Misplaced Pages

Talk:George Thomas Coker: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:26, 23 December 2007 editERcheck (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,349 edits →Hearts and Minds: BLP concerns, please continue the discussion, rather than make a unilateral decision to add← Previous edit Revision as of 06:10, 23 December 2007 edit undoAlansohn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers504,989 edits WP:BLP has to be one of the most abused excuses for removal of material, and this jihad here is no exceptionNext edit →
Line 62: Line 62:
***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 when it was an external link. ] (]) 14:56, 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 when it was an external link. ] (]) 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. — ] (]) 05:26, 23 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. — ] (]) 05:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
:*] 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. ] (]) 06:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


==Evaluation of content as it relates to BLP policy== ==Evaluation of content as it relates to BLP policy==

Revision as of 06:10, 23 December 2007

Skip to table of contents
Good articleGeorge Thomas Coker has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 23, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 10, 2025.
Current status: Good article
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Military
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconScouting High‑importance
WikiProject iconGeorge Thomas Coker is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Misplaced Pages. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article was the project's Portal biography of the month (July 2007).
WikiProject iconMilitary history: North America / United States
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
WikiProject iconUnited States: Texas
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAviation
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

Template:Maintained

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 Misplaced Pages: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, EyeSerene 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

  1. See footnote
  2. See footnote
Categories:
Talk:George Thomas Coker: Difference between revisions Add topic