Talk:Paper Rad

Comment
Wish I didn't have to start off the article sounding like a super-formal gallery bio, but somebody kept trying to (and did once) delete the article, stating that they didn't meet "notability" requirements to have an article on here. Paul Slocum 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this Ben Jones from Paper Rad, I just re-wrote the article, the wyld-file stuff was a little mixed up, but "big-ups" to Paul Slocum, much love for starting the article, he is "the real deal".... Peace... Ye ain't ridin (ye ain't ridin) Ye ain't bumpin like I'm bumpin Ye ain't sayin nuthin homie Ye ain't fresh azimiz Ye ain't got it (ye ain't got it) You don't keep it thuggin like I keep it thuggin Lil buddy you ain't fresh azimiz

Neutrality of this page

Private conversations, gossip, and deletion of page materials do not strike me as achieving the neutrality which wikipedia requires of all of its articles. Are we to take it as gospel that you are friends with Paper Rad, that a site which clearly states it has been hacked is, in fact, not hacked? NEUTRALITY, which is the defining goal of WikiPedia requires that one not present a one-sided viewpoint to benefit one's own interests. I don't know what your motivation in this is-- or why you feel like you can walk all over the clearly defined and established guidelines by which this website operates-- but if you're going to use wikipedia you must comply with its standards and policies. Citing a conversation you may or may not have had is clearly not in adherence to those standards, nor is deleting the entire page. Mysteriousfumanchu 14:38:33, 15 August 2006 (EST)
 * The most reputable source of information is Paper Rad's OWN BLOG, which states that the books are fake. There is no evidence that their site was hacked.  That "You've been hacked" thing was a joke and has been there since their last website update many months ago (see the wayback machine if you need convincing) and they've posted plenty of stuff since then that shows they have control of their site.  Shortly after posting the info about the fake book, they posted their tour dates -- something only they could have known -- indicating that they do have control of the site.  Also if you download the book, it's pretty obvious that it's a fake since it has some weird stuff in it that PR would never include.  If you really want to verify that I know them, google "Paul Slocum Paper Rad".  The Rhizome 101 show (second hit) is a gallery show we were in together.  You can also look up the gallery I run where we've shown their stuff.  Paper Rad are nice people and they're kinda pissed about this like anyone would be.  I just want to make it clear that it is a fake so the assholes who made it don't make any more money off a forgery.Paul Slocum 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Paul, I don't know how else to say this: you are not the final arbitrator of what appears and does not appear on WikiPedia. Frankly, given that this section deals with the possibility of paper rad impersonators, or lack thereof, it's deeply concerned to me that you would be indirectly complicit in what amounts to the total vandalism and defacement of the page. If you check the history, you'll see that someone pretending to be a member of Paper Rad has already removed this entire page once-- that alone argues against removing content which does, in fact, link to verifiable sources based entirely on the say so of someone with no evidence beyond his own private conversations. How the heck do we even know you're Paul Slocum? I've included a mention of the paper rad myspace in the printed media as a reference and I've given the controversy its own totally disputed section. As I'm sure you know, wikipedia operates on a guiding principle of trying to convey information in a neutral and proper manner-- to my mind, this controversy is of both interest and unsettled. You may dispute that, and may, in fact, be the right party, but until we have a verifiable source (not a website that may have been hacked) stating clearly and without ambiguity that this book is a forgery, I don't think we should betray the principles of the website and community for the sake of hurt feelings. Finally, you  claim that your motivation in this matter is keeping the forgery from making money-- yet you encouraged me to download the book. From my reading of the paper rad myspace page, this book is freely available as a torrent? Is there money being made off of it? Mysteriousfumanchu 01:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That was Ben of Paper Rad that rewrote the article. He emailed me and told me he'd changed it, and as you can see, it's his first wikipedia edit so he doesn't know the rules and stuff.  The book is available for download or torrent for free.  It's also for sale as a $30 printed book from a link on the fake myspace page.  As for the article, I don't have time to fuck with it anymore.  I guess it'll just have to have bad information until some reputable publication or whatever rectifies it.  Who knows how long that'll be.  If you don't believe I'm me, then I'll update my recent blog post about it to include details about this. Google "paul slocum" Paul Slocum 03:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

'hacked' website...
Forgive me, I'm not an experience wiki-user, but I wanted to add my 2 cents to this discussion as a Paper Rad fan... The "You've been hacked"message on PaperRad.org has been posted for a while and since its appearance, updates, including information about official Paper Rad releases and tours, have been added to the site. While potentially mis-leading, the message is in-line with the satire present through out most of PaperRad's art.

In addition, as a fan of PaperRad's work for several years, it seems obvious to me that the disputed MySpace page, as well as the "Grail Quest" book, are NOT official items. The characters used, the pop-culture items that are referenced, the color scheme, and even the .gif animations do not match the strong aesthetic PaperRad have created.

If the book has been a source of controversy I'm fine with its inclusion in the article, however, I should point out that this article was the first I had heard about it...

It hardly seems fair that a free MySpace page would trump the credibility of the offical website, PaperRad.org, the URL of which still appears on Paper Rad projects (such as the recent Load Records DVD and the Official Book).

Thanks.


 * Totally with you, but when I've tried to set it right people keep reverting it. I think Paper Rad's blog along with my own blog are enough evidence to modify the article to say that the book and myspace are definitely fake, but other editors don't see it that way.  We'll may just have to wait until something more substantial comes out. (and btw: you sign your posts on talk pages by putting four tildes at the end) Paul Slocum 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Paul, like I said I was just adding my opinion to the discussion. If other people do the same, maybe it will convince the editors fix the page and remove this dispute. I don't see the issue coming up in any mainstream media anytime soon, so this is talk section is probably all we have... Paper Rad are some of the most influential artists working today (just look at MTV2's promos...), and they deserve a better page. don 22:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Added a bunch of stuff
I just copy+pasted an academic paper of mine into the article. I wikified it as best as I could, but it still needs alot of work. Feel free to butcher away.

Drewcifer3000 10:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a few small changes and added a section on Music. All the bands I've listed are "related" to Paper Rad, though I'm not sure they all contain one of the 3 original members... Any clarification would be appreciate...

Donwithnoname 19:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to be a downer (and I like what you've added) but Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. Any information you add to the page regarding style, influences, etc. must be sourced from a 3rd party. 66.9.126.26 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * hmmm, well, I don't know if what I put into the article is original research per se, it's just a conglomorization of a bunch of different sources. So, do you think it would be sufficiant if I just included a bibliography of sorts at the end, as opposed to citing specific sentence with individual references as footnotes?  If so, I'd be happy to do that.
 * --Drewcifer3000 01:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Paper Rad bibliography
This page could use a Paper Rad bibliography to help demonstrate notability. A quick search at Amazon for the term "paper rad" turns up a number of notable publications including Kramers Ergot. I hope to add this at some point but if anyone else wants to do it, or has a more complete bibliography, please go for it! Sjb0926 (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Paper Rad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927185735/http://quimbys.com/product_info.php/products_id/15516 to http://quimbys.com/product_info.php/products_id/15516

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
More than one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting request edit (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request. Requests that are unduly long, or are not supported by independent reliable sources, are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)