Talk:George Thomas Coker/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Text to be inserted re Hearts and Minds

The edit inserted earlier summarizes the issue perfectly. I had researched some additional sources, but come up with an enhanced version that provides context for the film and his role, provides a balance of different scenes, uses multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish every element of the addition, and has absolutely no issue whatsoever with WP:BLP.

Extensive clips of Coker making speeches and other interviews with him were included in the Academy Award-winning documentary Hearts and Minds, an anti-Vietnam War film that focused extensively on Coker. One of the film's earliest scenes details a homecoming parade in Coker's honor in his hometown of Linden, where he tells the assembled crowd on the steps of city hall that if the need arose, that they must be ready to send him back to war. Answering a student's question about Vietnam at a school assembly, Coker responds that "If it weren't for the people, it would be a beautiful country."

Unless anyone can present a reasoned argument that Wikipedia policy forbids addition of this material, it will be inserted tomorrow. Alansohn (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasoned argument: See all above. And was he really covered "extensively"? So much so that it must be stated twice? Lara❤Love 17:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of argument above, but very little reason. Request was made to ensure that context was provided and that the material was properly sourced to address any and all possible WP:BLP issues, real or (almost exclusively) imagined. Arguments cited previously have no relevance to the proposed text to be inserted. Appearing in about 10 minutes of an Academy Award-winning film as one of the main "representatives" of the pro-war side would seem to meet extensive. Alansohn (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How long is the film that 10 minutes constitutes "extensive" coverage? Also, I don't see what this adds to the article. What's the point of this quote? Lara❤Love 18:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Per Imdb.com it runs 112 minutes. It adds what the article is desperately lacking: a better-rounded picture of the individual, a completely missing understanding of the aftermath of his release and feelings regarding his captivity, as well as a small dose of balance in an article that borders on mythologizing. As seen from the edits to the article and the discussion here, I'm not the only person who believes that this information is relevant. Alansohn (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor am I the only one that finds it irrelevant. Lara❤Love 20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• With the multiple reliable sources, with a clear claim of relevance (even if you and others choose to ignore it), and with the WP:BLP issue blown out of the water, the burden to justify exclusion must be made under some Wikipedia policy, and has not been made. Alansohn (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That justification has been made, you and Richard are merely choosing to ignore it as you did here and here. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And there has been clear justification for inclusion. This is not even close to being a libelous issue. Apparently he who gets the admins on their sides wins, policy be damned. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Putting this material back in 1.5 hours or so after "Unless anyone can present a reasoned argument that Wikipedia policy forbids addition of this material, it will be inserted tomorrow.", eh. The arguments have been presented. Other users need time to respond and no consensus was reached to put it in the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In the movie, what is the exact wording of the question asked to which he responded with this quote? Lara❤Love 05:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review this associated discussion on the Coker material that has been under dispute on this talk page. Dreadstar † 03:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Burden of evidence

On 11 January 2008 at 21:30, Alansohn's edit summary on the this talk page said: "the burden to justify exclusion must be made under some Wikipedia policy, and has not been made" and on 23 Dec 2007 he said "he burden of proof is on those pushing for censorship". This is contrary to Wikipedia policy in WP:BLP which states: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." To be clear, it is the person who adds or restores who bears the burden, not the person who deletes. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, given your repeated removals of references to the film and your clear violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy, it's very hard to understand why you have again improperly injected yourself into this matter. Regardless of the past impropriety, every single clause, sentence of paragraph in WP:BLP that has been cited as an excuse for censoring the article -- legitimately or otherwise -- has been addressed. Every single statement added to the article has been accompanied by an independent, reliable and verifiable source, and all of the information is presented in an appropriate context. As the burden of evidence to provide reliably sourced statements has clearly been met, if the allegation of supposed WP:BLP issues is to be pushed again the burden to support the claim and exclude the section rests with those who seek to remove it. Alansohn (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn, you appear to be challenging Rlevse's right to comment on the talk page. Rlevse has been open about knowing Coker, but he certainly has a right to address policy and make his comments just as much as you do. As far as the questions outlined above by the other editors, I think you might need to address the issue they raise about the inherent bias of the film, which makes the inclusion of the quote counter to NPOV. Dreadstar † 02:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am challenging the fact that there seems to be one of the clearest possible violations of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy that can exist other than the subject editing the article himself. Article WP:OWNer Rlvese has removed mentions, references and links to the film on no fewer than six separate occasions over a span of two years inserted by several different editors, including 17:20, 17 January 2006, 07:21, 11 August 2007 (with an edit summary of "rm upon Coker's request"), 18:21, 14 December 2007 ("upon subject request"), 08:28, 16 December 2007 ("rm, BLP issue"), 16:50, 21 December 2007 and 22:34, 11 January 2008. Per WP:BLP, "In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material.", a policy clearly violated by User:Rlevse, as the multiple sources provided all undeniably reliable. All sources have bias: the McCain film is biased and all of material about his scouting and military career is biased, portraying . The bias of the film could not be more clearly stated, and the fact that Coker was carefully chosen to represent the pro-Vietnam War side is an important subject for inclusion in the article, in addition to the many statements he made in the film itself, all of which are carefully documented with independently-published reliable and verifiable sources about the film. The push to exclude it seems to be a clear -- but unstated -- bias of the article's creator, main editor and co-collaborator with the article's subject. Again, the paragraph I added most recently provides ample independent reliable and verifiable sources to back up every single statement. By carefully excluding information that is deemed to be in conflict with Lt. Coker's saintly image, this entire article is an NPOV violation through and through. Using NPOV as an excuse to exclude reliably sourced information violates WP:BLP, which states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The burden to provide evidence of a Wikipedia policy violation sits firmly with those who seek to exclude mention of the film and Coker's place in it. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The first three had no refs at all, the next two were explained on the talk page. Then this round started on 06 Dec with User:Alansohn, User:ChrisRuvolo, and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), all part of Wikipedia:NJ#Participants. ArielGold worked out a version on 24 Dec that included mentioning both films and had a sound rationale that was stable until 10 Jan when Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) first edited this article. It is Alansohn who is insisting that his version is the only one that can exist. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

While some of the below repeats the above, I am merely clarifying my comments on the six edits referred to by Alansohn:

• The first three were deletions of unreferenced text (third was removing a malformed EL to Wikipedia)
• The fifth edit was not a deletion, but was moving the citation to the external link section, which Alansohn in fact agreed to
• The fourth edit was a removal, which was explained in the edit summary ("rm, BLP issue"), which is within policy
• The sixth edit was a removal which was explained in the edit summary ("there was no consensus for this"), which was consistent with the ongoing talk page discussion working toward consensus before adding new material

— Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Coker has connections to two films, one in which his last name is mentioned as part of laundry list and the other where he appears in multiple scenes for several minutes. I love the argument that an alternative version was worked out that listed both films provides appropriate balance. Taking a look at the user pages, this article is overrun with people involved directly or indirectly with editors who are members (or sympathizers) of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting and / or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, including User:Rlevse, User:Gadget850, User:Sumoeagle179, User:Wimvandorst, User:NThurston User:Kintetsubuffalo, User:ERcheck and User:Kumioko. This shocking connection drawing all these editors to this one article might be evidence of a sinister plot by the Miltary-Boy Scout-Industrial Complex, or it might be adequately explained by the fact that Coker is an Eagle Scout who has served in the United States Armed Forces. Mr. Coker also grew up in New Jersey. The conspiratorial insinuation that I and other members of WP:NJ don't have a justifiable right to edit this article is despicable. To address your rationalizations for a two-year history of sanitizing the article by removing any and all references to the film: 1-3) the first three removals merely linked to the film. The article now (and then) consists of dozens of unsourced statements that are almost certainly true but lack sources. The proper solution is to add the source yourself / fix the "malformed" link (WP:SOFIXIT) or could readily have been tagged as requiring sources using on of the many such tags provided. It would be rather arrogant of any editor to butcher the current article by removing every sentence that lacks a source. Doing so selectively for only certain statements raises issues of consistency and WP:NPOV violations. 4) Calling something a "BLP issue" does not make it so, and the edit comment describing that the removal was based on demands from the article's subject only presents clear issues of a likely violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest rules. 5) I can assure you that at no time have I ever agreed that removal of encyclopedic material and its substitution with an external link was an acceptable alternative. 6) As stated above, the continuing excuses of lack of consensus are more accurately a persistent refusal to include sourced material that has been deemed in conflict with the saintly image of Mr. Coker. All that rebutted, the underlying issue is not the past whitewashing and censorship of the article. The section relevant to the film suggested above provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources describing Mr. Coker's role in the film. If this sourced material that is in full compliance with WP:BLP is to be excluded, a proper argument will need to be made demonstrating that Wikipedia policy forbids its inclusion in the article. Other than that, the content will be reinserted upon the end of the edit protection. Alansohn (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you seriously just say that there may be a sinister plot of some sort? I hope you're just joking. I think the project banners at the top of this page explain how such editors have all arrived at one article. Skipping over the statements that we've already been over ad nauseum, if the edit warring continues once the protection lifts, it will only result in blocks and/or further protection. And my question still has not been answered. What is the exact wording of the question he was asked? Because the way you put it into the article still made it read as though he's speaking of an entire country of people. Lara❤Love 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely LaraLove, but let's also point out that Alansohn failed to mention that you and ArielGold, who've been involved in this aren't members of said projects, nor that NThurston quit wiki back in July 2007 nor that Kumioko's whopping three edits to this article have all been AWB cleanups. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• It was you have made the snide insinuation that "Then this round started on 06 Dec with User:Alansohn, User:ChrisRuvolo, and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), all part of Wikipedia:NJ#Participants." I'm sure that there are other people here who have nothing to do with scouting or the military or New Jersey, but regardless of their connection the insinuation that there is some causal connection to an interest in New Jersey to editing this article is despicable, as stated above. The previous excuses offered for excluding details regarding the film had all revolved around issues with balance, context, sourcing, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP (and let's not forget the utterly ludicrous WP:LEGAL. Every single one of these issues has been addressed. Regardless of the validity (and there wasn't much of it) of any prior arguments supporting exclusion, the revised text needs to be addressed on its own as it stands on its own and addresses all possible issues WP:BLP. Threats of "blocks and/or further protection" only demonstrate a refusal to consider efforts to reach consensus, despite persistent and successful efforts to satisfy any and all demands, likely related to the fact that there is a recognition that there is no legitimate justification under Wikipedia policy or its exclusion. Alansohn (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Alansohn: What is the exact wording of the question asked of the man that resulted in the response you are quoting? Maybe if you'd calm down and stop repeating yourself and just answered this one simple question that I have asked four times now, this would be more easily resolved. Stop being disruptive and repeating the same tired mess over and over again. Lara❤Love 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• The scene appears 49:28 into the film and runs for 2 minutes and 19 seconds. I have tried to discern the name of the school and the grades included in this assembly, and been unsuccessful. The children are assembled in a Catholic school lunchroom, Lt. Coker is introduced by a nun. He makes some introductory remarks and asks for questions. One of the students, a girl in her tweens, asks "what did Vietnam look like?". Lt. Coker repeats the question and states "Well if it wasn't for the people it was very pretty. The people over there are very backward and very primitive and they just make a mess out of everything." Hopefully now you can stop repeating yourself over and over again and start constructively addressing the reliably and verifiably sourced text that has been offered as a suggested resolution to address any and all possible issues of balance, context, sourcing, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So Alansohn, you accuse editors of this article of (your words) "whitewashing" to remove information that is "in conflict with Coker's saintly image." Can this be taken to imply that your goal is to tarnish what you percieve to be Coker's saintly image? Please advise. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• So Rlvese, I have seen a reference to the film removed over and over and over and over and over and over and over again by you. Most of the references to the film you have removed were bare mentions of the fact that he was included in the movie Hearts and Minds which were summarily deleted. I had never heard of Lt. Coker until I edited the article to clarify his county of residence (see diff). I had never heard of the film Hearts and Minds until I saw you delete a link to the film with the edit summary "upon subject request" (see diff), a rather unusual justification, in my opinion. I took a look at the link you deleted and read the article. Presumably you had deleted the reference because it lacked a source. I did some research and found an appropriate source. I added the text "A clip of Coker was featured in Hearts and Minds, a 1974 film that won that year's Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary." with the source ""'Hearts And Minds' Recaptured", The Washington Post, October 22, 2004." (see diff), the most basic description of the fact that the film had some measure of notability and that he appeared in it. This in turn was deleted by you with the edit summary "rm, BLP issue" (see diff), starting a yet unended cycle where I attempt to address your concerns while in turn you refuse to accept any constructive mention of Coker's role and comments in the film. What I had assumed that there might have been a legitimate, good-faith concern regarding sources, started to appear more and more like an effort at sanitizing the biography, particularly after you disclosed your conflict of interest, stating that "Yes, I personally know Coker and he's asked that no reference be made to the movie. This was by a phone call to me." (see diff). What I was left with was the impression that this was a rather one-sided article, whose omission of material deemed inappropriate by the article's subject had resulted in an article that was at best incomplete, if not misleading, a conclusion that has only been reinforced by the shrill vehemence that no mention can be made of anything stated by Mr. Coker in the film, and that any effort to include such information could result in blocks. No, this is not an an effort to "tarnish" Coker's reputation; it is an effort to construct a complete and well-rounded article about a notable individual. The opposite of whitewashing is not tarnishing, it's adding relevant biographical information that you, as Lt. Coker's Wikipedia representative, refuse to include. I look forward to hearing your justification for why the reliably and verifiably sourced paragraph I have proposed must be excluded as a violation of Wikipedia policy. For that matter, I would love to hear why you feel that your personal relationship with the subject has not clouded your judgment in violation of both WP:COI and WP:BLP. Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Alanshon, please try proposing some sample solutions to gain consensus and resolve this dispute. I strongly suggest that everyone focus on the editorial content of the article and stop commenting on other contributors. Dreadstar † 22:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I will repost the suggested text I offered on January 11 (see diff). Here it is a second time:

Extensive clips of Coker making speeches and other interviews with him were included in the Academy Award-winning documentary Hearts and Minds, an anti-Vietnam War film that focused extensively on Coker. One of the film's earliest scenes details a homecoming parade in Coker's honor in his hometown of Linden, where he tells the assembled crowd on the steps of city hall that if the need arose, that they must be ready to send him back to war. Answering a student's question about Vietnam at a school assembly, Coker responds that "If it weren't for the people, it would be a beautiful country."

• Unfortunately, no one has responded to the proposed text, offered any suggestions as to what changes should be made, or offered any Wikipedia policy that would require its exlusion. It's been a week since this text has been presented. I await a relevant response. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, there have been many discussions on policy by many people. Also your proposal is not a compromise as it is in fact the addition of even more than you first posted here, which said "A clip of Coker was featured in Hearts and Minds, a 1974 film that won that year's Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary.
    • I counter propose that edit or the one currently in the article that was written by ArielGold. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The issues that had been raised (legitimate or not) were that the inclusion of Coker's response to the question raised issues of balance, context, sourcing, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The film (and its purpose) is explained, providing both balance and context. Every single statement included comes from an independent reliable and verifiable source. The only opinions expressed are those of the article's subject and the material passes any and all requirements of WP:BLP. So you counter propose that there be no inclusion of any of the sourced material about the film and the statement's that Coker made? While that is a dramatic step forward from your previous demands that the film could not be mentioned under any circumstances, the position that merely mentioning the film is adequate leaves the same unbalanced, biased article we have now in violation of WP:NPOV. Can you point to any Wikipedia policy that would forbid inclusion of the fully-documented, reliably-sourced paragraph I have proposed? Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can. WP:BLP. Presumption in favor of privacy: "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." This indicates that policy does NOT say that every statement/every detail of a person's life that is reliably documented should be included. Coker's notability does not come from the film. As for your edit below of 00:30, 20 Jan 2008, I've offered up in effort to reach consensus one of your own edits on this matter, which you rejected. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Considering the obsessive inclusion of every single detail of Lt. Coker's scouting career, there seems to be no concerns as to including too much detail in that regard. The terms of WP:BLP that you are referring to relate to information of a private nature, not to statements made by the subject in public included in an Academy Award-winning film. The far more relevant section of BLP states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." Statements by a decorated POW about his captivity could not be more notable and relevant, and no one has even bothered to challenge the veracity and verifiability of the sources. The fact that you keep on pushing your two-year long crusade to suppress the details of the film despite the clear violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest raises significant questions of judgment. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First you called this a "jihad", now a "crusade". How would you refer to your efforts here? Looks like a crusade to me. This discussion over H&M has been going on for about a month, not 2-years (check the diffs you yourself listed above--which don't even hold the water you tried to pour into them in the first place. Your statement is libelous and in bad faith to say the least. You've definitely violated WP:NPA here. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• You really have to be grasping at straws to go with "crusade" as "libelous", which I must warn you is a clear threat in violation of WP:LEGAL, which states "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia." (bold in original). What would I call my efforts here? An effort to ensure that the article provides some basic measure of balance. The fact that Rlvese has been deleting any and all references to the film, no matter how innocuous or devoid of content -- including 17:20, 17 January 2006, 07:21, 11 August 2007 (with an edit summary of "rm upon Coker's request"), 18:21, 14 December 2007 ("upon subject request"), 08:28, 16 December 2007 ("rm, BLP issue"), 16:50, 21 December 2007 and 22:34, 11 January 2008 -- since January 2006, would qualify in my book as being over a two-year period, with the anniversary itself "celebrated" this past Thursday. That previous editors were unwilling to push the issue when Rlvese first started his biased deletions of references to the film is unfortunate. If you feel that deleting references to a film as part of a clear conflict of interest violation is "good faith", we seem to be operating in very different universes. What's your justification for excluding the reliably-sourced description of the film and Coker's role that I have suggested? Now that Rlvese has rather dramatically "quit" Wikipedia, can I assume that you'll be taking the baton for him on this article? Alansohn (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No you can not assume that and it's very presumptive and non-AGF of you, but your response is typical of you--twisting facts, misinterpreting, and WP:bullying. Furthermore there was no threat to do anything. In fact, I plan to not waste my time with you anymore. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've offered a well-balanced, completely sourced description of Lt. Coker's role in an Academy Award-winning film in which he makes rather relevant statements about his attitudes towards his captors, information that could not be any more notable in an article about a former prisoner of war. I am one of several editors who have tried to insert information about the film into this article over a two-year period. After reviewing the film and researching the multiple available sources, I have structured a paragraph that addresses any all issues, real or imagined, of balance, context, sourcing, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. What will it take to get this material added? Alansohn (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected

From the tenor of the discussion on this talk page and the revert warring that has begun anew, it is apparent that this isn't going to end well if both sides don't work this out. I've protected the article for a week, work it out on the talk page. Dreadstar † 03:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there are no signs of consenus being reached and taking into consideration the threat to continue the revert war once protection was ended, protection has been extended for another two weeks. Dreadstar † 06:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the problem is the article WP:OWNer's two-year long refusal to include any substantive mention of the film, what on earth is an edit lock that only perpetuates the abusive interference with inclusion of sourced content going to accomplish? Alansohn (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is unacceptable, and from what I see from the comments on this talk page, it looks like the warring will continue if the article is unprotected. You made yourself very clear that you will revert back to your version even without consensus.

In situations like this, the process of Wikipedia is clear. You need to find consensus, failing that then you need to follow the dispute resolution process. If you continue to comment on the contributors using aggressively worded and tendentious accusations, you will be blocked. I ask you again to stop commenting on the contributors and instead focus on the editorial content of the article. Dreadstar † 19:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, I have offered a clear alternative that addresses any all issues, real or imagined, of balance, context, sourcing, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The only responses I've seen are tendentious demands that it will not be added. What will it take to get this material added? As a small measure of consistency, I'd love to see some threats of blocks that will be applied to those who have spent years obstructing any mention of the film in this article. Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• You've granted yourselves two further weeks free from the addition of relevant, reliably-sourced material regarding the subject of this article. For two years, any and all efforts to add even a mention of the film Hearts and Minds have been obstructed based on a clear conflict of interest. For all those who insist that this material cannot be placed in the article, please take these two weeks and try to come up with a convincing argument that would require exclusion of the following proposed text that addresses all issues raised to date regarding balance, context, sourcing, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, real or imagined. The wording of the question posed to Coker has been added to further clarify the scenario under which Lt. Coker's response was elicited:

Extensive clips of Coker making speeches and other interviews with him were included in the Academy Award-winning documentary Hearts and Minds, an anti-Vietnam War film that focused extensively on Coker. One of the film's earliest scenes details a homecoming parade in Coker's honor in his hometown of Linden, where he tells the assembled crowd on the steps of city hall that if the need arose, that they must be ready to send him back to war. Answering "What was Vietnam like?", a student's question at a school assembly, Coker responds that "If it weren't for the people, it would be a beautiful country."

• Wikipedia process has been abused for the past two years to suppress details of Lt. Coker's appearance in the film. What's the big deal about another two weeks? I await a meaningful response. Alansohn (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the exact wording of the question he was asked?

Fifth time. Lara❤Love 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The exact wording of the question by one of the students was, "What was Vietnam like?", and Lt. Coker responds by saying it was beautiful, except for the people. (paraphrasing). I don't want to tarnish his rep, he has done it himself. He is sometime referred to as a racist, killer, etc. The other side of the coin, so to speak. And it is all there in reliable sources from critics and others. So to balance the article, other opinions, (of course those that are sourced), should be included to achieve NPOV. No one is perfect and all good, after all, and should express these views. ←Gee♥Alice 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be viewed in light of the fact that he'd just been released for 6 1/2 years of brutal torture and his captives had murdered some of his fellow POWs. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• It should be viewed in that light as should his entire life story after his release as a POW. Failing to include this relevant sourced information leaves a rather one-sided article. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Rlevse I agree. But the reader of the article can come to that conclusion themselves, without partial editors leaving out information that they think takes the "hero" message away from him -- which I do not believe it does. I can't even imagine how I would feel in his situation. I come from a military family and know that they are conditioned to hate the enemy -- they have to. How else can another human being be able to kill-torture-demoralize another human being without dehumanizing a person or people? This applies to both sides in a "war".

Now for a civilian world analogy -- if I were raped, beaten, demoralized, and "brutally tortured" by an Asian/Black/White person or group, I would not paint all Asians/Blacks/Whites in the same light, nor should anyone else. This is an encyclopedia where we're to abide by NPOV, verifiability, and reliable sources. While I am very sympathetic, Wikipedia policies apply to this article as well. By saying ALL Vietnamese people are "whatever" is his point of view of his experience. But there are other POVs (comments and criticism) of his answer to that question after his experience, so that view should be included also to make a balanced article. What's wrong with that? ←Gee♥Alice 03:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Its a great quote and belongs here. This isn't a hagiography, so we shouldn't bowlderize his comments. Save the hagiography for WikiSaints. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Coker material in another article

The very same material being disputed in this article has been added to the Hearts and Minds article. It appeared to be WP:UNDUE because the Coker material is a full one-third of the entire H&M article. I removed it, but since the removal was disputed, I self-reverted and put it back. Please discuss on Talk:Hearts and Minds (film). Dreadstar † 06:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

In order to solve this in a faster and more amicable manner, I suggest that both User:Alansohn and myself each choose up to two admins of their own choosing to review the issues herein and let them settle this matter. Neither selected admin should have any prior involvement in this matter whatsoever. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Need for balance and details re Hearts and Minds

As demonstrated by many previous edits, including this one today, the fragmentary details regarding Coker's appearance in the film Hearts and Minds are unacceptable in an article about a living person, particularly in one that has been designated a "good article". As we approach the three-month mark in which material regarding Coker has appeared in stable form in the film's article, without any apparent harm caused, it's clearly time to add appropriate details regarding his appearance and statements in the film. This isn't time for an admin-vs.-admin showdown; This is time to expand and improve the article with material that is directly relevant to the subject and is thoroughly supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hearts and Minds (film) is not balanced, it spends 25% of its space on Coker, another 25% on Westmoreland, and the rest is biased in favor of the film. Also, multiple refs can be found about the film being a biased anti-war film. Time would be better spent improving the film's article, which is only a stub, than fragmentarily skewing Coker's statement and involvement in the film. I'm sure we all don't want a rehash of 3 months ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• No rehash wanted. I have never argued that the film article is balanced, and I have the same balance and bias concerns regarding this article, which seems to spend an inordiante amount of time on trivia of his scouting career. Hows about you update the Hearts and Minds article to meet your balance concerns and I'll take this one and address mine. I don't own the Hearts and Minds article nor do you own this one; You are free to edit away as your heart (and sources) sees fit. Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial" controversy

We seem to be in the midst of an edit war over the nature of the statements made by Coker in the film Hearts and Minds. Rather than endlessly debating as to whether the remarks were or were not controversial, my proposed edits to expand the details regarding his appearance in the film, provide the text and circumstances of his remarks and provide the sources needed to allow any reader to make a determination as to whether or not the remarks are a subject of controversy. It's time to end the stonewalling and start making changes to this article to add a small measure of balance. Alansohn (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I made an offer to have this mediated over three months ago, on 27 Jan, see Talk:George_Thomas_Coker#Proposal, in an effort to end this "endless debate" as you call it, but you chose to not respond. If anyone is stonewalling, it's you. Two edits by Chris and one by Sumo do not constitute an edit war. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• You, an admin, volunteered to have other admins assist you in making a decision, in which your fellow admins were quick to rush in to support your persistent obstruction. An inherently biased process is not a serious proposal. It's time to deal with this matter appropriately. Alansohn (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I proposed you could choose two admins of your choosing. Are you saying you'd have chosen admins biased against you or that you think no admin would help you? I also did not suggest they assist me, but us. You're twisting words of others again. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No revert does not mean I agree

User:ChrisRuvolo, here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Workshop, has implied that my not reverting his last edit of 15:18 May 1, 2008 means I agree with it. It does not mean that. I feel it's good not to continue this, a high risk of edit warring, during an arb case. I suspect there are others that feel that way. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know there was further objection since there was no further comment from you. And I wasn't aware of an arb case until yesterday. So.. is "controversial" POV? I don't think so. It is merely an observation of other's reactions, not making a judgment on the comments themselves. In this sense, it is a fact. Without that adjective, the sentence leaves the reader wondering why we mentioned statements about the Vietnamese at all. Cheers. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 10:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-ban of User:Rlevse

This is neither an admission nor denial of anything. It is simply what it is. I ban myself from the article George Thomas Coker and it's talk page for 6 months, ie, til Dec 18, 2008 UTC time. If I violate that ban I ask an uninvolved admin to block me for a week. I reserve the right to discuss issues related to Coker on other pages. There are strong and valid points on both sides--this is not unusual in a BLP article given the wide interpretations possible from the policy. I'm not sure this article is a good test case for the new special policy from arbcom or not, maybe it is, I'm not sure. I suggest others with a long history of involvement defer to neutral outsiders too. I also suggest editors discuss the issues here on this talk page or on the BLP pages rather than edit war over the article page itself. What I seek here is neutral outsiders calmly discussing the BLP issues re this article and reaching peaceful settlement when community consensus is reached. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you Rlevse. I will try and start a discussion later to get this fully resolved. I think having new input will help greatly here, though for the record I think those previously involved should still be able to contribute on the talk page, but without contributing to the consensus, if you know what I mean (other than by persuading other people of their arguments). Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with previously involved weighing in on the talk page as long as they are civil and are actively working toward finding a fair solution that satisfies policy. But users that keep the talk page in an uproar need to be asked to leave so that others can work together to find wording that satisfies both sides. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, I came here to this article because of the AE thread. I have no prior involvement with the topic matter, and volunteer my services as an uninvolved admin. If there is anything I can help with, please let me know. --Elonka 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a big step forward towards a reasonable resolution to the problem, thank you Rlevse. For my part, I will try to make sure that this gets worked through with consensus. -Oreo Priest ^talk 13:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity here, it appears that the consensus is that Rlevse should be allowed to participate at the talkpage, though he should honor his self-ban about editing the article for the next six months. Would this be alright with other editors here? I still promise that I would remain as an uninvolved admin to monitor the discussions, but I think it would be helpful to have the alternate views here at talk, to help ensure a solid consensus. --Elonka 00:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that sounds fair. -Oreo Priest ^talk 05:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite to permit my participation on the talk page. See the notice User:Elonka gave to me of this here. That is why I made the strike out above of that part of my self ban statement. I will abide by my self-ban to not edit the article itself and only edit the talk page. I hope with the help of neutral editors we can all settle this peaceably. I plan to make a response to the proposal(s) within 24 hours or so. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rlevse, welcome back.  :) Talkpage-only until December, but yes, you are welcome to participate in the discussion. --Elonka 15:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP and other potential issues re Hearts and Minds (film)

Since coming to this article due to Coker's New Jersey residency and my discovery of removal of references to the film Hearts and Minds (film), I have attempted to craft a meaningful paragraph that uses reliable and verifiable sources to form a neutrally-worded description of Coker's appearance in the film. As a starting point for any future consideration of the film in this article, the following summarizes some of the issues that have been raised to justify exclusion of the material from the article, with my takes on these issues:

• Subject's request - WP:BLP states that "In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material." The material added to the article is reliably and verifiably sourced, with further sources available and listed below. BLP further states that "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it", which would appear to be exactly the issue we are faced with here.
• Irrelevance - That there are over a dozen sources available that describe Coker's appearance in the film, combined with the fact that it is an Academy Award-winning film, would seem to indicate that the media has deemed it relevant. After spending over six years in captivity, inclusion of Coker's opinions on his captivity and his captors would seem to be particularly relevant in providing insights on this period in his life.
• Undue weight - This is an important film that provides a window to Coker's attitudes about the circumstances of his captivity, material that is missing from the article. The article has included details regarding Faith of My Fathers, in which Coker's only "appearance" is a mention of his name. Coker appears far more extensively in Hearts and Minds.
• Balance - I have tried to make it clear that the film is an anti-War documentary. Additional material that is included in the sources listed below provide opinions of how Coker is characterized that may add balance. Despite repeated searches, I have found no other statements by Coker about his captivity, nor have I ever found any response from Coker about the film. The article itself requires balance that needs to include details about Coker's appearance and responses in the film to provide a small measure of balance to the remainder of his biography.
• Libel - The film is certainly condescending and disrespectful to Coker. However, the material that has been quoted from the film is taken directly from Coker's statements as transcribed by reliable and verifiable sources. Libel and defamation have very specific legal definitions; I have strong concerns that claims that inclusion of material about the film violate WP:LIBEL may themselves violate WP:LEGAL.
• NPOV - For many, the connection to Coker relates to his military service or Boy Scout participation. My only connection to the article is that he grew up in New Jersey. I have repeatedly attempted to offer a neutrally-worded description of Coker's appearance in the film. There is no support for the claim that my "goal is to tarnish" Coker's reputation.
• Sources - All sources provided have come from independent reliable and verifiable sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. These sources satisfy the WP:BLP clause that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." See this link for a number of book and journal references to Coker's appearance in the film. Several describe Coker's role and appearances in the film. There are one or two that include criticism of how Coker is portrayed in the film. Other newspaper and magazine sources are available (with (this Google News Archive search as a start.

While there is some additional material in my talk page and that of other editors, the above is my best attempt to summarize the issues that have been raised as they appear on this talk page. I sincerely hope that User:Rlevse's decision to recuse himself from this matter can be a productive first step in resolving the issue and leading to inclusion of a clearly and neutrally worded description of Coker's appearances and comments in the film. Alansohn (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide a diff, or a copy/paste of the change that you would like to make to the article? Thanks, Elonka 18:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a first stab, with tweaked wording and updated sources, based on the suggestion I made in January:

Interviews and other clips of Coker making speeches across the United States were included in the 1974 Academy Award-winning documentary Hearts and Minds, an anti-Vietnam War film that focused extensively on Coker to represent the pro-war side of the film. One of the film's earliest scenes details a homecoming parade in Coker's honor in his hometown of Linden, where he tells the assembled crowd on the steps of city hall that if the need arose, that they must be ready to send him back to war. Answering a student's question at a school assembly about what Vietnam looked like, Coker responds that "If it wasn't for the people, it was very pretty."

Let me know if any additional reliable and verifiable sources would be needed. Alansohn (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems good to me. -Oreo Priest ^talk 21:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it well balanced, and I don't find the quote embarrassing or libelous. It was a product of the times, and a memorable quote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing I noticed, however, (from what I remember) is that most sources have the wording "If it weren't for the people, it would be a beautiful country" or something like that. I believe this one to be in the minority in its use of the quote. -Oreo Priest ^talk 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just your memory. The quote appears differently in different sources. I had transcribed portions of the film, which should appear in some of the archives of this talk page, and I will see what the variants are of his remarks. Alansohn (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So is anyone against adding this to the article? -Oreo Priest ^talk 19:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend waiting one week, and if there are still no objections, proceed. --Elonka 20:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My concerns here, to play devil's advocate, would be whether the extent of the text suggested here is more appropriate at the article about the film, and whether the quotes used in the footnotes go beyond the scope of a biographical article and make this more about the film and the war than about the person. I'm also concerned that the footnote quotes more than the text for what Coker actually says - I see no reason to do that. Either quote in full or not. Don't selectively quote. Finally, I think it is disingeneous to leave the paragraph hanging at that point. It quite pointly puts the question to the reader: "well, look what he said". It leaves people to form their own opinion, with no attempt at contextualisation after the quote (the contextualisation beforehand does prepare the ground somewhat). I know nothing has been found on the public record as to what Coker's opinion is on the film, but if we take Rlevse's comments into account, it seems Coker does object to this, and the contact with Rlevse was some attempt to influence the record, if not set it straight. Having said that, would it be acceptable to editorialise and give the context about the varied reaction Vietnam vets had to their experiences, or about how war affects people in general? I would also note (in passing) that Hearts and Minds (film) has a one-line reference to Bobby Muller, but no quote there. Carcharoth (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the paragraph is left hanging inappropriately, it seems perfectly normal to me. I think the contextualization beforehand also is adequate. I agree that there is too much stuff in the footnotes, which should be trimmed. -Oreo Priest ^talk 06:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about an individual. We could put details about scouting in the Boys Scouts article and details about his military service in the Vietnam War and eliminate the entire article, but Coker is a notable individual who deserves an article that covers all relevant portions of his life. Other than what has been filtered through Rlevse, we have no information as to what issue Coker has with the film: Is it incorrect or is it unflattering? Coker has had over 30 years to correct the record -- if it needed correcting -- or to provide additional context as to his frame of mind when he appeared in the film, yet all we have to go on is that Rlevse has stated what he reports Coker wants, without any positive confirmation as to what the concerns are. Is this an effort to "set the record straight" or is it whitewashing? We have no way of knowing based on the information we have available to us. As WP:BLP states, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it", a standard that is met about his appearance in the film, the reliable and verifiable sources provided and the subject's apparent dislike of its inclusion. I fail to see how a biography of an individual whose primary claim to notability is being a POW of the North Vietnamese for over six years can fail to describe his appearance in an important documentary film about the war or the comments about his captivity made therein. I have included brief quotations from the sources provided to make it clear what statements are being used to support the proposed addition. I would love to add some additional context, but I fail to see how doing so would avoid failing WP:SYN. We may state that different Vietnam vets had different (and difficult) experiences, but that synthesis would not explain the background behind Coker's statements. I am all in favor of including additional material to provide the requested context, but it needs to be reliable and verifiable material reflecting Coker's experiences and views. Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. -Oreo Priest ^talk 08:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, Alansohn has convinced me, as long as the quotes in the footnotes can be made strictly relevant, and the issue of extending the article quotes when quoting in the footnotes can be addressed. One more thing, though, Alansohn said "Despite repeated searches, I have found no other statements by Coker about his captivity, nor have I ever found any response from Coker about the film." That is fair enough, but is there anything at all about what others have said about the inclusion of the clips about Coker in the film? Have those who criticised the film criticised or praised the way Coker is portrayed? Have those who praised the film criticised or praised the way Coker is portrayed? What do James McEnteer, Michael A. Anderegg and Desson Thomson, say for example? Thomson seems to be saying that Davis picked and chose who to include from the pro-war side, in order to make his anti-war point. You are quoting Anderegg from a book titled "Inventing Vietnam: The War in Film and Television", and you are quoting McEnteer from a book titled "Shooting the Truth: The Rise of American Political Documentaries". Is McEnteer saying that Davis manipulated things, or is he saying that Davis revealed the truth? What is the relative longevity and reliability of the sources here. One (Thomson) appears to be a movie critic. The others two sources are books, but what credentials do the authors bring to the discussion? Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen criticism of Davis' use of Coker and other individuals from the "pro-War" side. Inclusion of material from individuals discussing the film and Coker's appearance in the film would be entirely appropriate. I will research this further and modify the proposed text based on what I can find. Alansohn (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I originally got involved with this article in an administrative capacity to stop the edit warring on a BLP, as well as addressing some civility issues, so while I don’t have any strong connection to the subject, after reading through all the issues, I wanted to address a couple of items that I thought everyone should take into consideration. While there may not be issues of libelous content, I think there are definitely BLP concerns where “do no harm” comes into play.

From what Rlevse has stated here, it appears that the WP:BLP harm in the case of Coker is repeating something clearly painful to the subject in a sensationalistic "headline" fashion that doesn't give all the facts; facts that would necessarily have to include details of the brutal torture he underwent, the reasons for the entire Vietnam war, what his mental state and reasoning were at the time he made those remarks - as well as more detail on the nature of the film itself and Coker's current view on all of this. This is a key aspect of Wikipedia:HARM, "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life". And don’t forget this also affects his family and friends. This man gave a lot for his country.

To repeat the very same sensationalistic quotation four times, with only minor variations, in the H&M article, 1, 2, 3, and 4, and then add it several more times to the Coker article is unwarranted, biased, and heartless, especially when taking into consideration the request from Coker himself.

BLP talks specifically about our need to show a "high degree of sensitivity" to people, take into consideration their feelings and situations.. well I don’t think repeating a quote that is so painful to someone who gave so much, especially when that quote is repeated in multiple places over and over again, shows any sensitivity whatsoever on the part of Wikipedia or its editors.

Sure, it's sourced and public, but is it ethically presented in Wikipedia? ? Do we need or want to repeat all those painful details? I don't think so. I think the current version is fine and nothing more needs to be added. I also think the quote should be removed or at least greatly reduced in number from Hearts and Minds. Dreadstar † 16:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know why Coker became so heavily involved in the Boy Scouts. I'm sure that his experiences in captivity in Vietnam played a major role, but inclusion of a history of the Scouting movement and of Coker's Vietnam experience would not fully "explain" why he has become so active in the BSA. As with any two overlapping articles, there will be material and sources that appear in both. My inclusion of multiple sources to support the quotation was part of an effort to address the oft-repeated claims of their nonexistence and irrelevance; There was no intention of sensationalizing his statements, nor would the removal of the quoted text from the references desensationalize his statements (though I might agree to their removal if it would address the issue once and for all). I still don't know what exactly Coker's objections are to the film, and all we have are Rlevse's interpretation of the objections, which went so far as removing even bare links to the article about the film. I would genuinely wish to find Coker's responses to the film in reliable sources, but I have been unable to find anything anywhere, despite determined searches. Our need for sensitivity must also be weighed against our WP:BLP requirement that "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it", a standard that seems to have been written to describe exactly the scenario we face here. Coker has an article on Wikipedia because of his time and actions as a POW, which he deserves ample respect for. But WP:NPOV demands that we "[represent] fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" and as you have highlighted, Wikipedia:HARM specifies that "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life".. I cannot understand how a biography of an individual notable for being a POW can omit the subject's statements about his captivity and his captors and be considered "full and balanced". A bare mention of the film -- with no other details -- would itself violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Our question is how do we use the sources available to address reasonable concerns about "sensationalism" or "harm" by providing additional context. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC, responding to Dreadstar) I agree that there should be sensitive consideration here. Still, the quote is notable by virtue of its prominence in a notable film. If it is correct that Mr. Coker made speeches acrosss the country after returning from his captivity, and that this quote occurred at one of them, I think that a mention is appropriate. I personally would tweak the proposed wording by Alansohn to replace " Hearts and Minds, an anti-Vietnam War film that focused extensively on Coker to represent the pro-war side of the film" with something like "Hearts and Minds a 1973 anti-Viet Nam War film that interspersed graphic images of wounded and killed Viet Namese with footage of Coker and other members of the military. One of the film's earliest scenes..." My goal with this proposal is to give a reasonably NPOV feeling for the manner in which the documentary makes use of Coker's footage, and to show how much time has passed since the comments were made. I personally don't find it at all surprising that after years of captivity and torture that he might make such a comment - it actually seems fairly mild to me under the circumstances, and I don't think that it automatically makes one think badly of him. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get too much into the content discussions here, but I do want to make sure that the article stays balanced, per WP:UNDUE. So I have to find a careful balance between "keeping the article in adherence with Wikipedia's policy on neutrality and undue weight" and "staying uninvolved". So here's a bit about my thought processes here: Determining whether an article gives undue weight to something is often a judgment call, and is difficult to do for an administrator such as myself who is not very familiar with the subject matter. In order to make this determination, things I might do would be to scan the various sources, and get a sense of what proportion of the sources cover which aspect of the article. Just based on the very barest of glances, it would seem that this article has a roughly 50-50 split between sources about scouting, and sources about Coker's military service. So by that (very crude) measure, the article should be half about Coker's scouting accomplishments, and half about his military service. If any editor feels that one section of the article should be expanded, well, find more sources to prove that that part of Coker's life deserves more weight in this article. Now, about the military service though, I do feel that the article violates WP:UNDUE at this time, because it covers Coker's pre-prisoner career in only the most cursory way, and then spends a great deal of time on his POW days and their aftermath. However, a quick glance through sources, such as at http://books.google.com, shows that Coker was also known for other parts of his service, such as having 55 missions over Vietnam.[1] But currently our Wikipedia article makes no mention of this, at all. Instead the Military Service section basically starts, "he-served-for-23-years-and-then-he-was-shot-down". This is definitely a neutrality concern, that I hope the editors here will address. In other words, if we are going to have a section about Coker's military career, then let's have an actual section about his entire career, not just the end of it. When did he join, what was his rank, how many missions did he fly, when was he assigned to Vietnam, how long had he been there, the other normal stuff that would go into a military man's biography. As another datapoint, I noted that there are several medals listed in the article, but with nothing more than a name. So, when were they awarded, why were they awarded? Sources do exist for this, even on a simple Google search.[2] Now, regarding Hearts and Minds, I agree that Coker's appearance in the film is well-documented and should be covered. But if the article is only covering the rest of Coker's career (such as that he was awarded the second highest Navy medal, the Navy Cross) in a cursory way, then it makes sense to cover the documentary in a cursory way as well. If the rest of the article gets expanded though, then it would be more reasonable to expand the H&M section along with it. Bottom line: Keep things in the proper proportion. --Elonka 20:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your ideas are excellent, Elonka. I'm for expanding the article on Coker's pre-POW military career, and giving more information on how he earned his medals, things of that nature. My main concern is that one sensationalistic quote, especially when it's repeated over and over. That's unnecessary. So, if we can present more information on Coker's pre-POW military career, and perhaps even include the quote and information on the film, but present it in a highly sensitive way, one that shows more of the meaning and context of it, then that may be fine. And one single iteration of the quote is sufficient, there's no need to repeat it in the footnotes. Dreadstar † 02:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is all quite interesting and highlights some of the problems with BLP--different parts of the policy can conflict. At least users are discussing first this time. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I also agree with Elonka that expanding the section on his military career to balance the H&M stuff and get things covered in the right proportion, is definitely the right way to go. One question: is it possible to note an absence? If reliable sources say that nothing is known about x period of his life, can we say that? But if there is just a blank period, we can't say that because we might have missed something? Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify and add more detail on the "do no harm" issue, let me first say that Mr. Coker's notability stems from being a Navy Cross recipient who was held and tortured as a POW in Vietnam for over 6 years. Upon his release, he returned as a hero and gave patriotic speeches across the United States. The anti-war film Hearts and Minds is inherently POV and it selectively uses clips of Coker's words after his release to bring across its anti-war message.

The one particular quote that some editors here want to include in the article, when taken out of context, makes it appear that Coker is making a racist remark. In order to provide for WP:NPOV and not violate WP:UNDUE, we would need to add context for the remark, but in order to do that, we would have to violate Original Research. The reasoning here is that each of us has said things that, if taken in or out of context, do not represent what we mean, or our views. We've all made statements we regret, sometimes statements that we didn’t mean, sometimes what we said didn't come out how we meant it to, and sometimes we say something we did mean at the time, but as time goes on and our perspective changes, we no longer agree with our own statement from that earlier time.

Considering that Coker is not a public figure that we can expect to have any current remarks that he makes to be publicized and reviewed, our inclusion of this one, older, out-of-context remark is not supported by BLP. The BLP section on "Basic human dignity", says: "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." <emphasis (bolding) changed from original text in policy>

Because Coker's notability comes primarily from being a POW who was awarded the Navy Cross, he is a person whose notability indeed "stems largely from … being the victim of another's action." Shining a light on a quote that is not well known, especially in such a sensationlaistic tabloid headline fashion, serves only to prolong the victimization and adds nothing to our encyclopedia - in fact, I'd say it takes a lot away from us.

With all of this in mind, I don't believe the article needs to be expanded beyond what it currently contains just so the H&M section can be expanded as currently proposed. Again, I truly think we need to be very sensitive to Mr. Coker and his family, and adding more material on this painful subject doesn't appear to be sensitive. Dreadstar † 23:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to square one. The quotation has been cited in at least a dozen books, magazine and newspaper articles. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has decided that the film is notable, and the mass media has decided that the quotation is a notable quotation. As part of traveling around the country after his release, Coker was filmed and quoted describing his experiences. I have seen a copy of the film online, and I saw no signs of duress. He made these statements freely, willingly and of his own volition. Any reasonable person reading the article who has any familiarity with the circumstances of his six-plus years in captivity and torture will understand what the circumstances were that entitled him to a degree of bitterness about his captors. Any effort (or demand) to include an explanation for why he made the remarks would violate WP:SYN, nor is there any corresponding "explanation" for why he became active in the Boy Scouts, something that should also be traced to some combination of his captivity and free will. There is no evidence whatsoever that mentioning the film or his statements is sensationalistic, let alone any support for the baseless charge of mentioning the film being a tabloid headline (in bold, no less) or even that inclusion of the quote perpetuates his "victimization"; This is all one person's opinion. I am totally baffled by the "quote is not well known" standard, which would gut almost all of Wikipedia content and citations. The media -- our final arbiter of what's notable -- has decided that the film and Coker's appearance are notable. Let's find an appropriate means to share this information with readers, who deserve a full an complete picture of the individual. Anything less violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and whitewashes a clearly relevant and notable aspect of the subjects life. Alansohn (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Coker was a Scout as a kid, and it helped him get through his captivity, it's not a surprise he continued in Scouts as an adult. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the refs found by Elonka. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I back most of Alansohn's statements. To Dreadstar: the article certainly does not serve primarily to mock or disparage its subject. As for the victimization policy, that was written for Brian Peppers and the like, certainly not Coker, who enlisted in the Navy and is famous for his bravery during his captivity, to say nothing about the scouting career. "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life". Full and balanced does not mean no negative points, it means accepting the good with the bad. And again, there is a policy written to deal with situations exactly like this: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". Once again, our concern is providing reasonable context to address reasonable concerns about "sensationalism" or "harm". -Oreo Priest ^talk 07:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal

After returning home, Coker made patriotic speeches across the United States. Film clips from these as well as interviews were included in the 1974 Academy Award-winning documentary Hearts and Minds, an anti-Vietnam War propaganda film with an anti-military bias. One of the film's earliest scenes details a homecoming parade in Coker's honor in his hometown of Linden, where he tells the assembled crowd on the steps of city hall that if the need arose, that they must be ready to send him back to war. Coker also makes controversial staements about Vietnam during this.... — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, I think that just leaves the reader wondering what the controversial statements were. It seems incomplete, IMO. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 11:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition to being incomplete, it is also inaccurate and euphemistic. <redacted WP:BLP violations> On top of that, the sources do not seem to back up the claim that it was a propaganda film, itself a very strong claim, much less for an Oscar winning documentary. The sources cited also do not establish that it has an anti-military bias per se. In addition, the sources you cited add "Coker tells schoolkids how the US won the war and lets them know the Vietnamese are “backward and primitive” and they “make a mess out of everything”" and explicitly identifies Coker's statements as racist. -Oreo Priest ^talk 12:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OP, you may want to read the refs closer, see statements such as "Probably the biggest criticism one can level at Minds stems from its editorial bent. Without question, it takes the anti-war side of things, and one could argue it goes for a pro-Vietnamese bent as well....In the end, Hearts and Minds remains a flawed film that simply seems too one-sided for its own good.", ""The documentary is clearly anti-war in both tone and content.", and "...rather blatant piece of propaganda, though as disingenuously one-sided as it can be...,". Seems pretty clear cut to me and duly documented by three references. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OP, I think there are other valid interpretations for the statement he made. It is not necessarily racist IMO. "pretty, if it weren't for the people.. they make a mess of everything" (paraphrasing) always sounded to me like a criticism of either the culture or the VC government. Maybe thats why I never thought of this quote as a big deal. Even "backward and primitive" seems like a cultural issue to me. A culture that allows torture can certainly be labeled "backward and primitive" IMO. (readers are encouraged to draw their own conclusions about the USA's recent actions) --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You may notice I said "anti-military bias per se", i.e. as opposed to simply anti-war. If the propaganda reference is in the EBSCO collection, I don't have access to it because it requires a login. Further, the National Review's (where the source is from) assessment of an anti-Vietnam film as propaganda is already suspect because the National Review is a neoconservative magazine. It is anything but clean cut.

It is true, however, that the statements are not necessarily racist, although that seems to be a widely held view. This strikes me as a reason to include the statements themselves, so the reader can draw their own conclusions. -Oreo Priest ^talk 14:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the quote should be included for NPOV reasons -- so that the readers can draw their own conclusions. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OP-and the producers of H&M were clearly left wingers, so does that make the film anything but clean cut? I'd say so. As for the article from NR, I have a scanned copy of it. I can't email it as an attachement through wiki email but if you send me an email I can't then reply and send it to you if you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The film is obviously anti-Vietnam, and the makers are clearly left wingers, yes. That doesn't justify calling the film propaganda, and calling it as such is certainly not clean cut and is probably too strong a statement. Regardless, they did not paraphrase Coker's statements to put a spin on them, they simply showed clips of him speaking, using his own words, with what I understand to be sufficient context. Please send me the article. -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll send it later today. Send me an email so I can send you the article. The film is very one-sided, no getting around it. Such as it only covers atrocities by the US and supporters, none by the NVA or Viet Cong. Note I have provided 3 sources about the films bias, there are more if you like, I can get them. The film's bias is clear, there is no denying that. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, who is "Colin Jacobson" and how does him giving a review of Hearts & Minds for "DVD Movie Guide" (www.dvdmg.com) count as a reliable source? What he says might be right, but I think some of the sources being used here (on both sides) are suspect. Either the sources are promoting their own agenda (left, right, pro-war, anti-war, etc), or they are film reviews from newspapers or websites, as opposed to more reliable sources about the history of what happened here. The problem is that we are still too close to the events (35 years) for there to have been a proper historical analysis and verdict. And because people are still living, and the events are in living memory, the controversies are still active and political have not yet subsided into the history books. So it will probably be near-impossible to reconcile the sources in a short, balanced, informative and yet sensitive way. Carcharoth (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am remined of a bit on the old HBO series Not Necessarily the News. There were two successive "news" pieces, one titled something like "fun at the beach" and the other called perhaps "sun cancer alert". The joke was that each reporter used the exact same clips to tell a completely different story. The film Hearts and Minds is clearly partisan in nature, no doubt about it. Yet the clips of Coker, covering several minutes of an Academy Award-winning film, are presented in their entirety with no apparent editing or manipulation. The same exact clips could have been taken as is and cut-and-pasted into a pro-war film, with different narration. Coker comes off as sincere, clear-headed and eager to share his views and experiences with the public and with the interviewer. I have tried to identify the inherent bias in the film in my suggested text for insertion in the article and additional characterizations of the film's point of view may be appropriate. But the remarks Coker made still stand on their own as his views and opinions about his Vietnam experience. If we can manage to include details of a film in which his only appearance is the mention of his last name, we can manage to include details of a film in which he is one of the featured individuals in an award-winning documentary. The article as it stands has a huge void in details about his personal views about his experience in captivity. I would be more than happy to see any additional material about his experiences, or views about the film, if anyone can find the reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The very fact we're discussing the merits of the film and Coker's statements in it would seem to me to prove this is controversial, for several reasons. I've found that few reviews of H&M are neutral and explore both sides. Most are for or against the film and the way it was made. To say it is a controversial film almost states the obvious. Reviews of it, pos and neg, abound. They are easy to find. Here are a three more: NY Times, but you have to get a free account to view it, New school.edu, Bowman. My point is that the film is slanted and should be viewed in that light. The New School ref (which mentions Sobran and his ref) is probably one of the best and most balanced I've seen. It and some others even talk about the techniques used in the film to slant its presentation and how it influenced Michael Moore and his making of Fahrenheit 9/11, the H&M of the current generation. Carcharoth makes a good point, we need to keep an eye on ref quality-on both sides, they don't all even agree on the wording of Coker's statement. If we want to fill a void on Coker's views on the war and his experiences therein, including only the statement in question falls far short of the mark. It also carries the baggage of BLP and related issues with it. This to me gives some validity to Dreadstar's statement about sensationalism. Does this one statement by Coker really stand on its own? If they did so 34 years ago, do they today? Does this one statement really shed that much light on him views of the war and is in seen as he meant it? This statement is a mere peephole into the man's mind. How would we all feel about our captors after 6.5 years of brutal torture? For those too young to remember this era, would it, alone, do justice to explain things to today's generation (an issue Carcharoth touches on)? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy requires us to make use of reliable and verifiable sources. While the film Hearts and Minds has its own agenda, it does open wide a window on Coker and his experiences. Coker's speech at Linden City Hall was not a staged event, nor were his remarks to students at the school influenced by the filmmaker, among the many scenes in the film featuring Coker's views and opinions. I cannot imagine having these insights on Coker's views about his captivity and captors available and refuse to include these details in a comprehensive biography about him. This "peephole" and the ample reliable and verifiable sources that discuss it are ample evidence of how important the media feels his statements are in providing insight on his Vietnam experience. Coker appears for close to ten minutes in the film, and I would welcome inclusion of any other material from reliable sources to expand my suggested verbiage. But I cannot imagine leaving a hole in a biography when we have the subject's own words to help fill this gap. Alansohn (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it's the only insight we have into his opinions and experiences of the war. Would the same experience do the same or worse to most of us? Maybe, but we're not the judge of that. The fact is, he said it uncoerced and of his own volition, and it has been deemed notable enough by the media to appear in numerous print sources. Seriously, what other proof of notability could there possibly be? I echo Alansohn's desire to fill the void in details about his personal views about his experience in captivity, and I too would love to see additional material about his experiences, or views about the film, given the reliable sources.

I think at this point we should revisit Alansohn's earlier proposal to see what specific parts of it are objectionable, as it seems to me to already give a fairly balanced measure of the factors at hand. It establishes that the film is anti-Vietnam War, without using terms so strong as "propaganda", and "anti-military bias" (the latter in fact does not appear in any of the cited sources). It also presents the quote for the reader's own judgement. Thoughts? -Oreo Priest ^talk 09:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying it's anti-Vietnam War is not totally accurate, it is biased and even pro-North Vietnam, Viet Cong, ie, the enemy during that war and was definitely made with that agenda, as Alansohn points out. The refs looked at so far may not way "anti-military" but that fact is painfully obvious. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is pro-the enemy and Alansohn did not say that, he said it was made with an agenda, namely an anti-Vietnam War agenda. (Correct me if I'm wrong Alansohn). It is also not "painfully obvious" that they have an anti-military bias as opposed to simply being opposed to the goals and presence of the military. Perhaps a more toned down "... film which is sharply critical of the military" (or with no sharply or whatever) would suit you as a compromise? -Oreo Priest ^talk 11:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say Alansohn said that, I said that and I stand by it. The film is an obvious product of the left-wing Jane Fonda-loving counterculture of that era. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a _huge_ difference between labeling a film anti-war and pro-enemy. There is more than one way to have the interests of one's country at heart. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 11:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That they only show and discuss atrocities committed by the US/South Vietnamese and none by the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong is enough for me to make it pro-enemy. In all wars there are atrocities by both sides, this is sad but true. Did you know that the North Vietnamese Paris Peace delegation sent a congratulatory message to the Oscar awards because they were so pleased by the film? Ask yourself why they were so pleased. This message was read to the audience at the Oscars and Bob Hope and others were infuriated by this. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a minor course correction here, I think the discussion is veering off too much into "what did he mean" and "what did the film mean". For better results, could we try and re-focus on, "What specific wording, based on sources, are we going to use in the article"? Also, I'd like everyone to review some of their comments on this talkpage, because BLP applies to both article and talkpage. Specifically, I've seen a couple comments using the word "racist", and I do not believe that that is backed up by the sources. Unless someone can produce multiple reliable sources using that term in reference to Coker, I would appreciate if those comments could be removed from the talkpage, thanks. --Elonka 15:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I used the word racist because that appeared in the sources that Rlevse provided. I'd prefer if we not get into a big fuss about exactly how reliable those sources were and leave the talk page as is because such a meta-discussion would be counterproductive. Can we please again focus our attention on specific things wrong with Alansohn's earlier proposal? -Oreo Priest ^talk 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but can you please point me at a couple of the sources that use the term? Thanks, Elonka 21:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently "sources" is one source, and it's the most suspect of all of them, the DVD review one. My mistake. If you want you can try to remove the talk page references to it (which I think is only one comment, and my personal opinion is that it's better left here for its contribution to the discussion (and quick rebuttal)), but it should probably be done in a way to leave the discussion mostly intact. Strikethrough perhaps? -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Use your best judgment. --Elonka 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space, I've redacted the comment. Dreadstar † 06:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Source questions

I see a couple of the sources that I have questions about, such as "McCain's letter" and "award speech". Have these been published somewhere? Are they verifiable? Or are they a violation of original research? --Elonka 20:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete them if need be. The places they are used have other sources anyway. AFAIK they have not been published elsewhere. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Navy Cross quote

Here's the source for the quote: [3]. Someone please add it. I can't even though it's an innocuous change. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I did it OK. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)