User talk:JamesMLane/SBVT intro

I like the substance fine. As to style, I'd rather avoid the use of parentheses in the first paragraph. But substance is more important, and it seems fine to me. Wolfman 06:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note from JML: "Version 2" is the one that incorporates the edit signed:Nysus 06:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aside from cleaning up the language, I did the following:

Added a sentence in there about the impact the group had on the campaign. Imagine if it's the year 2020 and someone is looking at this article. It's very important to talk about the real impact these guys had on the election.
Added the fact that the ads appeared in hotly contested states. This shows that a prime motivation of the group was to cost Kerry the election. I think that's a very important point, too. --Nysus 06:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex's modifications to JML's examples

Version 1:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), formed in 2004, is an organization of American Swift boat veterans of the Vietnam War, registered under section 527 of the U.S. tax code to oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential aspirations.

SBVT criticizes Kerry with regard to his military service history while he was in Vietnam (particularly some of the medals he received) and his subsequent activities in opposition to the war in the early 1970s. SBVT has expressed these positions primarily in a book and via television advertisements that feature certain American Vietnam War Veterans who oppose Kerry.

Version 2:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), formed in 2004, is an organization of American Swift boat veterans of the Vietnam War, registered under section 527 of the U.S. tax code to oppose John Kerry's U.S. presidential aspirations.

SBVT has challenged the legitimacy of how Kerry obtained several combat medals and his accounts of the Vietnam war, particularly the veracity of his 1971 testimony before Congress. The group has primarily made these challenges via television advertisements appearing in hotly contested electoral states, in a book, and in the widespread print and electronic media coverage members of the group received.

Rex's edit summary for the foregoing says, "the opening is supposed to be about SVBT, not others". I think the introduction should give key points about SBVT, whether or not those points involve "others". It's not consistent to say that it's OK to mention Kerry in the opening when SBVT is making charges against him but it's suddenly not OK to mention Kerry when it comes to reporting that he's filed a complaint with the FEC. When significant facts about the subject of the article involve "others", they can and should go in the introduction; see, e.g., O. J. Simpson, where the intro mentions his wife. JamesMLane 04:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML, you are trying to suff in facts which belong in the article, into the preamble to the article. If you do that, then I will want more facts in to - this will spiral. Please, simply try to concentrate on how best to introduce the topic - not try to explain it - in the opening paragraph. Surely you udnerstand this, yes?

I propose a simple, six point conceptual outline:

Introduction - very brief
Background - The how, why and who of SBVT
Actvities - The what, where and when of SBVT
Issues in dispute (both sides) - the charges and the defenses
Impact - media attention, impact on campaigns, etc
Links

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:34, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)