Talk:Arnold L. Punaro

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance; I believe I can find and add in sufficient sources to assist the original creator in developing an article. --dci | TALK 00:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because it will be revised tomorrow (Monday, 7/15/13)--BELT FED 6 01:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BELT FED 6 (talk • contribs)

• Agreed - this should not be deleted. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, because the subject appears to meet notability guidelines. However, the rationale for speedy deletion was copyright infringement, which had apparently been an issue for several months. We can't leave such content in place pending a promise to fix it. I've reverted to a pre-copyvio version, to which anyone is welcome to add sourced content. If copied content is reintroduced I'll request administrative assistance. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• What do you mean by, "I'll request administrative assistance"? FieldMarine (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just that, and nothing more. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Could you please explain...perhaps I can help. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure--The article has appeared to be a copyright violation since April 5 [1], and subsequent versions looked like a copy of this [2]. My concern is that well-intended new users might not understand that, as the speedy template was removed without the problem having been addressed. I chose not to restore the speedy template, because there was an earlier version, which I think you were largely responsible for, that looked like a good foundation, so I reverted to that. If copied text were restored, rather than edit war I'd request assistance at an appropriate noticeboard. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, understood...thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright and other issues

I had look at this in my capacity as a Copyright problems clerk. The original pasted-in chunk on 15 April 2013 [3], was simply a verbatim but slightly updated version of this US government bio, which was in place on 11 February 2013. Since that's a US government site, it is public domain, but the text should have been attributed to the source to comply with our copyright requirements. My impression is that a couple of the main editors involved in this article seem closely associated with the subject and may be employees of his consulting firm who have been tasked with updating his biographies in tandem. The headings were added to Wikipedia, and then the article on his consulting firm website was updated to match it, rather than the other way around. Note this version of their website on 17 June 2013 and the way it looks now. That being said, if any text is restored from the US DOD biography, the bottom of the "References" section must have the following template: Template:Include-USGov This produces:

 This article incorporates public domain material from MajGen (Ret) Arnold L. Punaro. United States Department of Defense.

Having said all that, just because text is public domain doesn't make it optimal for an encyclopedia article. This encyclopedia article should read like one with a biographical narrative, not like a corporate resumé or profile. I also strongly suggest that editors here with any affiliation whatsoever (personal or professional) with Arnold L. Punaro read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and follow the guidance there scrupulously. Voceditenore (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't know him, never served with him, nor have I ever met him. For the above comment, I suggest a review of assume good faith. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not referring to you, FieldMarine. I'm sorry if you got that impression. I'm referring to subsequent editors (single purpose accounts) who overwrote the article you started with a "new" biography. They know who they are. Voceditenore (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Voceditenore. Your explanation is exceedingly helpful, and addresses the copyright issue as it applies to the government site, as well as the chronology of the similar content added to several web sites, and the concern that I had yet to raise re:resume-like tone. Very much appreciated, 76.248.144.216 (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification, and for the info on Copyright. It does appear we some recent editors to Wikipedia who could benefit from some coaching. My apologies if I'm misreading the situation. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just now tagged this article for being written like a resumé. It's rapidly becoming even worse than it was before. Who cares about the various boards of visitors, non-executive directors etc. that he sits on. Absolute unencyclopedic fluff, and serves no purpose except to boost prospective clients' confidence in Punaro's company. This should be written as a biographical narrative. When was he born? Where? When did he graduate from college? What did he do after college? What was the course of his military career? When did he retire from the military? When did he start his consulting firm? etc. etc. There is no narrative or chronological order here at all. Simply a listing of his "achievements" in random order, all of them presented as if they had equal significance, even though most have them have received no coverage at all.

This "article" reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Any neutral reader can spot this stuff a mile away, and rightly or wrongly, it gives the strong impression that someone from his own company is writing this article, and thus it also does a great disservice to the subject as well Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Therein lay my instinct that this was being overseen by one or several inexperienced but determined accounts, and may require further objective intervention. Perhaps a trip to the BLP noticeboard will be in order. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

In the interim, thank you to FieldMarine for copy editing the article--my regrets if my initial response to you above was a bit curt. None of the article's recent issues were attributed to you. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP problem. There's nothing in any of the article's versions that violates our policies on biographies of living persons. If editors consistently try to revert the article to their preferred PR version, then it might be suitable for the COI notice board. But so far that hasn't happened. Voceditenore (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The edits to the first paragraph of the Punaro item made July 18 are intended to respond to and then expand on earlier comments in Talk about the piece. The intention is to place Punaro in the context of public policy issues. An earlier entry in Talk asks who cares about the resume filler material in an earlier version. Good question. But the current piece uses interesting, authoritative 3rd party material only to support mundane facts available anywhere. I refer to the use of the “100 most influential” Defense News article and the Forbes piece by well-known defense commentator Loren Thompson. That’s the material that tells us why there is a Wikipedia article about Punaro. It should be used for that purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commsmaven (talk • contribs) 17:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section to see why your addition there is inappropriate. The PR-speak in which it is phrased, right down to the cherry-picked quotes, makes it an inappropriate addition to any part of the article as it is currently phrased. Have you read WP:Conflict of interest which explains why it is very difficult for people editing under those circumstances to write an article in a neutral encyclopedic tone? Voceditenore (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Voiceditenore: I have read those things, and have drawn a number of conclusions from these exchanges. First, there is an emphasis on tone at the expense of accuracy. The current Punaro lead apparently meets your requirements on tone, but it omits items about Punaro more important and relevant to the general reader, mischaracterizing Punaro's history to the point of making the lead erroneous. Anyone reading it now would be forgiven for assuming that he spent 30-35 years on active duty then opened a consultancy. I trust FieldMarine would agree. Second, "PR-speak" is the label apparently applied to short-form journalistic style in which the lead seeks to encapsulate the subject. Third, "neutral" seems to mean nothing positive. The author of the current page was aware that a serious defense publication (he cites it) named Punaro one of the 100 most influential people in defense, but fails to mention that fact. Fourth, conflict of interest is used as a trump card to avoid discussion on the merits. Another attempt to present an accurate, one-sentence lead has been placed in the quarantine box. Commsmaven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commsmaven (talk • contribs) 13:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead in

There has been discussion to the current lead in to this article. Please place prosed changes to the lead in here so consensus can be obtained before any additional changes are made. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Arnold L. Punaro, is a retired Marine Crops Major general, a former staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a former senior executive of a Fortune 500(R) federal contractor and currently CEO of The Punaro Group, LLC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commsmaven (talk • contribs) 13:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arnold L. Punaro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160802090432/http://spia.uga.edu/about/board_visitors to http://spia.uga.edu/about/board_visitors

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)