Talk:Swift Boat challenge

message: Looks like this story is going to have more legs than I realized.  I'll be on the lookout for more references; I've already seen a lot more on it than I originally thought existed.  I am withdrawing my proposed deletion.  /Blaxthos (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:PROD|Proposed deletion]]

message: *
I see this is in the article as an external link (I templatized it). It is probably more appropriate if it is rolled into the article as a source, rather than as an EL. If someone has the time, go for it. Otherwise, I'll try to get around to it eventually. - Crockspot (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I had added this in the "Pickens response" paragraph: "In a subsequent television appearance, Pickens restated his claim that the challenge only applied to SBVT ads."  But that was deleted and changed to an external link Nov. 21...I think Kendrick felt it was secondary or something.  I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, except that everything in the article should be short and concise. --EECEE (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear that he was restating the claim and at the time I couldn't come up with a better gloss of the transcript. Feel free to readd something along the lines of the original; sorry for the confusion. -- Kendrick7talk 05:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true.  Perhaps I should have said he "restated the claim made in his letter, that the challenge only applied to SBVT ads."  --EECEE (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hannity and Colmes interview with Pickens

message: It doesn't look much like it to me; more like simple political posturing from both sides than any serious controversy. There has been no follow-up on the story since November, and I doubt there will be. If nothing further happens with this story, I suggest that this page be merged into Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or John Kerry military service controversy. Terraxos (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It really is entirely independent of those articles. There are sources given. -- Kendrick7talk 07:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Kendrick7.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you both.  Besides, the other two articles are long enough as it is. --EECEE (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many months later (oops, I forgot I posted this message in the first place)... consider the statement above retracted. This topic clearly has independent notability, and I was wrong to suggest it should be merged. Terraxos (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Notability does not decay over time; something is notable or it isn't.  Judging by the responses last time around, consensus is clear.  Please also note that the original author of this thread retracted his statement, noting it "clearly has independent notability".  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really notable? 

message: I just added a reference to the letter to Pickens from a group seeking the $1 million. Should that letter be added to Wikisource. (I am clueless about the conventions and procedures on Wikisource.) David.Kane (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter to Pickens