Talk:George Thomas Coker

Need for balance and details re Hearts and Minds

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

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

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

"Controversial" controversy

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

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

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

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

No revert does not mean I agree

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

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

Self-ban of User:Rlevse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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)

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)

:: N.B: 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 appearted 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)

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 - ?
• Dreadstar - ?
• Oreo Priest - ?
• Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) - ?
• Rlevse - ?
• Sumoeagle179 - yes

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

Source questions

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

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

Navy Cross quote

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

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