This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The film was nominated for Academy Awards in the Best Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing categories. It won the Best Sound Editing category. Can we get that section updated accordingly, please? [1] [2]
References
This
edit request to
Chris Kyle has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am making an investigation about Chris Kyle and i want to know the source and the writer's name about this article if that's possible. Thank you. Mpampo23 ( talk) 13:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Will somebody please fix this error as I can not. It is in the very last paragraph of the section called "death." The first "I" in Littlefield is capitalized where it should not be. Thanks for the help.
Can somebody with editing rights fix this? safties should be safeties
In the Military Career section, Kyle tries to join the Marines but is refused due to his arm. Then he's suddenly on SEAL Team 3. You would imagine that he (a) joined the Navy, and (b) had some training somewhere. There's no mention of any of that, the leap from being rejected by the Marines to being a SEAL team member is a long one. 24.17.192.70 ( talk) 02:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, this is why I came here, to mention this same thing. His eventual choice of the Navy and ultimately starting BUDs training is important missing info about his military career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.143.94 ( talk) 15:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chris Kyle has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update picture to something that suits Mr. Kyle better.
Such as https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/chris-kyle2.jpg?quality=65&strip=color&w=1012
98.144.7.4 ( talk) 04:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
In the section dealing with his Military Career and, in particular, his kill count, the following statement is confusing: "Kyle stated that he did not know his official kill record, and only counted the lives he felt he could have saved." I think this statement needs more clarification. Does this mean he only counted the people he didn't shoot? The people he missed? The fellow soldiers that would have been killed, assuming each enemy would have killed at least one allied soldier? There's no source listed so I can't try to make it more clear if I wanted.
If the sentence can't be clarified, maybe it would be better to pull it. The claim is made just prior that he had 160 kills, with 255 probables. Since the USSOC doesn't confirm or deny that, the impression is that it comes from Kyle himself and his shooter logs with confirmations from witnesses. If that's the case, then to say "[Kyle] did not know this official kill record..." seems contradictory. If he didn't know it, then did where does the 160/255 numbers come from? Jhowar59 ( talk) 13:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chris Kyle has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the information on the right side of the page, it lists his "Rank" as Chief Petty Officer. The term Rank is incorrect. The correct term is "Rate". US Navy enlisted personnel do not have rank, only officer do. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ranks/rankrate.html
Jchettel ( talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Man I can not believe how many ignorant sailors there are. Enlisted Sailor have RANK and a RATE. The Rate is the equivalent of an Army MOS BRANCH, i.e. I was an Aviation Electronics Technician, the rate is AT, in the Army I was a 68 Juliet, the 68 is the career management field of AVIATION, the Juliet is my specialty, in the Navy a specialty is an NEC (Naval Enlisted Classification). My NEC was 6612, TACAN Tecnician.
As an E-4 (pay grade) in the Navy my RANK was Petty Officer Third Class, and MY rate was AT. However, I can write in my signature block AT3, which says I am An Aviation Electronics Technician 3rd class. Both Rate and Rank in one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.47.173 ( talk) 04:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, this probably isn't the first time a Senior Chief in the Navy had to set you strait there AT3, but you just described yourself with the "ignorant Sailor" remark. You are incorrect in many of your remarks. Only officers in the Navy have "Rank". Enlisted personnel have "Rate". Check the link http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ranks/rankrate.html or refer back to your blue jackets manual! Your Rate was Third Class Petty officer, Your rating was Aviation Electronics Technician (AT) and your pay grade was E-4. Consider this EMI! AWCSC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchettel ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Use the generic "rank" in the info-box, and "rate" in the article. BP OMowe ( talk) 17:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The referenced article (Briggs, Bill (July 30, 2014). "Confirmed kills: A solemn secret for military snipers is becoming a pop-culture hit". NBC News, now dead link) does pull the book's claim that the numbers are verified into doubt: "For the record, the U.S. Army 'does not keep any official, or unofficial for that matter, record of confirmed kills,' said Wayne V. Hall, a spokesman for the Army. Similarly, U.S. Special Operations Command treats that tally as 'unofficial,' said Ken McGraw, a spokesman for the command. 'If anything, we shy away from reporting numbers like that. It’s so difficult to prove. And what does it mean?' McGraw said." It also brings doubt about the publisher's fact-checks with the controversy around Carnivore. While "HarperCollins emailed several references for the figures in “Carnivore,” including “On Point,” the Army’s official history of the Iraq invasion. The publisher noted that the book was submitted to and cleared for publication by the Department of Defense", the article doesn't mention if those references were controlled, and if so, what the outcome of those were. Finally, the book, according to the above article, stated “The Pentagon has officially confirmed more than 150 of Kyle’s kills”. That means least 151 kills, but also that there is no specific number given. All in all, I do not see the references given good enough to have Wormcast's edit reverted, until there is some source to decide which of the two alternatives is the correct one. BP OMowe ( talk) 23:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
“I believe it is professional discipline. Professional discipline and powers of observation. The ‘right stuff’ is the ability to judge the environment, figure out when something doesn’t fit in, to put yourself in the enemy’s position and determine what he is trying to accomplish. And then to know when to do the right thing to help protect troops on the ground.”" Kind of highlights the difference of their respective roles, while being consistent with the sources. BP OMowe ( talk) 00:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey! Fixed up some grammar and word choice etc- it's still not entirely in the right tense, but it should read better now. FYI: The source we have for Jim DeFelice's statement does not mention Jim DeFelice or any statement he has made- might need to fix that. Cheers! PeterTheFourth ( talk) 00:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There are several sources giving different numbers, and explanations for why. Including them is not SYNTH, but good wiki-practice. Be noted I'm about to request administrative action against disruptive edits, one can not complain about "going against consensus" when not participating in the discussions. BP OMowe ( talk) 13:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
)
Right, I've collected the ones I spotted in the different sections and pulled them here (in no particular order) so we can work them out.
If I missed something, just add it to the list above. BP OMowe ( talk) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
a) Since the main source for the whole thing seems to be the book published by HC, with several other sources used in the article quoting the book, I'd say HC's credibility is a relevant issue to least mention in the article. The book Carnivore is about the war in Iraq, with kills stated to be confirmed with the Pentagon. Bill Briggs is far from alone to have pointed out the bad use of kills as selling point, here Dan Murphy and Geoffrey Ingersoll agrees that it's the publisher who is to blame and not the author. As I said at the beginning, with HarperCollins being the main source and responsible for the fact-checking, I'd say it's valuable for the reader to be given notice when normally reliable are questioned. Probably could be stated more elegantly in the article though, which is what *I* see as the biggest problem.
b) If used as a reference, the liveleak link should be replaced with the webarchive one. When it comes to Aladdin Sane's objections, I simply can't judge what taking down an article after six months, with no further comments about it, means for the reliability as I am unfamiliar with US policies in general and CBS in particular when it comes to this. Here some more input definitely is needed, as we might have to lift it out as a source and rewrite the parts relying on Briggs as a reference unless deemed as a valid source.
c) watching the Youtube clip, it seems to be a full length version of memorial service broadcasted by CBS. While youtube in itself isn't a reliable source, I don't see this link more invalid than the liveleak in the sense that the youtube clip simply provides access to the actual source, which in principle should be OK by wiki standards. Like Aladdin Sane pointed out, a time mark is needed to clarify but that goes regardless of what platform the memorial is watched on.
d) I agree that the section can be phrased in a better manner. I simply wanted to empathize that there was no doubt in any of the sources regarding Chris Kyle having the highest count in the U.S. armed forces. There are two reasons I included the U.S. Army: while Kyle wasn't in the U.S. Army, he did, according to his book, operate with them on several occasions, and (as a private speculation from me) it isn't entirely unlikely that their war records could include cross-service data. Secondly, the Army definitely have snipers, and if any of them were in the vicinity of Kyle's number of kills (or surpassing them) there would have been statements made, but none of the sources I looked at mentions any such objections. BP OMowe ( talk) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The article says that some of Kyle's "anecdotes" were challenged but that the "thrust" of his claims have been accepted. That seems rather dismissive of the fact that Kyle repeatedly made what many would consider outlandish and sometimes horrifying claims (e.g., killing dozens of Americans on American soil). See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/kyleclaims.asp I suggest a small section on "controversies" addressing his apparent fabrications. The article is largely good, but at times reads a bit too much like a fawning puff piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.177.134 ( talk) 07:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Chris Kyle is quoted as saying he utilized a MacMillan TAC-338 on a long shot (pure luck shot, he modestly says (I just came in my own mouth from thinking how humble that guy was!!!)), but it is not mentioned in the section identifying his main weapons. What am I missing here? Doesn't the MacMillan belong in that list? Rainbow-five ( talk) 04:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reason the description of Kyle's claim he punched Ventura and the aftermath is repeated in the article - under both post-military life and defamation lawsuit? The information is near-identical each time. Seems to me like once is enough. Camipco ( talk) 04:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The supposed incident involving Kyle shooting an RPG-armed opponent specifies him using a McMillan Tac-338. However, further down, it is specified that he used 4 separate rifles in the field, and none of them are any model of McMillan rifles. So, which is it? Did he actually use other rifles, or is the supposed RPG situation not true? 62.220.164.103 ( talk) 13:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
If Chris Kyle was shot (or any type of combat wound) twice (as listed in the article) then his awards and decorations should show a Purple Heart with an Oak Leaf (for 2nd award). 173.174.217.9 ( talk) 04:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Doc
This
edit request to
Chris Kyle has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please explain how the article states Chris was shot twice in combat and survived 6 IED explosions while his medals and decorations do not list a purple heart. Not being derogatory, only purpose is to help honor this hero's memory. 108.11.176.158 ( talk) 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
"Close calls come with the territory. Kyle is well-decorated with medals for valor. Although he had never received a Purple Heart, he was shot twice during the same battle. His helmet deflected one bullet while a second bullet slammed into his back. It penetrated his body armor only enough to make a small scratch in the skin. Knocked down, dazed, he recovered and returned to the fight. He considers himself lucky, considering the number of firefights in which he was involved."[3] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The unsourced opinions of people who have never served in the military really aren't useful at this (or any) stage. Rklawton ( talk) 23:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Chris Kyle. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
This link is also off-topic and potentially WP:OUTING. If this is a true concern, please email an administrator. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Someone is recruiting people to edit this page on Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/groups/1662341513996585/permalink/1777899455777223 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.232.126.13 ( talk) 23:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC) |
This link is off-topic and potentially WP:OUTING. If this is a true concern, please email an administrator. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
See https://www.facebook.com/170618779953242/permalink/170621893286284/ Someone with a last name of Heyward asked people there to edit this article. It's probably where the IP vandals came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.121 ( talk) 14:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
This discussion needs to end, now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I went back to get a screenshot and it looks like the poster deleted it probably because they saw it noted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.121 ( talk) 15:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC) No, I don't have facebook page with last name of Heyward. No, I don't recruit people to Wikipedia. No, I am not a member of "Oath Keepers" or any other group. This and the bogus sock puppet report along with aspersions of wrongdoing is getting old. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC) |
Another attempt at outing and taking things way off topic - email an administrator if you feel your concern is legitimate |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
www.facebook.com/groups/170618779953242/permalink/171617783286575/ Wikipedia won't let me copy a screenshot into the editor so here's the copied text June 2, 2016 Wikipedia is holding a vote on hero Chris Kyle American Sniper's medals. Bookmark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kyle and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Kyle. The page is admin only now but it will be released tomorrow. Don't let the libtards steal the valor of a true American Hero. The talk page is there so you can tell the libtards what you think of them trying to defame a hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.25 ( talk) 14:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC) |
Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 11:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
the DD-214 is not authoritativeis not a quote or even interpretation of what the Navy spokesperson said. Stop repeating it as a quote. -- DHeyward ( talk) 13:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Tired of weeding through the accusations and warnings, I'm starting another subsection. I have changed the article back to what has been the long-standing status quo. The reverted-out content was sourced unreliably and was borne out of contentious edit warring. It's good that we are trying to build consensus, but because of the out of control bad faith accusations taking place here and elsewhere on talk pages, I think it's time for a neutral RfC on this. I will put one together later today with the intent of getting more eyes and opinions and, hopefully, a solution/true consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓
@ Jauerback:, after making threats above, why are you edit warring without consensus? The book is known to be unreliable. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 17:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe this information [4] should be included in the lede. The recent edit wars show how controversial this information is, so please work to include it in the article where appropriate. And now I noticed that the article has been protected so I am unable to improve it. Will an admin please remove the third paragraph from the lede and include it in the body? Per WP:LEAD, the lede is a summary, not a news style paragraph. It should also reflect material expanded down below. Neither of these guidelines are followed in this article. Mr Ernie ( talk) 14:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Prostetnic please assume good faith and do not be confrontational. It's clear you are passionate about this topic for whatever reason. However we must adhere to the policies. We aren't even talking about WP:RS - we are talking about you inserting comments into the lead that are not supported by the body of the article. Lectonar, you protected a page with policy violations and the end result of an edit war, so please help us address them. Mr Ernie ( talk) 15:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Per policy on the medal counts: we have the following.
According to WP:SPS, Kyle's autobiography cannot override the official, authoritative records. We also cannot have the page's medal counts reflect a count on a document the Navy has officially stated to not be authoritative, when they have directly indicated which documents are the authoritative records. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 15:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, if your goal is to continue to make nonfactual assertions and unsourced claims, this discussion isn't going to make any headway. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 04:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
And given that DHeyward is now making blatant personal attacks again... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 04:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
1. The DD214 is THE definitive document. It's the only acceptable document for benefits. A discrepancy means the clerk that keyed in the awards on DD214 didn't key them into the awards database. If he had the record for the DD214, it needs to be added to the awards database. That is how it works. See the vaccination example above. Personal awards are keyed in by the unit admin. The DD214 is just as much part of the personnel file as any other record. The out of context Navy quote is an an indication the source is unreliable. 2. The claim that the DD214 is wrong is poorly sourced. It is much more likely that the single source for that assertion, seven years after it was issued, is inaccurate. The USA Today article on awards that were given in secret (mostly for personal security reasons, they don't publicly name the recipient on the citation). There are over 100 of these including a secret one that matches Kyle's unit, location and dates. It very much looks like a "gotcha" attempt as the Navy would release the number on the DD214 but not the citation. The unit would have discretion not to enter it into the computer. For example, there are very few SEAL team 6 awards in the system but make no mistake that the number of awards on their DD214 is accurate and numerous. DD214's are not subject to FOIA requests. Kyle released his. Until there is more proof that it is wrong, this single source is simply not enough. Even if it is wrong, Kyle doesn't generate his own DD214. In long standing tradition, he didn't describe any action that led to an award as they don't advertise. Read the USA Today article on the secret Silver Star awards. -- DHeyward ( talk) 08:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
This back-and-forth is all something of a red herring. Wikipedia isn't the place where we prove or disprove whether a DD214, the OMPF, NDAWS or some other acronym is the authoritative, infallible record. We simply report The Intercept article, and we report the reactions to that article. End of. Their investigation may at some future point be shown to be incorrect, at which point we report that. The controversy is notable, having attracted huge media interest and discussion. Neither the Navy nor the DoD have officially stated that The Intercept is wrong. There are however at least 2 on the record statements from Navy officials to the effect that Chris Kyle's DD214 - whether because of secret citations, human error or otherwise - differs from their centralised database. It isn't our role to investigate why that has happened, or which database is the "capstone". And that's that. No value judgments necessary, no allegations of "spitting on corpses" and "stolen valor", all of which generates more heat than light. Keri ( talk) 10:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
With regard to the medal count in the infobox, I propose that we assume the status quo ante bellum, with the proviso that the dispute is clearly discussed in the body of the article. Does it belong in the lead? Per the Manual of Style/Lead section, "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (my emphasis), of which this is clearly one. Keri ( talk) 11:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not interested in this anymore. There's been edit warring, personal attacks, lying, offsite canvassing, bad faith disruptive editing, and blatant POV pushing. I've got better things to do than worry about this. Keri ( talk) 18:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Who wrote this anyways, a member of the Chris Kyle Fan Club? A promotion agent for Harper Collins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.215 ( talk) 17:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
This sentence appears twice in "Military career": "During four tours of duty in the Iraq War, he was shot twice and survived six separate IED detonations.[18]". Once is enough.
The lead currently states "91 kills officially confirmed by the Department of Defense." However, this number can´t be found in "Number of kills as a sniper" section, and that section seems to say there are no such number officially confirmed by the Department of Defense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Anything sourced to the autobiography has to come out. Three major sections of the autobiography have already been removed for falsehood by the publisher and they lost a lawsuit over one of them. Stuff like claiming the military confirmed a kill count when military policy is not to do so, is really irresponsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.148 ( talk) 00:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know who put it there originally, but a template claiming "There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article" has been added to this talk page. There is no evidence of this happening except for an anonymous IP (that has now been rangeblocked for disruptive editing) trying to out editors by claiming there has been canvassing on Facebook. There is no evidence that anyone from Wikipedia has done any off-Wiki canvassing, there is no evidence that anyone has been recruited to edit in a non-POV manner. The template is inappropriate and needs to be removed. I have attempted to do so twice, and another editor has replaced it both times. Not sure what to do at this point and I really don't want to have to go to any kind of noticeboard. Helpful comments, thoughts, advice, action from someone else would be welcomed, from my standpoint. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
There is clear evidence that someone - and I'm not pointing fingers or naming names - has posted a request on Facebook for people to visit this page, specifically the RfC, to "stop the Libtards". The template stays. Winkelvi, if you "don't know who put it there originally", try looking in the page history. Keri ( talk) 13:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
And I disagree with your thoughts on the matter. You seem to be wanting to start a fight and possibly see me formally sanctioned or chastised? I'm not interested in the argument, and this article talk page certainly isn't the place for it, anyway. Please drop it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I've removed it again. User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz has been indeffed for being a sock puppet of User:SkepticAnonymous. He has a history of creating Joe Jobber accounts falsifying canvassing. See User talk:JimWHall#My observation where he doctored IRC logs to try and make it appear as if another WP editor canvassed him to join in political discussions. All are indeffed and the template just feeds their goal of disruption through suspicion. Considering all the accusations and invective thrown at me by User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz over the past few days, I'd rather not leave false impressions for anyone. -- DHeyward ( talk) 09:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Death", I don't think Littlefield's age needs to be mentioned within this section. I personally think it adds undue weight. As such, I am requesting that an administrator change the wording to "Kyle and his friend, Chad Littlefield, were shot and killed..." -- PatientZero talk 14:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with making this change (and I have no involvement with this article). How does this add undue weight, particularly when the article states the type, caliber and owner of the gun that he was killed with? I used 35 in commas; I think "35-year-old Chad Littlefield" would be better. It's almost universal to state the age of a person who has died. Roches ( talk) 12:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How should the current news story regarding the question over Kyle's awards be presented in the article?
-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
*Not only oppose, point out that the language of this laughable RfC is completely dishonest and that it's posted in bad faith, per Keri.
I started this RfC because the current discussion was going nowhere. Not to mention all of the bad faith accusations, edit warring, and poor attitudes being bandied about that makes it difficult to weed through and get to the meat of the issue. This should get more eyes and opinions in an orderly fashion, and hopefully, a true consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion above where consensus is being formed. This RfC is in bad faith and an attempt to ignore that discussion and should be struck. Keri ( talk) 18:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, it is one of the worst examples of biased push-polling I have ever seen, saying that the choice is between "an online unreliable source" (false) or "the notation in Kyle's autobiography [a primary source, containing several disputed claims] in addition to other reliable sources based on his DD-214" [stated by the Navy as potentially inaccurate]. Keri ( talk) 18:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
References
There are many rational explanations for why one source might report a different number of medals. One Silver Star is not in dispute, and a person has much to lose and little to gain by lying about a second award; I also have a sense that people who do what is necessary to earn a Silver Star would be unlikely to lie about it. So I do not feel this article should be changed to "reflect the controversy" until a reliable source, preferably a Navy source, is available. I don't really understand why there is such a desire to discredit Kyle; it has to be political, but he was not a political figure. Roches ( talk) 03:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chris Kyle has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi Chris Kyle was originally interested in becoming a United States Marine Corps Scout Sniper, not USMC MARSOC/RECON etc. Please edit this.
Directly under MILITAIRY CAREER" the sentence After his arm healed, Kyle went to a military recruiting office, interested in joining the U.S. Marine Corps special operations. A U.S. Navy recruiter convinced him to try, instead, for the SEALs. Initially, Kyle was rejected because of the pins in his arm, but he eventually received an invitation to the 24-week Basic Underwater Demolition SEAL school (BUDS), which he joined in 1999.[14]
AND FROM REFERENCE 14 YOU CAN'T MAKE UP HE WAS INTERESTED IN BECOMMING A SOF MARINE, JUST THAT HE WANTED TO JOIN THE USMC AS A MARINE.
EVIDENCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yISEIg1XIg WATCH FIRST PART 0.00-0.15
Thank you very much
83.86.204.95 (
talk)
16:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chris Kyle has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Taya Kyle (M. 2002 - 2013) CoPatM ( talk) 05:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Chris Kyle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chris Kyle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The second ribbon in the first row of the table, captioned "Bronze Star Medal (4) w/ Combat V", has only three stars. Is this an error, or does the "(4)" in the caption mean something different? -- Thnidu ( talk) 06:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Chris Kyle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Link checks out. dawnleelynn (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
I have just reverted several unsourced edits to the medal list. Chris Kyle's medal count was significantly revised by the Navy in 2016. They released a new DD214 which shows the corrected information. This document is cited at the beginning of the "Awards and decorations" section of the article, so please check this and other cited sources before making any changes to the awards list. Websites, such as veterantributes.org, are often outdated and currently do not have the corrected count. Roam41 ( talk) 06:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The infobox lists Taya as dead in 2013, but the reference listed just shows a reserved gravestone and in other places she shows up as alive. I don't have the know how to fix it myself so I figured I'd just post on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.129.212 ( talk) 04:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
(youtubedotcom)/watch?v=NY6JVZJX_34
Ventura makes allegations that Kyle lied on other occasions, such as "shooting looters" while on top of "the dome" during Hurricane Katrina.
2605:6000:6947:AB00:7DC2:6829:634C:762D ( talk) 23:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm quite suprised this article doesn't make reference to certain fabrications Kyle said. He made stuff about Jesse Ventura, which was proved in a court of law. I understand he claimed to have been awarded certain medals, which he didn't get. He also said he was shooting looters during the Hurricane situation in the states, which clearly did not happen. Why is this missing from the article? I would have thought it would be a pretty important inclusion? Clearly he has done some things, but not others Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
What's up with the legacy section? There seems to be way too much content about the process of naming a road after Kyle. Wouldn't it suffice to simply say that there was a road dedicated to him? Perekcronal ( talk) 18:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The film was nominated for Academy Awards in the Best Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing categories. It won the Best Sound Editing category. Can we get that section updated accordingly, please? [1] [2]
References
This
edit request to
Chris Kyle has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am making an investigation about Chris Kyle and i want to know the source and the writer's name about this article if that's possible. Thank you. Mpampo23 ( talk) 13:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Will somebody please fix this error as I can not. It is in the very last paragraph of the section called "death." The first "I" in Littlefield is capitalized where it should not be. Thanks for the help.
Can somebody with editing rights fix this? safties should be safeties
In the Military Career section, Kyle tries to join the Marines but is refused due to his arm. Then he's suddenly on SEAL Team 3. You would imagine that he (a) joined the Navy, and (b) had some training somewhere. There's no mention of any of that, the leap from being rejected by the Marines to being a SEAL team member is a long one. 24.17.192.70 ( talk) 02:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, this is why I came here, to mention this same thing. His eventual choice of the Navy and ultimately starting BUDs training is important missing info about his military career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.143.94 ( talk) 15:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chris Kyle has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update picture to something that suits Mr. Kyle better.
Such as https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/chris-kyle2.jpg?quality=65&strip=color&w=1012
98.144.7.4 ( talk) 04:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
In the section dealing with his Military Career and, in particular, his kill count, the following statement is confusing: "Kyle stated that he did not know his official kill record, and only counted the lives he felt he could have saved." I think this statement needs more clarification. Does this mean he only counted the people he didn't shoot? The people he missed? The fellow soldiers that would have been killed, assuming each enemy would have killed at least one allied soldier? There's no source listed so I can't try to make it more clear if I wanted.
If the sentence can't be clarified, maybe it would be better to pull it. The claim is made just prior that he had 160 kills, with 255 probables. Since the USSOC doesn't confirm or deny that, the impression is that it comes from Kyle himself and his shooter logs with confirmations from witnesses. If that's the case, then to say "[Kyle] did not know this official kill record..." seems contradictory. If he didn't know it, then did where does the 160/255 numbers come from? Jhowar59 ( talk) 13:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chris Kyle has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the information on the right side of the page, it lists his "Rank" as Chief Petty Officer. The term Rank is incorrect. The correct term is "Rate". US Navy enlisted personnel do not have rank, only officer do. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ranks/rankrate.html
Jchettel ( talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Man I can not believe how many ignorant sailors there are. Enlisted Sailor have RANK and a RATE. The Rate is the equivalent of an Army MOS BRANCH, i.e. I was an Aviation Electronics Technician, the rate is AT, in the Army I was a 68 Juliet, the 68 is the career management field of AVIATION, the Juliet is my specialty, in the Navy a specialty is an NEC (Naval Enlisted Classification). My NEC was 6612, TACAN Tecnician.
As an E-4 (pay grade) in the Navy my RANK was Petty Officer Third Class, and MY rate was AT. However, I can write in my signature block AT3, which says I am An Aviation Electronics Technician 3rd class. Both Rate and Rank in one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.47.173 ( talk) 04:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, this probably isn't the first time a Senior Chief in the Navy had to set you strait there AT3, but you just described yourself with the "ignorant Sailor" remark. You are incorrect in many of your remarks. Only officers in the Navy have "Rank". Enlisted personnel have "Rate". Check the link http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ranks/rankrate.html or refer back to your blue jackets manual! Your Rate was Third Class Petty officer, Your rating was Aviation Electronics Technician (AT) and your pay grade was E-4. Consider this EMI! AWCSC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchettel ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Use the generic "rank" in the info-box, and "rate" in the article. BP OMowe ( talk) 17:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The referenced article (Briggs, Bill (July 30, 2014). "Confirmed kills: A solemn secret for military snipers is becoming a pop-culture hit". NBC News, now dead link) does pull the book's claim that the numbers are verified into doubt: "For the record, the U.S. Army 'does not keep any official, or unofficial for that matter, record of confirmed kills,' said Wayne V. Hall, a spokesman for the Army. Similarly, U.S. Special Operations Command treats that tally as 'unofficial,' said Ken McGraw, a spokesman for the command. 'If anything, we shy away from reporting numbers like that. It’s so difficult to prove. And what does it mean?' McGraw said." It also brings doubt about the publisher's fact-checks with the controversy around Carnivore. While "HarperCollins emailed several references for the figures in “Carnivore,” including “On Point,” the Army’s official history of the Iraq invasion. The publisher noted that the book was submitted to and cleared for publication by the Department of Defense", the article doesn't mention if those references were controlled, and if so, what the outcome of those were. Finally, the book, according to the above article, stated “The Pentagon has officially confirmed more than 150 of Kyle’s kills”. That means least 151 kills, but also that there is no specific number given. All in all, I do not see the references given good enough to have Wormcast's edit reverted, until there is some source to decide which of the two alternatives is the correct one. BP OMowe ( talk) 23:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
“I believe it is professional discipline. Professional discipline and powers of observation. The ‘right stuff’ is the ability to judge the environment, figure out when something doesn’t fit in, to put yourself in the enemy’s position and determine what he is trying to accomplish. And then to know when to do the right thing to help protect troops on the ground.”" Kind of highlights the difference of their respective roles, while being consistent with the sources. BP OMowe ( talk) 00:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey! Fixed up some grammar and word choice etc- it's still not entirely in the right tense, but it should read better now. FYI: The source we have for Jim DeFelice's statement does not mention Jim DeFelice or any statement he has made- might need to fix that. Cheers! PeterTheFourth ( talk) 00:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There are several sources giving different numbers, and explanations for why. Including them is not SYNTH, but good wiki-practice. Be noted I'm about to request administrative action against disruptive edits, one can not complain about "going against consensus" when not participating in the discussions. BP OMowe ( talk) 13:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
)
Right, I've collected the ones I spotted in the different sections and pulled them here (in no particular order) so we can work them out.
If I missed something, just add it to the list above. BP OMowe ( talk) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
a) Since the main source for the whole thing seems to be the book published by HC, with several other sources used in the article quoting the book, I'd say HC's credibility is a relevant issue to least mention in the article. The book Carnivore is about the war in Iraq, with kills stated to be confirmed with the Pentagon. Bill Briggs is far from alone to have pointed out the bad use of kills as selling point, here Dan Murphy and Geoffrey Ingersoll agrees that it's the publisher who is to blame and not the author. As I said at the beginning, with HarperCollins being the main source and responsible for the fact-checking, I'd say it's valuable for the reader to be given notice when normally reliable are questioned. Probably could be stated more elegantly in the article though, which is what *I* see as the biggest problem.
b) If used as a reference, the liveleak link should be replaced with the webarchive one. When it comes to Aladdin Sane's objections, I simply can't judge what taking down an article after six months, with no further comments about it, means for the reliability as I am unfamiliar with US policies in general and CBS in particular when it comes to this. Here some more input definitely is needed, as we might have to lift it out as a source and rewrite the parts relying on Briggs as a reference unless deemed as a valid source.
c) watching the Youtube clip, it seems to be a full length version of memorial service broadcasted by CBS. While youtube in itself isn't a reliable source, I don't see this link more invalid than the liveleak in the sense that the youtube clip simply provides access to the actual source, which in principle should be OK by wiki standards. Like Aladdin Sane pointed out, a time mark is needed to clarify but that goes regardless of what platform the memorial is watched on.
d) I agree that the section can be phrased in a better manner. I simply wanted to empathize that there was no doubt in any of the sources regarding Chris Kyle having the highest count in the U.S. armed forces. There are two reasons I included the U.S. Army: while Kyle wasn't in the U.S. Army, he did, according to his book, operate with them on several occasions, and (as a private speculation from me) it isn't entirely unlikely that their war records could include cross-service data. Secondly, the Army definitely have snipers, and if any of them were in the vicinity of Kyle's number of kills (or surpassing them) there would have been statements made, but none of the sources I looked at mentions any such objections. BP OMowe ( talk) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The article says that some of Kyle's "anecdotes" were challenged but that the "thrust" of his claims have been accepted. That seems rather dismissive of the fact that Kyle repeatedly made what many would consider outlandish and sometimes horrifying claims (e.g., killing dozens of Americans on American soil). See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/kyleclaims.asp I suggest a small section on "controversies" addressing his apparent fabrications. The article is largely good, but at times reads a bit too much like a fawning puff piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.177.134 ( talk) 07:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Chris Kyle is quoted as saying he utilized a MacMillan TAC-338 on a long shot (pure luck shot, he modestly says (I just came in my own mouth from thinking how humble that guy was!!!)), but it is not mentioned in the section identifying his main weapons. What am I missing here? Doesn't the MacMillan belong in that list? Rainbow-five ( talk) 04:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reason the description of Kyle's claim he punched Ventura and the aftermath is repeated in the article - under both post-military life and defamation lawsuit? The information is near-identical each time. Seems to me like once is enough. Camipco ( talk) 04:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The supposed incident involving Kyle shooting an RPG-armed opponent specifies him using a McMillan Tac-338. However, further down, it is specified that he used 4 separate rifles in the field, and none of them are any model of McMillan rifles. So, which is it? Did he actually use other rifles, or is the supposed RPG situation not true? 62.220.164.103 ( talk) 13:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
If Chris Kyle was shot (or any type of combat wound) twice (as listed in the article) then his awards and decorations should show a Purple Heart with an Oak Leaf (for 2nd award). 173.174.217.9 ( talk) 04:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Doc
This
edit request to
Chris Kyle has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please explain how the article states Chris was shot twice in combat and survived 6 IED explosions while his medals and decorations do not list a purple heart. Not being derogatory, only purpose is to help honor this hero's memory. 108.11.176.158 ( talk) 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
"Close calls come with the territory. Kyle is well-decorated with medals for valor. Although he had never received a Purple Heart, he was shot twice during the same battle. His helmet deflected one bullet while a second bullet slammed into his back. It penetrated his body armor only enough to make a small scratch in the skin. Knocked down, dazed, he recovered and returned to the fight. He considers himself lucky, considering the number of firefights in which he was involved."[3] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The unsourced opinions of people who have never served in the military really aren't useful at this (or any) stage. Rklawton ( talk) 23:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Chris Kyle. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
This link is also off-topic and potentially WP:OUTING. If this is a true concern, please email an administrator. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Someone is recruiting people to edit this page on Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/groups/1662341513996585/permalink/1777899455777223 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.232.126.13 ( talk) 23:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC) |
This link is off-topic and potentially WP:OUTING. If this is a true concern, please email an administrator. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
See https://www.facebook.com/170618779953242/permalink/170621893286284/ Someone with a last name of Heyward asked people there to edit this article. It's probably where the IP vandals came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.121 ( talk) 14:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
This discussion needs to end, now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I went back to get a screenshot and it looks like the poster deleted it probably because they saw it noted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.121 ( talk) 15:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC) No, I don't have facebook page with last name of Heyward. No, I don't recruit people to Wikipedia. No, I am not a member of "Oath Keepers" or any other group. This and the bogus sock puppet report along with aspersions of wrongdoing is getting old. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC) |
Another attempt at outing and taking things way off topic - email an administrator if you feel your concern is legitimate |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
www.facebook.com/groups/170618779953242/permalink/171617783286575/ Wikipedia won't let me copy a screenshot into the editor so here's the copied text June 2, 2016 Wikipedia is holding a vote on hero Chris Kyle American Sniper's medals. Bookmark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kyle and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Kyle. The page is admin only now but it will be released tomorrow. Don't let the libtards steal the valor of a true American Hero. The talk page is there so you can tell the libtards what you think of them trying to defame a hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.25 ( talk) 14:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC) |
Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 11:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
the DD-214 is not authoritativeis not a quote or even interpretation of what the Navy spokesperson said. Stop repeating it as a quote. -- DHeyward ( talk) 13:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Tired of weeding through the accusations and warnings, I'm starting another subsection. I have changed the article back to what has been the long-standing status quo. The reverted-out content was sourced unreliably and was borne out of contentious edit warring. It's good that we are trying to build consensus, but because of the out of control bad faith accusations taking place here and elsewhere on talk pages, I think it's time for a neutral RfC on this. I will put one together later today with the intent of getting more eyes and opinions and, hopefully, a solution/true consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓
@ Jauerback:, after making threats above, why are you edit warring without consensus? The book is known to be unreliable. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 17:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe this information [4] should be included in the lede. The recent edit wars show how controversial this information is, so please work to include it in the article where appropriate. And now I noticed that the article has been protected so I am unable to improve it. Will an admin please remove the third paragraph from the lede and include it in the body? Per WP:LEAD, the lede is a summary, not a news style paragraph. It should also reflect material expanded down below. Neither of these guidelines are followed in this article. Mr Ernie ( talk) 14:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Prostetnic please assume good faith and do not be confrontational. It's clear you are passionate about this topic for whatever reason. However we must adhere to the policies. We aren't even talking about WP:RS - we are talking about you inserting comments into the lead that are not supported by the body of the article. Lectonar, you protected a page with policy violations and the end result of an edit war, so please help us address them. Mr Ernie ( talk) 15:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Per policy on the medal counts: we have the following.
According to WP:SPS, Kyle's autobiography cannot override the official, authoritative records. We also cannot have the page's medal counts reflect a count on a document the Navy has officially stated to not be authoritative, when they have directly indicated which documents are the authoritative records. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 15:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, if your goal is to continue to make nonfactual assertions and unsourced claims, this discussion isn't going to make any headway. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 04:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
And given that DHeyward is now making blatant personal attacks again... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 04:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
1. The DD214 is THE definitive document. It's the only acceptable document for benefits. A discrepancy means the clerk that keyed in the awards on DD214 didn't key them into the awards database. If he had the record for the DD214, it needs to be added to the awards database. That is how it works. See the vaccination example above. Personal awards are keyed in by the unit admin. The DD214 is just as much part of the personnel file as any other record. The out of context Navy quote is an an indication the source is unreliable. 2. The claim that the DD214 is wrong is poorly sourced. It is much more likely that the single source for that assertion, seven years after it was issued, is inaccurate. The USA Today article on awards that were given in secret (mostly for personal security reasons, they don't publicly name the recipient on the citation). There are over 100 of these including a secret one that matches Kyle's unit, location and dates. It very much looks like a "gotcha" attempt as the Navy would release the number on the DD214 but not the citation. The unit would have discretion not to enter it into the computer. For example, there are very few SEAL team 6 awards in the system but make no mistake that the number of awards on their DD214 is accurate and numerous. DD214's are not subject to FOIA requests. Kyle released his. Until there is more proof that it is wrong, this single source is simply not enough. Even if it is wrong, Kyle doesn't generate his own DD214. In long standing tradition, he didn't describe any action that led to an award as they don't advertise. Read the USA Today article on the secret Silver Star awards. -- DHeyward ( talk) 08:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
This back-and-forth is all something of a red herring. Wikipedia isn't the place where we prove or disprove whether a DD214, the OMPF, NDAWS or some other acronym is the authoritative, infallible record. We simply report The Intercept article, and we report the reactions to that article. End of. Their investigation may at some future point be shown to be incorrect, at which point we report that. The controversy is notable, having attracted huge media interest and discussion. Neither the Navy nor the DoD have officially stated that The Intercept is wrong. There are however at least 2 on the record statements from Navy officials to the effect that Chris Kyle's DD214 - whether because of secret citations, human error or otherwise - differs from their centralised database. It isn't our role to investigate why that has happened, or which database is the "capstone". And that's that. No value judgments necessary, no allegations of "spitting on corpses" and "stolen valor", all of which generates more heat than light. Keri ( talk) 10:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
With regard to the medal count in the infobox, I propose that we assume the status quo ante bellum, with the proviso that the dispute is clearly discussed in the body of the article. Does it belong in the lead? Per the Manual of Style/Lead section, "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (my emphasis), of which this is clearly one. Keri ( talk) 11:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not interested in this anymore. There's been edit warring, personal attacks, lying, offsite canvassing, bad faith disruptive editing, and blatant POV pushing. I've got better things to do than worry about this. Keri ( talk) 18:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Who wrote this anyways, a member of the Chris Kyle Fan Club? A promotion agent for Harper Collins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.215 ( talk) 17:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
This sentence appears twice in "Military career": "During four tours of duty in the Iraq War, he was shot twice and survived six separate IED detonations.[18]". Once is enough.
The lead currently states "91 kills officially confirmed by the Department of Defense." However, this number can´t be found in "Number of kills as a sniper" section, and that section seems to say there are no such number officially confirmed by the Department of Defense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 21:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Anything sourced to the autobiography has to come out. Three major sections of the autobiography have already been removed for falsehood by the publisher and they lost a lawsuit over one of them. Stuff like claiming the military confirmed a kill count when military policy is not to do so, is really irresponsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.148 ( talk) 00:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know who put it there originally, but a template claiming "There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article" has been added to this talk page. There is no evidence of this happening except for an anonymous IP (that has now been rangeblocked for disruptive editing) trying to out editors by claiming there has been canvassing on Facebook. There is no evidence that anyone from Wikipedia has done any off-Wiki canvassing, there is no evidence that anyone has been recruited to edit in a non-POV manner. The template is inappropriate and needs to be removed. I have attempted to do so twice, and another editor has replaced it both times. Not sure what to do at this point and I really don't want to have to go to any kind of noticeboard. Helpful comments, thoughts, advice, action from someone else would be welcomed, from my standpoint. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
There is clear evidence that someone - and I'm not pointing fingers or naming names - has posted a request on Facebook for people to visit this page, specifically the RfC, to "stop the Libtards". The template stays. Winkelvi, if you "don't know who put it there originally", try looking in the page history. Keri ( talk) 13:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
And I disagree with your thoughts on the matter. You seem to be wanting to start a fight and possibly see me formally sanctioned or chastised? I'm not interested in the argument, and this article talk page certainly isn't the place for it, anyway. Please drop it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I've removed it again. User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz has been indeffed for being a sock puppet of User:SkepticAnonymous. He has a history of creating Joe Jobber accounts falsifying canvassing. See User talk:JimWHall#My observation where he doctored IRC logs to try and make it appear as if another WP editor canvassed him to join in political discussions. All are indeffed and the template just feeds their goal of disruption through suspicion. Considering all the accusations and invective thrown at me by User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz over the past few days, I'd rather not leave false impressions for anyone. -- DHeyward ( talk) 09:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Death", I don't think Littlefield's age needs to be mentioned within this section. I personally think it adds undue weight. As such, I am requesting that an administrator change the wording to "Kyle and his friend, Chad Littlefield, were shot and killed..." -- PatientZero talk 14:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with making this change (and I have no involvement with this article). How does this add undue weight, particularly when the article states the type, caliber and owner of the gun that he was killed with? I used 35 in commas; I think "35-year-old Chad Littlefield" would be better. It's almost universal to state the age of a person who has died. Roches ( talk) 12:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How should the current news story regarding the question over Kyle's awards be presented in the article?
-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
*Not only oppose, point out that the language of this laughable RfC is completely dishonest and that it's posted in bad faith, per Keri.
I started this RfC because the current discussion was going nowhere. Not to mention all of the bad faith accusations, edit warring, and poor attitudes being bandied about that makes it difficult to weed through and get to the meat of the issue. This should get more eyes and opinions in an orderly fashion, and hopefully, a true consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion above where consensus is being formed. This RfC is in bad faith and an attempt to ignore that discussion and should be struck. Keri ( talk) 18:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, it is one of the worst examples of biased push-polling I have ever seen, saying that the choice is between "an online unreliable source" (false) or "the notation in Kyle's autobiography [a primary source, containing several disputed claims] in addition to other reliable sources based on his DD-214" [stated by the Navy as potentially inaccurate]. Keri ( talk) 18:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
References
There are many rational explanations for why one source might report a different number of medals. One Silver Star is not in dispute, and a person has much to lose and little to gain by lying about a second award; I also have a sense that people who do what is necessary to earn a Silver Star would be unlikely to lie about it. So I do not feel this article should be changed to "reflect the controversy" until a reliable source, preferably a Navy source, is available. I don't really understand why there is such a desire to discredit Kyle; it has to be political, but he was not a political figure. Roches ( talk) 03:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chris Kyle has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi Chris Kyle was originally interested in becoming a United States Marine Corps Scout Sniper, not USMC MARSOC/RECON etc. Please edit this.
Directly under MILITAIRY CAREER" the sentence After his arm healed, Kyle went to a military recruiting office, interested in joining the U.S. Marine Corps special operations. A U.S. Navy recruiter convinced him to try, instead, for the SEALs. Initially, Kyle was rejected because of the pins in his arm, but he eventually received an invitation to the 24-week Basic Underwater Demolition SEAL school (BUDS), which he joined in 1999.[14]
AND FROM REFERENCE 14 YOU CAN'T MAKE UP HE WAS INTERESTED IN BECOMMING A SOF MARINE, JUST THAT HE WANTED TO JOIN THE USMC AS A MARINE.
EVIDENCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yISEIg1XIg WATCH FIRST PART 0.00-0.15
Thank you very much
83.86.204.95 (
talk)
16:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Chris Kyle has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Taya Kyle (M. 2002 - 2013) CoPatM ( talk) 05:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Chris Kyle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chris Kyle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The second ribbon in the first row of the table, captioned "Bronze Star Medal (4) w/ Combat V", has only three stars. Is this an error, or does the "(4)" in the caption mean something different? -- Thnidu ( talk) 06:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Chris Kyle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Link checks out. dawnleelynn (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
I have just reverted several unsourced edits to the medal list. Chris Kyle's medal count was significantly revised by the Navy in 2016. They released a new DD214 which shows the corrected information. This document is cited at the beginning of the "Awards and decorations" section of the article, so please check this and other cited sources before making any changes to the awards list. Websites, such as veterantributes.org, are often outdated and currently do not have the corrected count. Roam41 ( talk) 06:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The infobox lists Taya as dead in 2013, but the reference listed just shows a reserved gravestone and in other places she shows up as alive. I don't have the know how to fix it myself so I figured I'd just post on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.129.212 ( talk) 04:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
(youtubedotcom)/watch?v=NY6JVZJX_34
Ventura makes allegations that Kyle lied on other occasions, such as "shooting looters" while on top of "the dome" during Hurricane Katrina.
2605:6000:6947:AB00:7DC2:6829:634C:762D ( talk) 23:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm quite suprised this article doesn't make reference to certain fabrications Kyle said. He made stuff about Jesse Ventura, which was proved in a court of law. I understand he claimed to have been awarded certain medals, which he didn't get. He also said he was shooting looters during the Hurricane situation in the states, which clearly did not happen. Why is this missing from the article? I would have thought it would be a pretty important inclusion? Clearly he has done some things, but not others Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
What's up with the legacy section? There seems to be way too much content about the process of naming a road after Kyle. Wouldn't it suffice to simply say that there was a road dedicated to him? Perekcronal ( talk) 18:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)