Talk:George Thomas Coker/Archive 3

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

WP:FN guideline. Anyone here with an opinion, is welcome to participate there. --Elonka

15:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

H & M Section Break

Can someone check my understanding of this -- the Hearts and Minds movie, which features Coker for (as Rlevse points out) 4.5% of the total running time, is hardly mentioned at all because his participation is not considered significant. There are a number of references to his role in the movie, including the links posted by Alansohn above which reprint a quote from a speech he gave, but the subject has requested that both the quote and the movie be removed from the article. On the other hand, the fact that he is mentioned in a list of names recited by John McCain given more prominence? Isn't there a contradiction, there? Wouldn't it seem that his role in the movie is an element of his notability, and that it should be at least as prominent in the article as his mention on McCain's list? I realize it puts him in a negative light, but that isn't usually a good reason to remove something from an article.

To the points Dreadstar makes on his subpage - we don't need to provide an inordinate amount of background to his service in Vietnam or his treatment while he was in a POW camp. While including a general description of Vietnam and his treatment makes sense, great detail is unnecessary. The same goes for a treatment in the article of his role in H & M. Its an obviously prominent movie, in which his role appears to be significant and widely remarked upon, and "do no harm" doesn't extend to excluding verifiable but negative information because the subject doesn't want it known. Take a look here.. While Google searches aren't definitive for any purpose on Wikipedia, the fact that most results that apply to this George Coker come from references to his role in H & M (in fact, the H & M Wikipedia article appears before this one) seems to argue that its a key element of his notability, and that excluding it does a disserve to potential readers. I see no reason why something like the following bit couldn't replace what is currently in the article:

"In 1974 Coker was briefly featured in the

Academy Award winning documentary Hearts and Minds, which was critical of the United States' role in the Vietnam War. In one of the few scenes including individuals not critical of the war, the film details a homecoming parade in Coker's honor in his hometown of Linden, New Jersey, 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.^[1] Answering a student's question about the Vietnamese countryside at a school assembly, Coker responds that "If it weren't for the people, it would be a beautiful country."^[2][3]

The versions of the quote with "beautful" are wrong (I have the DVD). He actually says "Well, if it wasn’t’ for the people, it was very pretty." Shouldn't the quote be placed in the context of the fact he'd just returned from 6.5 years of brutal torture-it's understandable he'd have resentment towards his captors at that time, in fact he may well have been specifically talking about his captors. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, try this:

"The anti-war film Hearts and Minds, which was critical of the United States' role in the Vietnam War, briefly featured Coker - who, at the time of filming, had recently returned from six and a half years of internment in a North Vietnamese camp for American prisoners of war. In one of the few scenes including individuals not critical of the war, the film details a homecoming parade in Coker's honor in his hometown of Linden, New Jersey, 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.^[4] Answering a student's question about the Vietnamese countryside at a school assembly, Coker responds that "If it wasn’t for the people, it was very pretty".^[5]

Its starting to get a bit long, but is that better?

I am more than willing to pursue compromise wording to address genuine concerns. The previous section describes his 6.5 years in captivity in rather thorough details, so I'm not sure that it's necessary to explain the circumstances. Anyone who has read the article to that point will be familiar with the justifications for his sentiments. To be clear, the full text of my personal transcription of the film reads: "Questioner (12-year-old girl) 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." The trimmed down quote in my draft insertion was deliberate on my part. Alansohn (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Avruch-re your last proposal, there's potential there but I'd like to think about it a bit more. And you need to fix the quote, the source you mention has it wrong (see prior talk about variations of the real quote). I've provided the actual quote above. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest a source that has the quote as we have both transcribed it that would be a reasonable alternative to the one I have suggested? Alansohn (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a quote, espcially one of this nature, should be accurate, so I'll look for a RS that has the quote accurately. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have modified Avruch's second (Avruch 2)version with a reliable source (The New Yorker) with the quote accurate. What do others think? I've contacted Avruch for more input just now too. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the direction Avruch's proposals are taking, and I definitely think the “just released” part should stay in, it is critical history directly connected to the quotes, and just having it in the section above is insufficient. This is starting to look better. Not sure if the duplication of the quote in the last two sentences is just a "side-by-side" comparison, or if the newer quote was meant to replace it now.

Dreadstar †

22:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the double quote. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection whatsoever to substituting a citation from The New Yorker, which provides even more of the context of the timing and details of his statements as included in the film. A few quibbles: 1) "briefly featured" is both a bit of a weasel word if not an oxymoron (George Carlin, if he were alive would probably suggest it was not unlike "military intelligence"); I would substitute "included". 2) He was not in just "a North Vietnamese camp", he was in several of them. The film included several "individuals not critical of the war"; General William Westmoreland and Walt Rostow, among others, could hardly be considered "critical", and were included in several scenes. 3) There was no mention of the word "countryside" in the question or his response. Th exact question is available in the source and provides the proper context for the answer being quoted. 4) While I understand why the reference was titled "Accurate Quote", it is both unnecessary and questionably POV. There is absolutely no reason that these quibbles cannot be addressed. Alansohn (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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:^[6]

•   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 Vietnam 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. Alansohn (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

If it's standard practice, that practice violates fundamental Wikipedia policy. In a Good Article, we should be even more demanding of reliable and verifiable sources, regardless of the standard set by other articles. I cannot imagine that receipt of the Distinguished Flying Cross could not and should not be backed up by a reliable and verifiable source. Alansohn (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was stating reality, I didn't say it was ideal. As for him having the DFC, it's not an invented piece of info. As for the lower medals, even you said you'd not expect to find them. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear on why we need to leave out the medals, citations or awards that we don't have a source for. Is anyone honestly contesting that he received those awards? I mean, really? The criteria for when a source is needed is clear:

Dreadstar †

00:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no "need to leave out the medals, citations or awards". There is a need to provide areliable source for a rather distinguished award that appears in no source, despite a rather determined effort to find one. I have no reason to believe that the award is "invented", but the fact that a source cannot be found has me scratching my head. While I do agree that this is not a situation where a source must be provided a priori, you may want to consult Wikipedia:When to cite#Challenging another user's edits a little furter down in the same article. All that is required to address the issue is one reliable and verifiable independent source. Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to Elonka’s statement above that we should leave them out if we can’t find sources. I agree that there’s no need to leave them out, unless someone is challenging the unsourced medals, citations or awards – that was exactly my point. I suggest you re-consult the link you provide above, which fully supports my main point here: “Material that is actually challenged by another editor requires a source or it may be removed”. Since you have “no reason to believe that the award is “invented,” and are merely scratching your head, then I take it that you’re not challenging the unsourced awards. If there’s no challenge, then there is nothing further required until someone actually does challenge them. Although I'm sure we're all still questing for appropriate sources. Unfortunately, there seems to be no comprehensive list of medal winners, just individual groups that seem to include those who wish to be a part of each individual group. I'm sure there's something in Washington that lists everyone...but is it publically available?

Dreadstar †

20:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• DFC where he is specifically listed as having earned the DFC and NC PLUS 4 more of his awards, among other POW medal awardee recipients (same site but different page from the next one)
• [3] which is actually already in the article, it has his Navy Cross write up, a photo of him later on in his Navy career, and a listing in graphic form of all 17 of his medals (16 and 17 had to have been awarded late in his career).

So now we have one ref for all his awards and can easily list it at the beginning and make this entry:

Among Coker's military decorations are the following:^[7][8]

•   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
• Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation
• Vietnam Civil Actions Medal
•   Vietnam Campaign Medal

This is 16, the

Vietnam Civil Actions Medal (first class) doesn't seem to have wiki graphics like the others do. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC) The grapics lab has found this for us. Hopefully they'll make a SVG version. — Rlevse • Talk

• 17:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The two sources are two different pages on the same site. The underlying questions are: is http://www.veterantributes.org a reliable source? Where does he get his information from and why can't we get that same sourced information? Why are these medals, particularly the Distinguished Flying Cross, listed here and nowhere else? Alansohn (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing how you yourself added that same source to the article here, I'd expect you to have found it a valid source. Then you say you can't find a source for the DFC and when it's found on the same site, but different page, that you'd already added to the article, you question the source. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If anything I add is magically anointed with complete, total and unimpeachable authority, I can't understand why content that I have added that is far more reliably sourced has been removed. The link from http://www.veterantributes.org/ was added solely to replace an even less reliable source that didn't exist anymore. As there is ample independent evidence to support the fact that Coker received the Navy Cross (Google News Archive provides 16 sources, including The New York Times), using a less-than-reliable source to provide the Navy Cross citation seemed vaguely responsible. As http://www.veterantributes.org/ appears to be the one and only source that is available to support the claim that Coker was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, without any other corroboration, my questions still stand: is http://www.veterantributes.org a reliable source? Where does he get his information from and why can't we get that same sourced information? Why are these medals, particularly the Distinguished Flying Cross, listed here and nowhere else? One reliable and verifiable source will end this dance once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You asked for a source, I found it, now you bring up a new argument. The source even has a picture of him wearing it. And on a ref you yourself found? The dance is over. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a reliable source and independent verification. The source is unreliable and the issues of its reliability and independent corroboration have not been addressed. The picture, which I assume is genuine, is the only legitimate aspect that might possibly meet

WP:V. Alansohn (talk

) 00:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have set a standard that one source, no matter how lacking in reliability or corroboration, justifies inclusion of material, it looks like we'll be making room promptly for some far more reliably sourced material. Finally, the dance is over. Alansohn (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The image of Coker on that site is in fact an official Navy photograph. Being an official Navy photo makes it public domain, an official military document, and a reliable source. I double-checked this with an admin on wikisource. The photo has been uploaded to Commons and an OTRS ticket with the evidence verifying it's an official Navy photo has been sent to, processed by, and approved by OTRS. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the DFC was specifically omitted from the one alternative reliable source available in

WP:GA. Now that I know what a Distinguished Flying Cross looks like (thanks to the ribbon images added by Rlevse), and with the rather belated after-the-fact confirmation that the image included at http://www.veterantributes.org is indeed an official Navy photo, we finally have a source that can be deemed reliable to confirm Coker's receipt of the DFC and the other decorations listed in the article. All that was necessary to solve the sourcing issue was to provide one reliable and verifiable source. We finally have it. Alansohn (talk

) 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)