Talk:American Sniper/Archive 1

Missing information: Kyle's death
Obviously this article will become more fleshed out when the film is released, but I find it odd that there's no mention of how Chris Kyle's death may have affected its production. Maybe it's too early to hear whether his death is going to be portrayed or not, but right now the production section is just a timeline of who became attached to the film. Kyle died in that time frame, and there's nothing we can say about it? --BDD (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , I found this that mentions Cooper's pushing-forward after Kyle's death. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Release date was a limited release
The article currently lists December 25, 2014 as the release date. However, only a limited release occured on this date. The full release is not until January 16, 2015. Perhaps the December release date should be annotated as a limited release, and the full release added to the article. --EncycloComp (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Production budget
The production budget was $60 million. An editor tried changing this to $27.2 million without explanation.


 * "Warner Bros.' budget for the film, though, remained a slender $60 million."

The production also received tax rebates. This does not change the production budget (a coupon, or rebate does not change the retail price, no matter what sales and marketing might like to claim). The budget is still $60 million. It is interesting and would be worth adding to the article that the production budget received tax rebates but the infobox should not be changed to the after tax figures, and definitely not without a proper explanation.


 * "received approval for a California tax credit for $6.8 million to offset $34 million in production costs"

There is a much bigger problem with the edit, it is incorrect. The LA Times never claims the production budget was $27.2 million. The IP user took $34 million production costs and subtracted $6.8, to get that figure. Unfortunately, the IP user has misread the article. They never said the budget was $34 million, they never even said it was the total production costs, only that part of the production costs could be written off. (They can't get write off for other costs that were not releated to work done in California.) -- 109.77.30.198 (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Critical response
The critical response section has a few problems, it is sorely lacking in criticism for starters, and is light on analysis too.

76.173.198.38 added an article from The Guardian newspaper and included several unflattering quotes from Chris Kyle. The article itself was about how several critics of the film, and particularly the heroic portrayal of Kyle, had been subject to a backlash and threats from supports of the film.

I think this change was added in good faith if a bit harsh, and the article itself speaks to the differences between the film and the reality as well as summarizing the responses of several critics. I didn't think it was appropriate to include it at the start of the Critical response section, but I thought it was worth making an effort to include it. I made several ongoing efforts to improve the edit. Firstly I moved this it to the end of the critical response section, instead of at the start. The initial edit seemed harsh so I tried to soften the tone. In further edits I tried to make it clearer that Lindy West was covering a series of articles from several critics, who criticized the portrayal of Kyle as a hero and the backlash against those critics.

The edit was deleted several times, some with no explanation at all and others claiming it was inappropriate as it was not a film review from professional critic. After it was deleted 76.173.198.38 added exactly the same change again, and didn't respond to my suggestions present the points differently. The WP:MOSFILM guidelines do not exclude commentary or Critical response from other sources, in fact many film articles include responses from notable non-film critics (e.g. other directors). In some ways the threats against critics is actually audience response, but I don't want to over emphasize it by creating a separate Audience response or Controversy section.

The last version I added is fairly mild and I believe is in keeping with WP:NPOV. I'm disappointed by the repeated deletes and lack of engagement or response to any of my efforts to improve the addition. I have little time to pursue this further. Despite the fact that the reviews were positive the Critical response section needs more analysis and insight, and the article by Lindy West seemed to be a good way to do that in a short and to-the-point way. -- 109.79.83.196 (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Chris Kyle died two years before the film. He didn't make any statements regarding the film.  This article is about the film.  The source you point isn't about the film.  It's not from a film critic.  Instead, it's being used as a vehicle to criticize aspects outside the scope of the film.  Pretend this is "The Hobbit" and some busybody used it to criticize Welsh social structure.  "But it's a movie" should be the first words you use to dismiss it.  It doesn't belong here.  --DHeyward (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "He didn't make any statements regarding the film" never at any stage did anyone suggest Chris Kyle said anything about the film.
 * You should not simply dismiss information that explains how a film is different from the source material, you should accept that these edits were made in good faith and explain how you think this information should be presented. The Production section already includes information explaining that the enemy sniper was a fiction introduced by Spielberg. But that isn't relevant either, Eastwood presents Kyle in a way that allows viewers to make their own interpretation, and viewers have interpreted him as a hero and critics have experienced a backlash for calling him less than heroic.
 * I think you are taking an excessively narrow view of what the Critical response section can and should include. People add to articles in good faith, deleting doesn't improve an article and the reasons given (or not given at all) haven't made any suggestions as to how alternative view points might be included in an appropriate way or other part of the article. It is starting to look like editors are deliberately removing criticism. -- 109.79.83.196 (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this issue until now, but it does look to me like the addition of the Lindy West article is WP:FRINGE and should not be included. The "critics" you keep referring to are bloggers, not film critics. Their opinion appears to be anti-war driven, and the backlash against them by a few people on Twitter is also agenda driven. It is not a response to the subject of this article - the film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Bradley Cooper responds. Cooper isn't ignoring the criticism that is being dismissed here. He's not accepting it but he is engaging with it. -- 109.79.83.196 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL. He treats it just as we are treating it.  Basically, it should not be used as a tool to push an agenda regarding the war in Iraq or war in general.  This is not a debate and WP is not a battleground. --DHeyward (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. In that interview Cooper says he does not want the film used to push this agenda. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You want to ignore that it is happening, that doesn't mean it isn't happening. I'm surprised he even went as far as acknowledging it, but that he noticed it and responded to goes to show it is more than fringe. I don't think it will blow over and I think it will need to be noted in the article in some form or another, and I think more effort should have been made to decide in what way it gets included instead of ignoring it and hoping it will go away. -- 109.76.166.183 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

115.64.210.103 (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC) I'm not 100% about "Some critics in the media however seemed to misunderstand the film and especially Eastwood's stance on war." Someone's interpretation of a film, especially as contentious as this one, is inherently subjective and I don't think any critic is "misunderstanding" the film or its message.


 * According to WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This is a Wikipedia policy which editors should normally follow, unless there is consensus to do otherwise.


 * If multiple reliable sources writing about American Sniper say that Kyle said that killing Iraqis was "fun," and "I hate the damn savages," then those viewpoints belong in the article. In fact multiple reliable sources do say that, as you can easily confirm by doing a Google search for those terms and selecting the reliable sources (not just blogs). That includes the Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian, Alternet, and Salon. By definition, viewpoints supported by multiple reliable sources are not WP:FRINGE. Therefore, under Wikipedia policy, they belong in the article. Deleting it from the article is WP:CENSOR.


 * DHeyward says that these viewpoints are not about the film. That's wrong. They are about the film. Wikipedia articles about films aren't limited to discussing the script. For example, the article on | Selma (film) has a section on controversies about the accuracy of the film.


 * Those who want to delete well-sourced material must establish WP:CONSENSUS. They haven't achieved consensus. The deletions should be restored. --Nbauman (talk) 15:33, 20 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 5.155.84.130 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This should be mentioned: http://inglouriousbasterds.wikia.com/wiki/Fredrick_Zoller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.8.77.127 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Runtime
Template:Infobox film says to round the runtime to the nearest minute. When rounding numbers in base 10, 5 or more gets rounded up to 10. When rounding seconds to minutes 30 seconds or more gets rounded up to the next minute, 29 seconds or less gets rounded down.

User:Gothicfilm mentioned Template:Infobox film when rounding the runtime (of 29 seconds) should be rounded up but the template only says that the number should be rounded, it does not specify that they numbers should be "rounded-up". I have attempted to correct this but my edit has not been taken in good faith and Gothicfilm instead accused me of edit warring. -- 109.76.129.126 (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow. The template is clear.
 * The Template talk page is clear as mud, there is an unfinished draft proposal to round up the runtime and that Gothicfilm wants to use. If there was consensus and the discussion was finished and the template documentation was updated your attitude might make sense but you're showing a serious lack of good faith by insisting things be done a certain way based on unfinished draft discussions. -- 109.76.129.126 (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You did the same revert twice in less than four hours. The guideline does not say we must round to the nearest minute. There's another issue involved, which I started a thread on. There's a good reason for what I'm doing. Now I see you're also debating by edit summary with someone else over Box Office Mojo numbers. You should really register an account, rather than going from one IP to another. I suppose it may be dynamic, but that doesn't help anyone check what you're doing. I assume you're the same person/different IP as in the section above.


 * Here's the discussion at Template talk:Infobox film that I gave a link to: -- Gothicfilm (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Running time - Proposal to round up to the next full minute
While otherwise being very reliable, I've noticed the British Board of Film Classification often does not include the opening company logo in its runtime database. This is very surprising, as it's a part of the film, technically speaking. Perhaps they do this as it can vary in different territories if a film has different distributors. Because of this I propose we amend the documentation to say every film's runtime should be rounded up. I believe this would be good policy even without the BBFC issue, since if you cut off a 123 min 05 second film at 123 minutes, you've lost the last five seconds. Not a big deal, but that five seconds is technically part of the film. I noticed this because I saw that the runtime for a film was a full minute longer than what the BBFC listed. The only cause I could guess at were the opening company logos. There were three or four of them in succession, and they took up nearly a minute. Then I checked other films and saw it again. This may be original research, but there's no reason not to make it a guideline to always round up the runtime to the next full minute. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Does this occur on every film? The BBFC will only measure what they classify, so if they have cut the film that may explain the shorter length. It would help if you could give us some examples so we can get to the bottom of it. Betty Logan (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I first noticed this a few weeks ago. If you really want I can look at the articles I've edited in the last month and try to track them down, but I can assure you they were all listed as being passed uncut by the BBFC. I routinely check the credits, runtimes and other issues as I see films and correct them as necessary on WP. It's easy to check runtimes since DVDs and DVRs give them to the second (just make sure you have the correct start/end point). Like I said, I was quite surprised when one was a minute off (until then, with rounding there was no problem. I believe it was Bullet to the Head, which was listed as This work was passed uncut, and is what sparked me to post this now. Someone reverted my rounding up the BBFC runtime.) Usually company logos don't take up quite that much screen time. If it's possible to track down the BBFC policy on including/not including logos I'd be all for it, but the issue is resolved in simplest fashion if we just agree to always round up the BBFC's listed minute/second to the next full minute. We should be doing that anyway for films listed at X minutes/30(+) seconds. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If this is one of those little details that changes between prints or countries, wouldn't we most commonly use the original theatrical print as the basis? (And rounding up seems like a good idea.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The Internship is the latest example I've found of a film with a longer runtime than indicated by the BBFC. This case is more minor, but it is still illustrative of the issue: BBFC lists 119:15, but that is about 15 seconds short. As said above, anything 30 seconds or more should be rounded up to the next full minute, so The Internship should be listed as 120 minutes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Worst written controversy section i've ever seen
Seriously, this section is just disgraceful. There are tons and tons of articles available on the controversy and all you include is a one-sided quote and then a link to Breitbart, which isn't even a reliable source, but a political rag. Whoever made that section has utterly broken WP:POV and has failed as a Wikipedia editor. Silver seren C 18:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

How many dead people count as "kills"?
If the wording of the article says '255 kills, 160 of which were officially confirmed', surely that's only 160 kills. Maybe the chap is guilty of doing original research with non peer-reviewed numbers of murdered children? Safebreaker (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read the extensive media coverage of this film, what's going on is that all snipers keep handwritten kill logs. The U.S. military draws a distinction between kills solely reported by the sniper alone and kills where at least one other American soldier witnessed the kill. What appears to be undisputed in the media coverage is that Kyle's number of confirmed kills is about 160. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Afghan vs Iraq
Are wikipedians really that unintelligent that they don't know the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan? Because why are there two categories associated with Afghanistan on here? 80.44.187.224 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Spin-off: American Sniper (film) controversies: warranted?
The article American Sniper (film) controversies was recently created, apparently due to disputed content on the parent article. I really don't feel a separate article is worth creating: every opinion, positive or negative, certainly doesn't warrant mention (Seth Rogen is not a film critic). In all likelihood, this is a single news cycle event, where every "reliable source" is trying to get in on it, or parrot the same story, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and I'm not sure what lasting effects will be. I say given a few weeks and proper context, the controversy can easily be summarized, contextualized, and incorporated into the film article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * A news cycle is defined as 24/7, I thought. I don't know about lasting effects, but I find that the geographical scope is nationwide, that there has been plenty of in-depth coverage, and that the debate has gone on for more than a week now. Currently, though, there is not enough substance in the article to be split off. I do not think there are enough details being provided to show the condemnations, such as the transition from the 9/11 attacks to Kyle fighting in Iraq (which I've seen mentioned at least a couple of times). There has also been commentary about Mustafa's portrayal as well as Arabs' portrayal. There's definitely more detail that could be provided, and a spin-off could plausibly be warranted. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One good way to condense the text would be to group individual critiques under similar themes, rather than chop up criticism into two sentence "paragraphs" that read like a play-by-play of every person's view, and become somewhat overwhelming to read. Something more balanced and easier to read might go "A number of critics cited inaccuracies or distortions in the film. For example, Joe Smith stated "..." Similarly, Sue Smith wrote "..."". The next paragraph might read "Reception from Arab and Islamic-majority countries was (harsh/mixed) [Cite relevent examples]" This is how an encyclopedia should read, and it takes a bit more editorial finesse than quote after quote, but it is better writing. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The American Sniper (film) controversies page has been requested for deletion. Pyrotle … the "y" is silent, BTW.  20:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I would summarize Zaid Jilani's list of "lies" and Chris Hedges' introductory lead. They are professional writers, and those were their summaries of the main issues. I don't think we could summarize it better than they can. We could also write a summary of the other critics for those readers who want to follow up the links. --Nbauman (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fair that if radicals and anti-American bigots and non expert opinions about movie crafting are to have their useless opinions quoted, then there is no reason to not elaborate in a few words to a sentence why each of these non experts likely hold such opinions.--MONGO 00:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Being extremely worried that any form of media attempts to paint a self-stated remorseless thrill-killer as an epitome of heroic idealism to emulate, does not remotely translate into "anti-American bigotry". Also, for the record I tested in the political middle. I am worried about virtually all forms of political extremism. David A (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * David, I don't think Mongo's comment is directed at you. I think his comment appears to be an ad hominem attack which seems to be directed at the sources - e.g. Jilani, etc. Furthermore, I think he does not understand that the political/ historical/ social/ cultural/ ethical/ moral/ racial/ ethnic/ religious criticism of any film has nothing to do with criticism of movie 'crafting.' Film crafting is the domain of film critics, and analysis of political/ social issues in a film is the domain of political/ social critics. Maybe Mongo has not yet seen your, Nbauman's, and my recent comments on the AfD page, including the historical examples of films that are widely considered by film critics to be very well 'crafted' but that were criticized heavily for their political/ historical/ social themes, with the criticism of ideological/ historical/ political themes of the film being entirely a separate issue from the craft of making the film. For example, Mongo may want to read Why Zero Dark Thirty divides the media in half, which says, among other things: "Time [magazine]'s popular culture critic James Poniewozik [said]: Film history is full of movies that are false, amoral, brutal, sadistic, yet are triumphs of vision and storytelling."     "There have been films, from Birth of a Nation to Triumph of the Will, that are aesthetically compelling but politically and ethically odious ... And political writers rarely believe art takes precedence over current events or history."   "But if political writers do their job well, they understand something even more important: that ideological meaning and agendas are not incidental to thrilling films and cinematography. Why surgically remove politics from a discussion of a film’s final quality, rendering the argument so purely aesthetic that it becomes low-brow decadent, as is Richard Roeper’s in a broadcast. Roeper crowns Zero Dark Thirty the best [film] of the year [2012]: “a masterwork of filmmaking ... holy ‘bleep’ ”?  Ethical lapses or gaps in movies should be critiqued, along with bad performances or absurd storylines." Finally, please see Zero_Dark_Thirty. Regards,  IjonTichy  (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing
This article is very interesting, at many levels. Headline-1: '''‘American Sniper’ thrills Baghdad crowd: ‘Shoot him! He has an IED!’''' QUOTE: "Clint Eastwood’s “American Sniper” has wowed American audiences, but for one short week it also thrilled crowds in Baghdad. Iraq’s upscale Mansour Mall played the film for one week before the controversy surrounding the film prompted management to end showings. -- AstroU (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. (Anti-Jihad sentiment in Baghdad!)
 * http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/american-sniper-thrills-baghdad-crowd-shoot-him-he/

Genre
Hello everyone. Just wanted to bring to attention the genre of the film. To get a source, I saw we pool critics who have seen the film and see what we can get for a consensus for the genre. Sound good? I've removed the genre for now until a consensus can be made.Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BRD you leave it as it was and discuss. I've restored biographical war drama film to the lead. Stop WP:edit warring over this. You've been blocked three times already. You only went to this Talk page after your third revert. Stop removing biographical war film. This film is not made up of extended fight scenes or chases, per action film. Far more sources refer to it as biographical and as a war film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really appreciate you saying "Don't edit war over this", when I've actually brought attention to the talk page. I don't think it's necessary to refer to it as a biographical film as the next sentence in the lead already identifies it as a biography. Bringing up my edit history or being banned is not a reason to stop me from editing. I've contributed to +15 good articles as well if you want any haste in my judgement.

We can't just decided what genre we do or do not want. Genres are subjective so we need to look up what critics have or not been saying about the film.Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC) That's all I have for now, let's dig up some more to find a strong consensus. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Washington Post: “American Sniper,” Clint Eastwood’s military drama
 * Sydney Herald: Action/Adventure, War, Biopic
 * Time: romanticized biopic that succeeds as a grim, smart war movie
 * New York Daily Post: director Clint Eastwood’s overpowering war film scintillates with clarity.
 * The Dissolve: DRAMA, ACTION,  BIOPIC / GENRES
 * Entertainment Weekly: Genre: Action/Adventure
 * New York Times: Less a war movie than a western — the story of a lone gunslinger facing down his nemesis in a dusty, lawless place — it is blunt and effective, though also troubling.


 * You can see from your own list that "action" is not a predominant genre. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is still research to be done, and actually, your genres have been brought into question. New York Times called it "less a war movie" and Action was brought up 3 times. It's hardly trivial. I'm not here to argue with you Gothicfilm, I want to find a solution. I'm sure there are more sources out there. How do you feel about removing biographic from the intro per my suggestion? It's already re-stated in the next sentence. I think it would improve the writing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the genre(s) belong in the lead sentence, per Film lead. Are you seriously disputing the film is set in a war? - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally think it's a war film. However, what genre a film or any form of media belongs to for things requires a source per WP:SUBJECTIVE. I'd suggest a style section in the article that can open up about genre and other cinematic sections if needed. I actually mostly agree with you on genre, but I want to a) clear out the lead from listing 3/4 genres which is messy and bad writing and 2) make sure there's a consensus on the talk page in case other edits come in.Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This film is not made up of extended fight scenes or chases, per action film, yet you put that in. More than once. This is a war film, it's biographical, and it's a drama, as among other things a good deal of it involves Kyle's wife. The three genres are all very legitimate in this case. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's WP:OR. You still need a source per WP:SUBJECTIVE. I'm sorry, but sources say more than yours or my personal opinions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added a source to the lede. I am a bit confused by the discussion though; is the claim "biographical war drama" being disputed, or is the problem just that it was unsourced? Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, it was not really a source issue, it's that we were only picking and choosing what the source was saying. AllMovie does say that, but it says "action" and "drama" on it's sidebar predominantly, and in ignoring that, we are picking and choosing sources. Looking through the other articles, I've found other genres, and we aren't really sure how it should be phrased. I'd suggest from the source I've found is something like "action and war drama film" and ignore the biographical, as the next statement and the breif plot summary in the lead already tells the reader that it's biographical. No need to repeat it twice in my book. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The "next statement" you're talking about is referring to the book it's based on, not the film. Biographical war drama film belongs in the lead sentence. It looks to me like Betty added the AllMovie cite to back up the fact that this is a war film, it's biographical, and it's a drama, but I'll let Betty confirm that. As I said before, this film is not made up of extended fight scenes or chases, per action film, and even your own list indicates that "action" is not a predominant genre given by most sources. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's your definition of the genre, and your own opinion Gothicfilm. How do you feel about the several sources I've found that state action regardless? We don't post "the truth" here, we post what we can find as a source from various sources. I've provided them and they are all notable. Right? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not my definition of the genre, it's at action film. And the fact a minority of sources use the term does not justify putting it in the lead when far more sources refer to it as a war film, a drama, and a biopic. I don't know why you want to spend so much time on forcing in the term "Action". That would just mislead readers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with Gothicfilm and Betty Logan. Clearly not an action film.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen it, but this is how the sources above pan out: Military/war-5, biopic-3, action-3, drama-2. However, a "biographical action war drama film" seems to be a bit of mouthful and we try to limit the genres to just a couple. "Drama" is even less represented than "action" in the sources above. Biopics are ostensibly "drama" and war movies are ostensibly "action" oriented, so I would probably just go with "biographical war film", which incidentally is what we use at Patton (film). The two genres imply action and drama so they probably don't need to be explicitly stated; however, I do think that "war" and "biography" need to be mentioned because they fundamentally underpin the nature of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources above are not comprehensive. They were the first ones Andrzejbanas pulled up. Many I've seen have called this a war film, a biopic, and a drama, as among other things a good deal of it involves Kyle's wife on the domestic front. The three genres are all very legitimate in this case. Patton has no scenes back at home, it's all the European war theater. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point of the conversation, our own observations are not important. It's what sources say. Please respond to that statement, because it's what wikipedia is based on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're the one who came in here and deleted "biographical war" film and put in "action", then when reverted, did it again, which goes against WP:BRD. You only went to this Talk page after your third revert. So stop trying to sound like you always follow proper policies. And I've already said most sources refer to this as a war film, a drama, and/or a biopic. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, there are a mess of genre labels that can be applied, and we just have to determine a consensus among editors on which ones to use. I agree with Betty's assessment that "war" and "biography" are sufficient labels. If needed, we can follow that opening sentence with a brief overview of what happens in the film, basically the "action" of Kyle on his sniper missions. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This film is not made up of extended fight scenes or chases, per action film. Kyle's missions do not put this in the "action" genre, though I am generally for brief one-sentence plot summaries in opening paragraphs. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Betty; "Biographical war film" is supported by most sources and would suffice in the article. --Lapadite (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)