Talk:Chris Kyle

Jesse Ventura incident

Evidently Kyle stated in an interview on Opie and Anthony that he punched Jesse Ventura in the face after Ventura stated, at Michael Monsoor's wake, that some Seals deserved to die during the war in Iraq. http://www.breitbart.tv/navy-seal-describes-time-he-punched-jesse-ventura-in-face/ I am not very good at editing this site, but I do believe some mention of this should be in the entry.

Awards Section Needs Work

He didn't get some sort of campaign ribbon? He got shot twice and didn't get a Purple Heart? 69.171.176.185 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)BecauseFuckSigningWithFourTildes

Awards:

He has been awarded 2, not 3, Silver Stars. Also, he was born in 1975, a year later than listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.178.147 (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Picture for infobox

Can anyone find a free-use image of chris kyle?—  dain- talk   17:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to find one, but i believe that we can use a copyrighted image for someone deceased, at least until a free use image is found.(mercurywoodrose)99.31.165.157 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

According to a WMF resolution, use of copyrighted material should be "minimal" and used "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." The use of a copyrighted photo for an individual is specifically cautioned against, saying an exemption to the free image requirement "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." So while there isn't a blanket prohibition if the individual is not living, at issue is not the ready availability of a free image is but the possibility of a free image. Wikipedia:NFC#UUI says a fair use image may be used if "ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." If the subject's physical appearance were extraordinary or otherwise a subject for commentary in the article that would provide more support for using a non-free image. The best course of action would likely be to identify a copyright holder likely to release the image and get the email proof processed through the OTRS system.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Query

Is his total of kills not self declared? Can we presume it was Kyle who gave that figure to the NY Post that is the first cite? Should we not say it was self declared without official confirmation? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the Department of Defense does not make official tallies of the number of people killed by individual service members, there's simply no administrative function in place to record it. Individual communities within the military, though, do. Generally the criteria for a "confirmed kill" is that a authoritative third party witnessed the shot and recognized it as an unambiguous kill and/or there was a body recovered. The official record that the Naval Special Warfare community kept said that Kyle made 200+ kills, 160 of which were confirmable. I'm unaware of a primary source from NSW for this number but I'm also, partially because of the preponderance of reliable sources backing that number, unaware of a serious reason to question its veracity. It's a very high profile statistic that is subjected to substantial review from the sniper community. I would feel comfortable citing any of the reliable sources normally viewed as being professional, objective and with adequate editorial oversight without any sort of hedging on our part. Does this answer your question? TomPointTwo (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

How much is too much

Almost all of the arrest and info on the alleged killer was removed because Wiki is not a news place as mentioned by the editor that took it all down. Then it is put back. Is a war going to start? There seems to be NO concrete standard on what is covered in an article. Many articles like shootings or new deaths or huge accidents are somewhat of a 'newsy' item as it is happening. You may be able to spout off 'Rules and Regs' that are on Wiki, but that still doesn't show a 'standard' which is followed to a T. I find it very informative when the facts with references are given as things are going and I do it a lot. I think many viewers like that. To be sure, watch the Super Bowl page today as the game is going on. I can guarantee that it will be CONSTANTLY updated. Now, if Wiki is NOT a news place, nothing should be mentioned until the game is over. Personally, I like the updated material. Kennvido (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, Kennvido. There are a number of petty editors who selectively enforce "rules" on breaking news pages in which there are deaths and arrests, but NEVER inflict those "rules" on other breaking news stories, such as sports contests.

Furthermore, the excuse that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" has worn thin over the yeas -- IT IS A NEWSPAPER and news.google.com lists it as such in its coverage of the story!

Think how disappointing it is for someone to go to Google News, see the "trusted" Wikipedia link at Google News, click on that link and come here, only to find all the information about the event wiped away because "Wikipedia is not a newspaper." Talk about KILLING your own potential fan base!

Those editors who won't allow breaking news in Wikipedia ought to contact google and tell them to TAKE WIKIPEDIA OFF THE GOOGLE NEWS PAGE. Do you think they really will? LOL!

70.36.137.192 (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. Kennvido (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Google sells Wikipedia content, precisely because, unlike it's search results, it has some claim to community objectivity. An encylopedia, is the opposite of a news flash service, for which there's wikinews. Content may go in articles about events close to the time of their happening but the writing still needs to be from an appropriate perspective, the common one articles do here have when that standard is enforced and don't have in news services. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Tally

Did Chris Kyle achieve 160 kills, or 255, or less? If the Pentagon has not released any numbers, neither 255 nor 160 are official figures. As I presume the figures come from Kyle's own book, the real number may be significantly lower. Is he regarded as a credible source.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Zennie, Michael (2 January 2012). "255 confirmed kills: Meet Navy SEAL Chris Kyle... the deadliest sniper in US history". London: Daily Mail. Retrieved 2012-01-02.

The above article is linked as a reference and refers to the 160 kills as "officially confirmed by the Pentagon". I can't speak to the reliability of their source or if the Pentagon ever actually confirmed that number, but that's what the article states. --auburnpilot talk 01:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree 160 is a suspiciously round number, but it's the officially circulated one so needs to be here as such. If there's a credible source for the variation that doubtless actually exists then put it in. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)