Talk:Cork Graham/Archive 1

Americans in combat in Central America

Can anyone call up the number of Americans who participated in the Central American War? Reagan said no one was in direct danger, but from other sources I've read many American and Latin America military and paramilitary forces were involved, such as the UCLA (Unilaterally Controlled Latin Americans).

Fastest Foreign Language Learning Aids

A previous post on language learning has me starting a a new line dedicated to help foreign language enthusiasts. My aids have been downloads for free. I'm learning Mandarin. Here's a good blog that might be helpful to you. http://bloggerwhale.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-to-learn-foreign-languages-for-free.html Please fellow foreign language learners post your aids and techniques you've found of great assist! Langfan (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese is my first language, my second native language is English. I have noticed a coming from two language backgrounds in youth contributes to learning language easily. For my friends who ask me to teach them Chinese, I see that it is the difference in tongue and jaw position between languages that most frustrates. Tantan2009 (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

El Salvador

I come originally from Usulutan. In wiki, why is there so much info on Vietnam on American involvement but no so much on American involvement in El Salvador? There is so much history going back to the 19th century. This is one of the few pages even mentioning. There must be more pages created on a very ugly history in Central America. Does anyone have more information to create more pages? Guanaco77 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Anyone got copyright free photos of the bio subject? Twilliams2 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

--- Try the Associated Press in New York, or the San Francisco Chronicle. They often release photos for a nominal fee. The front page of the Chronicle is an AP photo. Hope this helps. Freewheeling1 (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

--- On the subject of photographs, have you seen the guys work? http://www.corkincombat.com/gallery2/v/corkincombat/rubio_saline.jpg.html that's just phuuuuckked uppp! Costasmosste (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

wait, this is even more graphic. talk about stumpy duuuude! http://www.corkincombat.com/gallery2/v/corkincombat/rubio_lower_torso.jpg.html Costasmosste (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So Bizarre

The book is good. A bit much of the introspection, but that's likely because I prefer Ludlum's books. Ordered the autobiography on Amazon after hearing him speak on KFOG in 2005/2006(?). He's hilarious! KFOG is the BEST morning show in the world! Oraclewiz22 (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is such a bizarre story. I remember when it happened. He was just a kid! I was just entering high school in 1984, and he couldn't have been much older than me. —Preceding comment added byGuaylo5 (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You are the only westerner in history to become fluent in Korean in a year. You forgot to mention your hypnosis work!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samatucci (talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Actually, Samatucci, I believe he was there for less than a year. Good work on his reference checks! Odaesu (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC) I must emfaticly agree! I read his book, what bunch drivel--I can not believe so many reader make Topseller Amazon.com or they give so many gold star, ridiculous! What Vietnamese government gain by lying to his parents and the US government about them imprisoning him? And who actually attain fluency in any language in just one year???? That impossible. Good job Samatucci for bringing views on charlatanisme to light! I sure it well help other see truth! Travelgal1978(talk) 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the childishness!

Is there anyone who can take discussions to level more mature? So much information on Vietnam, treasure hunting, the interesting components of one of the hardest or easiest languages to learn depending on who you talk to, political imprisonment, and these boneheads are using Wikipedia as a sounding board for their own pettiness. Enough! Who's presiding over these discussion boards anyway? What wankers!

This is what happens when there's no control of the information published. You can only check the references links to verify authenticity.Guaylo5 (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Knight?

Has anyone read the book by the other treasure hunter, Richard Knight? He had a book too. Treasure! Will someone create a page?KiddFanatic (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

While this article is well made and appears to adhere to the guidelines for a proper article, it is full of fabrications, exaggerations, and plainly was written in bombastic fashion by Cork Graham himself.

The citations are also non-sensical, referencing the authors own work to reinforce his ridiculous claims and citing the various irrelevant details to add a false sense of respectability and relevance. When the work's of Cork Graham aren't being cited to lend credibility to the deeds of Cork Graham, the author uses completely nonsensical and false references to works outside the spectrum. For reference, please see citation [16] pertaining to the ransom requested for Graham. Astonishingly enough, LatinoReview.com's review of the movie "National Treasure" contains absolutely no reference to these amounts, nor does it constitute an objective source!

The entire article takes great pains to avoid the most glaring issues like "Why should anyone care about this person at all?". How is he relevant to world history? I feel that I have an obligation to future generations that they might stumble across this man's article at some point in the future and be deceived into believing that he somehow played any larger a role in world history than your average Joe

As stated in the deletion guidelines: Notability requires objective evidence

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage."

The claim that the author's book was an "international bestseller" take great liberties with that concept. His claims to be a polyglot are also subject to question. Neither of these qualifications are notable enough to justify an entire WIkipedia article. the largest problem is that his single claim to notability is his imprisonment in Vietnam for what was essentially self-employed espionage, or to put it another way, trespassing. How is this in any way important? Expatriates are imprisoned for more significant and interesting reasons than this man was.

When all of this is taken into account, this article certainly deserves immediate deletion as it undermines the integrity of WIkipedia as a source or relevant accurate information and relegates it to the status of "Shameless Myspace Clone". The fact that this article is allowed to exist at all is a blemish on the entire Wikimedia Foundation and surely represents another round of ammunition in the belts of all those who (rightfully?) claim that Wikipedia is not worth being taken seriously.

I further recommend that the original author and person responsible for the lionsshare of reversions and revisions be blocked from making significant changes to this article or from restoring it in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.217.44 (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Great arguments for editing with a lot of blue pencil, not so great for deletion. "Bamboo Chest" is 167K on Amazon list. Once the puff is excised, then see if he fails notability. Collect (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Number of Amazon 4 and 5 star reviews pertaining to the time noted as bestseller ranking, year 2004, very likely, though "Bamboo Chest" is now @ 227K on Amazon. Also from review of deletion requester's record IP 76.232.217.44 of slander in articles going back to March 2008, evident this is another ploy by User:76.232.217.44 to slander articles subject. Evidently one of the English teachers in Korea mentioned in article discussion section bored with their lot and still unable to do more than spend evenings on Wikipedia writing diatribes and misleading readers. Evidently this subject and events warranted global attention based on front page article by San Francisco Chronicle. 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.158.140 (talk)
• Delete Everyone that winds up on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle does not deserve a Wikipedia page, San Francisco is not the world. A good attempt at removal of fluff, but still seems like it doesn't merit an article. Funny that above user would use the discussion page on Wikipedia to mock another's use of Wikipedia with no sense of irony.--Fetalpig (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• DELETE This is why there are professionals who do this and get paid to do the research instead of play armchair journalists. REMOVE THE ARTICLE. Evident it's just a synopsis of the author's book and has no real reasearch or interviews to back up the information. What a waste reading and writing time to debate. Any wonder Wikipedia is laughed at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.103.223 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement

Per the AfD discussion, I think it would be a good idea to rewrite this article. However, I don't have access to the full text of some of the sources. If someone who has access to the Washington Post archives could help out, that would be great. Thanks, N Shar (talk · contribs) 23:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• We need a good samaritan in Wash DC, NY, London, Bangkok, Singapore, LA and SF to go to the local public library and visit the microfiche section for the articles pertaining to this article for referencing. All public libraries in large metropolitan areas have this for their periodicals. This article truly needs editing and rewriting to fit Wikipedia.org form. Any takers? 75.61.101.246 (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• If I get a chance, I will see what I can do about the American sources. I don't have access to the major metropolitan public libraries, but I do have access to a university library, which might have some of the sources. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 23:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Wonderful, Shar! Perhaps someone can go through the past edits of the last 2-3 weeks, too, to correct and republish the other sections that have been deleted in a haphazard seemingly vandalistic manner? There are three large sections, like early life (the david graham descendency family tree is interesting for american/south carolina migrations from northern ireland in the 1700s) and post-vietnam prison life, that were in prior publishings, now gone, that have information many might find interesting if verified, edited and included in the new article. 76.240.228.244 (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• For now, let's leave those things out until we find sources for them (and determine that they are relevant to the article). There's no deadline, so rather than rush (which might cause another AfD to be filed), let's stick to including just the verifiable info in the article. We can always retrieve other items from the page history as we need them. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 19:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Obvious Problems

I understand the efforts of NShar and others to protect this article for lack of further knowledge into the author's character and the subject matter, but it is plain from checking just about any of the "contributions" to this talk page that almost all of the "users" posting positive comments and adding to the article are the same person. Most of the named users have one and only one edit to their credit and were clearly created to disguise the fact that some person wishes to pollute Wikipedia with nonsense. For the User with the unverifiable ip above who commented that there is some useful biographical information tracing the Irish migration of offspring of David Graham through Northern Ireland etc. I ask you, how could that possibly be worth a WIkipedia article? This is not the place for genealogical trees. There are plenty of other websites which chronicle the ancestry of unremarkable folks.

In order to clear up an ambiguity. I have met Cork Graham (which is why I came to this article in the first place). I created a Wikipedia account for the purposes of editing this page (and others when I feel the desire) because I feel that users should contribute to what they know. I know that A) The existence of this article makes a mockery out of what Wikipedia stands for and B) When I first came to this article it was riddled with the same obvious fluff and myriad fabrications that typified any interaction with Mr. Graham. I don't have personal dislike for the author nor are these meant to be personal attacks. However, I feel this article is making a shoddy mountain out of an average molehill. The deletions of large chunks of this article were no more vandalism than your average sandblasting of spray paint off the side of a housing project. The article should be deleted until such time as it can serve as more than a vehicle to sell Mr. Graham's products.Fetalpig (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)