Talk:Chris Kyle/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

American Sniper (movie)

The film was nominated for Academy Awards in the Best Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing categories. It won the Best Sound Editing category. Can we get that section updated accordingly, please? [1] [2]

References

at end of this movie kyles coffin is full of seals insignias pshed to top of it - what is meaning of thies ritual ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:9198:E50E:2CF5:68C7:7C1B:2188 (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2015

I am making an investigation about Chris Kyle and i want to know the source and the writer's name about this article if that's possible. Thank you. Mpampo23 (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done that is not a semi-protected edit request
FYI the pages revision history shows there have been 794 different editors to this page - Arjayay (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Typos on Littlefield under the death section

Will somebody please fix this error as I can not. It is in the very last paragraph of the section called "death." The first "I" in Littlefield is capitalized where it should not be. Thanks for the help.

Can somebody with editing rights fix this? safties should be safeties

Seems to already have been done. Kelly hi! 01:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Military Career Section Needs Help

In the Military Career section, Kyle tries to join the Marines but is refused due to his arm. Then he's suddenly on SEAL Team 3. You would imagine that he (a) joined the Navy, and (b) had some training somewhere. There's no mention of any of that, the leap from being rejected by the Marines to being a SEAL team member is a long one. 24.17.192.70 (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this is why I came here, to mention this same thing. His eventual choice of the Navy and ultimately starting BUDs training is important missing info about his military career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.143.94 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015

Update picture to something that suits Mr. Kyle better.

Such as https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/chris-kyle2.jpg?quality=65&strip=color&w=1012

98.144.7.4 (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done - Unfortunately, that is a copyrighted photograph. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow us to use a copyrighted image when a "free" image is available. Kelly hi! 04:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Only Counted the Lives He Felt He Could Have Saved

In the section dealing with his Military Career and, in particular, his kill count, the following statement is confusing: "Kyle stated that he did not know his official kill record, and only counted the lives he felt he could have saved." I think this statement needs more clarification. Does this mean he only counted the people he didn't shoot? The people he missed? The fellow soldiers that would have been killed, assuming each enemy would have killed at least one allied soldier? There's no source listed so I can't try to make it more clear if I wanted.

If the sentence can't be clarified, maybe it would be better to pull it. The claim is made just prior that he had 160 kills, with 255 probables. Since the USSOC doesn't confirm or deny that, the impression is that it comes from Kyle himself and his shooter logs with confirmations from witnesses. If that's the case, then to say "[Kyle] did not know this official kill record..." seems contradictory. If he didn't know it, then did where does the 160/255 numbers come from? Jhowar59 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015

On the information on the right side of the page, it lists his "Rank" as Chief Petty Officer. The term Rank is incorrect. The correct term is "Rate". US Navy enlisted personnel do not have rank, only officer do. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ranks/rankrate.html

Jchettel (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: "Rank" is currently a parameter of the "infobox military person" template. Changing "Rank" to "Rate" appears to be correct in terms of US Navy practices, according to the source provided. Rank may be used in its general meaning as it is applied to every article using this template. I am uncertain as to what consensus exists for this sort of change, so I will add an entry at Template_talk:Infobox_military_person. Please discuss the change there, and revisit this article as needed. If this is already addressed by a policy/guideline, please {{ping}} me.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 05:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)  B E C K Y S A Y L E 05:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Man I can not believe how many ignorant sailors there are. Enlisted Sailor have RANK and a RATE. The Rate is the equivalent of an Army MOS BRANCH, i.e. I was an Aviation Electronics Technician, the rate is AT, in the Army I was a 68 Juliet, the 68 is the career management field of AVIATION, the Juliet is my specialty, in the Navy a specialty is an NEC (Naval Enlisted Classification). My NEC was 6612, TACAN Tecnician.

As an E-4 (pay grade) in the Navy my RANK was Petty Officer Third Class, and MY rate was AT. However, I can write in my signature block AT3, which says I am An Aviation Electronics Technician 3rd class. Both Rate and Rank in one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.47.173 (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, this probably isn't the first time a Senior Chief in the Navy had to set you strait there AT3, but you just described yourself with the "ignorant Sailor" remark. You are incorrect in many of your remarks. Only officers in the Navy have "Rank". Enlisted personnel have "Rate". Check the link http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ranks/rankrate.html or refer back to your blue jackets manual! Your Rate was Third Class Petty officer, Your rating was Aviation Electronics Technician (AT) and your pay grade was E-4. Consider this EMI! AWCSC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchettel (talkcontribs) 01:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Use the generic "rank" in the info-box, and "rate" in the article. BP OMowe (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest edit-war

The referenced article (Briggs, Bill (July 30, 2014). "Confirmed kills: A solemn secret for military snipers is becoming a pop-culture hit". NBC News, now dead link) does pull the book's claim that the numbers are verified into doubt: "For the record, the U.S. Army 'does not keep any official, or unofficial for that matter, record of confirmed kills,' said Wayne V. Hall, a spokesman for the Army. Similarly, U.S. Special Operations Command treats that tally as 'unofficial,' said Ken McGraw, a spokesman for the command. 'If anything, we shy away from reporting numbers like that. It’s so difficult to prove. And what does it mean?' McGraw said." It also brings doubt about the publisher's fact-checks with the controversy around Carnivore. While "HarperCollins emailed several references for the figures in “Carnivore,” including “On Point,” the Army’s official history of the Iraq invasion. The publisher noted that the book was submitted to and cleared for publication by the Department of Defense", the article doesn't mention if those references were controlled, and if so, what the outcome of those were. Finally, the book, according to the above article, stated “The Pentagon has officially confirmed more than 150 of Kyle’s kills”. That means least 151 kills, but also that there is no specific number given. All in all, I do not see the references given good enough to have Wormcast's edit reverted, until there is some source to decide which of the two alternatives is the correct one. BP OMowe (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Pentagon does not release such records...but the sources widely show that his 160 is a confirmed "by the Pentagon" figure. And a total of 95 more that are unconfirmed, bringing the total to 255...and some SEAL members believe it was higher...[1]--MONGO 02:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record, Kyle in his book doesn't make the claim. Kyle says depending on the day, the Navy credits him with certain number of confirmed kills. Each kill is documented for lawyers and rules of engagement. One famous incident was the wife of an insurgent that Kyle killed complained that her husband was carrying a Koran, not a weapon. The DoD investigates all complaints and the JAG investigating the complaint asked if Kyle shot someone for holding a Koran and his response was "I don't shoot people that are just holding Korans." He also says that the ROE prevented him from engaging known insurgents (i.e. if he saw someone with with a rifle shooting at U.S. troops on a Tuesday, he could not shoot him on Wednesday unless he had a weapon and was threatening U.S. troops). Each person he killed is documented outlying what his justification was because there really was the possibility of being charged with murder without those logs and reports. It's also why the Navy can give accurate kill counts (both witnessed and not witnessed). Whether the navy counts the reports or counts the kills is one of semantics. There are at least 255 reports and 165 or so were witnessed for both ROE and hitting the target. --DHeyward (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Kyle is also asserted as the deadliest marksman in U.S. history surpassing a Vietnam War era marksman but Kyle claimed he had advantages the fellow he surpassed did not have, including GPS and other technical tools that were unavailable to his predecessor.--MONGO 14:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
DHeyward...you should restore the liveleak link though as the main NBC reference is dead. You can add the link I provided above too if you wish.--MONGO 14:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The number from the book is, as far as I understand from the sources, a claim from the publisher HarperCollins and not a statement of Chris Kyle. Getting good sources is a tricky thing, which I found out when trying to sort it out with Simo Häyhä. That ended up with having to remove the kills in defence using the Suomi submachine gun even though they are more than plausible, and include the later research which questioned the accuracy of the contemporary reports. I feel there's gone prestige into the article, while what we should do is to sum up what the sources say. BP OMowe (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really into the numbers issue so long as the article reflects what the sources seem to claim which is he had more confirmed marksman kills than any other U.S. marksman. Like Kyle, I prefer the term marksman but that could be construed as POV I suppose.--MONGO 15:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It does seem like his role was more that of a marksman in overwatch than a sniper, not least when judging by Charles W. Sassers article, but unfortunately just about all I read uses the word "sniper" so while it certainly NOT would be POV, it would disregarding the sources... unless someone can find an authorial one stating he was acting as a marksman. I like the quote from Sassers article, would be nice to see it incorporated somehow: “The only reason people compare me to Carlos,” Kyle reasoned, “is because they don’t understand about sniping. Just because I hold the record for American snipers does not make me as good as Carlos. The actual killing is nothing. Carlos was out there in the jungle, by himself. There was that one instance where, camouflaged, alone, he stalked a VC general behind enemy lines to take him out. I still think he is the greatest sniper of all times, not just American” and "Some contend that patience is a sniper’s most important skill. Kyle disagrees.

“I believe it is professional discipline. Professional discipline and powers of observation. The ‘right stuff’ is the ability to judge the environment, figure out when something doesn’t fit in, to put yourself in the enemy’s position and determine what he is trying to accomplish. And then to know when to do the right thing to help protect troops on the ground.”" Kind of highlights the difference of their respective roles, while being consistent with the sources. BP OMowe (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

SEAL operators are not one dimensional. The urban environment made Kyle's ranges much closer. But also, the inurgnts realized that exposure on the street often led to death by sniper. They started to move between buildings by blowing holes in the walls. When Kyle saw he had no more sniper targets, he left the overwatch position to teach the Marines how to breach and clear buildings. He had a lot more CQB experience than any of the Marines. He used a number of weapons based on mission. --DHeyward (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Not being that familiar with the SEAL-methods, I'd believe them to be as different from the normal Marine procedure as the SAS-methods stand apart from regular military/police simply because each and every member of the squadrons have spent least a couple of hundred hours in training that, which the normal units can not afford to. But we were not talking about general skills, were we now? Anyway, I got my hands on the book, and this is what is said by Kyle regarding actual kill-count (page 13/439) : "The Navy credits me with more kills as a sniper than any other American service member, past or present. I guess that’s true. They go back and forth on what the number is. One week, it’s 160 (the “official” number as of this writing, for what that’s worth), then it’s way higher, then it’s somewhere in between. If you want a number, ask the Navy — you may even get the truth if you catch them on the right day." The record-keeping is described in more detail at pages 345-346. Gun talk starts at page 112. Longest shot, page 224, 196 and 399. BP OMowe (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Can't figure out how to give the specific pages with the ref-name tag, but the relevant information from the sources should all be there now. If someone could find a way to add the pages, and check that the new version is in US-English (I'm better acquainted with British English), hopefully this will be the end of this section :-) BP OMowe (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
We can use the autobiography since others helped him write it so long as we attribute it with secondary sources. I like the quote you provided above as it gives context that even Kyle is not sure and since the powers that be don't keep precise counts (for good reasons I think) the guesstimate numbers need to be stated and mentioned qualified as not being precise. The references as discussed mostly concur that the 160 number is widely accepted.--MONGO 21:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey! Fixed up some grammar and word choice etc- it's still not entirely in the right tense, but it should read better now. FYI: The source we have for Jim DeFelice's statement does not mention Jim DeFelice or any statement he has made- might need to fix that. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems like most sources are taking the number from the book, so the current numbers are "160" and "more than 150". Hopefully some one will eventually be able to dig through the records and make an actual count. As for the source-issue PeterTheFourth pointed out, it seems someone had given the article by Bill Briggs the wrong ref name, fixing that now. BP OMowe (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I researched the NBC News Bill Briggs story, I have an opinion, FWIW. Using LiveLeak as a source is inappropriate, to my mind as an editor, in this case. However, using Wayback Machine as an archive of the news story is not. The link is not dead; it is at - Confirmed kills: A solemn secret for military snipers is becoming a pop-culture hit.
Since the story was posted by NBC news on 30 Jul 2013, and there's no record of it being on the Web on their site past 24 Dec 2013, this is not, in my editorial judgment, a dead link. This is a news story that got pulled by a news organization. While there could be many reasons for this, the most obvious is that they probably got their facts wrong / were unverifiable: Whatever, they pulled it, NBC News did. Stop using the source, is my recommendation. In my mind, as an editor, the evidence shows it is not reliable. Calling a retracted story a dead link is a mis-representation of what happened, in my opinion.
On the other hand, I'm really disappointed in the edit where a source posted on YouTube is pulled: diff, pulling a video made from a CBS affiliate, by claiming that YouTube is 'unreliable' in some fashion for hosting it. (Like YouTube allows CBS affiliate copyvio/plagiarism on its web site, does anyone think there wouldn't be a take-down notice in a heartbeat from CBS's lawyers if that weren't real, or was mis-represented in any way? Get real. You really think that Navy guy is faking the speech? Come on.) In my mind, as an editor, the evidence shows it is a reliable CBS transmission from cbsdfw.com at 1:38 (we must, using common sense that goes way past editorial judgment, assume PM), at which time the temperature in Dallas was in fact 52 friggin' degrees of Fahrenheit, see? How much more reliable do you want (I can pull the weather data for Dallas on that date, if you really want to argue reliability here)? The main problem with the cite is that it does not cite a time mark for what it is citing; but that can be fixed by later editors, as cites around here often are.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of SYNTHESIS

There are several sources giving different numbers, and explanations for why. Including them is not SYNTH, but good wiki-practice. Be noted I'm about to request administrative action against disruptive edits, one can not complain about "going against consensus" when not participating in the discussions. BP OMowe (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, the ONLY part not more or less a direct quote straight from the sources is the part of sentence "the exact number of sniper kills is obscure", which as far as I can tell goes well with the "more than 150" and "They go back and forth on what the number is". Should there be a different opinion regarding that, feel free to remove that part, total revert is not acceptable for such a minor detail. BP OMowe (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The only complaint I could have regarding the edits you made was the addition of the HarperCollins credibility issue about the other book. I intended to leave it in but it seemed unrelated.--MONGO 13:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The credibility issue comes straight from the Bill Briggs' article. I looked into that, and it seems HarperCollins indeed misrepresented the numbers in the named book, so that is the reason I included it (sourced, reliable and relevant for HC as source, even if not directly for the article). BP OMowe (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm going away over for a few days, so play nicely with each other meanwhile ;-) Happy Easter! BP OMowe (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I removed the YouTube ref as unreliable....not sure who added it.--MONGO 14:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC

)

Starting with "While the X has never.." is a non-starter. Using "The U.S. Army doesn't..." has no bearing on anything as the Army isn't involved. Kyle wasn't in the Army. Harper-Collins is not inaccurate here and implying that another author's errors are reason to undermine these authors is not okay. Any sentence with the word "claims." It seems like you've decided the numbers are wrong and are using every means possible to support what you believe rather than write the sources say. Stick with the 160 number that is published everywhere and then quote Kyle about it (i.e. from the Navy. --DHeyward (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Also WP:BRD works the other way. You added stuff, I removed it. Take it to talk. Your material should not be in the article while we are discussing it. --DHeyward (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
And I'm back, hope you all had a good Easter :-) Back to business at hand, I actually took it to the talk-page before changing anything. That was the whole point of it, getting an end to the edit war by constructive discussions and edits. Just for the record, I *do* believe the numbers to be wrong, but that is from my experience of war reports in general. It doesn't matter if we are talking about snipers or aerial bombings, I've still to come by numbers not garbled by wishful thinking, the fog of war or clerical errors. Like Mongo said, best we can get is a 'guesstimate', based on the sources available to us. The main reason for this approach is to avoid this. BP OMowe (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Issues current around Easter

Right, I've collected the ones I spotted in the different sections and pulled them here (in no particular order) so we can work them out.

  • a) HarperCollins credibility issue.
  • b) Bill Briggs article: proper link, reliability and relevance.
  • c) The Youtube-video removed as reference.
  • d) "Starting with 'While the X has never..' is a non-starter. Using 'The U.S. Army doesn't...' has no bearing on anything as the Army isn't involved. Kyle wasn't in the Army."

If I missed something, just add it to the list above. BP OMowe (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll just give my input to the list, trying to be as clear as possible.

a) Since the main source for the whole thing seems to be the book published by HC, with several other sources used in the article quoting the book, I'd say HC's credibility is a relevant issue to least mention in the article. The book Carnivore is about the war in Iraq, with kills stated to be confirmed with the Pentagon. Bill Briggs is far from alone to have pointed out the bad use of kills as selling point, here Dan Murphy and Geoffrey Ingersoll agrees that it's the publisher who is to blame and not the author. As I said at the beginning, with HarperCollins being the main source and responsible for the fact-checking, I'd say it's valuable for the reader to be given notice when normally reliable are questioned. Probably could be stated more elegantly in the article though, which is what *I* see as the biggest problem.

b) If used as a reference, the liveleak link should be replaced with the webarchive one. When it comes to Aladdin Sane's objections, I simply can't judge what taking down an article after six months, with no further comments about it, means for the reliability as I am unfamiliar with US policies in general and CBS in particular when it comes to this. Here some more input definitely is needed, as we might have to lift it out as a source and rewrite the parts relying on Briggs as a reference unless deemed as a valid source.

c) watching the Youtube clip, it seems to be a full length version of memorial service broadcasted by CBS. While youtube in itself isn't a reliable source, I don't see this link more invalid than the liveleak in the sense that the youtube clip simply provides access to the actual source, which in principle should be OK by wiki standards. Like Aladdin Sane pointed out, a time mark is needed to clarify but that goes regardless of what platform the memorial is watched on.

d) I agree that the section can be phrased in a better manner. I simply wanted to empathize that there was no doubt in any of the sources regarding Chris Kyle having the highest count in the U.S. armed forces. There are two reasons I included the U.S. Army: while Kyle wasn't in the U.S. Army, he did, according to his book, operate with them on several occasions, and (as a private speculation from me) it isn't entirely unlikely that their war records could include cross-service data. Secondly, the Army definitely have snipers, and if any of them were in the vicinity of Kyle's number of kills (or surpassing them) there would have been statements made, but none of the sources I looked at mentions any such objections. BP OMowe (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Has the Kyle estate or the other editors complained about HarperCollins messing up the book? If not then what they did in another book is not an issue that we need to venture into here and unless you can come up with reliable sources that show that Kyle's book was altered in ways Kyle estate or the other editors greatly disapproved of, then to dwelve into what they did in another book here would be a violation of SYNTH. YouTube is not a reliable reference[2] it doesn't matter if its a repeat of a news broadcast...because it is uploaded independently, it can be altered, adapted and all sorts of things can be done to the video and audio. In fact, it may be a copyvio. If you find that clip on the website of the news organization that broadcast it then that is a different story. Lastly, while even Kyle himself says he does not know exactly how many people he shot, virtually all references say 160 confirmed. That is the number we should follow and also add the fact that the DOD doesn't publish such records and Kyle himself was unsure.--MONGO 01:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems I need to stress that it was not I who came up with connection between the books, but the source that brought them together. The claim that HC screwed up in their marketing of "Carnivore" is in turn backed by other sources as per above. Had the estate protested, it would have been even more indications to have the reliability of HC questioned but what I see as the foremost reason not to include the passage is the concerns raised by Aladdin Sane.
Good points about the possibility for manipulation, and since it's not their official channel I agree: the youtube-ref goes.
Most sources are quoting American Sniper without comment, meaning the book remains the main source, where HC, as publisher, is responsible for the fact check. Kyle says 160, HC claims "more than 150" and Navy says they are clueless ;-) Back to seriousness, it's generally preferred to avoid depending on a single source whenever possible, as to get the best possible accuracy in the article. BP OMowe (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
No, Carnivore was raised because the source story was covering the public's fascination with a number of which Carnivore had a lot. Turning that into evidence that it calls Kyle into question is called "Original Research." None of the sources disagree with Kyle and the fact that vets turned on Carnivore lightening quick, if anything, is a tacit acknowledgement that Kyle's book is accurate. --DHeyward (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
My biggest problem with the "160 confirmed kills" claim is that I can find no explicit confirmation of this by any military authority - to the contrary, several such authorities have gone on record as saying that they do not confirm this sort of thing. Th Ken McGraw statement is basically an anti-confirmation. And while it is hard to be certain that no diligent reporter actually checked independently with the Pentagon, the media coverage I reviewed never quotes anyone in particular; it really smells like their only source source is Kyle's own book. Has anyone found anything to the contrary? And the (as far as I know) fact that Kyle's book was reviewed and cleared by the Defense Department does not in any way mean that the DOD is vouching for every claim he made it. Kyle has been pretty thoroughly exposed as a fabulist and HarperCollins has both a tarnished record on veracity and a financial motive for exaggerating. All in all a very weak basis for the claim. Thus the accompanying qualifications.Wormcast (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Section for Controversies?

The article says that some of Kyle's "anecdotes" were challenged but that the "thrust" of his claims have been accepted. That seems rather dismissive of the fact that Kyle repeatedly made what many would consider outlandish and sometimes horrifying claims (e.g., killing dozens of Americans on American soil). See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/kyleclaims.asp I suggest a small section on "controversies" addressing his apparent fabrications. The article is largely good, but at times reads a bit too much like a fawning puff piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.177.134 (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Tools of the Trade

Chris Kyle is quoted as saying he utilized a MacMillan TAC-338 on a long shot (pure luck shot, he modestly says (I just came in my own mouth from thinking how humble that guy was!!!)), but it is not mentioned in the section identifying his main weapons. What am I missing here? Doesn't the MacMillan belong in that list? Rainbow-five (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura incident

Is there a reason the description of Kyle's claim he punched Ventura and the aftermath is repeated in the article - under both post-military life and defamation lawsuit? The information is near-identical each time. Seems to me like once is enough. Camipco (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Weapons?

The supposed incident involving Kyle shooting an RPG-armed opponent specifies him using a McMillan Tac-338. However, further down, it is specified that he used 4 separate rifles in the field, and none of them are any model of McMillan rifles. So, which is it? Did he actually use other rifles, or is the supposed RPG situation not true?62.220.164.103 (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Awards/Purple Heart

If Chris Kyle was shot (or any type of combat wound) twice (as listed in the article) then his awards and decorations should show a Purple Heart with an Oak Leaf (for 2nd award).173.174.217.9 (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Doc

Absolutely right. If he'd had two shooting wounds, and potentially as many as 6 IED injuries, he should have been awarded the Purple Heart with at least one, and probably several, ribbon devices(in the case of Kyle, being a SEAL, and thus Navy, he would have gotten 5⁄16 Inch Stars and not Oak Leafs, but the fact remains). Interesting that there is apparently no such award given. 62.220.164.103 (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
He obviously liked to make a lot of stuff up. 71.164.167.208 (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

Please explain how the article states Chris was shot twice in combat and survived 6 IED explosions while his medals and decorations do not list a purple heart. Not being derogatory, only purpose is to help honor this hero's memory. 108.11.176.158 (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I found the following: "Close calls come with the territory. Kyle is well-decorated with medals for valor. Although he had never received a Purple Heart, he was shot twice during the same battle. His helmet deflected one bullet while a second bullet slammed into his back. It penetrated his body armor only enough to make a small scratch in the skin. Knocked down, dazed, he recovered and returned to the fight. He considers himself lucky, considering the number of firefights in which he was involved." [3] -- WV 16:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
(FTR) I was trying to adjust this entry as it's a query not an edit request. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Quote the page on the Purple Heart: "A "wound" is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above. A physical lesion is not required; however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record. When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury." This means that he would have been eligble for the Purple Heart, as being shot would mean you visit the doctor at the next possible occurance. The helmet shot would certainly be enough, and most likely the one in the back as well. Which sort of casts doubts on this claim.62.220.164.103 (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I see no evidence that these wounds required (or that Kyle sought) medical treatment - a key component for the award. Rklawton (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The chance of someone being shot, if in the helmet or in body armor, and not seeking medical treatment, is practically none. Even with no penetration of the helmet, getting hit in it would cause a concussion at the least, particularly if it 'knocked him down and left him dazed'. Add to this no less than six supposed IED incidents, all of them hitting him, and NONE being sufficient to at least visit a medic? Come now...it's much more believable that the story has been embelished, either by Kyle or, perhaps more likely, by the journalist writing about the 'hero'(note that that isn't an attempt to claim Kyle wasn't a hero, that's for others to decide, but rather that the journalist might want to CREATE such a hero...after all, it'd sound better in the story).62.220.164.103 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, the guy had great skill at making things up... 71.164.167.208 (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The unsourced opinions of people who have never served in the military really aren't useful at this (or any) stage. Rklawton (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chris Kyle. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Recruiting on Facebook

This link is also off-topic and potentially WP:OUTING. If this is a true concern, please email an administrator.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Someone is recruiting people to edit this page on Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/groups/1662341513996585/permalink/1777899455777223 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.232.126.13 (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Off site relevant info

This link is off-topic and potentially WP:OUTING. If this is a true concern, please email an administrator. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

See https://www.facebook.com/170618779953242/permalink/170621893286284/

Someone with a last name of Heyward asked people there to edit this article. It's probably where the IP vandals came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.121 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Link does not work for me, do you have a screenshot or some evidence? Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Same issue as Samuel. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The link has been made private or deleted, I guess. AFAIK FB doesn't allow caching. It is certainly a disturbing development if true. Keri (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The page is a veterans' group called "Oath Keepers". Keri (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This discussion needs to end, now. -- WV 15:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If stealth canvassing has occurred/is occurring, it's relevant to the discussion. Keri (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It's an unproven, unsubstantiated accusation against a specific editor. There's no proof, just finger pointing. Nothing can be proven, no good can come of this. It needs to stop, now. -- WV 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I went back to get a screenshot and it looks like the poster deleted it probably because they saw it noted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.121 (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't have facebook page with last name of Heyward. No, I don't recruit people to Wikipedia. No, I am not a member of "Oath Keepers" or any other group. This and the bogus sock puppet report along with aspersions of wrongdoing is getting old. --DHeyward (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Oath Keeper recruiting FB again

Another attempt at outing and taking things way off topic - email an administrator if you feel your concern is legitimate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

www.facebook.com/groups/170618779953242/permalink/171617783286575/

Wikipedia won't let me copy a screenshot into the editor so here's the copied text

June 2, 2016 Wikipedia is holding a vote on hero Chris Kyle American Sniper's medals. Bookmark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kyle and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Kyle. The page is admin only now but it will be released tomorrow. Don't let the libtards steal the valor of a true American Hero. The talk page is there so you can tell the libtards what you think of them trying to defame a hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.25 (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Quote

Big Problem - DHeyward has now TWICE accused me of fabricating a quote. This is highly uncivil and cannot stand uncorrected. I am including the screenshot of the quote in question.
MilitaryCom.Quote.Authoritative.Records.png

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

the DD-214 is not authoritative is not a quote or even interpretation of what the Navy spokesperson said. Stop repeating it as a quote. --DHeyward (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
What part of Although the information on the DD-214 should match the official records, the process involves people and inevitably some errors may occur are you somehow unable or deliberately trying to avoid understanding, DHeyward? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
(EC) PVJ, this is my third warning to you stop stop accusing DHeywared of being uncivil towards you when he's not. It is not uncivil to be told that you're wrong. DHeyward is correct, the quote does not say that the "DD 214 is not authoritative". The quote says "the individual service member's official military personal file", when in fact, the DD 214 is a huge part of a of that file. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break II

Tired of weeding through the accusations and warnings, I'm starting another subsection. I have changed the article back to what has been the long-standing status quo. The reverted-out content was sourced unreliably and was borne out of contentious edit warring. It's good that we are trying to build consensus, but because of the out of control bad faith accusations taking place here and elsewhere on talk pages, I think it's time for a neutral RfC on this. I will put one together later today with the intent of getting more eyes and opinions and, hopefully, a solution/true consensus. -- WV

STRENUOUSLY OBJECT To Winkelvi's highly inappropriate actions, especially given his admission of POV collusion and intent by Winkelvi and Dheyward to resume edit warring on DHeyward's talk page. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
You start from a false assumption: "The reverted-out content was sourced unreliably". That isn't correct. The reverted content was a piece of investigative journalism that is being rejected by some people because they don't like it. Keri (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I suppose some would also consider the National Enquirer investigative journalism. The fact remains, however, that the source quoted is quite biased, selective in its reporting, uses unnamed sources. That's actually dubious journalism and, therefore, is not eligible to be considered a reliable source for citing purposes in Wikipedia. And, no, as you have accused me below, it's not an attemp to derail anything. The finger pointing and bad faith accusations here really need to stop. -- WV 17:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
That's not what WP:RS says. Whether or not the National Enquirer or some other source initiates the story, once reliable sources confirm and report on it, it is reliably sourced - for instance, the Enquirer broke the story on the John Edwards extramarital affair.
Further, the WP:RS sources are valid for statements made by official Navy representatives, such as those by Navy Personnel Command. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, this is a blatant attempt to derail and bypass the discussion above where consensus was forming (see eg Jauerback's comment). Keri (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Blatantly so. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yet more edit warring...

@Jauerback:, after making threats above, why are you edit warring without consensus? The book is known to be unreliable. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  • That doesn't look like edit warring to me. It looks like adding information that is supported by reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
1. I have made no threats. 2. You really need to start reading policies before you go throwing around. Please actually read what an WP:EDITWAR is. 3. That is not an established fact. Even if it is, see WP:NOTTRUTH. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Information from The Intercept

I don't believe this information [4] should be included in the lede. The recent edit wars show how controversial this information is, so please work to include it in the article where appropriate. And now I noticed that the article has been protected so I am unable to improve it. Will an admin please remove the third paragraph from the lede and include it in the body? Per WP:LEAD, the lede is a summary, not a news style paragraph. It should also reflect material expanded down below. Neither of these guidelines are followed in this article. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  • (ec) Agreed. This edit is recent and has no consensus. There is no consensus for addition and resolves to a single, dubious, source. It also is not discussed at all in the article so it shouldn't be in the LEAD. A review from Lectonar should show only a single user has been edit warring to keep this material without discussion or consensus. --DHeyward (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Would you care to address the specific sources, or are you coming on behalf of your friend, Mr Ernie? Three completely WP:RS sources (Raw Story, Fox 5 San Diego, and Washington Post) concur on coverage. The Washington Post story is quite explicit that the source claimed by DHeyward to be "authoritative" is in fact not by Navy policy:
A Navy spokeswoman, Lt. Jackie Pau, said Wednesday that the service is working to determine the origin of the disparity.
“The Navy considers the individual service member’s official military personnel file and our central official awards records to be the authoritative sources for verifying entitlement to decorations and awards,” she said in an email. “The form DD214 is generated locally at the command where the service member is separated. Although the information on the DD214 should match the official records, the process involves people and inevitably some errors may occur.”
We could also add the news coverage from The Guardian, another WP:V, WP:RS source, if need be. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree that this shouldn't be in the lead at this point. All of these sources are getting their information from The Intercept, so really adding more sources saying the same thing doesn't add anything. I can't find a source right now, but there is some concerns on The Intercept's reporting and that his DD214 actually has a higher medal count than what Kyle even said he had in his book. I'm sure that this isn't the end of this story and that there will be more information forthcoming. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Not claiming this is an WP:RS, but here's an example. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Not only is that not an WP:RS, it seems to be a Tinfoil Hat site, Jauerback. The Resurgent | Erick Erickson's Home for Conservative Activists
Seriously from the text; "The Intercept wants to attack the credibility and integrity of the SEALs in general and since they can’t claim Chris Kyle was gay, as the left loves to do with historic figures"...
If that is what those wanting to remove properly sourced information from the article are relying on, then this is getting weird fast. Also considering the insults and worse that DHeyward and the IP sock/meatpuppet have heaped around, such as calling people a "maroon", or accusing people of a plot to "defame a deceased hero" or "spit on a corpse". Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for not really reading anything I wrote and drawing your own conclusions. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Even if a bio falls outside of BLP due to length of time since the subjects death, we depend on only the least partisan and unbiased reliable references, especially for contentious material.--MONGO 15:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Prostetnic please assume good faith and do not be confrontational. It's clear you are passionate about this topic for whatever reason. However we must adhere to the policies. We aren't even talking about WP:RS - we are talking about you inserting comments into the lead that are not supported by the body of the article. Lectonar, you protected a page with policy violations and the end result of an edit war, so please help us address them. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, my desire is for the page to follow the policies of Wikipedia. Thus far for this, one editor has made a number of insults directed against me, he and a sock/meatpuppet have made accusations of bad faith, and of course, there is a question of stated intent to POV edit that may indicate someone is misreading policy in service of an agenda against their perception of "left wing bias". Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Medal counts

Per policy on the medal counts: we have the following.

  • WP:RS, WP:V sources - numerous - verifying the official naval record counts.
  • WP:RS, WP:V sources including an official policy statement from the Navy that the DD214 is not authoritative.
  • WP:SPS sourcing (Kyle's autobiography) claiming a higher medal count than the official records.

According to WP:SPS, Kyle's autobiography cannot override the official, authoritative records. We also cannot have the page's medal counts reflect a count on a document the Navy has officially stated to not be authoritative, when they have directly indicated which documents are the authoritative records. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You really should reread WP:SPS, because his autobiography is not considered that. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear that it is a WP:SPS. And since it makes claims that contradict the official, authoritative records, fails point 4, " doubt as to its authenticity". Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
You didn't reread it, did you? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try and help you out a bit. The key part of WP:SPS that you're missing is this: "Self-publishing is the publication of any book or other media by its author without the involvement of an established publisher" (ephmasis mine). American Sniper was published by William Morrow and Company. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You are missing a basic point: When the discharge is completed, the signd DD214 is fowarded to records and the VA. It is supposed to update the official record. Serviceman are explicitly told that the DD214 will be the official record so it must be correct before they sign. The issue here is that the central record were not updated, not that the DD214 was incorrect. Many awards acknowledged at the unit level are not reflected until separation because naming people compromises their personal security. This is so brain-dead obvious as to not require explanation. Seal team 6 is the least decorated unit per central records because the unit doesn't update them when a name could invite retaliation. This characterization of Kyle is unwarranted, poorly sourced and contentious. The DD214 is not a SPS, it is the definitive service record provided by the military to discharged veterans. --DHeyward (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
DHeyward, you keep making that claim but it is factually incorrect and further, you are making highly un-WP:CIVIL attacks on editors by accusing them of being "brain-dead" or otherwise. The DD214 is not authoritative, per the statements of the Navy in WP:RS, WP:V sources. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
To be 100% clear here: DHeyward, if you are claiming that the DD214 is supposed to be authoritative, then you need to provide your source or evidence for that claim - preferably without such uncivil namecalling such as "brain-dead." Simply making the assertion, in the face of official navy representatives stating the contrary in WP:RS, WP:V news coverage, will not work. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
You keep casually throwing around WP:CIVIL, which is a pretty big stretch here. You weren't called "brain-dead" nor was it implied. Replace "brain-dead" with "blatantly" in his sentence (which I believe is the intended meaning, anyway). Would you be saying he's calling you "blatant"? Is that uncivil? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, here is how it works: local commands recommend awards like the Silver Star to the appropriate board. It gets approved, denied, downgraded, etc. The decision is sent back to the unit. The unit issues the award. The local units admin updates their local records and also NDAWS (NDAWS is relatively new computer based award tracking system). NDAWS is the only system that the Navy has that is service wide. When the person leaves military service, they are given a list of their awards, years of service, discharge code and any other relevant details of service on their DD214 from the same admin responsible for updating NDAWS. If the veteran later learns of a discrepancy in their official file or NDAWS, they send in a form to correct it along with their DD214 that shows the actual medals earned. NDAWS is then corrected (they can also check with the unit). The DD214 is the definitive record of service and is what employers, the VA and any other entity wants to see. No other record is acceptable in place of the DD214. NDAWS is the official system for tracking awards but it is not definitive. For FOIA it's the only record available and therefore the only record the Navy can publicly confirm. Think of it like vaccines: your local doctor maintains records of childhood vaccinations, the school is given copies by the patient/doctor for their records. If the school doesn't enter the doctors vaccinations or don't have a copy, they don't have a record. They will say they don't have a record and may even deny admission until they receive the doctor's records and that is the "authority" for admissions. The doctor cannot release that information publicly. But it's simply incorrect to claim the school's official record is definitive over the doctors when every one knows the school gets their records from the doctor. They simply need a copy. The DD214 is the proof. Submit a form for correction with the DD214 and the Navy updates its records. The local unit is responsible for the DD214 and responsible for updating NDAWS. The service file (OMPF) that contains everything including citations for awards, performance reviews, promotions, etc, and includes the DD214 and NDAWS generated awards. Of all the records, the DD214 is most important for summarizing service and it is why it's the only document that employers and the VA wish to see. See the last sentence here which shows that the final authority for making sure personal awards are in NDAWS is the local chain of command which is the same department that issues the DD214 that lists personal awards. The central database needs the same manual update that was used to generate the DD214. --DHeyward (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@DHeyward: Simple response: {{Citation Needed}}. Nothing you've said is correct, nor does it match the WP:RS, WP:V sources. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Everything DHeyward has stated is true, PVJ. This link [5] takes you to an official government website that explains the importance and use of the DD214. Can you provide anything official from the United States Government that states the DD214 is not the definitive source for an individual's service record? If so, that's what you're going to have to do to support your claim that it's not. A story or two from a fringe website or online news and gossip sources that is mirroring what the fringe website claims is not providing a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. DHeyward has supplied a link to another U.S. Government website. That's two sources that gives the purpose and importance of the DD214. If you're going to continue to push your point of view on this, you will have to come up with something that trumps the U.S. Government. Personally, I don't see how you can, but occasionally, I am wrong. Can you put up something more authoritative? -- WV 00:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
See above, Winkelvi. I'll requote it here. A Navy spokeswoman, Lt. Jackie Pau, said Wednesday that the service is working to determine the origin of the disparity.
“The Navy considers the individual service member’s official military personnel file and our central official awards records to be the authoritative sources for verifying entitlement to decorations and awards,” she said in an email. “The form DD214 is generated locally at the command where the service member is separated. Although the information on the DD214 should match the official records, the process involves people and inevitably some errors may occur.”
Now looking at the link you provided, it does not contain a claim that the DD214 is authoritative. So it appears you have either willfully or negligently misrepresented your source... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Also @Winkelvi:, you might want to look up DoD Instruction 1336.08: "b. The standard content of the military human resource records is the authoritative information as listed in Enclosure 2 and is the core set of standard military human resources records information for the Department of Defense. And that matches the Naval officer's statement: the authoritative records are the official military personnel file and central official awards records. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
When the DoD says the official military personnel file, that is the DD214 [6]. It is the major component of the OMPF for discharged veterans. The OMPF doesn't agree with NDAWS (the database of awards). That's all the Navy said. They in no way disclaimed the DD214 as it is part of the OMPF. --DHeyward (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
One thing you seem to not be connecting is that the DD214 is the final record and is the one that the personnel records are updated by, not the other way around. Give this time, it will come out that the DD214 is correct and the personnel records, for whatever reason, were not properly updated from the DD214. With as much press as this has gotten, I have no doubt that this will be cleared up by the end of the month. In the meantime, however, once the full protection of the article (due to edit warring) expires, the status quo of the article needs to be restored. I hope there will be no more edit warring after that occurs. Hopefully discussion here will continue and a proper consensus sought. -- WV 03:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Still waiting on either of you, Dheyward, Winkelvi, to provide a source for your assertions.... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. - the DD214 is not authoritative. Statement by Navy is clear.
  2. - "it will come out" - you're getting into unsourced assertions. Also, I'm pretty sure that "Winkelvi's Ouija Board" is not a WP:RS in any sense.

Seriously, if your goal is to continue to make nonfactual assertions and unsourced claims, this discussion isn't going to make any headway. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

And given that DHeyward is now making blatant personal attacks again... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop casting aspersions. What exactly did you consider a personal attack in a statement that only discusses the source? --DHeyward (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, you're either misreading this or deliberately misinterpreting what is being said. This is in no way a personal attack and the mere fact that you keeping making these accusations is bordering on yourself being uncivili. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
DHeyward, please stop making blatant personal attacks such as accusing people of defamation and "stealing valor." We are all PAINFULLY aware that you have a right wing WP:COI as stated on your talk page. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jauerback: DHeyward's words: " They found a way to use USA Today's article on secret awards with redacted citations to defame Kyle. Thry are the ones that are stealing valor." - These are completely unacceptable. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Who is being attacked here? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

1. The DD214 is THE definitive document. It's the only acceptable document for benefits. A discrepancy means the clerk that keyed in the awards on DD214 didn't key them into the awards database. If he had the record for the DD214, it needs to be added to the awards database. That is how it works. See the vaccination example above. Personal awards are keyed in by the unit admin. The DD214 is just as much part of the personnel file as any other record. The out of context Navy quote is an an indication the source is unreliable. 2. The claim that the DD214 is wrong is poorly sourced. It is much more likely that the single source for that assertion, seven years after it was issued, is inaccurate. The USA Today article on awards that were given in secret (mostly for personal security reasons, they don't publicly name the recipient on the citation). There are over 100 of these including a secret one that matches Kyle's unit, location and dates. It very much looks like a "gotcha" attempt as the Navy would release the number on the DD214 but not the citation. The unit would have discretion not to enter it into the computer. For example, there are very few SEAL team 6 awards in the system but make no mistake that the number of awards on their DD214 is accurate and numerous. DD214's are not subject to FOIA requests. Kyle released his. Until there is more proof that it is wrong, this single source is simply not enough. Even if it is wrong, Kyle doesn't generate his own DD214. In long standing tradition, he didn't describe any action that led to an award as they don't advertise. Read the USA Today article on the secret Silver Star awards. --DHeyward (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(If the DD214 is never wrong why is there a DD215?) The Navy Times seems to have the best approach to this controversy; they explain the allegations - which they say they've known about for 2 years - and further explain that they have seen a (redacted) list of the secret citations, one of which closely matches Kyle. The controversy is too notable to just whitewash from the article. Handled sensitively, it doesn't have to accuse Kyle of misrepresentation, it just has to explain to the casual reader what the current known facts are. Keri (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Kyle's autobiography does not strictly fall foul of WP:SPS: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities" Keri (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
His autobiography isn't a SPS. It was published by William Morrow Publishers, a division of Harper Collins. In no way does this autobiography fall under SPS. -- WV 13:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree it's not a SPS. But it is a WP:PRIMARY source, which means it shouldn't be used to supersede secondary sources. Unless we can find a secondary source that addresses the difference in counts, we should emphasize the count in the current secondary sources. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The controversy shouldn't be whitewashed from the article, but neither should all the facts that PVJ purged incorrectly claiming "SPS". State Kyle's claims as well what his DD 214 shows and what the recent FOIA request shows. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The Navy Times article linked above pitches it about right, I think. Keri (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The Navy Times article is just parroting The Intercept. The DD214 is part of the "official military personnel file." That's where it goes. The awards database is separate (NDAWS). It is also used by the Navy especially for non-personal awards (Silver Star is a personal award). Contrary to how it's portrayed by the lone editor above, this is not a case of DD214 disagreeing with "offical sources", it's a case of the "official military personnel file" (OMPF) disagreeing with the awards database. The Navy is not making a claim that one is right or wrong, just that two official sources are out of sync. The OMPF (including the DD214) can have errors. So can the awards database (NDAWS). The admin that finishes the DD214 is often the same person responsible for NDAWS updates. Personal awards such as Silver Stars are entered manually at the unit level as documented above. SEALS historically shun attention and won't address details of individual merit. The are shunned when they do it. Read about Matt Bissonnette. There will be no confirmation or denial from the Kyle's comrades, they will ignore it because the question is unimportant to the people that were there (offensive actually, when stated or asked by those that were not there) and is why they don't even want their names released on the official citations. Disputing the OMPF with NDAWS by a single journalist isn't worth their breath. So far there is not anything to indicate that Kyle was non-factual or anything that rises as proof that OMPF and DD214 is wrong and NDAWS is correct. There is much more reliable evidence that NDAWS is not definitive for personal awards considering they can be issued without identifying the recipient and hand entered. --DHeyward (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
{{CITATION NEEDED}}. Or, That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Or, Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence. - Take your pick, DHeyward, but please stop it with the assertions lacking any sources to support them. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Without RS, that's all just original research. Keri (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It's been provided multiple times but here it is again. Click and read. [7][1]. --DHeyward (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
DHeyward, it would help so much if you would refrain from misrepresenting your claimed sources. Your page does not state that the DD214 is authoritative - indeed, it even states that the DD214's only purpose in the file is for date-checking "date and type of separation/discharge/retirement (including DD Form 214, Report of Separation, or equivalent)".
You've obviously never seem one. The DD-214 includes all of "date and type of enlistment/appointment; duty stations and assignments; training, qualifications, performance; awards and decorations received; disciplinary actions; insurance; emergency data; administrative remarks; date and type of separation/discharge/retirement" - even the short version that Kyle released has all that information." Luckily we have an article on it and you can present your knowledge on that talk page instead of making it up here.. See DD Form 214. --DHeyward (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Further, we may also go to Military.com for an updated perspective:
But multiple Navy officials who spoke with Military.com said they now consider the documents on file with Navy Personnel command to be the most accurate record of Kyle's combat awards.
"The Navy considers the individual service member's official military personnel file and our central official awards records to be the authoritative sources for verifying entitlement to decorations and awards," Navy Personnel Command spokesman Cullen James said in a statement provided to Military.com. "The form DD-214 is generated locally at the command where the service member is separated. Although the information on the DD-214 should match the official records, the process involves people and inevitably some errors may occur."
That's a direct comment from Navy Personnel Command, that says the DD-214 is not authoritative. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
That quote is not on that page. You don't seem to get that both DD-214 (part of the official military personnel file) and personal awards like the Silver Star entered into the central official awards records are generated locally. Go read how to correct either one: if the DD-214 is missing a personal award, contact local command. If it's missind from the award database, contact local command. They are handled at the same level. His OIC signed his DD-214 and it becomes part of his official military personnel file. There is a discrepancy in that they both originate at the local command level. Until they file a DD-215, the DD-214 stands as the record of his awards as verified by his local command. After discharge, there is no reason to update the awards database (guess how man Vietnam and Gulf War 1 vets are missing awards in the awards database? Try to guess what document they use for personal awards? The awards database is relatively new and considering the path to correcting personal awards is through local commands, it's a data entry issue - i.e. people are involved in both entering the awards and filling in the DD214 and they do not say which one is incorrect). We do know that no one has filed a correction to the DD214. --DHeyward (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The quote is indeed on the page of the 1st link, the Military.com link. The person quoted is from Navy Personnel Command. And you're still engaged in unsourced claims, which at best are unsourced WP:OR and at worst are outright misrepresentation. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Nope. Quote isn't on military.com link either. Spokesman says "official military personnel file" (see DD Form 214 for explanation of OMPF and DD214) and "central official awards records" (NDAWS and derivatives) to be authoritative. One is not more than the other and whatever they have has not initiated a DD215. You are synthesizing a distinction between the DD214 and the OMPF which the Navy did not do and does not exist. We have multiple sources that outline the "capstone" role the DD214 plays in the "official military personnel file" and they are not distinct entities for discharged service members. Read our DD Form 214 article for more info as well as the external sources. The Navy has acknowledged a discrepancy between the OMPF and NDAWS - which are the two authoritative sources. That's all they have said - the two authoritative systems disagree. Both have a human element of entry with regard to personal awards such as Silver Stars and per your source, 20% are not entered into the awards system because they are classified and held at the local command. That local command uses the original citation for award counts for the DD214 and OMPF but battle details are not included (hey, that's in our article too - you really should read it). Corrections for personal awards always start at the unit regardless of whether it's DD214 or awards database because the unit controls and is responsible for both. The single OIC command person in charge of accuracy signed the DD214 as being accurate. --DHeyward (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Since you are ignoring policy and now have crossed into the direct line of incredibly uncivil behavior by accusing me of fabricating a quote, see below. It is clear you have no clue about military procedure. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This back-and-forth is all something of a red herring. Wikipedia isn't the place where we prove or disprove whether a DD214, the OMPF, NDAWS or some other acronym is the authoritative, infallible record. We simply report The Intercept article, and we report the reactions to that article. End of. Their investigation may at some future point be shown to be incorrect, at which point we report that. The controversy is notable, having attracted huge media interest and discussion. Neither the Navy nor the DoD have officially stated that The Intercept is wrong. There are however at least 2 on the record statements from Navy officials to the effect that Chris Kyle's DD214 - whether because of secret citations, human error or otherwise - differs from their centralised database. It isn't our role to investigate why that has happened, or which database is the "capstone". And that's that. No value judgments necessary, no allegations of "spitting on corpses" and "stolen valor", all of which generates more heat than light. Keri (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the Navy said no such thing. They said their two sources for records differed. Inferring the DD214 is not a centralized record is not stated by anyone. Not even The Intercept. Read it again with the perspective of what the two records are and it's clear they are only saying their two sources for official records differ. That's it. No value judgments necessary. One official record says X, the other says Y. And no, we don't have to report anything from a single source in a news cycle that only brings heat and no light. We are not news. No other source has written any of this in their own voice. --DHeyward (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The piece by The Intercept was investigative journalism. It has become the subject of reportage by multiple other news agencies. So yes, we write about that. You state, "No, the Navy said no such thing. They said their two sources for records differed." Er, I stated, "There are however at least 2 on the record statements from Navy officials to the effect that Chris Kyle's DD214.[..] differs from their centralised database..." Are you being deliberately obtuse? You state, "Inferring the DD214 is not a centralized record is not stated by anyone." Er, the Navy have said otherwise: "But multiple Navy officials who spoke with Military.com said they now consider the documents on file with Navy Personnel command to be the most accurate record of Kyle's combat awards. "The Navy considers the individual service member's official military personnel file and our central official awards records to be the authoritative sources for verifying entitlement to decorations and awards," Navy Personnel Command spokesman Cullen James said in a statement provided to Military.com. "The form DD-214 is generated locally at the command where the service member is separated. Although the information on the DD-214 should match the official records, the process involves people and inevitably some errors may occur."" Clearly a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it and WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Keri (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
No, WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED. As has been cited multiple times above, both the DD-214 (DD Form 214 and personal awards like the Silver Star originate at the local level. Once completed, the local level is supposed to update NDAWS and also forward the DD214 to the central records where it is distributed to numerous agencies. It's like politics: it's all local except for non-personal awards taht generally rely on dates and deployments (i.e. GWOT, Iraq campaign medal, etc) . Yes, the DD214 awards in the central personnel file should match the awards in the central awards database. They don't. Nobody diputes that. The USA Today story ran a week before The Intercept, noted over 100 Silver Stars awarded to Navy SEALs that are not recorded under a name in Big Navy database. SEALs don't want to be on the internet and they will be if they are recorded in the awards database - you can find one of Kyle's Silver Star citations and its pretty obvious why someone that killed nearly 100 people in one operation might not want his name asssociated with details. The DD214 only lists the number of awards, not combat details. Please read the sources provided that show how to correct errors in personal awards like the Silver Star. Whether it's missing in the DD214 or whether it's not in the awards database, the place to correct it is with the local command where the award was earned because they are both locally generated and locally corrected. The coverage has been coverage of The Intercept, not independently verified. I agree it's notable coverage but the conclusions being drawn from the the Intercept are much too strong. It is much too strong a conclusion to say only the DD214 could be in error. It is erroneous to say that awards are central but the DD214 is not. It's even more puzzling to disassociate the DD214 from the OMPF (see DD Form 214 article as to why that is so). The Intercept was very careful in how they quoted so that it was always "true" but also left implications that are clearly not true. Currently there are only two central records, the OMPF which is dominated by the DD214 and the award database. The OMPF conflicts with the award database. That is all the Navy spokesperson said. He was quoted on details of how the DD214 was generated but curiously absent was a quote on the description of how personal awards are entered. Ask why they would leave out that bit - does their article explain how awards are entered? Seems an important detail - unless it doesn't match the new style of commentary journalism. The Intercept was very careful indeed to create an impression rather than an unbiased investigative report. --DHeyward (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

With regard to the medal count in the infobox, I propose that we assume the status quo ante bellum, with the proviso that the dispute is clearly discussed in the body of the article. Does it belong in the lead? Per the Manual of Style/Lead section, "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (my emphasis), of which this is clearly one. Keri (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Keri's proposal seems fine to me. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. We can also add a note following the medal count mentioning that it was disputed. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think the medal count needs removal for now, if nobody can come to a consensus. The Navy's statement on the authoritative source is clear, but we're getting nowhere with at least two editors declaring they WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and what apparently is an organized sockpuppet campaign that was planned to coincide with the unprotection. Include a section that it's in dispute, describe the dispute, but don't put the medal counts or images/table on the page since it's just inviting more of the vandalism. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, actually, remove the edit count. That is what they do with birth dates. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

References

I'm not interested in this anymore. There's been edit warring, personal attacks, lying, offsite canvassing, bad faith disruptive editing, and blatant POV pushing. I've got better things to do than worry about this. Keri (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Pathetic article

Who wrote this anyways, a member of the Chris Kyle Fan Club? A promotion agent for Harper Collins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.215 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the article is non-neutral and there is a lot of criticism of Chris Kyle that is widely cited by reliable sources. Very fan club-ish and promotional. Lipsquid (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Without a specific concern there is nothing being discussed here. Virtually all criticism I am aware has been addressed in Talk archives. That would be the place to start. --DHeyward (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Two things

This sentence appears twice in "Military career": "During four tours of duty in the Iraq War, he was shot twice and survived six separate IED detonations.[18]". Once is enough.

The lead currently states "91 kills officially confirmed by the Department of Defense." However, this number can´t be found in "Number of kills as a sniper" section, and that section seems to say there are no such number officially confirmed by the Department of Defense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead is wrong. It was 160 kills confirmed after the DoD and Navy vetted it. They approved 160 and records are kept with the unit as part of reports. Some of the material was still classified for whatever reason so confirmed kills on those missions were not included (which is where the > 250 unconfirmed number includes). The official number includes 91 kills noted in one of his silver star citations. The editor that was blocked removed and changed all the information that left a coherent picture. --DHeyward (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Anything sourced to the autobiography has to come out. Three major sections of the autobiography have already been removed for falsehood by the publisher and they lost a lawsuit over one of them. Stuff like claiming the military confirmed a kill count when military policy is not to do so, is really irresponsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.148 (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing template

I don't know who put it there originally, but a template claiming "There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article" has been added to this talk page. There is no evidence of this happening except for an anonymous IP (that has now been rangeblocked for disruptive editing) trying to out editors by claiming there has been canvassing on Facebook. There is no evidence that anyone from Wikipedia has done any off-Wiki canvassing, there is no evidence that anyone has been recruited to edit in a non-POV manner. The template is inappropriate and needs to be removed. I have attempted to do so twice, and another editor has replaced it both times. Not sure what to do at this point and I really don't want to have to go to any kind of noticeboard. Helpful comments, thoughts, advice, action from someone else would be welcomed, from my standpoint. -- WV 00:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It was placed by Keri and after going away for an afternoon with my girlfriend only to come back and find this crazy mess, I think it needs to stay. It is 100% appropriate given the speed with which IP POV-pushing followed your inappropriate and disruptive editing minutes after the page protection expired. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
There are no IP editors. It's semi-preotected. The thinly veiled aspersions you have made on this page as well as the blatant personal attack making spurious allegations in the edit summary[8] is unwelcome and you should leave the template alone considering your expressed views. --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The history of this page and associated talk page show that you're making a blatantly false statement there, DHeyward. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There is clear evidence that someone - and I'm not pointing fingers or naming names - has posted a request on Facebook for people to visit this page, specifically the RfC, to "stop the Libtards". The template stays. Winkelvi, if you "don't know who put it there originally", try looking in the page history. Keri (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

"Someone", yes. Someone who has or is editing Wikipedia? There is no evidence of it. There is evidence that people in online groups outside Wikipedia talk about the goings on in Wikipedia. Does that mean there is evidence Wikipedia and its articles are directly affected editing-wise by what's said in those online groups? No. The template is inappropriate and unwarranted since there is zero evidence the alleged off-Wiki talk has affected this article. -- WV 13:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not here to witch-hunt whether Editor X or Editor Y or Editor Z has made posts on Facebook. Read the template and show me the part that is incorrect: "There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote." It doesn't apportion blame, it doesn't even say that a Wikipedia editor has carried out canvassing. It explains that canvassing has taken place elsewhere and points people to the relevant policies viz consensus and !vote. Keri (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
All that's been produced is a .png screen shot of a comment that could have come from any online page. Heck, it could have been created with some cut and paste and use of photoshop or other similar software. There's no link that takes us to where that screenshot was allegedly obtained. There's no real, empirical evidence that the screenshot is authentic or anyone has been recruiting anyone. Minus such evidence, there is no legitimate reason I can fathom that makes placement of the template tag appropriate. -- WV 14:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Take it to ANI. Keri (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion was started here and it should stay here. Unless an administrator specifically asks me a question there, I won't be posting in the ANI report you started. My personal opinion is that you should be trouted for filing it. -- WV 14:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: This talk page is for discussion of ways to improve the article, not for accusations about outing, canvassing, abuse of Photoshop, off-wiki impersonation or any other such behavioural issues. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Look at the comments here and the history, look into what was actually happening, look at who is now blocked/indeffed and why, look at the comments at the ANI, and then make a true assessment of the situation entire. The discussion Keri took to ANI should never have gone there and your chastisement is misplaced, Hijiri88 (if it should be happening at all). -- WV 12:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: And all of that stuff you are talking about belongs on a noticeboard like ANI, not here. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not outing, canvassing, abuse of Photoshop, off-wiki impersonation, sockpuppetry, personal attacks or any other such stuff. You should re-read WP:TALK#USE. And I don't care who is "right" or "wrong" in the off-topic disputes about user conduct-- you are wrong in saying that such discussions belong on the article talk page. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────And I disagree with your thoughts on the matter. You seem to be wanting to start a fight and possibly see me formally sanctioned or chastised? I'm not interested in the argument, and this article talk page certainly isn't the place for it, anyway. Please drop it. -- WV 13:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it again. User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz has been indeffed for being a sock puppet of User:SkepticAnonymous. He has a history of creating Joe Jobber accounts falsifying canvassing. See User talk:JimWHall#My observation where he doctored IRC logs to try and make it appear as if another WP editor canvassed him to join in political discussions. All are indeffed and the template just feeds their goal of disruption through suspicion. Considering all the accusations and invective thrown at me by User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz over the past few days, I'd rather not leave false impressions for anyone. --DHeyward (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Under "Death", I don't think Littlefield's age needs to be mentioned within this section. I personally think it adds undue weight. As such, I am requesting that an administrator change the wording to "Kyle and his friend, Chad Littlefield, were shot and killed..." --PatientZero talk 14:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think Littlefield's age in the article is going to impede the reader's understanding of the article subject if it stays until the full protect is lifted, Patient Zero? Could be it's low on the list of immediate changes to be made, eh? ;-) -- WV 14:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, the sooner the better though, am I right? :) I agree it's not a major issue though. --PatientZero talk 14:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 Done, the requested edit doesn't appear to be part of the contested edits. Nakon 00:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Nakon. :) --PatientZero talk 09:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with making this change (and I have no involvement with this article). How does this add undue weight, particularly when the article states the type, caliber and owner of the gun that he was killed with? I used 35 in commas; I think "35-year-old Chad Littlefield" would be better. It's almost universal to state the age of a person who has died. Roches (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Chris Kyle medals RfC

(non-admin closure) From reviewing the comments, consensus was reached to not add the information regarding the subject's personnel records until it is reported on by a reliable source. The current sources are not consider WP:RS, and therefore should not be used. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

How should the current news story regarding the question over Kyle's awards be presented in the article?

  • via The Interceptor and news reports mirroring The Interceptor;
  • via the notation in Kyle's autobiography in addition to his DD-214 and news sources reporting interviews with Kyle, quoting his autobiography, and reporting what's contained in his DD-214.

-- WV 18:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Option 1

  • Comment - It took far more time than I expected to figure out what this RfC was about but I think it's about adding a highly controversial allegation that has not been confirmed. If the latter is the case, I'm of the mind that it shouldn't be included at all based on numerous PAGs. It's groundless tabloid sensationalism about a person who is deceased and unable to defend his/herself. I'm a bit confused that the US Navy hasn't actually confirmed either way or that there is not a RS available to verify the information; therefore the only verifiability we can confirm in any source is the fact that there is an unverifiable claim about the man's honors. Delete it until verifiable information can be cited using more than one, high quality RS. Atsme📞📧 17:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Option 2

  • Support Wikipedia is not news and we use reliable sources only. The Interceptor is not a reliable source and the reporting there, quite biased. The Navy has already stated there will be an investigation into the discrepancy between personnel records and the final authority, the DD214, so this is likely to be cleared up by the end of the month. I believe the article should remain with the status quo until the issue is settled, with a minor notation regarding the news story, but reflected by major, reliable news sources (preferably the Navy Times), not the Interceptor. -- WV 18:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 18:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NOTNEWS. Let the news agencies present the news, and when the story has been clarified and verified, we can update our article. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

*Not only oppose, point out that the language of this laughable RfC is completely dishonest and that it's posted in bad faith, per Keri.

QUOTE:"it is one of the worst examples of biased push-polling I have ever seen, saying that the choice is between "an online unreliable source" (false) or "the notation in Kyle's autobiography [a primary source, containing several disputed claims] in addition to other reliable sources based on his DD-214" [stated by the Navy as potentially inaccurate]." Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Strike indeffed sock puppet. 09:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I started this RfC because the current discussion was going nowhere. Not to mention all of the bad faith accusations, edit warring, and poor attitudes being bandied about that makes it difficult to weed through and get to the meat of the issue. This should get more eyes and opinions in an orderly fashion, and hopefully, a true consensus. -- WV 18:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion above where consensus is being formed. This RfC is in bad faith and an attempt to ignore that discussion and should be struck. Keri (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is one of the worst examples of biased push-polling I have ever seen, saying that the choice is between "an online unreliable source" (false) or "the notation in Kyle's autobiography [a primary source, containing several disputed claims] in addition to other reliable sources based on his DD-214" [stated by the Navy as potentially inaccurate]. Keri (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm AFGing the hell out both sides here. I think the RFC was done in good faith, but needs some work and probably a bit early. Having said that, I tend to agree with Keri. It doesn't matter whether The Interceptor is a reliable source or not, because it's reporting has been covered by reliable sources. So, The Interceptor itself doesn't have to be even mentioned, but the controversy can be mentioned using those other sources. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not only a contentious issue, it's a huge issue that needs more eyes and opinions from more editors. Which is another reason why I started this RfC (see my other reasons above). And yes, done totally in good faith. Given the weight of this issue across three separate projects, it needs to be considered and commented on by more than those choosing to edit war, make completely bad faith accusations (including sock puppetry and meat puppetry), and log out to do both as IPs. It wasn't going to stop (obviously), and I felt an RfC was a good, productive answer to a growing problem, Jauerback. -- WV 18:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Keri: The Navy did not say that any particular aspect of the two official records they have may be more or less accurate than any other. "The Intercept" formed only the DD214 conclusion but it's not supported by the actual quotes. It did receive substantial secondary coverage but that coverage was on The Intercept and the The Intercepts conclusions, not independent coverage. Second, the published autobiography with a co-author is not a primary source, it is a WP:SECONDARY secondary as it has been through editorial review and vetting by the publisher, the co-author as well as review for accuracy by the Navy (the Navy forced redactions of details, including the names, places, operations, confirmed kills, etc as some of those details are classified or revealed more information than SEALs wanted revealed- yes, his confirmed kills of 160 or so is understated because the Navy classified some of the missions where he had more. He carefully states that throughout his book that the number is from the Navy). The book is not necessarily independent of the subject but it is still a secondary source as the co-author interviewed third parties and formed analysis in addition to the review process above. --DHeyward (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's a new source[9][1] and another[10][2] that is an interview with the co-author.
The problem with parsing the Navy spokesperson's quotes that are pretty general about the process into a specific argument against Kyles DD214 is lack of knowledge. If it was the IRS that said "We use Tax Returns and W-2s as our authoritative reference for income" and then said "Form 1040 is filled out by taxpayers and there are people involved." - Most would understand that "Tax Return" and "1040" are the same thing and it would a far-fetched conclusion to say the "The 1040 Form doesn't match the official Tax Return or the official W-2." Also, it doesn't mean the W-2 is not filled out by hand and not prone to similar errors. The meaning of those quotes would lead people familiar with U.S. taxes to conclude the Tax Return is Form 1040 and it does not match the W-2 without a conclusion about which is correct and wouldn't think to separate the Form 1040 from the Tax Return as separate. Finally, W-2s and tax returns are sent to the IRS so the return and W-2 are centrally located. The DD Form 214 is not separable from OMPF. It is centrally filed. What's missing, without explanation, is a quote from the Navy spokesperson about how personal awards are entered. The answer is they are locally generated records by the same command that would generate the DD214. Both are then forwarded to their respective repositories. People are involved in both processes. Errors can exist in both award database and OMPF regarding personal awards. The starting process for correcting is identical: contact the local command to correct it. The awards database is easy to correct, the DD214 is a pain but that's a process issue as the award database doesn't affect anything. The SEAL community does not like the awards database because it contains too much operational details unless the citation is heavily redacted. They don't want their name associated with actions regardless of whether the operation was classified or not. It's the meaning of "quiet professionals." It's why there are 100's of Silver Star awards to Navy SEALs that are not in the database and associated with a service members name. --DHeyward (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
And we get another round of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and not-even-WP:OR-because-that-would-imply-someone-did-more-than-make-dishonest-stuff-up from the one most likely to be involved in WP:CANVAS activities offsite. This is ridiculous. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Also @DHeyward: seriously, READ the WP:RS policy already. An "interview with the co-author" is not a reliable source for claims of supposed facts; neither is something in an opinion column / blogging area published in a gossip magazine. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Aoidh, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, as the Interceptor is an unreliable source and was being cited to support the non-neutrally worded content. I certainly never intended for the RfC to be anything but neutral, and thought I achieved neutrality, especially in its simplicity and to-the-point wording. Can you give me an example of how, in your opinion,the wording could be improved? -- WV 14:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
What I'm getting at is that your RfC is not neutrally worded. There is no doubt what opinion you have, as it is evident in the RfC question. If someone had created the RfC and said "Should we trust the Associated Press's reporting or ignore what those reliable sources say in favor of the subject's own words?" They could likewise argue that such an RfC wording is not factually inaccurate, but it's certainly not neutral and worded in a way to suggest the answer before the question is even asked. The same problem exists for the RfC as worded. A more neutral wording would be something like "Should the article mention the recent controversy/concerns surrounding the medals as reported by various sources?" - Aoidh (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Push polling sprang immediately to mind. Particularly when the original discussion and consensus veered away from Winkelvi's preferred POV. Keri (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Aoidh, my perception of the question being asked is - should we use an unreliable source or a reliable source, with the obvious answer being, per WP policies and guidelines, we use the reliabe source. I'd also point out that while it is true that some of the media is mirroring The Interceptor article, at least one reliabe source, the Associated Press, has independently confirmed some of the details being reported - the Navy on Wednesday confirmed the contents of the documents to The Associated Press. and the AP article goes on to state: Lt. Jackie Pau, a Navy spokeswoman, told the AP that Kyle's military personnel file... Therefore we do have a reliable source that has independently confirmed some of the details being reported, so maybe the RfC language should be tweaked to reflect that it's not a choice of "unreliable vs. reliable". Another option that can be considered is to wait until the Navy is finished with their investigation - "As we figure out which route we're going or does a correction need to be made, we'll make that information public".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    • First, I agree we should wait for the Navy. They will file a DD-215 for correction, if necessary. Second, not waiting invites a maligning narrative that we should avoid. The awards mentioned as part of the FOIA were released and can be viewed. There is only 1 silver star and 2 bronze stars. The only reason I can see that they say 3 bronze stars is because the award certificate says it was his third ("gold star in lieu of 3rd award"). The documents for the 2nd bronze star was not there, not even the barebone frameable certificate. Until they track it all down, there is just discrepancy. The biggest issue that I saw, for me, is dates on awards. It takes a while for these very high awards to get approved and I was personally surprised to see he received them all by his separation considering the dates that were on the released awards. There may be lots of reasons why but they all are reasons to wait for the Navy to sort it. The commanding officer that signed the DD-214 and filed it is likely still living. --DHeyward (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This RFC should be closed and Winkelvi warned that opening an RFC with a biased question is a form of canvassing. No comment on the substance of the dispute. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • NOTE RFC has been reworded per good faith editors and suggestions. -- WV 13:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wording is still biased. What if the RfC was:
  • via news reports
  • via other sources echoing Kyle's own claims.
Yes, this is biased the other way -- equally biased. I consider this RfC invalid, but for the record, I go with news reports. Personally, I kind of suspect that Kyle was right, and I hope this gets sorted out soon, but no crystal ball, y'know. If we have an RS that reports the discrepancy, we can note that, but that's all for now. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Not trying to be contentious, but I honestly don't see how the wording is still biased. If anything, the wording you suggest, "echoing Kyle's own claims" is biased as it gives the impression he's the only one making the claims. He worked with two co-writers on his book, American Sniper, from where the public claims originated. The book is taking the medal count from his DD214, which reflects those claims, as well. -- WV 22:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, you just slightly altered the wording of the question (and it is still clearly biased, as you imply option 1 has only one source and the rest are mirrors, but imply option 2 has multiple sources which you do not name) and heavily altered your own !vote to counterbalance it by inserting a large amount of one-sided commentary immediately below the question. Look at what I did on WT:MOSKOREA: if you want to present your own commentary immediately below an RFC question, please collapse it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, there's no policy or guideline that states someone !Voting cannot alter their !Vote nor any statements accompanying it. As well, there is no policy stating that accompanying commentary is disallowed and needs to be collapsed. Commentary such as mine here happens all the time in RfCs as well as other !Vote discussions. -- WV 23:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
This RfC should have been specific about what source said what. As I understand it "The Intercept" claims 1 Silver Star and 3 Bronze Stars, while the DD-214 and American Sniper claim 2 Silver Stars and 5 Bronze Stars. Is that what is being discussed here?

There are many rational explanations for why one source might report a different number of medals. One Silver Star is not in dispute, and a person has much to lose and little to gain by lying about a second award; I also have a sense that people who do what is necessary to earn a Silver Star would be unlikely to lie about it. So I do not feel this article should be changed to "reflect the controversy" until a reliable source, preferably a Navy source, is available. I don't really understand why there is such a desire to discredit Kyle; it has to be political, but he was not a political figure. Roches (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


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.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2016


Hi Chris Kyle was originally interested in becoming a United States Marine Corps Scout Sniper, not USMC MARSOC/RECON etc. Please edit this.

Directly under MILITAIRY CAREER" the sentence After his arm healed, Kyle went to a military recruiting office, interested in joining the U.S. Marine Corps special operations. A U.S. Navy recruiter convinced him to try, instead, for the SEALs. Initially, Kyle was rejected because of the pins in his arm, but he eventually received an invitation to the 24-week Basic Underwater Demolition SEAL school (BUDS), which he joined in 1999.[14]

AND FROM REFERENCE 14 YOU CAN'T MAKE UP HE WAS INTERESTED IN BECOMMING A SOF MARINE, JUST THAT HE WANTED TO JOIN THE USMC AS A MARINE.

EVIDENCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yISEIg1XIg WATCH FIRST PART 0.00-0.15

Thank you very much


83.86.204.95 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: I was unable to find any remarks by him in the video concerning the type of Marine he wanted to be. However, I have very little knowledge of military matters, so I will leave this open for a more knowledgeable editor. Topher385 (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2016

Taya Kyle (M. 2002 - 2013) CoPatM (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chris Kyle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Kyle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

How many stars?

The second ribbon in the first row of the table, captioned "Bronze Star Medal (4) w/ Combat V", has only three stars. Is this an error, or does the "(4)" in the caption mean something different? --Thnidu (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The ribbon is the first award. Subsequent awards are represented by stars. Hence, 4 separate awards of the Bronze Star will have a ribbon with 3 stars on it. --DHeyward (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)