Talk:American Sniper/Archive 2

Which of the following references should be inserted into the criticism section?
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. ”

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)
 * 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)
 * 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 ) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * How are multiple direct quotes from him regarding his viewpoints not considered a reliable source? David A (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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."

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)
 * 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)

Michelle Obama quote
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)

Attempting to start organising the Controversies section
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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Professor Noam Chomsky, and comedian Bill Maher criticized the film and Kyle's popularity with audiences.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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

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)

Requested move 31 January 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

– 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. 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)
 * 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
 * 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)
 * Speedy support per nom Red Slash 04:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * and – 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.