Talk:Hearts and Minds (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. 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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Article upgrading needed: You can help! WP:IA   Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions for Films Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development. To contribute in upgrading this stub article to Start class, the following requirements must be met: Significant intro (list the title, alternate titles, year released, director, actors starring in the film, summary of headings, etc.) Film infobox ({{infobox film}}) Picture: Consult WikiProject Free Images for freely released images from a film shoot, opening, or other relevant free image. Non-free and unlicensed images are to be avoided if at all possible, but if used should include a detailed fair use rationale. (An image is not required for start class if unavailable.) Plot summary Include cast and crew information. At least two other developed sections of information (production, reception (including box office figures), awards and honors, themes, differences from novel or TV show, soundtrack, sequels, DVD release, etc.) Categories (by year, country, language, and genre(s))  Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF, WP:WAF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to Start class and this template will be removed automatically.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): War films task force Related task forces (nations and regions): Southeast Asian cinema task force

	This 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (general topics): War films task force

	Vietnam Portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Fair use rationale for Image:HeartsandMindsDVD.jpg 2 Coker entry

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:HeartsandMindsDVD.jpg

Image:HeartsandMindsDVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coker entry

I reverted this edit in light of the ongoing dispute on the Coker talk page. Please resolve before putting it back into this article. Dreadstar † 03:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the nature of the dispute that would justify removal of a description of a major character and his role in the film from an article about the film? Why shouldn't dispute resolution be used to justify removal of the material here, where its presence seems inarguable? Alansohn (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That exact same content has been under heated dispute on the Coker talk page. Inserting that exact same text into this article, text which is currently under dispute on a protected, related article appears to be evading that block, so you’re lucky you weren’t blocked. This is a blatant violation of WP:POINT. The Coker segment is only ten minutes long and is not the main point of H&M, yet the content you inserted was one-third of the entire H&M article, so this is also a violation of WP:UNDUE. It seems that if you were truly interested in improving the H&M article, you’d have written a full, balanced and neutral review of it, not merely insert just the Coker material. For instance, Westmoreland’s quote in the film far more important that Coker’s, yet you totally ignored that, as with every other aspect of the film.

There are also BLP issues that have been under discussion, and neither side needs to repeat that here.

Therefore, I need to ask: why is it that you’re only interested in Coker and this one small part of Coker’s life? What exactly is your goal in all this? The mere fact that something happened does not mean it needs to be in his article; for example, not everything that FDR did is in his article.

I’m not engaging in the content dispute, I’m protecting the articles from edit warring and applying policy and guideline to the dispute and the articles. Please discuss this on the Coker talk page with the other editors, and do not spread the same dispute to other articles. Once that discussion has found consensus, then the H&M article contents vis-à-vis Coker can be worked out. Dreadstar † 18:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please try for a second to view this disaster from my perspective, and try to read this and review my actions from what I have faced in trying to edit this article and the George Thomas Coker article in good faith.

The material regarding Coker was added to this article on January 17 (see diff), two days before your original protection on the George Thomas Coker was to have ended and two days before you extended the protection for another two weeks (see diff), never having made any statement about a possible extension. The material was added here because it belongs here. It's about the one individual who appears the most in the film, by my educated calculation. The claim that your protection of the Coker article meant that the material could not be added anywhere else in Wikipedia under any circumstances is extremely hard for me to swallow, especially as those terms were never specified. As the text was added when it appeared that your block was going to expire and was added to this article where even you acknowledge it is relevant (as you'd be fine if every other person included in the film was mentioned here), the claim of "evading the block" is simply unjustifiable. The claim that my edit here was a means to evade your block and done in violation of WP:POINT is a baseless personal attack.

In an article about a film, adding text about the primary individual chosen by the filmmakers to represent the pro-Vietnam War side of the argument, and who appears in about 10% of the film, would seem to me to be the one place where there would be no argument whatsoever for its inclusion. If I had been doing other research about Westmoreland or Walt Rostow -- and I haven't -- I would have been glad to add material about them here. As I have nothing about anyone else I cannot add it, and the demand that I must write a feature article about the film in order to be eligible to include details I had already researched about a major character in the film is ludicrous on its face. In an article that needs to be expanded, WP:Undue can be easily abused to remove anything (not that I am claiming that this is why you did that here). As teh article stands, why is there so little about the film, and so much about what transpired at the Oscar ceremonies? I have no idea, but arguing that it should be removed because there's not enough balancing material about the film would make a mockery of the policy, yet it could be read as the logical extension of your argument. To take it a step further, the entire article places undue weight on the material it includes, and the entire article should be deleted. Use of WP:Undue is extremely shaky grounds to remove sourced material directly relevant to the film.

Your further charge that I am not "truly interested in improving the H&M article" is baseless and comes across to me as a personal attack. The only "point" I have here is to ensure that neutral, properly-sourced information that belong in Wikipedia is placed somewhere. If there truly is a WP:BLP issue, no one has articulated why the latest version of the text I have proposed violates this policy in any way, shape or form, either here or in the Coker article. The text I have suggested is relevant, notable and thoroughly-sourced. I would be happy to respond to any requests for further changes based on Wikipedia policy, but none have been offered. No other participant in this discussion has shown any effort at finding a mutually-agreeable compromise, but my efforts at finding acceptable wording are repeatedly treated as "bad faith", a pattern perpetuated in your response here to my edit, as it appears to me.

I resent your bad faith implication that my efforts to add sourced material about Coker in any way demonstrates that I have some sort of agenda to defame Lt. Coker ("Therefore, I need to ask: why is it that you’re only interested in Coker and this one small part of Coker’s life? What exactly is your goal in all this?"). As I have repeatedly stated, my initial interest in the article was to specify the county on New Jersey he lived in. It would take trivial effort on your part to see that in the hour before I edited the Coker article, I made similar edits to Mary Jo Codey, Lauren Cohan and Lizabeth Cohen. Coker was next in alphabetical order and I revised a category in his article (see diff). I did research to confirm his place of residence, and once I had a reliable source my next edit added details regarding Coker to the Linden, New Jersey article (see diff). My subsequent edits included articles about Vera Coking and Corinne Alsop Cole, the next two individuals in alpha order in Category:People from New Jersey. I only found out about the film when User:Rlevse reverted an edit where another editor had added a link to the film over a week after my first edit, claiming that it was removed at the subject's request (see diff). If you are actually going to impugn my motives for editing this article, you're going to have to do a heck of a job explaining this edit history. My good faith efforts to add the source required to support Coker's role in the film per WP:BLP and to satisfy what I thought was User:Rlevse's request that a source be provided, has gotten me into a spiral where any action I take is treated as malicious in a spectacular display of bad faith.

Half the Coker article is about exhaustive details of his scouting career, a fantastic example of undue weight, such as the unsupported (and unsupportable) statement that "When Coker returned to Linden after being released from captivity, the Scouts were his biggest supporter." Yet, there is absolutely no detail about the period following his release other than the fact that he went to college. There are absolutely no details of what Coker's attitude and opinions were regarding his captivity or his captors. Nothing. A glaring omission, when it is clear that there are multiple sources that address his role in Hearts and Minds, in which he speaks at length about his military service in Vietnam and answers questions about his opinions regarding the North Vietnamese. It is inarguable that these details are relevant and notable. There is excruciating details about scouting, and a mention of a film in which his last name is presumably the one mentioned, but there are no details regarding his captivity. Why? Therefore, I need to ask: why you are so determined to see that this information is NOT included in the article? Why does it appear to me that you are taking sides in this process?

There is no edit warring going on in this article on my part, nor will there be. Your removal of my edit -- when no other editor has raised any issue about it -- only appears to me to be interfering with a good faith effort to find an appropriate place to add this material. If you're going to attack me, go through the facts, review my edit history of these and other related articles and determine if any of your claims have any validity. As they don't, I expect an apology for your multiple personal attacks here and the bad faith you have displayed in making your attacks here. Restoring this article to the way it stood before your removal would be a small step in the right direction of showing the good faith that has been sorely lacking here.

If you still truly believe that your actions here and at the Coker article are enforcing a policy, you will have to explain the specific terms that you believe are being violated, provide a rather clear justification for why this material cannot be included here, and specify in clear detail what will be necessary to satisfy these issues. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is so wrong! I was bold and added it back. There seems to be a COI here, which has spread from the Coker article. Wikipedia policy holds up to this, not COI and those who want to censor. This is not a BLP issue, the documentary is there for anyone to view. The entry is well sourced to reliable sources. This info was in this article before the Coker article was protected. It should not follow over to other articles. Wow, just wow. ←Gee♥Alice 05:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've expressed my concerns above about WP:UNDUE and the ongoing dispute about the same content on hthe Coker talk page.

Also, since there have been WP:BLP concerns raised, I suggest resolving it there before bringing the same content here. WP:CON also needs to be found - I suggest you focus on those issues. Dreadstar † 05:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Complaints of WP:UNDUE have already been conclusively rebutted above. No WP:BLP issues have been raised at this article; If you have specific complaints that you feel violate this policy for the text added here, you need to address them here with complete details of the alleged policy violation. As consensus here is clear that the content related to Lt. Coker belongs here, I suggest that you pursue appropriate dispute resolution measures to seek its removal. Alansohn (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've self-reverted my reversion of the material to allow for other editors to comment. I believe it is undue weight because now a full one-third of the article is about Coker..but the movie does not appear to be about him, he's just a short clip in the film. As for the rest of it, I suggest you disccuss it with the other editors on the Coker talk page. As for consensus, I don't see any consensus here or on the Coker talk page. Dreadstar † 05:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your self-revert of your earlier removal of sourced content related to Lt. Coker is a clear and positive step in the right direction. I have already added material regarding William Westmoreland's role in the film. While I so not see any relevance of the policy to this article, I will be more than happy to consider and make other additions that you may deem appropriate to address your concerns of WP:UNDUE. I will attempt to address any constructive suggestions made here at the article's talk page. Alansohn (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm glad you added Westmoreland. That should help balance it out, and not just pick on Coker. I was looking for others to balance it out, but got side-tracked. Oh, and thanks Dreadstar, it doesn't take away from Coker at all, IMO, it shows he is human. Especially what he went through. The Vietnam War was not easy for a lot of people. It was the worst, as far as support all the way around, and the troops experienced a lot of harassment. This after seeing and experiencing some horrible stuff. Hopefully readers are smart enough to realise that. I think most are. :) ←Gee♥Alice 08:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)