Talk:American Sniper/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Protected edit request on 10 February 2015

I would like the sentence about Matt Taibbi in the "Controversies" section to say Rolling Stone instead of Rolling Stone Magazine. AndrewOne (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft of commentary

I've created a draft summarizing commentary about the film at Talk:American Sniper (film)/Commentary, which is also linked at the top in a to-do header. I've started with covering what reliable sources have reported about hate speech claims. This section should be expanded with sources providing high-level assessments of the different topics and to include specific sources mentioned in these high-level assessments. Ideally, we can have a few subsections touching on different aspects of the ongoing debate. If you have any thoughts on the draft so far, feel free to comment below. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it violates numerous guidelines and suffers of POV and recentism. You do realize the alledged hate comments are just postings by some trolls in the blogosphere and no one has suffered or been subjected to a single real life incident/hate crime due to the movie. You're misusing the page to promote a zero issue.--MONGO 03:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If it is of any help, you can check out my old one sentence summaries section here David A (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

One sentence is more than adequate. Look at the article Taxi Driver a highly controversial film even today but it has little total discussion about controversies even though allegedly the movie inspired Hinckley to shoot the President of the U.S. Reagan so he could impress Jodie Foster who he was infatuated with. That article has two sentences dedicated to that issue, which was a really big deal. Postings by some jerks in the blogosphere and zero actual acts of physical harm/hate due to the release of this movie means this issue isn't an issue so no reason we should take issue with it.--MONGO 03:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I think that the current section is of appropriate length. David A (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The one you reverted to before the page was protected.--MONGO 04:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The one that I went to lengths to compromise to shorten down extremely, first from the separate page, according to the official Wikipedia decision, and then to half of that, according to your wishes, as you should well know. David A (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Erik has a draft with a paragraph dedicated to the alledged hate speech that appeared in the blogosphere...how do you feel about that?--MONGO 04:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, although it should preferably be referenced by a reliable source. I have other matters demanding my attention outside of Wikipedia, so I am getting tired of this. After all of the time I put down, I just don't want the valid criticism to be uniformly removed. If Erik can concisely summarise the most relevant parts of my drafts and other sources into a coherent whole, I would probably be satisfied with that. As I have said earlier, I don't mind compromising, or including several positive references. I just have a problem with uncompromising wholesale cutting of valid information. David A (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mongo, WP:DUE states, "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... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." These sources are what makes the material related to the committee's statement prevalent. It is appropriate per policy to follow the sources. I've included responses to that statement, such as Breitbart considering the claim a hoax. We're not writing that these instances have taken place. We're writing that the committee has claimed that these instances have taken place, summarizing what reliable sources have said, and attributing that claim to a specific party per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The same source-following and POV-attributing approach applies to positive and negative commentary about the film. This is the appropriate way to judge the inclusion of content and the level of detail. The reliable sources are the standard-bearers of what viewpoints are most prevalent; we cannot up-end this collective coverage with our own theories. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added (above in an older section on this talk page) several sources in criticism of the film and in support of the movie.

As I said before, I think everyone's concerns and perspectives are valid and have merit. May I respectfully ask that users entirely refrain from labeling other users' work as 'POV pushing' or 'coatrack' or similar attack labels. This labeling tends to put the recipient in a hostile, aggressive mood, it destroys users' enjoyment of editing the encyclopedia, and significantly reduces people's motivation to find a compromise with everybody's perspectives or positions. Attacking a user's work feels like a personal attack, even if admins don't necessarily consider it sanctionable offense. Attaching negative labels to a user's work tends to significantly curtail the recipient's creativity and work productivity. Let's foster a friendly, hospitable, supportive work environment where we trust each other and where we encourage Erik, David A, MONGO, DHeyward, myself, and each and every user who may be motivated to contribute to building a first draft. Let's place our trust in each other, especially in our 'opponents' and let's build each other's confidence and enthusiasm. The final consensus version would possibly, or even probably, look very different from the first (or second or third) rough draft(s), so may I advise for patience and calm, let's all please try to be less emotional about this and more cool and gentle and supportive of each other, especially those with whom we may otherwise disagree.

I hope that users don't take this as a personal attack, I'm not saying any specific person here is more emotional rather than a logical person, I believe every user here is simultaneously both an emotional and a logical/ rational person, I believe emotions are very important and have a powerful role to play in debates, and I myself tend to get too emotional sometimes. I hope nobody thinks I'm picking on them or that I'm implying they are a roadblock to compromise, that's not my intention at all, everything I said applies to all users equally. Please let's trust each other fully without reservations, and let's all try to be supportive of each other's efforts without any criticism of each other's work for a while. After we have a first rough draft, then we should (politely) criticize the draft (not the people who wrote it) to try to reach consensus. May I respectfully suggest that users read the WP article on Brainstorming. Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please pardon me for butting in, but I like what Erik has written. I made some small edits myself and look forward to its finished version. My only comment/critique of it is that I hope the sources cited and content used are indicative of the overall sentiment of the variety of media sources or organizations that have commented about the film. I'm assuming good faith that it is. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I basically Googled around for articles that mention the film and the committee. There are a number of sources out there, but I think what is used here were the most substantial of the bunch. The other sources reported about the statement and just put it in context for their readers. As I told Silver seren, I am thinking of having a pro-war/anti-war section that would include Moore and Rogen's statements that received backlash, plus whatever high-level assessments exist about the debate over the film. The veteran section was just something I felt like doing quickly since it seemed simpler than covering the general pro-war/anti-war debate, which will be tricky (as in not all articles may use these terms). Another section would be the portrayal of Chris Kyle. If I recall, The New York Times has done a high-level assessment, as has The Economist. I don't know how much free time I have this weekend, but others are welcome to start sections or add paragraphs or even just dump relevant sources. However, I would say the best way to cut through the many individual opinions is to focus on the opinions that were highlighted in high-level assessments. I think The New York Times identified Grantland as a particular opinion, so I think that is a way to include that opinion. If no high-level assessment mentions a source like Antiwar.com, then I would probably not include that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

How to Resolve Disputes About This Article?

I have not been involved in editing this article, but have seen it brought to WP:ANI and to the dispute resolution noticeboard. The discussion at WP:ANI was closed by User:Jehochman after another editor proposed taking it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. However, based on the tenor of the comments at the dispute resolution noticeboard, the controversy does not appear to be the sort that can be handled there. The comments are mostly about other contributors rather than about content; there is too much hostility for volunteer mediation to be likely to work. Volunteer mediation resolves content disputes, but not if conduct issues are interfering with the content issue. Read the civility policy, but remember that civil POV pushing is still POV-pushing, but also remember that constant complaints about POV-pushing are not the best way to achieve NPOV. The fact that the thread at WP:ANI, which is a proper place to discuss conduct issues, was closed does not mean that there are no conduct issues, or that this is primarily a content dispute. It is a content dispute with interfering conduct issues. As such, the next step is likely to be arbitration, possibly either a full evidentiary case, or, more likely, a motion to put this article under discretionary sanctions under the American politics decision. For that reason, be advised that everything being said here is likely to be reviewed in detail either by the arbitrators or by the arbitration enforcement administrators. Be civil, and be collaborative. Wikipedia is not a battleground, even when editing articles about real battlegrounds. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Unprotect edit request on 13 February 2015

Actually an unprotect request. When will whoever be taking this off edit protection. There's no legitimate reason for it. I was just trying to update most recent box office but was locked out. I'm in the top 6,000 on wiki for edits without incident.

This article edit protection is by far the goofiest I've yet to see on Wikipedia.

Please remove edit protection immediately!! 10stone5 (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC) 10stone5 (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Probably not a good idea given the edit warring, and in any case, unprotection requests should be made at WP:RFPP. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from a third party editor

Although I have made a few comments on this Talk page and the AFD, I consider myself an disinterested editor on this topic: I have neither seen the movie, nor read much about the reception and controversy, nor do I have strong feelings either way. Here are my thoughts, forgive me if they've been addressed in the many ongoing discussions, or if not entirely germane to the article's present state.

1. Criticism does not equal controversy. Many of the articles cited in the Controversies section, especially the refs following "Several other articles have also been critical of the movie." are seem to be simply more film reviews and opinions, even if not written by professional film critics (although this article is neither a film review nor critical, and should be omitted entirely). While everyone has an opinion, and it would be silly to list every response, if some of the negative reviews in "controversies" are written by prominent authors on par with the critics already listed in Critical response, then those views could be judiciously incorporated into Critical response, with an eye towards WP:BALASPS, although not to the extent giving "equal time" or a false balance, since the meta-reviews already indicate a 73% approval, not 50%.
2. What exactly is the "Controversy"? Critics, celebrities, politicians, journalists stating their opinions, sometimes on Twitter, and the response to criticism by defenders? I recognize that a large portion of the spin-off article was not included in the merge, but when you take an objective look at the issues (despite flashy headlines like scream "controversy"), you have criticism and response.
3. In any case, positive or negative, I think a better way to assess due weight, as well as concisely summarize the criticism, is to treat all reviews as primary sources, and shift more heavily towards secondary sources, such as meta-reviews or articles about the criticism, not those taking part in it. One such source, brought up in the AFD was the NY Times' 'American Sniper’ Fuels a War on the Home Front. That whole article can probably be condensed into one paragraph on the 'wider social significance' of film, although ideally at least one other similar review article should be added, to further neutrality and establish that the controversy actually exists. These types of articles, much more than any one opinion, article, interview, or sound bite, can help establish what truly is noteworthy in the long run. Should future such articles, or even tertiary sources like film encyclopedias become available, the balance away from primary should shift further, keeping the Wikipedia article a step or two removed from the day-to-day dueling of opinions and media saturation. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Other secondary articles, free from opinion as far as I can tell, include: American Sniper: Was Chris Kyle really a hero? (BBC), American Sniper’ decried as propaganda by some, praised as veterans’ paean by others (Washington Post), What people get wrong about 'American Sniper' (CNN). From casual reading, it seems one of the real controversies (and there may be more than one) seems to be differences between the film and Kyle's book and/or real life. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Animalparty! I agree with your points. I used the article by The Washington Post at Talk:American Sniper (film)/Commentary, which I set up to try to rewrite the section in a balanced manner. (It's definitely not done, though! I agree that a section about the portrayal of Kyle would be worth adding.) I agree with not using "Controversy" and instead prefer "Commentary" (but am open to other suggestions). I completely agree about using these high-level assessments to summarize what different parties are saying about the film and others' responses to it. These links definitely help to cover the various commentary further. The Economist also covers it here. Please feel free to comment on the draft or share ideas on what to cover or not to cover here. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Animalparty is quite correct that secondary sources, especially the ones he mentioned, are exactly the way to treat the disputed sections. Relying on these secondary sources to say there is a controversy rather than using primary sources to support the stance that there is a controversy would be better by a long shot. As a given, I was prepared to support David A.'s version of the section with two caveats....group all the pros and cons under one heading of "Critical responses" or similar and secondly, remove the bare links at the end of the main paragraph that discusses the negative reviews.--MONGO 04:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

David A.'s version is the one the article is currently protected in.--MONGO 04:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Animalparty, the trouble with treating the reviews as primary sources and using just articles about the criticism is that (1) there aren't that many meta-reviews or articles about the controversy. (2) I added the NYT story, but I don't think gives the views of real critics who actually disagree with the film as well as they give their views themselves. (Somebody deleted the NYT story, and I can't find it any more, even by searching the NYT. That's the problem with deleting the Controversy sub-article before we've resolved the Criticism section in the main article. Can you give me the link to the NYT story?) (3) I read the Washington Post story and I don't think you can honestly say that it gives the critics' POV as clearly and fairly as we can.

According to WP:NPOV, "Writing for the opponent" [1] "Writing for the opponent, also known as writing for the enemy, is the process of explaining another person's point of view as clearly and fairly as you can, even if you strongly disagree with it, and also giving it proper weight in the article relative to its significance." I don't think the NYT or Washington Post does that. We need to quote and paraphrase the real opponents of the movie.

I would summarize Zaid Jilani's list of "lies" and Chris Hedges' introductory lead, as I said above. Here's how (I think) David A summarized it:

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]

I think that's a good summary of the critics' position. I think this should be the baseline. We use this unless someone can come up with something better that explains the critics' POV. How else would you summarize it? Show me a summary of the Washington Post article that, following WP:NPOV, explains the critics' point of view "as clearly and fairly as you can." --Nbauman (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that IjonTichy wrote those. I wrote the very brief summaries. I could be wrong, but they don't feel familiar. David A (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nbauman, I would not be willing to compromise for inclusion of Hedges and particularly Jiliani's comments. David A.'s latest version that the article is protected in is the closest version I would compromise on with the caveats I mentioned just above. I think that would provide an adequate negative critique. I would also be happy to see Obama's commentary removed which is a positive review but isn't particularly noteworthy.--MONGO 12:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 February 2015

Category:Dolby Atmos films StewieBaby05 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This fact needs to be in the article before we can add it as a category - see Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. If you have a source for this, however, then I don't see any reason why we shouldn't add it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

not much that is controversial

Do you want to quit your edit and other warring so we can get this article off protected edit status? There's really not much that is controversial about this film or this story, assuming you just view the film or read the book and don't rely on external sources to form your opinion. Get with the program already! 10stone5 (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Calling other editors "imbeciles and idiots" just because you disagree with them is not acceptable Wikipedia behaviour. David A (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is "not much that is controversial about this film or story" -- however, careful editing consideration is needed to not go the way of liberal media reacting to the popularity. -- AstroU (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not what it originally said. Another editor changed the wording. David A (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Zaid Jilani anti-Semitic

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)

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)

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)

Bullshit...[2]...and [3]--MONGO 20:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

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...[4] (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)

Accusations of antisemitism against Zaid Jilani and Max Blumenthal are based entirely on Hasbarah, i.e. propaganda, talking points. IjonTichy (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Merging the criticism article to the main section

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)

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)

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)

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)

Mongo appears to continue to personally attack editors, despite polite requests to stop. IjonTichy (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Obvious things are obvious. Your sole effort here appears to be and can be demonstrated by diffs to be to solely add nothing but negativity to the article. That is called POV pushing and I see no reason to offer compromise when you have offered nothing similar.--MONGO 19:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I just added a long defense of the movie from Bradley Cooper, and I think that your own slant has been demonstrated as far more hostile and partisan than my own. The point is that the consensus was to merge the articles from the derivative page into the main section. I have done so by compressing them into one sentence each, and have removed the specific articles that you had valid objections to. I have repeatedly compromised greatly. Negativity is also a natural part of a controversies section. Not everything can be positive, as that is a much bogger slant. There has been serious ongoing controversy concerning the movie. Our obligation is to show it in a concise manner. David A (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Both the pros and cons should be concise and use only the best voices and sources. Peripheral opinions where "writers" use the movie as an opportunity to bash Kyle, Eastwood or similar really don't lend credence to their worth as encyclopedic entries. Strength of views is never supported by radical POV pushing...instead, those views should be presented neutrally and dispassionately or all they do is make our enterprise appear tabloidish. We're not in the business of being a tabloid or selling our stuff to a fan base. I suggested you grab 6-8 of the cons that have the most value as being worthy of an encyclopedia and add a brief summary of their comments...meaning a sentence each...I also suggested eliminating Obama's comment and reducing Eastwood's...if that isn't a compromise then there is no reason to compromise because this article is not going to be drowned out by every wimps opinion about the movie, provided in long winded quotes that have about as much worth as a dog turd to us, an encyclopedia.--MONGO 19:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I still dislike your slanted language, for example calling them "dog turd producing wimps" just for displaying a conscience, as I thought that several of the entries made some valid points when I read through them, but agree with you that the controversies section is kind of long currently. But I have attempted to be as dispassionate in the current summaries as I can. Which 8 of the current sources do you find the most acceptable/least unacceptable? I liked the one from the Cavalry Sniper, among other ones. David A (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I will take a look at compressing this further tomorrow. It is getting late where I live, and I have to go to bed in an hour. David A (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to put quotes on something and attribute it to me, then make sure your quote is something I actually typed and not something else. What I typed was "every wimps opinion about the movie, provided in long winded quotes that have about as much worth as a dog turd to us, an encyclopedia" Is it typical that you might wish to only take portions of what I say, put those words together in a different way than I actually said them and attribute it to me as a rebuttal? The problem with movie reviews is that they aren't themselves peer reviewed, and since this movie is new, they haven't withstood the test of time. With that said, I have no problem with what the Cavalry Sniper wrote for inclusion in Salon, but is it about the movie or Kyle? See, the issue is how much are any of the reviews talking about the movie itself? I don't know why some reviewers opinions have worth when they call Kyle racist and etc. yet my calling their opinions a dog turd makes me some kind of villain.--MONGO 20:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It was "this is the way that I understood it, but I disagree with the sentiment" kind of quotation marks. Anyway, you may have a point that it is unfair to call Kyle a racist, just based on a few quotes from him, but you really should read through the articles before condemning them all uniformly. After reading through and summarising all of them, I think that several of them did have valid well-articulated points. Anyway, to compromise, I agree to try to select the 8 summaries that I think were most relevant tomorrow, to let the other 7 back into the same kind of "Several other articles have also been critical of the movie" end sentence that we used previously, and to possibly compress the Eastwood quote (it depends, as I am trying to keep the pros and cons of equal length), and remove or compress the Michelle Obama quote in combination, in order to make the section more manageable in length. David A (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Come up with a dozen so they can be narrowed down to most related to the movie...the same can be done for positive reviews.--MONGO 20:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Mostly agreed, although I am currently fond of about 9 of the sentences, so I don't know if I can produce 12 that I stand behind, and I think that the preceding reviews section is mostly okay as it is. David A (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well...the thing is that no one really reading the article could care less what some opinions are by anyone. They want to know what the movie is about and the mechanics of it. The sane know that the opinions are just opinions and could care less.--MONGO 22:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

And positive reviews outnumber negative by about 3 to 1. --DHeyward (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I count six decent critiques...the rest truly just appear to be using the movie as a pretense to go off about the war, snipers in general or take pot shots at Kyle and Eastwood. One review blames anyone who voted for Bush as culpable for creating the likes of Kyle. Kyle was a solider doing the soldier thing. I don't see the same attacks on the movie Fury which is a pretty brutal but true to fact rendition of a typist (or common citizen) becoming a soldier. In wartime, soldiers kill their opponents get killed. It's always been that way.--MONGO 00:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've narrowed it down to 13 critiques...a few more are pretty much just opportunistic rants that discuss the movie only in cursory detail. That's still 13 critiques...I really have no idea what the complaints are about that the article doesn't have a critique section. Even if we eliminated a half dozen more of the most ridiculous opinion pieces it would still be undue weight to have the remaining ones in.--MONGO 01:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I strongle disagree about that all visitors are uninterested in critical analysis. I think that it depends from person to person. I also disagree with that the articles appear opportunistic, rather than expressing sincere viewpoints and problems that these people had with the film (Well, okay, maybe the one from Russia Today. I have a problem with anything endorsed by Putin, although the summarised sentiment itself seems valid enough). But in any case, I have now attempted to compromise even further by greatly shortening down the section, and avoiding to include the two summaries that you disagreed with including. Is this an acceptable compromise to leave the article alone as it is? Because I think that I have repeatedly bent over backwards to put in the work to do so. David A (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So that's it then? Your purpose here was nothing other than to make sure negative critique is in the article, right? Do you have any other issues with the article?--MONGO 16:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure that the controversy that genuinely exists about the movie is accurately represented without taking up too much space, if that is what you mean? Anyway, I think that the article seems fine othervise. David A (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The controversy is mainly a stirred up concoction by people that want to use the movie to promote their unvisionary personal opinions about the war, snipers, Kyle and Eastwood and take pop shots and make shitty accusations about rednecks, Americans or gun right supporters. Its some of the lowest low ball bullshit I have ever read and is fascinating to me that while these "writers" get carte blanche to saw some of the most vicious things I have ever read, if people like me call them on their bullshit I'm somehow engaged in personal attacks. I'm going to take down a few more of these "critiques".--MONGO 20:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I only read them as having very active consciences and being genuinely morally outraged myself. Not as hatefilled at all, just as very worried about the consequences of extreme forms of propaganda. But all right, you removed two more of them. That has to be enough. You can't keep pushing for more and more forever. The official Wikipedia ruling was merge, and I have genuinely compromised an awful lot. David A (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite all warnings to stop his disruptive editing and tendentious editing, mongo appears to continue to WikiBully and personally attack users. And he continues to act like he owns the article, and to edit war in an effort to remove content he just does not like. (And in an edit summary, mongo also has labeled Max Blumenthal, a Jewish journalist and book author and an expert on the middle east, as an anti-Semite ....) mongo's behavior appears out of control. --IjonTichy (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to adjust the Wikipedia article on Blumenthal then as it makes it pretty clear what a number of Jewish entities have stated about his commentary. --MONGO 03:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to "adjust" the BLP on Blumenthal to include baseless, groundless accusations of antisemitism then you'll need to do it yourself, instead of asking me to do it for you. The accusations of antisemitism against Max Blumenthal and Zaid Jilani are based entirely on Hasbarah, i.e. propaganda talking points. IjonTichy (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't watch the movie, didn't read the article, and don't care. But here is my generic remark regarding all kinds of sections titled "Criticism", "Public reaction" etc. Quite often it is a coatrack of quotations from celebrities which are not experts. Just like someone above wrote, kinda "surely such a high-profile person as the First Lady must be quoted". Bullshit. An encyclopedic article must be constructed around facts and arguments, not around who said. The structure must be as follows: (Argument A) (optional list of those who uttered or supported it) (optional counter-argument) (its authors). There also must be clear distinction between pure opinions and opinions based on arguments. For example, If someone writes simply "he is portrayed as a racist", I doubt this opinion merits inclusion in wikipedia, unlike the case when one writes "he is portrayed as a racist. I conclude this because..." -M.Altenmann >t 21:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you, but it is hard to encapsule such causes to the sentiments within the limited space offered by one-sentence summaries. I genuinely did the best I could in this regard. The lengthy reasons for the arguments can be found within the linked articles however. David A (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You should thank me as I helped you do just that. --DHeyward (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Very funny. Censoring 95% of the criticism is not remotely helpful, and you provided no better explanations. David A (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Merging into criticism means removing it as a separate section. I cut down the quotefarm and the Appeal to Authority identification which dramatically inflates the section beyond its due weight. Its success awards, award nomination, and critical acclaim far outweigh anything to be merged and the relative sizes of thoses sections need to be balanced with regard to sources. We don't let the Klan write the controversy section of Black History Month regardless of how many notable Klansmen disagree with it. That's exactly what is meant by WP:UNDUE and this article doesn't get to violate that because a tiny fringe minority can't cope with what soldiers do and what they deal with. --DHeyward (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We already dealt with above that 6 articles at the end is not a quotefarm. Again, that is your personal opinion that nobody who has valid, well-articulated criticism of the contents of the movie deserves to be heard "because they can's cope with what soldiers do", which is missing the points completely about their concerns. Also, your comparison of these people with the Ku Klux Klan is so POV and disproportionately out there that I don't know how to respond. Wikipedia consensus was to MERGE the main article into this section, and I went to ridiculous extremes to compromise by mssively compressing the article references, and to keep the section balanced by affording equal amounts of space to pro-opinions and defense of the movie. I am not remotely suggesting to cut away any of the positive accolades. You are attempting to completely ignore compromise to take it upon yourself to censor anything that you disagree with. David A (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Which 6 articles at the end. Look, I can agree that you have been compromising but I still think we're talking past each other. I even said the positive issues need to be adjusted such as Obama's positive comments (which should probably go altogether) and Eastwoods comments which should be trimmed. Some of these negative reviews are from blogs or fringe sources that are blatantly partisan and make no pretense to being news sources or from movie critics.--MONGO 06:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

AntiWar.com, Counterpunch, Salon, etc ... are reliable sources for expressing the views/ analysis/ commentary of the article author. Editors can take a look at the archives of the RSN to verify this. And you and DHeyward must stop attacking David A and myself, you must stop bullying us, and you must stop your disruptive editing including edit warring to remove content you don't like, and you must stop violating the consensus that was reached at the AfD discussion. IjonTichy (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And since you have been willing to compromise, I don't really have a problem with you beyond the offensive language MONGO. However, DHeyward just crossed a line with me by ignoring compromise altogether in attempting to censor pretty much everything. I had a mental glitch mixing up quotefarm with the earlier linfarm issue. David A (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Afd discussion said to merge, but the material was already still here in this article. IjonTichyIjonTichy...you are the one that has been blocked and warned multiple times in the past and nothing seems to have changed. You couldn't get what you wanted here, so you created a POV fork that was almost immediately nominated for deletion and you're using your sandbox to stage more stuff. If there is disruptive editing going on here its from you....something you have been blocked for in the past.--MONGO 06:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am completely opposed to MONGO and DHeyward's actions here (especially the latter's), as it is quite clear they are trying to censor legitimate criticism of the topic because of their POV stance on the topic. Silverseren^C 06:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No one is trying to do anything but keep ranting raving opinions masquerading as movie reviews out of the article.--MONGO 06:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the exact sort of POV stance that i'm talking about that means you should excuse yourself from being involved in this article. Silverseren^C 07:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I'll do all I can to help this article not be misused as a repository of links to lies, misrepresentations and distortions masquerading as movie reviews. You either cannot read or don't care to do so because you missed my stating several times that the positive reviews also need to be adjusted....so your alleged POV stance you are attributing to me is a fabrication.--MONGO 07:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"lies, misrepresentations, and distortions", meaning you disagree with the stance of the reviews and thus want to force your POV onto the article so that your stance will take precedent over the reliable sources. Silverseren^C 08:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hum, no, I mean that many of the "reviews" are not reviews at all but merely opportunistic hit pieces that hardly even discuss the movie at all. I never said all the negative reviews were to be removed, not once.--MONGO 08:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

For a similar movie that had widespread appeal but some controversy, see Avatar (2009 film) for its prtrayal of the soldiers and their identification. Note the lack of a controversy section or long drawn out individual quotes. The controversy is summarized in a short paragraph. There is no reason to believe the controversy here should be treated differently. Trim it and integrate. --DHeyward (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If this is your idea of "trimming", I don't think you should touch a Critical Reception section of any article ever again. Silverseren^C 08:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, if you think anything material was removed regarding the film with that edit, point it out. If not, you probably shouldn't be commenting. Hyperbole and a quarter used to be enough for a phone call but quarters aren't worth that much and hyperbole even less. --DHeyward (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, DHeyward, that is your personal viewpoint. There were 14 votes for MERGING the main controversies article to this section, which I put in several hours of work to do by trimming it enormously. The decision was not to censor it nearly completely. To be frank, it does not matter that you think othervise on this issue, as you were outvoted. The current actual criticism in the criticism section is extremely brief as it is. It only takes up space because I wnated to make sure to let it remain NPOV by allowing the defense to be heard as well, with more room than the critics, I might add. What I object to is your assertion that nearly everybody who has written valid thoughtful critical articles do not deserve to be heard, but all the positive voices do. That puts an enromous slant on the presentation. David A (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate list of things.--MONGO 08:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not an "indiscriminate"/random and meaningless listing. Also, I asked for help above to structure the summaries into coherent sentences that merged together all of the common complaints into a whole, but did not receive any help. David A (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The policy is binding as it is policy. All you have to do is keep it balanced. I didn't bother to rewrite the various quotes of dissent because I feared you and others would accuse me of whitewashing. My actual number of edits to the article itself is pretty low btw.--MONGO 08:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

But by that logic all of the quoted positive sentiments in the reception section are an "indiscriminate list" as well. I tried to be very discriminate in selecting the current batch in the controversies section. And I have tried to keep the section balanced, by giving the pro-arguments extra room. And to compromise a lot. For example, after reading through Max Blumenthal's profile I do agree that he seems suspect, due to comparing Israel with ISIL, so we could remove that one. What I have a problem with is indiscriminately removing virtually all of them and pretend like the controversy doesn't exist. David A (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Now see...I removed Blumenthal's link and the result was that the negative critique GAINED by doing so. My point has always been that bombastic, loud, ranting critique isn't worth a crap! If you want to make a point then use neutral voices of concern as the sources. The issue is that this article will continue to get "reviews" both pro and con until the dust settles at the Academy Awards. I doubt this movie will win for either the movie or the acting due to the controversial issues. If you want to make the controversy stand the test of time you have to make serious judgement calls about what is incorporated or the next MONGO or whomever will come along and say well, of course Blumenthal thinks that, because he's....(whatever).--MONGO 09:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see it as a work in progress. I just removed Blumenthal due to that you had valid concerns. (Comparing Israel to ISIL is far worse than what Jilani did i.m.h.o.) However, people have to actually make an effort to put into words why a reference should be excluded for it to be so. We can't just take out a chainsaw and randomly cut loose on the text. And it is hard for me to make perfect calls about everything. The best I could manage was taking the summaries that seemed most relevant among the articles that had not received complaints. However, to better stand the test of time, I agree that we need to write all of the sentiments into a coherent whole. However, nobody was willing to help me to do so, and I didn't know where to start, as the critical views seemed a bit too different from case to case. David A (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Jiliani blogged about Israel-firsters or similar...I don't want to get into BLP violation...just his entire article was miscues and truly were not a review of the movie. Look, you say you've been around 9 years so no lectures from me, but the negative reviews need not be many if they are convincingly dispassionate. We are writing an encyclopedia, so its best to find the most neutral voices both pro and con and preferably from real critics and quote them. Strength of argument opens eyes best. I see a review that calls Kyle a racist or psycho or mass-murderer and it loses me right there...I read no further. I see one that says the movie is bad and explains in a dispassionate voice why then it stays.--MONGO 09:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, given my mental handicaps, I am not good at all with learning bureaucratic procedure, so the 9 years haven't really taught me enough. Regardless, I have no problems with cutting out the more unbalanced articles, but I think that the current 8 ones summarised in a single sentence each seem mostly acceptable at a glance, or at least the summaries are, and I did cut out Jilani. David A (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The controversy section (first paragraph) as I read it, is nothing more than criticism of the film. Alex von Tunselmann criticized, Ross Caputi criticized, David Masciotra criticized, several articles...critical of the movie. And then - Responding to critics, Eastwood..., Bradely Cooper stated much of the criticism. So it appears that this particular section, specifically the first paragraph, is nothing more than a negative quotefarm of criticism of a controversial film. Hence, that section should be re-named to accurately reflect the content in that section - "Negative criticism", because that's all it is (besides Eastwood and Cooper responding to the negative criticism). Isaidnoway (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with this. In my language the terms "criticism" and "negative criticism" are usually synonymous, stemming from being "critical". If you wish, we could make another "Positive criticism" section as well, if the current reviews section is not enough. David A (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "Critical response" section is more than adequate for this film. To me, the "Controversies" section just looks like an attempt to include as much negative POV about the film as possible. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I strongly disagree. There has been a lot of criticism and controversy (the documented increased hostility towards Arabs and Muslims, the death, torture, and rape threats against critics, etcetera) regarding the movie, and we have a responsibility to accurately and concisely convey that fact. In addition, I found several of the articles interesting and well-written. David A (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Merging the "controversy article" into this article doesn't mean we create a separate controversy section and copy controversy material to that isolated section. That's called "appending". Nobody called for appending the article with the separate controversies article. It should be worked in, with due weight, to the critical response section (you said you used the word interchangeably and did so as the start of this section, but now you seem to be making a great distinction). Again, read the article on Avatar (2009 film). It had controversial material regarding the portrayal of the military and it's woven into the critical narrative. It is NOT a laundry list of names and titles that randomly comment on the film. You don't seem to grasping the fundamental concept of merge and WP:UNDUE. IS this related to the mental issues you alluded to earlier and do we need to rephrase it so you understand more completely? --DHeyward (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I am autistic, OCD, and ADD. I have problems focusing, get fixated on things, am a bit mentally walled off, and get stronger sensory stimuli in certain respects, but am othervise mostly fine. In any case, the way that I understood the voting process, we were supposed to merge the relevant articles to the connected section of the page, after shortening them down. And there was a pre-existing section on this page. In any case, I am fine with reformatting it or removing specific objectionable sources, but cutting away virtually all of them, as you did, does not seem like a logical interpretation. David A (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)