by me, not the anon IPs related to the other band people prior to your edits. I am not the anon IPs and not the "jajouka" people's edits. Emerman 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Go ahead and remove the redirect of "Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka" to here, or I will do it if you do not know how since there are two albums. I guess I will possibly make my own sandbox for the albums but if you could just make it as non partisan as possible yourself then I won't need to deal with it. Emerman 15:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The redirect is already gone. See here. Someone had reverted to a last version before the disambig so I've put your latest edit in and it mainly needs things done by you like linking to the other article and the other things you have mentioned above. Maybe sandbox isn't needed and just deal with the articles themselves and comment here or on each other's talk page. Emerman 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I can't believe we were arguing about this for so long. Ugh. Emerman 16:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's good news. Since the redirect is gone from the album pages, and you have volunteered to remove it from the band pages, let's just go ahead and edit our respective articles and keep discussion going here until it is resolved. Cheers, Tuathal 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made initial attempts at refactoring re: libel sensitivity issues and extreme length on this page to my own comments. Personally I'd just as soon remove the whole thing and restate the final issues and final decisions later but I wanted to make an immediate change that would help with the charge I had gotten in email until others decide if they want a more complete refactor. I only changed my own things and marked them as refactored. You may do the same to your own and if less of yours was up, I would remove more of mine, but for now I have what's necessary to be clear in reply to things said before that I wasn't editing in any bad faith and so forth. Most of the things we talked about really wasn't relevant to what we need up on the page so I think a more full refactoring could be done later. I tried to remove accusatory sounding things since the "libel" word came up to be sensitive. If I do that elsewhere I'll mark it as well. Some bots seem to want to revert this sort of thing so mark any refactoring you do plainly and mention libel concerns in edit summary because that may be more understandable to wikipedia. I will look at fooling with this article after I finish dealing with the complaints I received in email that demanded removal of remarks mentioning libel. Everyone's feelings should be considered including yours and mine re: accusations and refactoring, not just the one party making that charge though. I will remove my comments from the non relevant BJ and RS talk pages and point here if they are still up. Emerman 17:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am confused what you mean about regarding redirects of band pages. The band pages properly are disambiguated and point to each other at the top unless someone changed something in the past few days. I assume you knew that. There hasn't been a redirect of one band to the other since the disambiguation of mid January. Previously there had been a redirect of the "MMofJajouka" band over to the "MMofJoujouka" band throughout 2006 which created much of the firestorm leading to the disambiguation efforts of mid January 2007. Of course both articles are needing footnotes and more info I'd assumed, but weren't "redirected" since mid Jan. 2007. The past redirect situation of the band pages to the "Joujouka" MMOJ group had harmed the "Jajouka" spelled band, which is partly why we saw Nutting's comments on talk pages. Probably people can go about removing some of the tags if people will slowly and surely go about adding footnotes (re: numbered jump links, not just Further reading lists) eventually.Emerman 17:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Since articles are now split, skip sandbox, go ahead and work on article

Tuathal, I imagine you can get the album articles neutral. I haven't spent but two minutes on the article. Please adjust the proper way. I doubt all that "joujouka" spelling from the first album's liner notes are relevant in the reissue since they didn't spell it that way. The Brian Jones picture in the reissue is grey anyway, not green as in the album. I guess I can try to go in there and improve it later but I'm a little worn out now. Emerman 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that the two articles are split by agreement, you should just go ahead and work on improving the article. The sandbox doesn't seem necessary since we already decided to split (and part of that sandbox thing was about whether to split). Just edit the article on the original album, as you suggested, and I'll attempt to get the reissue to have footnotes and reflect how it looks now. It did not include the green scan or the essay the same way as shown in the original album but had a grey tint and the official village spelling (re: maps etc.) in the essay so the green one and the full quote is more relevant to the original album essay. Best wishes working on that. Other than adding footnotes to this and any map footnotes I can provide for the village, I'm done with this stuff. When you feel neutrality tags can be removed, do so, thanks. The other tags are mainly just reminders to eventually footnote. Emerman 14:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Update on research: One source, World Music Central, referred to "extra tracks left intact, representational of the original sound"."Master Musicians of Jajouka". World Music Central. Retrieved Feb. 6, 2007. I am not sure this is correct; in fact at present I think it's not. I did find a reference to a remix promo cd that came without art including "2 remixes and an album version from the cd", Point cd SACD1122. One person mentioned it may have originally been released with a second cd. However my copy didn't have one. My copy seems to have the same tracks of the vinyl cd but with all the differences in the booklet which are significant to some people. I'll check on the Wyman book soon for footnoting. There are a few things needing footnotes (Pallenberg reference etc.). Maybe the Wyman and Davis books can fill in some of that info which is originally from info from previous versions people wrote. I'll try to finish dealing with that asap. Am glad for feedback too if I'm needing to work even harder as I finish up. Emerman 21:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Update 2: found Wyman book, very interesting, also looking at another interesting book. Emerman 04:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emerman. I am having to take a break for a couple of days and catch up on sleep! Anyway, will get to editing as soon as I can. Maybe some others would like to asist with Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka ? Tuathal 15:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, T. I really don't even have time to do much tonight either. I DID find two interesting articles I am going to think about. A Christgau article and a Schuyler article. They may not have much to do with this article but maybe with the band articles. I think that a good bit of what I put in this article could go in the vinyl album article, but including your green scan and text and could skip the cd reissue discussion in the article on the vinyl album. I might look in on that tomorrow, not tonight. Am exhausted. If you learn of footnotes for the Pallenberg reference talking about what Brian Jones wanted to do re: the village music and for the Godard reference to Charlie Watts playing a Jajouka drum, let me know. Those two items were not written by me. I could always remove them to this page temporarily until people find footnotes for them. I think you will find the two articles I have found today very interesting. These are very neutral articles. I need to also do a library search some time for more info on the Sub Rosa group. I have their cds but I haven't sat studying them as much because I was more interested in grasping the history of the music in general. The village's heritage is an interesting subject. Emerman 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Emerman. Thanks for reminding me of the Schuyler article, which I had read ages ago and forgotten about. It does a good job of cutting through the crap about the village. And the quote from Christgau is priceless: In short, this tiny local style comes to the international marketplace burdened with more bullshit than any music can bear. Jonur 12:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

mel 1 both groups have several albums post split. The person who split was Bachir Attar , afdter he had secured a personal record contract fro himself in the guise of the MMOJ. Wikipedia has been used as a mock court in this issue. However the secondary sources and the activities of both groups are seperate and distinct re their activities and yet linked in their early histories. The original name of the group presented was MMO Joujouka and that has continued until the present, the breakaway group led by Bachir Attar was/is a commercial group which deviated both musicallyt and from the basic principles of the Sufi traditions of the Ahl Srif. The footnoting on the BJ presents Jajoujouka may appear academiaccaly sound but in fact there has been greta discussion here and argument about waht souyrces are "GOOD". The only testomony in the public domain from Mohamed Hamri the person responisble for the modern (ie since 1940s) histiory has been systematically wiped from the wiki links on all related pages but desearves to be seriously considered. It was widely distributed and written about in the mid 90s - 2000 and is a key to the historicity of any of these pages. pls check it out http://www.joeambrose.net/japdf/HamrisOpenLetter.pdf

re disambiguation

this disambiguation ignores the issues and the discussions that have recently taken place here. The credits on the origianl reflect that the artist is/was the Master Musicians of Joujouka not Jajouka. The reissue was a global media controversy and the group below is not considered in the disambiguatuion

Talk page edits

Would editors please no copy whole articles (complete with templates, cats, etc.) here? It's not only completely unnecessary (a link is all that's needed), but disruptive (aside from anything else, it places this page on all sorts of clean-up pages, as well as on category pages).

So far as I can see, just as it was unnecessary that there were two separate pages on one album, because of a tiff between musicians, so we have two separate articles on two stages of one band, which is also unnecessary. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

except that it is TWO bands one led by Bachir ATTAR that records seperately to the group from the village!!!

Both groups have been seperate entities but they have a shared history . What seems to be debated is where the shared interest ends. BUT IT IS TWO SEPERATE groups. Therein lies the controversy , the original group still recording is MMO Joujouka , The Jajouka spelling is only related to disputes and is breakaway from the MMO Joujouka. The original group continue to live in Joujouka/Jajouka. Bachir Attars groups draws on session musicians from elsewhere .

The MMO Joujouka and MMO Jajauka featuring Bachir Attar are seperate entities.

Mel. The anonymous poster above is right. Though the 2 "Brian Jones presents" pages should be reconsolidated, in my opinion, the fact is that there are two separate groups of MMoJ, distinguished by the use of the Joujouka/Jajouka spellings. They are offshoots of an original and long-standing group which recorded under the MMoJoujouka name. The re-release of the "Brian Jones presents" with the "Jajouka" spelling is a reflection of the dispute between the two factions - and the question of what happened to the royalties on the re-release is a the cause of acrimony. If anything, the two groups should have different pages but an identical section describing the history up to the split. Jonur 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't one article, with a section explaining the split, and sections on their subsequent histories not be a better idea? I suppose that it depends on the relative importance of the periods before and after the split... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

mel: 1 both groups have several albums post split. The person who split was Bachir Attar , after he had secured a personal record contract fro himself in the guise of the MMOJ. Wikipedia has been used as a mock court in this issue. However the secondary sources and the activities of both groups are seperate and distinct re their activities and yet linked in their early histories. The original name of the group presented was MMO Joujouka and that has continued until the present, the breakaway group led by Bachir Attar was/is a commercial group which deviated both musically and from the basic principles of the Sufi traditions of the Ahl Srif. The footnoting on the BJ presents Jajoujouka may appear academically sound but in fact there has been great discussion here and argument about what sources are "GOOD". The only testomony in the public domain from Mohamed Hamri the person responsible for the modern (i.e. since 1940s) history has been systematically wiped from the wiki links on all related pages but deserves to be seriously considered. It was widely distributed and written about in the mid 90s - 2000 and is a key to the historicity of any of these pages. pls check it out http://www.joeambrose.net/japdf/HamrisOpenLetter.pdf

Please sign your mesages (with four tildes: ~~~~).

Most of what you say is irrelevant here; we should not be a party to these squabbles. Our job is to provide articles which present properly sourced information. I'm happy to concede that there need to be separate articles on the two groups — but it's absurd to have two articles on one album, no matter what disagreements there have been since. That has been raised, discussed, and after plenty of time for people to object, no-one did. I'll just point out that the merge and redirect went ahead after due process, and if people keep reverting it, there will be some editing blocks pretty rapidly. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mel, a merge is good but not when you state that a group that is trading in the commercial world is the artists on this record as opposed to the actual artist on the original recording MMO Joujouka. That uis contentios and non factual. I am also an academic but as a historian am more concerned with the examination of the course of events , the primary sources and the abolistion of ambiguity or done right mistruth. You need to 1/ read what has been said before on the discussion pages as has been pointed out to you on your talk page by another admin 2 having done that not assert that a recent artist in the World Music business is the artist on this record as per public relations exercises.

I have the original and the re issue It is not philosophy , it has all been discussed in the media, use those sources. Howeevr you mustr read the archived and non archived disscussions on the variuos related pages on Wikipedia before you take a high moral tone here.

You can not link this album to Bachir Attras Jajo=jouka nad not to the original group who recorded the original album.

The page could be 1 The history of the record 2 the original release 3 the controversy surrounding the reissue as reported in Independant, Evening Standard, The Wire, The NY Times etc etc

that is the history

As it stands your "mergeing" is promoting a single POV that of Bachir Attar's management and his group. That is ahistorical, unscientific and sorry , bad research.

Block Trinity College Dublin's IP if you wish, there will be many updates from hundreds of wikipedians blocked by that action.

Mel. Though you are to be congratulated on the work of merging the two pages, I am afraid you have let some POV into the garden. The idea that the group that recorded on Sub Rosa is somehow not a continuation of the original Masters who recorded for Jones is false. By including it, you are perpetuating the POV put forward by the Jajouka (with an A) faction, who would like nothing better than to write the Joujouka (with an OU) group and Mohamed Hamri out of the picture entirely. I will elaborate on this shortly when I have time. Suffice it to say that you have managed to perpetuate some of the contentious issues despite your attempts to avoid that. Jonur 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The article should report the two sets of claims, with no preference for one or the other, each adequately cited from verifiable sources. If someone can do that, ti would be great. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

re edits deleted by ] by Mel Etitis that he wishes discussed

Deleted edit

"The original group The Master Musicians of Joujouka were cut out of the release. Hamri until his death led a campaign against Bachir Attar and Philip Glass in an attempt to achieve the musicians rights and dues. The original group continue releasing records on the Sub Rosa label. Mohamed Hamri's Tales of Joujouka was published in 1975. A group of commercial musicians led by Bachir Attar record under the name Master Musicians of Jajouka featuring Bachir Attar.The reissue was designed to give them legitmacy over the original group."

my comments are below having read and reread all this stuff in the last few months and done some further research

1 the original album was recorded and credited on release by The Master Musicians of Joujouka the sleeve notes of the LP state this.

2 an international controversy followed the re release in 1995 which was documented in global daily media.

see eg

• No Stone Unturned: Bachir Attar and Frank Rynne

comment on the controversy surrounding the reissue of Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Joujouka" in The Independent (retrieved 28 March 2007]

3 Neither the musicians nor their descendants have ever been consulted or recompensed for this Cd according to various press and statements.

4 the musicians association whose president signed the original contract were never consulted on the release according to hamri’s statement see

• Mohamed Hamri's Open Letter of Protest against the reissue of this record without consulting the musicians which was distributed at public protests 1995-2000 UK and USA

5 "Joujouka/Jajouka/Zahjouka :Moroccan Music and Euro-American Imagination" by a professor of ethno-musicology Philip Schuyler. This is the only academic article on this village and discusses some relevant issues re. the marketing of Bachir Attar’s “ Master Musicians of Jajouka featuring Bachir Attar”. This is Attar’s only trading name on full CDs as he is neither The Master Musicians of Joujouka nor Master Musicians of Jajouka.

* "Moroccan Music and Euro-American Imagination" a by professor of musicology Philip Schuyler.

A publication and web site of UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

6 The musicians who live in the village seem to be getting subjected to a disinformation campaign designed to relaunch Bachir Attar's career. The Master Musicians of Joujouka ie the Sufi musicians who are from and live in Zahjouka/ Joujouka/ Jajouka have their new CD out and he has not released a CD since 2000.

1. isn't controversial, I take it.
2. — the source cited (which I've read and reread) is very careful not to take sides on the main issue; the only subject on which it's more revealing is Joujouka Black Eyes, which isn't relevant here surely.
3. obviously needs sources.
4. — the source seems adequate.
5. — the source here would do for 2. as well
6. is something that we certainly shouldn't be saying. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Mel Etitis re.[edit] re edits deleted by ] by Mel Etitis that he wishes discussed]]

1 is not contentious it is borne out by the original linear notes from the discussion above I think some people have been emailing these to concerned parties on the page, User Emermann Svest and Jonur and Tuathal may have them and it is borne out by the musicians protests organised by their official association.

re 2 the source * No Stone Unturned: Bachir Attar and Frank Rynne comment on the controversy surrounding the reissue of Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Joujouka" in The Independent (retrieved 28 March 2007]

I would expect the journalist to be impartial writing for such a paper. I don't think you read the entire article. It is about the re-release of BJ and does ref. Joujouka Black Eyes but there is also a contentious and diametrically opposed exchange of views at the end re Brian Jones Presents the Pipes of Pan etc between Bachir Attar and Frank Rynne. you must scroll to bottom, past the advert, to find the link to page 2 i will copy here

" No Stone unturned Independent, The (London), Jul 21, 1995 by PHILIP SWEENEY << Page 1 Continued from page 1. Previous | Next

What is the schism that has apparently divided Joujouka? From the morass of unverifiable claims and counter-claims, it would appear to centre around a shift of the external leadership of the Joujouka musicians towards Bachir Attar over the past decade, coupled with an argument over who may be counted a "master musician of Joujouka {or Jajouka}". "Only 19 practising musicians connected to my family," says Bachir Attar, who claims leadership was conferred on him by his father, the master Hadj Abdesalam Attar, before his death in 1981. "A much larger number, belonging to the regional Serifya Folklore Association, which signed the original recording contract with Brian Jones," claims Frank Rynne, co-producer of Black Eyes. "These are not real musicians, and many are not from the village, and anyway, I'm the president of the Folklore Association, if it exists," ripostes Bachir. "No, the president is Mohamed Hamri, who signed the original Brian Jones contract and painted the cover artwork, which is now dropped from the re-release sleeve," says Rynne. "We dropped Hamri's art because we don't want anything more to do with him," says Bachir. "We've got a new contract now, and he's a hustler." And so on. In the Cotswold farmhouse Boujeloud the goat-god sips his mint tea and lights another Marlboro. To be continued."

Does anyone have the Telegraph article cited before from 2000 this goes further I believe?

3 Hamri's letter and Evening Stanard piece that I cant ref but have read and will try to find in the library and I think a wiki reporter is going to the village so he can ask?

re 6 if it is true and printed in a verifable source it would be acceptable. Hamri asserts it in his published letter of protest which can be ref. and used as it is freely published document ie pamphlet but must be counterbalanced by the oppossing view.

i think i should create an account here

A new point as the only academic article used here accepts Zahjouka, Joujouka, jajouka and a few more as spellings of the village then the naming of the village page Jajouka is possibly POV , the Moroccan official government spelling is Zahjouka and the two other spellings are reflected by seperate music groups so perhaps all three might be more impartial.

As to this page I think we are in agreement that the controversial aspect of the reissue is worthy of inclusion as a major aspect of the reissue the artist is incontrovertibly The Master Muicians of Joujouka on the original LP who continue to record, dont use their wiki page as a ref as it is flagged unreliable as is Master Musicians of Jaoujka page.

A new page fopr Bachir Attar's real group style "Master Musicians of Jajoujka featuring Bachir Attar" should be created to chart his works .

The main point then would be Brian Jones; who was alive when he put together the original and it followed his artistic vision and intentions and therefore is the most important version and should be the real subject and main emphasis of this article.

This issue is dealt with above in older comments ie the concerns and the intentions of Brian Jones. I am copying a post from above that certainly reflects on issue 1 above Letter from Stones to Gysin, 1969

(Jo Bergman, Rolling Stones office to Brion Gysin 18th Feb 1969)

"Brian asked me to write to you about the progress of the JouJouka album. When Brian returned from Morocco last year he edited the album and prepared the art-work together with designer, AL Vandenburg. The cover looks beautiful and has Hamri’s painting on the front and one of his son’s paintings on the inside cover. Brian spent a considerable time in the studio editing the material and this was finished about the end of September. The art-work and the tapes for the album were then sent to our New York office. Klein, who looks after business affairs for the Stones in America, promised to handle negotiations for the album and make sure that is was released in the best possible way with the right sort of promotion. During the time that Brian was in Ceylon, we made repeated inquiries to Klein to find out what was happening, and since Brian has been back he has also been in touch with Klein. Klein’s office keep telling us that are arranging everything, that it will be done etc., but we have heard no concrete facts about what label will release the album and when. I know that Brian is most anxious that Hamri and the musicians should be aware of the state of the album, and that Brian has been trying to arrange its release. Brian sends his regards and will write to you soon himself."

ref Bill Wyman, Stone Alone, (London, 1990), p. 515 Tuathal 16:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The intentions and vision of Brian Jones were wrapped up in the original LP "Brain Jones presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka" , he supervised all aspects from recording to production to sleeve design before his death. respecting that vision the Rolling Stones forced Musidor to actually put the record out. The Stones relationship with Allen Klein is famously fraught. Therefore the fact that Musidor licensed the LP to Bachir Attar in no way implies that it was with the "blessing" of the Rolling Stones. Musidor is Allen Klein's company.

The Brian Jones LP is the important artefact that this page should be dealing with

the reissue is a controversial and reworked version which deviated in many respects from Brian Jones' original LP in design, artist/artist name, and indeed record as the 2 CD version of the reissue included dance remixes etc.

The circumstance's of Philip Glass's label getting the licence and Bachir Attar getting the deal are mysterious but may well have had nothing to do with the Rolling Stones. .

I will create an account tomorrow

Perhaps there is an further unsustainable narrative in the background to the PR line re. the reissue titled "Brian Jones presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka". here is a quote from the Allen Klein page on Wikipedia a fact I never knew till now. "Klein acquired the rights to all of The Rolling Stones' recordings from the 1960s and two from the 1970s. Klein's ABKCO label released the rarest of all Stones albums, Songs Of The Rolling Stones (1975). By the late 1990s, some of the 1960s albums were becoming hard to acquire on CD. Finally, in 2002, Allen's son Jody Klein oversaw a re-mastering of the 1960s albums, to much acclaim."

Is this where this reissue came from too? Were Mick and Keith happy that Allen's son was remastering their discs too!!!! I can only find refs to The Rolling Stones meeting Bachir Attar and in 1989 and certainly can't find any refs to their meeting since this CD reissue nor was there a Rolling Stones' endorsement of this reissue. All quotes come from 1989.

Did the Rolling Stone's endorse the reissue or was it all in the Klein family's gift? This needs some research I will try.

I think Brian's album is the real article here either way; in its original and artist approved form. It was not trailed by controversy and represented his project; artistically.

How do you think this page should be changed in light of these issues? I think a reorder and rethink is in order —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.194 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 12 April 2007

Please remember to sign your Talk-page messages (with four tildes: ~~~~).

"1 is not contentious". That's what I said.

I missed the second page of the source in 2, sorry.

With regard to the spelling of the village name, it should presumaby be "Zahjouka", with redirects from alternatives.

Without wanting to get into the Byzantine details of the events surrounding this album (though your position seems to be the correct one on the whole), my general view of the article is unchanged: we should give the facts about the recording, the LP, the reissue, and report on the controversy (with sources), and do our best not to take sides. We're not a court, but an encyclopædia; we shouldn't give our opinion on the issue, merely report it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So there is general agreement that the primary topic is the original LP?. This page os full of refs that I must examine. I think many are just record company stuff; which is ok; but not in the contensuious areas perhaps?

How should we proceed re establishing and remaming as we go?

Abelelkrim 05:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No — first, I didn't say that "the primary topic is the original LP", I said "we should give the facts about the recording, the LP, the reissue, and report on the controversy". Secondly, it's not general anyway, just you and me. Before making any significant changes, others should at least have the chance to join in. Does anyone else have a view on this? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Abelelkrim, the original seem to be most important, the re-release needs to be seen in the context of the Jones original, and, clearly, in the light of the controversy and wider international protests the re-release precipitated. This page should reflect this, and not give greater weight/pr to one side. Balance is needed.--Hannahdolly 18:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow, I'm afraid; you say that the original is more important, and then that we shouldn't give greater weight to either side. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

well, what I meant was that the original and its history should logically come first, then move on to the re-issue, the details etc and the controversy. Am I right in that the text links to Jajouka...........? yet the original was Joujouka. That is creating imbalance and confused me until i had read all the discussion pages again, thats what I mean about balance, and, for that matter , clarity.........--Hannahdolly 22:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood; in terms of the oprder of events described in the article, then yes, of course — the original release should be described first, followed by a section on the reissue, and a section on the ensuing controversy. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)