Talk:Rat Bastard Protective Association

This is the introductory article about an important, esoteric, counter-cultural organization in San Francisco, California. More information to follow shortly -- thank you.

Fair use rationale for Image:Bruce-conner-rolls.jpg

Image:Bruce-conner-rolls.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2002 rpba edict 01.22.2002.jpg

Image:2002 rpba edict 01.22.2002.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ratbastard seal.jpg

Image:Ratbastard seal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

There is no question that the Rat Bastard Protective Association is significant and notable.

There is, however, not one shred of reliable evidence I can find to substantiate any activity by the group since the mid-1960s. The only possible source of this information is a personal website by an individual who claims to have some association with the group even though he was born a decade after the group was formed. On a range of levels everything in this article after the first paragraph fails WP:V. Debate (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is under the careful, watchful attention of learned people in the arts -- mostly from peoples with direct contact with the association, namely within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area.

Debate if you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. However, it would be a good idea to have some understanding or record of contribution within the field, which you have none.

What is more, only the uninitiated or unlearned would expect "ACTIVITY PRESS" from a clearly stated 'underground' secret society like the Rat Bastard's, Bohemian Club or the Mason's. Only rarely, do such matters surface.

Asking for a public record from such organizations is like giving a watercolor set to a elephant: it makes no sense. Asking for such is complete lunacy.

Moreover, the idea that secret organization live and die with their founders or only during a decade is lunacy. Did the Bohemian Club die in 1872? No, that is absurd. Likewise, did the Mason's die out in 1234? No, that is ridiculous. In fact many secret organizations are dormant for periods of time, hello....every age requires the right timing of important actions. Obviously you know about as little about art, hermetic societies and iconoclasts as you do about debate.

However, in this case, again Debate's harassment flies in the face of reality. Another case in point: http://lgwilliams.com/art/pr/2002_ratbastardaward.pdf. The following completely refutes his activity charge: three important items are on this document. Wally Hedrick's signature (founding Rat Bastard Member); the esteemed Richard Reisman, another significant Bay Arear personality and RB Member -- and former Curator of the prestigious di Rosa Art Preserve in Napa, CA; and the infamous RB seal.

Additionally, you can easily find RB record of activity with Williams's and RBPA at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, di Rosa Preserve etc, etc -- the following year/s. Oh my...

Thus, this organization is very much active and engaged -- this matter and your absurd charges again, appear closed.

The first paragraph is fine and the sources good, but these references don't cover anything beyond about 1965. The remainder of the article (80% of its content) is inconsistent with these sources on a range of levels. The final three sources (referencing everything beyond the first paragraph) are essentially identical, as is the link provided by Art4em above, in that they all directly reference LG William's personal website and therefore violate either original research or Wikipedia:V#SELF policies. Debate (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My many concerns which discount any all negative claims have not been addressed or met. Why not? because they cannot be refuted. Therefore, I will assume ALL NEGATIVE CLAIMS BY THE ABOVE cannot be addressed, hence are VALID.

Additionally, you do not understand the word research: according to websters, research is to make an extensive investigation into: to research a matter thoroughly.

The document provided is NOT research, nor produced by said 'person' or website. It is a document, period. Moreover, it is an official document by the Association. Clearly done post 1965, period -- refuting ALL CLAIMS by harrasing agent.

Next, please do not restate your concerns but address my rebuttal which clearly proves ignorance and harassment. Please move on and quit harassment. --Art4em (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me as though you are going to have to find a WP:reliable source to show that LG Williams claims are correct. I can't see any reason why Williams couldn't have just revived the name, and as for the claims for other current members, without any doubt we need verifiable sources for that.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)