Talk:Madman Muntz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Madman Muntz is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 21, 2008.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
June 4, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
August 21, 2008 Today's featured article Main Page
Current status: Featured article

Reverted edits[edit]

I reverted the edits from November 5 as they don't improve the article. They simply restate what the article already said, just in a different way that isn't as well-structured and well-written as the previous way. The article currently says what the references say and it already states that TV was in use before Muntz allegedly coined it. Readers may come to their own conclusions regarding what the references say, it's not up to us to analyze and make determinations regarding them. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 17:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that I don't really follow your logic. The 1945 Broadcasting cite shows that "TV" was used to mean "television" well before Muntz got into the television business. Previously referred only to the use of "TV" in the abbreviated form "WCBS-TV," the call letters of an early television station. However, call letters are necessarily abbreviated and do not show that "TV" was in use generally, as the Broadcasting example shows, nor was the New York Times cite as early. As for how the language was structured and written, I wrote both versions and don't agree that one version is better than the other. If anything, I believe the version that cites Broadcasting was better, as its better evidence makes it unnecessary to use circumlocution. John M Baker (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Your edits don't improve the article. The article already says what you're trying to say, but in a better written and more neutral way. For example "The story cannot be true" is non-neutral WP:OR. The article currently says what the sources say, it doesn't need further embellishment and interpretation by us. Readers will read and determine for themselves. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 17:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)