Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sniper (film) controversies


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to American Sniper (film). Stifle (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

American Sniper (film) controversies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We don't really need to explain every single complaint this movie has had; there's enough information in the "criticism" section of the original article to not warrant a separate article. Besides, most films don't usually get their own controversy pages, even if it's a very controversial film. Pyrotle … the "y" is silent, BTW.  20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  20:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge relevant notable non-redundant information to American Sniper (film). I agree with nominator and don't see the necessity of this article.-- Pink Bull  20:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the considerable amount of criticism against the movie, I vote to either preferably Keep or Merge relevant information to the main article. However, the praxis there has been to minimise all critical information. David A (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: A sub-article is generally split from a film article if the section's content overwhelms the rest of the article. However, this sub-article does not seem to be split from the main article, nor does it seem to be a well-written compilation of commentary. I do think there is enough detail among all the commentary to warrant a sub-article, with the main article having a summary section that links to it. However, I think the sub-article needs to be more proven to warrant that. Right now, it is just a quote farm without any kind of interweaving being done with sections about depicting Chris Kyle, depicting heroism in war, depicting non-Americans, etc. On the other hand, maybe the existence of this space would encourage editing to detail the debates more than is done in the main article, which I find too high-level. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into American Sniper (film). I agree with User:Erik's comment. In my view we should give the community ample time to further develop the article and continue to improve, extend, broaden and deepen the content of the article. After all, there is no deadline - Wikipedia is a work in progress. Don't rush to delete the article, it's not a competition.   IjonTichy  (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least condense and Merge...User:IjonTichyIjonTichy stated he thought a spin-off of the critical reviews of the movie would be needed. It appeared that he and a few others were having trouble getting all the bad opinions that they wanted in the main page on the movie. I told him that sounded like a POV FORK which is normally against policy. This looks like a place to coatrack every single non expert opinion about the movie. I've seen some POV pushing in my day but this is one of worst examples as of late.--MONGO 21:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This sub-article, if kept, should have responses to the commentary too. The director and the screenwriter have said their piece, which should be included here too. That would satisfy WP:NPOV in which Wikipedia merely describes this particular dispute. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the Eastwood response. IjonTichy (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't know if it is enough. I agree with other editors that the POV slant is heavy. Per WP:STRUCTURE, the debate needs to be folded. For example, a "Portrayal of Chris Kyle" section would have people discussing how his portrayal compares to real life and others discussing how that should not matter. The lack of that is what is driving the delete !votes, unfortunately. I think this is the kind of topic that has to earn its stay, not one that is inherently able to be wholly separate from the main article. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:NPOVFACT is pertinent: "This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article." If this page is deleted, you can request for the page to be userfied so you can work with the sources if needed. I think it is best to go back to the main article and develop the specific sections about the different topics before proceeding with a split, which would then solely be based on size. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to article. The subject of the criticism is the film, the criticism itself is not notable enough to merit a standalone article.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * merge and condense: I remember a controversial film called The Passion of the Christ. How about A Clockwork Orange? I even remember another controversial film called The Interview, that yes, may have inspired the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack, but look how all of those film articles deftly handle criticism within their own article. The only devoted film controversy article I found after a cursory search is Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies, which is similarly bloated with block quotes, bullet points, and lack of editorial discretion. I see little likelihood of a lasting effect and it's to soon to tell if duration of coverage will be any more or less than other controversial films.  --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * update: I've since found Reactions to Innocence of Muslims, but let's be serious: regarding American Sniper no one has died, stormed embassies, or issued fatwas because of film critics and celebrities doing what they do for a living. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The record shows the film has been criticized by a much wider swath of commentators than the usual 'film critics and celebrities.' It has been criticized by ex-soldiers, academics, investigative journalists, authors and other scholars, media figures, political figures, and watchdog groups. IjonTichy (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So? Just because other people other than film critics and celebrities criticize a film doesn't make the criticisms and controversies notable for their own page. Pyrotle …  the "y" is silent, BTW.  03:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The criticism covers political, social, cultural, philosophical, moral, religious and other aspects of society. The critics are published experts in their respective fields. There is no reason to hurry to delete. With time, new editors (more talented than me) may discover the article and work on the rich set of reliable sources to compile them together into something more 'coherent' (for lack of a better word). IjonTichy (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The request has nothing to do with timing; rather, it has to do with notability. Saying "don't rush to request deletion" isn't a good reason as to why this shouldn't be deleted. Generally, even the most controversial films don't have subpages for their controversy/criticism sections (with the notable exception for Fahrenheit 9/11, but that's something totally different), which is why this AfD was created. Pyrotle …  the "y" is silent, BTW.  04:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Why is Fahrenheit 9/11 "totally different"? In fact, in addition to differences between the two articles, there are probably also similarities. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a POV-pushing "whinery."  --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:C16D:F841:5D7F:2DFD (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree this comes under WP:POVFORK, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From WP:POVFORK: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except for in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." IjonTichy  (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Failure to gain consensus to add material to the main page and then creating a fork is, by definition, a WP:POVFORK. This is the case of a subsection that gre too large, rather it is a case where a POV was believed to be underrepresented and a new article was created to skirt consensus: the very definition of a POV fark.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gothicfilm and DHeyward, if we merged it in the main article, I don't think we would have space in the Criticism section for "Eastwood's response". Would you agree to leave out the "Eastwood's response" section in a merged article? --Nbauman (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)?
 * The criticism should be proportional to its coverage. Ruling in or out responses depends on their coverage.  So far, it's overwhelmingly positive which is why a POV fork is not allowed.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the film getting "overwhelmingly positive" reviews, I think that is distinct from the ongoing social commentary (as I'd prefer to call it). In the realm of critical reception, there should be due weight toward sampling positive reviews. Metacritic shows that there are no outright negative reviews, so sampling mixed reviews would be appropriate as a smaller part of covering critical reception. However, I don't find that the "overwhelmingly positive" metric applies to the social commentary, which is more in regard to what the film means about culture and society. In terms of balance, I don't think there is really a consensus over the prevalence of one side over the other. WP:DUE says to represent significant viewpoints published by reliable sources, and I think that there have been both arguments and counter-arguments in these sources. These can be combined in the proper structure and the appropriate attributions made. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * DHeyward, Erik makes a good point. There is the cinematic quality of the film, which is what the film reviews rate, and there is the social message of the film, which is what WP:RSs have been writing about. Every film book I've ever seen says that Triumph of the Will and Birth of a Nation were great movies, but they don't usually endorse their social message. When I read the major newspapers and magazines on Google News, the opinion about the social message seems to be split, as described in that New York Times article I linked to in the entry's Talk page. DHeyward, what evidence do you have that the opinion of WP:RSs on the film's social message is overwhelmingly positive? --Nbauman (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The reviews and box office. The social criticism is largely directed at subjects other than the film such as the Iraq war, war in general, snipers in general, Chris Kyle and Clint Eastwood.  The social criticism is tangential at best to the movie.  Claiming the social grievances are related to the movie is short-sighted and misses the mark.  The narrative of the movie is widely acclaimed by film critic reviews and the public.  It is not the place to explore the social aspects of the movie beyond the relative coverage in reliable sources which is overwhelmingly positive.  That makes this new article a POV fork that is attempting to bypass the relative coverage of the movie in reliable sources.  These views have already been expressed in articles directly related to the war.  We don't need to have a POV /coatrack article that rehashes all the stuff already explored in articles depicting the Iraq War.   --DHeyward (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The social criticism is not tangential, especially when you have The New York Times providing some semblance of a recap of what has been going on. Professional film criticism is distinct from social criticism, and per policy, we cannot use the box office to eject the social criticism; WP:DUE says in a footnote, "The viewpoint of the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." I'm not trying to argue to keep the article, but the metric of film critics cannot be applied to commentators who are not film critics. It is appropriate to cover the debates, but it has to be done with a neutral structure, which I agree with you is not accomplished here. But it can be done. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the social criticism is not tangential. Especially as a lot of it is focused on the film being extremely unfaithful to the reality of Kyle's character, autobiography, and the slanted presentation of the conflict depicted within the movie. A socially dangerous work is only made more dangerous by being an excellent piece of craftsmanship. David A (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This source from December 28, 2012, appears to support the comments above by David A and Nbauman: "[Time Magazine cultural critic Poniewozik said] “Film history is full of movies that are false, amoral, brutal, sadistic, yet are triumphs of vision and storytelling.” Poniewozik is not wrong, of course. There have been films, from Birth of a Nation to Triumph of the Will, that are aesthetically compelling but politically and ethically odious; some would add the recent films of Quentin Tarantino to this list. 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: “a masterwork of filmmaking … holy ‘bleep’ ”? Ethical lapses or gaps in movies should be critiqued, along with bad performances or absurd storylines."
 * First, there is no comparison of a biopic that makes no judgements to Triumph of the Will and Birth of a Nation as all the social criticism of the movie is about points it didn't make, rather than propaganda. Second, neither of those very disgusting social messages has a separate controversy article.  They hit all the social criticism in a single section with only a few references.  Why would anyone think that this movie needs a separate article to explore social controversies when Nazi and Klan films do not?  It's absurd. The only reason is that social controversy of this movie does not have any traction and is overwhelmed by positive reviews including from war opponents.  The handful of commentators that think the movie should have said something more do not deserve a special POV platform outside their fringe view.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources say that American Sniper makes judgements and that the comparison to Triumph of the Will and Birth of a Nation and Zero Dark Thirty is valid. The social criticism of the movie is mostly about points the film made directly or indirectly (by implication and other techniques). Social controversy of this movie has a great deal of traction, and the positive reviews of the slick presentation and coruscated style of the film is a separate issue from the social criticism. Many scholars, ex-soldiers, journalists, commentators and other sources criticized all four of these films for their false interpretation of history, politics, culture, ethics, religion and other aspects of society. Sources also criticized the four films for serving as war propaganda,  and for the films' arguments in support for racism, objectification and vilification of people, legitimization of mass murder including the murder of children, and more. The contents of all four works have received widespread criticism for their blatantly racist and fantastical depictions of scenes that are presented onscreen as if in documentary or near-documentary form. All four films have been widely criticized as using spectacular, slick filmmaking to promote profoundly unethical, immoral, evil deeds and ideologies.        IjonTichy  (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as POV fork of the film that could not gain consensus to add in the original article. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. The controversy over this movie has become a subject in its own right. For example, ‘American Sniper’ Fuels a War on the Home Front, By Cara Buckley, NYT, Jan. 28, 2015. I think Merge would be best, but many editors of American Sniper (film) keep deleting criticisms and condensing them into snippets, and/or adding "rebuttal." There doesn't seem to be any solution acceptable to those editors, so rather than an edit war it would be better to have a separate article. Besides, the debate involves a huge number of WP:RSs and issues, and it would be a difficult or impossible job to summarize them concisely in a way that would be satisfactory to both sides. If we had a merge, I don't think there would be space for the "Eastwood's response" section. Other editors want it in. I would ask those editors who want to merge: Would you accept the merged article without "Eastwood's response"? --Nbauman (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we need to take a different tack in covering the various debates about the film. I am not a fan of sections simply marked "Controversy" or "Controversies" since these headings can appear to "unduly favor one point of view", as WP:STRUCTURE says. A more neutral structure could be something like a "Social commentary" section under which we have various subsections such as "Portrayal of Chris Kyle". Just reading these headings, one cannot tell what POV is favored. The subsections themselves can then contain properly "folded" write-ups that describes the dispute per WP:YESPOV and provides due weight of the commentary from various reliable sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to American Sniper (film) without direct merging, though a link to an old version can be provided on the film article's talk page for source mining. I do believe it is possible for there to be a sub-article covering the debates, but due to the POV issues, I would rather re-focus the material on the main article and continue with related discussions on the talk page to develop the material there first. Only then would it be appropriate to split that material to its own article solely on account of size. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to American Sniper (film). Criticism of the film is notable, but the POV fork is totally unnecessary. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to American Sniper (film) can easily be summarized in main article. Like Chase indicated, this is just a POV fork. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge - Per above. Carrite (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fringe QQ'ing, worth of a condensed mention in a "Reactions" type section of the main article, just like 1000's of other films, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete (and only merge the best stuff) Real controversy has one side saying one thing and another saying another. This sort of "controversy" is basically just what they call "buzz" for summer films. Good enough for CNN and Monday Nitro, but not for an encylopedia article. The actual controversies can easily fit in less space than they currently do in the main article. The rest is "Reception". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment A lot of the quotes and links here could also find far more suitable homes in one of the many wider topics they discuss. Most of the Wikilinks here lead to physical things, but the headers are full of themes. You may have read it because it had "American Sniper" in the headline, but that doesn't mean you can't apply what you learned elsewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge the best parts: This is no Life of Brian or even The Interview, these "controversies" are mere soundbites and columns. Merge the most essential ones to a reception section. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge Per above comments. Most important reliably sourced controversy should be included on the American Sniper page in a "Reception" section. Similar to most film pages with positive/negative notable critiques. Reception should maintain NPOV though and display most important commentary after the film buzz dies down. Jppcap (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and/or condense, I found the article to be useful after hearing about the film this morning. -Reagle (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Given that it seems like the overwhelming vote is for the article to be merged into the sub-section of the main page, I think that it might be relevant to mention that I have started writing brief summaries for what seems to be the most relevant articles. Help to streamline the text into a more coherent flow with the various sentiments organised and categorised by people more capable of doing so than me would be very appreciated. Thanks in advance for any help. David A (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * CURRENT SCORE of this very unclear "vote" (i.e., several vote for several outcomes): Merge = 12   Keep = 3   Delete = 10.  Not "overwhelming" by a long shot.  --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:51F6:2D1B:6EA0:A387 (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Really? I only counted either 7 or 8 delete votes, depending on whether or not the anonymous insulting IP vote is counted (and I don't think that it is), as well as currently 13 merge, and 4 keep, of which the independent one should probably be counted to the merge score, as it said "and/or condense", making 14 votes to the merge column. David A (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - pov fork. Tom Harrison Talk 12:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.