Talk:Swift Boat challenge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Swift Boat challenge article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Proposed deletion 2 Misc. edits 3 Hannity and Colmes interview with Pickens 4 Is this really notable?

[edit] Proposed deletion

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)

[edit] Misc. edits

I removed the Symmes interview. More and more people are weighing in through media interviews, etc. and it becomes very tangential. I suggest that we keep it to the parties themselves or their spokespeople. There'll be plenty to fill up an article soon enough. --EECEE (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm just going to stick it here for now, just in case anyone else thinks it is relevant.

Weymouth Symmes, the treasurer of the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, called Kerry a fool for accepting the challenge, declaring that Pickens had made "a safe bet" and that Kerry "should put his money where his mouth is."^[1]

-- Kendrick7^talk 18:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good Kendrick7. I notice that you put back the "6 November" etc. dating style. I thought the more conversational and usual "November 6" style works better in a Wiki article, but possibly you have your reasons?

I also removed what seemed to amount to personal observations, such as both men being reported to be "very rich" and Kerry's letter "ensuring that a showdown will occur." The first observation seems at best tangential, and the second is speculation. It you don't agree, I'm open to discussion.

By the way, I'm not sure how Tyrell's blog rant would qualify as any sort of objective evidence for anything. Not sure if you're the one who included it...if not, apologies for directing this comment to you. --EECEE (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who Tyrell is. I have thought it worth mentioning, somehow, that both men are rich enough to afford the bets. Not all our readers are going to know that off the bat. I simply grabbed the first source I found that reflected that; which seemed pretty rantful but I thought could be relied on for that much. I agree that my quote from the Boston Globe article could be seen as speculation, though, and I agree with your edit removing it.

Ugh, date formats, I don't want to argue about date formats. I use the style I'm used to from more international articles; I believe its the more prevalent style on wikipedia overall. I don't work on a lot of domestic articles outside of current events. I didn't have to revert you as most readers here will be Americans; it's just force of habit. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kendrick7. Thanks for your response. Emmett Tyrell wrote the American Spectator blog piece you linked to. First, linking to an opinion piece isn't really proof of the point. Second, it's still a personal conclusion that isn't really encyclopedic in tone, in much the same way as saying, "both men have big public relations teams" or "both men know how to be on a stage" would not be a proper addition to an article. --EECEE (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hannity and Colmes interview with Pickens

• "Hannity & Colmes: T. Boone Pickens on $1 Million Challenge to Sen. John Kerry", transcript, Fox News, 2007-11-19. Retrieved on 2007-11-22. 

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)

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)

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. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Is this really notable?

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)

It really is entirely independent of those articles. There are sources given. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kendrick7. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you both. Besides, the other two articles are long enough as it is. --EECEE (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)