Talk:Ron Arnold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ron Arnold article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Houston This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the Greater Houston area. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project where you join the group and contribute to the discussion.
Portal:Houston
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)
To-do list for Ron Arnold: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    [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)