Film: American C‑class

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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Pritzker Military Library C‑class 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Obviously this article will become more fleshed out when the film is released, but I find it odd that there's no mention of how Chris Kyle's death may have affected its production. Maybe it's too early to hear whether his death is going to be portrayed or not, but right now the production section is just a timeline of who became attached to the film. Kyle died in that time frame, and there's nothing we can say about it? --BDD (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BDD, I found this that mentions Cooper's pushing-forward after Kyle's death. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently lists December 25, 2014 as the release date. However, only a limited release occured on this date. The full release is not until January 16, 2015^[1]. Perhaps the December release date should be annotated as a limited release, and the full release added to the article. --EncycloComp (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The production budget was $60 million. An editor tried changing this to $27.2 million without explanation.

• "Warner Bros.' budget for the film, though, remained a slender $60 million." Alex Ben Block (January 2, 2015). "The Making of 'American Sniper': How an Unlikely Friendship Kickstarted the Clint Eastwood Film". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved January 5, 2015. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

The production also received tax rebates. This does not change the production budget (a coupon, or rebate does not change the retail price, no matter what sales and marketing might like to claim). The budget is still $60 million. It is interesting and would be worth adding to the article that the production budget received tax rebates but the infobox should not be changed to the after tax figures, and definitely not without a proper explanation.

• "received approval for a California tax credit for $6.8 million to offset $34 million in production costs" Richard Verrier (April 23, 2014). "Eastwood starts shooting 'American Sniper' at Santa Clarita ranch". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 8, 2015. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

There is a much bigger problem with the edit, it is incorrect. The LA Times never claims the production budget was $27.2 million. The IP user took $34 million production costs and subtracted $6.8, to get that figure. Unfortunately, the IP user has misread the article. They never said the budget was $34 million, they never even said it was the total production costs, only that part of the production costs could be written off. (They can't get write off for other costs that were not releated to work done in California.) -- 109.77.30.198 (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The critical response section has a few problems, it is sorely lacking in criticism for starters, and is light on analysis too.

76.173.198.38 added an article from The Guardian newspaper and included several unflattering quotes from Chris Kyle. The article itself was about how several critics of the film, and particularly the heroic portrayal of Kyle, had been subject to a backlash and threats from supports of the film.

I think this change was added in good faith if a bit harsh, and the article itself speaks to the differences between the film and the reality as well as summarizing the responses of several critics. I didn't think it was appropriate to include it at the start of the Critical response section, but I thought it was worth making an effort to include it. I made several ongoing efforts to improve the edit. Firstly I moved this it to the end of the critical response section, instead of at the start. The initial edit seemed harsh so I tried to soften the tone. In further edits I tried to make it clearer that Lindy West was covering a series of articles from several critics, who criticized the portrayal of Kyle as a hero and the backlash against those critics.

The edit was deleted several times, some with no explanation at all and others claiming it was inappropriate as it was not a film review from professional critic. After it was deleted 76.173.198.38 added exactly the same change again, and didn't respond to my suggestions present the points differently. The WP:MOSFILM guidelines do not exclude commentary or Critical response from other sources, in fact many film articles include responses from notable non-film critics (e.g. other directors). In some ways the threats against critics is actually audience response, but I don't want to over emphasize it by creating a separate Audience response or Controversy section.

The last version I added is fairly mild and I believe is in keeping with WP:NPOV. I'm disappointed by the repeated deletes and lack of engagement or response to any of my efforts to improve the addition. I have little time to pursue this further. Despite the fact that the reviews were positive the Critical response section needs more analysis and insight, and the article by Lindy West seemed to be a good way to do that in a short and to-the-point way. -- 109.79.83.196 (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kyle died two years before the film. He didn't make any statements regarding the film. This article is about the film. The source you point isn't about the film. It's not from a film critic. Instead, it's being used as a vehicle to criticize aspects outside the scope of the film. Pretend this is "The Hobbit" and some busybody used it to criticize Welsh social structure. "But it's a movie" should be the first words you use to dismiss it. It doesn't belong here. --DHeyward (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"He didn't make any statements regarding the film" never at any stage did anyone suggest Chris Kyle said anything about the film.

You should not simply dismiss information that explains how a film is different from the source material, you should accept that these edits were made in good faith and explain how you think this information should be presented. The Production section already includes information explaining that the enemy sniper was a fiction introduced by Spielberg. But that isn't relevant either, Eastwood presents Kyle in a way that allows viewers to make their own interpretation, and viewers have interpreted him as a hero and critics have experienced a backlash for calling him less than heroic.

I think you are taking an excessively narrow view of what the Critical response section can and should include. People add to articles in good faith, deleting doesn't improve an article and the reasons given (or not given at all) haven't made any suggestions as to how alternative view points might be included in an appropriate way or other part of the article. It is starting to look like editors are deliberately removing criticism. -- 109.79.83.196 (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've stayed out of this issue until now, but it does look to me like the addition of the Lindy West article is WP:FRINGE and should not be included. The "critics" you keep referring to are bloggers, not film critics. Their opinion appears to be anti-war driven, and the backlash against them by a few people on Twitter is also agenda driven. It is not a response to the subject of this article - the film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Cooper responds. Cooper isn't ignoring the criticism that is being dismissed here. He's not accepting it but he is engaging with it. -- 109.79.83.196 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. He treats it just as we are treating it. Basically, it should not be used as a tool to push an agenda regarding the war in Iraq or war in general. This is not a debate and WP is not a battleground. --DHeyward (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In that interview Cooper says he does not want the film used to push this agenda. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want to ignore that it is happening, that doesn't mean it isn't happening. I'm surprised he even went as far as acknowledging it, but that he noticed it and responded to goes to show it is more than fringe. I don't think it will blow over and I think it will need to be noted in the article in some form or another, and I think more effort should have been made to decide in what way it gets included instead of ignoring it and hoping it will go away. -- 109.76.166.183 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

115.64.210.103 (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC) I'm not 100% about "Some critics in the media however seemed to misunderstand the film and especially Eastwood's stance on war." Someone's interpretation of a film, especially as contentious as this one, is inherently subjective and I don't think any critic is "misunderstanding" the film or its message.[reply]

According to WP:UNDUE: "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." This is a Wikipedia policy which editors should normally follow, unless there is consensus to do otherwise.

If multiple reliable sources writing about American Sniper say that Kyle said that killing Iraqis was "fun," and "I hate the damn savages," then those viewpoints belong in the article. In fact multiple reliable sources do say that, as you can easily confirm by doing a Google search for those terms and selecting the reliable sources (not just blogs). That includes the Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian, Alternet, and Salon. By definition, viewpoints supported by multiple reliable sources are not WP:FRINGE. Therefore, under Wikipedia policy, they belong in the article. Deleting it from the article is WP:CENSOR.

DHeyward says that these viewpoints are not about the film. That's wrong. They are about the film. Wikipedia articles about films aren't limited to discussing the script. For example, the article on Selma (film) has a section on controversies about the accuracy of the film.

Those who want to delete well-sourced material must establish WP:CONSENSUS. They haven't achieved consensus. The deletions should be restored. --Nbauman (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://storify.com/RaniaKhalek/american-sniper-chris-kyle-in-his-own-words Chris Kyle in his own words.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.155.84.130 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox film says to round the runtime to the nearest minute. When rounding numbers in base 10, 5 or more gets rounded up to 10. When rounding seconds to minutes 30 seconds or more gets rounded up to the next minute, 29 seconds or less gets rounded down.

User:Gothicfilm mentioned Template:Infobox film when rounding the runtime (of 29 seconds) should be rounded up but the template only says that the number should be rounded, it does not specify that they numbers should be "rounded-up". I have attempted to correct this but my edit has not been taken in good faith and Gothicfilm instead accused me of edit warring. -- 109.76.129.126 (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The template is clear.

The Template talk page is clear as mud, there is an unfinished draft proposal to round up the runtime and that Gothicfilm wants to use. If there was consensus and the discussion was finished and the template documentation was updated your attitude might make sense but you're showing a serious lack of good faith by insisting things be done a certain way based on unfinished draft discussions. -- 109.76.129.126 (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did the same revert twice in less than four hours. The guideline does not say we must round to the nearest minute. There's another issue involved, which I started a thread on. There's a good reason for what I'm doing. Now I see you're also debating by edit summary with someone else over Box Office Mojo numbers. You should really register an account, rather than going from one IP to another. I suppose it may be dynamic, but that doesn't help anyone check what you're doing. I assume you're the same person/different IP as in the section above.

Here's the discussion at Template talk:Infobox film that I gave a link to: -- Gothicfilm (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Running time - Proposal to round up to the next full minute

While otherwise being very reliable, I've noticed the British Board of Film Classification often does not include the opening company logo in its runtime database. This is very surprising, as it's a part of the film, technically speaking. Perhaps they do this as it can vary in different territories if a film has different distributors. Because of this I propose we amend the documentation to say every film's runtime should be rounded up. I believe this would be good policy even without the BBFC issue, since if you cut off a 123 min 05 second film at 123 minutes, you've lost the last five seconds. Not a big deal, but that five seconds is technically part of the film. I noticed this because I saw that the runtime for a film was a full minute longer than what the BBFC listed. The only cause I could guess at were the opening company logos. There were three or four of them in succession, and they took up nearly a minute. Then I checked other films and saw it again. This may be original research, but there's no reason not to make it a guideline to always round up the runtime to the next full minute. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this occur on every film? The BBFC will only measure what they classify, so if they have cut the film that may explain the shorter length. It would help if you could give us some examples so we can get to the bottom of it. Betty Logan (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I first noticed this a few weeks ago. If you really want I can look at the articles I've edited in the last month and try to track them down, but I can assure you they were all listed as being passed uncut by the BBFC. I routinely check the credits, runtimes and other issues as I see films and correct them as necessary on WP. It's easy to check runtimes since DVDs and DVRs give them to the second (just make sure you have the correct start/end point). Like I said, I was quite surprised when one was a minute off (until then, with rounding there was no problem. I believe it was Bullet to the Head, which was listed as This work was passed uncut, and is what sparked me to post this now. Someone reverted my rounding up the BBFC runtime.) Usually company logos don't take up quite that much screen time. If it's possible to track down the BBFC policy on including/not including logos I'd be all for it, but the issue is resolved in simplest fashion if we just agree to always round up the BBFC's listed minute/second to the next full minute. We should be doing that anyway for films listed at X minutes/30(+) seconds. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is one of those little details that changes between prints or countries, wouldn't we most commonly use the original theatrical print as the basis? (And rounding up seems like a good idea.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Internship is the latest example I've found of a film with a longer runtime than indicated by the BBFC. This case is more minor, but it is still illustrative of the issue: BBFC lists 119:15, but that is about 15 seconds short. As said above, anything 30 seconds or more should be rounded up to the next full minute, so The Internship should be listed as 120 minutes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over 255 confirmed kills but how many of them were snipes? As the worlds foremost researcher on spin headshots and jumping snipes I need to know for my book, "Snippets of Snipers and there Sick Red Eyes." THIS ARTICLE IS NOT COMPLETE WITHOUT ACCURATE SNIPER KILL INFORMATION. I am pretty sure SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET has information regarding this and PROBABLY has a contact at the Department of Defense Sniper Division Epsilon Team Six.

Thank you! Sniping is the MOST IMPORTANT thing in the world today! There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that will advance us as a civilization more than the glorification of no-scoping people from across the desert! As a part time Kindergarten Substitute I would LOVE to discuss the ACCURATE art-form of Sniping in all its glory. Kids need to know about sniping and why its necessary. Like my grandad always said, "A snipe in the heart is worth 2 in the bush."

Thank You OgreSnipe! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogresnipe (talk • contribs) 02:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, this section is just disgraceful. There are tons and tons of articles available on the controversy and all you include is a one-sided quote and then a link to Breitbart, which isn't even a reliable source, but a political rag. Whoever made that section has utterly broken WP:POV and has failed as a Wikipedia editor. Silverseren^C 18:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the wording of the article says '255 kills, 160 of which were officially confirmed', surely that's only 160 kills. Maybe the chap is guilty of doing original research with non peer-reviewed numbers of murdered children? Safebreaker (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the extensive media coverage of this film, what's going on is that all snipers keep handwritten kill logs. The U.S. military draws a distinction between kills solely reported by the sniper alone and kills where at least one other American soldier witnessed the kill. What appears to be undisputed in the media coverage is that Kyle's number of confirmed kills is about 160. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two SPA IPs appear to be removing sourced content, including comments by Zaid Jilani, Michael Moore and Matt Taibbi, under the incorrect edit summary the material is 'overwrought' and 'undercited'. It appears the IPs are removing the content because they do not like it.

And by the way it is interesting that the IPs claim they aim to "shorten" the criticism section while in fact the 'reception' section is extremely long and needs shortening - not the criticism section.

Moreover, the IPs claim they aim to shorten the 'criticism' section while insisting on re-adding the redundant fact Zaid Jilani is Pakistani-American, which is obvious from his Wikipedia page. I've removed the phrase 'Pakistani-American' but they keep returning it to the article.

And what is the reason for the removal of the following? "Matt Taibbi wrote that "American Sniper is almost too dumb to criticize." ^[1]"

Please stop edit warring and instead discuss your reasoning (if any) for the removal of sourced content. IjonTichy (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Salon and Rolling Stone are WP:RSs. Jilani's points have been made repeatedly by many WP:RSs, which give them WP:WEIGHT. They should be included, under WP:NPOV. If nobody defends the deletions in Talk, then any of us should feel free to revert the deletions. --Nbauman (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been involved in this other than my comment in the Critical response section above. A discussion cannot be ignored because editors don't repeat themselves when the subject is brought up again. The point of WP:UNDUE is to not give more attention to minority viewpoints. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources expressing criticism of the film may be in the minority, but they are a significant minority. Many scholars, academics, columnists, journalists (not only film critics) and other commentators criticized various aspects of the film. IjonTichy (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Zaid Jilani is but one of many "writers" that misrepresent the story of Kyle claiming HE shot people from the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. Kyle did fabricate the story of snipers shooting persons from atop he Superdome but he never once stated that he did so himself. The orginal story is from an op-ed written by another navy seal and is here at this link. The news media has bamboozled people into the lie that Kyle claimed he was there...he never made that claim. Jilani apparently is too slovenly to do his own research before writing a "news" piece. Since Salon pieces like this are so shoddy from a reporting standpoint no reason to not follow undue weight and eliminate such nonsense.--MONGO 04:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Kyle told Brandon Webb. The writer of the New Yorker piece about Kyle (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs) says Kyle told to other people that it was him who shot looters.

Also note that people like Michael Moore are backpedaling on their claims that it is about Kyle (and even less so the movie). All criticism should be about the movies and not what some random person off the street thought about what was omitted. --DHeyward (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has not been the case with criticism inserted about any other movies that I have seen. Valid criticism is valid criticism. You have no right to remove virtually all references to journalistic articles that have a problem with the movie simply because you disagree with them. If you wish to compress the references to turn more eloquent, that is another matter entirely. David A (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, why did you attempt to remove the references to these two articles in their entirety? I thought that they made several good points. David A (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: We don't make editorial decisions based on users' personal opinions: you'll need to cite reliable sources that say that Michael Moore has issued a full, un-ambiguous, official retraction of his comments on the cowardice of snipers. IjonTichy (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you will need a "full, un-ambiguous, official" notice that he is discussing the movie and not just a general anti-Iraq or anti-sniper comment. If they aren't discussing the movie, it doesn't belong here. If they are just making vague references to the war, it doesn't belong here. --DHeyward (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read bottom line of this article [1]. Moore disavows that he is discussing the film. He actually gives the film positive reviews. --DHeyward (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said that the release of the movie coincided with increased threats against Arabs and Muslims.^[2] It has also accused Eastwood of dishonestly linking the September 11 attacks with Iraq.^[3]

• Michael Moore tweeted, in response to American Sniper, "My uncle [was] killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot you in the back. Snipers aren't heroes. And invaders are worse." [sic]^[4]

• Noam Chomsky criticized "what the worship of a movie about a cold-blooded killer says about the American people."^[5]

• Lindy West of The Guardian wrote: "In his memoir, Kyle reportedly described killing as “fun”, something he “loved”; he was unwavering in his belief that everyone he shot was a “bad guy”. “I hate the damn savages,” he wrote. “I couldn’t give a flying fuck about the Iraqis.”" and: "If he (Eastwood), intentionally or not, makes a hero out of Kyle – who, bare minimum, was a racist who took pleasure in dehumanising and killing brown people – is he responsible for validating racism, murder, and dehumanisation? Is he a propagandist if people use his work as propaganda?"^[6]

• Zack Beauchamp of Vox felt that the film's greatest sin was condescending "to Americans and American troops by acting as if we could not possibly handle moral ambiguity about America's mission in Iraq. But it did, and that is a disservice not just to film's viewers, but to the millions of Americans who were affected by the war and deserve to have that story told honestly."^[7]

• John Wight, writing for Russia Today, strongly criticized the film and its reception to date. He said, "The moral depravity into which the US is sinking is shown by American Sniper glorifying the exploits of a racist killer receiving six Oscar nominations, whereas 'Selma' depicting Martin Luther King's struggle against racism has been largely ignored."^[8]

• Matt Taibbi wrote that "Sniper is a movie whose politics are so ludicrous and idiotic that under normal circumstances it would be beneath criticism" and that "Eastwood plays for cheap applause and goes super-dumb even by Hollywood standards."^[9]

• Chris Hedges, in an article titled "Killing Ragheads for Jesus", wrote that "American Sniper lionizes the most despicable aspects of U.S. society—the gun culture, the blind adoration of the military, the belief that we have an innate right as a 'Christian' nation to exterminate the 'lesser breeds' of the earth, a grotesque hypermasculinity that banishes compassion and pity, a denial of inconvenient facts and historical truth, and a belittling of critical thinking and artistic expression. Many Americans, especially white Americans trapped in a stagnant economy and a dysfunctional political system, yearn for the supposed moral renewal and rigid, militarized control the movie venerates."^[10]

• Zaid Jilani attacked American Sniper's inaccuracies, arguing both the film and Kyle's reputation "are all built on a set of half-truths, myths and outright lies." He first criticized Eastwood's direction of a sequence in which Kyle is serving in Iraq right after he is shown watching news footage of the September 11 attacks, suggesting the Iraq War was in direct response to the attacks. Jilani also argued the film glossed over certain fabrications in Kyle's autobiography, including the claims most of the book's proceeds would go to veterans' charity and that Kyle had killed 30 people in post-Katrina New Orleans. Jilani focused the most, however, on the film's portrayal of Kyle as a man tormented by and remorseful for his actions, writing such torment is "completely absent from the book the film is based on," quoting passages from Kyle's autobiography in which Kyle wrote he enjoyed his occupation and would have killed more people.^[11]

• Max Blumenthal said the film American Sniper is "filled with lies and distortion from start to finish," makes a hero out of "a pathological liar and a mass killer" and promotes falsehoods about Navy SEAL Chris Kyle along with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Blumenthal said the film is a "bogus whitewash of the atrocities committed by American troops in Iraq."^[12]

• Seth Rogen was accused of criticizing the film when he tweeted that the film reminded him of the Nazi sniper propaganda film showing in the third act of Quentin Tarantino's 2009 film Inglourious Basterds. He later stated that he was not criticizing the film but making a comparison.^[13][14]

• Sophia A. McClennen, a Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature at the Pennsylvania State University, said there are "insanities and fantasies at the heart of" American Sniper and that "despite the fact that the film depicts Kyle as a hero and a martyr, the real American sniper was heartless and cruel. Rather than struggle with moral dilemmas as we see in the film, the actual man had no such hesitation and no such conscience. But to focus on American Sniper's depiction of Kyle is to miss the larger problems of the film. In addition to sugarcoating Kyle, the film suffers from major myopia — from a complete inability to see the larger picture. And that is why criticism of the film has to look at its director, Clint Eastwood, and the troubling ways he represents a dark, disturbing feature of the GOP mind-set."^[15]

• Ross Caputi, a former marine who participated in the US's second siege of Fallujah, criticized American Sniper, writing that "What American Sniper offers us — more than a heart-wrenching tale about Chris Kyle's struggle to be a soldier, a husband, and a father; more than an action packed story about America's most lethal sniper — is an exposure of the often hidden side of American war culture. The criminality that has characterized American military engagements since the American Indian Wars, and most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, is hardly noticeable in this film."^[16]

• Comedian Bill Maher stated "He's a psychopath patriot, and we love him," and "'I hate the damn savages' doesn't seem like a very Christian thing to say," comparing Kyle disfavourably to anti-war general Dwight D. Eisenhower.^[17]

• Journalist Eamon Murphy wrote on Mondoweiss that "it's hard to know, when watching Eastwood's Iraq War, where doltish film conventions end and rotten politics begins. (Bushism was an awful lot like an idiotic blockbuster in the first place.) The bits of military exposition are outrageously at odds with the facts, but they also sound so hokey it seems almost stupid to object by citing reality."^[18]

• Sheldon Richman commented on the popular/cultural evaluation of Kyle: "Despite what some people think, hero is not a synonym for competent government-hired killer. If Clint Eastwood’s record-breaking movie, American Sniper, launches a frank public conversation about war and heroism, the great director will have performed a badly needed service for the country and the world." "Jeanine Pirro, a Fox News commentator, said, “Chris Kyle was clear as to who the enemy was. They were the ones his government sent him to kill.” Appalling! Kyle was a hero because he eagerly and expertly killed whomever the government told him to kill? Conservatives, supposed advocates of limited government, sure have an odd notion of heroism. Excuse me, but I have trouble seeing an essential difference between what Kyle did in Iraq and what Adam Lanza did at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It certainly was not heroism."^[19]

• Peter Maass wrote the film "ignores history" and that the film makes no attempt to provide "anything beyond Kyle’s limited comprehension of what was happening." He added that the movie is "utterly false to the experience of millions of Iraqis and to the historical record. Further, it’s no act of patriotism to celebrate, without context or discussion, a grunt’s view that the people killed in Iraq were animals deserving their six-feet-under fate." Maass also wrote public statements made by Bradley Cooper, the film’s star and co-producer, appear to show Cooper may "fail to understand how war movies operate in popular culture. When a film venerates an American sniper but portrays as sub-human the Iraqis whose country we were occupying—the film has one Iraqi who seems sympathetic but turns out to be hiding a cache of insurgent weapons—it conveys a political message that is flat wrong. Among other things, it ignores and dishonors the scores of thousands of Iraqis who fought alongside American forces and the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who were killed or injured in the crossfire." Maass added, "While it is about a certain type of bravery, the film itself is not brave."^[20]

• Film historian Max Alvarez, in an article titled From Psychopaths to American Hero? A Short History of Sniper Cinema, expressed the view that "It can only be hoped that American Sniper will not set the tone for future Hollywood movies in which “sharpshooters” are portrayed heroically."^[21]

• Janet Weil wrote that ""American Sniper" is well acted, slickly produced, and occasionally gripping. It's also war propaganda." She criticized the political, historical, social, cultural, philosophical, moral, ethical, religious, ethnic and racial aspects of the film. She said the film stereotyped and objectified Iraqis, and presented children as legitimate targets. She also said the film presented an overly simplistic portrayal of Iraq as a country.^[22]

• Gary Legum alleged the film misused Christian values. He wrote that "right-wing" Christians who think American Sniper embodies Christian values use patriarchal language to defend Chris Kyle in the “clash of civilizations.” Legum further wrote that "... Chris Kyle ... embodied the fanatical, driven purpose of those 10th-century Christians who invaded the Holy Lands and saw slaughtering Muslims by the thousands as their God-given duty. In his autobiography upon which Clint Eastwood’s hit film is based, the self-professed Christian, who had tattooed the Crusader’s red cross on his arm, referred to the Iraqis he was paid to shoot as “savages” and a “savage, despicable evil” who all “deserved to die.” ... Kyle ... or any other militant Christian, can pick and choose whichever passage from the New Testament justifies his own desire to kill for Jesus. Unfortunately it’s us non-believers who still have to live in the world they make."^[23]

• Roy Scranton, who served in the US Army in Iraq from 2002-2006,^[24] analyzed the film in the Los Angeles Review of Books, and criticized the political, historical, social, ethnic and racial aspects of the film. He said the film stereotyped and objectified Iraqis. He further wrote: ... "The trauma hero myth also serves a scapegoat function, discharging national bloodguilt by substituting the victim of trauma, the soldier, for the victim of violence, the enemy." ... "Never mind the tired Vietnam-era trope of the bomb-wielding child, a fiction that Eastwood grafted onto Kyle’s less sensational autobiographical account of shooting a woman." ... "the film obviates the questions of why any American soldiers were in Iraq, why they stayed there for eight years, why they had to kill thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians, and how we are to understand the long and ongoing bloodbath once called the “war on terror.” It does that precisely by turning a killer into a victim, a war hero into a trauma hero." ... "Yet when the trauma hero myth is taken as representing the ultimate truth of more than a decade of global aggression, as with American Sniper, we allow the psychological suffering endured by those we sent to kill for us displace and erase the innocents killed in our name. ... the real victims of American political violence disappear under a load of shit." "... American Sniper may portray a loss of innocence that makes the dirty war in Iraq palatable as an individual tragedy, but [it] only do[es] so by obscuring the connection between American audiences and the millions of Iraqi lives destroyed or shattered since 2003. Focusing on the suffering of ... Kyle allows us to forget the suffering of the very people whose land was occupied in our name. " "But the failure does not belong to the writers. It belongs to all the readers and citizens who expect veterans to play out for them the ritual fort-da of trauma and recovery, and to carry for them the collective guilt of war.   Such an expectation is the privilege of those who can afford to have others do their killing for them. Off-loading the problem of war onto the figure of the traumatized veteran, however, has long-term costs we have yet to reckon. The imperative to see war clearly is persistent, and as urgent today as ever ... Understanding the problem of American political violence demands recognizing soldiers as agents of national power, and understanding what kind of work the trauma hero is doing when he comes bearing witness in his bloody fatigues."^[25]

• Political scientist Joseph Lowndes wrote that "American Sniper need not directly claim a link between 9/11 and Iraq, it need not subscribe to Chris Kyle’s claim that Iraqis are “savage” and “evil.” One could easily read both as meant to convey the narrow, provincial perception of the protagonist. It need not even endorse any American presence in the Middle East at all. American Sniper dispenses with conventional politics to portray the raw, emotional core of white vulnerability. James Baldwin once wrote that the monstrous violence visited by white Americans on the world is due to this people having opted for safety over life. American Sniper, attending to the triple insecurities of race, gender, and empire, serves as an exclamation point to that observation."^[26]

• Paul Edwards wrote that American Sniper displays "baldly ridiculous ideas long universally discredited, and a politics rooted in deep, indomitable ignorance and a form of stupidity that prides itself on denial of irrefutable reality." He also wrote the film displays "the sleazy depravity of a mind that can craft a mawkish, fawning tribute to a diseased serial killer from a biography in which the killer himself spells out in appalling detail his own disgusting sickness.   So much has been written about this paean to a subhuman monster -– much of it on whether or not it is moral and heroic to murder people wholesale for flag and country -– that the only truly important thing about its success has not been articulated. That is the grossly ugly fact that such a huge number of Americans jubilantly support this morally dirty film and its message.   Of course, an audience that embraces films featuring all kinds of vicious, repulsive, sadistic murderers -– cannibals, necrophiles, zombies, vampires -- can be expected to flock to any flick that promises to satisfy its craving, and promotion for American Sniper puts it right in their wheelhouse.   What is profoundly disturbing culturally but should not be surprising is that, unlike goofy trash about chainsaw maniacs, anthropophagous esthetes, and midnight bloodsuckers, American Sniper glorifies a real self-confessed serial murderer, and its supporters don’t care. It makes no distinction, that is, between imbecile fantasy and appalling truth. The fact that the “hero” and much of his story was real only enhances his glamour in their eyes.   What gives the film its fierce attractive power for them is that the relentless propaganda of “the Global War on Terror” has imbued them with the same hateful, furious, kneejerk, Nazi-style “patriotism” that Kyle embodied.   As long as the tag-team of our “news” media and the Hollywood War Porn industry continues, the fan base for U.S. military ubermensch horror films will grow. As Germany learned in the deadly 1930s, there is nothing quite so dangerous to a nation’s liberty as a furious, stupid, violence-addicted, enemy-fixated underclass. The monster that a culture creates and keeps in its basement can sometimes break its chains, to rend and dismember it." ^[27]

• Dan Sanchez wrote: "The most harrowing scene in American Sniper involves an Iraqi character nicknamed “The Butcher” torturing and executing an Iraqi child by taking a power drill to his skull. The scene lends credibility to the narrative of Chris Kyle as basically a hero facing villains. In the film, “The Butcher” is a lieutenant of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Sunni insurgent, terrorist, and founder of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which later became ISIS. However, in the Iraq of the real world, power drilling human heads is more of a predilection, not of Sunni insurgents, but of their enemies in the Shiite militias." ... "Both of these Iran-sponsored real-life head-drilling “butchers” of Iraq rose to power thanks to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, and are now commanding forces either in the US-backed Iraqi government, or under its protection, fighting alongside the US military against the now ISIS-lead Sunni insurgency. At the end of the day, the American Sniper was not the enemy of the Iraqi Butchers, but their benefactor.   As radio host Scott Horton never tires reminding his listeners, the chief role of the American troops in Iraq was to fight a bloody civil war on behalf of the Shiite side and to install Iran-backed Shiite militias in power. These militias used death squads to ethnically cleanse Baghdad and other cities of Sunnis, and, as Will Grigg never tires reminding his readers, imposed a Sharia-compliant constitution over a once-secular country. This Shiite jihad was, in effect, Chris Kyle’s true mission, for which millions of American Christians now lionize him."^[28]

• (An article from almost 11 years ago, referenced by Janet Weil above.) Journalist Dahr Jamail in his direct report from Fallujah on American snipers "Slaughtering Civilians in Fallujah:" "...the Americans bombed one of the hospitals, and were currently sniping people as they attempted to enter/exit the main hospital ... " photo caption: "Iraqi woman wounded in the neck by an American sniper. Doctors predicted the wound would be fatal." ... " As I was there, an endless stream of women and children who'd been sniped by the Americans were being raced into the dirty clinic, the cars speeding over the curb out front as their wailing family members carried them in. One woman and small child had been shot through the neck – the woman was making breathy gurgling noises as the doctors frantically worked on her amongst her muffled moaning. The small child, his eyes glazed and staring into space, continually vomited as the doctors raced to save his life. After 30 minutes, it appeared as though neither of them would survive. One victim of American aggression after another was brought into the clinic, nearly all of them women and children. This scene continued, off and on, into the night as the sniping continued." ... "One small boy of 11, his face covered by a kefir and toting around a Kalashnikov that was nearly as big as he was, patrolled areas around the clinic, making sure they were secure. He was confident and very eager for battle. I wondered how the U.S. soldiers would feel about fighting an 11 year-old child? For the next day, on the way out of Falluja, I saw several groups of children fighting as mujahedeen." ... "Although the ambulance already had three bullet holes from a U.S. sniper through the front windshield on the driver's side, having westerners on board was the only hope that soldiers would allow them to retrieve more wounded Iraqis. The previous driver was wounded when one of the sniper's shots grazed his head. Bombs were heard sporadically exploding around the city, along with random gunfire. It grew dark, so we ended up spending the night with one of the local men who had filmed the atrocities. He showed us footage of a dead baby who he claimed was torn from his mother's chest by Marines. Other horrendous footage of slain Iraqis was shown to us as well." ... "One of the bodies they brought to the clinic was that of an old man who was shot by a sniper outside of his home, while his wife and children sat wailing inside. The family couldn't reach his body, for fear of being sniped by the Americans themselves. His stiff body was carried into the clinic with flies swarming above it." ... "What I can report from Falluja is that there is no ceasefire, and apparently there never was. Iraqi women and children are being shot by American snipers. Over 600 Iraqis have now been killed by American aggression, and the residents have turned two football fields into graveyards. Ambulances are being shot by the Americans. And now they are preparing to launch a full-scale invasion of the city. All of which is occurring under the guise of catching the people who killed the four Blackwater Security personnel and hung two of their bodies from a bridge." Photo caption: "Young Iraqi boy shot in the neck by a U.S. sniper in Falluja."^[29]

• Journalist and author Robert Fisk, who reported on several wars and armed conflicts, tweeted that American Sniper is "rubbish."^[30]

• Adam K. Raymond wrote about "5 Things American Sniper’s Chris Kyle Allegedly Lied About."^[31]

• Brock McIntosh, an ex-soldier, commended Chris Kyle for telling his story in his book. McIntosh wrote that “American Sniper” is "rife with lies" and that the movie is "as fictional as Buffy Summers." He also wrote: "... Americans were responsible for thousands of Iraqi deaths and almost none were held accountable." ... "So enough about Chris Kyle. Let’s talk about Cooper and Hall, and the culture industry that recycles propagandistic fiction under the guise of a “true story.” And let’s focus our anger and our organizing against the authorities and the institutions that craft the lies that the Chris Kyles of the world believe, that have created a trail of blowback leading from dumb war to dumb war ... "^[32]

Thank you. I would be perfectly fine with rewording my article insertion in that manner. David A (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the summaries above should go in the Criticism section. The sheer number of WP:RSs indicates that they represent at least a significant minority view. The current Criticism section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Sniper_%28film%29&oldid=644278833 condenses them all into a single paragraph. When you condense a Criticism section significantly, that is equivalent to tilting the article against the criticism, in violation of WP:NPOV. --Nbauman (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read bottom line of this article [2]. Moore disavows that he is discussing the film. He actually gives the film positive reviews. --DHeyward (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, you appear to be Wikilawyering. Your source THR does not say any of those things you claim: it does not say Moore disavows that he is discussing the film. And Moore is quoted as liking some aspects of the film (BC's acting and antiwar message) but disliked other, key aspects of the film. IjonTichy (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IjonTichyIjonTichy, what do you think about the argument that the Salon article should be removed because it originally appeared on Alternet? Personally, I am concerned about the extreme nature of the direct quotes from Kyle, and their extreme contrast to the public presentation of the man himself. To me, it seems like this contrast is extremely relevant to make available to the public awareness. David A (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if it is inappropriate, would either of these two articles be acceptable instead? My main concern is the quotes after all. David A (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. The link to Chris Hedges article should be put in a citation however.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with AlterNet or salon - we could write Zaid Jilani in Salon expressed the view that ...

Yes, I think the article should cite Chris Hedges and Max Blumenthal, two respected investigative journalists and authors. The commentary by Chomsky may be best included in a new sub-section of the 'criticism' section, e.g. 'criticism of media coverage of the film'. IjonTichy (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point of WP:UNDUE is to not give more attention to minority viewpoints:

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. ... Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

Every blogger who has put out criticism is not to be included. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that intended for scientific analysis, rather than censoring subjective viewpoints? The criticism section is already quite small as it is. David A (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gothicfilm, you are quoting selectively from WP:UNDUE and omitting the beginning, which goes against your argument. WP:UNDUE begins with,

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.

There are many significant viewpoints from WP:RSs that are critical of the film, and they should be represented in proportion to their prominence. You have cut them down to one paragraph. You have added a rebuttal to the criticism that is twice as long as the criticism itself. I think we should include the criticism in the detailed form as we wrote above -- in at least the same length as Eastwood's criticism. Your objection isn't to whether they are WP:RSs, you just disagree with the criticism of the film. --Nbauman (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Eastwood section should be trimmed down. I did not add it or reduce the "Criticism" section. WP:UNDUE is about proportionality. The proportion of the "Criticism" section should be compared to the film's overall response, which is not mostly negative. Nowhere near it. These are the viewpoints of anti-war activists, and they should be identified as such. And don't tell me what I agree or disagree with. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could see some opinions, but pros or cons, most of these movie critics are not even recognized as movie critics by trade...so pro or con it is just opinions.--MONGO 00:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is sufficient criticism of the film to start a new article titled something like 'Criticism of American Sniper (film)' or 'American Sniper (film) controversies.' In the style of, for example, 'Criticism of Fox News Channel.'   IjonTichy (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words you are suggesting a POV FORK...a coatrack.--MONGO 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that would be a WP:POVFORK, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. And there is not sufficient criticism of the film to start a new article on that subject. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found more articles that can be cited in the criticism section:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/06/real-american-sniper-hate-filled-killer-why-patriots-calling-hero-chris-kyle

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7641189/american-sniper-history

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/24/bill-maher-rips-american-sniper-pro-war-propaganda-psychopathic-patriot-chris-kyle.html

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/26/american_snipers_biggest_lie_clint_eastwood_has_a_delusional_fox_news_problem/

http://www.vulture.com/2014/12/movie-review-american-sniper.html

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/22/7859791/american-sniper-iraq

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/american-sniper-lies-and-propaganda-to.html

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/racism/the-disgusting-tweets-inspired-by-the-propaganda-film-american-sniper-screenshots/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/24/bill-maher-blasts-american-sniper-calls-chris-kyle-a-psychopath-patriot.html

http://theantimedia.org/the-real-american-sniper/

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120763/american-sniper-clint-eastwood-biopic-misrepresents-chris-kyle

http://portside.org/2015-01-22/american-sniper-dishonest-racist-film-spawns-death-threats-against-arabs-and-muslims

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/remembers-important-american

http://www.thewrap.com/american-sniper-complaints-grow-in-hollywood-should-clint-eastwood-be-celebrating-a-killer/

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120763/american-sniper-clint-eastwood-biopic-misrepresents-chris-kyle

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/American-Sniper-20150110-0019.html

https://soundcloud.com/marcfennell/american-sniper?in=marcfennell/sets/triple-j-movie-reviews David A (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:UNDUE is about proportionality. We are not listing every critical article and blog. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there have been a lot of valid critical articles, yet we have given undue weight/space to the positive ones. We could give brief mentions of the above articles, as we have done with others, but it is giving a misrepresentative, and possibly slanted, picture to not include any of them at all. David A (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not include any of them at all? You've got your paragraph, and now you want to add to it. This is going against WP:UNDUE. The critical consensus is much more positive than negative. Stop with this crusade to overemphasize the minority viewpoint. You need consensus to put any more in. And your claim on your Talk page that the film "idolises" Kyle is not true. The film is ambiguous, and shows him conflicted. It is a misrepresentation to claim it is a pro-war film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, there have been lots of critical responses, so please stop your crusade to censor most of the references that you disagree with. The positive ones have been given far more room anyway. There was a heavily compressed paragraph as a counterpoint, but that is all. However, if you wish to shorten down the 3 new references that I added, I am openminded about that option. Removing valid notable sources altogether is morally unacceptable however. Also, the point is that going by the quotes that I have seen from Kyle, the film attempts to portray him in an enormously more favourable light. You can try reading through the criticism that I linked to if you wish. David A (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop acting as if you don't understand the concept of proportionality. You are going against WP:UNDUE. Your paragraph should be shorter because it is a minority viewpoint. This article is about the film, not Kyle. Those quotes are taken out of context and are made to sound as if Kyle was talking about all Iraqis, when he actually meant the insurgents - active combatants. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not good at compressing things completely, but am perfectly fine with if you wish to do it. Also, as I illustrated above, there are lots of critical voices about the movie, including the extremely valid The Guardian article that you attempted to remove. In addition, I have a very hard time seeing how quotes about taking excruciating pleasure killing savages, and wishing to kill anybody with a Quoran (all Muslims) can be taken out of context. David A (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about if we include most of the new above references in the extremely compressed format of: "Other critical voices include: (Writer A) of (Publication A),(Reference) (Writer B) of (Publication B), (Reference)..."? Would this be an acceptable compromise? David A (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its kind of fascinating to me that rags like Salon actually pay people of limited journalist integrity and zero ability to do investigative journalism (these tall tales would never hold up in a court of law) to write articles for them....I guess there is a target audience of persons with a predisposed bias that only want to read about things that support their biases. Anyway, why are we, quotefarming the opinions of "journalists" that are not even movie critics by trade? Some opinions are fine including movie directors such as Michael Moore....but Jiliani? That guy was too radical even for his ultra liberal PAC...he was fired after he made anti-Semitic comments and questioned Obama's Afghanistan troop surge. I will say that this issue is not limited to the criticism section...The critique both pro and con does not need nor should it be half the article...that would be undue.--MONGO 12:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of onesided preferences usually cut both ways. Salon tries to provide an alternative news outlet without the usual slanted corporate control, and limited resources. Regardless, personally I find Moore's comment irrelevant, and am not fond of Jilani if he is indeed anti-semite (although I consider his quotes noteworthy), but which of all the above sources do you consider acceptable? The Guardian review should qualify, surely? Also, the new Salon article above is written by Sophia A. McClennen, Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature at the Pennsylvania State University. That should also be relevant. David A (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This NYT article should settle the question of whether the views of critics belong in this entry. The answer is "yes." I think that every major newspaper -- NYT, Los Angles Times, Washington Post, etc. -- has had a story now about the critics. That means it should get significant WP:WEIGHT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/movies/awardsseason/american-sniper-fuels-a-war-on-the-home-front.html ‘American Sniper’ Fuels a War on the Home Front By CARA BUCKLEY JAN. 28, 2015

Meanwhile, the left started its own pile-on. Bill Maher said the film was about a “psychopathic patriot.” Chris Hedges, a columnist for TruthDig and a former reporter for The New York Times, argued in an essay with an incendiary title that Mr. Kyle “was able to cling to childish myth rather than examine the darkness of his own soul and his contribution to the war crimes we carried out in Iraq.” In a TV interview, Noam Chomsky noted that Mr. Kyle wrote in his memoir that he was fighting “savage despicable evil.” Mr. Chomsky added that “we’re all tarred with the same brush” for largely keeping silent about official policy and the country’s global drone assassination campaign.

The Chris Hedges essay, BTW, is [http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/killing_ragheads_for_jesus_20150125 Killing Ragheads for Jesus] which is quoted above.

I think Chris Hedges gives a good statement of the critics' view.

I think the Criticism section should be a coherent summary of the ideas behind the critics, in full sentences, rather than a collection of snippits. It seems to be getting a little better. If I were writing it from a blank page, I would summarize Zaid Jilani's list of "lies" and Chris Hedges' introductory lead. That would give the readers a good idea of what the controversy is all about. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a book jacket. --Nbauman (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this post. It would be far preferable if the consensus of the considerable amount of articles would be easier to read. However, to include as many references as possible while avoiding unnecessary brevity, would you consider it acceptable if I wrote a sentence at the end reading: "Several other articles have also been critical about the movie." With a following reference list of the left out critical articles? Of course, if somebody would like to read through all of them and categorise them in thecmanner suggested above, that would be even better. David A (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, "Several other articles have also been critical about the movie." with a whole string of links. Yes, that's what I was thinking of. Wikipedia style doesn't allow us to include what they disparagingly refer to a linkfarm, although I disagree with that. But we could definitely link to half a dozen (maybe more) of the best links, and hopefully someone will come along and improve it by briefly summarizing what the links are about. --Nbauman (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I think that this method should satisfy the demands of compromise. However, the question is which of all the above articles that are considered the most notable and informative? David A (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need for description

There does need to be a description of who these sources being quoted are. If they were against the war well before the film was made, they did not come to it with a neutral opinion. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what if they are against the war? Is that somehow a disqualifier for having a valid viewpoint? In any case, I think it should be blatantly obvious from the referenced articles themselves what their viewpoints are, and if possible there are links to their entries within Wikipedia. Should we insert lots of background about Clint Eastwood as well before his response? No, it would be silly and redundant. David A (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady Michelle Obama quotes on American Sniper

Obama spoke to a Washington gathering on Friday, January 30 organized by Got Your 6, a group that promotes accurate portrayals of veterans in entertainment:

The number-one movie in America right now is a complex, emotional depiction of a veteran and his family. And I had a chance to see “American Sniper” this week on that long flight we took – (laughter) -- and while I know there have been critics, I felt that, more often than not, this film touches on many of the emotions and experiences that I’ve heard firsthand from military families over these past few years.

Now, I’m not going to spoil it for anyone who hasn’t seen it, but this movie reflects those wrenching stories that I’ve heard -- the complex journeys that our men and women in uniform endure. The complicated moral decisions they are tasked with every day. The stresses of balancing love of family with a love of country. And the challenges of transitioning back home to their next mission in life.

And here’s why a movie like this is important: see, the vast majority of Americans will never see these stories. They will never grasp these issues on an emotional level without portrayals like this. Like I said, I’m lucky -– I have had the chance to visit our wounded warriors at Walter Reed, go to base after base. I’ve been able to sit down with groups of caregivers and military spouses and hear about their struggles and their triumphs.

And let me tell you, those experiences have changed me. They have changed me. They’ve made me want to do everything I can to support our troops, veterans and their families. But for all those folks in America who don’t have these kinds of opportunities, films and TV are often the best way we have to share those stories.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/remarks-first-lady-got-your-six-screenwriters-event-conversation-power-t

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/first-lady-michelle-obama-offers-praise-for-american-sniper-1201419881/

Perhaps some of these quotes should be used in the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that long quote from Michelle Obama go in the Controversies section? I don't see anything controversial about it. --03:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Paul Edwards has room to talk? Look at list of movies he has been a cameraman on...what a hypocrite.--MONGO 21:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are wikipedians really that unintelligent that they don't know the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan? Because why are there two categories associated with Afghanistan on here? 80.44.187.224 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. Just wanted to bring to attention the genre of the film. To get a source, I saw we pool critics who have seen the film and see what we can get for a consensus for the genre. Sound good? I've removed the genre for now until a consensus can be made.Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD you leave it as it was and discuss. I've restored biographical war drama film to the lead. Stop WP:edit warring over this. You've been blocked three times already. You only went to this Talk page after your third revert. Stop removing biographical war film. This film is not made up of extended fight scenes or chases, per action film. Far more sources refer to it as biographical and as a war film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really appreciate you saying "Don't edit war over this", when I've actually brought attention to the talk page. I don't think it's necessary to refer to it as a biographical film as the next sentence in the lead already identifies it as a biography. Bringing up my edit history or being banned is not a reason to stop me from editing. I've contributed to +15 good articles as well if you want any haste in my judgement.

We can't just decided what genre we do or do not want. Genres are subjective so we need to look up what critics have or not been saying about the film.Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Washington Post: “American Sniper,” Clint Eastwood’s military drama
• Sydney Herald: Action/Adventure, War, Biopic
• Time: romanticized biopic that succeeds as a grim, smart war movie
• New York Daily Post: director Clint Eastwood’s overpowering war film scintillates with clarity.
• The Dissolve: DRAMA, ACTION, BIOPIC / GENRES
• Entertainment Weekly: Genre: Action/Adventure
• New York Times: Less a war movie than a western — the story of a lone gunslinger facing down his nemesis in a dusty, lawless place — it is blunt and effective, though also troubling.

That's all I have for now, let's dig up some more to find a strong consensus. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can see from your own list that "action" is not a predominant genre. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is still research to be done, and actually, your genres have been brought into question. New York Times called it "less a war movie" and Action was brought up 3 times. It's hardly trivial. I'm not here to argue with you Gothicfilm, I want to find a solution. I'm sure there are more sources out there. How do you feel about removing biographic from the intro per my suggestion? It's already re-stated in the next sentence. I think it would improve the writing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the genre(s) belong in the lead sentence, per Film lead. Are you seriously disputing the film is set in a war? - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally think it's a war film. However, what genre a film or any form of media belongs to for things requires a source per WP:SUBJECTIVE. I'd suggest a style section in the article that can open up about genre and other cinematic sections if needed. I actually mostly agree with you on genre, but I want to a) clear out the lead from listing 3/4 genres which is messy and bad writing and 2) make sure there's a consensus on the talk page in case other edits come in.Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This film is not made up of extended fight scenes or chases, per action film, yet you put that in. More than once. This is a war film, it's biographical, and it's a drama, as among other things a good deal of it involves Kyle's wife. The three genres are all very legitimate in this case. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OR. You still need a source per WP:SUBJECTIVE. I'm sorry, but sources say more than yours or my personal opinions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a source to the lede. I am a bit confused by the discussion though; is the claim "biographical war drama" being disputed, or is the problem just that it was unsourced? Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Betty Logan:, it was not really a source issue, it's that we were only picking and choosing what the source was saying. AllMovie does say that, but it says "action" and "drama" on it's sidebar predominantly, and in ignoring that, we are picking and choosing sources. Looking through the other articles, I've found other genres, and we aren't really sure how it should be phrased. I'd suggest from the source I've found is something like "action and war drama film" and ignore the biographical, as the next statement and the breif plot summary in the lead already tells the reader that it's biographical. No need to repeat it twice in my book. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "next statement" you're talking about is referring to the book it's based on, not the film. Biographical war drama film belongs in the lead sentence. It looks to me like Betty added the AllMovie cite to back up the fact that this is a war film, it's biographical, and it's a drama, but I'll let Betty confirm that. As I said before, this film is not made up of extended fight scenes or chases, per action film, and even your own list indicates that "action" is not a predominant genre given by most sources. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's your definition of the genre, and your own opinion Gothicfilm. How do you feel about the several sources I've found that state action regardless? We don't post "the truth" here, we post what we can find as a source from various sources. I've provided them and they are all notable. Right? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my definition of the genre, it's at action film. And the fact a minority of sources use the term does not justify putting it in the lead when far more sources refer to it as a war film, a drama, and a biopic. I don't know why you want to spend so much time on forcing in the term "Action". That would just mislead readers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Gothicfilm and Betty Logan. Clearly not an action film. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen it, but this is how the sources above pan out: Military/war-5, biopic-3, action-3, drama-2. However, a "biographical action war drama film" seems to be a bit of mouthful and we try to limit the genres to just a couple. "Drama" is even less represented than "action" in the sources above. Biopics are ostensibly "drama" and war movies are ostensibly "action" oriented, so I would probably just go with "biographical war film", which incidentally is what we use at Patton (film). The two genres imply action and drama so they probably don't need to be explicitly stated; however, I do think that "war" and "biography" need to be mentioned because they fundamentally underpin the nature of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources above are not comprehensive. They were the first ones Andrzejbanas pulled up. Many I've seen have called this a war film, a biopic, and a drama, as among other things a good deal of it involves Kyle's wife on the domestic front. The three genres are all very legitimate in this case. Patton has no scenes back at home, it's all the European war theater. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point of the conversation, our own observations are not important. It's what sources say. Please respond to that statement, because it's what wikipedia is based on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who came in here and deleted "biographical war" film and put in "action", then when reverted, did it again, which goes against WP:BRD. You only went to this Talk page after your third revert. So stop trying to sound like you always follow proper policies. And I've already said most sources refer to this as a war film, a drama, and/or a biopic. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, there are a mess of genre labels that can be applied, and we just have to determine a consensus among editors on which ones to use. I agree with Betty's assessment that "war" and "biography" are sufficient labels. If needed, we can follow that opening sentence with a brief overview of what happens in the film, basically the "action" of Kyle on his sniper missions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This film is not made up of extended fight scenes or chases, per action film. Kyle's missions do not put this in the "action" genre, though I am generally for brief one-sentence plot summaries in opening paragraphs. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Betty; "Biographical war film" is supported by most sources and would suffice in the article. --Lapadite (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article American Sniper (film) controversies was recently created, apparently due to disputed content on the parent article. I really don't feel a separate article is worth creating: every opinion, positive or negative, certainly doesn't warrant mention (Seth Rogen is not a film critic). In all likelihood, this is a single news cycle event, where every "reliable source" is trying to get in on it, or parrot the same story, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and I'm not sure what lasting effects will be. I say given a few weeks and proper context, the controversy can easily be summarized, contextualized, and incorporated into the film article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A news cycle is defined as 24/7, I thought. I don't know about lasting effects, but I find that the geographical scope is nationwide, that there has been plenty of in-depth coverage, and that the debate has gone on for more than a week now. Currently, though, there is not enough substance in the article to be split off. I do not think there are enough details being provided to show the condemnations, such as the transition from the 9/11 attacks to Kyle fighting in Iraq (which I've seen mentioned at least a couple of times). There has also been commentary about Mustafa's portrayal as well as Arabs' portrayal. There's definitely more detail that could be provided, and a spin-off could plausibly be warranted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One good way to condense the text would be to group individual critiques under similar themes, rather than chop up criticism into two sentence "paragraphs" that read like a play-by-play of every person's view, and become somewhat overwhelming to read. Something more balanced and easier to read might go "A number of critics cited inaccuracies or distortions in the film. For example, Joe Smith stated "..." Similarly, Sue Smith wrote "..."". The next paragraph might read "Reception from Arab and Islamic-majority countries was (harsh/mixed) [Cite relevent examples]" This is how an encyclopedia should read, and it takes a bit more editorial finesse than quote after quote, but it is better writing. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The American Sniper (film) controversies page has been requested for deletion. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 20:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I would summarize Zaid Jilani's list of "lies" and Chris Hedges' introductory lead. They are professional writers, and those were their summaries of the main issues. I don't think we could summarize it better than they can. We could also write a summary of the other critics for those readers who want to follow up the links. --Nbauman (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fair that if radicals and anti-American bigots and non expert opinions about movie crafting are to have their useless opinions quoted, then there is no reason to not elaborate in a few words to a sentence why each of these non experts likely hold such opinions.--MONGO 00:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being extremely worried that any form of media attempts to paint a self-stated remorseless thrill-killer as an epitome of heroic idealism to emulate, does not remotely translate into "anti-American bigotry". Also, for the record I tested in the political middle. I am worried about virtually all forms of political extremism. David A (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David, I don't think Mongo's comment is directed at you. I think his comment appears to be an ad hominem attack which seems to be directed at the sources - e.g. Jilani, etc. Furthermore, I think he does not understand that the political/ historical/ social/ cultural/ ethical/ moral/ racial/ ethnic/ religious criticism of any film has nothing to do with criticism of movie 'crafting.' Film crafting is the domain of film critics, and analysis of political/ social issues in a film is the domain of political/ social critics. Maybe Mongo has not yet seen your, Nbauman's, and my recent comments on the AfD page, including the historical examples of films that are widely considered by film critics to be very well 'crafted' but that were criticized heavily for their political/ historical/ social themes, with the criticism of ideological/ historical/ political themes of the film being entirely a separate issue from the craft of making the film. For example, Mongo may want to read Why Zero Dark Thirty divides the media in half, which says, among other things: "Time [magazine]'s popular culture critic James Poniewozik [said]: Film history is full of movies that are false, amoral, brutal, sadistic, yet are triumphs of vision and storytelling."   "There have been films, from Birth of a Nation to Triumph of the Will, that are aesthetically compelling but politically and ethically odious ... And political writers rarely believe art takes precedence over current events or history."   "But if political writers do their job well, they understand something even more important: that ideological meaning and agendas are not incidental to thrilling films and cinematography. Why surgically remove politics from a discussion of a film’s final quality, rendering the argument so purely aesthetic that it becomes low-brow decadent, as is Richard Roeper’s in a broadcast. Roeper crowns Zero Dark Thirty the best [film] of the year [2012]: “a masterwork of filmmaking ... holy ‘bleep’ ”? Ethical lapses or gaps in movies should be critiqued, along with bad performances or absurd storylines." Finally, please see Zero_Dark_Thirty#Controversy. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very interesting, at many levels.

Headline-1: ‘American Sniper’ thrills Baghdad crowd: ‘Shoot him! He has an IED!’

• http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/american-sniper-thrills-baghdad-crowd-shoot-him-he/

QUOTE: "Clint Eastwood’s “American Sniper” has wowed American audiences, but for one short week it also thrilled crowds in Baghdad. Iraq’s upscale Mansour Mall played the film for one week before the controversy surrounding the film prompted management to end showings. -- AstroU (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. (Anti-Jihad sentiment in Baghdad!)[reply]

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

– I know the movie is recent, but the film article received 6.3 times more views in the last 90 days than the book article. The views for the book article also spiked around the release of the movie, indicating that the book is not the primary topic. [3] [4] With the film receiving unusual amounts of media attention and with it being an Oscar Best Picture nominee, I would imagine the film would remain the primary topic in the long run, making this more than just a case of recentism. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move - I agree on the move. I had never even heard of the book, most people are looking for the movie. Keeping disambiguation at the top of both is a good idea once move is completed, however. - Gaming4JC (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy support per nom Red Slash 04:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move - seems clear, just wondering if the book title is too long and it should be simply moved to American Sniper (book) ? Melcous (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the proposed name "American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History" is definitely too long (but can exist as a Redirect). I definitely think the second one should be moved to American Sniper (book). --IJBall (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't think the page views are particularly relevant. As well as being a bestseller, Kyle's autobiography also serves as a historical military record and as such the encylopedic value of it far exceeds a Hollywood movie. We wouldn't bump Anne Frank's Diary to make way for a movie. Betty Logan (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Diary of Anne Frank and the Harry Potter series (as mentioned by GregKaye) are undoubtedly more notable than their film adaptations. The same logic doesn't apply to American Sniper. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia a topic is either notable enough for an article to exist or it is not. In this case it is, and beyond that notability is irrelevant in determining the primary topic. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic is determined by what the reader is looking for, and the stats I've provided clearly show that most readers are looking for the film when they search for "American Sniper". –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. That is just one criterion we can use to determine primacy. Another is educational value—IMO the most important—and obviously a primary record account has more educational value than a movie based on it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The historical/educational/cultural influence of a work cannot be determined after just three years. The film has arguably demonstrated more cultural importance due to its nomination for globally recognized/respected accolades (particularly Academy Awards), unlike the book (unless you want to count its status as a NYT bestseller... but even Snooki can make that list these days).

The two topics – unlike, say, Madonna (Jesus) and Madonna (Material Girl) – are closely related. The other topic is mentioned and linked in the lead section of each article (not to mention hatnotes). Anyone who arrived at the wrong page can quickly find their way to the correct one. If this is the case, then it makes sense that preference should be given to the article that receives more traffic. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose, the book comes first. The only parallel that I immediately thought of was, despite its success, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). The book was recordbreaking but the film was an adaptation of the book, not the otherway around. GregKaye 10:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The book came first, and the current title reads fine. However, the book's title is too long, and should be shortened down. David A (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• GregKaye and David A – nowhere does PTOPIC say that a primary topic is based on what came first or what derived from the other. The Godfather is a great example of a primary topic where the film was based on the book. I'm sure there are others. As for the concern about the long book title... I wouldn't be opposed to American Sniper (book) or something similar, but generally natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical disambiguation. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose due to recentism (no criticism of the nominator is meant by this). The film will probably be the long-term primary topoc, but it's too soon to say, and at the moment the issue is confused by current box office receipts and Oscar buzz. It's best to revisit this in a few months. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose removal of (film) - classic case of WP:TWODABS where two subjects have interelated long term significance. Support move to American Sniper (book) - baseline can redirect to either no need for a dab, though downloading a 2 dab is considerably less expensive to mobile users than the mobile groaning and churning to download the wrong article, if we have (film) and (book) we won't be costing mobile users money. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Or, in the face of evidence that the film article is substantially more popular than the book article, we could point readers to the film article, as that's what most of them are looking for, and save the users even more money. There really is no need for a disambiguation page when there are only two terms and they are closely related to one another. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chasewc91, how exactly do you think removing (film) saves people looking for the (film) article money? There's only upside from keeping (film) since there will be no dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there will be no dab page, then where will "American Sniper" point if you want both articles to be disambiguated? –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The book came first and offers more detail about the subject. The movie has done well because of the book, not vice versa. The movie is a derivative work. --DHeyward (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose People may ask, which came first, the chicken or the egg? However, in this case, the book was published three years ago, while the movie was only recently released. As well, like most movies made from books, the movie did not cover everything in the book. In order to make a movie from a book, someone has to write a screenplay based on the book which goes through multiple edits and redrafts until it becomes something that can be made into a movie. At some point, the screenplay writer or the movie director take artistic license and diverge from what was written in the book. Another comparison could be to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four novel, which has been also made into at least two films, two TV programs, and an Opera. Each with their own Wikipedia pages, but the book retains the page name without ending in (book). 2601:2:4E00:C662:8C65:9C81:C206:2D31 (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As @User:Nbauman and I discussed above, to compromise and keep the text heavily compressed, we were thinking of including the following sentence at the end of the criticism section:

“Several other articles have also been critical about the movie.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]}”

However, we should apparently preferably keep it to around 6-8 references to avoid the term linkfarm. The question then is which of the above articles that are considered the most notable and informative? Helpful input would be very appreciated. Thank you. David A (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a laundry list of wimps armed with a typewriter. “American Sniper’s” biggest lie: Clint Eastwood has a delusional Fox News problem... is this person insane or something?...nevermind, they "write" for the overtly left wing biased Salon. I think for every pro or con opinion, we should help frame some examples of those person's other viewpoints, to add perspective to their ridiculous biases.--MONGO 08:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do that for any of the people with pro opinions, and how exactly should that be accomplished without cluttering up the page completely? It will have to suffice to link to their entries on Wikipedia, if they have any. Also, just because you label them as "wimps" (you will have to clarify why exactly you do so, simply because they appear uneasy with applauding a <refactored>) or as leftists does not make their analyses or perspectives any less relevant, and it infers that only people with far rightwing opinions deserve to be heard. Feel free to actually read through the articles, to get a clearer view of why they have a problem with the movie. As for your example. Sophia is a Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature at the Pennsylvania State University. She is qualified to making a solid analysis, even though I agree that the title of the segment was poorly worded. David A (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, your opinion of Kyle appears at odds with being NPOV. Perhaps you should take a step back? Also, the Salon article by Sophia reads like jibberish because of the correction noted at the top. The distinguished Sophia originally wrote it thinking Michael Moore was receiving an award for his gun control movie "Bowling for Columbine" when it was really anti-Iraq war "Fahrenheit 911." They corrected it but left her whole "this is why gun culture is bad." It's really an awful non-sequitur mess after the correction blows up her entire argument. That makes it rather non-credible. Her first two links are to 9/11 truther site "antimedia.org" (yes, those idiots are still writing ,olten metal articles). Another point is that all these articles want "bigger picture" arguments that are simply not about individual soldiers like enlisted grunts. --DHeyward (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for that sentence with all its inline citations. There are sources that take a bird's-eye view of this matter and report the number and variety of commentators. We still need a proper approach to to covering this matter. We need to stop using "Criticisms" or "Controversies" per WP:STRUCTURE and basically start grouping content, not but opposing viewpoints, but by content. The portrayal of Chris Kyle is one example. The portrayal of Middle Easterners is another. When we start doing that, and each section has the differing opinions folded per WP:STRUCTURE, we will be achieving neutrality. Right now, it is just a mess. Michelle Obama is quoted far too much, and there is not even any preceding commentary about military veterans, which there have been out there. I'd like to help, but I do not have time today to do research and writing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Michelle Obama quote needs sufficient length and context to accurately get across what she is saying. And it has gotten more mainstream media attention (CBS Evening News, etc.) than any other commenter in this article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with its inclusion, but I don't think it is impossible to be more succinct and to paraphrase at least part of it. I just highlight the excessive quoting as part of the problem that this section currently has. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found another Salon article, that I think has considerably more relevant content than Sophia's. Perhaps we could switch them? David A (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one, this one from another sniper.

Also, I have admittedly been affected by the articles that I read, although I am strictly citing what I was told in them, but MONGO isn't exactly NPOV either. If I remember correctly he has called any critics "anti-American bigots", "leftist rag writers", and "wimps with typewriters". David A (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism needs to be about the movie and as a side note criticism about Kyle should apply equally to trigger pullers in Afghanistan and the OBL raid if they are morality based. Otherwise it's rather disingenuous as they don't chose the engagements. These one-off depictions of Kyle as isolated or different than other SEALs are all without merit and all by non-experts. Film critics are notable about the film. Social and political critics may be notable about the war. Neither are notable or reliable sources on Kyle. --DHeyward (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are multiple direct quotes from him regarding his viewpoints not considered a reliable source? David A (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason other primary sources aren't included: because your interpretation of them is not reliable. --DHeyward (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Michelle Obama quote is as worthless as the ones that rag on the movie. Who is she anyway, a Presidents wife...big deal. She isn't a movie critic anymore than I am. Look...we really need to stop all this quotefarming. I wouldn't mind seeing very brief quotes from movie critics but otherwise all we have are writers using the movie as an excuse to go off on some pro war, pro soldier or the opposite of that vein to promote their political viewpoints which are not relevant to the movie.--MONGO 00:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Nbauman made a good response to this sentiment earlier in this Talk page, so if I may quote him:

"If multiple reliable sources writing about American Sniper say that Kyle said that killing Iraqis was "fun," and "I hate the damn savages," then those viewpoints belong in the article. In fact multiple reliable sources do say that, as you can easily confirm by doing a Google search for those terms and selecting the reliable sources (not just blogs). That includes the Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian, Alternet, and Salon. By definition, viewpoints supported by multiple reliable sources are not WP:FRINGE. Therefore, under Wikipedia policy, they belong in the article. Deleting it from the article is WP:CENSOR.

DHeyward says that these viewpoints are not about the film. That's wrong. They are about the film. Wikipedia articles about films aren't limited to discussing the script. For example, the article on Selma (film) has a section on controversies about the accuracy of the film." David A (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those viewpoints are out of context quotes. Calling a mother a "savage" because she gives her young son a live grenade to be a suicide bomber or saying the camaraderie of military deployment is "fun" is neither controversial nor unique to Kyle. In fact, it's expressed by many vets. Personally, my cousin that served near Iskandariya and removed IED devices loved going to see the school kids and the friends he made there. Hated seeing indiscriminate explosives blow them up (hint: it wasn't the Americans doing that). What do you call people that cut inoculated arms off of children (hint:"savages" is a word that comes to mind)? And yes, it is satisfying to remove bombs that indiscriminately kill children and your friends and stop the bomb makers from making them. The IED guys have fun blowing up ordnance they find. It is satisfying to keep the power plant running so that schools and life can continue as normal as possible. Any quote pull that doesn't put Kyle's view in perspective like that is garbage. --DHeyward (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the above sentence shows that your view of this is severely POV. You keep confusing the view that just because your cousin only hated the terrorists, or that the Veteran in the last article above only hated the terrorists, or for that matter that I consider actual terrorists savages and fully comparable with Nazis, with the fact that various quotes from Kyle make it clear that he hated all Iraquis categorically, and loved and had the time of his life killing people, rather than seeing it as a necessary evil. You respond to this on a personal stakes level, and rather than letting people who disagree with you, and have valid points, have their quoted say, you slant the sentences in a to them critical fashion for having the audacity to speak out. As some of the above articles make clear, the problem here isn't about making a nuanced picture of veterans that actually are nuanced people, it is about that they selected Kyle in particular to do so. In addition, the brief end sentence was selected as a heavily compressed compromise, to not take up too much room. You removing it, and all of the references completely, in spite of this fact, genuinely does equal censorship, as 6-8 references would not qualify as a linkfarm. Rather than using your regular heavy-handed censorship efforts on this page, you should have voted which of the above references that were most relevant to use. David A (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. I don't have a stake. What I do have is the book. I also haven't seen the movie so I have no issue with reviews. The quotes however are out of context and misleading. There is no valid interpretation that Kyle hated all Iraqi's or that he enjoyed killing people or that he was racist or any of a number of ad hominem attacks. It's simply not correct. It's fringe. I shared a personal knowledge to show that it's fringe by any rational thought process. It's as fringe as saying Obama is Muslim or Obama is not a citizen. Fringe viewpoints about Kyle made by people that never met him but want to make political statements about the war are not valid criticisms of Kyle. Whence we don't repeat them and it is not censorship to deny fringe viewpoints a platform in the encyclopedia. That you appear to agree with them is pretty scary. --DHeyward (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then it is word against word, considering that a considerable amount of commentators state that he has said these things, including that he couldn't care less about any of the Iraquis. Regardless, it is a moot point, as, to compromise even further, I have removed all of the quotes, with the full sentences from Eastwood and Michelle Obama now taking up twice as much space as all the multitudes of critical references do in sum total. What I have a massive problem with, is that you apparently won't even let it go with that, but rather wish to remove virtually all of the relevant, heavily compressed references, despite these facts. Instead, why not read through them and vote which 6-8 ones that should be kept at the end. Currently there are 9 of them, which is a tiny bit on the extensive side. David A (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward:: Please do not edit war on the article, or you could be blocked from further editing.

Your personal views, and those of your friends or family, are important. They are valued, and must be respected. However, per WP policy (WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV), these views carry exactly zero weight in editorial decisions. I served in the Israeli military, and I, as well as my family and friends (almost all of whom are veterans), each have our own personal views of the film and of Kyle and Eastwood, but my personal views are worthless to Wikipedia. The same for David A's views, or anybody and everybody else's. The only views that have non-zero weight are citations from published sources. If you want your views (or your friends' or family's) expressed in the article, get them published elsewhere, and then we can debate on this talk page if they merit inclusion in this WP article.

Independent of whether you like it or not, the criticism of the political/ historical/ social/ cultural/ racial/ ethnic/ moral/ ethical as well as other aspects of the film (i.e. not related to e.g. acting, cinematography, sets, costumes, storytelling, editing, slick presentation, etc), and the criticism of Kyle's own words and deeds, merits inclusion here, as long as it is published in sources that are reliable for the specific context of the 'controversies' section, e.g. Counterpunch, Salon, TheIntercept, AntiWar, MondoWeiss, as well as other reliable sources. IjonTichy (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of your POV pushing. You are already topic banned from one set of articles so I'm thinking your edit warring and POV pushing here is going to lead to another topic ban. It's silly to have twelve references that merely recite out of context quotes Kyle made in his own book. One substantive ref from say the Washington Post is sufficient.--MONGO 18:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IjonTichyIjonTichy Firstly I was not edit warring. That's simply an asinine statement. Second, I am not presenting my personal views, rather showing how context matters while we deal with fringe statements about a single persons beliefs. English comprehension is required for editing so if you think I listed a personal view of mine please list it instead of long diatribes of nonsense. His book was a bestseller and he went on a speaking/interview tour. There's a reason these trolls are coming out now with these statements many years after the best-selling book and it's because he would refute them. Also, don't post again on my talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section is Critical response, not Criticism

This could be a case study in slanted presentation. The quote in our article is:

"In the universe of his films - a universe where the existence of evil is a given - violence is a moral necessity, albeit one that often exacts a cost from those who must wield it in the service of good. The real-life merits of this idea are arguable, to say the least."

In the linked source, that last sentence is the first sentence of the next paragraph:

"The real-life merits of this idea are arguable, to say the least. As an ethical touchstone or a political principle, it certainly has its dangers. But a lot of great movies, including several of Mr. Eastwood’s, arise from the simple premise of a fight to the death between good guys and bad guys. 'American Sniper' is not quite among them, but much of its considerable power derives from the clarity and sincerity of its bedrock convictions. Less a war movie than a western - the story of a lone gunslinger facing down his nemesis in a dusty, lawless place - it is blunt and effective, though also troubling."[5]

Combining parts of two paragraphs, and ending the quote just where the second paragraph begins gives a misleading impression of the review.

What we need to do is identify the common themes from main-stream reviews and present them, with representative citations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference. I am currently also in the process of reading through the various controversy section articles, and briefly summarising the contents to post here later. Hopefully we can then use that template to categorise the references into different expressed sentiments columns, as other users have suggested on this page. David A (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As other users have stated that we should start categorising the Controversies section into different sentiments, as a first step/draft, I have now read through all of the articles referenced within it, and attempted to summarise the contents into brief snippets as best that I can (which admittedly doesn't mean much). Regardless, I hope that this can serve as a springboard for others to help to more easily structure and organise the sentences of the section into eventually flowing better as a coherent text:

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said that the release of the movie coincided with increased threats against Arabs and Muslims.^[1]

Matt Taibbi, of Rolling Stone Magazine, considered the real problem of the movie to be that it is popular and makes sense to so many people, despite idiotically and arrogantly turning the complicated moral morass and mass-bloodshed of the Iraq occupation into a black and white baby food fairy tale that merely options to go for cheap applause, without presenting the historical context of the disastrous effects of the invasion. He also stated that both the movie and the critics have made a mistake in focusing on the merits of a single soldier, rather than the people who put him there to fight in the first place.^[2]

Chris Hedges, of Truthdig, criticized the film for lionizing "the most despicable aspects of U.S. society—the gun culture, the blind adoration of the military, the belief that we have an innate right as a “Christian” nation to exterminate the “lesser breeds” of the earth, a grotesque hypermasculinity that banishes compassion and pity, a denial of inconvenient facts and historical truth, and a belittling of critical thinking and artistic expression."^[3]

Zaid Jilani in Salon criticized that the movie suggests that the Iraq War was in response To 9/11. That it fabricates most of the story concerning Kyle's opposing nemesis. That it portrays Chris Kyle as tormented by his actions, despite that this is absent from the book the film is based on. That he supposedly told various lies concerning other issues. And that he only donated 2% of the book profits to veteran's charity, while claiming otherwise.^[4]

John Wight, writing for Russia Today, lamented that, similarly to how Western movies used to portray Indians, American Sniper depicted the Iraqi people as a dehumanized mass of savages, which the white man was in the process of civilizing. He also stated that anything resembling balance and perspective was sacrificed to the more pressing needs of US propaganda. ^[5]

Max Blumenthal, of The Real News, stated that the film distorts the truth, including that during Chris Kyle’s first tour in Iraq in 2003, there was no al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia; as well as that locally based resistance fighters were portrayed as foreign fighters with international ambitions to kill Americans. He also considered the movie to have turned into a vehicle for ongoing Islamophobia-inspiring culture wars, which taken together inspire hatred and incite violence against Muslims and Arabs, as exemplified by the following trend of extreme threats through social media.^[6]

Professor Noam Chomsky, and comedian Bill Maher criticized the film and Kyle's popularity with audiences.^[7][8]

Lindy West of The Guardian criticized that much of the US right wing appeared to have seized upon American Sniper with the same unconsidered reverence that they would to the flag or the national anthem, and that the film had been flattened into a symbol to serve the interests of an ideology that runs counter to the ethos of the film itself. She stated that a stream of supposed patriots have rushed in to call for the rape, torture, or death of critics, in defence of a simplified view of country and culture, without any nuance, subtlety or ambiguity. She noted that you can support your country while thinking critically about its actions and its citizenry, and that many truths can be true at once.^[9]

Sarah Pulliam Bailey of The Washington Post displayed the sentiments expressed in quotations taken from Kyle, contrasting Kyle’s Christian faith with quotes of self-stated deeply rooted hatred, complete ambivalence towards the Iraqis, a kept in check will to kill anybody with a Koran, and a clear conscience about all the people he had killed.^[10]

Zack Beauchamp of Vox considered the film to wildly misrepresent the truth of the war to the point of whitewashing history. This includes falsely suggesting that the United States invaded Iraq due to the September 11 attacks; presenting the fighting as a response against al-Qaeda at the outset of the war, rather than something it used as a recruitment tool; portraying Iraqis in general as savages and evil terrorists; and that the simplified good versus evil narrative implies that opposing the war is tantamount to betrayal. He considered the worst aspect of the movie to be that it condescended by acting as if Americans cannot handle moral ambiguity, and that those affected by the war deserve to have that story told honestly.^[11]

Dennis Jet, of The New Republic, criticized Kyle’s lamentations about the existence of rules of engagement, and stated that the citizens that elected president George W. Bush had culpability in pulling Kyle’s triggers.^[12]

Alex von Tunzelmann, of The Guardian criticized the simplified black and white portrayal of the Iraq war, and the distortion of facts into unreliable myths based upon previous legends.^[13]

Film historian Max Alvarez, in CounterPunch, lamented that a heroic portrayal of snipers risks to influence certain audience members to regard the proceedings as a tutorial.^[14]

US Marine Ross Caputi criticized the moral disengagement of society’s celebratory reactions to Kyle and his story, despite its factual inaccuracies, and his participation in the destruction of the city of Fallujah.^[15]

Janet Weil, of Antiwar.com, considered American Sniper as a very dangerous film, due to objectifying the Iraqis into kills to be counted, turning children into legitimate targets, and invaders into good guys, while avoiding more complex political and historical information, to turn the narrative into an isolated, tragic white male cliché.^[16]

David Masciotra, of Salon, criticized the movie’s focus on physical rather than moral courage as the ultimate manly virtue, and a dangerous glorification of violence, as well as a simplified video game conception of masculinity, and lamented that the former gains more attention and adulation through award ceremonies and ticket booths.^[17]

Former Cavalry Scout Sniper Garett Reppenhagen stated that he didn’t view Iraqi civilians as savages, but as part of a friendly culture for which the movie has furthered ignorance, fear, and bigotry. He also criticized the movie’s lack of nuance, or political and regional context, and that the limited view it offered would be perceived as the true story about the war, with the reservation that it is just a movie, but that this also means that the audience should educate themselves before jumping to conclusions.^[18]

Cinematographer Paul Edwards wrote that the key dangerous ethical problem with the film is that, rather than presenting killing as a regrettable last option for good men trying to do the right thing, all that matters to the protagonist is that revenge and retribution are ferocious and absolute, as a simplistic, cartoonish, vacuous, brutal, sadistic, and complete destruction of “evildoers”, in an infantile mutilation of the classic heros journey.^[19]

As I've said before, I don't think a list of snippits is a fair way to explain the critics of the movie. There are no complete thoughts.

For example, "Matt Taibbi criticized American Sniper for its portrayal of politics." That doesn't tell you anything about what Taibbi thought. What was the criticism? What didn't he like about the politics?

"Zaid Jilani in Salon, quoting Kyle's autobiography, argued that both the film and Kyle's reputation were not credible." What wasn't credible?

This reminds me of a story that Lennie Bruce told about his conviction for obscenity in Chicago. An undercover cop sat in the audience and took notes. He read his notes back in the trial. The cop said, "He said, 'fuck, fuck, fuck, shit, cocksucker.'" Bruce's complaint was that the cop didn't understand his act, he just wrote down a few words that were most incriminating, and read them back.

That's what this Controversies section is doing. It's saying, "Muslims," "September 11," "politics," "not credible," "lies and distortions," "popularity," "sentiments," "condescending." It doesn't tell you why the critics criticized the politics.

I also don't like the way editors who like the movie and are trying to defend it from criticism are rewriting the criticism section. If they don't understand the reasons for the criticism, they shouldn't be writing the criticism section.

As I said before, one good way to summarize this with complete thoughts would be to summarize Zaid Jilani's list of "lies" and Chris Hedges' introductory lead. They're professional writers. They know how to summarize things. --Nbauman (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have been going out of my way to compromise with editors who think that the controversies section takes up too much room othervise, but I technically agree with your point. I have however, attempted to make better summaries for the new additions at the end. If you wish, I could go through the previous references and attempt to summarise their essences above a little better tomorrow? David A (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't envy you. It's difficult to write a coherent piece of writing when other editors who don't understand your point are changing it every time you finish.

I would like to see some criticisms of the film in complete thoughts. For example, Jilani said that Kyle wasn't "credible." How? Well, what he said in his essay on "7 henious lies" was, first, "The Film Suggests the Iraq War Was In Response To 9/11." Nowhere in that Controversies section does it point that out. As you and I now know, Saddam Hussein did not support Al Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11. There are probably people who still think that 9/11 somehow justified the invasion of Iraq, and the film reinforces that idea. So the Controversies section should clarify that point.

Another point that Jilani made was, "The Film Portrays Chris Kyle as Tormented By His Actions." This is a creation of the movie, as Jilani shows by reference to the book. If Kyle really thinks that all Iraqis are savage, despicable, evil people, and he enjoyed killing them, while the movie portrays him as being tormented, that's a valid criticism of the movie, and we should spell it out.

If the film is based on Kyle's book, and Kyle repeatedly told lies in his book, as Jilani argues, then we can't believe anything in the movie on face value. We should spell that out and include it in the Controversies section.

I'm just picking a few important points. You could use others. But Jilani conveniently summarized several important, well-documented criticisms. You could go through that whole list of critics yourself if you have all day, but Jilani did a lot of the work for you, and I personally wouldn't duplicate it.

Similarly, Chris Hedges makes an even more important (if complicated) point that summarizes a lot of the other critics:

“American Sniper” lionizes the most despicable aspects of U.S. society—the gun culture, the blind adoration of the military, the belief that we have an innate right as a “Christian” nation to exterminate the “lesser breeds” of the earth, a grotesque hypermasculinity that banishes compassion and pity, a denial of inconvenient facts and historical truth, and a belittling of critical thinking and artistic expression.

I think that's an important point and I can't see anything to cut out of it without weakening it. I think it skillfully summarizes what others on the left are saying, in many WP:RSs, which meets WP:WEIGHT.

When I taught journalism, I quoted a passage from a book called Headlines and Deadlines, by Theodore Bernstein, an editor at the New York Times, who asked, how do you write a headline for a long, complicated story? His answer was, "How do you shoot an elephant? You hit a vital spot." You pull a vital spot out of the story. Then another. And another. And pretty soon you have a story. In this case, one vital spot is Jilani's charge that the move lies and suggests that the Iraq war was in response to 9/11. Another vital spot is that the film portrays Kyle as tormented by his killings, while in the book he sounds like a pathological murderer who enjoyed killing. Now you won't have room for every vital spot. So just pick the best ones. You may have to toss out the rest (although a compromise is condensing them into a very tight summary paragraph).

So pick a few vital spots, and explain them fully. If you just use snippits, the reader won't understand what you're writing. If the reader doesn't understand your writing, what's the point of writing it? --Nbauman (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now finished summarising the various articles. Help to compress and structure the summaries into a coherent flow, and input regarding which articles that are most relevant to focus on would be appreciated. Given that the main controversies article was selected to be merged into this page by consensus vote, I think that these summaries would be a good start to do so. David A (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A point

One of the reasons for the Iraq Resolution was 9/11. The Vox piece in hindsight is debateable but in realtime there was a connection made between Al Qaeda and the Iraq War (77% of senators signed on to that belief) and it is expressly listed in our article as a reason. The question is how wide is the view that the film depicted the belief at the time as being controversial? I'm betting all the troops were expecting to find WMD's and Al Qaeda and all the other laundry list items listed as a cause so I am not sure the "controversy" is very widespread. --DHeyward (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another point. Chomsky didn't see the film. Not sure how he can be considered a critic of it. --DHeyward (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the runup to the war on Iraq, many people knew that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and that there were no WMDs in Iraq. For example, Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, said that the US had given them "intelligence" that there were WMDs at specific sites, his team inspected those sites, and found no evidence of WMDs. There were demonstrations throughout the US and the world against the upcoming war, which were attended by ~1 million people, who didn't believe the Al Qaeda connection and the WMDs, and those demonstrations were reported in the New York Times and other publications.

Many of the Senators who voted for the Iraq Resolution now say that it didn't mean they believed in the war, it just meant that they were giving GWB authority to go to war and they mistakenly trusted him. I don't know if they're telling the truth, but it means that a 77% approval is not the same as a belief in the Al Qaeda connecton and WMDs.

Some people believed GWB's lies about Al Qaeda and WMDs; some people didn't. The country was divided. Kyle believed the lies. He was deceived and manipulated. That's a legitimate point for VOX and other commentators to make. And a lot of them made it, so it has WP:WEIGHT.--Nbauman (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with cutting out Chomsky, as he didn't say anything particularly interesting this time around, but what did you think about the new summaries? David A (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, there were no lies. Second, a large majority of Senators saw the same intelligence as Bush and 77% voted for military action. That's a large majority of both parties. There was no "split." Third, it's iilogical to criticize a biopic for being disingenuous about Iraq while conceding he honestly believed it. What criticism is it to describe what Kyle (and 77% of senators, the CIA including Valerie Plame, the President, UNSCOM, the Secretary of State and others) believed? --DHeyward (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a better comparison see the film "Lawrence of Arabia". He talks of "savages" and expressly takes pleasure in an execution on screen. Yet no massive criticism of the film or the protaganist in the article either. Quite the opposite. --DHeyward (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on TV the presentation by Colin Powell at the UN in which he showed aerial photos of what he said were mobile poison gas generators in Iraq. Those were the claims made by an Iraqi source that the CIA called "curveball." After the invasion, it turned out that there were no mobile poison gas generators, and no poison gas. (They were actually hydrogen generators for balloons.) You don't believe that "curveball" lied? --Nbauman (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While not the "missiles in underground silos" and not "chemical warfare trucks" originally propagated by the Bush administration, WMDs were in Iraq and we knew that because we gave those weapons to Saddam....[6]...never mind the fact that the UN Security Council passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 which told Saddam to comply with weapons inspections and he refused...even though the resolution was passed by all sitting members and said there would be serious consequences, but when it came time to enforce those serious consequences most of the signatories balked.--MONGO 15:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tell the Kurds, Shi'ites and Iran that Iraq didn't have poison gas. But the point is at the time it was believed he was acquiring WMD's by virtually every intelligence source and that includes Valerie Plame. IIR, Saddam even said he cultivated the WMD perception as a way to thwart aggression from Iran and Saudi Arabia. Here's Hans Blix [7] and it's not contradicting of anything Powell said. Quite the opposite. Only years later did Blix flip-flop. Blix tacitly presented the illicit items he found and said it would take time and that Iraq was not open or forthcoming. read it. And don't forget the conclusions that launched Operation Desert Fox. --DHeyward (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I highly doubt the Kurds or Marsh Arabs found Iraq was anything close to a Garden of Eden under Saddam. Never mind the sadistic torture his sons did to their athletes that under performed...or the mass graves in the desert filled with victims killed under orders given by Saddam...or the villagers that begged coalition troops to help find their loved ones that had disappeared while Saddam ruled.--MONGO 01:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."--Nbauman (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/wilkerson.html Politics and Economy: Iraq Pre-War Intelligence PBS Now 2.03.06 Lawrence B. Wilkerson was Chief of Staff at the Department of State from August 2002 to January 2005.

LAWRENCE WILKERSON: It makes me feel terrible. I've said in other places that it was-- constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life.

I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council. How do you think that makes me feel? Thirty-one years in the United States Army and I more or less end my career with that kind of a blot on my record? That's not a very comforting thing.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: A hoax? That's quite a word.

LAWRENCE WILKERSON: Well, let's face it, it was. It was not a hoax that the Secretary in any way was complicit in. In fact he did his best-- I watched him work. Two AM in the morning on the DCI and the Deputy DCI, John McLaughlin.

And to try and hone the presentation down to what was, in the DCI's own words, a slam dunk. Firm. Iron clad. We threw many things out. We threw the script that Scooter Libby had given the-- Secretary of State. Forty-eight page script on WMD. We threw that out the first day.

And we turned to the National Intelligence estimate as part of the recommendation of George Tenent and my agreement with. But even that turned out to be, in its substantive parts-- that is stockpiles of chemicals, biologicals and production capability that was hot and so forth, and an active nuclear program. The three most essential parts of that presentation turned out to be absolutely false. --Nbauman (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must correct the libelous claim that Zaid Jilani is anti-Semitic.

Those charges came from AIPAC. According to AIPAC, anybody, Jewish or not, who disagrees with the Likud party on Israel is anti-Semitic. AIPAC's "charges" against Jilani were that he used the term "Israel-firster" and "apartheid" in tweets. (I think it would be fair to call Jonathan Pollard an "Israel-firster", and ex-president Jimmy Carter described Israel as "apartheid".)

Jilani was working for the Center for American Progress, which is a Democratic think tank with ties to the White House, and AIPAC got him fired. At first the Center defended Jilani, and then they caved in and fired him, because they can't afford controversy, and the Democratic Party is afraid to go against AIPAC.

You can find more of the story here http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/the_smear_campaign_against_cap_and_media_matters_rolls_on/ and here http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/following-weeks-of-smears-zaid-jilani-resigns-from-center-for-american-progress-to-take-new-job and here http://forward.com/articles/149070/pro-israel-democrat-polices-critics/?p=all

Once again, those who can't defend their case on the facts and the merits will instead attack the messenger with false McCarthyite accusations. And false accusations of anti-Semitism is the McCarthyism of today. --Nbauman (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He writes for Salon, a left wing rag...of course they are going to obfuscate his firing because he now works for them in their efforts to propagate more biased "reporting" to continue to get their fan base to read their nonsense. Its pretty funny to think that even the Obama administration would have found his tweets and other commentary worrisome enough to pressure that PAC to remove him.--MONGO 13:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that Jilani is anti-Semitic, and it is libelous to call him anti-Semitic. --Nbauman (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit...[8]...and [9]--MONGO 20:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be much longer before the Democratic Party in the U.S. sees a total abandonment of Jewish support what with the radical left being so antisemitic...[10] (Caution: That's a link to Fox News website and they have fixed it so their cookies can vaporize lefties computers!!! Just wanted to give you a heads up)--MONGO 20:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Controversies' section currently contains a quote from Michelle Obama. This quote isn't raising a controversy; quite the opposite, it's admiring of the film. I would remove it, but a comment from someone as high-profile as the First Lady is probably worth including somewhere. Perhaps it belongs in the general Reception section instead? Robofish (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the vote called for merging the criticism article to the main section, would it be acceptable if I started using shortened down versions of the article summaries above to do so? The defense to the criticism currently takes up twice as much space as the actual criticism, so there should be some room to work with. To compromise, and save some space, I could also remove Jilani, as he was controversial, as well as Maher and Chomsky, as they didn't say anything interesting this time around. David A (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the criticisms are controversial. Not sure aside from POV pushing that yourself and a few easily named other editors have to do with this article. All I see is the same arguments over and over about this one issue....it's really ridiculous. Merge doesn't mean any of the stuff from the other "article" even need go here...all it means is a controversy section should exist here since a stand alone article isn't needed. The "writers" that are busy writing vicious garbage about the movie and Kyle say zero about the beheadings and those being burned alive by ISIS. That is the definition of mental illness. For every lousy opinion piece I'm going to write qualifying comments in the article to help put perspective on why some of these people have such hate.--MONGO 06:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely possible to thoroughly despise everything that ISIS stands for and consider them at least comparable to Nazis, and still perceive that our side can commit wrongs as well, including propaganda. The critics have received recurrent rape, murder, and torture threats, so they are not the ones filled with hatred. The decision was to merge the article, not to delete it. You have no right to censor valid criticism out of personal biased POV pushing, any more than I have to censor Eastwood or Michelle's defense of the movie or all the cited critics who liked it. It is called a "controversies" section for a reason. Also, your constant partisan insults go against Wikipedia policies. David A (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not going to be the new coatrack for every hate filled opinion piece that are primarily from those using the movie as an excuse to unload a barrage of lies and misepresentaruons. I could see about 6-8 well cited and well abbreviated opinions from real movie critics and even opinions from other soldiers. I would prefer Michelle Obama's opinion be eliminated or severely reduced, and Eastwoods opinion and comment to be reduced. The article should discuss the movie, the filming, the plot, the locations, the process and editing, the box office, the academy awards nominations and be limiting in opinion both pro and con. My Ponting out yours and others fully viewable arguments as POV can be demonstrated with diffs. It has always seemed nefarious to me whenever editors almost sole effort is to add negativity.--MONGO 17:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]