Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth/Archive 3

message: Notice.  In this edit, someone inadvertently inserted the entire discussion twice.  I have now cut back the top section under the assumption that people were adding to the bottom.  If this causes important discussion to be removed, please try another fix. Wolfman 20:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: /First Purple Heart
moved your sandbox to the link above.  keeps this page readable. Wolfman 05:15, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been invited to make incremental changes to the main page.  We asked you to submit drastic changes to a sandbox.  In the meantime, incremental improvements to the main page can still be made.  Note that some improvements requested by you have also been included as incremental changes.  That's the usual procedure for a contentious article. Wolfman 19:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: That's in fact what I suggested in the first place.  Note that one by one does not mean do them all separately, but in the space of a couple hours.  However, at this point it seems evident that some of your proposals will require drastic changes.  Those should be sandboxed.  Also, if more minor changes are strongly opposed on some reasonable ground, then those should also be sandboxed. Wolfman 19:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised section on First Purple Heart 

message: I'm recommending we move on the change to the first paragraph.  I recommend the following for the first sentence:
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) is an American 527 group comprised of Swift Boat veterans that oppose the U.S. presidential aspirations of John Kerry.
--Nysus 20:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ok by me. Wolfman 21:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Pasted from my comment on this above: "My feeling is that the first paragraph should be as short and to the point as possible, like a dictionary definition. And, also like a dictionary, the definition may contain other words that the reader may not know and that the reader will have to look up for clarification. It is not the responsibility of the dictionary to anticipate which words the reader should know and try to clarify those words for the reader. Any clarification should (and does) appear later in the article." --Nysus 22:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Using my same logic, I would also take out the line that gives clarification on what a "swift boat" is and put that in the next section.  For more detailed info on swift boats, they can click the link to the view the article about swift boats. --Nysus 22:53, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: It's getting really cluttered, I can't even find your last attempt.  Would you mind posting just the first sentence below?  Maybe if we can agree on a single lead sentence, then we can move on to the remainder.  Thanks. Wolfman 21:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Try: "an organization comprised of Swift Boat veterans... aspirations of John Kerry, created under Section 527 of the Federal Tax Code." -khaosworks 22:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I like this suggestion a lot. --Nysus 22:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Since yesterday, it went under considerable change, challenge and debate since before getting reverted back.  See talk above and older versions in the history.  I'm not sure there is anything "wrong" with it.  It's just getting very close scrutiny right now.  Like anything, though, there is probably room for improvement.  I like khaosworks suggestion above.  --Nysus 22:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion to Move the Question