Talk:George Thomas Coker

Concerns

I don't know how I happened upon this article, but I had to go to google and other websites to discover just what the quote-unquote controversy is about. In reality, there is no controversy, and there is nothing 'unsourced or poorly sourced' - he said what he said, yet some editors want to suppress this information. This is another good example of why Wikipedia sucks. Dlabtot (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

N.B: Please do not edit my talk page comments in violation of WP:TALK. Dlabtot (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear about the point I was trying to make, since it was deleted from my comments - this article is a whitewash. That is my point. Wikipedia would be better to have no article on this individual, rather than the current blatantly whitewashed article. Dlabtot (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you may need to re-read the above discussion. The question is not one of sources for the quote itself, it's one of WP:BLP issues for "do no harm" as well as WP:V and WP:NPOV issues. There’s nothing in policy that requires us to include that quote. What policy does require is for us to give a full and balanced view of the topic and the quote. We can’t have that with the sources currently available. Normally this wouldn’t be an issue, because the quote is well-sourced, however due to BLP concerns raised by the subject himself, we are restricted by BLP in what we can say – well if we have any sensitivity for the subject at all, and any sense of fair play.

I’m not sure of the exact reasons for Coker’s objections, but say, for instance, that he regrets the quote and feels it was mistaken for a racist comment when what he meant was a comment on just those who actually tortured him. That quote could be a huge embarrassment to him, and a painful memory. He may think the people of Vietnam are wonderful, but who can tell? We can't supply that information because there's no WP:RS for it.

Under those conditions, we would be perpetrating further victimization of Coker that was started by his captors.

As far as I can tell, the quote is only being included because it’s “memorable”, and without proper context, and the way it’s presented as a kicker quote does indeed look like a tabloid entry in that it a tends to emphasize a sensational remark. Dreadstar † 22:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, we have ample reliable and verifiable sources that Coker made statements about his captors, statements that are directly relevant to the subject's biography and that fill a huge void in this article, statements that were made publicly, were recorded on film and made of his own volition to schoolchildren, that at least a dozen media sources have found notable and worthy of mention. On the other hand, we have completely and totally unsubstantiated claims that the article's subject does not like the inclusion of his own statements, and that their inclusion is causing harm, embarrassment and are perpetuating his victimization. I would love to provide some further balance, but there are no statements to provide his opinion. Most importantly, there are no sources whatsoever to support the claim that the subject objects, which appears to violate WP:OR. Nothing. WP:BLP obligates us to provide a complete and thorough biography backed by reliable and verifiable sources, as has been offered for months. The burden of evidence required by WP:BLP has been satisfied, and there are no sources to contradict the claim. It is impossible to challenge or respond to suppositions about the subject's likes or dislikes, which have been the subject of endless speculation. I have offered a clear, balanced and neutral text to be inserted and am more than happy to consider any additions to my recommendation. What will it take to reach a conclusion here? Alansohn (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation is to work on some non-controversial section of the article first, to help rebuild trust, and address any issues of WP:UNDUE. Then, for the H&M section, proceed slowly, per WP:BRD. Make a change to a single sentence, and then let things sit for a day. If no one objects, make another small change, and so forth. --Elonka 00:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I had the same idea earlier. Let's expand the non- controversial parts first. As it stands now, the content in the section about H&M looks complete compared to the rest of the space given to other larger aspects of his life. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit my talk page comments in violation of WP:TALK. Dlabtot (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I redacted a heading which appeared to be an attack on the other editors here, accusing them of "whitewashing" the article, I did not edit your post. Uncivil attacks will not be tolerated here. Dreadstar † 03:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So, Alansohn, it sounds like the only options you will support are to a) take your proposal of text as is, or b) take your proposal with additions? ie, no removals from it or alterations of text. Is that so?Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• So, Sumoeagle179, I have offered a version backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources, and would be happy to add as many as would be needed, and have offered multiple versions over a period of six months. All we have been allowed so far in this article is a cryptic mention of the film. Omitting any mention of what the "controversial statements" are leaves readers baffled. The omission is justified by an unsupported claim that the subject has demanded its removal. Let's hear your version. I will be happy to review it. Alansohn (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So you're willing to look at someone else's proposal? That'd be good because I get the impression from prior remarks that your version must be the start. If you're willing to consider others, maybe I'll work one up. Give me a few days. I also think the advice just above of Flo and Elonka is good. Why can't we include some of Coker's non-controversial remarks from the film? Or is that too boring? Are controversial ones the only ones that are acceptable? Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I have spent six months waiting for an alternative that addresses the content of the film in a relevant fashion. My proposed text already paraphrases his Linden City Hall remarks, and I would be more than happy to quote them if I had the sources to back it up. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to bring the footnotes quotes issue to this article too? The two just added merely repeat what's in the article already. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's only an issue if you make it one. I know of no policy that requires its use, so I can't force anyone else to use them. Can you point to any Wikipedia policy that forbids its use? Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you have consensus for any changes you make to this article. It is obviously a contentious article and does not lend itself to unilateral changes. Dreadstar † 04:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do I need permission to do here? I have spent the past seven months trying to find consensus here, and look forward to reaching it one day in the future. If you would like to constructively edit the article, including text and sources I have added, you are free to do so. I sincerely hope that you will grant me the same courtesy. Alansohn (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

On a contentious article, "permission" is called consensus. I suggest you read it very carefully. Dreadstar † 06:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read it carefully and find no such demand that one, and only one, editor must get permission from any other before editing. I have reviewed this article and made a number of changes backed by verifiable sources, using the exact process described by WP:CONSENSUS. I suggest you review the edits I (and other editors) have made and change them as necessary, following the procedures of building consensus. If you would like to discuss the content of any of my edits, feel free to do so here. Alansohn (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clear, WP:BRD is fine for some of the material you've added recently and may fall within the bounds of WP:CON, however I have been objecting to, and continue to object to the addition of a very specific quote we've been discussing. If you're still unclear about the disputed quote and the consensus and sources needed for it's addition, then please leave me a message on my talk page. I'll be more than happy to clarify it for you.

Additionally, I see that my reasoning and objections to that specific quote have been removed or "archived" from this talk page. I find that most disturbing. I have copied my reasoning and objections here. Dreadstar † 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the page is very active, some threads are being archived very rapidly. But just because concerns have been archived, does not invalidate them. You are free to link to previous discussions in archive. I'd just like to keep the talkpage for active discussions, thanks. --Elonka 21:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I understand your concerns. You'll have to pardon me if I felt a bit short-changed...;) Dreadstar † 22:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I've followed a WP:BLP/N WP:AN/I notice here. Using the quote out of context is a BLP problem because it suggests that the person made racist remarks, without establishing that these remarks are widely known or reported, what they mean, etc. Using the quotes in context would probably be a weight, relevancy, and BLP problem as well - they are not part of an encyclopedic account of the life of this person, unless one establishes that making such remarks was a significant part of his life and legacy (or some standard like that). Their use here is evocative, not descriptive. They should stay out. I also find it inflammatory to insist on a heading accusing editors of "whitewashing", trying to suppress things, and making Wikipedia suck, and unfortunate that there has been edit warring here on the talk page to insist on keeping rude language like that (and also unfortunate that there was edit warring to delete it - sometimes you just have to keep cool). It might be helpful to review the WP:TEND essay and try not to be like that. Wikidemo (talk)

Proposing the addition of material backed by reliable and verifiable sources makes Wikipedia suck? Dozens of reliable and verifiable sources have found Coker's appearance in the film, and the particular quotation in question, to be notable. I still fail to see how demanding the exclusion of the subject's views on his captivity can possibly be in keeping with a requirement to provide a complete biography of the individual, when the article provide absolutely nothing now other than the statement that he made "controversial statements". "What were these statements" is a question that any rational reader of this article should ask and should get an appropriately worded answer for. What context would you add to justify its inclusion? Alansohn (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The footnoted quotes issue is an issue on several article. And so far every instance of dispute regarding this issue that I've seen has involved AS and/or RAN. They seem to be it's only major proponents. While nothing probibits it totally, there is plenty of policy that says disputes should be settled on talk pages and other means vice directly editing the article. So far, it seems the consensus here is against including them, certainly against long and repetitive ones. As far as I'm concerning, all the footnoted quotes here, even pre-existing ones can be cut. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Other than a poorly manufactured one, there is no "dispute" regarding the supposed footnoted quotes "issue"; some people use it, some people don't. There is no policy that requires its use, nor is there a consensus anywhere to forbid it (let alone "totally"). I apologize for being fairly active in adding sources and bumping into editors looking for trivial points of argument; I will use them and you don't have to. Are you claiming that the quotations are not relevant? Quite interestingly, footnoted quotes were also used on two separate references in this article to prove that the fairly trivial point that the word "Coker" was mentioned in passing in the film Faith of My Fathers. Perhaps we should address the more genuine dispute as to the justifications for excluding sourced material from Wikipedia articles before moving on to other "disputes". Alansohn (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As a course correction here, I would recommend that we just stick to discussing the George Thomas Coker article here, rather than the larger issue of footnoted quotes on other Wikipedia articles. That issue is better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Footnoted quotes, where a discussion is in process on how to update the WP:FN guideline. Anyone here with an opinion, is welcome to participate there. --Elonka 15:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Poll on viewing

Who here has actually seen H&M?

• Alansohn - Yes. It's available on YouTube. On several occasions, I have mentioned the fact that I have seen the film. I made a log of Coker's appearances in the film at some point, that may be in the archive of this talk page. Agree or disagree with his methods and conclusions, but Davis puts Michael Moore to shame as a filmmaker. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Carcharoth - ?
• ChrisRuvolo - Yes. For those that have not watched yet, it is available via Bittorrent here: [1] --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Dreadstar - ?
• Oreo Priest - ?
• Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) - ?
• Rlevse - Yes. I have a DVD of it and I've made a transcript of every word Coker says and recorded their lengths and other info from the film. I'll make a post on this and provide various quotes within the next day or so. I do agree with AS's statement that, biased as the film is, from a purely technical standpoint, ie as filmcraft, it is a very well-made film; to say the film has a one-sided agenda is a big understatement. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sumoeagle179 - yes

--just curiousSumoeagle179 (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Question for AS: You say it's on YouTube and you've seen it. Does this mean the entire film was viewed by you on YouTube? If so, how did this occur when YouTube limits uploads to 10 minutes? Or did you rent the film and watch the entire film? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• You can quiz me on the content, and it could have been Google Video, but I have seen the film in its entirety. Alansohn (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Here are some of my notes from the film on Coker's appearances that I took in January: 5:44 - 7:42 (1:58) Welcome parade in Linden, speech on steps of city hall. "One small word kept me alive faith in family, God and country."; 19:02 - 19:13 (:11) what it's like to be a pilot; 20:12 - 20:28 (:16) A-6 as ultimate in aviation; 21:08 - 21:24 (:16) what it's like to fly a good mission; 49:28 - 51:47 (2:19) what did Vietnam look like? I'm not sure this is a complete list of his appearances or that the time marks, durations or quotations are accurate or match anyone else's, but I can assure you that I have watched the film online, in its entirety, on several occasions. When you're dealing with an extremely determined effort to keep sourced material out of the article, regardless of sources, thorough work is necessary to respond. So I've researched online, read dozens of newspaper, magazine and journal articles, and watched the film. If only we had the same level of investigation, research, details and reliable and verifiable sources as to the subject's objections. Alansohn (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

When you're dealing with extremely determined efforts to ignore legitimate BLP issues, extremely thorough research is needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Every single possible BLP issue, real or imagined, has been presented and addressed. What will it take to reach consensus on inclusion of reliably and verifiably sourced material that is directly relevant to the subject's biography, and where the primary objection is an entirely unsupported claim that the subject is bothered by inclusion of his own statements, which have been reported on and deemed notable by at least a dozen newspaper, magazine and journal sources? If you, or any other editor, have an alternative text that addresses concerns about balance, I look forward to reading and considering them. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The consensus, as I read it, is that the article needs to stay balanced, and not give undue weight to comments that were made by the subject, which comments were made shortly after the subject was released from several years of torture, and which comments were then used by a heavily biased and controversial documentary. That the subject made the comments is well-sourced, and that the comments were the subject of controversy is also well-sourced. However, that doesn't mean that there should be a large section in the Wikipedia article about those comments, because that then gives undue weight to that one documentary, which was a blip in the subject's long career. If the rest of the article is expanded about the subject's career, then the section about the documentary can probably be expanded as well. But first let's get the rest of the article expanded. --Elonka 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two sentences and three sources about a film in which Coker appears as the word "Coker", in a presumably biased film (I haven't had a chance to see it in its entirety) that only presents John McCain's perspective. The article includes exhaustive minutiae of Coker's scouting career, but fails to provide any details of his remarks about his captors, covering his remarks about 6.5 years of captivity, despite the availability of at least a dozen sources that have found his appearance in the film Hearts and Mids and his statements therein notable. The primary objection is based on unsupported claims made that the subject objects to his own statements being included here or even any mention of the film, even though he has made no public statement about the film, its accuracy or the clips selected for inclusion, let alone anything that would constitute a reliable or verifiable source to support these objections. I have already expanded the article and added sources, as you and other editors have requested, only to be criticized for failing to ask permission. If expanding the article and adding sources is what is required to add reliably and verifiably sourced relevant material, I'm happy to respond, but is there any commitment that this is the final obstacle and is there any definition of exactly how much material needs to be added to satisfy everyone? Alansohn (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

With the many, many statements Coker made in the film, I'd like to know why AS is so focused on this one sentence. Is it as Dreadstar pointed out, sensationalism? I am far from the only one that views BLP as I do in this situation. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The first time you deleted a bare link to the film, I did some research and the first source I found (see here) was in The Washington Post, a publication that is rarely identified as a tabloid purveyor of sensationalism, included the quote. I can provide a dozen other sources that include this one quote, but I'm not sure that I can find any other quote from Coker in the film. To me, that's an indication that the media, our ultimate arbiter of notability, has decided that the film and Coker's appearance and his remarks quoted therein are notable. I have made over 70,000 edits, painstakingly adding sources where there were none; If you're looking for an anti-Coker or anti-Vietnam War agenda, there should be plenty of material to base the claim on, and I encourage you to wade through to find the non-existent "proof". I edited the article because the guy lived in New Jersey, and I inserted the quote with required sources because you repeatedly removed even a link to the film on multiple occasions. I would appreciate if you would work to address the issues regarding the article and refrain from further efforts to impugn my supposed motives. Alansohn (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I am working on the issues and would appreciate if you'd quit making snippy remarks at my supposed motives. I ask again what is wrong with using another quote from the film instead of the one you proposed? Note, this is an attempt to resolve this, not anything else you may impart to it. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The references I found in my initial search, the search I made in response to your deletions of bare mentions of the film as a WP:BLP issue (this diff, came up with the quotation "If it wasn't for the people, it would be very pretty" appearing in multiple reliable and verifiable sources. To flesh out the details beyond a bare mention of the film, I included the one quotation from Coker that an overwhelming majority of the sources I had read deemed notable. I will be happy to work with you on an overall list of Coker's quotations from the film included in reliable and verifiable sources. Would you agree that the most referenced quotation from Coker would be the most relevant? I will be happy to include other relevant quotations, in addition to the one that is most common and most relevant. After six months of waiting, I look forward to see your work on the issues. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "If it wasn't for the people, it would be very pretty", is not what he said. You before admitted the sources were not in agreement with the wording. I know what he said, every word in the whole film, as I mentioned elsewhere on this page several hours ago. No, I do not agree the most quoted is the most worthy--the sources don't agree - which brings into question their reliabilty - and they often are only trying to make news, not to mention BLP issues (but let's please not rehash that-there's nothing more new to say). But I am willing to work on other quotes as replacements, if you want. In fact, I'm about to wrap up some work on researching the film. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The actual exchange is "Questioner (~ 12-year-old female student) What did Vietnam look like? Coker: (Repeats question). Well if it wasn't for the people it was very pretty. Uh. The people over there are very backward and very primitive and they just make a mess out of everything." I don't know how many reviewers were working off a transcript or had a copy of the film that they could rewind, so a paraphrase does not seem off base. Some of the sources bracket the words "would be" in place of "was", presumably for stylistic or grammatical reasons. Reporters and reviewers making news is exactly what we're looking for; anything we do from primary sources is original research. When publications like The Washington Post (here), The Guardian (here), Judith Crist in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (here) and The New Yorker (among many other notable publications) latch onto a single quotation from a film, it is screaming to us that they deem it to be notable and that we need to pay attention. There is a gaping hole in this article in that it tells us nothing about his thoughts on his six-plus years in captivity and his captors, a void that needs to be filled. I could pull anything from the film, but it's what's in reliable and verifiable sources that must be our beacon. On that note, I will await your research and your proposed version, take a break from this discussion, and edit and expand the article while we all wait. Alansohn (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Source re only escapees from Hanoi Hilton

I have been unable to find a source to support the statement that "Coker and Air Force Captain George McKnight (another of the 'baddest') were cellmates for a while and were the only POWs to ever escape from the Hao Lo Prison ('Hanoi Hilton')". There is no mention of an escape in the Hanoi Hilton article, nor has a search found any source to support the claim. Anyone know of anything? Alansohn (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look for it, I remember seeing it and hope I can find it again. A lot sure went on here last night while I was away from wiki ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a ref that has massive detail on our POWS, including Coker and McKnight--it lists some more of the camps he was held in too. It should answer most of your questions. On pages of 12-13 of Virginian Pilot ref, it says "He and and another POW, George McKnight, escaped from the notorious "Hanoi Hilton" by using debris in their cells to remove a door from its hinges." This lists some of the camps too. Just for the record, Coker wasn't a fighter pilot, he was a bombardier-navigator (BN) on A-6 planes, a two-seat carrier-based Navy bomber. The pilot flew in the other seat. McKnight and Coker were never cellmates til after their escape, not til about 1971. The Hanoi Hilton (as in Hao Lo) never had an escape-it was in downtown Hanoi. "Hanoi Hilton" was a generic term as often used and causes confusion about which camp is actually being referred to. The POWs never called it that. Hao Lo is pronounced "Waa Low". McKnight and Coker escaped from Dirty Bird. The only other escape from the main camps around Hanoi was Dremesi and Atterbery (sp?) which was about a year later and they got caught next day too. I was once confused about how "Hanoi Hilton" was used and now am more educated on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Details on other prisons where he was held captive have already been added, though further details would help. The Hanoi Hilton seems a bit more definitive on its use as a nickname for Hoa Lo Prison. His status as bombardier-navigator on the A-6 is already noted in the article. The article should reflect that the escape was not the only one, though it seems that few made it as far as Coker did. Alansohn (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "Coker escaped the night of October 12, 1967 with McKnight from Dirty Bird prison (Hanoi, North Vietnam)." is taken directly from the source and needs to be reworded to address a likely copyright violation. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Coker in H&M

The film is 112 minutes long. The DVD version I have runs 01:51:57 (h/m/s). Coker appears or is talked about for 00:06:40, and talks for 00:04:53. That's 4.5% of the film. I don't know that I'd call that a "significant portion of the film. Other people appear for longer times too. He speaks 1053 words in those roughly 5 minutes. He is filmed in 4 settings: Linden NJ (cut in 2 segments), a front porch (cut in 4 segments), a Catholic school, and a woman's group. The refs that can be found that claim techniques were used such as starting/stopping the camera during an interview, cutting, splicing, angle shifts, quoting out of context are readily apparent. The film is clearly biased, I'd even call it propaganda as if I didn't know better I'd think it was made by the North Vietnamese. For one thing, it shows US atrocities, but none by the NVA/VC. I've transcribed everything Coker says in the film, with time hacks--also that oft-quoted statement of Westmoreland's (though he appears many times). It also thas the famous scene of a naked 12-year girl who got hit by napalm running down a road and then gets medical treatment. She later moved to Canada and became a peace activist. — Rlevse • Talk •

Wow, that's a lot of work. What are the implications for the article? That we should be cautious about using the film for quotes or to establish weight?Wikidemo (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

By that rule is Albert Einstein or George Washington less important since they each represent 1/2,400,000 of the articles in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's what this whole discussion is about. The issues about H&M and its quote being in the article or not and to what degree have been discussed at length for some time (see article archives). The quote that is generating the most discussion is 10 words out of those 1053 (I took a copy of the transcript and cut it to only Coker's spoken words and used Word to count them). Coker comes across in the film as sincere, open, loyal, a professional Naval aviator, and very patriotic. His family and country obviously mean a lot to him. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Coker is "sincere, open, loyal, a professional Naval aviator, and very patriotic". Appropriate quotations from reliable and verifiable sources about his professionalism, patriotism and sincerity should be used to provide balance to other quotations that the media has amply demonstrated are notable. Phan Thị Kim Phúc, who appears in the film for a far briefer period than Coker, merits a substantial article devoted almost exclusively to her being caught on film without uttering a single word, let alone more than 1,000. Notability has nothing to do with percentages. Coker appears in two major scenes -- at Linden City Hall and in the Catholic school -- neither of which show any evidence of being taken out of context or of cutting, splicing or angle shifts. As I had offered in January (this diff, for example), a discussion of the film should include each of the two major, lengthy, uncut scenes, with appropriate notable quotations from each from reliable and verifiable sources. Coker's extensive remarks at City Hall were summarized as "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", a rather deliberate effort to reflect Coker's patriotism and sincerity. I invite other variations to provide appropriate balance to Coker's notable appearance in the film. Alansohn (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"neither of which show any evidence of being taken out of context or of cutting, splicing or angle shifts."? Hardly true. He appears in four scenes too, not two. Several versions have been proposed on both sides, there's more than the one AS pointed to. Phan Thị Kim Phúc is hardly a fair comparison. Pics of her are some of themost iconic of the whole war, worldwide. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I count five. My timestamps on the film show him appearing in two segments that are about two minutes long each and other shots of about 15 seconds or less -- 19:02 - 19:13 (:11) what it's like to be a pilot; 20:12 - 20:28 (:16) A-6 as ultimate in aviation; and 21:08 - 21:24 (:16) what it's like to fly a good mission. To quote myself (in its entirety, without any selective quotations) "Coker appears in two major scenes -- at Linden City Hall and in the Catholic school -- neither of which show any evidence of being taken out of context or of cutting, splicing or angle shifts." Appropriately iconic statements from Coker should be included, with appropriate balance. Alansohn (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The comparison with Phan Thị Kim Phúc was used to illustrate the point that the running time and percentages are not the sole determining factor of notability. Once again, we seem to be sidestepping the fact that many reliable, published sources, include the quote in question, even when it only a handful of sentences are dedicated to the film. That certainly establishes the notability of the quote itself. If you think otherwise, I'd be interested to hear your explanation. -Oreo Priest ^talk 14:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Coker is hardly "iconic", notable, but not iconic. As to the quote and the several who don't agree with you, read the article talk history/archives. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, my complete statement reads "Appropriately iconic statements from Coker should be included, with appropriate balance." I have not stated that Coker is iconic, hardly or otherwise. Coker's statements are iconic, and have been captured in numerous reliable and verifiable sources, which are what makes them notable. Alansohn (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just how much coverage did that quote get when it first came out? There seem to be some slightly overstated comments about its notability and iconic status - ostensibly placing it right next to "Let there be light" or "We the People", "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" or "I have a dream"; or in the case of war “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant".

Now those are iconic statements. Dreadstar † 23:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Each of those quotes belong in the God, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King and Isoroku Yamamoto article respectively, as each quote is an iconic example of its source. When publications like The Washington Post (here), The Guardian (here), Judith Crist in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (here) and The New Yorker (among many other notable publications) latch onto a single quotation from a film, it is sending us a message loud and clear that they deem it to be notable. I can provide about a dozen references from these and other reliable and verifiable sources spread out over a 35-year period, all of which latch onto the one quote in question. I can probably add another dozen or more if I did a more thorough search through Lexis / Nexis and Newspaper Archive. Coker's statement is equally iconic on an individual basis. If you can point to any other single quote from Coker that has received as much attention over this period, it might well be an appropriate alternative. Alansohn (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, those quotes all transcend their sources and are representative of far more than the individual. Let's be very clear about icon;, "A person or thing that is the best example of a certain profession or some doing." What exactly is that quote "the best example" of? War? Vietnam? Being a tortured POW? Comments of a decorated war hero? Something being sensationalized in a one-sided movie? Of Coker himself? It's certainly not even a good example of any that, much less the "best" one.

It's certainly not sufficiently "iconic" or "notable" to overcome what is outlined in one of my subpages that Rlevse so kindly provided a link to below. Yes, there are sources for the quote itself, it may even be notable - that's not the question. And to refocus my above comment, I'm not really even questioning the notability of the quote, I'm questioning the iconic status you've ascribed to it. That on top of everything here. Dreadstar † 00:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be more than willing to consider inclusion of any other quotation from Coker in this film if it has been identified as closely with Coker and the Academy Award-winning film as the statement in question. It need not be iconic, in quotes or otherwise, to be included. Being quoted in a dozen or more reliable and verifiable sources meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully conceding the question of notability, which I haven’t seriously questioned in the first place, just because something is notable doesn’t mean we have to include it. My objections to that particular quote still stand, whether it can be replaced by a quote fitting the criteria you’ve outlined above or not. I believe there are plenty of other quotes Coker made that are notable, whether they’re in the movie or not. Dreadstar † 02:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the scope and breadth of the reliable and verifiable sources supporting your proposed options. Additional quotations will only provide further balance. Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dreadstar seems to have explained it very well right here. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, Dreadstar's arguments, while good faith, ignore several consequences. First of all, there is a specific policy to deal with situations exactly like these: "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". I don't see how it could get any clearer than that. The victimization policy was written for Brian Peppers, not Coker, whose notability stems from (inter alia) bravery and participation in scouting.

Assuming for a moment that Dreadstar's arguments about pain to the victim were to override the clear as day policy above, consider some parallel cases: James D. Watson and Michael Richards should have the negative things they said removed (How do we know Watson was not misunderstood? He quite likely was, but it still merits inclusion because it is so notable.) Some of Dreadstar's last questions would merit exclusion of all but the most impossible to misinterpret (such as Hitler's, not to in any way draw parallels between Hitler and Coker, only that Hitler seems to be impossible to misinterpret) controversial/racist/offensive remarks from Wikipedia.

Inclusion is not done to cause pain to an aged veteran; we all make mistakes, but we accept the consequences of our own actions. The simplest, most effective, and most encyclopedic solution is to include the quote so that readers can draw their own conclusions. -Oreo Priest ^talk 05:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have little or no respect for arguments that invoke Godwin's law, but I will say that I already have considered the other points you make and found them to be wanting in this particular case. Dreadstar † 20:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How about we address the issue at hand. We have a clearly notable quotation, supported by ample reliable and verifiable sources. We have an imp[roving article with a deep void in providing insight to the subject's opinions on his captors and captivity. We have hearsay-based and unsupported original research that the subject dislikes inclusion of a widely-quoted statement. Coker is notable for more than being a prisoner in Vietnam and has actively sought the public eye in being quoted in newspaper articles on his Vietnam War experience and in running for political office. He deserves a biography that includes information that can be found in any online search and that has been deemed notable by at least a dozen individual sources. Overall, I have considered the arguments for exclusion of sourced material from the article and find them unjustified. I still suggest that additional quotations from Coker from reliable and verifiable sources be provided to provide balance and I look forward to seeing some of the options out there suggested. Alansohn (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The issues at hand are already being addressed. I’m not sure why you want to gloss over Oreo Priest’s prime example of Reductio ad Hitlerum; ignoring something like that is beyond my comprehension, but that’s your choice, as is your personal definition of what is considered “iconic”. None of what you said or demanded thus far has in any way negated my or the other editors who have opposed the inclusion of the disputed quote. Continued repetition of your opinion, demands, and criteria are not moving this discussion forward. Neither is your attempt to edit-war repetitive content into the article’s footnotes as you attempted to do here. WP:BRD is fine under certain circumstances, but with this particular article, disputed additions need WP:CON. Period. So I strongly suggest you attempt to find a solution that does have consensus.

We’re deadlocked on the singular “quote” you’ve deemed “iconic”, so there is no consensus for its inclusion. And contrary to Oreo Priest’s assertion, there is no policy that requires us to include that quote. I loathe giving audience to those who pull the Nazi Card, and I will not easily comply with demands from such an editor or those who support such an editor.

If Oreo Priest wants his views considered seriously by me, I'd be more than glad to take it point by point - but pulling the Nazi Card pushes him well out of what I consider to be a civil discussion. I strongly suggest redacting those statements and reframing his objections. Your objections have been duly noted and strongly addressed already. Dreadstar † 22:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. I tried to make it abundantly clear that I am not pulling any Nazi card. I just used Hitler as what he is: an extreme example of a racist who leaves no room for misinterpretation. Whether or not Coker is a racist, misinterpreted, or any such questions is of course open to debate, and there is potentially room to misinterpret what he said. The Hitler example was to contrast between severe diehard racists and Coker, who may have just made a slip of the tongue. On top of that, it is fallacious to reject arguments because someone with the same opinion holds another opinion which you find objectionable. Regardless, please assume good faith even if my wording is a bit blunt. -Oreo Priest ^talk 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

While I would not have made the reference at all, you still need to address the issues that have been raised. Wording issues with OP need be addressed elsewhere. OP differentiates between cases where it might be justifiable to exclude statements made by the individual and this article where no valid justification has been offered to exclude a directly relevant quote supported by multiple reliable and verifiable sources. There is no evidence whatsoever as to the subject's concerns -- the ostensible justification for removing even a bare mention of the film as a BLP violation -- and the complete lack of this evidence undermines any serious effort to try to reflect these concerns in this article. We are not providing an encyclopedic article if we cannot include material that is thoroughly documented in the media based on its inclusion in an Academy Award-winning film. Alansohn (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OP do you really think that the "Peppers" clause was written for one person only? No. It may have been the catalyst, but it applies to all persons. While we all agree Coker is notable, he's hardly a household name. As for your other points, my prior statements still stand. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Coker is certainly no Brian Peppers. While Coker may not be a household name, Coker's notability is not merely tied to his unfortunate treatment by the North Vietnamese. Coker has not only been in the public spotlight in his Scouting role. His run for public office in Virginia Beach was supported rather publicly by a letter from Admiral James Stockdale that directly tied his Vietnam experience to his qualifications for office. Given the pattern of his background, the Peppers clause hardly applies. We need to provide complete and thorough coverage of Coker's experiences. I again suggest that additional quotations from reliable and verifiable sources be used to balance his other statements and look forward to additional input on this issue. Alansohn (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, I'm not sure what statements you're talking about. Could you please reiterate them here?

And again, to differentiate between Peppers and Coker, note the line before what Dreadstar bolded, which is of paramount importance: Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This would be more or less the case for an article on Peppers. To say this article serves primarily to mock or disparage Coker could not be further from the truth. -Oreo Priest ^talk 14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Military decorations

I have been able to find sources for most of Coker's decorations. The most notable that I have been unable to find is for his Distinguished Flying Cross. Are there any centralized sources that would have this information or does anyone know of any other source to confirm his recognition? Alansohn (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• More info on Coker: [2]

• I'm not sure we need a ref for every medal. Most of the FAs on the military are on units or battles. The few on military people are on ones from long ago, mostly. There really isn't a comparable FA to the Coker article. The GAs on military people are closer to this article. The one most similar to the Coker article is Humbert Roque Versace, also a GA on a Vietnam POW and his medals don't have a ref, only the highest one, the Medal of Honor, has a ref. The Coker and Versace articles made GA without a ref for every medal, so I really think it's not necessary. Rather than putting the NYT ref on every medal, how about making it more like the Versace article (I think the ribbon graphics are a nice touch):

Among Coker's military decorations are the following:

•   Navy Cross
•   Silver Star
•   Legion of Merit + Combat V
•   Distinguished Flying Cross
•   Bronze Star, two, + Combat V
•   Purple Heart Purple Heart, two
•   Meritorious Service Medal
•   Air Medal, five
•   Navy Commendation, three, + Combat V
•   Combat Action Ribbon
•   Navy Unit Commendation
•   POW Medal
•   National Defense Service Medal
•   Vietnam Service Medal

...submitted. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Valor magazine provides more color in Coker's Vietname experience, even if he is mentioned there as a relatively minor part of the story. I added the ribbons, and agree that it is a nice touch. For now, I left the sources as decoration-specific, in the hope that a single source can be found to support all of the decorations. I do agree that many of them may not appear in news articles, but I would assume that the Distinguished Flying Cross should attract enough attention to have a source available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs)

This has his top three awards too. The DFC would be on his DD214 (record of discharge) but that's not on the web, but it's not required that refs be on the web. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs don't need to be on the web, but they do need to be in "published sources" which are verifiable by a reasonably diligent editor who has access to a good-sized library. If a medal hasn't been written about in any accessible source, there's probably no real reason we need to include it in the Wikipedia article. He has plenty of other medals which are verifiable via published sources. --Elonka 21:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not totally true. It is standard practice in military articles to list all medals, with the understanding ones the lower on the rung won't be listed in most refs. See other articles in this genre. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree that there is a standard that allows unreferenced material, but even were that true, we still need an independent reliable and verifiable source for Coker's Distinguished Flying Cross. Alansohn (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the similar articles. It's standard practice. And they usually only have a ref for the highest one. 23:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FN

AS, re your summary herewhere at WP:FN does it say a footnoted quote is required if the site requires a fee? It doesn't say anything about fees nor footnoted quotes being required at all. And in this case, there are other sites that provide this info and the footnoted quote is totally redundant. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have been unable to find other, free reliable and verifiable sources to support Coker's military decorations, despite a rather diligent search. The one reliable and verifiable source I have found is to an article in The New York Times that requires a fee to access an image of the article. For those unable to access the full article, the quote lists which decorations Coker has received. As most readers will be unable to access the information to verify its accuarcy, the quote is anything but "redundant". You are free to eschew the use of sourced quotations in this or any other article or to provide an alternative reliable and verifiable source to support the decorations already cited. Alansohn (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I gave a link in the thread above that will suffice. Also what about your claim that WP:FN requires footnotes and quotes for fee sites? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't claim that WP:FN requires footnotes and quotes for any situation. I only stated that WP:FN supports their use, and explained why they were more than appropriate in this situation. Alansohn (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)