Talk:Chris Kyle/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

How much is too much?

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

I agree with you, Kennvido. There are a number of petty editors who selectively enforce "rules" on breaking news pages in which there are deaths and arrests, but NEVER inflict those "rules" on other breaking news stories, such as sports contests.
Furthermore, the excuse that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" has worn thin over the yeas -- IT IS A NEWSPAPER and news.google.com lists it as such in its coverage of the story!
Think how disappointing it is for someone to go to Google News, see the "trusted" Wikipedia link at Google News, click on that link and come here, only to find all the information about the event wiped away because "Wikipedia is not a newspaper." Talk about KILLING your own potential fan base!
Those editors who won't allow breaking news in Wikipedia ought to contact google and tell them to TAKE WIKIPEDIA OFF THE GOOGLE NEWS PAGE. Do you think they really will? LOL!
70.36.137.192 (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree. Kennvido (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Google sells Wikipedia content, precisely because, unlike it's search results, it has some claim to community objectivity. An encylopedia, is the opposite of a news flash service, for which there's wikinews. Content may go in articles about events close to the time of their happening but the writing still needs to be from an appropriate perspective, the common one articles do here have when that standard is enforced and don't have in news services. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Ironically"

Is it editorializing to say that his death by shooting was "ironic"? Just a thought. --Jprg1966 (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Any time I see a sentence that starts with "Ironically," or "Interestingly," I remove it. It's not our place to decide what is interesting/ironic/etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
In this case it is somewhat ironic, that he faced incredible danger, only to be killed at home. However, we should not be expressing that opinion. I do not doubt that some more reliable/notable commenter has done so for us though, and we could quote them. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I find it ironic too, but my sense that it is ironic does not belong in an encyclopedia. If someone notable makes a notable statement to the effect in a reliable source then we can add it with attribution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Not saying we need to include this in the article, but here you go.

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's an editorial comment that doesn't belong. We also don't know much about the shooter yet. The true irony may turn out to be that Kyle worked to help stressed-out veterans, and it's possible he was killed by a stressed-out veteran. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Typo fix discussion in "Alleged confrontation with Jesse Ventura" section of main article

In the first sentence, there is a typo reading "...2006 after Ventura dly “badmouthed the troops”..."

Should this be "loudly", "badly", "boldly", or something similar? "Loudly" seems most reasonable to me-any other ideas? I will just make the change to "loudly" unless someone thinks it should be different. 67.171.202.125 (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Andrew

My guess is "allegedly". Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
That's my guess too. —  dain- talk   15:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Can anything really be verified?

How could an insurgent give a nickname to a sniper, that would require the insurgents in question to know who is doing the shooting, which is impossible if the man claims to be be a sniper of high talent. Of all the men and women stationed in Iraq for the Iraqi militants to assume that all the kills were from one person, who can't be seen because he's a kilometer(s) away is crazy. This nickname seems self appointed, It fits his character of bragging about his kills, which is still taboo amongst enlisted and formerly enlisted individuals. So yeah, citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.184.9 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You may or may not be correct, but as you say, "This nickname seems self appointed..." (emphasis mine). The nickname is verifiable. How he got the nickname is not. Drawing your own conclusions is original research. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Insurgents knew who he was; there was even a bounty on his head. He also wasn't "kilometer(s)" away most of the time; there are a few sniper rifles with that kind of maximum effective range, but the majority of Kyle's shots were nowhere near that kind of distance. Just because snipers are trained to and are capable of making shots from extreme distances does not mean that's their average shot; most snipers do not engage targets approaching their weapon's maximum range, especially when providing overwatch for a nearby unit. Even if his autobiography were for some reason incorrect in recounting his average distance (which was on average a few hundred meters, not kilometers), it makes sense given that his sniper rifle only has an effective range of 1400 meters. - SudoGhost 19:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference between facts and legend. In the case of Chris Kyle there is also the case of classified information that cannot be verified. The latter being more an OPSEC issue than a Wikipedia issue. Nevertheless, many people get caught up in the glamor of his claims and jump to conclusions. Again, not a Wikipedia issue. --Stjoan1 (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Separated

In the second para it says he "separated from the US Navy". That sounds like a) a relationship or b) jargon. For the sake of clear English, shouldn't it be "left" or "departed"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.7.189 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I checked the exact wording on my DD Form 214, and that's the wording it uses in certain fields ("Separation date", "Signature of member being separated"), so it certainly isn't jargon. I think "left" and "departed" could imply a non-mutual situation (AWOL), so I think "separated" is more concise than those terms. - SudoGhost 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Sudo on the separated terminology.—  dain- talk   15:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
"Separation" is correct. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, it is jargon. But the jargon is correct. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Devil of Ramadi

There is no proof that the insurgents called him The Devil of Ramadi. All we have is his word. All the "sources" that are provided as reference go back to Chris Kyle himself. Logically, this claim seems very unlikely, as the insurgents would not know whether it was one sniper or many snipers who were killing their fighters unless they had inside information or the ability to forensically test the bullets to determine they were fired from the same gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustTheFacts77 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Actual origin of the nickname is irrelevant. The nickname has been reported in many reliably sources. Find a reliable source raising your concerns and we can include that. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Thus far everything added regarding the supposed doubt surrounding the nickname has been nothing but original research and has failed to cite any sources. --auburnpilot talk 03:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Semantics

Local police captured the suspect, Eddie Ray Routh, after a short freeway chase... should read Local police captured a suspect, Eddie Ray Routh, after a short freeway chase... (a, not the), from a legal point of view. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. 94.192.225.169 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done He is THE suspect, there are no others at this point. That he is the only suspect has no relevance as to his presumed innocence. Even once he is a formal defendant in a trial, he is still presumed innocent. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Awards section needs work

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

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

Sources, including Kyle himself, suggest he was shot twice and involved in at least six IED attacks. Yet he received no Purple Heart citations. His own website doesn't even cite the Purple Heart. --Stjoan1 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Navy SEAL Trident be listed as an award due to the hell that is BUD/S training. If you ask a SEAL what their most prized award is I promise 9 out of 10 will say its the Trident on their chest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.23.7 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2013

In 2008, outside Sadr City, he made his longest successful shot, after he spotted an insurgent with a rocket launcher near a U.S. Army convoy at a range of 2,100 yards (1.9 km). He fired a shot from his TAC-338 rifle manufactured by McMillan and not a 338 lapua magnum PGM 82.244.251.127 (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done That info is already in the article. In this article it says "he fired a shot from his .338 Lapua Magnum rifle." Do you have reliable sources that say otherwise?— - dain- talk    17:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

edit request

add photo ChrisKyle.jpg, while deletion pending. 198.24.31.118 (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Cowboys Stadium is in Arlington, Texas not Irving — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.24.162 (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sons of Guns

Chris appeared in a Sons of Guns episode about modifying an H&K rifle, 309 (42). I don't know if that is notable. TGCP (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

see also list of snipers

This is turning into a WP:COATRACK. Make a List of notable snipers article and see also to that, we don't need every notable sniper listed in this article? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

since List of snipers exists, and most of the See alsos seem to be copied verbatim from there, I am being bold and replacing the individual snipers with the list. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea since that information is already contained in that article, and the See Also section was turning into a copy of that article anyways. - SudoGhost 00:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the book review material

I tagged the content added with these edits, since neither of the sources verify anything in the sentence added. The NPR interview does discuss "a story" about Kyle that the individual felt was not accurate, but it was a story about Kyle, not a story found in the book nor did it have anything to do with the book. Nothing in that source or this one supports the article saying that there are "a number of reviewers suggesting portions of it were largely sensationalized" and saying "a number of reviewers" without actually attributing a single person to that statement seems like WP:WEASEL. - SudoGhost 18:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. You're right. For some reason when I listened to the NPR piece, I thought the "car jacking" story was in the book. Apparently it is not. Additionally, I thought the following exert from the LA piece supported the idea of "sensationalism" -
"While its accuracy may be debated, his view represented the position of the ground soldiers who did the fighting"
Rereading, that's probably more an accusation of bias rather than sensationalism. I'll take another look at the sources and try to come up more a more accurate representation of the sources.
Kudos to Sudo on a great source review. NickCT (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Movie Report

A movie has been announced regarding Mr. Kyle. Supposedly to be directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Bradley Cooper. Here is a link with information:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielbergs-next-movie-american-451011

Perhaps one with more wiki editing knowledge than I would update this article with the relevant information? Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.22.203 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Make the Craft Intl page avaiable again

I came here following reasearches on Craft International. Only to discover that seemingly, WP community has decided to deny the existence/"importance" of this firm. Discussions in the delete report allegate a "Conspiracy bait". How can that be conspiracy when the firm has a readily avaiable website: http://thecraft.com/ ...? That website also gives links to press releases on them. They are real, they are here, please stop denying them and put back the Craft International wiki page on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platopologic (talk • contribs) 14:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

I see there's an issue in regards to reportage from Infowars. The issue is that WP:BLP requires a high standard of referencing for living persons (Kyle's wife, as well as Ventura). This information from a single source has been added and deleted a few times now. Please resolve this before someone gets dragged before 3RR. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies as I am a new editor and was completely unfamiliar with talk pages and the 3RR rule; I wrongly assumed some individual was removing my edits for malicious reasons. The information I added to this article is from the exact same source and author as found in citation/footnote #19 of the same article (Paul Joseph Watson, infowars.com). This source has been accepted as valid for this article for quite some time, and did provide accurate information as evidenced by subsequent Jesse Ventura interviews. Here is the link to the new information I was attempting to add: www.infowars.com/jesse-ventura-gets-backing-of-former-seals-in-lawsuit-over-punch-hoax/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used UnknownUnknown2000 (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't have consensus so why did you re-add the offending material only a day after being unblocked? I agree, we've been using the infowars source for what Jesse Ventura himself said. I think the contention here is that we don't necessarily believe what infowars claims the bartender and others said. Since there is still an impending trial, I think anything infowars claims is suspect. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologize again, I did not know there was a consensus that needed to be reached. I saw the note on the edit history to discuss on the talk page, and thus gave an explanation and waited to see if anyone disagreed here. When no one responded, I thought I was fine to add the information back. I felt that if the same author and source was trusted for one aspect of the story, then that set a fairly solid standard for the same author and source to be used for another related part of the story. However, if everyone disagrees with me then I will gladly defer to the consensus. UnknownUnknown2000 (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:TALK and WP:BRD, the talk pages are established to facilitate dialog. Since more than one other editor reverted your previous changes, we can prove that there are more people opposed to adding that material than support retaining it. I, for one, did not respond immediately to your talk post as I have other irons in the fire and I can always assume someone else will handle this argument. Sometimes it's good to wait a few days or a week (or longer) to allow other editors to respond.
  1. If we removed the other use of Infowars as a reference, would you have any other reason to support that website as a reliable source?
  2. Would you posit that Wikipedia should post information coming from a single source rather than a host of other sources?
  3. If we assumed that not all the facts are in about this alleged bar fight, could you identify a reason that this claim by Infowars should be included in the article now (ahead of the related court case), instead of being addressed in several months or several years per WP:RECENT?
I thank you in advance for your input and your willingness to discuss this. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't image that "infowars" has a history as a reliable publication or resources. If someone can make the case, then it may be a good idea to start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, but this particular site appears to have been shot down there several times before. I had not noticed that it was used previously, and have no objections to removing it. Kuru (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair Use Image?

Since WP:BLP no longer applies to this article, what do editors think about adding a fair use image to the infobox of this article? The only reason I'm asking before doing it myself is that there editors have tried to WP:BITE my head off for doing it without a discussion in the past. Myopia123 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2015

The current version of the article states that the two were shot by Routh, but does not indicate that his trial has completed. The article needs to be updated either with information about a verdict having been reached, or to reflect that Routh is alleged to be the shooter. Ndovu (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Picture for infobox

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

It would be nice to find one, but i believe that we can use a copyrighted image for someone deceased, at least until a free use image is found.(mercurywoodrose)99.31.165.157 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
According to a WMF resolution, use of copyrighted material should be "minimal" and used "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." The use of a copyrighted photo for an individual is specifically cautioned against, saying an exemption to the free image requirement "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." So while there isn't a blanket prohibition if the individual is not living, at issue is not the ready availability of a free image is but the possibility of a free image. Wikipedia:NFC#UUI says a fair use image may be used if "ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." If the subject's physical appearance were extraordinary or otherwise a subject for commentary in the article that would provide more support for using a non-free image. The best course of action would likely be to identify a copyright holder likely to release the image and get the email proof processed through the OTRS system.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a slight chance of finding a public domain official Navy photo of Kyle. Maybe this is one. I'll contact the site to check the source of this photo. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Tally

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

Zennie, Michael (2 January 2012). "255 confirmed kills: Meet Navy SEAL Chris Kyle... the deadliest sniper in US history". London: Daily Mail. Retrieved 2012-01-02.
The above article is linked as a reference and refers to the 160 kills as "officially confirmed by the Pentagon". I can't speak to the reliability of their source or if the Pentagon ever actually confirmed that number, but that's what the article states. --auburnpilot talk 01:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree 160 is a suspiciously round number, but it's the officially circulated one so needs to be here as such. If there's a credible source for the variation that doubtless actually exists then put it in. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
How is 160 more suspicious than 159? If that's what the pentagon says as his official count and he claims 255 just leave it with both in there stating one the pentagons count and one is his claim.—  dain- talk   16:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
All articles and citations refer back to Chris Kyle's published book. His own recollections are the only evidence for his claim. Their are multiple news outlets and publications that report this number as fact. However, this fact has only one source, Chris Kyle's own claims. Chris Kyle has a huge credibility problem. There are multiple instances where he has presented events as fact in public forums, to news media outlets, and recounted in articles that were later shown to be complete fabrications. His book publisher Harper Collins notes in its book description: “The Pentagon has officially confirmed more than 150 of Kyle’s kills.” But according to an NBC News Article there are no official records of kill counts. "Confirmed kills: A solemn secret for military snipers is becoming a pop-culture hit, Bill Briggs,". New York: NBC News. 30 July 2013. Retrieved 2013-06-30. "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." So we are back to square one, Chris Kyle and his spotters are the only ones that can give an account of his kills. Chris has shown to be an unreliable source for many other claims he has made, thus any claim he has made should be treated as dubious at best.Thubub (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DHeyward doesn't like the direct quote from U.S. Special Operations Command that Sniper Kill Counts are treated as unofficial. The SEALs are a part of the U.S. Special Operations Command. I have now twice added back the statement from U.S. Special Operations Command back into the place it was before. This statement is a direct statement from a legitimate news source with an identified person who speaks for the U.S. Special Operations Command. This is a neutral POV statement, it doesn't not call into question the counts, it is simply stating the policy of the U.S. Special Operations Command with regard to sniper kill counts. I'm my last revert/addback, I have asked the above mentioned user to discuss this on this page, in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4E00:924:9917:8E1A:32AA:6E9A (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes the pentagon records them. They also investigate them to make sure the killing was done according to UCMJ and rules of engagement. Ever wonder how a soldier is charged with a crime if no one keeps track of kills? Confirmed kills are corroborated by a witness, usually a spotter - these also corroborate the reason (i.e. Kyle's first confirmed kill in Iraq was the women with the grenade - which would also be reported by the spotter to justify the engagement). Kyle's count are available and credible numbers. Keep in mind that SOCOM won't even officially acknowledge the existence of certain special forces or their numbers or where they operate. There are plenty of media references that mention pentagon confirmed kills which means both Kyle and his spotter reported killing a combatant. The pentagon maintains records of enemy combatants killed but they don't record them as "achievements." Kyle's book was vetted by the Pentagon and if his after action report didn't match his tally, JAG would want to know about the discrepancy. They are very concerned with murder and the numbers and accounts are available to the pentagon. --DHeyward (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
But the fact remains that there is a claim that this is an official number from an official U.S. Government/Military source. That the number of kills are being tallied by the U.S. Military, but yet the U.S. Military and SOCOM in particular, do not keep tallies, they are on record stating this. And even if the pentagon investigates every kill, it does not mean that they are keeping track of the quantity either.
From the news article...
"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."
So you may be correct that the kills are investigated, but official policy is that there isn't an official number that is recorded or tracked. The NBC News article is pretty clear in that among those who have been snipers, that they know their number, but that it is a personal thing and not something they readily share (take a look at Chuck Mawhinney) and for the most party shy away from sharing that number with civilians for the simple reason that they would not understand. And as such, it remains unresolved as to who really has the most number of kills.
So, as with the above discussion, there's no consensus on if the number is accurate or not. So, while leaving the quantity statement in place to allow those with the point of view that this is an accurate credible number, I thought that adding the sentence, "U.S. Special Operations Command treats that tally as unofficial." would give a neutral voiced POV statement to those who are not certain of the credibility of the numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4E00:924:B0DB:3DF9:C5BB:BA3B (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
They are called "confirmed kills" and they are reported to the pentagon up through the chain of command. See Carlos Hathcock. Your statement is misleading as it introduces doubt where none exists. Nobody in the unit, Navy, SOCOM or Pentagon disputes his numbers. Many back it up. Your statement needs to be removed as a synthesis of implying there is doubt. There is not. --DHeyward (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no implication. Please explain how a direct quote from someone who is a spokesman for the U.S. Special Operations Command about sniper kill counts is misleading? It goes directly to the heart of sniper kill counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4E00:924:DC3B:1C22:8CB5:D7E0 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It says nothing about sniper kill counts. That you think it does speaks plainly as to why it's misleading. His numbers are not questioned or controversial. --DHeyward (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a news article on Sniper kill counts. That you believe it to be misleading is only an opinion. SOCOM is on record saying they are unofficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4E00:924:DC3B:1C22:8CB5:D7E0 (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it's an article on official, specific record keeping. it does not mean what you are impying and it's a false light to leave it there. It does not mean they are inaccurate. Nor does it mean they are not confirmed. The current placement and your previous statements make them appear that this is your point and it certainly reads that way. There are MANY reports they are confirmed kills. --DHeyward (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 January 2015

This section should be removed. (While growing up in Odessa, Chris attended Permian High School from 1987 to 1991. He played linebacker for the Permian Panthers football team and was a member, as a sophomore, of the 1988 team which was later made famous by author H. G. Bissinger in his book Friday Night Lights: A Town, a Team, and a Dream.[12])

Chris attended Midlothian High School and played baseball and football for the Midlothian Panthers. He graduated in 1992.104.36.123.170 (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

104.36.123.170 (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 January 2015

The mother of Eddie Routh had sought treatment for a year for his PTSD at the Dallas VA hospital. http://www.menshealth.com/best-life/who-killed-chris-kyle

This should go under Kyle's death section. The request is made to clarify that Routh's PTSD had been diagnosed, it was not just rumor. (See article)

97.77.213.176 (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2015 (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. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 January 2015, High School

The statement listed under Early Life regarding Chris Kyle attending Permian High School is not correct. "While growing up in Odessa, Chris attended Permian High School from 1987 to 1991. He played linebacker for the Permian Panthers football team and was a member, as a sophomore, of the 1988 team which was later made famous by author H. G. Bissinger in his book Friday Night Lights: A Town, a Team, and a Dream.[12]"

Text should be replaced with the following, "Chris Kyle graduated from Midlothian High School in 1992. After Chris moved to Midlothian he quickly became friends with everyone." [1] 72.48.255.96 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source that confirms where he went to High School can be found here: [1].

References

  1. ^ http://www.heroesofmidlothian.org/kyle/

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Done in part. The reference provided is not reliable, however, I found a reliable reference that states where he went to high school later on in his academic career. The other content suggested is not NPOV nor is it encyclopedic in tone.-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What source is there for the Permian claim? I'm not seeing this in the sources. I'm going to remove that now until someone can point it out in the source that was attached to it earlier, or provide another reliable source. Kuru (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 January 2015

Note: currently, the book has one line in the article, not even wikilinked to its own article, and the Ventura lawsuit several paragraphs. Since the subject actually wrote the book and the lawsuit is something that happened mostly after the subject's death, it seems a bit UNDUE. Would request fleshing book section as follows.

START EDIT

In 2012, HarperCollins released Kyle's autobiographical book American Sniper.[1] Kyle had initially hesitated to write the book but was persuaded to move forward because other books about SEALs were underway.[2] His friend, Marcus Lutrell had already published books on the SEAL Team 10. In his book, Kyle wrote bluntly of his experiences without political correctness; "Force moved that battle. We killed the bad guys and brought the leaders to the peace table. That is how the world works."[3] In the book and in interviews following, Kyle stated he had no regrets about his work as a sharpshooter, "I had to do it to protect the Marines."[4] American Sniper had a 37-week run on the New York Times bestseller list and brough Kyle national attention.[5] Following its release, media articles challenged some of Kyle's anecdotes.[6] The core of the narrative, however, was widely accepted; "Tales of his heroism on the battlefield were already lore in every branch of the armed forces."[7]

END EDIT

References

  1. ^ Kyle, Chris; McEwen, Scott; DeFelice, Chris (February 5, 2012). American Sniper. Harper Collins. ISBN 0-06-208235-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Fernandez and Michael Schwirtz, Manny (February 3, 2013). "Untouchable in Iraq, Ex-Sniper Dies in a Shooting Back Home". New York Times. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
  3. ^ Perry, Scott (March 5, 2012). "Book review: 'American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History' by Chris Kyle, Scott McEwen and Jim DeFelice". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
  4. ^ Botelho, Greg, Joe Johns and Ted Metzger (February 5, 2013). "Police: Man accused of killing ex-SEAL said he had PTSD, was hurting". CNN. CNN.com. Retrieved 14 January 2015.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ Pulliam Bailey, Sarah (January 14, 2014). "Here's the faith in the 'American Sniper' you won't see in the film". The Washington Post. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
  6. ^ LaMothe, Dan (July 30, 2014). "Jesse Ventura vs. Chris Kyle: A case where no one won". The Washington Post. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
  7. ^ Hoinski, Michael (December 22, 2014). "The Controversial True Story Behind 'American Sniper'". Mens Journal Magazine. Retrieved 14 January 2015.

EBY (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Page is no longer fully protected. Stickee (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

place of death

The place of death is listed as Glen Rose which is in Somervell county. It should be Erath county or Chalk Mountain, Texas. 173.175.208.102 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Scro'taint

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_Mountain,_Texas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.175.208.102 (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  • You are correct, Glen Rose is 11 miles away as the crow flies. Abductive (reasoning) 21:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the place of death should be listed as either Glen Rose or Iredell TX considering that the actual resort/shooting range lists them as their location.OtterStratton (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

File:Http://media.salon.com/2013/02/american sniper2.jpg
Chris Kyle

Clewis14 (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: It appears that you want to add an image into existing article. For an image to be used in a Wikipedia article, first required criteria is they must be on Wikipedia (or sister project Wikimedia Commons) server. Please take a look at our Image policy and Upload an image first, before requesting the same to use in a Wikipedia article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2015

Change "In 2008, outside Sadr City, Kyle claims his longest" to "In 2008, outside Sadr City, Kyle claimed his longest". The event occurred in the past and the past tense is used throughout. Dlcproductions (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done: [2]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2015

in the See Also section, there is another Sniper listed by name. Per the above "see also list of snipers" talk section, list of snipers is a separately maintained list. Would like to request that this be cleaned up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kyle#See_also

Request to remove the following: Simo Häyhä, the record-holder for any major war with 505 confirmed kills.

 Not done: a link to Simo Häyhä is relevant, since he holds a record like Kyle does. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The talk section way above regarding "List of Snipers" is where this information is maintained. That is the previous consensus of the editors.75.72.80.197 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Whitewashing

A couple of editor repeatedly remove well-sourced information about Kyle, all with spurious reasons

  • "that is not a reliable source for the information given, is an opinion piece that doesn't belong on a bio article." - WP:NEWSORG explicitly allows op-ed for statements of the subject: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author [...]"
  • "Rumor discredited by ref" - Plainly untrue, the section removed only reports on Kyle's statements ("Kyle told associates [...]"), not on its factuality.

As they currently are, the reversals are unjustified. Please comment.79.223.17.64 (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is it isn't "well sourced", a single opinion piece is not sufficient as a source for that kind of negative information on a biographical article. You convienently left out the relevant part of WP:NEWSORG, that such sources "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." You're using the information as if it's a statement of fact. That is why it was reverted. - Aoidh (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • the first edit was a quote from his book. I can't imagine the Guardian leaving a mis-quote on their website, but we just need to check in the book and reference it that way.
  • with regard to the second edit, yes I suspect the editor didn't read it carefully before reverting. It could be re-worded to make it clear we are talking about Kyle's boasts rather than actually killing people after Katrina. Haminoon (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
That actually brings up another good point, both of the edits reverted were copyright violations. Even ignoring that, taking a series of quotes out of context and placing them in a particular order may be fine for an unashamedly non-neutral opinion piece, but it's unacceptable for a neutral Wikipedia article. - Aoidh (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Thats absurd - they were not copyright violations. The quotes were entirely fair-use, and the language around them was not the same as in the references.Haminoon (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Several editors are engaging in POV editing by removing sourced quotes for their own reasons.Myopia123 (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the quotes and the "language around them" was not only the same, it was identical. The entire section was lifted from the article; an unambiguous copyright violation. From the source:

Kyle reportedly described killing as “fun”, something he “loved”; he was unwavering in his belief that everyone he shot was a “bad guy”. “I hate the damn savages,” he wrote...boasted of looting the apartments of Iraqi families in Fallujah,

From the edit in question:

Kyle reportedly described killing as “fun,” and was unwavering in his belief that everyone he shot was a “bad guy.” “I hate the damn savages,” he wrote. “I couldn’t give a flying fuck about the Iraqis." He also bragged about looting the apartments of fleeing Iraqi families in Fallujah.

Taking out three words and then changing "boasted of" to "bragging about" does not make it acceptable text and this isn't text inside quotes attributing it; that is a copyright violation. - Aoidh (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Salon reports almost the same quotes. I will not buy the book, and I doubt that it is available in a library anywhere near me. Are the two sources (Guardian and Salon) enough to establish the quotes from the book by WP's standards? If not, is there someone around owning the book who can support or refute the quotes?

The second item is uncontested at the moment (it was removed with a false claim), any comments on that?91.10.31.220 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As a point of information, the book can be accessed at this url: http://www.boekje-pienter.nl/images/americansniper.pdf It is currently the 8th reference in the reference section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4E00:924:9917:8E1A:32AA:6E9A (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

For future reference:

  • "There’s another question people ask a lot: Did it bother you killing so many people in Iraq? I tell them, “No.” And I mean it. The first time you shoot someone, you get a little nervous. You think, can I really shoot this guy? Is it really okay? But after you kill your enemy, you see it’s okay. You say, Great. You do it again. And again. You do it so the enemy won’t kill you or your countrymen. You do it until there’s no one left for you to kill. That’s what war is. I loved what I did. I still do. If circumstances were different—if my family didn’t need me—I’d be back in a heartbeat. I’m not lying or ex- aggerating to say it was fun. I had the time of my life being a SEAL.", Chris Kyle, Scott McEwen and Jim DeFelice, "American Sniper", 1st ed. 2011, p. 14f.
  • "I never once fought for the Iraqis. I could give a flying fuck about them.", Chris Kyle, Scott McEwen and Jim DeFelice, "American Sniper", 1st ed. 2011, p. 240
  • "In the end, I was all right with being scheduled for another deployment. I still loved war.", Chris Kyle, Scott McEwen and Jim DeFelice, "American Sniper", 1st ed. 2011, p. 376

The Criticism section of the Chris Kyle biography is silly, unscholarly, and contains no content other than editorial. What the reader learns from this section is that some woman named Laura Miller thinks that Kyle was "bloodthirsty" and that some man named Max Blumenthal once tweeted about Kyle using the hashtag #AmericanPsycho. The Criticism section should be replaced with a section called "Kyle's Views on War". There relevant quotes can be lifted from his writings and proper citations used. Let Kyle speak for himself instead of including the opinions of Ms. Miller and Mr. Blumenthal. The Criticism section currently contains exactly zero information about Kyle. 70.209.54.251 (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that Kyle's statements should be part of other sections, ie. his statements about the war in Iraq should be part of the section called "Iraq War". This was done a few days ago, the problem with this approach is that some editors removed these section with spurious reasons, or more often no reason at all. The current section "Criticism" is an attempt to add Kyle's statements in another form.
The preference of secondary sources is important in many cases, but not in this one. We will not find a reliable secondary source with clean quotes which are in turn sourced in a way that would meet the requirements. That rule was also created for entirely different problems, like OR and bias, not for the case at hand.
So what are reasons that would speak against including Kyle's statements about some topics into these topics' section?91.10.58.43 (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Why is this included? It's just advertising for her article (did she post it?). We don't link to blogs for opinion pieces for other entries. Why this one? Does this mean we ought to add links to every page of WND that criticizes someone in the public eye? Consistency, folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.171.102 (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
We shouldn't be using quotes anyway. Quotes are never given enough context and WP:QUOTEFARM articles suck. His views on the war and other things are captured in reliable secondary sources. That his motivation for serving in Iraq was about protecting the U.S. and its soldiers rather than anything to do with Iraq itself is a common view and dramatic quotes offer no insights except shock value. --DHeyward (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Utter nonsense. Do you think in some way you are trying to preserve the memory or legacy of a dead guy that you are an ideological fan of - or are you trying to improve a Wikipedia/encyclopedic article, DHeyward? Because your arguments certainly sound much more like the responses of his publicist, or a sympathetic fan, or just another rabid pov pusher. They are certainly not the reasonable and rational arguments of an unbiased editor whose only "agenda" is trying to improve the article by including a variety of reliable sources. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:7D5E:733A:CAF5:6A7C (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I suggest you review WP:BLP. First: It states that only: "in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced" may be removed." That's certainly not the absolute rule you claimed. Second: It clearly doesn't apply here, as the material itself is reliably sourced. Third: the subject died in February 2013. So almost 2 years later, in January 2015, it is plainly ridiculous to claim he is "recently deceased." Fourth: Contrary to your claim, it wasn't an "opinion piece" in Salon. It was a feature article from a staff writer for the magazine. You should learn the difference between op-eds and feature stories, instead of making inaccurate claims. Fifth: You were completely out of line to remove a note that I placed on another editor's (DHeyward) talk page, not your own, as you did here. It is not your place to remove anything from another editor's talk page. See WP:TPO. That's 5 swings - and 5 strikes. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:7178:4167:7295:311A (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The criticism is all from Laura Miller at Salon. That includes out of context tweet by Paul and a large block of quoted text in a criticism section that shouldn't exist. Neither of those add anything to the biography. It's undue weight to give Miller such prominence and since Miller never met ot interviewed Kyle, it's very strange and problematic to giver her view any space. Maybe if she had her own bio, those views could be explored, but they are meaningless here. --DHeyward (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not about Laura Miller. It's a Salon article. Would you say the same thing if she had a Wall Street Journal byline? But Ron Paul's tweet was critical too. You neglected to mention that you also tried to remove that. If you have problems with the Criticism section solely based on Miller, Paul's tweet could be moved there. I'm sure the section can also be expanded to include more diverse criticism. But then, you would be the first to claim that expanded section vios UNDUE. So I'll give you options to consider. We can edit some of the Miller blockquote, but not remove it entirely and move the Paul sentence there, so it's not all just Miller. Or we can expand that section altogether, perhaps even change the heading to something innocuous, yet balanced, like "Commentary" or "Reactions and Criticism." But, as you know very well, we can't just remove reliably sourced material from a BLP, just because you believe it's negative. Especially, because this hasn't been a BLP for almost 2 years. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:7178:4167:7295:311A (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I did mention the tweet by Paul and it's clear you can't distinguish between an op-ed/column piece and a news piece. It's Laura Miller's opinion on a variety of topics but it is opinion, not fact. And yes, we can remove material that is not proportional to it's coverage in reliable sources. Kyle is by far and away covered as a decorated war hero. Even among special forces groups that often turn their backs on those take credit publicly for their service, it is not the case for Kyle (his book was reviewed and vetted by the pentagon). Miller's view is overly represented in the article and certainly doesn't deserve it's own section. Considering the movie and nearness of his death as well as the impact it has on his living wife and child, it is well within recently deceased. I'm sure that recentism is the reason for the current edits. --DHeyward (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • What is indeed quite clear, is that you remain willfully ignorant of the difference between an op-ed and a feature article. I suggest you read the article links I provided above defining each, so that in future, you will be disabused regarding such unuseful and non-constructive ignorance. If you want to debate Miller, her article, or Salon magazine itself, as you clearly do: then I further suggest that you write, then find a reliable publication to print, your rebuttal. But this project isn't the forum for your unpublished and unsourced responses to reliable sources. The facts regarding Kyle's record and persona are well-documented everywhere but in this article. Contrary to your glossy depiction, there are ample reliable sources that contest many of his claims. In fact, a court delivered a judgment against him for his exaggerated claims regarding Jesse Ventura, himself a decorated Navy SEAL. Other SEALs have also delivered well-published criticisms. Miller himself wrote a book opening himself up to criticism, and it is patently absurd to think it is Wikipedia's job to "protect" "his living wife and child." This is an encyclopedia. Not People magazine. Further, as already noted earlier, the man died 2 years ago - under controversial and ironic circumstances. The movie might be recent, but his death, 2 years ago, certainly is not. But your effort to deify him here is not only highly inappropriate, but antithetical to this project. Of greater concern, your own comments here plainly identify you and your objectives, as someone who's editing is blinded by your desire to lionize the subject of your "by far and away covered as a decorated war hero" idol worship. As you, sadly, are clearly incapable of editing either objectively or collaboratively on this article, I strongly suggest that you recuse yourself from it. If not, don't think you can goad me into edit warring with you. I will simply seek a topic ban against you, preventing you from any future editing on this article. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:7178:4167:7295:311A (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Since you're repeatedly trying to add negative material to this bio and using revolving IP's to POV push your edits, I'm about to just revert your edits on sight.--MONGO 13:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As you have repeatedly proven that you are inherently incapable of editing according to the policies and practices of this project, and are only here to push your own POV agenda: that of turning this article - NOT A BLP - into some kind of "tribute puff piece" to your long dead hero; your disruptive actions are to be expected and will be dealt with in the appropriate manner. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:DC43:6AD0:8320:410A (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Its not a tribute puff piece not is Kyle my hero. Other than that, what more is there to say.--MONGO 22:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "...you're repeatedly trying to add negative material to this bio... I'm about to just revert your edits on sight." Clear POV pushing and textbook disruptive editing. There really is nothing more to say. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:DC43:6AD0:8320:410A (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That is correct. We're not going to add an attack opinion piece to this article and surely not because some random IP says so. Its fumny you accuse others of textbook disruption but you're a coward that won't register one account and use that one account. I'll just keep asking for page protection until you find a new hobby. Bye.--MONGO 23:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Please continue. The more you say, the more you bury yourself. We'll just add personal attacks to your laundry list of vios. You continue to display your ignorance, arrogance - and your bias - by whining about "attack opinion pieces", when: a) they are feature articles, a concept your thick gray matter seems incapable of grasping; and b) are reliably sourced. You don't get to delete RS just because you don't like them. Want to censor? Move to North Korea. When you get there, I'll even airdrop a certain current movie you won't like either. But let me define a coward for you: A coward is an editor who willfully misinterprets and/or simply ignores several WP policies to push his own POV, and then, when "some random IP", calls out his not even subtle game - and he knows he can't defend himself - he runs, like a 5 yr old, to an admin, because the mean "IP" wouldn't let him have his way. You really want to see a coward? Not to mention, a child? Buy a mirror. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:DC43:6AD0:8320:410A (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
In, oh, 9 years on Wikipedia, I don't think I've ever seen an article with such blatant whitewashing of a subject. It's genuinely extraordinary. Paul Moloney (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Can't agree more. Even when the article alludes to controversial statements, the language seems to be laudatory—that Kyle was such a heroic and plain-spoken guy who wasn't afraid of giving that old devil, political correctness, the middle finger. Shameful article, with POV-pushers all but outright claiming ownership over it. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

https://storify.com/RaniaKhalek/american-sniper-chris-kyle-in-his-own-words Chris Kyle in his own words — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.155.188.33 (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Also agree: it's disturbing that no criticisms of Kyle are included in the article. To exclude the multiple criticisms of Kyle based on what appears in his book, and his own words, is to suggest that Kyle (or his legacy) isn't polarizing. It's equally disturbing that about three users have hijacked this page to make selective edits that refuse to include controversial or critical information about Kyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.201.172.50 (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This page is an absolute embarrassment. A few editors are censoring any any and all controversy around Chris Kyle. Not agreeing with a controversy is not a reason to omit the fact that the controversy exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.125.75 (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I sort of mucked up and put my comments down under the Katrina section instead of here, so my tl;dr is I understand people want to lionize heroes by minimizing their faults, but ironically many of them became heroes by fighting for a world where truth and freedom of expression overcome lies, propaganda and whitewashing. Whitewashing their stories does a disservice to that notion for which many patriots fought. Parkebench (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2015

Spelling error should be corrected: "judgement" is actually spelled "judgment". 128.177.42.2 (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Already done Stickee (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Signature

The image used of Kyle's signature does not match the image of his signature shown here. The letter "K" is wildly at variance. The original uploader of the so-called "authenticated" image of Kyle's signature has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, and there seems to be some issue around their image uploading. I have removed the signature image from the infobox. Keri (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool beans.--MONGO 12:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura incident

dates referenced in this seem to be off... I'm not editing this myself since I don't know which dates are wrong... however since the death was in 2013, and the lawsuit says 2012, yet goes on to state something about when Kyle died the next month... I assume it's the lawsuit dates that are wrong by a year so I'm putting this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.49.144 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Keep in mind that Ventura sued him in court stating no such incident took place, claiming Kyle made up the story for publicity. The owner of the bar and some Navy Seals who frequent it were set to testify on Ventura's behalf and Kyle was (before his death) looking to settle with Ventura out of court. According to Ventura he had rejected every offer for payment from Kyle that did not include publicly admitting he lied. Poyani (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that a jury has rendered a verdict for the plantiff in the defamation lawsuit Ventura vs. Kyle's estate. Please be aware that there have been some edits made by some stating only half of the story. This whole defamation lawsuit might be best as it's own page due to the years of pre-trial motions, Kyle's death, substitution of Kyle's estate as defendant, the 3 week trial in Federal District Court, post-trial interviews and news articles and potential continued litigation/appeals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4E00:924:F18F:7C1B:377A:E180 (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I think the whole section regarding the Ventura / Kyle estate lawsuit could be reduced to a three or four sentence summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overhere2000 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Ventura incident isnt the only case of Kyle telling tall tales. Read this article: http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.57.241 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please, the dead man was never allowed to tell his side of the story in court. Now the plaintiff is suing the publisher which, according to sources cited here, never referenced the plaintiff by name. It may be easy to win a lawsuit against a dead man, it may be a little harder to win a suit against a publisher that evidently did its best to protect Ventura by leaving his name out. nobs (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Please, he had a video taped deposition and five attorneys represent his estate in the trial. His defense team called 11 witnesses. His side of the story was as well represented in court as legally possible. A jury heard all of the evidence according to the rules of U.S. Federal Courts and decided that Chris Kyle had defamed and had unjustly enriched himself at Jesse Ventura's expense. Legal experts stated that proving defamation of a public figure is a very hard case to win, but apparently Chris Kyle did enough to meet that threshold. Had Chris Kyle left the "Punching out Scruff Face" sub-chapter or declined to answer the questions put to him in his publicity tour to identify who he was talking about, the lawsuit would have been tossed. 2601:2:4E00:C662:9507:72E1:406A:AC67 (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The concerns that I have with summarizing it further are that the lawsuit is still being litigated after three years and the appeal of the original trial verdict was just filed last month. In some articles I've read on the subject, other lawyers have said it could take 6 to 18 months before the appeals process has played out completely. The Appeals Court could order a whole new trial, and that second trial could find for Kyle. So, once all of the appeals play out, a shorter summary of the outcome would be in order, but there will likely be further updates to the litigation which could change the current verdict. So, for now I'd like to request that the section not get summarized. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4E00:924:813B:50F9:42D0:6076 (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2015

On January 30 2015, Texas state senator Greg Abbott declared February 2nd as Chris Kyle day. Crodger5 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2015 (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. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Truth to carjacking story?

Is there any truth to story that Chris Kyle killed two men in attempted carjacking? The matter should be addressed. It would be a significant event in any person's life, and (may have) happened at a time when Kyle was acting as a civilian in the US. ( http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/06/03/130603fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all , and elsewhere.)

In January, 2010, Kyle later told friends, he was once again put to the test: two men tried to carjack his truck. He was parked at a gas station, southwest of Dallas. “He told the robbers that he just needed to reach back into the truck to get the keys,” Michael J. Mooney wrote in a recent article about Kyle, in D Magazine. Mooney, who had worked on the piece with Kyle’s coöperation, wrote that Kyle “turned around and reached under his winter coat instead, into his waistband. With his right hand, he grabbed his Colt 1911”—a sidearm that is popular with military personnel. “He fired two shots under his left armpit, hitting the first man twice in the chest. Then he turned slightly and fired two more times, hitting the second man twice in the chest. Both men fell dead.”

Police officers arrived at the scene. When they ran Kyle’s license, Mooney wrote, something unusual occurred: “Instead of his name, address, and date of birth, what came up was a phone number at the Department of Defense. At the other end of the line was someone who explained that the police were in the presence of one of the most skilled fighters in U.S. military history.” According to Kyle, security cameras documented the episode

Like Mooney, I also heard many of Kyle’s friends and associates tell this story. Details varied, but the ending was the same: Kyle drove away without being charged and, as Mooney put it in a related blog post, later received “e-mails from police officers all over the country, thanking him for ‘cleaning up the streets.’ ” Mooney never saw the security tape or found other corroborating evidence, such as police files or a coroner’s report for the dead carjackers. “Consider this story confirmed by the man himself,” he wrote in the blog post, in which he described Kyle as a “true American badass” and a “real-life action hero.”

There is cause to be skeptical. The counties of Erath, Somervell, and Johnson cover the stretch of highway where the incident supposedly happened. Tommy Bryant, the sheriff of Erath County, told me that he could “guar-an-damn-tee it didn’t happen here.” Greg Doyle, the sheriff of Somervell County, said that he had “never heard” the story, which he found “kinda shocking,” and added, “It did not occur here.” Bob Alford, the sheriff of Johnson County, told a local reporter, “If something like that happened here I would have heard of it, and I’m sure you all at the newspaper would have heard of it.” These denials do not automatically disprove the story, of course. And it’s true that certain operatives, from certain government offices and agencies, drive government-registered vehicles whose license plates prompt civilian authorities to contact a call center in the event of an accident or a traffic stop. But a SEAL with extensive experience in special-mission units told me that the notion of such a provision being in place for a former SEAL driving a private vehicle was “bullshit.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.13.90 (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If the story is as outlandishly stupid and poser cliche as that and the only reliable sources are skeptically relaying it as a "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy who heard from him" story then that should answer your question. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Both the Mooney D Magazine article and e-book (which are both cited in the article) also present that story rather prominently right at the beginning of each. Mooney cites the Marcus Luttrell book Service: A Navy SEAL at War – saying it also contains it, and Mooney said he believed the story to be true, although it's hard to believe that such a thing could happen and leave behind no documented record. Mooney does not present the story as something he "heard from a guy who heard from him", but rather as something he directly verified with Kyle and "left that day believing it had happened". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like typical stories these types of alpha male guys come up with...super adrenaline pecker comparison stuff. Where is the police report? Where are the indictments or arrest records? Kyle would have been detained and a police report would have been done. Even in the lawful defense of a person against an attackers, of a firearm was discharged it would have been all over the news. We need to be better than these sources that are merely repeating macho guy talk tales told over one too many beers. Supposedly, Paul Bunyon had a blue ox right?--MONGO 19:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Not for long. Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie killed that blue ox with a Texas toothpick and cooked it for dinner. I got that from a very reliable source. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Tall tale biggest fish story. He also told his wife he was an Ice Cream Truck Driver but we don't have and Ice Cream Truck driver section because his wife is smarter than journalists that believe nonsense. No, he didn't shoot people from the Superdome. No he didn't kill carjackers and get off without a police report. What people are willing to believe is part of the art of tall tales. William Wallace was 8 feet tall. --DHeyward (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC).

But the point is he did tell this tale, it is widely reported, and it belongs in the article. And your argument that it is "too long" (it is actually only 2 short paragraphs) is weak. This alleged incident is part of his life and it can't be whitewashed. Nulla Taciti (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Its not part of his life. There is no police report...there are no collaborating witnesses...no charges or investigations ensued...no hospitals reported gun shot victims from this tall tale. It is not worthy of mention much less two paragraghs worth. Stop edit warring over it.--MONGO 13:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Textbook Strawman from Schmidle and the New Yorker

Two points directly from the above New Yorker excerpt (with more to follow; incidentally, the article is very good):

  • When they ran Kyle’s license... - obviously refers to a driver licence from the context given.
  • it’s true that certain operatives, from certain government offices and agencies, drive government-registered vehicles whose license plates prompt civilian authorities to contact a call center... - essentially an apples and organes argument. Why the author uses such nakedly transparent language one can only speculate.

It obviously was Kyle's truck, as the language in mainspace right now painstakenly makes clear. nobs (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is, "a SEAL with extensive experience in special-mission units", Jesse Ventura? nobs (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Kyle's lies and misrepresentations need to be in this wiki. To ignore them is a violation of ethics and clarity on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.217.223 (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If I could interject, Chris was a friend of mine and in the 4-5 years I knew him, he never mentioned that incident, I did hear it from 2 other SEALs, one who knew Chris better than I did, but I am not inclined to believe it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
In the case of the Captain of the USS Vincennes and the accidental shootdown of an Iranian jetliner, a reprisal action and act of terrorism against (allegedly now the way it's reported) against the Captain's wife (he was out to sea at the time) is being whitewashed and watered down to obscure the notion that international jihadis with bounties and blood vendettas go after high-profile figures and their families within the continental United States, and that the United States government has programs in place to deal with such incidents. Nobs01 (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Car-Jacking Lacks Credibility

Mooney claims he verified this with local police. The claim is highly skeptical because no one else has been able to corroborate this. That makes his whole claim of what he was told by Kyle highly skeptical. It should not be in an encyclopedia, maybe the Enquirer, D magazine or the New Yorker but not a encyclopedia. Mooney has clearly violated journalistic ethics in order to gain 10 minutes of fame of a dead American hero. That is what this is really about. It is a fringe theory and for that reason the mention needs to be removed as it only promotes D magazine and one of their unreliable editors. I hope Wikipedia maintains higher standards than D Magazine. 172.56.38.226 (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

duh, whut? are you saying Kyle did not tell Mooney about this incident? Nobs01 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that Kyle ever told this story to anyone? We only have Mooney making the claim and Mooney also claims he verified this with police. Really Mooney??? How come no police have verified Moooney's claim that Mooney makes? Maybe be cause Mooney is making it up??? That seems like the most logical answer. Mooney messed up his fabrication when he said he verified the Highway incident with police. Mooney thought it made his story about Kyle more believable but it backfired as Mooney's claim has no support from any law enforcement. Mooney does not even have any names of what law enforcement agency shared this "information." Looks like a fabrication and the evidence supports that it is a fabrication by Mooney. 208.54.5.172 (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
If that's the argument, then the whole carjacking story should not be referenced within the article, including any other source which repeats Mooney's version, or accredits Mooney as the source and uses it to disparage Kyle, or disparages Kyle over the carjacking without citing Mooney. Nobs01 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It appeared in Marcus Luttrell's book, Service: A Navy Seal at War, published in 2012, before Mooney's articles. Luttrell is a decorated veteran and he was friends with Kyle. He definitely didn't make it up to disparage Kyle. Aquila89 (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That is exactly why it should not be included as the original source has serious credibility/believability issues. Mooney's version of events does not come close to passing the smell test. 208.54.5.172 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Michael J. Mooney is Chris Kyle's biographer, a fact which cannot be overlooked. Nobs01 (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wrong Answer. No Pass Go. You do not collect $200. Mooney is a writer for D magazine who has decided to write a biography about Kyle. His motive ? Fame and $$$$$ Mooney has proven to have a story that does not check out. He is making money of Kyles death. It seems the wilder Mooney's claims the more exposure he gets. Why the hell is Wikipedia being sucked into this? 67.5.21.115 (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The Chris Kyle Hoax By Mooney

Mooney of D Magazine has created a very big hoax theory that is definitely fringe theory and utterly false. Mooney says in his article that he verified the story with local police yet no local police back up Mooney's hoax. Mooney has trolled the internet regarding a very popular subject and as a result D magazine has had its click count skyrocket. Mooney is a fabricator and there is no other evidence beside Mooney's obviously false claim. D magazine has gone along and even had other writers chime in. D magazine has made many money from the increased click count. So I ask why are editors posting this hoax on the main page? Maybe some are making money in their outside endeavors? Could it be the hoaxsters of D magazine are also editing Wikipedia? Who knows for sure but hell it seems wild speculation is know standard editing practices in this article which reads more like an issue of D magazine and not at all like an Encyclopedia. 208.54.5.172 (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Mooney has proved to be an unreliable source. Where are the police he claimed to verify this story with? There are none whatsoever and Mooney clearly fabricated that he verified the story with police. So he has proven to be a fabricator of his verification process and as a result we can only reasonably believe the rest of Mooney's story is a fabrication as well. Mooney is the only original source and he makes statements that he cannot support and there would be evidence of such wild claims if it were true. It is Mooney's big Hoax and not Kyles. 208.54.5.172 (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Can't quite follow your reasoning here; are you saying Mooney invented the story that Chris Kyle told him - much of which was repeated verbatim by the New Yorker - which Nicholas Schmidle then said "might have occured"? Nobs01 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The New Yorker quoting the original source "Mooney" does not add support to Mooney's claim. Sorry that reasoning is difficult for you to comprehend. 208.54.5.172 (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Schmidle's New Yorker cherrypicks Mooney, leaves out Mooney's claim a police chief told Mooney men on his force saw the surveillance video (cops must've lied, I guess), says Mooney never found any other evidence and sets up a strawman (see above). This is getting redundant. Nobs01 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Mooney does not claim that he verified the article with the police. He says the opposite. In his first article (Here’s What American Sniper Chris Kyle Said About His Killing Two Men at a Gas Station in 2009): "After our talk, I called the police chiefs of several towns along 67. Most of them had heard of the incident. One, speaking only on background, said he knew some of his men had at least seen the tape. But request after request provided no police reports and no tape." He's saying that he could not confirm it. The police chief was wrong. In a later article, "The Legend of Chris Kyle" (http://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2013/april/the-legend-of-chris-kyle-01?p=2), Mooney writes: "During the interview in which he discussed the gas station incident, he didn’t say where it happened. Most versions of the story have him in Cleburne, not far from Fort Worth. The Cleburne police chief says that if such an incident did happen, it wasn’t in his town. Every other chief of police along Highway 67 says the same thing. Public information requests produced no police reports, no coroner reports, nothing from the Texas Rangers or the Department of Public Safety. I stopped at every gas station along 67, Business 67 in Cleburne, and 10 miles in either direction. Nobody had heard of anything like that happening." Aquila89 (talk)
All I know is none of these characters who claim they have the inside scoops on Kyle never were awarded a purple heart. It's pretty easy for these armchair warriors to take a crap all over the legacy of a man that had big enough balls to volunteer to go to war. Yet they call him a coward and etc.--MONGO 23:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Mooney claims he verified this by talking with police chiefs (actually it would be sheriffs and if he really did he would of know n that). The problem with Mooney's "Story" is no law enforcement have any recollection of talking to Mooney or the event for that manner. In other words it sounds like Mooney is full of shit about the whole matter. 67.5.21.115 (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Police are pathetic liars presumably, just like Officer Wilson before the Ferguson riots. Is that the argument now? It is WP:CK. Nobs01 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
"The problem with Mooney's "Story" is no law enforcement have any recollection of talking to Mooney or the event for that manner." Source?
Are you saying that Mooney made up the whole gas station story? Because he did not. It appeared in Marcus Luttrell's book, Service: A Navy Seal at War, published in 2012, before Mooney's articles. Luttrell is a decorated veteran and he was friends with Kyle. I quote (pages 282-283):
"On a bitterly cold morning in early January of 2009, the war, in a sense, found Chris again. What happened to him not far from his home outside Dallas never made the news, since the town involved didn’t want the publicity, but the incident certainly would have made national headlines had a reporter ever gotten a tip about it. Chris was minding his own business, fueling his pickup truck at a gas station, when he found himself at gunpoint. Two men holding pistols demanded his truck. Law enforcement will usually advise you to give in to the criminal in a situation like this. And that’s good advice. But Chris took another route. Very calmly and coolly, he sized up which of the men was handling his pistol more comfortably. He put his hands up and told them he was going to reach into the truck to get his keys. Then his hand went under his coat. From a waistband holster, he pulled his Colt 1911. Swinging the pistol under his left armpit, he gave each robber two .45 caliber Hydra-Shock hollow-points to the chest. By the time the cops responded to the 911 call from the terrified lady who had locked herself in a car behind Chris’s truck, the matter was settled. Elapsed time: about ten seconds. The service station’s security cameras caught the whole thing." Aquila89 (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
No offense to Luttrell, but there is zero collaborating evidence that the event happened. No police reports, no hospital or.morgue admittance records, no news reports, no witnessess, no families or friends of the deceased have come forward to protest the loss of the loved ones...in other words, no evidence, except this, which was likely a story made up either by Luttrell or Kyle. I need more than Luttrell's book as proof....so all we can say is that according to Luttrell in his book, Kyle claimed that...he shot and killed two guys that attempted to car jack him at a gas station. The claim has never been confirmed and is a hoax.--MONGO 13:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
In addition there's a big hole in how he told it. Police don't run a plate or person and get a "Call this number..." That would be a huge personal security risk. Rather, there are flags that can be set when a person or vehicle is run and the agency that set the flag inquires as to why -- quietly. If it's police, then it's usually through their internal affairs group. Absolutely no way the officers at the scene would get any kind of confirmation other than his regular DL and military ID. It would be like calling the CIA and asking if someone was a spy. At a minimum his pistol would have been taken as evidence until autopsies are completed. There would be reports to the DA. There are witnesses that said he punched Ventura. Kyle has spent the night in jail for bar fights. Zero evidence he shot anybody in the U.S. or made the claim. --DHeyward (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not arguing that the gas station story is true. I don't think it is. I was merely pointing out that Mooney did not make it up. So, you are saying that there's "zero evidence" that Kyle ever told that story? Who made it up then, Luttrell? Why would he make up something like that about his friend? And why didn't Kyle set the record straight? And Mooney, Kyle's biographer lied when he wrote that he spoke to Kyle and Kyle confirmred the story to him? Aquila89 (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Luttrell is repeating a story told to him by Kyle. I do not know why Kyle would tell this story, was it a PTSD issue...did it really happen...we don't know. All we do know is that Luttrell wrote about it, Mooney checked it out and found no evidence it happened. My guess is it was just a story as one macho man might say to another. If the Kyle haters want to point fingers at it in ridicule then there isn't much anyone can do about that.--MONGO 00:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2015

Please change 'July 2104 the court awarded Ventura $1.8 million in damages.[33]' to 'July 2014 the court awarded Ventura $1.8 million in damages.[33]'. This is just a minor error. Sanchit Gupta (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Kelly hi! 19:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Kyle and Katrina aftermath

This line and the supporting reliable sources have been deleted from the article twice on the grounds that the allegations are untrue. "Kyle is reported to have bragged that he shot 30 looters in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, either single-handedly or with a colleague according to various accounts." Did he or did he not brag that he shot looters in New Orleans in the afternmath of Hurricane Katrina? Here is what the cited reliable sources say:

  • http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs "The SEALs began telling stories, and Kyle offered a shocking one. In the days after Hurricane Katrina, he said, the law-and-order situation was dire. He and another sniper travelled to New Orleans, set up on top of the Superdome, and proceeded to shoot dozens of armed residents who were contributing to the chaos. Three people shared with me varied recollections of that evening: the first said that Kyle claimed to have shot thirty men on his own; according to the second, the story was that Kyle and the other sniper had shot thirty men between them; the third said that she couldn’t recall specific details."
  • http://www.mensjournal.com/adventure/collection/the-controversial-true-story-behind-american-sniper-20141222 "Three years after Kyle was honorably discharged, with two Silver Stars and five Bronze Stars, he taped an interview for SOFREP, a website covering special operations forces. According to a profile of the former SEAL in the June 2013 issue of The New Yorker, Kyle left the taping, met friends for a late-night drinking session, and then talked about how, in 2005, he and a sniper buddy took to the roof of the Superdome, in New Orleans, and picked off about 30 armed looters during the Hurricane Katrina melee. He said he was trying to establish law and order amid the chaos. When asked about the story, a spokesman for U.S. Special Operations Command (or SOCOM) said, "To the best of anyone's knowledge at SOCOM, there were no West Coast SEALs deployed to Katrina." Kyle’s recollection, he claimed, "defies the imagination.""
  • http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/review-american-sniper-quintessential-eastwood-28063142 "Kyle, who died tragically in early 2013, belies easy summary. He, for one, boasted of shooting looters in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina."

The removed line doesn't say he shot looters, it says he bragged that he shot looters, and these three reliable sources support that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Support reinserting this line and all censored quotes and other info which was removed. The POV pushing in this article from 'Muricans is going a bit too far. Myopia123 (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Your choice of wording appears to be blatant bigotry.--MONGO 14:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Enough with your personal attacks. Keep your comments relevant to the matter at hand. Myopia123 (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Isnt that cute....you insult people based on your likely erroneous assumptions of where they reside yet accuse me of personal attacks. Subject at hand...you stick with it. We are not going to violate undue weight over some heresay cherry picked quotes.--MONGO 15:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
He also told his wife when they met that he was an "Ice Cream Truck Driver." He told tall tales but none have been verified as being "true" or that he seriously was making the case or just one-upping like the "Who caught the biggest fish?" stories. Without that, I give him the benefit of the doubt that it was like his "Ice Cream Truck Driver" tale. --DHeyward (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, but the POV pushers aren't here to talk about benign boasts or harmless tall tales but instead wish to cherry pick whatever tales they can to cast as bad a light as they can on this BLP.--MONGO 23:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This seems notable because the subject of his remarks is extremely serious and politically charged, and if true would be a serious violation of the law and of the right to due process of any possible victims. It also illustrates a tendency, whether he actually did this or not, of the militarization of law enforcement, another important issue in American society. BTW this is not a WP:BLP. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I dunno. SEAL team members pretending to be Ice Cream Truck Drivers in the age of child abductions and human trafficking seems pretty serious too. Are they abducting chidren or hunting abductors? Hey, police are supposed to stop that so the militarization of Ice Cream Truck Drivers could be a huge.....SYNTH problem. --DHeyward (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This article suggests that shootings did take place, so this is not just a fairy tale - http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/08/secret-history-hurricane-katrina Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Kyle is not mentioned at all in that article... not once even alluded to.--MONGO 08:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As this article currently stands, it completely omits the facts that that this man is not worshiped as a saviour by everyone and there are serious questions being raised about his views, his words and his actions. To prevent this from being posted in the article is a violation of WP:NPOV and reeks of American Exceptionalism. Myopia123 (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

For this reason, I have added a POV tag at the Legacy section.Myopia123 (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
No, the questions are myopic and self-serving and have nothing to do with Kyle. They are rhetorical anti-iraq war questions that are frankly out of place in a BLP for someone that doesn't make choices about service or missions. His shooting were investigated routinely and found to always been justified within the rules of engagement which were often dictated by Iraq's political leadership. His views are not substantially different or more controversial from soldiers from every country and every conflict. For the foot soldier, war is personal. The "controversy" about Kyle is manufactured and is not a widely held view. It is quite a fringe view about Kyle. --DHeyward (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This is not a BLP. Kyle has been dead for 2+ years now. Any information from a reliable source is fair game. Even if a fringe view is reported about kyle, it can be posted on wikipedia. Myopia123 (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You haven't read either this article where it's clear he died in February 2013, nor BLP which is quite liberal on the application of the policy on recently deceased persons, allowing for clear WP:BDP and besides, Kyle's legacy is in the forefront now possibly more than since he died due to the just released movie based on his autobiography and academy award nominations. So if course BLP applies...but so does undue weight and you seem hell bent on adding nothi≥ng but negative cherry picked anti-"merican" gibberish. If your so full of hate then find a new hobby.--MONGO 08:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
MONGO you are currently involved in the exact same argument with another user. Also, you do not have the authority to remove the POV tag until this dispute is resolved. Myopia123 (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You and multiple others claim the article is fine, multiple others say it is not. Therefore, POV dispute. Therefore, tag stays until consensus dictates otherwise.Myopia123 (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Since you just were admonished only a month ago for BLP violations it's not surprising that you still don't understand (or seem to care) about the liberal application of this policy on recently deceased persons. You need to familiarize yourself very quickly with the heart and soul of this policy.--MONGO 09:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
So far you're the only person who's going on about how BLP still applies. Until other editors have had a chance to provide input and reach consensus, then don't expect me to take your word for it. Myopia123 (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I linked it above for you...all you need do is read it so you can take the word of the policy itself. Don't make another anti-American slur on this talkpage again.--MONGO 09:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You don't WP:OWN this talkpage.Myopia123 (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Mother Jones article doesn't mention Kyle, but it does suggest that law enforcement, security contractors and vigilantes may have been taking the law into their own hands, which means it's possible that Kyle was not lying. "Rahim (said) the police and troops who began patrolling the streets treated them as criminals or "insurgents." African American men caught outside also ran the risk of crossing paths with roving vigilante patrols who shot at will, he says. In this dangerous environment, Common Ground began to rely on white volunteers to move through a city that had simply become too perilous for blacks." Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Then it may be appropriate in an article about the aftermath of the hurricane but not here since Kyle is simply not mentioned.--MONGO 17:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I know I am just a random IP user, but count me as another one who is shocked that these well-known and seemingly well-sourced allegations are not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article. "Whitewashing" seems like an accurate description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.11.252 (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I also came here to say that I was surprised that this content is not in the article. There seem to be reliable sources for its inclusion, and I would expect Wikipedia to be the place to conviently find all the pertinent information, whichever side it supports. I'm not looking for witch hunts and partisan polemics. I just want to get the full story. Captain Crawdad (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, there's a new article out from Slate today: Stern, Mark Joseph, "American Liar: Why Jesse Ventura is likely to collect millions from Chris Kyle's American Sniper". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

And from January 9, there's Nicholson, Amy, "The 2014 Movie Club: Entry 14: Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper is one of the most mendacious movies of 2014", which has a few choice words to say about Kyle as well. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You know, I can understand peoples’ desire to tidy-up the biography of a person the view as a hero and/or patriot, to edit out or minimize the faults and controversies in order to respect their memory and honour their families. The irony is many of these military heroes originally stood up to fight for a political system that purports to represent truth and freedom of expression over lies, propaganda and whitewashing. Let’s be totally frank and honest: because of the film popularity and the Ventura lawsuit, there are many well-sourced stories surfacing that raise serious questions about Chris Kyle’s credibility, along with HaperCollins legal exposure and significant failures in fact checking. Since his high profile owes much (but not all) to his self-reported biography, don’t you think it’s appropriate to address his credibility, as many newspaper and publications are already doing? To pretend none of the controversies exists not only does a disservice to Wikipedia readers, it does a disservice to the notion of truth and freedom of expression for which many patriots fought. Parkebench (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The kills are confirmed...meaning they were witnessed. Those newspapers are full of lies and misrepresentations that take the few outlandish things Kyle said and twist them around as you are trying to do and that's to question the credibility of his sniper activities. Even the Eastwood movie gets things wrong...call it editorial privilege...but the one character that Kyle is after and finally gets I in the movie never happened. Kyle never took credit for it but the movie shows him making the kill. If Kyle is so unreliable or lacks credibility them why wouldn't he have taken credit for that kill?--MONGO 00:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You now Mustafa the enemy sniper was invented for the movie right? And Kyle was already dead when the movie came out? Kinda hard for Kyle to take credit for that. I'm neutral in this dispute, but people are clearly letting personal feelings cloud the neutrality of this article. Zzsignup (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Mongo, you're not even responding to Parkebench's comment. Parkebench was directing a comment toward criticisms of Kyle and the lack there of on this page. For some reason you took that to mean something about confirmed kills. Yet another example of how a few editors are trying to WP:OWN this page. The amount of edits this page has seen over the past few weeks to sanitize this page has been sickening.2601:2:4E00:C662:8C65:9C81:C206:2D31 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A different section

Editorial note: I assume the below comment by nobs, which has nothing to do whatsoever with what was supposed to be an RfC on BLP status, is in reference to the last comment on that section--but really, who knows. It has nothing to do with the question of whether BLP applies, and there is no semblance of this being an RfC in the ensuing discussion (which has a high FORUM content anyway). So I'm putting this under a new hat, and will close the above RfC. Editors, if you wish to mess up talk page discussion and derail any attempt to bring some order to this matter, this is the way to do it. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion but 2 Questions: (1) the article states Ventura was defamed by Kyle on the Bill O'Reilly show and Ventura was not mentioned by name in the book. The link to the Estates notice of Appeal (mprnews.org) says Kyle's book defamed Ventura. Which is it? This article specifically says Ventura was not named in the book, yet Ventura now appears to be suing the publisher for defamation, and the Estate is appealing the verdict (both suits filed last month). (2) Since basic relevant facts still seem to be in dispute which evidently are not being reported accurately in this article, would this presumably extend WP:BDP beyond an absolute 2 year limitation from the date of death to at least a final disposition on the Kyle's Estates appeal? nobs (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. Are you arbitrarily adding your own clauses to and/or deciding to extend WP:BDP? This seems, to me, to be a rather transparent attempt to ensure that no negative info of Kyle is ever added to this article and is thus a violation of WP:CENSOR.Myopia123 (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Just as a point of fact and in support of Myopia123's comment above. In the U.S. Legal system, Trial Juries are Triers of fact. The trial jury found that Kyle had defamed Ventura and Kyle was unjustly enriched by that defamation. The case is under appeal, there are those who hold that the trial was faulty and that the verdict should be overturned or a new trial given. We are all entitled to our opinions of the trial verdict, but for now the facts of the case are as the trial jury determined them to be based upon the evidence given in court under the rules of the U.S. Federal Court system. I'm not sure how one can get a fairer determination of facts than one that's been litigated for about three years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.80.197 (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It is easy to win a lawsuit against a dead man who can't defend himself; there is a presumption of innocence on the part of the aggrieved claiming damages. nobs (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually the exact opposite is true; defamation cases are notoriously hard to win anyway, and one against a dead person who many consider to be a war hero is even harder. Every article I've ever read covering the trial noted that legal experts were convinced that Ventura had little chance. But ultimately, the evidence that Kyle had lied was too overwhelming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.11.252 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Not having read the trial transcript (have you?) what commentators say is irrelevant. All Ventura needed to do was show damages. Unless Kyle's wife and kids, who were the one's who were sued, were with him in the bar when it happened, they had no defense. nobs (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
They had Kyle's taped deposition as well as several witnesses (for both sides), but the witnesses for Kyle were contradictory and repeatedly denied established facts. But really it doesn't matter what you or I think, the above commentor was right, a jury ruled on the evidence and ruled against Kyle. The judge upheld it and a renewed judgment was denied. You may disagree, but as a matter of law it is settled (unless and until an appeal works). To answer your original question, Ventura was not named in the book, but a man referred to as "Scruffy Face", who Kyle later identified as Ventura. Ventura is suing the publisher for wrongful enrichment, claiming that they benefited from book sales resulting from Kyle's claim that the man was Ventura. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.11.252 (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good rendition of some of the facts as I understand it, too. Now, let's look at the language:

the judge upheld the jury's award of $500,000 in defamation damages and adopted the jury's advisory award of $1,345,477.25 in unjust enrichment against the estate. Attorneys for Kyle's estate said that the defamation damages would be covered by HarperCollins' libel insurance. The unjust enrichment award was not covered by insurance and will come out of Kyle's estate assets. Following the verdict, HarperCollins announced it would pull references to the incident from all future editions of the book.[34]

Ventura won the libel charge against the family which was covered by the publisher's insurance. The issue of "unjust enrichment": the family gained royalties from increased sales due to negative publicity causing Ventura harm. That was paid by the Estate. The award evidently took all the profits of book sales and left Kyle's heirs virtually nothing. Now, after having established HarperCollins did not libel Ventura, rather Chris Kyle did, for which his heirs are ordered to pay a judgement, Ventura now seeks to go after royalties from movie rights to which his only recourse is to sue HarperCollins which sold the rights and never libeled him. Neither do the movie producers.

If Kyle's estate has paid or is paying the judgement for unjust enrichment, and HarperCollins never published a false story about Ventura, why is Ventura sueing the publisher who is not responsible for statements made by Kyle later? or the movie which makes no allusion to Ventura of even the alleged incident? Why is Ventura seemingly intent upon Kyle's widow and orphan children not receiving a dime from either the book or movie? He has already been compensated for the alleged "unjust enrichment". nobs (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The key is to figure out how to word the Ventura issue and keep the focus on Kyle and not on Ventura. I really don't think more than a paragraph is necessary to summarize the basic points.--MONGO 04:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Ventura sued Kyle's widow and won. Now he doesn't go to SEAL reunions anymore. Considering Kyle was dead and couldn't defend himself, the story is more about Ventura. nobs (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
A measured section that follows strict neutrality is all that is needed. I really think anything that makes Ventura look bad or like some heartless thug is a bad idea. The scope of this article is Chris Kyle. So all need be said is that Kyle wrote the book...he stated he punched out scruffy face....when asked on a talk show who scruffy face is be stated it was Ventura. Ventura sued. Chorus Kyle was allegedly shot and killed and after his death, the estate of Kyle lost the lawsuit brought by Ventura. What happened afterward Chris died needs but a small summary at best.--MONGO 14:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll work on some language. Right now, however, the Jesse Ventura subheading occupies more of his later life than the book or movie which brought him public attention. Odd, considering the Jesse Ventura incident allegedly never happened. How should it be structured? nobs (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The material on Jesse Ventura is more relevant to Ventura, and is simply way too long for a biography of Kyle. It should be cut down to a paragraph or less. Readers who want more detail can find it on Ventura's page. Tom Harrison Talk 17:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Summoned here by RfC bot. OK, I just wanted to say that yes, BLP applies in my opinion. However, this RfC is somewhat unwieldy and I suggest that it be divided into several RfCs dealing with specific issues, and clear alternatives for each. and hard to follow. But I'll try my best. Coretheapple (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:BLP can't by definition apply because the subject is no longer alive. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 02:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed language

In interviews with the Opie and Anthony Show and Bill O'Reilly in January 2012, Kyle claimed to have punched former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura at a bar in Coronado, California, in 2006 during a wake for Mike Monsoor, a U.S. Navy SEAL and Medal of Honor recipient killed in Iraq. The story parallels an incident in his book which does not mention Ventura by name, and claims a character named "Scruff Face" said that the SEALs "deserved to lose a few guys."[1] Ventura, who was in the bar that night, filed a lawsuit against Kyle for defamation in January of 2012.[2][3] After Kyle was killed the following month Ventura continued his lawsuit against Kyle's estate, which was left to his widow, Taya Kyle and their minor children.[4] A jury awarded Ventura $1.8 million.[5][6] Kyle's widow is appealing the judgement on behalf of Kyle's surviving heirs. [7]

nobs (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lamothe, Dan (July 30, 2014). "Jesse Ventura vs. Chris Kyle: A case where no one won". The Washington Post. Katharine Weymouth. Retrieved November 21, 2014.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference st1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ventura-verdict
  4. ^ Chasmar, Jessica (June 2, 2013). "Ex-Minn. Gov. Jesse Ventura sues Navy SEAL Chris Kyle's widow". The Washington Times. Retrieved June 9, 2013.
  5. ^ "Jury awards Jesse Ventura $1.8 million in 'American Sniper' lawsuit". The Dallas Morning News. July 29, 2014. Retrieved July 29, 2014.
  6. ^ "Chris Kyle trial: Jesse Ventura wins $1.8 million in defamation case". The Oregonian. Oregon Live. Associated Press. July 29, 2014. Retrieved August 1, 2014.
  7. ^ "'American Sniper' widow to appeal Ventura defamation verdict". Mprnews.org. December 23, 2014. Retrieved December 25, 2014.
that's all that needs to be said. I'd prefer a secondary source than justia for the appeal. It should replace the entire "Jesse Ventura" section. the fact he is PNG'd for suing a SEAL widow is a Jesse Ventura issue. Also, the lawsuit against HarperCollins is that in addition to roayalties that Kyle's estate received, HC also received increase sales and profits. That's what he's going after. That he made them two cases is not really relevant but he's simply claiming both parties were enriched by the story. --DHeyward (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The increased sales from movie rights are only starting to come in now; that presumably is why Ventura waited til last December to file suit. It's still very telling, since HC never libeled him (that fact HC's insurance covered the original author might make him & the lawyers think HC's liable, but for a millionaire to be taking money out of the mouth of two orphan children sums it up). nobs (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The only valid reason for including the lawsuit is about credibility. That reason, while being on it's own, have quite some weight to it.Is it likely or not that Kyle lied about the whole thing, and in what light should then the rest of the biograph be read in? BP OMowe (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The lawsuit is still on Appeal. nobs (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
One suggestioned edit that I hope you will find to be friendly, minor and neutral. Please add in month and year dates for when Chris Kyle was killed and when the Jury awarded the $1.8 million. Years from now, those dates will provide some context that this took years to get to where it is (and where it may end up. The appeals court could throw it all out or require a new trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.44.122 (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Summoned by RfC bot. I don't see any problem with this passage. Coretheapple (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


Carjacking and Superdome controversies

ookay, How to proceed on the alleged carjacking and Superdome incidents: while Mooney is the best written source for the carjacking incident (Kyle told him to his face), Schmidle is the only written source for the Superdome story. Schmidle heard it second hand from three unnamed witnesses who were drunk at the time Kyle allegedly told it. Schmidle says the three witness's stories do not agree, and one (a female) remembered very little. Pat Kilbane evidently is not a source for this story, and Kilbane has not spoken of it or repeated it elsewhere.

Schmidle says of the two incidents: "Both stories might have occurred. Although Schmidle has expressed skepticism on the carjacking story, for which Mooney says a police chief told him some of his men saw the surveillance video, Wikipedia should not backhand a Texas journalist for a city magazine and smalltown cops the way Schmidle and the New Yorker did. As the more outlandish of the incidents, the Superdome story, Schmidle says it might have occurred; interesting, a bunch of drunks in a bar in the Ventura episode conflict in details and can't remember six years later - but another unnamed bunch of drunks who can't agree or recollect six years later are allegedly proof Chris Kyle is a liar.

So, I propose we combine the carjacking & Superdome incidents into one or two paragraphs, with some details, beginning with Schmiddle's admission both stories might be true, and salt it with some reference to stress, alcohol use, and skeptics. Comments? nobs (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No. He also said to his wife that he was an Ice Cream Truck Driver. Shewasn't dumb enough to write a story about his Ice Cream Truck Driver days. These stories are tall tales and are reported the same way. The fact that journalists have no clue as to how the world works is not a reason to include Tall Tales or "Biggest Fish" stories. They already hype the "Legend" moniker even though it is in jest and a put down in a community that doesn't count individual awards or deeds, only teamwork. --DHeyward (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DHeyward....these fables aren't worthy of inclusion...the sources only say them in the briefest of mentions and only as part of overall attack pieces by wimps whose closest calls with warfare was maybe in a video game.--MONGO 19:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
How about putting
under ==Further reading== for future researchers and make no reference to Katrina in the text? nobs (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the language on the carjacking incident that best meets consensus; Schmidle and others who repeat Schmidle's strawman are not included.

Michael J. Mooney of D Magazine says Kyle told him he was the victim of an attempted carjacking of his Ford Super Duty truck at a gas station near highway 67 in Texas, sometime in January 2009, which resulted in the deaths of two carjackers. Kyle, who had bounties on his head from international jihadis, further claimed that he gave the police that came to the scene a special phone number which resulted in no police investigation of the incident.[1] Lee Williams, the editor of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, failed to corroborate the alleged incident occurring after interviewing friends of Kyle—who claimed the incident happened in Cleburne, Texas—and police from multiple departments.[2]

nobs (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mooney, Michael (Feb 8, 2013). "Here's What American Sniper Chris Kyle Said About His Killing Two Men at a Gas Station in 2009". D Magazine blog. Retrieved January 23, 2015.
  2. ^ Williams, Lee (February 7, 2013). "Did slain "American Sniper" fatally shoot two armed robbers in 2009?". The Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Retrieved January 21, 2015.
While that allows us to silence the misrepresentations as presented by opinionated journalists, I still think the best way to silence this is to ignore it...the same way we ignore discussing conspiracy theories in many articles.--MONGO 04:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The Katrina lies already in the Effects of Katrina article with no less than 3 citations. More are being generated daily. That's why, IMO, these distortions and falsehood need to be addressed point blank in Wikipedia and the journalists exposed for their sloppiness and distortions. Nobs01 (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hum...then I say carry on.--MONGO 15:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Katrina

Chris Webb of SOFREP says,

Chris went on to tell me that the bulk of the guys he knew directly had racked up over thirty kills between them near and around the Super Dome.


Kyle (a) never said he was there; (b) did not boast of killing 30 people. This is outrageous that certain journalists, and a list could be compiled, have twisted this to say Kyle boasted of killing 30 people from atop the Superdome. That troops were deployed to New Orleans to "provide security" has never been in question. See http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/wombwell.pdf page 253 and Congressional Research Service http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33095.pdf nobs (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it completely plausible that journalists would distort the truth to promote their fantasies.--MONGO 15:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Your personal opinion of the reliability of journalists does not automatically make credible sources unreliable. Zzsignup (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Reliable sources are what counts. At least three reliable sources have mentioned this. What Chris Webb of SOFREP says is not material unless he is being quoted by a reliable source. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs "The SEALs began telling stories, and Kyle offered a shocking one. In the days after Hurricane Katrina, he said, the law-and-order situation was dire. He and another sniper travelled to New Orleans, set up on top of the Superdome, and proceeded to shoot dozens of armed residents who were contributing to the chaos. Three people shared with me varied recollections of that evening: the first said that Kyle claimed to have shot thirty men on his own; according to the second, the story was that Kyle and the other sniper had shot thirty men between them; the third said that she couldn’t recall specific details."
  • http://www.mensjournal.com/adventure/collection/the-controversial-true-story-behind-american-sniper-20141222 "Three years after Kyle was honorably discharged, with two Silver Stars and five Bronze Stars, he taped an interview for SOFREP, a website covering special operations forces. According to a profile of the former SEAL in the June 2013 issue of The New Yorker, Kyle left the taping, met friends for a late-night drinking session, and then talked about how, in 2005, he and a sniper buddy took to the roof of the Superdome, in New Orleans, and picked off about 30 armed looters during the Hurricane Katrina melee. He said he was trying to establish law and order amid the chaos. When asked about the story, a spokesman for U.S. Special Operations Command (or SOCOM) said, "To the best of anyone's knowledge at SOCOM, there were no West Coast SEALs deployed to Katrina." Kyle’s recollection, he claimed, "defies the imagination.""
  • http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/review-american-sniper-quintessential-eastwood-28063142 "Kyle, who died tragically in early 2013, belies easy summary. He, for one, boasted of shooting looters in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina."
These reliable sources are nothing. Men's Journal and abcnews.com are rehashes of Nicolas Schmidle and the New Yorker. As demonstrated above, Nicolas Schmidle uses a strawman as proof of the legend that Kyle told tall tales. Facts are, Schmidle ignored completely the underlying source for Kyle's comments on Katrina aftermath, uses three unnamed drunken sources years after fact whose own tales do not agree, and concludes that corroborates his strawman argument. Nobs01 (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed language:

Michael J. Mooney of D Magazine says Kyle told him he was the victim of an attempted carjacking of his Ford Super Duty truck at a gas station near highway 67 in Texas, sometime in January 2009, which resulted in the deaths of two carjackers. Kyle, who had bounties on his head from international jihadis, further claimed that he gave the police that came to the scene a special phone number which resulted in no police investigation of the incident.[1]

Brandon Webb (author) Editor-in-Chief of SOFREP, a website of news and analysis to the Special Operations Forces, wrote an article entitled ‘’The Long Shadow Of Katrina’’ about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In the martial law conditions that occurred after Mayor Ray Nagin requested federal assistance and declared a state of emergency[2] the U.S.Army was asked to provide security in what became known as Operation Pelican.[3][4][5] Webb discussed the matter with Kyle and wrote, “close contacts of his, many who were apparently still serving on active duty, took leave to work for the controversial PMC (Private Military Company), Blackwater. Chris went on to tell me that the bulk of the guys he knew directly had racked up over thirty kills between them near and around the Super Dome.”[6][7][8] Kyle and Webb discussed the morality of the operation, which both found troubling, and concluded, “So now all we are left with is rumor and a few courageous individuals who are slowly coming out of the shadows to tell the truth.” Nicholas Schmidle, who wrote a narrative account of the Abottabad Raid for the New Yorker without ever interviewing any memebers of SEAL Team 6[9], wrote another piece in the ‘’New Yorker’’ entitled, ‘’In the Crosshairs’’ sought out his own sources, ignoring Webb’s interview with Kyle’s comments. After a late night drinking binge Schmidle claims three unnamed witnesses told him Kyle personally shot 30 looters. None of the three agree in details, and one barely remembered anything.[10] The legend Kyle shot 30 looters above the Superdome was repeated by the ‘’Washington Post’’, ABC News, and numerous other mainstream media.

References

  1. ^ Mooney, Michael (Feb 8, 2013). "Here's What American Sniper Chris Kyle Said About His Killing Two Men at a Gas Station in 2009". D Magazine blog. Retrieved January 23, 2015.
  2. ^ The Secret History of Hurricane Katrina, James Ridgeway, Mother Jones, Aug. 28, 2009.
  3. ^ http://sofrep.com/19760/hurricane-katrina-82nd-airborne/
  4. ^ Army Support During the Hurricane Katrina Disaster, James A. Wombwell, The Long War Series Occasional Paper 29, US Army Combined Arms Center Combat Studies Institute Press, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 2005.
  5. ^ http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33095.pdf
  6. ^ The Long Shadow Of Katrina, by Brandon Webb, SOFREP Op-Ed, April 15, 2013.
  7. ^ http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Blackwater_mercenaries_used_in_New_Orleans
  8. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/08cnd-storm.html?_r=0
  9. ^ http://www.salon.com/2011/08/17/new_yorker_bin_laden_raid/
  10. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs
  • Point is, the false rumors and distortions and lies told by "reliable sources" such as those listed above used information from Webb's op-ed piece. Those "reliable sources" twisted Kyle's words around to deliberately make it look like Kyle claimed HE was a sniper atop the Superdome and that HE claimed that he shot along with others 30 people....Kyle never claimed that. Goes to show that if the mainstream media wants to twist something around to suit their agenda it's easy to do. The editors, writers and others involved in this lie and lack of investigative research should be ashamed of themselves for lying.--MONGO 14:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
What you don't seem to understand MONGO is that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources WP:RS. You say this is all untrue. Can you provide a reliable sources that say this is all untrue, that Kyle never said this or that he said something different? Or that the New Yorker article got it's facts wrong? Editor's personal opinions are not valid reasons to include or exclude information from articles. You've quoted Chris Webb above - who quoted him? Was it a reliable source? Which one? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Your SOFREP link leads to a paywall. This looks like someone's blog, not a reliable source. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
What you don't seem to understand is that these news pieces are based on that op-ed that predates the "news" pieces. Perhaps others read it since they subscribe to it and the NewYorker "journalist" was told an incorrect version of the story, as he put it, during an evening of drinking, and he went with the legend rather then checking the veracity of the claims before he wrote about this. One thing predates the other and the source material is different than the fabrications that came later.--MONGO 16:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not for us to say that reliable sources got it wrong. It's up to reliable sources to do that. Until then, we're stuck with whatever crap they want to spew. Rklawton (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

They aren't reliable if they are wrong. We never have to use obviously distorted sources just because they exist...we have editorial oversight here and to be honest, these tall tales are pretty much undue weight anyway since even these incorrect "reliable" sources mention Katrina and the ridiculous car jacking issue only in miniscule details at best...they discuss them only in passing as part of a shrill narrative to defame a decorated war veteran...and amount to nothing more than opinion pieces.--MONGO 17:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Schmidle himself says about Katrina & the carjacking, "Both stories might have occurred, but ABC News. Washington Post, Men's Journal, ZIad Juliani, et al, all using the New Yorker as their prime source to claim as fact Kyle told tall tales. Bottomline, neither the SOFREP article nor Schmidle's New Yorker article say it has been an established fact Kyle boasted of shooting 30 people from the Superdome. The other sources have all mischaracterized Schmidle's conclusions which are based on strawman arguments and drunks who can't agree years after the fact. In the Venrtura incident, drunks years after the fact with conflicting stories are proof what Kyle's said is BS; in the Katrina incident drunks years after the fact with conflicting stories are proof what Kyle said was true.
And the Webb article is available from the Internet Archive as the cite provided links to; it is available elsewhere, [3][4][5] Nobs01 (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
There's not a good reason to put in the article something that's false to fact. Tom Harrison Talk 12:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Schmidle never interviewed any members of SEAL Team 6, which now has become the definitive version of the Abbottabad Raid and killing of Osama bin Laden http://www.salon.com/2011/08/17/new_yorker_bin_laden_raid/ [6][7] despite reservations by many (Incidentally, 15 members of SEAL Team 6 died in a helicopter crash so they will never live to tell their tales to journalists. [http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/seal-team-6-families-suspicions-of-govt-grow/] Are you proposing such a "reputable source"'s questionable antics to never be challenged? Nobs01 (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking that these tall tales and biggest fish stories all need to be grouped under a section heading of "conspiracy theories"...but to do that we would need a reliable source or two that label them as just that.--MONGO 12:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Schmidle's article about Seal Team 6 is not relevant to Kyle's Wikipedia article. Implying that he's not credible based on this is original research. You can argue that he's not credible so he doesn't qualify as a reliable source and his piece should not be used. But writing this implication into the article is not okay. Aquila89 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. If a journalist has a history of making unsubstantiated allegations or basing stories on less than credible witnesses then for any BLP any inclusion of such fables needs to be put in perspective.--MONGO 00:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree on that point. Coretheapple (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
But that's original research, specifically "synthesis of published material". You are using information about Schmidle's Seal Team 6 story to imply that he's not credible regarding Chris Kyle. That's not allowed. The page about original research says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Until a reliable source says that Schmidle's Chris Kyle article is not credible, we're not allowed to insinuate that, based on criticism of a completely different article by him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquila89 (talk • contribs)
No, WP:SOURCE indicates that we consider the creator of the material (the writer or reporter in this instance) in determining reliability. But there's no question it can't be done casually. I have no opinion on this matter myself, and this is such a quagmire I think I've pretty much exhausted my reservoir of opinion on this subject. signing off, Coretheapple (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Washington Post

Also, there's this sentence: "The legend Kyle shot 30 looters above the Super Dome was repeated by The Washington Post, ABC News, and other mainstream media" and the snopes article cited as a source. Snopes does not mention the Washington Post or ABC news. Aquila89 (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at the Washington Post then:

then there were his stories — some of which smelled fishy. “There were a lot of things he told people that are really unverifiable,” journalist Michael J. Mooney, who wrote a book on Kyle, told The Washington Post.

Like the one about how he and a bud went down to New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina and picked off dozens of bad guys.[8]

Where did Chris Kyle ever tell Mike Mooney the Katrina fable? Provide a citation, please. As has been thoroughly, thoroughly established: Schmidle, not Mooney - Schmidle - who never met Kyle, wrote this fable in the New Yorker citing three unnamed drunks who couldn't agree on any material facts or details. Nobs01 (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
So what? Then cite the Washington Post. All I'm saying is that you can't use the Snopes article to surce this statement: "The legend Kyle shot 30 looters above the Super Dome was repeated by The Washington Post, ABC News, and other mainstream media" because the Snopes article does not mention the Washington Post, does not mention ABC news, does not mention "mainstream media". Even if the statement is true, you can't use a source that doesn't verify it. Aquila89 (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
ok, leave mainstream in, take out WP. Nobs01 (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Snopes call New Yorker claims "Mostly False"

Snope's says Schmidle's claims are "Mostly False". As to the claim, "He and another sniper travelled to New Orleans, set up on top of the Superdome, and proceeded to shoot dozens of armed residents." Snope's s says "The story circulated through postings on several web sites and through a number of news articles, as well as being passed from person to person in both the online and offline worlds." with a link to Schmidle's New Yorker woo. Nobs01 (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The way I read the Snopes debunking was that like these other sites, they are still assuming that Kyle made the claim that HE was in New Orleans when he never actually said that. I wrote Snopes twice to help them get their story straight but they have yet to do so. The debunking on the Katrina incident by Snopes needs to be clear that the liars were the shoddy journalists that printed a fable they heard from unidentified people while they were out drinking.--MONGO 00:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
We simply don't report false light accounts with dubious sourcing. It matters little if the original source is usally reliable, if there is doubt to truth, we don't repeat it. None of this belongs in Kyle's biography because in biographies, truth is a factor. --DHeyward (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm partly in agreement with you and partly with Nobs. Nobs is convinced I think that the conspiracy theorists will repeatedly try to include these fables and make them look like facts, so by clarifying that they are fables now, we can reduce the chances of a attempted hijacking by conspiracy theorists later. The flip side is yours which is to ignore the fables altogether since they are fables...both ideas have merit.--MONGO 04:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec)@MONGO: I just don't see what you see. The key line in the Schmidle New Yorker is, He and another sniper travelled to New Orleans, set up on top of the Superdome, and proceeded to shoot dozens of armed residents, with no sourcing other than Schmidle and bunch of unnamed drunks. Snopes says of Schmidle's New Yorker narrative, "Indeed, the account does not hold water simply on the grounds cited in the passage quoted above" (IOW, Schmidle knocks down his own argument in the second excerpted paragraph). The point of using Snopes is to provide the [citation needed] for the source of the spread of the false rumor Kyle personally shot looters in New Orleans.
@DHeyward: Katrina and the carjacking must be addressed; there is no way to keep it out in a few months when interest in this page wanes, and the definitive text will become Schmidle's account permanently. If you want to do justice to Chris Kyle's reputation and legacy, the Katrina & carjacking rumors must be confronted with the eyewitness accounts who interviewed Kyle -- that is Mooney & Webb, and dispose of Schmidle's second hand, unnamed revisionism, and Schmidle's disrespect for two professional journalists who interviewed Kyle personally and reported first hand what he said. Nobs01 (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Summoned here by bot. This seems to be the biggest bone of contention. It seems to me that we can't just leave it out. Look, it has been reported by multiple reliable sources. BLP does not require removal under these circumstances, especially for an extremely well-known, you might say "famous" person. However, it should not get the kind of length that is proposed. That's too much. So let's say he did tell a tall tale. So what? I'd cut it down to a couple of sentences. Coretheapple (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
By the way, it's not our job to pass judgment on bad journalism. If we did, we'd spend all our time doing that. I agree that obvious tabloid crap should stay out. But it bothers me about totally removing this. I'm not convinced that's a good idea. Also, I'm not so sure about Snopes being a reliable source. What's wrong with a couple of sentences? Coretheapple (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
No, Kyle did not tell tall tales.
  • Kyle told Mooney he walked in the carjacking incident, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the incident is not true. Not because of corrupt cops, but rather because the US government has a responsibility to protect returning service personal and their families who are the targets of international jihadis. Oliver North and William C. Rogers III are two prior examples of high profile cases.
  • Katrina. Operation Pelican is a fact. Jeremy Scahill reported at the time in the Nation and on Democracy Now, thirty-eight shooting deaths of looters. [9][10][11]
  • Ventura didn't even know what day he was in the bar, and there is no reason to doubt that Ventura said what Kyle said he said. Kyle's widow and two orphan children, the one's who were sued, weren't there to hear it though. Nobs01 (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You can't use the snopes article to prove that Kyle did not tell tall tales. It conscludes with this: "So while Chris Kyle's historical legacy as one of America's most lethal snipers in foreign wars is largely confirmed and corroborated, his claims about various "take charge" incidents in the U.S. are lacking in substantiation." His claims. Snopes does not question that he made them. Aquila89 (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying he told tall tales. I'm saying "if" he did, and my argument is that at the most it should be mentioned briefly. I was summoned here by bot and I think I may summon myself off. Coretheapple (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • BLP should apply, as should common sense. If a story claim by a writer cannot be verified then we essentially have to treat it as fringe theory or a hoax until there is a more evidence. The car jacking has only one source and Mooney seems to be very unreliable as he cannot back up his claims. Where are the LEO officials Mooney claimed he contacted? No Police have come forward. Why? A reasonable person should conclude that it is likely because it never happened as Mooney claimed. The Super Dome incident was likely a bunch of warriors messing with some lame brain reporters for their own amusement. Did Kyle say it? Who knows for sure. Could he of said it, sure. Why??? I believe the alcohol could explain the lack of judgment and the fun of messing with a bunch of dumbass reporters. The Ventura thing is he said she said. Jesse "the Heel" Ventura's party claimed it never happened while Kyle's party claimed it did. What happened, hell if anyone other those involved know for sure. All we know is Ventura was quite vocal with his criticism of the war in Iraq. Did Kyle and a bunch of other servicemen want to tell Ventura to put a cock in his cock holster. That is for sure. Maybe Kyle's camp made it up. Maybe Ventura is denying that his big mouth got him in trouble again. The Ventura epic deserves mention as it has been verified through court records and extensive media coverage. The other crap has mostly been ignored by mainstream media because it is fringe theory or even a hoax in the car jacking case. Maybe Wikipedia should follow the lead of the mainstream professional media and leave out the fringe/hoax theories. 208.54.5.172 (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Bull. The Washington Post repeated the carjacking story in its movie review, and it doesn't even occur in the movie. And the Post attributes the statement to Kyle, which you allege was fabricated by Mooney. Nobs01 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The material deleted from this article about shooting looters did not claim that Kyle actually did this, it claimed that he bragged about doing it. That is what the reliable sources cited support. We don't need to prove it actually happened. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Kyle did neither. Kyle did not say he shot looters. Kyle did not brag he shot looters. Kyle expressed moral qualms about others he knew who told him they shot looters. What about this is so hard to understand? Nobs01 (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Nonsense, The New Yorker Quoted Mooney which is the original and only source. The New Yorker is no more a source than you are. What the New Yorker printed is hearsay. Mooney's version of events does not check out. Most likely Mooney made it up to make himself seem important. Mooney's story has no legs. 67.5.21.115 (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Does WP:BLP apply to this article? Has WP:NPOV been violated? How do we move forward?

This is not a very valuable discussion, though it could have been had a greater number of more experienced editors participated. Arguments for applying BLP status are said to be found in WP:BPD, though it should be noted that the phrase "two years at the outside" seems awfully relevant here--then again, one may quibble over whether "two years" is an absolute standard; I doubt that it is. Arguments against applying BLP status--well, the best one boils down to "he's dead", which is undeniable, but not directly relevant given BPD.

More important, it seems to me and this is borne out by the comments of a few editors here, is NPOV, which ought to be followed very carefully given the importance of the topic (right or wrong, this is the way it is). Editors are reminded to follow that policy.

Finally, this RfC was a stacked deck from the beginning: RfCs are to be phrased neutrally. "personal attacks (you know who you are)" is unacceptable. "Multiple editors have removed information from reliable sources which was critical" is unacceptable: it puts the cart before the horse, and any such loaded question invalidates an RfC from the get-go. No wonder this gained no traction--the questioning wasn't neutral, and the discussion quickly devolved (see next section) into...well I don't know, something different. That is all. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2015 (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.

Judging from the above sections, I think the questions boil down to these:
- Does WP:BLP still apply to this article?
- Multiple editors have removed information from reliable sources which was critical of Chris Kyle. Is this a violation of WP:NPOV?
- It is clear that information is emerging in news, media etc. that not everyone sees Chris Kyle, his words and/or his actions in a positive light. What are your suggestions to handle such information moving forward?

Please keep it clean, constructive and no personal attacks(you know who you are). Myopia123 (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • That means you and no further bigotry regarding Americans. It has already been explained to you why BLP applies as why undue weight applies. Not satisfied by that you seek further input which is fine but how many times does the same thing have to be told to you. Besides, aside from trying to fill this article with as many negative opinions as possible....a surly objective if I ever saw one, do you have any other things that are legitimate complaints?--MONGO 18:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • According to the Biographies of Living Persons page, BLP status can be extended, but I would assume that the less public a figure is, the longer this would apply. Since Kyle is now a national figure, with a published autobiography and Hollywood movie about him, it seems unlikely that something posted on his Wikipedia article is going to shock or offend his family. Regarding NPOV, anytime relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV material is deleted, there may be article ownership WP:OWN issues. This seems to be the case in this article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, BLP applies precisely because of notoriety that was just generated about his life. As the publicity fades, so will the BLP requirements. But right now, every marginally sourced negative edit that is being tossed in affects both Kyle's reputation and reputations of the living people around him. These are the types of anecdotes, that say, were made about Audie Murphy would not even be attempted as trivial hearsay unworthy of a historical biographical article in an encyclopedia. The recent attention is about his recent death and a biopic that began when he was alive. It's the type of negative minutiae we only see in either living or recently dead people. --DHeyward (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If reliable sources are mentioning it, that tends to make it notable. If someone posts gossip without any supporting reliable source, of course it can be deleted. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Sources that post unsupported hearsay gossip that is not confirmed, they aren't reliable and whence not notable. In case that's not clear enough, your Katrina nonsense is a gossip fish story. --DHeyward (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Since you've sited that he's a well known person, and a public figure (autobiography published that spent months on the NY Times best seller list) and has had a movie made about him. Then wouldn't the following apply from the WP:BLP page? Isn't the solution to label the section as, "Alleged incidents involving Chris Kyle".
Public figures
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4E00:924:A176:FF0C:F166:2A51 (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
So until it's alleged he did something in multiple, reliable 3rd party sources, we don't have anything to write. What people think they heard and the multiple and different accounts are not multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, it's a fish story. The only allegation with enough sources is the allegation he hit Jesse Vantura. --15:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
BLP only applies to living people (Biography of LIVING People). That's because dead people lose a lot of their legal rights upon their termination. NPOV, however, always applies. Rklawton (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • BLP does apply via WP:BDP directly to Kyle, in addition to the other living people mentioned, however, Kyle is also WP:WELLKNOWN at this point, so reliably sourced controversies are likely fair game, but must be presented with WP:NPOVGaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
There is absolutley no question that Kyle is dead and in Feb 2015 (Next month), it will be 2 years since his death. That means WP:BDP does not apply. Myopia123 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Were not playing a numbers cut off game with you just so you have the chance to make some excuse to crap on this persons grave. It can be extended and you wouldn't even be here to promote this negativity if there wasn't a movie just released about Kyle. With that said...all this garbage about what he said and when he said is just tall tales and mentioned if at all in sources only in passing so its undue weight here. The only controversial issue is the issue over Ventura's lawsuits against the Kyle estate and even that needs but a short paragraph.--MONGO 20:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Dude, feel free to make your point but calm yourself down. I've ignored the last three or four personal attacks you've made against me but persist and I will go to an admin's noticeboard. This RfC is enabling consensus to be established. Let it. Myopia123 (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a dude and I am perfectly calm and there have been no personal attacks excepting your bigoted comments previously about Americans. Feel free to go to whatever noticeboard you wish. My pointing out what I see as your motivations is most certainly allowed and can be documented with diffs.--MONGO 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Myopia123 that BLP and even BDP do not apply. And with Gaijin42 that any reasonably source controversy can and must be mentioned, in a NPOV way. All of this seems pretty straightforward. If this section is about any specific questions, then perhaps a RFC was not needed, and consensus building can continue in separate sections, not here. Debresser (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Even though I've edited this page before, Legobot invited me to comment on this so I might as well. BDP absolutely applies, thus BLP applies, especially when such content "has implications for their living relatives and friends." If the content has been published in multiple reliable sources, then WP:WELLKNOWN applies, but the kind of content that is only found in op-eds that take quotes out of context and arrange them in a negative way to make a point is not a reliable source for that kind of information. - Aoidh (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2015 (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 6 February 2015

Please remove the sentence: "According to Ventura and witnesses to the event, Ventura was not in the bar that night. " This sentence is not true. Ventura's own testimony was that he was in the bar. Witnesses for both Kyle and Ventura said he was in the bar. This was not a fact in dispute by either party of the lawsuit.

From http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_21592232/jesse-ventura-seal-didnt-deck-me "Ventura's 39-page memorandum opposing Chris Kyle's motion was filed late Wednesday, Sept. 19. It is accompanied by affidavits from one of Ventura's longtime friends, Bill DeWitt, and his wife, who were with the former governor that night at McP's Irish Pub, a popular watering hole among military personnel in Coronado, Calif. "

2601:2:4E00:C662:E521:6141:A22E:C030 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done statement was unsourced, and the source here appears to contradict what we had in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Remember guys, wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. I too fell into this trap. If you think reliable sources are wrong you should start a journalism career and get the facts out yourself. Wikipedia isn't the place to do so though. Popish Plot (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hear, here! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC) --  Done

Devil of Ramadi nickname

Can anyone find a source, that existed prior to the release of his book, that identified him as the Devil of Ramadi nickname. (refactor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.51.146 (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Time [12]. Your own opinion and research is not relevant. --DHeyward (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No critisism at all in this article

I think there should be critisism, some people belief his stories are fake and considering a seriel killer as hero is also critisiced on some places.--85.180.190.210 (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it is somewhat alarming, and possible NPOV violation on this article, considering most people see him at least as a controversial figure. Any other page of a person who has killed on a scale of that many people, would be written in a completely different tone. Wikipedia should not aim to represent only one culture or one side of things. Moreover, there was a brief "criticisms" section on the page last time I had visited it, which has since been removed. I find this troubling and wonder why; reading through the rest of the talk page shows even that the quotes listed in this section were confirmed by wiki contributors.71.181.46.21 (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Even worse than a lack of a Criticisms section is that the other sections of this page have been sanitized to the point where negative information has been greatly minimized. Here's how the page looked one month ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Kyle&oldid=640535143 2601:2:4E00:C662:8C65:9C81:C206:2D31 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, thanks for sharing that; I remember being impressed by the article last time I saw it a month ago. Since this may be an important article that many may try to visit, especially now, effort should be made to maintain NPOV throughout. The man is widely seen as a controversial figure so that should be reflected in the article. Reintroducing criticism section may be a good way to do this temporarily, but it seems to be a problem that negative information was widely left out of the article as a whole.71.181.46.21 (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
OMG OMG; it's gone from a hit piece to neutral, balanced, and factual. OMG. Nobs01 (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Nobs, a balanced article must contain both positive and negative information, both sides of an issue. Chris Kyle is widely seen as a controversial figure at least. While a few people may seem him positively this view is generally only held in the U.S. - not in Iraq for example - and additionally many people in the U.S. criticize him. To maintain neutrality we should seek to maintain and display information from both sides of the issue - not from one nation or group of people.71.181.46.21 (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
OMG OMG; it's gone from neutral, balanced, and factual to a sanitized puff piece article worthy of high-end PR firms. OMG. 2601:2:4E00:C662:8C65:9C81:C206:2D31 (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
So here's the problem now: Once the bogus crap was excised out, all based on Nicholas Schmidle's unnamed drunks, you have mainstream sources calling Kyle a racist inspired by Schmidle's New Yorker article. What do propose would be "neutral", or "criticism"? Nobs01 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Nobs; take a look at this "Guardian" article which contains some quotes from Kyle's autobiography. The article itself is an opinion article and as such cannot be used as a source for wikipedia, but the quotes were confirmed to be from the book by some contributors above. Here are the quotes:
" Chris Kyle, a US navy Seal from Texas, was deployed to Iraq in 2003 and claimed to have killed more than 255 people during his six-year military career. In his memoir, Kyle reportedly described killing as “fun”, something he “loved”; he was unwavering in his belief that everyone he shot was a “bad guy”. “I hate the damn savages,” he wrote. “I couldn’t give a flying f*** about the Iraqis.” " http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/06/real-american-sniper-hate-filled-killer-why-patriots-calling-hero-chris-kyle
Even regardless of these quotes it is not difficult to find points of controversy and criticism, for someone who has killed so many people, no matter the condition. I think we can agree this is not an ordinary person; if you search you can find very many negative opinion articles about him, and some mention of these in the article - as well as the positive ones, of course - would be completely warranted considering their prevalence in the media and relevance to the topic. Because this is a highly controversial and polarizing topic we need to be especially careful to maintain neutrality throughout the article. Thanks - 71.181.46.21 (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Now that is exactly the problem: Lindy West writes in that article in the Guardian, "? If [Eastwood] intentionally or not, makes a hero out of Kyle – who, bare minimum, was a racist who took pleasure in dehumanising and killing brown people – is he responsible for validating racism, murder, and dehumanisation?" - Why should this be looked at twice, considered seriously or dignified with an answer? Nobs01 (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
So your entire argument is that you disagree with a journalist's assertions, despite the evidence? It almost doesn't matter now, since the height of this article's popularity has surely passed, and you and MONGO have been successful in quashing any legitimate criticism of Kyle, but the way this has all been handled certainly leaves me deeply disappointed in the way the Wikipedia process plays out at times. I thought surely two individuals with a clear bias would be overruled at some point, but that doesn't seem to have happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.154.239 (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Anon 71.181.46.21, Proposal: Go to Jihadi John talk page and thrash out some consensus NPOV language that includes criticism of the tone of that article (per BLP), and then the Barack Obama mainspace with this quote, "Who would have thought I'd be really good at killing people" within the context of validating dehumanization. Then return here, and we can discuss allegations of racism, OK? Nobs01 (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I wonder what else the editors at the Guardian altered in West's commentary besides switching some of the spelling to British English. West reitierates lies about what Kyle actually said and did...one would wish people who put things in wrtiting might spend a couple minutes doing some investigative work before they repeat fabrications made by others.--MONGO 14:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Bounty on Chris Kyle's head and his nickname

There is zero evidence that the insurgents specifically targeted Chris Kyle with a ransom on his head or even gave him that supposed nickname. Evidence would be in the form of actual quotations from insurgent websites and newsletters (there have been plenty of them). Kyle and the military cannot be considered reliable sources for obvious reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaidnoori (talk • contribs) 01:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

CNN [13]. $80k bounty. I suspect it varied over time and whether it was Shia's in Al Sadr or Sunni's in Fallujah. The bounty is published in many places and would be a typical response given US bounties on top insurgent leaders. --DHeyward (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

His book came out along with that article. There is no creditable source from that time frame. That story started with his book. Every source that people cite is an article written after. He was the only person calling himself the devil of ramadi. There was no individual bounties perscribed to named individuals in any of my tours through there. They were putting up x-amount for any us sniper they could kill or capture. He wasn't special until he wrote a book and the media bit on it and started promoting him as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.51.146 (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

By that argument, all the criticism after the movie release and his death should be discarded. --DHeyward (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please Read before POV'ing on the Page

This is not scientology. This is not autism and MMR, it's not about global warming, American Exceptionalism, Jesus, Mohammed, or LBGT marriage. It's about a soldier who served in a fairly well documented conflict. Apparently people bring a lot of baggage to this page and hope to express it here. I wish you wouldn't.

This isn't a chat page where you stuff your views on snipers, militarism in general, or the Iraq War into this article in a manner that fits -whatever- your pre-visit narrative is. It's an encyclopedia. I wish 10% of the energy that went into this page was encyclopedic, but it's clearly political. So please, before you inject something into or revert something from this page, please ask yourself: "Am I achieving encyclopedia quality with new and pertinent historical information", or are you just lonely and wishing it were a forum, waiting for the friends that always agree with you to show up and agree with you again? There are plenty of those. Go there.

To everyone who's added actual value to this page, and not just used it as a soapbox for their own views, my sincere thanks. The rest of you just go back and tune into Fox/MSNBC (I suspect there's little in the middle) instead of making this article even more of a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.192.70 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well this guy did cause a lot of controversy before and after death. If a good source says it why shouldn't it be in the article. Popish Plot (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

just wanna say.... this page looks awesome

obviously there is drama here and I haven't even read it, but I want to say I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE the awards and other graphics in the infobox!!!!! I cannot stand the WikiEnglish guidelines that "frown" on flags and award icons etc in the infoboxes (they don't have this on some other language wikis, eg Russia, and they look amazing, flags for everyone's citizenship etc). This is the first one I've seen on WikiEnglish that has a high quality look. Whoever did that work, thank you, and please join me in creating some kind of "Wikipedians for design icons in infoboxes!" group or something. Wikimandia (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)





Chris Kyle's rate and rank

The page lacks information about his rate/MOS

here's a picture of chris in his dress blues wearing the IS Intelligence Specialist rating badge when he was still a IS1. http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/americansniper/ldyng.jpg

here's a picture of the rating badge for comparison. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Rating_Badge_IS.jpg/60px-Rating_Badge_IS.jpg

So, chris was a ISC

Information Specialist Chief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.219.212 (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, he wasn't and is why we have no synthesis rules. His last rating was "Special Warfare Operator" as CPO and his NEC was 5326. That symbol on his CPO rank is a Trident through a fouled anchor. Your picture is old. Probably pre-2006. --DHeyward (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It's actually not a fouled anchor (i.e., one with its cable wound around itself), but an anchor with a trident and a flintlock pistol, as seen here and here (left side). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You're correct. I thought chiefs used their fouled anchor insignia like the collar but I see the flintlock. --DHeyward (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any thoughts on why Kyle was wearing (at the time) the Intelligence Specialist rate in the photo, as opposed to Special Warfare? The golden SW badge is clearly visible above his ribbons. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in 2006 the Navy changed gears and enlisted personnel in special warfare jobs no longer had to maintain their enlistment rating. After initial BUDs they go to advanced schools and upon completion are promoted to E-3 and change their rating to SWO. The reason was that prior to 2006, SEALs could be a career killer if they didn't maintain their other rating. Now it isn't and they only focus on SEAL training. --DHeyward (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC).
Thanks for clarifying, it makes sense now. I suppose the fact that Kyle completed IS Advanced School might be something to include in the military career section, perhaps at the tail end of the first paragraph. This tribute page mentions he went to the course shortly before BUDs and gives the dates, but it doesn't tell us where it got the information from. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not an expert but I believe the " SEAL Qualification Training at NAB Coronado from May to August 2001" is now the when they get the Special Warfare Operator rating. I think they get the SEAL badge after buds now. If they flunk out of SQT, they would get a different rating. here. BTW, your link probably has a more accurate "Awards and decorations" tab. It shows I believe 3 purple hearts and 5 Iraq campaigns. Seals don't talk about medals so there are very few sources on the number or any other info. --DHeyward (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Roger that, finding sourcing is difficult, the fact that they are special operators certainly makes it all the harder! The ribbon rack from the tribute site is considerably more robust in that it has six more awards (indexing from the top down a PUC, JMUA, NGCM, AFEM, GWOTEM, and UNM), but does not have the Purple Heart for some reason (that's actually a Navy Good Conduct Medal in the image). On the ICM, the four 3/16" stars actually mean four campaigns, not five, as campaign medals don't count the initial ribbon itself as an award in it's own right. I'm unsure as to how to go about sorting out the discrepancies; the curator of the site appears to be a John Stuart Mill and it's unclear as to what his source is. Any ideas? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Odd that we show him having a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal but not a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Kelly hi! 22:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The link mentioned above, http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/americansniper/ldyng.jpg, also shows him wearing the following which are not represented on his page. If nobody here objects, I am going to add them. I am also going to remove the Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon as Chief Kyle was never stationed overseas; deployed but not stationed. 5/16" gold award star on his Combat Action Ribbon; Presidential Unit Citation; Joint Meritorious Unit Award; Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon; Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with one 3/16" bronze service star; Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal; one 3/16" bronze service star on his Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (with 4 deployments to Iraq alone, certainly he has earned more. He should have at least 3 bronze stars)Uniformcharlie886 (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Uniformcharlie886, please indicate proper sourcing. A picture on a website does not count. DHeyward, I think you know a little bit about this stuff, and so does TParis (whom I salute). What do you think of the sourcing? is it there? Drmies (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Drmies, Fair enough. There are 3 sources cited which are currently 3, 4, and 7. 3 is from the New York Post which, in my opinion, is not a "proper source". 4 is from Harper Collins and when opened it reads "Unfortunately, the page you were looking for cannot be found". 7 is the only "proper source" because it comes from the inside cover of his book. I just doubled check my copy and it is exactly as page 434 of the pdf that opens in this link which mentions 2 Silver Stars, 5 Bronze Stars with Valor, 1 Commendation Medal (no mention of a Valor Device), and 2 Achievement Medals (again, no mention of a Valor Device). Also, there is no mention of his receiving Parachute Wings. So, are we going to remove all those not mentioned is his book? Without any other "proper sourcing" it seems the right thing to do. I will be happy to take care of it.
  • Non-combat related devices are hard to find. That picture of Kyle is long before his retirement. The source [14] has a better idea and has his accurate rank and rating at retirement. Hovering over each award lists its name. It's difficult because sources say things like wounded twice but not an award of a purple heart. --DHeyward (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Drmies, DHeyward, Kelly, First of all. He didn't retire. He only served 10 years. That term gets thrown around a lot for veterans who have been discharged. One must serve 20 years in order to retire from the Armed Forces. He was Honorably Discharged. Now, is https://navy.togetherweserved.com/usn/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApp?cmd=ShadowBoxProfile&type=Person&ID=578925 considered a "proper source"? Who created and maintains the page? Is he/she a credible source? If so, it needs to be cited and the awards shown need to agree. I'm not pleased with watching his awards constantly changing back and forth. We need to settle this until additional proper sourcing is discovered. So, let's all agree on something and implement that. Thanks to all of you for caring enough to honor this American hero here in our own way.Uniformcharlie886 (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

togetherweserved pages are created by individuals, it's like a facebook. you could put anything you wanted in there if you created it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.219.212 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

PTSD

In the death section posttraumatic stress disorder is introduced first as PTSD. I think this word should have a link to the article. Either make it like Posttraumatic stress disorder|PTSD and obv those [[ ]] things around the word or just do straight posttraumatic stress disorder with [[ ]]. Also now when that's changed, maybe change when posttraumatic stress disorder gets mentioned second time somehow. This is my suggestion:

Routh, whom Kyle and Littlefield had reportedly taken to the gun range in an effort to help him with his post-traumatic stress disorder. Routh had been in and out of mental hospitals for at least two years and had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. His family said he also suffered from PTSD from his time in the military. 88.113.110.174 (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Done, I've moved the link to the first mention. Kelly hi! 07:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good!88.113.110.174 (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Further removal of "critical' content

The following has been deleted twice - on the grounds that it was 'tendentious'. What do others think? Reports suggest Kyle regarded the enemy as 'savages' and his only regret was that he didn't kill more.[1] In his book, Kyle described killing as "fun", and as something he "loved"; he firmly believed that everyone he shot was a "bad guy". "I hate the damn savages," he wrote.[2] DavidFremantle (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The Real 'American Sniper' Had No Remorse About the Iraqis He Killed, New Republic
  2. ^ The real American Sniper was a hate-filled killer. Why are simplistic patriots treating him as a hero? The Guardian 6 January 2015
It's out of context and is an actual misquote of the book. What he described as "fun" wasn't killing and not every Iraqi was a "savage" (in fact, the example given was an out of uniform woman with a small child that pulled the pin on a grenade in an attempted suicide attack). His regret was the inability to save more lives. He also discusses shooting a man in Al Sadr city with an RPG. He knew the insurgents would try to retrieve the weapon. They sent a small boy whom Kyle did not shoot and the RPG was successfully retrieved because he simply refused to shoot a child even though the ROE allowed it - he also considered savage to send a boy into obvious danger; so obvious that no adult would dare do it.) He loved being a SEAL as a job, not killing people. Being a SEAL was fun. His regret was that he didn't save more lives, not that he didn't kill more people. This is evident when he talked about the boy retrieving the RPG. The boy wasn't going to use the RPG but Kyle would have liked to have stopped whoever ultimately obtained it and used it to kill American and Iraqi soldiers. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed on the finer points refuting the incorrect interpretation of Kyle's book and alleged quotes in the New Republic opinion piece. Incidentally, the website "New Republic" used as a source is dubious as it appears to be quite biased. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
This content is taken without context from Kyle's biography to generate bullshit 'gotcha' moments. They should not be included because its obvious the mud slingers haven't bothered to read the book. WeldNeck (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. You can write full explanations, you can provide full in context quotes, you can cite people disagreeing with this assessment. You can't just omit things people say about Chris Kyle because you disagree with it. This article has serious NPOV problems because that is the tact the current version seems to take. Kyle is a controversial figure and the article pretends the controversy does not exist. It is not the job of wikipedia to take sides.--Fangz (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. Pretending Kyle said things that he did not is a non-starter for inclusion. Many stories such Katrina are outright fabrications. Others like insinuating that he enjoyed killing or that every Iraqi was a savage is simply wrong. Why would we repeat defamatory statements? We cover controversial topics like Ventura so it's not like there are not neutral ways to present controversial information. --DHeyward (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Because those that hate what he did, who he was or simply that he was in a war they disagreed with makes him, especially now since he's dead, someone they can attack with impunity. That is why I think the persons that failed to do adequate research when they write what they do and erroneously attribute only portions of what he said, or simply misquote what he said to satisfy their own biases, are as big a departure from journalists as one can get. They write the things they do to satisfy a certain audience and do not care about facts. On Wikipedia,our job is to report the facts, not the legends, unless we qualify them as such and identify them as such.--MONGO 01:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, this has been pointed out many times -- you personally disagreeing with a journalist is not enough reason to dismiss a source. Your disagreement rising to the level that you question their journalism is still not enough. They are journalists, you are not, and the job of Wikipedia editors is not to make personal pronouncements of fact, it is to ensure the articles include all relevant information from legitimate sources (yes, even those sources you disagree with). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.154.239 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Awards and decorations

Does anyone have any legitimate references for all of the medals and ribbons currently on this page? It contains a Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon. Where was he stationed overseas? He makes no mention of ever being stationed overseas in his book. In photos at the following links Mr. Kyle is shown wearing the following awards not included on this page:

5/16" gold award star on his Combat Action Ribbon; Presidential Unit Citation; Joint Meritorious Unit Award; Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon; 3/16" bronze service star on his Good Conduct Medal (certainly he earned more); Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with one 3/16" bronze service star; Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal; one 3/16" bronze service star on his Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (with 4 deployments to Iraq alone, certainly he has earned more); [15]; |[16]Uniformcharlie886 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've asked around for more. He has 4 tours in Iraq. I've seen official photos for his markmanship ribbons though they were before his last promotion. The silver stars and bronze stars are per reliable sources though I can find just one silver start citation. Feel free to add ones that are sourced and any service stars or clusters. There's a row or two that are obviously missing. My goal was the awards for valor being accurate and he may have more than 2 purple hearts. Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon vs. Sea Service Deployment ribbon is beyond my knowledge. SEALs don't talk about medals so sources are scarce.--DHeyward (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The Sea Service Deployment Ribbon is awarded to those who are stationed in the USA but then "deploy" for 6 or 8 or 12 months depending on what's going on and where they go. Families don't go with them. Then they return to their duty station and the families all come out and cry and hug and welcome them home. The Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon is for those who are stationed at a base outside the USA; usually for 3 years or so. Their families can go with them. There's a little more to them, but that's the gist of it.Uniformcharlie886 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The over seas service ribbon is awarded for any overseas service of 12 months, his 4 tours in iraq qulaifies him for this award.

HOWEVER, everyone one of these pages that include these awards is WRONG. If you are wearing the Iraq or Afghanistan campaign medal, you are no longer entitled to wear the Global War On Terrorism Expeditionary medal. It is one or the other, not both ever/ Please fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.47.173 (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The "E" on both the Rifleman and Pistol ribbons stand for Expert not marksman. Expert is the only qualification of the three 1. Expert 2. Sharpshooter 3. Marksman, that is a medal. In short, he is an Expert Rifleman and Expert Pistol not Marksman and thus has the Expert Medal for both as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:B900:98B:24E8:EE58:108:4F3E (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Query

I would tend to believe his claim of 255 probable kills. My problem is with the declaration of himself as being the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history. That particular claim for a fact cannot be true. I know of at a very minimum of three other U.S. military snipers that have a higher kill count. These other snipers are all on the Army side of Special Operations. Stating as a matter of fact that Chris Kyle is the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history does an extreme disservice to other snipers that have accomplished more and have gone further than just four tours of duty and are still going back. These men are too humble to write books about their exploits overseas. I do think that Chris Kyle was the most deadly that he had heard of at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartanMCMXI (talk • contribs) 13:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

As far as I'm aware, the Department of Defense does not make official tallies of the number of people killed by individual service members, there's simply no administrative function in place to record it. Individual communities within the military, though, do. Generally the criteria for a "confirmed kill" is that a authoritative third party witnessed the shot and recognized it as an unambiguous kill and/or there was a body recovered. The official record that the Naval Special Warfare community kept said that Kyle made 200+ kills, 160 of which were confirmable. I'm unaware of a primary source from NSW for this number but I'm also, partially because of the preponderance of reliable sources backing that number, unaware of a serious reason to question its veracity. It's a very high profile statistic that is subjected to substantial review from the sniper community. I would feel comfortable citing any of the reliable sources normally viewed as being professional, objective and with adequate editorial oversight without any sort of hedging on our part. Does this answer your question? TomPointTwo (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
They don't publish it but it is tracked as unit history and the unit historian that keeps these records. It's not coincidence that the numbers of many snipers, both foreign and U.S., have very specific counts and speak the same language of confirmed and unconfirmed. What they choose to release is up to them but it's widely reported with no dispute. --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be contradictory information on whether the Pentagon has confirmed. This is not the sort of information they release - if they did confirm I would like to see some sort of reference. Without that, put in who confirmed the kills (eg "confirmed by other snipers who witnessed the act.") Saying the kills are confirmed without saying by whom makes the reference questionable; saying that they've been confirmed but not by the Pentagon removes all credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermin8 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

How did you think the DoD confirms anything without eyewitness accounts? Yes, they are confirmed kills as witnessed by many DoD employees. --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems that if a sniper writes it in his log it is confirmed... kind of a tautology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.29.196 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015

change "The man accused of killing them was found guilty of both murders on February 25, 2015" to "The man accused of killing them was found guilty of both murders on February 24, 2015" Gbaj8102 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Stickee (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Kyle/Archive_1&oldid=1144945307"