 | A fact from Plan Dog memo appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 August 2008, and was viewed approximately 6,110 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"one of the best known documents of World War II." Is this pertinant? Sourced, sure, but what is its importance? CancelHoo72 (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Those are two separate questions: (1) Its relevance to the topic of this article (ie, its pertinence) is obvious. (2) As far as its importance - because World War II would have gone very, very differently had not the United States not adopted its recommendations. Raul654 (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
No, its one question. What is relevance of saying it is one of the best known documents. And it isn't obvious. If it is, then explain it to me. I know the importance of the article, but this line could go. Trim the fat. And, thank you for correcting my grammar. CancelHoo72 (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand the point you are making - the fact that it is one of the best known documents of WWII is highly relevant to an article about the document and deserves mention. Yes, obviously it is an opinion - that is why it is sourced to a reliable published source. Do not remove it. Raul654 (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I am a tad new to this, so be patient (especially with my grammar and spelling), but I feel that the first line of an article should contain information summarizing the "importance" of an article. In an historical article, an items "well-knowness" seems to be of little consequence. The statement is fine in itself, but its position at the front feels trivial. Your response seems to be aimed at a statement that I edited, and I apologize for my impulsiveness. I just think something more relevant could replace it, leaving the opinion for later in the article.
However I would like to state that my understanding of Wikipedia is that should I have wanted to remove the phrase, it is my right to do so, and authoritative statements such as "do not remove it" should not be coming from one with such an extensive history here. Would you so try to frighten off a potential contributor? CancelHoo72 (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- The first questions the introductory sentences should answer are "What is it?" and "Why should I care about it?". Superlatives - oldest, largest, etc - are quite relevant to answering the latter. Being one of the best known documents of its period is quite relevant.
- Second, removing sourced, highly relevant, factual statements from an article is frowned upon, to say the least. It is detrimental to the article. Coming from a new user, it smells of vandalism. Raul654 (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, point conceded. I still feel that it is poor style. I would like to note that my feelings were more based on a previous version, one which you yourself edited.
As far as vandalism, what kind of vandal discusses their logic? That is irrational. I admitted the irrationality of my post and edited it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CancelHoo72 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- The previous style of that sentence ("it has been called...") was bad - clunky. (It was added by piledhigherdeeper this morning) Objecting to a sentence because it is clunky and objecting to its existence in the article (which IMO it's obviously relevant) are two different things. Raul654 (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
In danger of sound ignorant on the subject, I have studied elements of this war for years - inside and outside of university. Until today I had never heard of this document, although was well aware of the Europe first policy. Does Spector place the promineance of this document in and American or worldwide context?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)