Talk:Stolen Valor

message: New edit looks good. I think I was trying to be too overly fair before. I agree, this is an article giving information about the book, not fighting the fight in place of the book. Thanks.
Mrshankly01 20:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Looks good

message: Added a synopsis of each part of the book. Tried to be as balanced as possible. Had problems with the footnoting. First article I have edited, so if someone knows how to fix my footnotes, please do.
Mrshankly01 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added the contents of the book by section

message: Added more information I felt needed to be in the introduction. Seemed to be lacking. Added the length of the book, that it had an index and endnotes and what the author's background was. Nothing substantial, just something I would look for if I was trying to decide whether to use a history book or not.
Mrshankly01 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added a bit more information about the book

message: When I discovered this page, I was dismayed to see that the majority of it was taken up by two very emotional and accusatory negative reviews by individuals either members of or sympathizing with "Vietnam Veterans Against the War" (an organization that Stolen Valor attacked for a broad range of behavior).  Anyway, it seemed more than a little unbalanced to have a one paragraph positive review and about seven paragraphs of strident negative reviews.  So for parity, I cropped out the longest and most hysterical review and left the other one in place.
Approximately two-thirds of the current article's text is comprised of a long, personal attack on the subject written by Bobby "Indy Thinker" Hanafin, and added by Wikipedia user IndyThinker. Therefore, I added the neutrality dispute template.
NWahl 05:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Got rid of one negative review and cropped the other for balance

message: supporters of America's role in Vietnam	opponents of America's role in Vietnam
right-wing pro-war pundits             	anti-war critics
The tendency of liberal America is to consider itself moderate or center of the road, while portraying conservatives as right-wing or far right.
Conservatives look on liberals as left-wing.
Note also how pro-war carries the connotation of being in favor of war in general, as if they like battles and death and suffering and the disruption and hardship on civilians. Meanwhile anti-war carries the connotation of favoring peace, life, and health, freedom and prosperity.
The question is, whether victory in a just war can bring peace, life, and health, freedom and prosperity - or whether only surrender can bring these good things? Uncle Ed 02:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: terminology

message: This article is a bad joke. Ain't it great to write your own review of your own slanted article? Gimme a break. Cgingold 22:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Balanced 

message: I removed the paragraph with the unsourced claim that the book is the "inspiration" for the act.  I haven't been able to find any substantive support for such a claim.  For example, this article suggests a different background:
http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/stolen_valor_media_information_sheet.htm
If anyone can find a reputable source to support the claim, feel free to put it back in. --64.105.136.82 (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Inspiration" for Stolen Valor Act 

message: Since when is a admittedly self-published book considered notable? SiberioS (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you will see it referenced in a lot of contexts.  However, I agree that the article is more detailed than necessary.  A summary and a discussion of its impact would be sufficient, as for most books. --EECEE (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the idea that the article is concise.  There is no need to detail the various parts and chapters for purposes of a Wikipedia article.  A brief overall summary would do.  If no one else will edit this anytime soon, I'll come back and work on it when I have some time. --EECEE (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since when... 

message: I believe the concept of "stolen valor" deserves its own article. Heroic wannabes have emerged in the wake of many wars; some of them even make a career of it. It's a psychological and cultural phenomenom well worth covering.
Georgejdorner (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  The concept of stolen valor itself needs expansion.  I have started a sandbox article here.  The topic is obviously well known that it was used as the basis for federal laws, but I could use good sources on why it's called that.Legitimus (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for another article