From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ron Arnold article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
|
|
|
|
Article policies
|
|
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
|
[edit] amazon.com links
Is it necessary to link his books to amazon.com? It is probably prefeable to put in ISBN numbers. The books can then be found at libraries. Alan Liefting 09:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Attempted speedy deletion
There's no way an article this well-established for this long is going to be deleted based on an anonymus speedy request. Take it to AfD. Fan1967 23:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not even an author or editor of this article, but this one seems pretty clear. Fan1967 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's hardly well-established. The article text was lifted verbatim from Sourcewatch about a year ago, and has had about 20 minor edits since then, mostly to wikify, bring in line with style guidelines, and keep it up to date with the Sourcewatch article. While Sourcewatch uses the same GFDL license (allowing reuse within Wikipedia), it would have been a better utilization of resources to simply add a single External Link to the Ron Arnold article, pointing to the Sourcewatch article (the Sourcewatch article dates from May 2004, while the Wikipedia version dates from May 2005).
-
- The Wikipedia version of the article continues to lift text from Sourcewatch without attribution. For instance, on 4 March 2006, User:128.122.253.212 added text to the article with an integration comment of "Arnold on environment ('eco-terrorism')". The identical text had been added to Sourcewatch two months earlier on 24 December 2005, by 63.196.193.169 with exactly the same integration comment. Copying without attribution is a violation of the GFDL. In fact, no attribution to Sourcewatch is mentioned within the body of the article - there is only a single mention in the history associated with the initial checkin.
-
- Well-establishment aside, it still doesn't change the fact that the article is a polemic against Ron Arnold; it's obviously written from a Green POV. Arnold's viewpoints as a vocal anti-Green antagonist are valid for inclusion, but the article is no more than a series of quotes and facts specifically selected to place Arnold in a bad light. The article offers no introduction to the Green/anit-Green controversy, and has absolutely no overall structure. It's a piss poor article using any criteria you wish to select. PostHuman 00:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- First of all, POV is usually not an argument for deletion, it's an argument for clean-up. We have many articles on controversial people that are problematic and difficult to handle in an NPOV manner. Second of all, if an argument is to be made for deletion, it's going to need to be through AfD. I really would be very surprised to see any admin deleting it on a CSD. Fan1967 00:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
