Talk:George Thomas Coker

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." ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Thomas_Coker&diff=178231017&oldid=177977095 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)