Jump to content

Talk:American Sniper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk | contribs) at 05:01, 4 June 2016 (reflist to fix page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 4 July 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: move to American Sniper (book), and move the film article to the base location. The consensus is that, in this case, the subtitle is too long to be the preferred disambiguation. However, incoming links need to be fixed before the move is made. Ping me when that's done and I'll move the articles. Jenks24 (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– It has been five months since the last RM, and several months removed from the box office and Oscar hype of the film. (It is also, appropriately, Independence Day in the U.S., which I did not realize until after I prepared this request.) Yet the film article continues to attract more viewers than the book article, receiving nearly 600k views in the last 3 months in comparison to <100k for the book article (even with the book article being the primary topic, which inflates the view count as many readers are coming to that article looking for the film). [1] [2] This clearly satisfies the "usage" criterion of PRIMARYTOPIC. Some editors in the last RM cited the "long-term significance" criterion for the book being primary, but that argument doesn't hold much weight, as the book is almost as recent as the film, and it's far too early to gauge which one will be more significant in the future.

Some editors also argued that the book should be the primary topic as it came first and the film is a derivative work. This point is not based in any policy or guideline, and there are many examples of a derivative work being the primary topic, The Godfather being one of them.

The lengthy proposed title for the book is based on SUBTITLE; natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical "(book)" disambiguation. Chase (talk | contributions) 02:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pinging Jenks24 - This was inactive after it was closed so long I had to rescue it from being archived. Apparently no one knows how to act on your last post incoming links need to be fixed before the move is made. Ping me when that's done and I'll move the articles. What is the issue that normal redirects won't handle, and what has to be done in advance of the move? - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gothicfilm: Redirects normally take care of incoming links after moves, you're right. But in this case they won't because the movie will immediately be moved over those redirects at the base title, American Sniper. So all the articles that had previously linked to American Sniper, meaning the book, will now be linked to the movie instead – effectively those links will go from being correct to incorrect. What someone needs to do before the move is go through Special:WhatLinksHere/American Sniper and change any article (you can ignore other spaces, e.g. Wikipedia, talk page, etc.) that links to American Sniper (and is meant to link to the book article) to link to American Sniper (book). Then the move can proceed without breaking any links. Jenks24 (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenks24:Alright, it's done. Turns out just over a dozen links from Pages that link to "American Sniper" were intended for the book, but the great majority were for the film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accuracy

I recently removed some material from the historical accuracy section. First, the source used (a blog by an intern) is not a reliable source. Second, the way material is presented in the article was misleading in at least two ways. First, it purported that these were "facts" reported by Slate, rather than a blogger's post; second, it misrepresented the material itself, saying that certain events did or did not happen, when even the blogger does not make that claim - the blogger is stating that the events weren't written in the memoir, not that they didn't take place. As such, they would not belong in a historical accuracy section, but rather in a section about how the film differed from the book. Onel5969 TT me 12:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The piece from Slate is extremely detailed and well-sourced; it is clearly of article quality and not merely of "blog" quality. Furthermore, the information is easily sourced from other venues. You are getting way too trigger-happy on deleting content and failing to make the effort you should to find sources. Some guy (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you don't address the misrepresentation issue. You are getting way too confrontational and forgetful of AGF. The source is partly not about historical accuracy, but about deviations between the book and the film, which are two very different issues. To represent certain facts as historical inaccuracies is incredibly misleading. And I disagree about the reliability of the source. Let's hear from some other editors. Onel5969 TT me 18:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot more misleading to omit the fact that some of the scenes don't appear in the book. I am completely fine with rewording the sentences you object to so that they make this distinction more clear, that the scenes don't appear in the book without stating that this means they never occurred. Some guy (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree. Films differ from books all the time. These differences seem trivial (as other editors have also stated). But as I said in my revert, let's wait and see what others say, and then abide by consensus. Sound like a plan?Onel5969 TT me 19:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a simple matter of "films differ from books" because we're talking about a biographical work, not fiction. Take a look at the huge accuracy section on The Imitation Game. Could we solve your issue by renaming the section? Some guy (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section needs to go. It's a dramatization of an autobiography. It has fictional elements, the least of which is that for the first half of Kyle's deployment, he was fighting Sunni's and the second half was Shi'ites. There's no "Historical inaccuracy" because there is no claim to historical accuracy. In fact, it doesn't even reflect the biography, which also is not an historically accurate account, rather one persons subjective experience. It's an entertaining movie. That's it. Do we really need to document height and weight differences between subject and actors? That comrades in arms were blended into single characters to reduce complexity? Completely silly dramatic stuff like finding a cache of weapons in the movie? It's a nonsense section. Delete it. --DHeyward (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you can't discredit a source based on your own original research. Do you have a reputable source that discredits the Superdome incident? Secondly, the Superdome incident was not mentioned in this article. Lastly, there are plenty of other sources for all of the information from that section.
The article does not address that any of the film was dramatized or fictionalized. You can't assume that every reader knows this and use that as a justification for removing content from the article. It's not a "nonsense" section, and has precedence in countless articles on biographical films and other media. By your ridiculous logic, we should remove Bradley Cooper from the article because everyone knows he was the star, and Eastwood from the article because everyone knows he was the director. Do we really need to state it's a film?
If it's so widely known that the film is dramatized and has fictional elements, then this should be cited and sourced in the article, with examples where possible. That's how Wikipedia works. Instead you've got more garbage about a fake-looking baby than you do about the accuracy of the film. Some guy (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should read about the insurgent sniper. It's in the article. --DHeyward (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If none of you are interested in having a serious discussion, I will restore the material to the article, and treat any further attempts to delete it as vandalism. If you have any points left to make, now is the time to make them. Some guy (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We've had a serious discussion, you've failed to gain consensus for your add. If you add it, you'll be violating Wikipedia conventions, and it will be reverted. You don't decide what is or is not vandalism. I'll post a notice over at the film project, and see if we can't get more comments. Onel5969 TT me 12:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are guidelines about reporting a film's historical accuracy at WP:FILMHIST. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You stopped responding after the last points I made to you (and ignored my last question to you), and DHeyward has made it clear he isn't willing to have a serious discussion by his last post. You can't say you've established a consensus or won a debate by prematurely ending your participation in it. Some guy (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I think there's no doubt that a "Historical accuracy" section is needed given the amount of attention this has received in reliable sources, although there will need to be some discussion as to what we should include. The Slate source should be considered reliable in my opinion, but it should not be the ONLY source. First, let's gather more sources here. Then we can see which elements of the movie overlap in coverage to help us agree on what content deserves entry per WP:DUE. Any mention of the word "speculation" should be specifically attributed to the source it came from, not just with the inline citation but also with "According to [source]". I think that would be a reasonable approach. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Searching "american sniper accuracy" turns up The Washington Post, The Guardian, and Time. It seems likely that a "Historical accuracy" section could be written if effort was put into it. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those were the same sources I intended to rely on. I will draft a new version of the section in the next day or two and post it here. Some guy (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Accuracy" section draft

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

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

References

  1. ^ a b c d http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2015/jan/20/why-american-snipers-historical-dishonesty-misleads
  2. ^ a b c d http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/01/23/american_sniper_fact_vs_fiction_how_accurate_is_the_chris_kyle_movie.html
  3. ^ a b https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/02/18/fact-checking-american-sniper-as-the-oscars-near/
  4. ^ a b c http://time.com/3672295/american-sniper-fact-check/

Genre (part deux)

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

Confirmed kills

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Sniper&oldid=723628447"