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
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Illinois (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Chicago (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject California (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Engineering (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

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)