Talk:Mark Rudd

Image copyright problem with Image:ColumbiaRevolt Screen Shot.jpg
The image Image:ColumbiaRevolt Screen Shot.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark Rudd vs Mark William Rudd
Almost every page that links here uses "Mark Rudd". Is there a reaosn why it's titled "Mark William Rudd"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New version
This article seems to have lost its entry-end categories. It would be appropriate either to reinstate or replace these categories, as they are standard for biographical entries.--Historytrain (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, a new user entirely replaced the article with a new draft. I left a message on his user page, but he hasn't repsonded. Aside fom the loss of end material and wikilinks, the new version seems to rely heavily on a biography written by an "unidentified author". the new user and the "unidentified author" may both be the subject, so I didn't want to act precipitously. However this drastic change doens't seem like an improvement. Im going to revert it to the previous version and encourage the editor to build on what's here already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The unidentified author comes straight from Mark Rudd's personal website. Who else could b a more better source than Mark Rudd himself? Hence, he is obviously aware of all activity that is being taken place on his website. I understand your trepidations about being more encyclopedic and I will further edit to those standards. My new biography is a much more precise version of what exactly happened in Mark Rudd's life, whereas the previous author forgot to mention a lot of KEY things. I will have a revised draft very soon to take over this previous draft. Texanlonghorn (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Texanlonghorn
 * Improvements are what we all want. But I recommend that you read the WP policy on biography, WP:BLP, first. It has specific rules about sources, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User: Clovis Pt is reverting article even though, it has more sources and citiations. There needs to be valid reasons to revert, not just because they disagree. Clovis PT did not explain in discussion board of what their reason was. The new version does have a lot of the old versions's strengths and builds upon it, with more sources and citiations. Reverting without precise explainations is uncalled for, just because one might not agree with the material. The material has factual information.Texanlonghorn (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Texanlonghorn.
 * It would help if that editor could explain his objections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing, Will Beback. Texanlonghorn (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Texanlonghorn
 * Dougweller's recent edits appear (to me, anyway) to be addressing many of my concerns with the version of the article that I reverted away from. Much of the language was embarrassing for an encyclopedia, in that it read more like an essay extolling how laudable Rudd's political motivations were and are. Additionally, it has some fairly silly and irrelevant comments about Cuba and Guevara, written in the same tone. Finally, much of the grammar/sentence structure bordered on the unreadable. I appreciate what Will Beback has written about the orderly process of editing, however, this was a case where I believed that the levels of quality between the two versions were so strikingly different that a revert was more appropriate than trying to deal with multiple instances of 'sentences' devoted entirely to advocating a (arguably extremest) political view like "Guevera was known to have fought fount sanctity off his Cuban nation and against the US imperialism. SDS as a whole further put more beliefs into communism, when they saw the necessary measures that Cuba and Vietnam were talking to fight the US imperialism. Once he returned from Cuba, Rudd was elected President of the Columbia chapter of SDS, and true to the cause he remained." I intend to go through the article as it stands and modify it according to wikipedia guidelines and my own sense of what is appropriate here. Regards to all, ClovisPt (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I haven't read over the various versions carefully. I'm just referring to the orderly progression of editing. In my experience, it's best to start with good sources, try to find all significant viewpoints, then summarize the research giving appropriate weight to each element and using the neutral point of view. In the process, editors should work together and avoid reverting between different versions. That's the ideal, anyway. As for this article, I'm concerned that we don't have better sources. The Congressional Record is I'm sure there must be plenty of good sources and differing perspectives about the subject. Maybe it'd be fruitful to create a list of sources that look useful.
 * In the meantime, "U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government" is incomplete without a year. Any other information, such as the chairman or a link to an online version, would also be helpful. Can anyone describe what is the nature of the congressional document? Is it a staff report or a hearing? Is Rudd testifying about himself and making autobiographical statements? Or what? And is it reasonable to believe that the biography on markrudd.com is an autobiography? It describes his feelings a couple of times, but that's not definitive. Self-published autobiographical materials are permitted as sources, but they usually cannot be used to talk about third-parties or to make unduly self-promotional claims. In some situations, it may be best to attribute assertions to the source ("According to Rudd, he did X because he felt Y.") ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The possibility o finding more precise sources should be sought. I will be looking into it some more to find some more relevant stuff to his overall Weather ideology. I think this new draft is much more detailed than the previous drafts, but still we need to seek some more refinements. Texanlonghorn (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Texanlonghorn
 * Unless the Congressional source can be better defined then we should remove it. There's no way of verifying it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, the whole citation is in the reference section now, so that's good. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Overall Content
Did Rudd change his last name because it was too foreign? Did Rudd get invited to Cuba because he was a leader of SDS? Might want to clarify on that point. You say that Rudd was underground for seven years, after the Townhouse incident, but that he was unassocaited with the Weather at that point...How did that happen?

(Loves the sun (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC))Loves the Sun

There is no reference that I could find to why his family changed their name. One would assume that would b the case, but there is no concrete evidence with references I could find. Rudd was not the main leader of SDS but, he was one of the main figures of SDS. I am trying to find answers to your questions and incorporate them into the biography, with correct sources, of course. Texanlonghorn (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Texanlonghorn

Contemporary Events
Consider giving examples of Rudd's more recent work and actions regarding social and political issues. Maybe include specific topics of issues he has written about on his personal site.--Cykesummers (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Rudd. 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/20110606185453/http://www.nypress.com/blog-3728-mark-rudd-emerges-from-the-underground.html to http://www.nypress.com/blog-3728-mark-rudd-emerges-from-the-underground.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)