Talk:George Thomas Coker/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Awards

Should the awards listed near the end go in the infobox? Should DESA be listed under other work? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I changed other work to DESA. I've thought of adding all military awards to the info box, but it'd make an even bigger white space to the left (this is more of a problem with IE than FF, and most people have IE). I have both IE and FF now at home, and I've discovered some interesting rendering differences. Rlevse 13:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
From the guidelines for the "Awards" entry of the military infobox: "awards – optional – any notable awards or decorations the person received". For the Marine Corps biographies, we have been using the guideline of listing medals, in order of precedence, down to the Purple Heart. In the case of CMDR Coker, the POW medal is significant, as his leadership as a POW is a significant part of the article. Thus, based on the typical usage of the entry, the listing is good as it is. —ERcheck (talk) @ 23:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

GA awarded

Though this seems short ... it is sweet and says what it has to say. If more can be found about this nice army man then add to the article. GA granted. Lincher 03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He was in the NAVY -;)Rlevse 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Peerreviewer script output

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Film reference

I changed the Faith of My Fathers reference to the 2005 film, which is the John McCain biography (also referenced in his Wiki article). — ERcheck (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. Since it was (briefly!) reviewed for GA status in 2006, the GA criteria have significantly changed. However, I have thoroughly reassesed the article and am happy to confirm that it still meets the standards required of a Good article.

I did make some minor alterations to the text dealing with Coker's 'fierce resistance to captivity', as I felt the grammar could be improved to remove potential editorialising. I also noticed that the citation given at the end of the Personal information section only covers roughly the second half of this section; sources should be found for the rest (I have added a fact tag to indicate where). As a final point, "6.5 years" in the lead (and the other similar measures in the Military service section) might be better using "6½ years" etc instead... but I can't find this in the WP:MOS at the moment, so I may be wrong ;)

Congratulations on the GA sweep pass! The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 11:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hearts and Minds

A reference to clips of Coker prominently featured in the documentary film Hearts and Minds were removed with a "justification" that the mention violates WP:BLP. Can anyone point to any portion of the relevant Wikipedia policy that would provide an explanation of how on earth the bland statement included here in the article violates WP:BLP? Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I personally know Coker and he's asked that no reference be made to the movie. This was by a phone call to me. In BLP it refers to ArbCom tending to defer to the living person's desires in such cases. While the movie did win an award, very few people have heard of it, so I also think it's simply not that important. I believe he's also not that central to the movie. In addition, you made made a whole section out of one line, which is not good form. I also ask that we leave this one item out. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • While I understand the subject's request, this is an article about George Thomas Coker, not an article by him. The purpose of WP:BLP is to protect individual's privacy and to ensure that all information is verifiable. There is absolutely nothing in the text added that is negative, defamatory or unverified. If Wikipedia is to have any value as a source of information, we must provide a thorough, complete and factual picture of all subjects, without the whitewashing and sanitization that comes from deferring to article subjects without specific valid concerns. I strongly oppose any removal of this content; the specifics of how the information is presented are an appropriate topic for discussion. If you still insist that there are any real concerns, they should be discussed properly at WP:BLPN. Alansohn (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Then put it in external links. One sentence sections are not good, certainly not for a GA like this one. I was not trying to whitewash and I never said it was defamatory, I just think his brief appearance it a movie hardly anyone has heard of is not that important. Ask 50 random people on the street if they've heard of it, probably not one. I do not object to it being in external links. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Ask 50 random people about George Thomas Coker and their response rate would likely be no better than that of the film; I'd still keep the article. The prominent role that clips of Coker played in an Academy Award-winning documentary are worthy of mention within the article; I will consider other locations for the details if I don't expand the section as planned. A reminder that the item was removed by you when it was an external link. Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The section was removed on the basis of BLP concerns. "BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." The preceding sentence may have some bearing here. Nonetheless, for BLP, the presumption lies in favor of omitting the material. Please do not re-add the section without consensus with respect to this issue. In its current state, the addition of a single quote from Coker is not NPOV. In addition, if the documentary has a certain bias, then there is another side that would have to be told to maintain NPOV. If this is the case, I believe that omission on the basis of BLP is appropriate. At this time, I am removing the section and asking that discussion continue until such concerns are allayed. — ERcheck (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:BLP has to be one of the most abused excuses for removal of material, and this jihad here is no exception. That sourced material for a public figure is being removed on this basis is disturbing. The section has been there for weeks, and was only removed yesterday. I agree that the status quo needs to be respected, which means that the burden of proof is on those pushing for censorship. BLP does not mean "information that the subject of the article (or his supporters) may not like included." The content being censored is more than balanced by the rest of the article. After all, there seems to be little anti-Scouting content to "balance" all of the positive work he has done with the BSA. Alansohn (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Please remain civil. This is certainly not a jihad. Sourced material is one thing. BLP issues need to be taken seriously — this is not a burden of proof issue. Added now is a WP:NPOV concern. The quote added is certainly not NPOV. Though it may be an accurate quote, it has no context and its point in this article is not clear. (NPOV does not mean add negative scouting information.) — ERcheck (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion is not censorship. — ERcheck (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Removal of sourced content using WP:BLP as an excuse is not discussion and smacks of censorship. The quote is from the article's subject and has been cited in multiple places over a period of decades and comes from an Academy Award-winning documentary, hardly an issue that has not seen the light of day. I have no bias whatsoever against Coker. I am astounded by his ability to withstand 6½ years of torture and abuse. His work on behalf of the Boy Scouts is more than worthy of praise. But the article as it stands is already -- even with the film details that so bother you -- bordering on hero worship and hagiography. There is no "balance" on any other part of his biography; placing a demand that this sourced material be removed because of a lack of balance or concerns about privacy are ludicrous, at best. This is not "private" information in any way, shape or form, and deserves to be included in this article. The material has been here for an extended period of time, stands on it own and establishes a status quo. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate what exactly the supposed WP:BLP issue is and why this is the only part of the article that suffers from a lack of balance. I look forward to your detailed responses. Alansohn (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A "jihad"--that is highly uncivil and this is not a jihad. Calling ERcheck's edits "vandalism" is not true--good faith efforts at improvement are not vandalism. This is simply a content issue with BLP involved. Your statement that said material has been in the article an "extended period of time" is not so, it was only put there by an IP on 14 Dec, 10 days ago, and that was in external links-which I removed the same day and then you got involved two days later. That is not an extended period of time. Also, I did not remove the material, but moved it to external links. Furthermore, this film is a relatively minor episode in his life, in which clips were used--he didn't act, and I feel it is not important enough to warrant its own section. Let's put it in the See also section and continue discussing here. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Rlevse, including material just because you can is outweighed by a living person's concern about defamation and/or privacy and existing request for it to be downscaled. Alansohn, in this case your principle must fall to the wayside, this becomes lawsuit territory, maybe not in this case or with this guy, but if issues like this get forced, Wikipedia could get sued and ultimately destroyed, it has happened before and then where would you be? You'd have no articles to include anything in. I am in dead earnest. Sometimes proving a point is not worth it. Living bios must be treated differently. If the external link is acceptable to all parties, put that, that will be enough. Chris (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is complete and total bullshit. Coker is a public figure who has deliberately kept himself in the public eye. The material is all from extremely public sources. There is absolutely nothing false, private or defamatory with any of the information added to the article regarding his inclusion in teh film Hearts & Minds, nor have any of our WP:BLP-abusing censors offered any explanation of how or why a mention of his appearance in an Academy Award-winning documentary would violate any element of WP:BLP. An external link or see also is a clear attempt to sweep under the rug material that is not defamatory, that is not an invasion of privacy and that is a shameless effort to hide material in an article that grossly lacks any balance whatsoever. The actions to date are the most pathetic whitewashing effort I've seen to date on Wikipedia. The burden of proof is on those pushing for removal, and so far has been a complete and utter failure. If none of you can concoct an actual reference to any relevant clause in WP:BLP that requires removal of relevant, sourced, non-defamatory information, this will be reinserted. For that matter, I'd love to see more details of User:Rlevse's conflict of interest, in which he has repeatedly claimed that removal was at the request of the subject (see here). Why on earth would anyone want to abuse WP:BLP to remove relevant information. Why to destroy Wikipedia in order to save it? Alansohn (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Mind yourself. No one else here is being uncivil. I have worked well with (and sometimes against) you in the past, and believe your intentions to be well-meant, but you are crossing the line with how you say what you're saying, starting with your first sentence this last reply. I wonder what your own agenda is on this, such that you are getting so heated when others are not? Step back and say it a different way. Chris (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Removing sourced material as part of an effort to whitewash encyclopedic details about an individual is shamelessly uncivil and disruptive. My agenda? As part of an effort to pin down the birthplaces and hometowns of New Jersey residents with Wikipedia articles, I updated a category in this article, placing the article on my watchlist. As he was born and raised in Linden, New Jersey, I added a source to support his residency there. I noticed that the George Thomas Coker article had been edited by User:Rlevse (the WP:OWNer of this article) to remove a link (see here) with an edit summary stating that the link was removed explicitly "upon subject request." This was a bizarre justification for removal of a link. Intrigued, I researched the film, one I had never heard of before. In searching for details about the film, I located an article from The Washington Post (apparently, an unreliable source) and added the material to the article. The material I added (see here) contained the blandest, most neutral possible description of Coker's appearance in the film. User:Rlevse, continuing in a clear conflict of interest, removed the material, citing an entirely unsupported claim of WP:BLP violations. I found and added additional sources about Coker and the film, which was deleted repeatedly due to unexplained and unjustifiable excuses of WP:BLP violations, and despite repeated requests, neither he nor anyone else has stubbornly refused to specify HOW the WP:BLP policy is being violated. Now that I've explained my agenda, what exactly is your agenda here? Alansohn (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Alansohn, Chris is correct, you are totally out of line here, called this a jihad, bullshit, essentially claiming I'm lying--which I'm not, etc. You need to calm down and discuss this civilly, you're only hurting yourself. We are not trying to abuse BLP, we just interpret it differently, see FloNight's comments in the next section. As for Coker's quote you inserted the last time, keep in mind he'd just returned from being tortured for 6.5 years. How do you think you'd have felt at that point? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • You have deleted references to the film on several occasions since you took ownership of the article, using the claim of "WP:BLP violations" or unsupported (and unjustifiable) claims that you were removing any reference to the film "at the subject's request" in clear violation of WP:COI. I inserted a statement that said "A clip of Coker was featured in Hearts and Minds, a 1974 film that won that year's Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary.", which could not more blandly describe the film, and I would have been happy to leave that there as a compromise to address your still-unspecified concerns. In response, this statement was removed by you (see here), claiming that this was a "BLP issue"?!?!?! What is the BLP issue you claim exists. You demanded more material and a quote from Coker cited here and elsewhere was deleted, again with no justification. You have taken ownership of this article in violation of WP:OWN, you refuse any efforts to insert material that you disagree with, and have never specified how exactly it is that any reference to the film in any form violates WP:BLP. I have made repeated offers at compromise wording that you have stubbornly rejected every single time, offering only deletion by you and your cohorts as an alternative. And who is this "we" you keep on referring to? Alansohn (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Alansohn, please scroll to the bottom of this page, and read my reply there. Thanks, Ariel♥Gold 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation of content as it relates to BLP policy

Different people have different ideas about if content is negative. One of the main complaints we have about our biographic articles are that they are not balanced and give a skewed representation of the person. This can be both positive and negative content. If the subject of the article feels that the content in the article does not properly reflect them than it is important for us to take that into consideration. That does not mean that we always remove the material. Rather, we need to look for ways to make it match our core policies including NPOV's section on undue weight as seen through our eyes and the eyes of the subject. FloNight (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Do you actually believe that a statement that Coker appeared in a film is so abhorrently negative that it violates WP:BLP. Can you (or anyone else of the censors here) possibly justify removing a statement that says "A clip of Coker was featured in Hearts and Minds, a 1974 film that won that year's Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary." which was removed (see here) as a "BLP issue"? This is whitewashing at its most shameless. I was willing to live with that bland, neutral and uninformative statement, but the article's WP:OWNer refused. What's the agenda here? Alansohn (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Alansohn. I ran across this talk page last night, and read through all the replies, as well as reading through the article itself. I would first like to say that while I can understand your frustration, many of your comments in the section above are quite out of line, with regards to Wikipedia's civility policy. To call people here a "jihad" is unacceptable, and I would request that you apologize to the editors on this talk page, as that is quite a disturbing thing to see, and your other language directed towards editors is not very friendly, either. I would like to stress that talk pages are here to improve articles, not to attack others, or to be generally uncivil.
That being said, keeping in mind WP:BLP, in both letter, and spirit, FloNight has a point, that should be read carefully. To give a movie in which this subject only appeared as a clip a separate section header is unwarranted, and giving undue weight to something that ultimately is not relevant to the subject's biography. Yes, the movie won an Oscar, but this person did not win the award, nor was he credited as one of the award winners, so it is not an especially notable item, and is more of a trivia item. However, I have implemented a compromise, the movie is now mentioned in the article, in the appropriate and relevant section, not giving undue weight, citing the proper sources as per WP:CITE and the WP:MOS. Now, the reference simply says: "Lt. George Coker, a former POW who returns to his home town of Linden, N.J., is shown making patriotic speeches around the country.", so this is what is added to the article, reworded, of course. Additionally, I am removing IMDB as a reference, as this is not considered a reliable third-party source. I hope that this is a satisfactory compromise for all parties who have taken their time from editing to comment on the issue, and Alansohn, I do hope you'll apologize, and remember in the future to not take things personally, but understand that editors do have a responsibility to consider WP:BLP before anything else in an article like this, and it is a very important policy. Happy holidays to all, and I do hope this issue is satisfactorily resolved. Ariel♥Gold 23:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The article, as you have acknowledged, includes a reference to Faith of My Fathers, a book/film in which the entire connection is that Coker's name is mentioned, yet no one seems to have any issue whatsoever with its retention; there is no additional context to be added; there isn't even a single source provided to support the claim that Coker's name was mentioned in passing. The attempted compromise wording for Hearts and Minds -- Your's: "Coker was also shown making patriotic speeches in the Academy Award-winning documentary Hearts and Minds", Mine: "A clip of Coker was featured in Hearts and Minds, a 1974 film that won that year's Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary." -- seems close enough (if only a bit more out of context) to what I offered as a compromise, which only demonstrates that there really is no WP:BLP issue and makes the fact that it was removed by User:Rlevse (see here) all the more unjustifiable. If reliable sources are the standard, the additional quote from Coker cited in the film -- "The film includes a clip of Coker telling students that "If it weren't for the people, it would be a beautiful country." with the source Ng, David. "Hearts & Minds - DVD Review", Images: a journal of film and popular culture, 2002. Accessed December 22, 2007. "When asked by a student what Vietnam was like, he replies in perfect deadpan: 'If it weren't for the people, it would be a beautiful country.'" would seem to meet your standard. Remember, the quote from the McCain film is a passing mention that is entirely unsupported, while the quote from Hearts and Minds includes a reliable source and is directly related to the article's subject. This supposed "compromise" is a start, but the WP:RS sources with the McCain film need to be addressed and the quote from Coker in the film needs to be reinserted. If anyone wants to add additional balance to Coker's quote that isn't already present in the article (User:Rlevse suggested pointing out that it was after 6.5 years of torture), I invite them to add it to the Hearts and Minds reference, only repeating the suggestion of compromise I made days ago. I do understand that WP:BLP is intended to protect subjects from false claims and private details, but it is not an excuse to delete any and all information that the subject of the article finds bothersome or embarrassing. Nor are the clear conflict of interest issues that User:Rlevse acknowledges addressed. As to apologies, I look forward to receiving an appropriate apology for the false WP:BLP accusations. Alansohn (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Alansohn, the BLP issue is that the quotation that was added initially, which you repeat above, was out of context, and inappropriate. To quote someone talking about a country being "nice except for the people" is a BLP issue. As for you wanting that quote, the source you give, http://www.imagesjournal.com is not a reliable source, that is a review site run by a few people who made the site to offer their own personal analysis of movies. See WP:OR, and examples of reliable sources. (Also, your suggestion is a redundant passage, as the quote is given twice.) Additionally, it was originally put into an entire section of its own, again, giving undue weight to what is essentially a trivia item not important to the biography of this person. The first film was sourced with IMDB, but since that's not a reliable source, I moved the IMDB link to External links section, but I'm sure that a reliable source can be found to replace that and there are now two other sources to verify the first movie information.
I again request that you apologize for your incivility and unnecessary accusations of a "jihad", that term is completely unacceptable to use towards other editors, and two administrators warned you about being civil to others. The protection of the WP:BLP policy does not need apologizing for, as it states clearly that it is better to remove information than to leave it in an article, if there is any question at all about the information or the source. All the editors that removed the quotation, and explained why, were right in doing so until the issue could be resolved. Again I request that you read what FloNight and others wrote above, as well as understand that Wikipedia is legally responsible to not present information in a way that is defamatory towards living people. There really is no reason to add that quotation, it does not add to the biography, nor does it provide the reader anything they would not get by its absence. Perhaps it would help if you could explain why such a small quotation, taken out of context, is so important to you, and why you push so hard to have it included, when it is nothing more than trivia, which is not really appropriate for an encyclopedia, see WP:TRIVIA. Ariel♥Gold 01:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary edit section break

  • You have retained in your edit an unsourced mention of Coker in the John McCain film. The entire mention consists of the quote "We all have to be accounted for. Coffee. Coker. Day. Dramesi. Denton. Dunn.", in which it might well be that George Thomas Coker is the individual mentioned there. Even if it is this Coker, it is at best an exceedingly tangential mention. It tells us nothing about the individual, his background, his views, beliefs or any other biographical detail, other than the mere mention of his name. This might be evidence that he was a POW in Vietnam, but we just might have other details about that. And that stays. Yet you can insist with a straight face that the fact that clips of Coker have been included in an Academy Award-winning film in which he is quoted in reliable and verifiable sources is mere trivia. Come on. You can come up with a better rationalization than that. I was not and have not been pushing for anything, and the repeated claims of an agenda on my part are despicable personal attacks. I found this article because he lived in New Jersey. I researched the movie because User:Rlevse's edit to remove an external link, which popped up in my watchlist having edited the article previously, cited "BLP issues". I added the most unobjectionable possible statement that he appeared in the film, accompanied by an unimpeachably reliable source, without specifying what or why he appeared in the film. That was deleted by User:Rlevse, yet even you don't buy the WP:BLP excuse, and added it back to the article almost word for word, with the same source. I had added the film quote because User:Rlevse raised issues that the section on the film only had one sentence. I did some more research and found the quote cited in several articles, and thought it worthy of addition to the article. You can come up with all of the excuses you want, but the claim that the statement he made -- "If it weren't for the people, it would be a beautiful country." -- is mere trivia that adds nothing to the biography is utterly ridiculous, particularly in the face of all of the effort to include a mention of his last name -- "Coker" -- in another film utterly unrelated to him. The film won the Academy Award for clips like that. Its presence would add to the article in explaining his views and opinions, even if they justifiably resulted from attitudes based on his torture; Its absence from the article leaves the reader of this article with a patently false and incomplete impression. It simply is unacceptable to claim that the policy used to remove the reference to the film itself and his quote was based on Wikipedia:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, when the source was clearly sourced with a reliable reference. The policy itself states that "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy." You cannot possibly tell me that you believe that this policy is relevant in any way to anything that I've added regarding Coker's appearance in Hearts and Minds or that it could be a valid excuse for deletion of material that clearly complied with the policy. The fact that so many have been pushing for deletion of the film reference -- which was deleted in the first place by User:Rlevse due to a clear conflict of interest with the article's subject, only raises questions in my mind as to what everyone else's agenda is. It surely isn't to address WP:BLP issue, they don't exist. Alansohn (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do believe that the BLP policy applies, and the removal of that quote was a valid one, because the source you gave is not a reliable source. When you put in a quote that is not sourced reliably, and is negative in nature, BLP applies, and it can be removed. As to what you perceive to be personal attacks, nobody has made any personal attacks on you here, and nowhere did I even suggest you had an "agenda", I simply asked why you felt so strongly about having a quote that is taken out of context, added to a biographical article. As far as I know, Coker did not participate in the making of the film, nor did he share the credit for the award, clips of him were simply used in a portion of the film, as I'm sure clips of many others were used as well. Coker was not the subject of the movie, nor was he a central figure of it. Therefore, it is not an integral part of his biography, but is just an item of interest, i.e. trivia. Your continued insistence that others are attacking you, while you have used religious slurs/insults, and cursed at editors, is quite contrary to WP:CIVIL. Ariel♥Gold 03:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You seem to be backtracking at warp speed from your claim that Wikipedia:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material was a valid excuse for deletion of the material, a step in the right direction. Okay, so you still stand by the claim that the mention of Coker's name (more accurately, his last name) in a film about John McCain is a relevant fact that all readers of this article should know about. Your original edit had absolutely no source. But that stays. I find it downright laughably hypocritical that you can insist that the mention in Hearts and Minds should be removed because he didn't make or star in the film, when "Coker" is at best a word in the McCain movie, yet you insist that the mention in the film is notable. Every single edit I have made to this article has provided a reliable and verifiable source. If you are going to stand by your claim that the source violated WP:V or WP:RS you're going to have to do a heck of a job to justify deletion of a source from The Washington Post as not being reliable. If the word bullshit bothers you, I suggest deleting the article; I will use the daintier "BS" in the future. And I'm still waiting to hear what the supposed "religious slurs/insults" is. Again, I am trying to understand why you are so determined to include a truly trivial mention of a name in a film, but you persistently demand that a reliably sourced quote be removed. Why the utter inconsistency in treating two films, one relevant, the other completely unconnected to the subject? What's your agenda here? Alansohn (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • How's this for a source: Lane, Anthony. "AFTERMATHS. (Movie Review)", The New Yorker Issue 80.33, November 1, 2004, p. 110. "'What does Vietnam look like?' a schoolgirl asks Lieutenant George Coker, a former prisoner of war and returning hero, in 1973. 'If it wasn't for the people, it was very pretty,' he replies, adding, 'They just make a mess out of everything.'" Would this be sufficiently reliable to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V? Alansohn (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
"You seem to be backtracking at warp speed from your claim that Wikipedia:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material was a valid excuse for deletion of the material" I have "backtracked" on nothing. I said the removal of the information was valid, and I agree with the decision of the other editors who removed it. "Okay, so you still stand by the claim that the mention of Coker's name (more accurately, his last name) in a film about John McCain is a relevant fact that all readers of this article should know about. " No, I never said that, nor do I personally think either film reference is relevant, nor necessary, they are trivia. I offered the addition of the other film as a compromise. I don't think either is relevant in the article, but that is simply my own opinion. "yet you insist that the mention in the film is notable." Again, I never said that. "Every single edit I have made to this article has provided a reliable and verifiable source." I'm sorry, but that's not true. Your source for the quote is not a reliable source, and I have explained that three times now. The source is not a news organization, media, journal, magazine, or reputable, fact-checking source. It is a personal website run by a group of people who analyze films, based on their personal opinion. That is not something that is considered a reliable source. The quote is not necessary, provides the reader with no information that is integral to this person's biography, and is taken out of context, which results in a very problematic interpretation, with regards to WP:BLP. Finally, no, the word bullshit doesn't bother me, but when you claim that editors are "jihad", that absolutely bothers me, is out of line, and that too, has been explained to you a number of times, and still you will not apologize for such an uncalled for, unacceptable remark. I will not be engaging you further, and I would request that you respect consensus with regards to this issue, as you are the only editor who seems to think the quotation has context that would improve the article. As for the source you list, it would appear that "Aftermaths: (Movie review)" that appeared in the New Yorker on November 1, 2004, was a review of Ian McEwan's "Enduring Love". Ariel♥Gold 04:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's hear what the "religious slur" was. I'm waiting for details. You initially insisted that Wikipedia:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material justified deletion of the material I added. Now your excuse is that the source is not reliable. Do you stand by your initial claim or not. Which excuse justifies deletion of the good faith sourced material. You will have to do a far better job of demanding that quote from The New Yorker about the film in a review is unrelated; the article discusses two films, one Enduring Love and the other the DVD re-release of Hearts and Minds. You have to actually read the source to make the claim you're making, which is at best half true, and based on reading a fragment of the article. Unless you can impeach the New Yorker source, and do so rather quickly, the quote will be reinserted with additional context in accordance with the WP:RS and WP:V source in full compliance with WP:BLP. Alansohn (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
For the fourth time, using the word "jihad" which means "striving in the way of God" or "holy war", in a derogatory manner towards other people whose religion you have no idea of, is what I consider a religious slur. Your use of that word was unacceptable. "You initially insisted that Wikipedia:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material justified deletion of the material I added. Now your excuse is that the source is not reliable. " They are the same thing. Removing information that is poorly sourced and derogatory in nature. I have also explained that more than once. I would request that you respect consensus here, there is no context for that quote, it is not relevant to the subject except as trivia; the film is not about the person, and to give the quote context, one would have to go into detail about the film, its content, and story, and this article is not about that film, so that would be placing undue weight on something that is not at all relevant to the article or the subject. Ariel♥Gold 05:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
For the ninth time, the word "jihad" is synonymous with crusade. That you could actually believe that this was intended as a religious slur is indicative of a complete and fundamental inability to attempt to comprehend anything that disagrees with your own personal, narrow viewpoint and biases. The "consensus" you speak of here is the article's WP:OWNer who has insisted that it be removed due to demands from the article's subject, and others who are pushing the misinterpretation that WP:BLP means that all negative information must be removed from an article. WP:BLP 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", policy that couldn't be more clearly satisfied here. Again, the quote will be reinserted with additional context and the source from The New Yorker. the burden to justify removal falls squarely in those deleting the sourced content. We already know that User:Rlevse has doggedly fought any reference to the film because of a clear Conflict of interest. And what is your personal agenda that brings you here? Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The source is not reliable and, therefore, should not be included in the article. In addition, check the civility. Reasonably, the term "jihad" used in the context above can be considered offensive to some and as such should be avoided. Lastly, consider this the only warning for WP:3RR, as I see this may be an issue. Lara❤Love 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment amended as I see a new source has been placed. However, that still leaves an issue of context. Without further explanation, the quote is misleading. Even with a reliable source,in this article, the quote is out of context and defamatory. Lara❤Love 05:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Another precinct heard from. We haven't even met, you haven't read any of the supporting material, but you're already to start making threats. Defamatory?!?!?! How is it possible to defame yourself? Have you read the source or have you just decided to prejudge a quote straight from the subject of the article? You are also warned against any WP:3RR violations, which will be promptly reported. Alansohn (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Focus. You don't know what I've read. Past that, I don't even know what to assume with to "How is it possible to defame yourself?" That makes no sense. You're taking a quote from a tortured POW out of context. Making it appear as though he hates Vietnamese people and voices that publicly. Without explaining the movie and putting it into context, it's inappropriate and defamatory, which is in violation of WP:BLP and could open Wikipedia up to legal issues. It isn't necessary for this article, and for all the above reasons, cannot be included in the article. Lastly, I've not edited the article, so I don't think I'll be getting up to a 3RR violation. Calm down. Lara❤Love 06:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you actually claiming that the statements Coker made about Vietnam were the direct result of torture? Have you read the source provided? On what basis can you make the absolute statement that this sourced material directly from his own mouth "cannot be included in the article" under any circumstances, a view that is patently false and clearly disruptive. The further claim that a quote directly from the source captured in an Academy Award-winning film "could open Wikipedia up to legal issues" is laughably ludicrous, but I will point out that Coker has apparently not sued the filmmaker or the authors of the numerous articles that have included his supposedly self-defamatory statements at any point in the three decades since the film has been made. I will again point you to WP:BLP, which 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." This policy that couldn't be more clearly satisfied here. If you have an actual challenge to the source from The New Yorker', I look forward to seeing it. Can you point me to any evidence of any situation where an individual's own public statements have been deemed defamatory, either in a court of law or in Wikipedia? Alansohn (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Alansohn, I do not understand why you feel it necessary to insult other editors, to call me "narrow and biased" is not a nice thing, nor is it at all true, and your comments to Lara are not very civil either. I came here as an outside editor, not interested in, or previously involved with the article, so obviously, I have no "agenda", I simply tried to work out a content dispute, by offering a compromise, per your request. Look at your reply under FloNight's above, where you said you would be satisfied if the movie were mentioned, which it is now, with the Washington Post source you wanted. Now, you are demanding this quote be added. A quote where a person is saying that Vietnam is nice "except for the people" is not neutral, and can be considered defamatory towards that country and its people, unless it is given context. To give it context, you would need to explain the movie, the reason the movie was made, what part of the movie that was in, and why that particular comment was added as a clip. To do that would place undue weight on a trivial item, this article is not about the documentary that had a number of people shown in clips, and Coker happened to be one of them. I have already told you I think that both movie items are trivia items, and I personally think that they add nothing of context to the article and should be removed (again, my personal opinion). I was trying to offer a solution that you had agreed to above, and now you are not satisfied with this. Consensus is against the quote being in the article, even if a reliable source has been found. There are no WP:OWN issues here, there are multiple editors who are explaining why a problematic quote shouldn't be added, including multiple administrators. The sourcing was not the only issue, the core issue has always been BLP, and that has not changed. I hope that you can respect this and let the matter drop, such a trivial quote that does not add to the article is not worth having a content dispute over, at least I sure don't think it does. Ariel♥Gold 06:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Section break

  • Read more carefully. I would have been happy if my original pathetically bland compromise wording I had written had been accepted by the article's WP:OWNer. I never would have researched this further if it had been left as is. Once the article's WP:OWNer deleted my compromise wording and complained that the section needed additional sentences, I did further research. It didn't take much work to find that the quote had been mentioned in multiple sources. The film itself won an Academy Award. The quote comes straight from the horse's mouth (note to hyperliteralists here: I am not accusing Coker of being a horse, or any other animal) and came some time after his return from Vietnam. I welcome anyone's efforts to add additional context from reliable sources to explain the context of his statements, though given that the article explains his Vietnam POW experience at length, that would seem to be unnecessary. It's tough to discuss a subject with someone who inserts information into an article and then argues that it's trivial, but one is exceedingly hardpressed to justify that a clip of Coker include in a film and cited in multiple sources to represent the content of the film is "trivial". What's even more ironic is that the utterly irrelevant quote you inserted from the McCain film (and took subsequent great care to ensure was properly sourced) is part of a section where the prisoners discuss if any of the POWs made propaganda statements for the North Vietnamese, something Coker never did. When he returned home to the United States, he made the statements about Vietnam of his own volition, with no gun pointed at his head or bamboo shoved under his fingernails. To do the rhetorical backflips to claim that his own reliably sourced and documented statements that came straight from his own mouth and recorded on film are "defamatory" is patently ludicrous. That said, I will take you up on your offer and add the quote with the source from The New Yorker. I will also explain the movie, the reason the movie was made, and what part of the movie that it was in. This will all be done to go above and beyond the letter of the WP:BLP policy, which 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." I thank you for your support and cooperation in breaking through all of the obstructionism. Alansohn (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, I will ask you to respect consensus. There are no WP:OWN issues here, multiple editors disagree with the adding of the quote, for more than one reason. This article is not about the movie. The movie is a trivial thing in relation to the biography of this person, he appeared in it only in clips, did not participate in it, nor did he share the award for it. You are also twisting my words, which I do not appreciate. To turn my reply around to say that I told you to do such a thing as "an offer", is obviously not true: I explained that to do so would be placing undue weight on a trivial item, and not appropriate at all to do. I again request you respect consensus. Ariel♥Gold 07:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to see that the "defamatory" claim has disappeared. I will abide by your recommendation to reinsert the quote with an unimpeachable source and appropriate context about the film, and thank you again for your suggestion. Coker's statements are not only relevant in describing his views of his captors, the claim that the quote is "trivial" is knowingly false, and the breadth and scope of the remainder of the article address any supposed "undue weight" concerns. WP:BLP policy requires 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." As all of the WP:BLP criteria are met, I again request that you ignore your personal biases and observe Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Alansohn, I am going to say it yet again, please stop twisting my words and interpreting them in a way obviously not what was said. I quite obviously did not recommend you reinsert the quote, and I did not say that the quote is not defamatory towards Vietnam, it is. Your stated intention of adding the movie clip quote is engaging in a content dispute against consensus, and intentionally editing an article to add information, despite opposition from one or more other editors is disruptive. It is not appropriate to give undue weight to an item that is not relevant to the biography, and multiple editors and administrators have agreed it should not be added. Ariel♥Gold 08:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • ArielGold, I will tell you one final time. I appreciate that you are no longer pushing the patently false positions that the quote in question violates Wikipedia:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material or that a quote captured on film could possibly be "defamatory" to the individual who made the statement. We are making progress together on those issues. You are 100% correct that the quote needs a proper source and that proper context will address the issues involved. The only agreement we have so far is that WP:BLP must not violated; it will not be, and has not been. The quote is notable, relevant and there are no undue weight issues, as it is a small fraction of an article dedicated to the hagiography (note, it's not a bad word, and I don't believe that he will ever be a subject for sainthood) of George Thomas Coker. The quote provides balance and context. I look forward to your continued cooperation and support. Alansohn (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You are again intentionally changing my words, and interpreting them as you wish, which is really not at all helpful. I have said none of what you claim, the article already covers his time as a POW thoroughly without needing a quote from a clip put in a documentary without his participation. I've asked for additional input on this matter, as it is clear from this discussion that this is not productive. I look forward to input from additional editors on this matter. Ariel♥Gold 09:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What does the quote really add to the article? I can't see any real value to having it there, other than to piss off the subject. I'd also like to add, Alansohn, no one is trying to censor you. It's (from what I've seen so far) a quote that's difficult to reliably source, that, the subject of the article does not want included, that adds nothing of value to the article. I really agree, that it has no place in this article, at this time. SQLQuery me! 09:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Is the quote relevant? Damn sure it is! If I knew someone had spent over six years being brutally tortured as a POW in North Vietnam, the two things I'd want to know were what did they do to him and what were his feelings toward his captors. He could have said anything: "I hate my captors, but the common folk seem like great people"; or "It's a beautiful country and it's a shame that a few bad apples horribly abused me"; or "I know they cruelly tortured me, but they were just doing their job"; or he could have said "'If it wasn't for the people, it was very pretty,'... 'They just make a mess out of everything.'"; or he could have refused to make any comment at all about North Vietnam and its people. But he did. And the specific words he uttered, captured on film, months after his release, made in a public forum to schoolchildren, and included as a direct quote, word for word in an issue of The New Yorker, provides a window on his feelings about his captivity and the brutality he clearly had to face. The man is a hero in my book. I would have cracked in less than six days, or more likely, in under six minutes of the torture he was forced to endure for over 2,000 days,with no end in sight for much of that time. That any man can endure these conditions and be able to walk away as a functioning human being is astounding. His personal statements about his feelings couldn't be any more relevant. I fail to see how anyone can call these personal insights "trivial". What pisses me off is the number of people who have slandered me by slyly inquiring at length about my "agenda". I'll state it again, my agenda is that he lives in New Jersey. My agenda is that after I refined a category to a more specific county in New Jersey, the article ended up on my watchlist. Because of that, I saw an edit to the article in which an external link to the film Hearts and Minds was removed by User:Rlevse, and wondered what it was all about and why it would be removed. By trying to add reliable and verifiable sources to the article, I have been repeatedly attacked for imagined violations of WP:BLP, including the astounding BS (note the initials are being used) that the quote was "defamatory" of the person who uttered it, among other baseless and knowingly false attacks. I have no intention of trying "piss off the subject" -- a staggering display of bad faith on your part -- and only added the quote after doing further research on the film to satisfy the demand that the section needed to be fleshed out. It disappoints me that the subject is upset by his own quote, but WP:BLP specifically addresses this issue. If I could find any reliable sourced statement from him down the road retracting the quote or explaining it, I would be the first person to add it in. It truly pisses me off that I have been repeatedly personally attacked with the implication that I'm some sort of anti-American fanatic who is trying to insult someone who they justifiably believe is a hero, as do I. The staggering display of bad faith here by User:Rlevse and his cronies / supporters / meatpuppets who swarmed to push their own personal biases and acted in bad faith to protect the article from reliably-sourced relevant information is astounding. Alansohn (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
How is a quote in a film showing the subject saying those words not a reliable source? Especially when that line is quoted by both the Washington Post and The New Yorker? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The way it is being presented in the article takes it out of context. To put it into context, there would need to be further explanation about the movie, the point of the movie, and the scene in which he was included. This puts undue weight on something that's really not significant and doesn't add anything to the article to begin with. Lara❤Love 05:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm glad that you agree with both me and user:ArielGold that there is no issue with including the quote, as long as appropriate context is added. As pointed out above, and apparently ignored, details regarding Coker's views and opinions on his captivity and his captors have been carefully omitted from an article that is falsely presented as a "good article". Coker is one of the main individuals featured in the film, and there are several scenes of him being recognized in his hometown, speaking about his military experiences and talking to schoolchildren, covering approximately ten minutes of the movie. The "trivial" and "undue weight" excuses are pathetic rationalizations for excluding details that couldn't possibly be more relevant to the subject of the article. Alansohn (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Stop turning people's words around. It's not constructive and wholly unnecessary. The quote as you presented it was out of context. To put it into context puts undo weight on something that is insignificant. That's where I find issue with including the quote. It doesn't merit inclusion. But I'm glad to see that you now recognize that to put it in without adding context is not an option for potential legal issues... or is that an inappropriate assumption to make from your above comment? Lara❤Love 02:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So let me get your story straight: He appears for about ten minutes over the course of an Academy Award-winning documentary, which shows him at a homecoming parade in his hometown, speaking to the assembled crowd, discussing his military career and speaking to a school audience would constitute "undue weight"!?!?! But the excruciating details of his scouting career and a fleeting mention of his last name in a film all belong here? As to the reason for adding context, you couldn't possibly be more mistaken: "Potential legal issues" is an absolute BS argument that no rational person could make other than out of complete ignorance of Wikipedia policy or the laws of the State of Florida. Quoting someone's statements is never grounds for a legal case, potential or otherwise. I assume you've noticed that Mr. Coker has never filed suit against the filmmaker or the publications that cited the quote over the past three decades. Context is only necessary because of demands that the quote is somehow being taken out of context and that only thorough a background of the film and the situation in which the quote arose could the quote be included. While clearly unnecessary under Wikipedia policy, I will accede to these arbitrary demands in the continued spirit of compromise. If you have any rational, logical arguments for exclusion of the quote, I will also be prepared to address those. What exactly is your agenda for keeping out useful, relevant information about Coker's attitude towards his captors? Alansohn (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thats a lot of content related to him in the film. His appearance in this documentary should definitely be in the article. If he does not like the quote any more, perhaps we can balance it with an interview where he discussses the quote and why he doesn't like it now (assuming such an interview exists and can be a reliable source). --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I entirely agree with Alansohn and ChrisRuvolo. The excuses cited by the editors who wish to see this quote removed have been exceedingly flimsy. There is no BLP violation here, and it does indeed seem that Rlevse has been a little too quick to remove content, particularly in the diff that Alansohn kept posting. I am particularly struck by the comparison that Alansohn has mentioned several times now, yet no one has seen fit to respond to: that a passing mention of Coker's last name (which could in fact be someone else) from John McCain's movie is kept, yet a reference to direct footage of Coker in an Academy Award-winning movie is removed. This seems highly illogical and against NPOV, even moreso since Alansohn has found a reliable source that explicitly mentions the quote in question. Further, I would ask that all editors involved to stop mentioning "consensus" and using it as justification for any actions, as there does not seem to be any consensus at all for removing this quote; there may be several people in favor, but there are also several people against. GlassCobra 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Precedent for quotations from Hearts and Minds

The article for William Westmoreland cites Hearts and Minds as the source for the highlighted quotation "The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful. Life is cheap in the Orient.", which as of now is entirely unsourced, though I will add a source for the quote when I get around to it. Above and beyond the fact that there are no WP:BLP issues, one would have a tough time justifying the position that there are no circumstances in which a sourced quote from the film could be used in this article , regardless of the context provided, given this clear precedent. Alansohn (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a quote about the meager cost of life in another country in the article of a deadman sets a precedent for this BLP issue which puts the words of a still living man out of context. Lara❤Love 04:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there any possible circumstance by which you will demonstrate any willingness to cooperate and seek consensus on this issue or is your obstinacy just blatant obstructionism and WP:POINT issues? Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Your comparison is apples and oranges. We're talking about a BLP issue, so citing a dead man's article isn't the best way to go when determining some "precedent". Furthermore, your behavior here is not acceptable. You twist the words of others and make these ridiculous accusations. I'm not being pointy. I'm merely pointing out that it is a potential legal issue for Wikipedia to have a quote out of context in a BLP. I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about that. Where, again, did you explain how this quote is vital to the article? How putting it into context and including all the necessary information to ensure it's being presented accurately doesn't put undue weight on a minor detail? As it reads without context, he's not speaking solely of his captors. He's speaking of a nation of people. That's how it comes across. Lara❤Love 05:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I will point out again that a quote backed by a reliably-documented source is explicit protection from any WP:BLP issues. A quote that comes straight from the article's subject is the greatest possible defense against any possible legal action. If Mr. Coker felt that there were some valid justification to press charges for libel, slander, defamation or any other possible action, the target to have done so would have been the distributor of the film, and the time to have done it would have been 30 years ago, when the film was released. You cannot possibly be serious in defending your obstruction by insisting that you actually believe that there is any genuine issue of WP:BLP. As to context, I have strongly and repeatedly suggested that additional material be added to explain the film, his inclusion therein and the circumstances of the quotation at issue. Coker's view about his captors could not be any more relevant in an article about someone who spent over six years being torture in captivity. That anyone can support inclusion of every detail of his time in the Boy Scouts and inclusion of a film in which Coker's name is mentioned as part of a laundry list of POWs, and then demand that any mention of an Academy Award-winning film in which clips of Coker play a significant role would constitute "undue weight" simply boggles the mind as an example of (at best) inconsistency. As the issues you raise have no validity whatsoever, it's time to make some genuine effort on your part and among your fellow obstructionists to find consensus as to a means in which the quotation can be appropriately included. Alansohn (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes, "obstructionist". I need to add a userbox to my page. Look, here's what I and others are trying to explain.
  1. It doesn't matter where the quote came from. He said it, fantastic. It's out of context. Period. So it doesn't matter the source, whether it won awards or not, nothing. The point is that you are presenting it as if he dislikes a whole country of people, not just his captors.
  2. You're wanting to give a whole section in a short article to one quote that is so insignificant. He harbors nasty feelings for his captors. Shocking. It doesn't deserve an entire section (undue weight) just to give context to one quote of 4 seconds from a film.
So, just remove the quote that lists him as a POW and skip this one. Both quotes are unnecessary. Granted the POW quote doesn't require an entire section of its own for context. Lara❤Love 16:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, it does appear that you've dropped the WP:BLP crap, a clear non-starter, but a step in the right direction. So, to recap: You have decided that there are absolutely no circumstances whatsoever under which a quote regarding his captivity -- a subject that is completely absent from what is being foisted as a "good article" -- which comes from a segment of an Academy Award-winning film in which he is featured, should be excluded at all costs because you insist that any mention of the quote would grant it "undue weight". You are so cocksure of your stance that you will not budge from it under any and all possible wording. Just wanted to clarify your position before moving on to ignore your deliberate, and rather WP:POINTy interference. I have gathered more than enough information to insert the quote with appropriate details regarding the film. Alansohn (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're bent on a block, you might want to knock it off. Stop with the "obstructionist" and "pointy" mess. Stop changing mine and others words around. It's disruptive and this is the last time I'm telling you that.

My first point above is the BLP issue. You cannot put a quote out of context to give the impression that he dislikes a whole country of people when, in fact, he is speaking of his captors only. To word it in such a way as to put it into context requires an entire section be devoted solely to one quote. That's absurd, it's unnecessary, and it's undue weight. I don't care if the quote came from an award-winning movie, his own auto-biography, or the home video from his family reunion in 1980. The point is, the quote is not significant enough to warrant this much detail.

An alternative, perhaps, just write something like: "After returning from captivity, Coker gave patriotic speeches around the country on behalf of the Navy. Clips of his speeches were included in the subjective documentary "Hearts and Minds", which won the 1974 Academy Award, in which he expressed his negative feelings toward his captors." Or something like that. A couple sentences as opposed to an entire section. Due weight. Lara❤Love 17:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Now its threats. My intended wording is similar to yours, providing a little more about his role in the film. Rather than providing a sanitized version as suggested, the additional details would be wrapped around the quote in question, together with other quotes from Coker, to provide the additional context in a few sentences, without hitting the dreaded "undu weight" reached by the scouting details. Alansohn (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Put your wording here. Let's see it. Lara❤Love 19:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Thomas_Coker/Archive_1&oldid=1136276029"