Contents

Talk:American Sniper

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Sniper article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

American Sniper (film) controversies was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 06 February 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into American Sniper. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Military history: War films / North America / United States / Post-Cold War 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  War films task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Post-Cold War task force Pritzker Military Library Low‑importance This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 8 times. The weeks in which this happened: December 21 to 27, 2014 (17th) December 28, 2014 to January 3, 2015 (12th) January 4 to 10, 2015 (10th) January 11 to 17, 2015 (4th) January 18 to 24, 2015 (2nd) January 25 to 31, 2015 (3rd) February 1 to 7, 2015 (22nd) February 22 to 28, 2015 (18th)

Please comment. Some guy (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several major news sources commented on the accuracy of the film and how it differs from Chris Kyle's written accounts. The enemy sniper Mustafa is a major character in the film, but receives only a small mention in the memoir, with Kyle noting "I never saw him, but other snipers later killed an Iraqi sniper we think was him."^[1][2] According to the memoir, Kyle's 2100-yard shot was taken against an insurgent holding a rocket launcher, not Mustafa.^[3][2] Time notes that according to screenwriter Jason Hall, Kyle said of Mustafa: "He shot my friend. I'm not going to put his name in my book." ^[4] The first combat scene in the film has Kyle killing a boy and mother who try to attack U.S. troops with a grenade; the boy was added for the film.^{[4] [1] [2]} The film depicts Ryan "Biggles" Job as dying shortly after he is shot by Mustafa; in reality, Job survived for several years after the incident but passed away after surgical complications from an operation on his face.^{[2] [3]} The character "the Butcher" was created for the film ^[4][1], although this character may have been based on the real-life Abu Deraa.^[1]

I read the comments at Talk:American Sniper/Archive 1#Genre, and I agree that we should keep it simple and label the film as a "biographical war film" as supported by sources cited within the article. This seems to be the conclusion reached in the previous discussion, so I modified the opening line to reflect that. If anyone objects, feel free to discuss further here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The long established "confirmed kills" is being challenged again. I added a source that interviewed the co-author where the DoD agreed on a number they could publish. Some missions and kills are still classified, apparently. --DHeyward (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is fine and supports the content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a gossip rag failing WP:RS, and an "interview" fails on WP:SPS grounds as well. Please stop inserting complete nonsense with bogus "sources." Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood reporter is considered a reliable source, hardly a rag, unless you consider other reliable sources, like the New York Times, to be toilet paper. Also I don't think you read WP:SPS. You are edit warring to removed sourced content. Stop.108.34.150.59 (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):The source is reliable, uses journalistic oversight, and is not equivalent to the National Enquirer or TMZ (which are "gossip rags"). The interview has no relation to the Wikipedia policy on self published sources. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's first person claims by the interviewee. No oversight, no fact checking - and you are dishonestly misrepresenting it. Please stop ignoring and making false claims about policy. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey look - one of them brought a sockpuppet or recruited a meatpuppet. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The source is more than just an interview. The introduction before the actual interview suggests that the recent controversy is not based on solid "conclusive" evidence. The article then links to another source where actual analysis of the evidence is presented. I don't see the justification for having this tossed out, especially in the absence of a better source. Oh, and WP:SPS doesn't apply here. The interview is a primary source, but the analysis is secondary. Neither violates the policy on self-published. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]