Talk:American Sniper/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Why was the Paul Edwards reference removed?

The following reference was removed from the Controversy section. I thought that it seemed relevant.

Cinematographer Paul Edwards wrote in CounterPunch that the film is dangerous due to mutilating the classic hero's journey into a simplistic, brutal, and sadistic destruction of “evildoers”.[1]

So many people are voicing so many opinions over a great many things in and about this movie that it's tough to figure out which to include or not. Please sign your posts. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The following report was cut out from the article

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said that the release of the movie coincided with a tripled amount of threats against Arabs and Muslims.[2]

DHeyward, and then MONGO repeatedly removed the above text. How is this not relevant, when the organisation has received a tripled amount of reports of threats against Muslims? This seems extremely significant. David A (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

David, the ADC isn't credible. They blame everything on the movie. Last week was the 2015 Chapel Hill shooting. ADC blamed American Sniper. Nobody covered it because it was a ridiculously stupid blame.[3]. They aren't less notable when actual violence happens. They are fringe and deservedly so. There is nothing scientific about their press releases and it really goes to show how uncontroversial this movie is when the ADC is used instead of more mainstream groups. Please state how ADC is a notable enough group that their statistical analysis is useful. Keep in mind that just before the movie release there were the Charlie Hebdo attacks and ISIL beheadings. WP shouldn't be their vehicle to notability simply because they said something you wanted to hear. --DHeyward (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it isn't because it is something I "wanted" to hear. Understand that I am even more worried about Islamic genocidal racism towards Jews, than western racism towards Muslims. But I will give you that the ISIL/ISIS/IS/Daesh beheadings and the Charlie Hebdo attacks likely had a big effect, as well as that, according to their page here, ADC has received criticism for genocidal sentiments towards Jews. David A (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily you, but when a source has to go to ADC for comment about "controversy", it's a red flag. The 2015 Chapel Hill shooting was widely covered with lots of comments. CAIR is usually the first U.S. Islamic body consulted for "mainstream" U.S. muslim population opinions by the press. ADC was not covered at all by mainstream press in the Chapel Hill incident. HuffPo's reachout to ADC speaks more about what they were trying to portray than any controversy regarding the movie. The Chapel Hill shooting was actual violence against three young muslims and nobody in the press cares that ADC thinks it's due to a movie even though ADC "warned" about it weeks ago. If they were credible, their Chapel Hill press release about an actual violent event perpetrated against Muslims would garner some attention and not just a desperate HuffPo story from weeks ago trying to create controversy. They said "threats of violence" were up due to the movie. They said "Chapel Hill shootings are due to the movie." I find that both statements are congruous with the ADC's nature and neither are credible accounts and find it hard to include their account here but ignore it in virtually every other article. --DHeyward (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is appropriate to at the very least report this statement in passing since it has been covered in numerous reliable sources:

• The Washington Post
• The Independent
• BBC News
• The Guardian
• USA Today
• The Hollywood Reporter
• FOX News
• Deadline.com
• Haaretz
• MSN
• Reuters

WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." It is inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to project their viewpoint about ADC to suggest that the viewpoint is not prevalent, by their own analysis. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

One day coverage of an outrageous press release? There are plenty of movie related press coverage that we don't have. The amount of ADC coverage amounts to fringe viewpoint. "Not at all" is enough of a mention since the movie being viewed as a trigger for anti-muslim violence is not a significant viewpoint. --DHeyward (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Those news outlets are just parroting the same story which is based partly on this blog commentary which uses captured blog and Twitter postings that make zero actionable threats. By actionable I mean no one is specifically targeted and all the FBI or other similar agencies would do is monitor it if even that. I will say that those blog and Twitter postings are disgusting and do qualify as hate speech, but concur with Dheyward that this is passing issue that is not atypical of a controversial subject matter.--MONGO 15:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Fringe" is a nonsensical claim as evidenced by the statement being reported by numerous reliable sources. It has been brought up several times in ensuing weeks after the initial coverage. The Washington Post on 2/17/15 is an example. WP:DUE is being violated here because of the refusal to follow the sources, which are the ones to determine the prevalence of a viewpoint, not ourselves. In addition, there is no criteria that threats need to be actionable to warrant reporting; the existing sources reflect this. Speech itself was considered alarming by the organization, and this concern was reported by the sources. We as editors are not positioned to project personal assessments about the organization's integrity when reliable sources, with their editorial oversight, have vouched for it in the sense that it was worth reporting. If other editors would like to contest this obstructionism, please ping me. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Its just parroting of one source....it's the same story reported by multiple sources, not different stories...just because he same story shows up in multiple sources doesn't mean there are multiple stories! Let me know when an actual event happens and then that is newsworthy.--MONGO 06:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

PASSING MOCKINGJAY OR NOT AS DOMESTIC TOPGROSSER

HELL YEAH 332 MILLION AS OF TODAY PASSING IT BY WEEKEND — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Crystal claims

Currently an IP is repeatedly adding a claim to the lead that American Sniper "is set to overtake The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 as the highest grossing film of 2014". First of all, Mockingjay has earned over $700 million and American Sniper is unlikely to gross that amount; it may overtake it in the domestic market but that is not clear from what is written. Secondly, the claim violates WP:CRYSTAL: we do not predict what will happen—even if it can be sourced—but rather record something wehn it does happen i.e. the IP is jumping the gun and that is against Wikipedia policy. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

yes 700 international as its states it is currently 3rd topgrosser domestic im making it clear that im talking domestic,mockingjay is now at 336 million by next weekend American sniper would be grossing 340 million so im not getting the resistance to this plane fact but hell this will be moot and academic by next week so im wondering whats the fuzz is all about by putting that it will be passing mockingjay in the domestic boxoffice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Add it next weekend then! And no, as you wrote it it is not clear it refers to only the American market. Betty Logan (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

doesnt matter it will be fact next week and dont worry it is not passing it in the international boxoffice

just restore the part of it passing mockingjay but added domestic to make it clear in which market it will outgross it by next weekend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

as to the claim that im jumping the gun,i think it too close to happening to deny the fact that it is poise to overtake mockingjay domestically just mere days to the inevitable event and nothing will stop it from becoming a sheer fact unlees theres a nuclear war or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with whether it surpasses Mockingjay for highest grossing film of 2014 in NA? Will the Earth spin off its axis if we don't acknowledge it passing this specific movie for a pointless ranking? Add the info when it happens, not before. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

MOCKINGJAY CONSPIRACY AND BIAS AGAINST AMERICAN SNIPER

this is really weird but i feel that some editors has some itch about mockingjay being overtaken by American sniper MONGO has deleted the section =(making it the the second-highest-grossing film of 2014 in the U.S.)for no apparent reason unless they want to cover up the fact that American Sniper will take the domestic boxoffice crown it really beginning to stink of bias in favor of mockingjay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The source lists proceeds in the last 365 day period, not for the calendar year of 2014.--MONGO 07:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

haha your talking in riddles or your just finding excuses to cover up the fact that domestically American sniper will pass your precious mockinjay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

i see your only a kid i hate arguing with a child but i hate it more if the wrong fact is stated as correct, no bias and the true facts should prevail even if it stings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think I am a "kid"?--MONGO 07:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Kids today don't even know who MONGO is. --DHeyward (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

hey MONGO i dont really care you can do what you want im just feeling fulfilled right now just got the news of Saturday update for American sniper it will be at 337 million officially passing mockingjay no sense in arguing with you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Worst-reviewed Oscar contender

Regarding this, it is unnecessary to put this passage at the very front of the "Critical response" section. It can come later if needed, but its placement at the beginning comes off as a problematic implication. In addition, WP:BRD should be recognized to have a discussion if content is reverted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a synth violation to try and include with the reviews. The source is about revenue. It would be okay to use that source to show how much money AS made over the other oscar nominees and the difference in reviews. Per BRD , you Rich Janis shouldn't have restored it. --DHeyward (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the editor to address here. Rich Janis is. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Erik did not restore the content, but I agree with the position it does not belong in the article. The fundamental point of the critical reception section is that the critical response was generally positive so that should be foremost. The comments have no place in the article at all unless they are presented in context i.e. the critic wasn't making a point about how well or poorly the film reviewed, she was addressing how poorly the other nominees performed at the box office in comparison. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to User:Erik for responding to my request for a discussion about this, and for linking to the BRD page. Erik, I do believe that this belongs in the beginning of the "Critical response" section, for 3 reasons: that paragraph introduces a significant part of the article; the quote provides an explanatory perspective on how low the stated Rotten Tomatoes score is for such a nominee; and it also gives balance in the form of the only clearly negative fact in a paragraph that otherwise strikes me as simply positive in tone despite some of the strongly negative reviews. However, I agree that it shouldn't be the first words and I'll change that. Please note, though, that I did not violate BRD; I fulfilled its intentions--first, with an edit that honors all 3 of WP's Core content policies, including--especially--a perspective that was missing, and second, by requesting a discussion before another revert of my edit. So, I ask you to reconsider your opinion.

User:Betty Logan, thank you, too, for your thoughtful comment. Please consider the following. Although the "Critical response" section includes varying opinions, the extent of reviewers' deviation from what is typical for such a highly-lauded film deserves mention; the author of that quote thought so, and I concur. Reviewers' opinions are all relative to many things, including other movies, which they often cite within their reviews. Although most cited reviews were written before Oscar nominations, at least two (Wight's, and Masciotra's) specifically make a comparison based on these nominations, and other reviews continue to focus on Oscar nominees while the public does the same. Even in the pre-nomination reviews quoted in this section, we get Weitzman's expectation of what "The best movies" should have. Without the quote that I added, I get only a positive impression from that first paragraph, despite the many conflicting opinions and even strongly negative reviews within that section and the Controversies section (which is also all about "Critical response"). And, please don't fall for DHeyward's false "synth" claim; the statement that I quoted stands on its own--it is a simple objective statement that's independent of how its author used it to make her other points--and it is directly applicable to the existing statement about the movie's Rotten Tomatoes score; there is no WP:OR on my part. Here's an indication of the relevance of the author's quote: Compared to this movie's 73%, the average of the Rotten Tomatoes scores of the other 7 Best Picture nominees is 92%; 6 of the 8 scores range from 89% to 98% and the remaining one is 79%.

User:DHeyward, thank you for joining the discussion, and please let it proceed before you jump into yet another revert. Your hasty actions are counter-productive, while falling short of basic WP editing guidelines. As for your saying that I shouldn't have restored my edit? "Per BRD" as you say, you shouldn't have reverted my edit in the first place, and certainly not as you did, with "Just no" as your edit summary and without any discussion in Talk. Even in your second revert, you ignore the BRD advice to use links to support the edit summary; in this case if you had provided a link to WP:SYNTH, I and perhaps others wouldn't have had to search for it. Again, as explained in my reply to Betty Logan, your claim of a SYNTH violation is false. Your "weasel word" claim is also false: there is nothing equivocal about "the worst-reviewed Oscar contender".

--Rich Janis (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It didn't win the best picture award so it seems to be a pretty minor detail at this point.--MONGO 06:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, MONGO. I don't get what made it so urgent as to cause a rv--especially such a brusque one--in the first place. Regarding the article content, I'm mostly just seeking more reasoned opinions now. The nature of the reverts and their absent, false--or, at best, misguided--objections is not minor, especially coming from so experienced an editor with elevated rights. --Rich Janis (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Myself and Dheyward do not have elevated rights. While I have no doubt your addition was done in good faith, it is a minor quibble of sorts. A movie that was nominated but did not receive best picture also was the worst reviewed, by "rotten tomatoes".--MONGO 13:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Rich, I'm sorry you feel the revert was brusque. BRD works by your bold edit, followed by a revert and then discussion by you about why you think your addition belongs. Your source was about why American Sniper made so much money at the box office while the other films did not. You attempted to use pieces of that article and synthesize it with other sources to make a point that none of the sources made. It's a very clear WP:SYNTH issue. After reading it, you can probably come up with a non-synth edit that could be discussed. --DHeyward (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, DHeyward, I think I've addressed the SYNTH issue by removing the word "despite" and re-locating my edit. Here's the raw text that I'm planning to add, shown in bold between the current 2nd and 3rd sentences of the paragraph:

Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a "Certified Fresh" rating of 73%, based on 217 reviews from critics, with an average rating of 6.9/10. This makes itBy that measure, it is "the worst-reviewed" of the 2014 Oscar contenders. The site's consensus states, .... Thanks, --Rich Janis (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC) --Rich Janis (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not the context of how the review is portrayed. If you wish to use that source for "the worst-reviewed" of the 2014 Oscar contenders, then it must be juxtaposed against it's much larger box office success. that is what the source is relaying. The title of the source "Why American Sniper Was the Only Oscar Movie That Made Big Money" is the dead giveaway. The article is explaining why AS made much more than all the other nominees, not why it was the lowest "rotten tomato" score of the other 3 candidates. In fact it is trying to explain why the other nominees all grossed less than $100 million when previous years nominees had no such issue. It also scored lower that "catching Fire" on rotten tomatoes but that movie wasn't up for best pic. It's going to be very difficult to justify correlation between rotten tomato score and oscar nomination. They are unrelated. --DHeyward (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with DHeyward on this matter. The context is more that while the critics may have scored the other Oscar nominees higher, the viewers seem to flocked to this movie regardless.--MONGO 21:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Just as it took me awhile to understand it was OR to retain the original author's "despite" phrasing (which was how she linked the ratings to her main subject) in the different context here, I now wonder why my revised use of the quoted fact can't be used, since it presents the fact independently of the way the author chose to use it. Or, perhaps you'd accept it this way--I could simply insert the same fact, without quoting that source, as follows: By that measure, it is the worst-reviewed of its co-nominees for the Best-Picture Oscar. I would then simply cite RT as the source. Thank you both for your opinions, --Rich Janis (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's still WP:SYNTH to try and make "worst-reviewed of its co-nominees for the Best-Picture Oscar" a metric worth noting. That's not the point the source makes. If the story was about how such a low rated film made it to Oscar nomination, that's one thing but the source is about the very large box office receipts of AS vs. the other Oscar Nominations, not its relative Rotten Tomatoes score. We could just as easily say "Despite being the most successful film...." or "Despite making more than all the other Oscar contenders combined...." The source juxtaposes box office receipts with reviews. There is no correlation between reviews and who wins: at least not in the source provided. Did the highest rated movie win? If so, it's not in the source you are using to paint the significance of Oscar contender reviews. For example, at metacritic, Birdman (the actual winner) was 15th in their list for 2014 (Boyhood was #1). No source is making a case that the relative review is significant to the award. The source you use is discussing the Box Office receipts. You can't cherry-pick a stat from that source out of it's context and make it appear to be a notable fact. It's synth. --DHeyward (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

In your last comment, DHeyward, all of your mentions of my source are non-responsive to the source that I used in my previous comment. I'm inserting no SYNTH, no OR, not even an opinion; just an appropriately sourced objective fact. Also, WP:NOTE is irrelevant here; please stop making inappropriate comments. --Rich Janis (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's simple: it is a SYNTH to make "worst-reviewed of its co-nominees for the Best-Picture Oscar" an Oscar metric worth noting. The source you gave doesn't do that. Without that connection, we can't add it. The source juxtaposes success at the box office with Rotten Tomatoes score but your article addition omits success at the box office and changes the entire interpretation of the source. We don't get to decide that it's a negative or present it that way if the source doesn't. It's SYNTH. --DHeyward (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward, what's most simple now is the obviousness of your refusal to comment on my change of source for my edit. By continuing to talk about a source that I stopped using--twice, now, even after I pointed out your error--you are refusing to engage in a meaningful discussion of my current edit suggestion, and simply insisting on repeating your now-obsolete comments. Please stop repeating irrelevancies. --Rich Janis (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, just as you have previously suggested how my original sourced quotation might be used in a different context, please suggest a wording that you might consider an improved way of stating the relationship between this movie's Tomatometer score and those of its co-nominees, based on the Rotten Tomatoes source link that I provided in my Talk comment of 08:22, 28 February 2015. Thanks, --Rich Janis (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said (and it goes for all sources): What source is stating that the RT number is relevant to the Oscars? It's not Rotten Tomatoes. They never say "worst reviewed" either. If you are going to SYNTH and OR a statement about the Oscars, why not use Box Office receipts? Or profit? Or number of opening theater screens? - all are equally valid statements that lack appropriate secondary sources. The RT source can't be used to make a "worst reviewed" claim as they never make the claim nor tie it as relevant to the Oscars (the highest rated film, "Boyhood," didn't win either so who is making the claim that Rotten Tomato ratings are significant to Oscar nominations and wins? You didn't provide that source which is why it's OR and SYNTH). Revenue, profit, screens, etc are also just as SYNTH and OR which is why we also don't say "the film was denied a Best-picture Oscar despite outperforming all the other nominees combined." I already explained how to incorporate your first source. RT is more of a primary source which is much more difficult to use as a source and really needs a secondary to explain the rating numbers and what they mean. --DHeyward (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DHeyward, sorry about the delay, but my schedule this month is proving too busy for this leisure activity; I'll check back in April. Just off the top of my head, though, some of the areas that I disagree with in your recent comments include: your objection to a statement about the RT number related to other Oscar nominees (I already gave you a link to the RT page that groups those movies together and shows their scores. Also, while I don't need to rely on it, the connection is already implied in the article, starting in the lede, with "The film received mostly positive reviews from critics. At the 87th Academy Awards, American Sniper received six nominations, including Best Picture...." This is not a spurious connection; it's an integral part of the movie business; and a movie's sales, reviews, and accolades such as the Academy's are all linked in its contemporary and historical perspectives; and your objection is also inappropriate for suppressing this relevant perspective. Furthermore, my edit uses the exact same logic as the article's phrase describing this movie as "[eighth] highest-grossing Best Picture nominee film".); your refusal to suggest a way to make this edit feasible (I've suggested revised wordings, and here's another: "lowest-reviewed" instead of "worst-reviewed". It's long past the time for you to offer something constructive.); your apparent objection to including this fact regardless of what reason you have to come up with (there is nothing wrong with adding this properly sourced fact about a professionally established grouping of films); your claim that this straightforward, descriptive fact can't be used based on its primary source (You are mistaken in your reading of the WP:PRIMARY policy). By the way, my recent silence about my original source doesn't mean that I accept your ongoing objections to it. As I've said before, by moving the quote and removing the word "despite" from what I quoted, I reduced the quote to a simple, objectively verifiable fact that is wholly independent of the implication that author Dockterman made between reviews and sales, and this also removed any implication in my edit of any relationship between reviews and Oscar standing. This is not "cherry-picking" in the derogatory sense that you claimed; Dockterman's choice to imply that reviews are perceived to generate sales doesn't impose on me the need to discuss sales, because I'm not quoting anything that depends on her implication. Although I've offered here to replace her value-laden word "worst", I still maintain that it is usable when cited as her opinion; not only that, but as a published movie reviewer, if she chooses to point out the movie's comparative standing among its co-nominees in terms of critic's reviews, that represents a legitimate POV regarding critical response. Also, while I've asked you repeatedly to stop making inappropriate comments--and you do sometimes seem to be making serious attempts at discussing these issues--it was yet another example of inappropriateness for you--in your comments of 08:50, 3 March 2015--to throw the word "despite" back into the discussion, thus distorting and impeding our discussion. Similarly, please stop the SYNTH mantra; remember: straightforward, descriptive, trivially verifiable statements of facts are not interpretations needing a secondary source, and likewise they are WP:NOTOR. Anyway, this has already taken much longer than I'd planned--I guess that shows how far apart we are in this discussion--and my time's up for the next few weeks. Thanks, --Rich Janis (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, see you in April. I'm not sure I understood your explanations nut I still don't see how you link a rotten tomatoes score to Oscar nominations. No source appears to have done that. It is not a trivial statement to link the films Rotten Tomatoes score to its Oscar status without a source that does it. Neither the film with the highest RT score or the lowest RT score won best picture so it will take a reliable source to make the connection. --DHeyward (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism dispute section redux

For more information, see Talk:American Sniper (film)/Archive 5#Criticism section dispute.

• Jennifer Matsui criticized the film.

No, she didn't. --DHeyward (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Pete Dolack criticized the film.

So? Dolack is a non-notable person with a non-notable opinion and with an opinion that has already been expressed in the article by highly quality sources.--MaverickLittle (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

~ ~ ~

References

Bloated Critical Response

Hey! Re: Edit summaries, I'm going to agree that critical response is way too big, so I've cut down on a lot of the quotes. Let me know what you think. Mostly I've tried to remove statements such as "By film director Clint Eastwood" and other factoids as the article already presents this to the viewer. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

LA Weekly

The LA Weekly is a longstanding reliable source, and no good cause has been stated for the removal of its film critic's judgment of the film. Please discuss the proposed removal here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what exactly are the complaints about the source?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Already hashed out. False accounts of untrue events See archive. --DHeyward (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not "already hashed out." A search of this article's talk page archive discovers zero discussion of this source. The source has been stably in the article for months. Please engage in a discussion rather than a stale revert war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It cites the same myths as other sources do that did not gain consensus for inclusion. What's wrong with the current critique already in place?--MONGO 23:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"The same myths" being what, exactly? "What's wrong with the current critique already in place" indeed, because the LA Weekly article has been in place for months. You're the one proposing removal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sigh....the article states a lie that Kyle "claimed that he had been hired by Blackwater to snipe armed looters at the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina". As discussed endlessly as can be seen in archive 5, Kyle never made this claim. He claimed that others were shooting people from atop the Superdome. While Kyle's claim of others has never been substantiated, the press has twisted it all around, and the shoddy journalistic integrity of the source you keep edit warring to keep in, uses misinformation from other sources to perpetuate and expand on things to discredit Kyle. Did you wikistalk DHeyward here? It appears you did.--MONGO 23:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss the edits, not the editors, MONGO. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm of no mind to respond to baseless personal attacks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, odd you show up here now, along with obvious SPA and ally against DHeyward PeterTheFourth. But back to the issue...I have no problem with negative critique so long as it follows undue and other policies, but when those "critiques" load their segment with conspiracy theories heard or read elsewhere, then they aren't much worth to us.--MONGO 00:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I'm of no mind to respond to your personal attacks. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I second PeterTheFourth's comment. Evaluate the source, don't impugn the character of the editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll point out the obvious anytime I want.--MONGO 03:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Given lack of arguments against its inclusion in this section, I've undone a reversion of an accurate summary of this review. Do let me know if there are reasons we can't cite LA Weekly in the article- movies are not my field of expertise. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

How about the undue weight clause of NPOV.--MONGO 03:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright- do you have reason to believe that this review is given too much space compared to other reviews, or that the viewpoint it represents is fringe? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes.--MONGO 05:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

And this would be...? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

LA weekly is obviously fringe as it cites debunked, false stories as the basis of criticism. The section of criticism for an award winning movie with record receipts is frought with WP:UNDUE reviews that don't reflect that. --DHeyward (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources for the issue being debunked, or are we forced to let the readers draw their own conclusions after being presented the original source for the story? BP OMowe (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw this article referenced in the politics case at ArbCom. Generally speaking, if there are valid doubts about a piece of sourcing, there's no requirement that we go on citing it just because it hasn't been expressly retracted or refuted. We should instead strive to do the opposite. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

What About The Fake Baby?

Why is there no mention of it in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.210.110 (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that talks about it, you could put stuff about the laughably fake baby somewhere in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Add to Critical Response?

Add New line or two new paragraph[h after 5th par by Clint Eastwood:

Clint thinking more thought is needed going in or coming out misses that there is no sign of any understanding in USA of Iraq war - its reasons, its leaders, its worth - as today Chris Kyle stands alone lauded in a bare landscape of no overall thought or purpose. 47.18.43.166 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)last vet JC seed of all creation

Requested move 4 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to American Sniper (book), and move the film article to the base location. The consensus is that, in this case, the subtitle is too long to be the preferred disambiguation. However, incoming links need to be fixed before the move is made. Ping me when that's done and I'll move the articles. Jenks24 (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• American Sniper (film) → American Sniper
• American Sniper → American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History

– It has been five months since the last RM, and several months removed from the box office and Oscar hype of the film. (It is also, appropriately, Independence Day in the U.S., which I did not realize until after I prepared this request.) Yet the film article continues to attract more viewers than the book article, receiving nearly 600k views in the last 3 months in comparison to <100k for the book article (even with the book article being the primary topic, which inflates the view count as many readers are coming to that article looking for the film). [4] [5] This clearly satisfies the "usage" criterion of PRIMARYTOPIC. Some editors in the last RM cited the "long-term significance" criterion for the book being primary, but that argument doesn't hold much weight, as the book is almost as recent as the film, and it's far too early to gauge which one will be more significant in the future.

Some editors also argued that the book should be the primary topic as it came first and the film is a derivative work. This point is not based in any policy or guideline, and there are many examples of a derivative work being the primary topic, The Godfather being one of them.

The lengthy proposed title for the book is based on SUBTITLE; natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical "(book)" disambiguation. Chase (talk | contributions) 02:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The fact that the book came first doesn't make it the primary topic by default. This situation is no different than The Godfather, Forrest Gump or even The Shawshank Redemption to name a few examples. Calidum T|C 03:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support it's quite evident that the movie is the primary topic. I was going to put this up for RM myself, but Chase beat me to it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as per the nom, and the comments by the other editors. Also, thanks for pointing out the subtitle tidbit Chasewc91... never knew that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support but Suggest to move the book to American Sniper (book) to be WP:CONCISE.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep (film), but add (book) make life easier for mobile users. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. And American Sniper (book) may be preferable for the book under WP:COMMONNAME. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • COMMONNAME only applies when disambiguation is not needed; the subtitle is in place for disambiguation and is preferred to any sort of parenthetical dab per SUBTITLE and NATURAL. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The COMMONNAME of the book is American Sniper. Anyone seeing American Sniper (book) in the search box will know right away what it is. WP:SUBTITLES includes the phrase Except for extremely long ones, but doesn't lay out where to draw the line. And then there is WP:CONCISE. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, and we cannot have the article title at its common name "American Sniper" if, like this discussion is indicating, the film is the primary topic. Thus disambiguation is necessary. We have style guidelines on how books with subtitles should be disambiguated. "American Sniper (book)" would obviously exist as a redirect. And you have misinterpreted that selection from SUBTITLE. The full text reads: Except for extremely long ones, it is best to provide redirects from the title including the subtitle. That means that even with the book as the primary topic as it is currently, the subtitled version should still redirect there.
        
        If you look at CONCISE, it uses examples where neither the shortened name nor the full name requires disambiguation; this does not apply. And the full book title is not excessively long. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• WP:SUBTITLES also supports American Sniper (book). I have no position on the primarytopic claim, but if the book is moved, that should be the title. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • SUBTITLE does not support parenthetical dab. In the Orlando example, "Orlando (book)" redirects even though it is shorter than the subtitled version. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as the primary topic. Also prefer American Sniper (book) since we would only include the subtitle if the natural one was short enough. It is a bit long here, in my opinion, so I am fine with the (book) disambiguation. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 4 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to American Sniper (book), and move the film article to the base location. The consensus is that, in this case, the subtitle is too long to be the preferred disambiguation. However, incoming links need to be fixed before the move is made. Ping me when that's done and I'll move the articles. Jenks24 (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• American Sniper (film) → American Sniper
• American Sniper → American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History

– It has been five months since the last RM, and several months removed from the box office and Oscar hype of the film. (It is also, appropriately, Independence Day in the U.S., which I did not realize until after I prepared this request.) Yet the film article continues to attract more viewers than the book article, receiving nearly 600k views in the last 3 months in comparison to <100k for the book article (even with the book article being the primary topic, which inflates the view count as many readers are coming to that article looking for the film). [6] [7] This clearly satisfies the "usage" criterion of PRIMARYTOPIC. Some editors in the last RM cited the "long-term significance" criterion for the book being primary, but that argument doesn't hold much weight, as the book is almost as recent as the film, and it's far too early to gauge which one will be more significant in the future.

Some editors also argued that the book should be the primary topic as it came first and the film is a derivative work. This point is not based in any policy or guideline, and there are many examples of a derivative work being the primary topic, The Godfather being one of them.

The lengthy proposed title for the book is based on SUBTITLE; natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical "(book)" disambiguation. Chase (talk | contributions) 02:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The fact that the book came first doesn't make it the primary topic by default. This situation is no different than The Godfather, Forrest Gump or even The Shawshank Redemption to name a few examples. Calidum T|C 03:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support it's quite evident that the movie is the primary topic. I was going to put this up for RM myself, but Chase beat me to it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as per the nom, and the comments by the other editors. Also, thanks for pointing out the subtitle tidbit Chasewc91... never knew that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support but Suggest to move the book to American Sniper (book) to be WP:CONCISE.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep (film), but add (book) make life easier for mobile users. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. And American Sniper (book) may be preferable for the book under WP:COMMONNAME. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • COMMONNAME only applies when disambiguation is not needed; the subtitle is in place for disambiguation and is preferred to any sort of parenthetical dab per SUBTITLE and NATURAL. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The COMMONNAME of the book is American Sniper. Anyone seeing American Sniper (book) in the search box will know right away what it is. WP:SUBTITLES includes the phrase Except for extremely long ones, but doesn't lay out where to draw the line. And then there is WP:CONCISE. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, and we cannot have the article title at its common name "American Sniper" if, like this discussion is indicating, the film is the primary topic. Thus disambiguation is necessary. We have style guidelines on how books with subtitles should be disambiguated. "American Sniper (book)" would obviously exist as a redirect. And you have misinterpreted that selection from SUBTITLE. The full text reads: Except for extremely long ones, it is best to provide redirects from the title including the subtitle. That means that even with the book as the primary topic as it is currently, the subtitled version should still redirect there.
        
        If you look at CONCISE, it uses examples where neither the shortened name nor the full name requires disambiguation; this does not apply. And the full book title is not excessively long. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• WP:SUBTITLES also supports American Sniper (book). I have no position on the primarytopic claim, but if the book is moved, that should be the title. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • SUBTITLE does not support parenthetical dab. In the Orlando example, "Orlando (book)" redirects even though it is shorter than the subtitled version. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as the primary topic. Also prefer American Sniper (book) since we would only include the subtitle if the natural one was short enough. It is a bit long here, in my opinion, so I am fine with the (book) disambiguation. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pinging Jenks24 - This was inactive after it was closed so long I had to rescue it from being archived. Apparently no one knows how to act on your last post incoming links need to be fixed before the move is made. Ping me when that's done and I'll move the articles. What is the issue that normal redirects won't handle, and what has to be done in advance of the move? - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gothicfilm: Redirects normally take care of incoming links after moves, you're right. But in this case they won't because the movie will immediately be moved over those redirects at the base title, American Sniper. So all the articles that had previously linked to American Sniper, meaning the book, will now be linked to the movie instead – effectively those links will go from being correct to incorrect. What someone needs to do before the move is go through Special:WhatLinksHere/American Sniper and change any article (you can ignore other spaces, e.g. Wikipedia, talk page, etc.) that links to American Sniper (and is meant to link to the book article) to link to American Sniper (book). Then the move can proceed without breaking any links. Jenks24 (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jenks24:Alright, it's done. Turns out just over a dozen links from Pages that link to "American Sniper" were intended for the book, but the great majority were for the film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

I recently removed some material from the historical accuracy section. First, the source used (a blog by an intern) is not a reliable source. Second, the way material is presented in the article was misleading in at least two ways. First, it purported that these were "facts" reported by Slate, rather than a blogger's post; second, it misrepresented the material itself, saying that certain events did or did not happen, when even the blogger does not make that claim - the blogger is stating that the events weren't written in the memoir, not that they didn't take place. As such, they would not belong in a historical accuracy section, but rather in a section about how the film differed from the book. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The piece from Slate is extremely detailed and well-sourced; it is clearly of article quality and not merely of "blog" quality. Furthermore, the information is easily sourced from other venues. You are getting way too trigger-happy on deleting content and failing to make the effort you should to find sources. Some guy (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

And yet you don't address the misrepresentation issue. You are getting way too confrontational and forgetful of AGF. The source is partly not about historical accuracy, but about deviations between the book and the film, which are two very different issues. To represent certain facts as historical inaccuracies is incredibly misleading. And I disagree about the reliability of the source. Let's hear from some other editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a lot more misleading to omit the fact that some of the scenes don't appear in the book. I am completely fine with rewording the sentences you object to so that they make this distinction more clear, that the scenes don't appear in the book without stating that this means they never occurred. Some guy (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't agree. Films differ from books all the time. These differences seem trivial (as other editors have also stated). But as I said in my revert, let's wait and see what others say, and then abide by consensus. Sound like a plan?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a simple matter of "films differ from books" because we're talking about a biographical work, not fiction. Take a look at the huge accuracy section on The Imitation Game. Could we solve your issue by renaming the section? Some guy (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The whole section needs to go. It's a dramatization of an autobiography. It has fictional elements, the least of which is that for the first half of Kyle's deployment, he was fighting Sunni's and the second half was Shi'ites. There's no "Historical inaccuracy" because there is no claim to historical accuracy. In fact, it doesn't even reflect the biography, which also is not an historically accurate account, rather one persons subjective experience. It's an entertaining movie. That's it. Do we really need to document height and weight differences between subject and actors? That comrades in arms were blended into single characters to reduce complexity? Completely silly dramatic stuff like finding a cache of weapons in the movie? It's a nonsense section. Delete it. --DHeyward (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you can't discredit a source based on your own original research. Do you have a reputable source that discredits the Superdome incident? Secondly, the Superdome incident was not mentioned in this article. Lastly, there are plenty of other sources for all of the information from that section.

The article does not address that any of the film was dramatized or fictionalized. You can't assume that every reader knows this and use that as a justification for removing content from the article. It's not a "nonsense" section, and has precedence in countless articles on biographical films and other media. By your ridiculous logic, we should remove Bradley Cooper from the article because everyone knows he was the star, and Eastwood from the article because everyone knows he was the director. Do we really need to state it's a film?

If it's so widely known that the film is dramatized and has fictional elements, then this should be cited and sourced in the article, with examples where possible. That's how Wikipedia works. Instead you've got more garbage about a fake-looking baby than you do about the accuracy of the film. Some guy (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You should read about the insurgent sniper. It's in the article. --DHeyward (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If none of you are interested in having a serious discussion, I will restore the material to the article, and treat any further attempts to delete it as vandalism. If you have any points left to make, now is the time to make them. Some guy (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We've had a serious discussion, you've failed to gain consensus for your add. If you add it, you'll be violating Wikipedia conventions, and it will be reverted. You don't decide what is or is not vandalism. I'll post a notice over at the film project, and see if we can't get more comments. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There are guidelines about reporting a film's historical accuracy at WP:FILMHIST. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You stopped responding after the last points I made to you (and ignored my last question to you), and DHeyward has made it clear he isn't willing to have a serious discussion by his last post. You can't say you've established a consensus or won a debate by prematurely ending your participation in it. Some guy (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – I think there's no doubt that a "Historical accuracy" section is needed given the amount of attention this has received in reliable sources, although there will need to be some discussion as to what we should include. The Slate source should be considered reliable in my opinion, but it should not be the ONLY source. First, let's gather more sources here. Then we can see which elements of the movie overlap in coverage to help us agree on what content deserves entry per WP:DUE. Any mention of the word "speculation" should be specifically attributed to the source it came from, not just with the inline citation but also with "According to [source]". I think that would be a reasonable approach. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  Searching "american sniper accuracy" turns up The Washington Post, The Guardian, and Time. It seems likely that a "Historical accuracy" section could be written if effort was put into it. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Those were the same sources I intended to rely on. I will draft a new version of the section in the next day or two and post it here. Some guy (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)