Jump to content

Talk:George Thomas Coker/Archive 3

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

Concerns

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

N.B: Please do not edit my talk page comments in violation of WP:TALK. Dlabtot (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear about the point I was trying to make, since it was deleted from my comments - this article is a whitewash. That is my point. Wikipedia would be better to have no article on this individual, rather than the current blatantly whitewashed article. Dlabtot (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you may need to re-read the above discussion. The question is not one of sources for the quote itself, it's one of WP:BLP issues for "do no harm" as well as WP:V and WP:NPOV issues. There’s nothing in policy that requires us to include that quote. What policy does require is for us to give a full and balanced view of the topic and the quote. We can’t have that with the sources currently available. Normally this wouldn’t be an issue, because the quote is well-sourced, however due to BLP concerns raised by the subject himself, we are restricted by BLP in what we can say – well if we have any sensitivity for the subject at all, and any sense of fair play.
I’m not sure of the exact reasons for Coker’s objections, but say, for instance, that he regrets the quote and feels it was mistaken for a racist comment when what he meant was a comment on just those who actually tortured him. That quote could be a huge embarrassment to him, and a painful memory. He may think the people of Vietnam are wonderful, but who can tell? We can't supply that information because there's no WP:RS for it.
Under those conditions, we would be perpetrating further victimization of Coker that was started by his captors.
As far as I can tell, the quote is only being included because it’s “memorable”, and without proper context, and the way it’s presented as a kicker quote does indeed look like a tabloid entry in that it a tends to emphasize a sensational remark. Dreadstar † 22:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
On the one hand, we have ample reliable and verifiable sources that Coker made statements about his captors, statements that are directly relevant to the subject's biography and that fill a huge void in this article, statements that were made publicly, were recorded on film and made of his own volition to schoolchildren, that at least a dozen media sources have found notable and worthy of mention. On the other hand, we have completely and totally unsubstantiated claims that the article's subject does not like the inclusion of his own statements, and that their inclusion is causing harm, embarrassment and are perpetuating his victimization. I would love to provide some further balance, but there are no statements to provide his opinion. Most importantly, there are no sources whatsoever to support the claim that the subject objects, which appears to violate WP:OR. Nothing. WP:BLP obligates us to provide a complete and thorough biography backed by reliable and verifiable sources, as has been offered for months. The burden of evidence required by WP:BLP has been satisfied, and there are no sources to contradict the claim. It is impossible to challenge or respond to suppositions about the subject's likes or dislikes, which have been the subject of endless speculation. I have offered a clear, balanced and neutral text to be inserted and am more than happy to consider any additions to my recommendation. What will it take to reach a conclusion here? Alansohn (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
My recommendation is to work on some non-controversial section of the article first, to help rebuild trust, and address any issues of WP:UNDUE. Then, for the H&M section, proceed slowly, per WP:BRD. Make a change to a single sentence, and then let things sit for a day. If no one objects, make another small change, and so forth. --Elonka 00:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I had the same idea earlier. Let's expand the non- controversial parts first. As it stands now, the content in the section about H&M looks complete compared to the rest of the space given to other larger aspects of his life. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not edit my talk page comments in violation of WP:TALK. Dlabtot (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I redacted a heading which appeared to be an attack on the other editors here, accusing them of "whitewashing" the article, I did not edit your post. Uncivil attacks will not be tolerated here. Dreadstar † 03:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

  • So, Sumoeagle179, I have offered a version backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources, and would be happy to add as many as would be needed, and have offered multiple versions over a period of six months. All we have been allowed so far in this article is a cryptic mention of the film. Omitting any mention of what the "controversial statements" are leaves readers baffled. The omission is justified by an unsupported claim that the subject has demanded its removal. Let's hear your version. I will be happy to review it. Alansohn (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • So you're willing to look at someone else's proposal? That'd be good because I get the impression from prior remarks that your version must be the start. If you're willing to consider others, maybe I'll work one up. Give me a few days. I also think the advice just above of Flo and Elonka is good. Why can't we include some of Coker's non-controversial remarks from the film? Or is that too boring? Are controversial ones the only ones that are acceptable? Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I have spent six months waiting for an alternative that addresses the content of the film in a relevant fashion. My proposed text already paraphrases his Linden City Hall remarks, and I would be more than happy to quote them if I had the sources to back it up. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we have to bring the footnotes quotes issue to this article too? The two just added merely repeat what's in the article already. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It's only an issue if you make it one. I know of no policy that requires its use, so I can't force anyone else to use them. Can you point to any Wikipedia policy that forbids its use? Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that you have consensus for any changes you make to this article. It is obviously a contentious article and does not lend itself to unilateral changes. Dreadstar † 04:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do I need permission to do here? I have spent the past seven months trying to find consensus here, and look forward to reaching it one day in the future. If you would like to constructively edit the article, including text and sources I have added, you are free to do so. I sincerely hope that you will grant me the same courtesy. Alansohn (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
On a contentious article, "permission" is called consensus. I suggest you read it very carefully. Dreadstar † 06:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I have read it carefully and find no such demand that one, and only one, editor must get permission from any other before editing. I have reviewed this article and made a number of changes backed by verifiable sources, using the exact process described by WP:CONSENSUS. I suggest you review the edits I (and other editors) have made and change them as necessary, following the procedures of building consensus. If you would like to discuss the content of any of my edits, feel free to do so here. Alansohn (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for not being clear, WP:BRD is fine for some of the material you've added recently and may fall within the bounds of WP:CON, however I have been objecting to, and continue to object to the addition of a very specific quote we've been discussing. If you're still unclear about the disputed quote and the consensus and sources needed for it's addition, then please leave me a message on my talk page. I'll be more than happy to clarify it for you.
Additionally, I see that my reasoning and objections to that specific quote have been removed or "archived" from this talk page. I find that most disturbing. I have copied my reasoning and objections here. Dreadstar † 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Since the page is very active, some threads are being archived very rapidly. But just because concerns have been archived, does not invalidate them. You are free to link to previous discussions in archive. I'd just like to keep the talkpage for active discussions, thanks. --Elonka 21:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, I understand your concerns. You'll have to pardon me if I felt a bit short-changed...;) Dreadstar † 22:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Proposing the addition of material backed by reliable and verifiable sources makes Wikipedia suck? Dozens of reliable and verifiable sources have found Coker's appearance in the film, and the particular quotation in question, to be notable. I still fail to see how demanding the exclusion of the subject's views on his captivity can possibly be in keeping with a requirement to provide a complete biography of the individual, when the article provide absolutely nothing now other than the statement that he made "controversial statements". "What were these statements" is a question that any rational reader of this article should ask and should get an appropriately worded answer for. What context would you add to justify its inclusion? Alansohn (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The footnoted quotes issue is an issue on several article. And so far every instance of dispute regarding this issue that I've seen has involved AS and/or RAN. They seem to be it's only major proponents. While nothing probibits it totally, there is plenty of policy that says disputes should be settled on talk pages and other means vice directly editing the article. So far, it seems the consensus here is against including them, certainly against long and repetitive ones. As far as I'm concerning, all the footnoted quotes here, even pre-existing ones can be cut. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Other than a poorly manufactured one, there is no "dispute" regarding the supposed footnoted quotes "issue"; some people use it, some people don't. There is no policy that requires its use, nor is there a consensus anywhere to forbid it (let alone "totally"). I apologize for being fairly active in adding sources and bumping into editors looking for trivial points of argument; I will use them and you don't have to. Are you claiming that the quotations are not relevant? Quite interestingly, footnoted quotes were also used on two separate references in this article to prove that the fairly trivial point that the word "Coker" was mentioned in passing in the film Faith of My Fathers. Perhaps we should address the more genuine dispute as to the justifications for excluding sourced material from Wikipedia articles before moving on to other "disputes". Alansohn (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As a course correction here, I would recommend that we just stick to discussing the George Thomas Coker article here, rather than the larger issue of footnoted quotes on other Wikipedia articles. That issue is better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Footnoted quotes, where a discussion is in process on how to update the WP:FN guideline. Anyone here with an opinion, is welcome to participate there. --Elonka 15:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Poll on viewing

Who here has actually seen H&M?

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

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

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

  • You can quiz me on the content, and it could have been Google Video, but I have seen the film in its entirety. Alansohn (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Here are some of my notes from the film on Coker's appearances that I took in January: 5:44 - 7:42 (1:58) Welcome parade in Linden, speech on steps of city hall. "One small word kept me alive faith in family, God and country."; 19:02 - 19:13 (:11) what it's like to be a pilot; 20:12 - 20:28 (:16) A-6 as ultimate in aviation; 21:08 - 21:24 (:16) what it's like to fly a good mission; 49:28 - 51:47 (2:19) what did Vietnam look like? I'm not sure this is a complete list of his appearances or that the time marks, durations or quotations are accurate or match anyone else's, but I can assure you that I have watched the film online, in its entirety, on several occasions. When you're dealing with an extremely determined effort to keep sourced material out of the article, regardless of sources, thorough work is necessary to respond. So I've researched online, read dozens of newspaper, magazine and journal articles, and watched the film. If only we had the same level of investigation, research, details and reliable and verifiable sources as to the subject's objections. Alansohn (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
When you're dealing with extremely determined efforts to ignore legitimate BLP issues, extremely thorough research is needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Every single possible BLP issue, real or imagined, has been presented and addressed. What will it take to reach consensus on inclusion of reliably and verifiably sourced material that is directly relevant to the subject's biography, and where the primary objection is an entirely unsupported claim that the subject is bothered by inclusion of his own statements, which have been reported on and deemed notable by at least a dozen newspaper, magazine and journal sources? If you, or any other editor, have an alternative text that addresses concerns about balance, I look forward to reading and considering them. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The consensus, as I read it, is that the article needs to stay balanced, and not give undue weight to comments that were made by the subject, which comments were made shortly after the subject was released from several years of torture, and which comments were then used by a heavily biased and controversial documentary. That the subject made the comments is well-sourced, and that the comments were the subject of controversy is also well-sourced. However, that doesn't mean that there should be a large section in the Wikipedia article about those comments, because that then gives undue weight to that one documentary, which was a blip in the subject's long career. If the rest of the article is expanded about the subject's career, then the section about the documentary can probably be expanded as well. But first let's get the rest of the article expanded. --Elonka 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There are two sentences and three sources about a film in which Coker appears as the word "Coker", in a presumably biased film (I haven't had a chance to see it in its entirety) that only presents John McCain's perspective. The article includes exhaustive minutiae of Coker's scouting career, but fails to provide any details of his remarks about his captors, covering his remarks about 6.5 years of captivity, despite the availability of at least a dozen sources that have found his appearance in the film Hearts and Mids and his statements therein notable. The primary objection is based on unsupported claims made that the subject objects to his own statements being included here or even any mention of the film, even though he has made no public statement about the film, its accuracy or the clips selected for inclusion, let alone anything that would constitute a reliable or verifiable source to support these objections. I have already expanded the article and added sources, as you and other editors have requested, only to be criticized for failing to ask permission. If expanding the article and adding sources is what is required to add reliably and verifiably sourced relevant material, I'm happy to respond, but is there any commitment that this is the final obstacle and is there any definition of exactly how much material needs to be added to satisfy everyone? Alansohn (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The first time you deleted a bare link to the film, I did some research and the first source I found (see here) was in The Washington Post, a publication that is rarely identified as a tabloid purveyor of sensationalism, included the quote. I can provide a dozen other sources that include this one quote, but I'm not sure that I can find any other quote from Coker in the film. To me, that's an indication that the media, our ultimate arbiter of notability, has decided that the film and Coker's appearance and his remarks quoted therein are notable. I have made over 70,000 edits, painstakingly adding sources where there were none; If you're looking for an anti-Coker or anti-Vietnam War agenda, there should be plenty of material to base the claim on, and I encourage you to wade through to find the non-existent "proof". I edited the article because the guy lived in New Jersey, and I inserted the quote with required sources because you repeatedly removed even a link to the film on multiple occasions. I would appreciate if you would work to address the issues regarding the article and refrain from further efforts to impugn my supposed motives. Alansohn (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I am working on the issues and would appreciate if you'd quit making snippy remarks at my supposed motives. I ask again what is wrong with using another quote from the film instead of the one you proposed? Note, this is an attempt to resolve this, not anything else you may impart to it. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • The references I found in my initial search, the search I made in response to your deletions of bare mentions of the film as a WP:BLP issue (this diff, came up with the quotation "If it wasn't for the people, it would be very pretty" appearing in multiple reliable and verifiable sources. To flesh out the details beyond a bare mention of the film, I included the one quotation from Coker that an overwhelming majority of the sources I had read deemed notable. I will be happy to work with you on an overall list of Coker's quotations from the film included in reliable and verifiable sources. Would you agree that the most referenced quotation from Coker would be the most relevant? I will be happy to include other relevant quotations, in addition to the one that is most common and most relevant. After six months of waiting, I look forward to see your work on the issues. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, "If it wasn't for the people, it would be very pretty", is not what he said. You before admitted the sources were not in agreement with the wording. I know what he said, every word in the whole film, as I mentioned elsewhere on this page several hours ago. No, I do not agree the most quoted is the most worthy--the sources don't agree - which brings into question their reliabilty - and they often are only trying to make news, not to mention BLP issues (but let's please not rehash that-there's nothing more new to say). But I am willing to work on other quotes as replacements, if you want. In fact, I'm about to wrap up some work on researching the film. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The actual exchange is "Questioner (~ 12-year-old female student) What did Vietnam look like? Coker: (Repeats question). Well if it wasn't for the people it was very pretty. Uh. The people over there are very backward and very primitive and they just make a mess out of everything." I don't know how many reviewers were working off a transcript or had a copy of the film that they could rewind, so a paraphrase does not seem off base. Some of the sources bracket the words "would be" in place of "was", presumably for stylistic or grammatical reasons. Reporters and reviewers making news is exactly what we're looking for; anything we do from primary sources is original research. When publications like The Washington Post (here), The Guardian (here), Judith Crist in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (here) and The New Yorker (among many other notable publications) latch onto a single quotation from a film, it is screaming to us that they deem it to be notable and that we need to pay attention. There is a gaping hole in this article in that it tells us nothing about his thoughts on his six-plus years in captivity and his captors, a void that needs to be filled. I could pull anything from the film, but it's what's in reliable and verifiable sources that must be our beacon. On that note, I will await your research and your proposed version, take a break from this discussion, and edit and expand the article while we all wait. Alansohn (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Source re only escapees from Hanoi Hilton

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

I'll look for it, I remember seeing it and hope I can find it again. A lot sure went on here last night while I was away from wiki ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is a ref that has massive detail on our POWS, including Coker and McKnight--it lists some more of the camps he was held in too. It should answer most of your questions. On pages of 12-13 of Virginian Pilot ref, it says "He and and another POW, George McKnight, escaped from the notorious "Hanoi Hilton" by using debris in their cells to remove a door from its hinges." This lists some of the camps too. Just for the record, Coker wasn't a fighter pilot, he was a bombardier-navigator (BN) on A-6 planes, a two-seat carrier-based Navy bomber. The pilot flew in the other seat. McKnight and Coker were never cellmates til after their escape, not til about 1971. The Hanoi Hilton (as in Hao Lo) never had an escape-it was in downtown Hanoi. "Hanoi Hilton" was a generic term as often used and causes confusion about which camp is actually being referred to. The POWs never called it that. Hao Lo is pronounced "Waa Low". McKnight and Coker escaped from Dirty Bird. The only other escape from the main camps around Hanoi was Dremesi and Atterbery (sp?) which was about a year later and they got caught next day too. I was once confused about how "Hanoi Hilton" was used and now am more educated on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Details on other prisons where he was held captive have already been added, though further details would help. The Hanoi Hilton seems a bit more definitive on its use as a nickname for Hoa Lo Prison. His status as bombardier-navigator on the A-6 is already noted in the article. The article should reflect that the escape was not the only one, though it seems that few made it as far as Coker did. Alansohn (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Coker in H&M

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

Wow, that's a lot of work. What are the implications for the article? That we should be cautious about using the film for quotes or to establish weight?Wikidemo (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
By that rule is Albert Einstein or George Washington less important since they each represent 1/2,400,000 of the articles in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess that's what this whole discussion is about. The issues about H&M and its quote being in the article or not and to what degree have been discussed at length for some time (see article archives). The quote that is generating the most discussion is 10 words out of those 1053 (I took a copy of the transcript and cut it to only Coker's spoken words and used Word to count them). Coker comes across in the film as sincere, open, loyal, a professional Naval aviator, and very patriotic. His family and country obviously mean a lot to him. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Coker is "sincere, open, loyal, a professional Naval aviator, and very patriotic". Appropriate quotations from reliable and verifiable sources about his professionalism, patriotism and sincerity should be used to provide balance to other quotations that the media has amply demonstrated are notable. Phan Thị Kim Phúc, who appears in the film for a far briefer period than Coker, merits a substantial article devoted almost exclusively to her being caught on film without uttering a single word, let alone more than 1,000. Notability has nothing to do with percentages. Coker appears in two major scenes -- at Linden City Hall and in the Catholic school -- neither of which show any evidence of being taken out of context or of cutting, splicing or angle shifts. As I had offered in January (this diff, for example), a discussion of the film should include each of the two major, lengthy, uncut scenes, with appropriate notable quotations from each from reliable and verifiable sources. Coker's extensive remarks at City Hall were summarized as "One of the film's earliest scenes details a homecoming parade in Coker's honor in his hometown of Linden, where he tells the assembled crowd on the steps of city hall that if the need arose, that they must be ready to send him back to war", a rather deliberate effort to reflect Coker's patriotism and sincerity. I invite other variations to provide appropriate balance to Coker's notable appearance in the film. Alansohn (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
"neither of which show any evidence of being taken out of context or of cutting, splicing or angle shifts."? Hardly true. He appears in four scenes too, not two. Several versions have been proposed on both sides, there's more than the one AS pointed to. Phan Thị Kim Phúc is hardly a fair comparison. Pics of her are some of themost iconic of the whole war, worldwide. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I count five. My timestamps on the film show him appearing in two segments that are about two minutes long each and other shots of about 15 seconds or less -- 19:02 - 19:13 (:11) what it's like to be a pilot; 20:12 - 20:28 (:16) A-6 as ultimate in aviation; and 21:08 - 21:24 (:16) what it's like to fly a good mission. To quote myself (in its entirety, without any selective quotations) "Coker appears in two major scenes -- at Linden City Hall and in the Catholic school -- neither of which show any evidence of being taken out of context or of cutting, splicing or angle shifts." Appropriately iconic statements from Coker should be included, with appropriate balance. Alansohn (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The comparison with Phan Thị Kim Phúc was used to illustrate the point that the running time and percentages are not the sole determining factor of notability. Once again, we seem to be sidestepping the fact that many reliable, published sources, include the quote in question, even when it only a handful of sentences are dedicated to the film. That certainly establishes the notability of the quote itself. If you think otherwise, I'd be interested to hear your explanation. -Oreo Priest talk 14:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Coker is hardly "iconic", notable, but not iconic. As to the quote and the several who don't agree with you, read the article talk history/archives. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, my complete statement reads "Appropriately iconic statements from Coker should be included, with appropriate balance." I have not stated that Coker is iconic, hardly or otherwise. Coker's statements are iconic, and have been captured in numerous reliable and verifiable sources, which are what makes them notable. Alansohn (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Just how much coverage did that quote get when it first came out? There seem to be some slightly overstated comments about its notability and iconic status - ostensibly placing it right next to "Let there be light" or "We the People", "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" or "I have a dream"; or in the case of war “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant".
Now those are iconic statements. Dreadstar † 23:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Each of those quotes belong in the God, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King and Isoroku Yamamoto article respectively, as each quote is an iconic example of its source. When publications like The Washington Post (here), The Guardian (here), Judith Crist in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (here) and The New Yorker (among many other notable publications) latch onto a single quotation from a film, it is sending us a message loud and clear that they deem it to be notable. I can provide about a dozen references from these and other reliable and verifiable sources spread out over a 35-year period, all of which latch onto the one quote in question. I can probably add another dozen or more if I did a more thorough search through Lexis / Nexis and Newspaper Archive. Coker's statement is equally iconic on an individual basis. If you can point to any other single quote from Coker that has received as much attention over this period, it might well be an appropriate alternative. Alansohn (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, those quotes all transcend their sources and are representative of far more than the individual. Let's be very clear about icon;, "A person or thing that is the best example of a certain profession or some doing." What exactly is that quote "the best example" of? War? Vietnam? Being a tortured POW? Comments of a decorated war hero? Something being sensationalized in a one-sided movie? Of Coker himself? It's certainly not even a good example of any that, much less the "best" one.
It's certainly not sufficiently "iconic" or "notable" to overcome what is outlined in one of my subpages that Rlevse so kindly provided a link to below. Yes, there are sources for the quote itself, it may even be notable - that's not the question. And to refocus my above comment, I'm not really even questioning the notability of the quote, I'm questioning the iconic status you've ascribed to it. That on top of everything here. Dreadstar † 00:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I would be more than willing to consider inclusion of any other quotation from Coker in this film if it has been identified as closely with Coker and the Academy Award-winning film as the statement in question. It need not be iconic, in quotes or otherwise, to be included. Being quoted in a dozen or more reliable and verifiable sources meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Fully conceding the question of notability, which I haven’t seriously questioned in the first place, just because something is notable doesn’t mean we have to include it. My objections to that particular quote still stand, whether it can be replaced by a quote fitting the criteria you’ve outlined above or not. I believe there are plenty of other quotes Coker made that are notable, whether they’re in the movie or not. Dreadstar † 02:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing the scope and breadth of the reliable and verifiable sources supporting your proposed options. Additional quotations will only provide further balance. Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Frankly, Dreadstar's arguments, while good faith, ignore several consequences. First of all, there is a specific policy to deal with situations exactly like these: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". I don't see how it could get any clearer than that. The victimization policy was written for Brian Peppers, not Coker, whose notability stems from (inter alia) bravery and participation in scouting.
Assuming for a moment that Dreadstar's arguments about pain to the victim were to override the clear as day policy above, consider some parallel cases: James D. Watson and Michael Richards should have the negative things they said removed (How do we know Watson was not misunderstood? He quite likely was, but it still merits inclusion because it is so notable.) Some of Dreadstar's last questions would merit exclusion of all but the most impossible to misinterpret (such as Hitler's, not to in any way draw parallels between Hitler and Coker, only that Hitler seems to be impossible to misinterpret) controversial/racist/offensive remarks from Wikipedia.
Inclusion is not done to cause pain to an aged veteran; we all make mistakes, but we accept the consequences of our own actions. The simplest, most effective, and most encyclopedic solution is to include the quote so that readers can draw their own conclusions. -Oreo Priest talk 05:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I have little or no respect for arguments that invoke Godwin's law, but I will say that I already have considered the other points you make and found them to be wanting in this particular case. Dreadstar † 20:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
How about we address the issue at hand. We have a clearly notable quotation, supported by ample reliable and verifiable sources. We have an imp[roving article with a deep void in providing insight to the subject's opinions on his captors and captivity. We have hearsay-based and unsupported original research that the subject dislikes inclusion of a widely-quoted statement. Coker is notable for more than being a prisoner in Vietnam and has actively sought the public eye in being quoted in newspaper articles on his Vietnam War experience and in running for political office. He deserves a biography that includes information that can be found in any online search and that has been deemed notable by at least a dozen individual sources. Overall, I have considered the arguments for exclusion of sourced material from the article and find them unjustified. I still suggest that additional quotations from Coker from reliable and verifiable sources be provided to provide balance and I look forward to seeing some of the options out there suggested. Alansohn (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The issues at hand are already being addressed. I’m not sure why you want to gloss over Oreo Priest’s prime example of Reductio ad Hitlerum; ignoring something like that is beyond my comprehension, but that’s your choice, as is your personal definition of what is considered “iconic”. None of what you said or demanded thus far has in any way negated my or the other editors who have opposed the inclusion of the disputed quote. Continued repetition of your opinion, demands, and criteria are not moving this discussion forward. Neither is your attempt to edit-war repetitive content into the article’s footnotes as you attempted to do here. WP:BRD is fine under certain circumstances, but with this particular article, disputed additions need WP:CON. Period. So I strongly suggest you attempt to find a solution that does have consensus.
We’re deadlocked on the singular “quote” you’ve deemed “iconic”, so there is no consensus for its inclusion. And contrary to Oreo Priest’s assertion, there is no policy that requires us to include that quote. I loathe giving audience to those who pull the Nazi Card, and I will not easily comply with demands from such an editor or those who support such an editor.
If Oreo Priest wants his views considered seriously by me, I'd be more than glad to take it point by point - but pulling the Nazi Card pushes him well out of what I consider to be a civil discussion. I strongly suggest redacting those statements and reframing his objections. Your objections have been duly noted and strongly addressed already. Dreadstar † 22:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. I tried to make it abundantly clear that I am not pulling any Nazi card. I just used Hitler as what he is: an extreme example of a racist who leaves no room for misinterpretation. Whether or not Coker is a racist, misinterpreted, or any such questions is of course open to debate, and there is potentially room to misinterpret what he said. The Hitler example was to contrast between severe diehard racists and Coker, who may have just made a slip of the tongue. On top of that, it is fallacious to reject arguments because someone with the same opinion holds another opinion which you find objectionable. Regardless, please assume good faith even if my wording is a bit blunt. -Oreo Priest talk 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
While I would not have made the reference at all, you still need to address the issues that have been raised. Wording issues with OP need be addressed elsewhere. OP differentiates between cases where it might be justifiable to exclude statements made by the individual and this article where no valid justification has been offered to exclude a directly relevant quote supported by multiple reliable and verifiable sources. There is no evidence whatsoever as to the subject's concerns -- the ostensible justification for removing even a bare mention of the film as a BLP violation -- and the complete lack of this evidence undermines any serious effort to try to reflect these concerns in this article. We are not providing an encyclopedic article if we cannot include material that is thoroughly documented in the media based on its inclusion in an Academy Award-winning film. Alansohn (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
OP do you really think that the "Peppers" clause was written for one person only? No. It may have been the catalyst, but it applies to all persons. While we all agree Coker is notable, he's hardly a household name. As for your other points, my prior statements still stand. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Coker is certainly no Brian Peppers. While Coker may not be a household name, Coker's notability is not merely tied to his unfortunate treatment by the North Vietnamese. Coker has not only been in the public spotlight in his Scouting role. His run for public office in Virginia Beach was supported rather publicly by a letter from Admiral James Stockdale that directly tied his Vietnam experience to his qualifications for office. Given the pattern of his background, the Peppers clause hardly applies. We need to provide complete and thorough coverage of Coker's experiences. I again suggest that additional quotations from reliable and verifiable sources be used to balance his other statements and look forward to additional input on this issue. Alansohn (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse, I'm not sure what statements you're talking about. Could you please reiterate them here?
And again, to differentiate between Peppers and Coker, note the line before what Dreadstar bolded, which is of paramount importance: Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This would be more or less the case for an article on Peppers. To say this article serves primarily to mock or disparage Coker could not be further from the truth. -Oreo Priest talk 14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

H & M Section Break

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

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

"In 1974 Coker was briefly featured in the Academy Award winning documentary Hearts and Minds, which was critical of the United States' role in the Vietnam War. In one of the few scenes including individuals not critical of the war, the film details a homecoming parade in Coker's honor in his hometown of Linden, New Jersey, where he tells the assembled crowd on the steps of city hall that if the need arose, that they must be ready to send him back to war.[1] Answering a student's question about the Vietnamese countryside at a school assembly, Coker responds that "If it weren't for the people, it would be a beautiful country."[2][3]

That doesn't seem purely negative, its well verified and constitutes a significant element of his notability, and it doesn't seem to grant undue weight to that particular issue among the issues covered in the article as its written. Avruch T 20:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The other thing I would say, to Dreadstar's subpage again, is that I don't think we can really describe his notability as resulting from his victimization. He was a military combatant in a warzone, and though his treatment was deplorable and in violation of military conventions I'm not sure he is the sort of victim intended by the BLP policy. Avruch T 20:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Sure, try this:


"The anti-war film Hearts and Minds, which was critical of the United States' role in the Vietnam War, briefly featured Coker - who, at the time of filming, had recently returned from six and a half years of internment in a North Vietnamese camp for American prisoners of war. In one of the few scenes including individuals not critical of the war, the film details a homecoming parade in Coker's honor in his hometown of Linden, New Jersey, where he tells the assembled crowd on the steps of city hall that if the need arose, that they must be ready to send him back to war.[4] Answering a student's question about the Vietnamese countryside at a school assembly, Coker responds that "If it wasn’t for the people, it was very pretty".[5]

Its starting to get a bit long, but is that better? Avruch T 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am more than willing to pursue compromise wording to address genuine concerns. The previous section describes his 6.5 years in captivity in rather thorough details, so I'm not sure that it's necessary to explain the circumstances. Anyone who has read the article to that point will be familiar with the justifications for his sentiments. To be clear, the full text of my personal transcription of the film reads: "Questioner (12-year-old girl) What did Vietnam look like? Coker: (Repeats question). Well if it wasn't for the people it was very pretty. Uh. The people over there are very backward and very primitive and they just make a mess out of everything." The trimmed down quote in my draft insertion was deliberate on my part. Alansohn (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Can you suggest a source that has the quote as we have both transcribed it that would be a reasonable alternative to the one I have suggested? Alansohn (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I think a quote, espcially one of this nature, should be accurate, so I'll look for a RS that has the quote accurately. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm happy with the direction Avruch's proposals are taking, and I definitely think the “just released” part should stay in, it is critical history directly connected to the quotes, and just having it in the section above is insufficient. This is starting to look better. Not sure if the duplication of the quote in the last two sentences is just a "side-by-side" comparison, or if the newer quote was meant to replace it now. Dreadstar † 22:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the double quote. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection whatsoever to substituting a citation from The New Yorker, which provides even more of the context of the timing and details of his statements as included in the film. A few quibbles: 1) "briefly featured" is both a bit of a weasel word if not an oxymoron (George Carlin, if he were alive would probably suggest it was not unlike "military intelligence"); I would substitute "included". 2) He was not in just "a North Vietnamese camp", he was in several of them. The film included several "individuals not critical of the war"; General William Westmoreland and Walt Rostow, among others, could hardly be considered "critical", and were included in several scenes. 3) There was no mention of the word "countryside" in the question or his response. Th exact question is available in the source and provides the proper context for the answer being quoted. 4) While I understand why the reference was titled "Accurate Quote", it is both unnecessary and questionably POV. There is absolutely no reason that these quibbles cannot be addressed. Alansohn (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Military decorations

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

  • More info on Coker: [2]
  • I'm not sure we need a ref for every medal. Most of the FAs on the military are on units or battles. The few on military people are on ones from long ago, mostly. There really isn't a comparable FA to the Coker article. The GAs on military people are closer to this article. The one most similar to the Coker article is Humbert Roque Versace, also a GA on a Vietnam POW and his medals don't have a ref, only the highest one, the Medal of Honor, has a ref. The Coker and Versace articles made GA without a ref for every medal, so I really think it's not necessary. Rather than putting the NYT ref on every medal, how about making it more like the Versace article (I think the ribbon graphics are a nice touch):

Among Coker's military decorations are the following:[6]

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

  • The Valor magazine provides more color in Coker's Vietnam experience, even if he is mentioned there as a relatively minor part of the story. I added the ribbons, and agree that it is a nice touch. For now, I left the sources as decoration-specific, in the hope that a single source can be found to support all of the decorations. I do agree that many of them may not appear in news articles, but I would assume that the Distinguished Flying Cross should attract enough attention to have a source available. Alansohn (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Refs don't need to be on the web, but they do need to be in "published sources" which are verifiable by a reasonably diligent editor who has access to a good-sized library. If a medal hasn't been written about in any accessible source, there's probably no real reason we need to include it in the Wikipedia article. He has plenty of other medals which are verifiable via published sources. --Elonka 21:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Not totally true. It is standard practice in military articles to list all medals, with the understanding ones the lower on the rung won't be listed in most refs. See other articles in this genre. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree that there is a standard that allows unreferenced material, but even were that true, we still need an independent reliable and verifiable source for Coker's Distinguished Flying Cross. Alansohn (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Check the similar articles. It's standard practice. And they usually only have a ref for the highest one. 23:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
If it's standard practice, that practice violates fundamental Wikipedia policy. In a Good Article, we should be even more demanding of reliable and verifiable sources, regardless of the standard set by other articles. I cannot imagine that receipt of the Distinguished Flying Cross could not and should not be backed up by a reliable and verifiable source. Alansohn (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I was stating reality, I didn't say it was ideal. As for him having the DFC, it's not an invented piece of info. As for the lower medals, even you said you'd not expect to find them. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm unclear on why we need to leave out the medals, citations or awards that we don't have a source for. Is anyone honestly contesting that he received those awards? I mean, really? The criteria for when a source is needed is clear: Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source is neededDreadstar † 00:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no "need to leave out the medals, citations or awards". There is a need to provide areliable source for a rather distinguished award that appears in no source, despite a rather determined effort to find one. I have no reason to believe that the award is "invented", but the fact that a source cannot be found has me scratching my head. While I do agree that this is not a situation where a source must be provided a priori, you may want to consult Wikipedia:When to cite#Challenging another user's edits a little furter down in the same article. All that is required to address the issue is one reliable and verifiable independent source. Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I was responding to Elonka’s statement above that we should leave them out if we can’t find sources. I agree that there’s no need to leave them out, unless someone is challenging the unsourced medals, citations or awards – that was exactly my point. I suggest you re-consult the link you provide above, which fully supports my main point here: “Material that is actually challenged by another editor requires a source or it may be removed”. Since you have “no reason to believe that the award is “invented,” and are merely scratching your head, then I take it that you’re not challenging the unsourced awards. If there’s no challenge, then there is nothing further required until someone actually does challenge them. Although I'm sure we're all still questing for appropriate sources. Unfortunately, there seems to be no comprehensive list of medal winners, just individual groups that seem to include those who wish to be a part of each individual group. I'm sure there's something in Washington that lists everyone...but is it publically available? Dreadstar † 20:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Verification of 17 medals

I'll need several minutes to finish typing all this, but here's the story. I found two refs for Coker's DFC right before I took a nap and then ate dinner. Then after dinner I find that AS posted his "I hereby challenge the claim that Coker received the Distinguished Flying Cross" statement. That's why I didn't post it roughly 1-1.5 hours ago. The ref I mentioned yesterday mentioned his other top awards but not the DFC. The pages with the DFC are:

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

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

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

This is 16, the Vietnam Civil Actions Medal (first class) doesn't seem to have wiki graphics like the others do. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC) The grapics lab has found this for us. Hopefully they'll make a SVG version. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Seeing how you yourself added that same source to the article here, I'd expect you to have found it a valid source. Then you say you can't find a source for the DFC and when it's found on the same site, but different page, that you'd already added to the article, you question the source. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
If anything I add is magically anointed with complete, total and unimpeachable authority, I can't understand why content that I have added that is far more reliably sourced has been removed. The link from http://www.veterantributes.org/ was added solely to replace an even less reliable source that didn't exist anymore. As there is ample independent evidence to support the fact that Coker received the Navy Cross (Google News Archive provides 16 sources, including The New York Times), using a less-than-reliable source to provide the Navy Cross citation seemed vaguely responsible. As http://www.veterantributes.org/ appears to be the one and only source that is available to support the claim that Coker was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, without any other corroboration, my questions still stand: is http://www.veterantributes.org a reliable source? Where does he get his information from and why can't we get that same sourced information? Why are these medals, particularly the Distinguished Flying Cross, listed here and nowhere else? One reliable and verifiable source will end this dance once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You asked for a source, I found it, now you bring up a new argument. The source even has a picture of him wearing it. And on a ref you yourself found? The dance is over. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I asked for a reliable source and independent verification. The source is unreliable and the issues of its reliability and independent corroboration have not been addressed. The picture, which I assume is genuine, is the only legitimate aspect that might possibly meet WP:RS or WP:V. Alansohn (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Now that we have set a standard that one source, no matter how lacking in reliability or corroboration, justifies inclusion of material, it looks like we'll be making room promptly for some far more reliably sourced material. Finally, the dance is over. Alansohn (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The fact that the DFC was specifically omitted from the one alternative reliable source available in The New York Times made it a clear issue that an appropriate independent reliable and verifiable source must be provided to support the claim. Unfortunately, http://www.veterantributes.org does not meet any of the qualifications as a reliable source. The sole use of the site as the one and only source to support the claim regarding the Distinguished Flying Cross without any other corroboration is questionable in any article, and entirely unjustified by WP:RS in one that has passed WP:GA. Now that I know what a Distinguished Flying Cross looks like (thanks to the ribbon images added by Rlevse), and with the rather belated after-the-fact confirmation that the image included at http://www.veterantributes.org is indeed an official Navy photo, we finally have a source that can be deemed reliable to confirm Coker's receipt of the DFC and the other decorations listed in the article. All that was necessary to solve the sourcing issue was to provide one reliable and verifiable source. We finally have it. Alansohn (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad at least the DFC issue is settled. I suspect the issue of veterantributes.org being reliable will take a little longer. I feel the fact that they are know to have an accurate listing of his medals and an official photo of him helps at least a little bit. There are means to establish reliability of site. It is an organization site and appears to me to be reliable site. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Coker's documents are on commons here: and I've started transcibing them on wikisource here: . The DFC one is here. The transcription must be validated by two different people on Wikisource before it is considered ready for use, so it would be great if we can work together to complete this. If you have questions about Wikisource, I'll try to help but I am only new there, so asking at their village pump might be better if it is a complete question. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the document on Wikisource, and proofread it to correct two minor errors. Now that we finally have confirmation of the reliability of the source, there is no issue with the material added. Relevant, reliably and verifiably sourced biographical material belongs in the article, and the medal details supported by Veterantributes are no exception. The details provided in the DFC citation will make a wonderful addition to help round out the gaps in Coker's biography. Alansohn (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, could you open it in edit mode again and down near the summary bar you should see a green "validate" button. Pls check to show you validated it. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. The four-color radio buttons are utterly nonintuitive, but the document has been validated and the material has already been added to the article. Now his military service is more than a description of his captivity, and the other material in this document horde can add more to fill in the biographical gaps. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right, they're not intuitive, but I didn't design that ;-) I'll be working on the other doc transcriptions. Thank you for the help. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want to prioritize the transcription of the other documents and divvy up the work, I would be happy to transcribe some and proofread a few others. This way we could generate some more material to expand the article and do so as quickly and efficiently as possible. Let me know here or on my talk page. Anyone else up for some typing? Alansohn (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Just go to wikisource:User:Rlevse#Coker and pick something. I just did the letter from the service center (validate if you like) and will do the Navy Cross next. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

RE wikisource:Page:GeorgeTCoker.djvu/15, the Coker docs don't have an OCR text layer, so we are left with 'manually' transcribing them, unfortunately. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A better and more accurate version of the Civil Actions Citation is available here: . The Graphics Lab thread is here: Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#Vietnam_Civil_actions_ribbon. I've updated the chart on this talk page. Can someone update the article please. 23:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FN

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

  • I have been unable to find other, free reliable and verifiable sources to support Coker's military decorations, despite a rather diligent search. The one reliable and verifiable source I have found is to an article in The New York Times that requires a fee to access an image of the article. For those unable to access the full article, the quote lists which decorations Coker has received. As most readers will be unable to access the information to verify its accuarcy, the quote is anything but "redundant". You are free to eschew the use of sourced quotations in this or any other article or to provide an alternative reliable and verifiable source to support the decorations already cited. Alansohn (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rlevse. The reference itself supports the decorations; that is exactly what a reference is for; a reference does not require a quote from the source to further back it up. Actually according to WP:FN: “Footnotes serve two purposes. First, they are used to add material that explains a point in greater detail, particularly if the explanation would be distracting if written out in the main article. Second, they are used to cite the reliable sources that support an assertion in the main article. This is known as an "inline citation".

The footnote "quote" Alansohn added serves neither of those purposes. It does not add material that explains the awards in greater detail, and it is unnecessary to the citation of the reliable source that supports the article content.

As for the claim that WP:FN requires such a quote if the content is unavailable except by paying a fee, I’m sorry but I don't see anything in WP:FN, can you please point out the exact wording that requires a quote for fee sites?

And finally, according to Wikipedia:FN#Style_recommendations: "The decision on whether or not to use quotes in footnotes, is a decision of style and may vary from article to article. The general consensus is that quotes are acceptable if they are brief, relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, and of use or interest to the reader. Where there is disagreement on the use of quotes in footnotes on a particular article, consensus should be sought on the talk page."

I don't think we have consensus for the use of quotes in the footnotes, do we? Therefore, consenensus needs to be found before adding disputed quotes, if any are added at all.

I only see one quote in the references/notes section of any value, is 15 that says:

" That night uh, we decided to go so I sprang the lock uh, we uh, climbed up on the roof of our prison block and uh, jumped over to another roof., jumped over the wall. Ran down in the direction of uh, the Tanwa Bridge and then we tied ourselves together so we wouldn't get separated in the dark and then we jumped in the river and we proceeded to swim to California!" "

That's a fantastic quote that I think is worthy of being highlighted in the article's body instead of being relegated to the footnote section...and definitely a better quote than that "except for the people" thing, which has no true context. Swimming to California from a Vietnam POW camp....now there’s an iconic quote showing incredible bravery under horrifying conditions! Dreadstar † 00:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Where there is disagreement on the use of quotes in footnotes on a particular article, consensus should be sought on the talk page." I'm not sure that the removal of the quotes is anything but good old-fashioned edit warring, but what are the terms of the consensus required here? Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd prefer to chalk this up to WP:BRD, but if you want to characterize it as “old fashioned edit warring”, that’s up to you – just keep in mind WP:KETTLE when you do. At this point putting the clearly and validly disputed content would indeed be edit warring, so I’m very glad you’re willing to seek consensus.
In this particular case WP:FN is clear: Footnotes serve two purposes. First, they are used to add material that explains a point in greater detail, particularly if the explanation would be distracting if written out in the main article. Second, they are used to cite the reliable sources that support an assertion in the main article. This is known as an "inline citation".
I don't see how this obviously redundant "quote", which contains content that is already covered in the article fits the purpose of footnotes. All the quote says is "He has also been awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit and Navy Commendation Medal" That's already there, and it's in the info box, and the article has images to boot!
I don't see how we can find consensus to add something in a footnote that is already well covered in the article. The “fee-based” source is not the original source, which is the December 18, 1974 New York Times printed newspaper, archives of which can be freely accessed through any public library that connects to the New York Public Library system. I've changed the reference link to reflect the original source.
Now I do believe that we cannot stress enough the heroism and bravery of this man, but the use of footnoted quotes needs to be carefully done. So, let's take a step back. The overuse, and in a lot of cases, the misuse of footnoted quotes has caused enough disruption for it to have been brought to the attention of ArbCom, a case that you were a party to. They ruled footnoted quotes as a "content dispute", therefore footnoted quotes follow the content rules. One of which, is that disputed material added to an article needs consensus to remain in the article, unless removing it violates some Policy; which in this case, the removal clearly does not violate any policy. Adding too many redundant quotes to the footnotes is distracting and unnecessary. Footnoted quotes need to be carefully assessed for what they add to the article while not distracting from any part of the article - including the footnotes themselves. Dreadstar † 20:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


  • I support the quotes in the references, especially in such a contentious article. You shouldn't expect everyone to buy the article just to check to see which awards the NYT article supports and which ones it doesn't. If Wikipedia was print, it would just need to be checked once, but here, it needs to be checked continuously since the article changes continuously. Also the NYT supports some of the medals and honors, not all. To not show what it supports and not supports is deceptive, and looks like the NYT confirms all his citations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Actually, there's no need to buy the article because the original source of the article is the December 18, 1974 New York Times newspaper, archives of which are available for free through a public library that connects to the New York Public library system where New York Times articles are archived - that's the original source for the one currently online - it was printed in 1974, well before "online". One doesn't need to pay the fee, it's just the modern "easy, online way" to access the information. The citation has been accordingly adjusted to reflect the original source.
I don’t view this as a contentious article, only one singular quote has been the subject of contention. As I describe above the overuse and misuse of footnote quotes is a far larger problem and concern.
Additionally, and more importantly, I don’t see anyone here actually challenging the medal content, and I find it hard to imagine that anyone would, so the point is moot. If anyone does challenge it, I would expect them to have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate and not just be trying to make a point or be disruptive. Dreadstar † 20:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
When the talk page exceeds the article, that is a good objective measure that the article is contentious. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I certainly view this article as "contentious", and given the repeated concerns made about sources, this is exactly the kind of article that needs more thorough sourcing, including the use of cited references to support claims. As to the issue of the medal content, I hereby challenge the claim that Coker received the Distinguished Flying Cross. I have no idea who made the claim and I can't believe anyone would make it up, but the fact that a thorough good faith search has turned up absolutely nothing to support the claim raises an orange flag (presumably, one step below a red flag). Perhaps it was added in error. Perhaps someone copied a medal list and inadvertently included the DFC. I have no idea how it got here, but I do know that I cannot find a reference to back it up. All we need is one reliable and verifiable source to address the issue. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Challenge met, see Talk:George_Thomas_Coker#Verification_of_17_medals. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The challenge isn't frivolous, its just not supported by any reliable source. It is possible he received it after the New York Times article, but a biography shouldn't use unsupported material, or guesses, or original research. Wikipedia BLP demands that it be removed until supported. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The nice thing about having the actual quote from the NYT is that you don't have you pay, or have to live in a town that subscribes at the library. You just type the quote into Google and this appears like magic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but virtually every town library either has the NYT archives onsite or can perform an inter-library loan. It's better to link to the original source, and I don't see the purpose in linking to something one has to pay for - and that's the first thing a reader will see, but then for those who don't want to pay, add a "quote" so they can paste it into a search engine in hopes of seeing what the fee-source says. It's one step removed from proper sourcing to expect someone to then look in the footnotes and paste the quote into a search engine to hopefully see the details. If that were the case, then why shouldn’t we just link directly to the search engine results for the quote - something we're not supposed to do: Links normally to be avoided; "Links to the results pages of search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds.”
In your scenario, we are depending on the reader putting the quote itself into Google to find the wording in the fee article. But the first thing a reader will do is click on the link we've provided, and see the pay site without the quote being readily apparent, I doubt they'll go that extra, removed step of copying and pasting the quote into a search engine once they've clicked the actual reference link and find no wording to back up the content and see that it's a pay site. I don't think that's the correct approach. Dreadstar † 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Guessing what tools are available or not available to individuals serves no purpose, we have to provide the most complete information possible. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement on Wikipedia that sources must be free or easily accessible. The fact that articles can only be viewed for a free or through a library archive does not mean it should not be used as a source. The point is that it could be checked if someone wished to. Far more obscure sources are used on Wikipedia that would require much higher costs - including translation - for many to review. The quality of Wikipedia would be seriously compromised if we insisted that sources had to be freely and easily available online. WJBscribe (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Use of the fee site and/or a link for the original newspaper article, archived in public libraries, are both completely acceptable. My objection is to the quote added to the footnote, which is redundant to the material already in the article, and seems to be contrary to the purpose of footnotes. Dreadstar † 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
With everything else that there is to disagree about on this article, might it be possible to set aside the disagreement about the footnoted quotes, until other more serious issues are worked out? From an outsider's perspective, it seems a bit bizarre to be spending time disagreeing about what is effectively a simple layout or stylistic issue, when there is so much else to deal with. --Elonka 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It may actually be easier to settle the smaller tasks first. WJBscribe is absolutely correct in what he said. The info in the quote in question is already in the article and repeating it in the footnote adds nothing. On the other hand I agree the quotes in the other foonotes (3 of them I believe) should stay. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Now there's something I agree with. I have no problem with the three refs in the article now, but I do think the one we're discussing is redundant. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

RAN-I understand why you tested location of the portal links but in WP:GTL it does say "See also" is the most appropriate place to link a Portal with portal. Right now they're in external links but they're not external links. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Avruch's 2nd proposal

"The anti-war film Hearts and Minds, which was critical of the United States' role in the Vietnam War, featured Coker briefly. Coker, at the time of filming, had recently returned from six and a half years of internment in North Vietnamese camps for American prisoners of war - where he had endured torture and other mistreatment by his captors. In one of the few scenes including individuals not critical of the war, the film details a homecoming parade in his honor in his hometown of Linden, New Jersey, where he tells the assembled crowd on the steps of city hall that if the need arose, that they must be ready to send him back to war.[9] Answering a student's question about what Vietnam looked like, he responded: "If it wasn't for the people, it was very pretty."[10]

The quote was widely cited in reviews of and discussions about the film.

Moving to own subsection since this is gaining ground. Changed ref name. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the reference to "countryside" appeared in a different source - using the New Yorker as the source, the bit should read "Answering a student's question about what Vietnam looked like, Coker responded that "If it wasn't for the people, it was very pretty." Also, it could just as easily read ""had recently returned from six and a half years of internment in North Vietnamese camps for American prisoners of war." I don't see a problem with "briefly featured." The only other thing I'd suggest as an addition to the paragraph, on reflecting, is some note of its wider importance - that is, perhaps at the end something such as "The quote was widely cited in reviews of and discussions about the film." The main point here is that a compromise on how to include this information can and should be worked out, with attention to the concerns of the subject and the article's editors. Avruch T 19:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

fixes per Avruch. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The proposal here is so close to my January 11 proposal (this diff) -- some added context, a few changes in emphasis, and a switch in sources -- but the overall tenor retains the keep points I had tried to add six-and-a-half months ago. Any quibbles I could possibly have with the latest wording would only delay what I have been trying to accomplish for so long. I would only suggest that the first sentence is extremely awkward in its wording,a nd could be recast for clarity. Other than that, I am not going to stand in the way of genuine progress in resolving this matter. Alansohn (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Avruch's proposal is very different in tenor and tone than your orginal proposal, it supplies much-needed context and emphasis that was missing in your previous proposals. I've added a comment about the torture he endured while in the POW camp, as this context and emphasis is key to understanding some of the comments he made. The grammar may need some tweaking, but that point of fact needs to be directly included in this quote section. Dreadstar † 18:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Tweaked, slightly, for readability. I don't want to offer so much context that it blots out the point of the bit, but I think as long as we can agree on the current version we haven't strayed that far yet. Avruch T 19:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The context was always there in the article, and is still there. No rational person reading the article could possibly fail to reach the conclusion that there might be a causal connection between his captivity and his feelings towards his captors. Adding it as a lead in within a paragraph discussing his appearance in the film is probably unnecessary to allow a reader to understand the circumstances behind the comments, but if it leads to a resolution I will not allow the repetition to stand in the way of progress. For over six months I had asked repeatedly for suggested alterations to my proposed text and the changes made are rather minor overall. Thanks to User:Avruch for helping make the suggested tweaks to get this sourced material in the article where it belongs. Alansohn (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Coker transcriptions are done on wikisource. Any help validating would be appreciated. See wikisource:Index:GeorgeTCoker.djvu — Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's good work on wikisource R. It appears Avruch, Dreadstar, and Alansohn support this Avruch 2 proposal. I can too, but let's see what others think. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Since there appears to be consensus on Avruch's version, I've gone ahead and implemented it. Thanks Avruch! Dreadstar † 15:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad this has worked out. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. But there's a minor aftershock at H&M. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Circumstances and timeline of Hearts and Minds

I have had some longstanding questions about Coker's appearance in Hearts and Minds that might help provide appropriate background on his inclusion in the film. 1) When were the various scenes filmed, particularly the scenes at Linden City Hall and at the Catholic school? 2) What were the circumstances of his appearance in the film? Was he selected in advance by the filmmaker? Was this approved by the Navy? 3) Who filmed the scene at the school? Is there any independent documentation of his appearance there? What school was it and how old were the children? 4) What were the circumstances of his appearance at the school? Was he there on his own or was his appearance arranged by the Navy? If there was a formal "visiting tour", where else did he visit? 5) Was there any formal process to assist former POWs after their return from captivity? What was Coker's experience in the months after his return? Alansohn (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am only certain of 1 and 5. 1-The Linden scene was right after his release, within a few months most likely. It is apparently when he first got home. The POWs were first flown to Clark AFB, Philippines to get immediate medical care and meet their families. Then Coker was sent to St. Albans Naval Hospital in Queens, near his home, for more medical care and debriefings. This is most likely when the Linden scene was shot. This was probably April or May 1973 as he is in blues. In most of the other scenes he is in whites, a summer uniform. The film was done by late 1974 so they all had to be shot btwn spring 73 and late 74. 5-Yes, the POWs were treated like Gods by the military upon return--top notch medical care, families flown to Clark to meet them, special White House dinner--where Coker was one of 3 POWs to give Nixon a special award, extra leave, etc and so on. For the rest, I'd have to research more. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm most curious about the circumstances of his school visit. I keep on getting the impression that he had been sent out on some equivalent of a tour to share his experiences. Did Davis know about this in advance and come along to film, or was the film obtained from another source? Alansohn (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
My GUESS is it was some sort of tour sponsored by the Navy. I was in high school when the POWs were released and another POW, CDR James Bell, came to our school to give a talk to all the students in the auditorium. How Davis got the film, I have no idea. As to both issues, I've seen nothing on it. The only way we can feasibly find out is if I ask Coker. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A Request for Comment has been launched on my administrative conduct, as regards my judgment in imposing editing conditions and managing articles in a state of dispute. Since I was recently involved in managing a dispute at this article, I invite anyone who wishes to offer an opinion, to do so: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. --Elonka 18:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

s:Meritorious Service Medal - G. T. Coker

Coker received a Meritorious Service Medal in 1986 for "For outstanding meritorious service from September 1985 through September 1986 as Director of the Atlantic Fleet Command Center." This last position in the forces isnt mentioned in the biography. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good catch...I've added detail on it here. Dreadstar † 03:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to have this confirmed/expand using another source. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The Veteran's Tribute site has it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added a ref for the Veteran's Tribute site. Dreadstar † 13:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Version 0.7

The article is a good one, but the subject is not quite important enough to be in the top 1% of Wikipedia. Walkerma (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

High school attended

In a reference added today (see here), Coker describes how "He could picture the banner that hung in his Catholic high school in New Jersey. 'Benedict's hates a quitter.'". As he grew up in Linden, New Jersey, he could well have attended Saint Benedict's Preparatory School located not too far away in Newark, New Jersey. In an annual publication from the school, "George T. Coker" is listed as a contributor and a 1961 graduate, which would be consistent with his birth in 1943. Does anyone know if this assumption is correct and if there is a more definitive source to establish his attendance? Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes he did go to that school-I called and asked him. That PDF file should suffice--just how many George T. Coker's were at that school in 1961 that were 18? FYI, I read today's article too and it has one journalistic error, it said it was his 30th mission, but it was really the 55th, like the other sources say. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I had always assumed he attended the local public schools and was surprised to be unable to find it listed. One mystery solved. Alansohn (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Anderegg, Michael A. "Inventing Vietnam: The War in Film and Television", via Google Books, Temple University Press. Accessed January 10, 2008.
  2. ^ 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.'"
  3. ^ "Terror and trauma". The Guardian. November 18, 2005. Retrieved 2008-01-27. As well as traumatised veterans, he finds draft-card burners, hundreds on peace marches and a returned navy veteran who, when asked by a child what Vietnam looks like, replies: "If it wasn't for the people, it [would be] very pretty." {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ Anderegg, Michael A. "Inventing Vietnam: The War in Film and Television", via Google Books, Temple University Press. Accessed January 10, 2008.
  5. ^ Lane, Anthony (2004-11-01). "Aftermaths: Enduring Love, Hearts and Minds". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2008-07-29.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYT19741208 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "George T. Coker". Veteran Tributes. Retrieved 2008-07-17.
  8. ^ "Mac's Facts No. 74 NAM-POW Medals". Veteran Tributes. 2008-04-26. Retrieved 2008-07-17.
  9. ^ Anderegg, Michael A. "Inventing Vietnam: The War in Film and Television", via Google Books, Temple University Press. Accessed January 10, 2008.
  10. ^ Lane, Anthony (2004-11-01). "Aftermaths: Enduring Love, Hearts and Minds". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2008-07-29.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Thomas_Coker/Archive_3&oldid=767664445"