Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:43, 28 January 2015

Film: American C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Pritzker Military Library C‑class Low‑importance

This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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)

BDD, I found this that mentions Cooper's pushing-forward after Kyle's death. Erik (talk | contrib) 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." Alex Ben Block (January 2, 2015). "The Making of 'American Sniper': How an Unlikely Friendship Kickstarted the Clint Eastwood Film". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved January 5, 2015. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

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" Richard Verrier (April 23, 2014). "Eastwood starts shooting 'American Sniper' at Santa Clarita ranch". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 8, 2015. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

HOW MANY SNIPES DID HE GET?

Over 255 confirmed kills but how many of them were snipes? As the worlds foremost researcher on spin headshots and jumping snipes I need to know for my book, "Snippets of Snipers and there Sick Red Eyes." THIS ARTICLE IS NOT COMPLETE WITHOUT ACCURATE SNIPER KILL INFORMATION. I am pretty sure SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET has information regarding this and PROBABLY has a contact at the Department of Defense Sniper Division Epsilon Team Six.

Thank you! Sniping is the MOST IMPORTANT thing in the world today! There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that will advance us as a civilization more than the glorification of no-scoping people from across the desert! As a part time Kindergarten Substitute I would LOVE to discuss the ACCURATE art-form of Sniping in all its glory. Kids need to know about sniping and why its necessary. Like my grandad always said, "A snipe in the heart is worth 2 in the bush."

Thank You OgreSnipe! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogresnipe (talk • contribs) 02:38, 21 January 2015 (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 Misplaced Pages editor. Silverseren 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)

Criticism section dispute

Two SPA IPs appear to be removing sourced content, including comments by Zaid Jilani, Michael Moore and Matt Taibbi, under the incorrect edit summary the material is 'overwrought' and 'undercited'. It appears the IPs are removing the content because they do not like it.

And by the way it is interesting that the IPs claim they aim to "shorten" the criticism section while in fact the 'reception' section is extremely long and needs shortening - not the criticism section.

Moreover, the IPs claim they aim to shorten the 'criticism' section while insisting on re-adding the redundant fact Zaid Jilani is Pakistani-American, which is obvious from his Misplaced Pages page. I've removed the phrase 'Pakistani-American' but they keep returning it to the article.

And what is the reason for the removal of the following? "Matt Taibbi wrote that "American Sniper is almost too dumb to criticize." "

Please stop edit warring and instead discuss your reasoning (if any) for the removal of sourced content. IjonTichy (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Salon and Rolling Stone are WP:RSs. Jilani's points have been made repeatedly by many WP:RSs, which give them WP:WEIGHT. They should be included, under WP:NPOV. If nobody defends the deletions in Talk, then any of us should feel free to revert the deletions. --Nbauman (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this other than my comment in the Critical response section above. A discussion cannot be ignored because editors don't repeat themselves when the subject is brought up again. The point of WP:UNDUE is to not give more attention to minority viewpoints. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources expressing criticism of the film may be in the minority, but they are a significant minority. Many scholars, academics, columnists, journalists (not only film critics) and other commentators criticized various aspects of the film. IjonTichy (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Zaid Jilani is but one of many "writers" that misrepresent the story of Kyle claiming HE shot people from the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. Kyle did fabricate the story of snipers shooting persons from atop he Superdome but he never once stated that he did so himself. The orginal story is from an op-ed written by another navy seal and is here at this link. The news media has bamboozled people into the lie that Kyle claimed he was there...he never made that claim. Jilani apparently is too slovenly to do his own research before writing a "news" piece. Since Salon pieces like this are so shoddy from a reporting standpoint no reason to not follow undue weight and eliminate such nonsense.--MONGO 04:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what Kyle told Brandon Webb. The writer of the New Yorker piece about Kyle (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs) says Kyle told to other people that it was him who shot looters.

Also note that people like Michael Moore are backpedaling on their claims that it is about Kyle (and even less so the movie). All criticism should be about the movies and not what some random person off the street thought about what was omitted. --DHeyward (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This has not been the case with criticism inserted about any other movies that I have seen. Valid criticism is valid criticism. You have no right to remove virtually all references to journalistic articles that have a problem with the movie simply because you disagree with them. If you wish to compress the references to turn more eloquent, that is another matter entirely. David A (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, why did you attempt to remove the references to these two articles in their entirety? I thought that they made several good points. David A (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: We don't make editorial decisions based on users' personal opinions: you'll need to cite reliable sources that say that Michael Moore has issued a full, un-ambiguous, official retraction of his comments on the cowardice of snipers. IjonTichy (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you will need a "full, un-ambiguous, official" notice that he is discussing the movie and not just a general anti-Iraq or anti-sniper comment. If they aren't discussing the movie, it doesn't belong here. If they are just making vague references to the war, it doesn't belong here. --DHeyward (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Read bottom line of this article . Moore disavows that he is discussing the film. He actually gives the film positive reviews. --DHeyward (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination committee said that the release of the movie coincided with increased threats against Arabs and Muslims. It has also accused Eastwood of dishonestly linking the September 11 attacks with Iraq.

Michael Moore tweeted, in response to American Sniper, "My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot you in the back. Snipers aren't heroes. And invaders are worse."

John Wight, writing for Russia Today, strongly criticized the film and its reception to date. He said, "The moral depravity into which the US is sinking is shown by American Sniper glorifying the exploits of a racist killer receiving six Oscar nominations, whereas 'Selma' depicting Martin Luther King's struggle against racism has been largely ignored."

Matt Taibbi wrote that "Sniper is a movie whose politics are so ludicrous and idiotic that under normal circumstances it would be beneath criticism" and that "Eastwood plays for cheap applause and goes super-dumb even by Hollywood standards."

Chris Hedges, in an article titled "Killing Ragheads for Jesus," wrote that "“American Sniper” lionizes the most despicable aspects of U.S. society—the gun culture, the blind adoration of the military, the belief that we have an innate right as a “Christian” nation to exterminate the “lesser breeds” of the earth, a grotesque hypermasculinity that banishes compassion and pity, a denial of inconvenient facts and historical truth, and a belittling of critical thinking and artistic expression. Many Americans, especially white Americans trapped in a stagnant economy and a dysfunctional political system, yearn for the supposed moral renewal and rigid, militarized control the movie venerates."

Zaid Jilani in Salon attacked American Sniper's inaccuracies, arguing both the film and Kyle's reputation "are all built on a set of half-truths, myths and outright lies."

Max Blumenthal said the film American Sniper is "filled with lies and distortion from start to finish," makes a hero out of "a pathological liar and a mass killer" and promotes falsehoods about Navy SEAL Chris Kyle along with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Blumenthal said the film is a "bogus whitewash of the atrocities committed by American troops in Iraq."

Noam Chomsky commented on the film.

Seth Rogen criticized the film.

Thank you. I would be perfectly fine with rewording my article insertion in that manner. David A (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the summaries above should go in the Criticism section. The sheer number of WP:RSs indicates that they represent at least a significant minority view. The current Criticism section https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=American_Sniper_%28film%29&oldid=644278833 condenses them all into a single paragraph. When you condense a Criticism section significantly, that is equivalent to tilting the article against the criticism, in violation of WP:NPOV. --Nbauman (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Read bottom line of this article . Moore disavows that he is discussing the film. He actually gives the film positive reviews. --DHeyward (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward, you appear to be Wikilawyering. Your source THR does not say any of those things you claim: it does not say Moore disavows that he is discussing the film. And Moore is quoted as liking some aspects of the film (BC's acting and antiwar message) but disliked other, key aspects of the film. IjonTichy (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

IjonTichyIjonTichy, what do you think about the argument that the Salon article should be removed because it originally appeared on Alternet? Personally, I am concerned about the extreme nature of the direct quotes from Kyle, and their extreme contrast to the public presentation of the man himself. To me, it seems like this contrast is extremely relevant to make available to the public awareness. David A (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, if it is inappropriate, would either of these two articles be acceptable instead? My main concern is the quotes after all. David A (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree. The link to Chris Hedges article should be put in a citation however.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with AlterNet or salon - we could write Zaid Jilani in Salon expressed the view that ...

Yes, I think the article should cite Chris Hedges and Max Blumenthal, two respected investigative journalists and authors. The commentary by Chomsky may be best included in a new sub-section of the 'criticism' section, e.g. 'criticism of media coverage of the film'. IjonTichy (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The point of WP:UNDUE is to not give more attention to minority viewpoints:

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. ... Misplaced Pages should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

Every blogger who has put out criticism is not to be included. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

But isn't that intended for scientific analysis, rather than censoring subjective viewpoints? The criticism section is already quite small as it is. David A (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Gothicfilm, you are quoting selectively from WP:UNDUE and omitting the beginning, which goes against your argument. WP:UNDUE begins with,

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.

There are many significant viewpoints from WP:RSs that are critical of the film, and they should be represented in proportion to their prominence. You have cut them down to one paragraph. You have added a rebuttal to the criticism that is twice as long as the criticism itself. I think we should include the criticism in the detailed form as we wrote above -- in at least the same length as Eastwood's criticism. Your objection isn't to whether they are WP:RSs, you just disagree with the criticism of the film. --Nbauman (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the Eastwood section should be trimmed down. I did not add it or reduce the "Criticism" section. WP:UNDUE is about proportionality. The proportion of the "Criticism" section should be compared to the film's overall response, which is not mostly negative. Nowhere near it. These are the viewpoints of anti-war activists, and they should be identified as such. And don't tell me what I agree or disagree with. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I could see some opinions, but pros or cons, most of these movie critics are not even recognized as movie critics by trade...so pro or con it is just opinions.--MONGO 00:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is sufficient criticism of the film to start a new article titled something like 'Criticism of American Sniper (film)' or 'American Sniper (film) controversies.' In the style of, for example, 'Criticism of Fox News Channel.'   IjonTichy (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In other words you are suggesting a POV FORK...a coatrack.--MONGO 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that would be a WP:POVFORK, which is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies. And there is not sufficient criticism of the film to start a new article on that subject. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I found more articles that can be cited in the criticism section:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/06/real-american-sniper-hate-filled-killer-why-patriots-calling-hero-chris-kyle

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7641189/american-sniper-history

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/24/bill-maher-rips-american-sniper-pro-war-propaganda-psychopathic-patriot-chris-kyle.html

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/26/american_snipers_biggest_lie_clint_eastwood_has_a_delusional_fox_news_problem/

http://www.vulture.com/2014/12/movie-review-american-sniper.html

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/22/7859791/american-sniper-iraq

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/american-sniper-lies-and-propaganda-to.html

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/racism/the-disgusting-tweets-inspired-by-the-propaganda-film-american-sniper-screenshots/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/24/bill-maher-blasts-american-sniper-calls-chris-kyle-a-psychopath-patriot.html

https://soundcloud.com/marcfennell/american-sniper?in=marcfennell/sets/triple-j-movie-reviews David A (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, WP:UNDUE is about proportionality. We are not listing every critical article and blog. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The point is that there have been a lot of valid critical articles, yet we have given undue weight/space to the positive ones. We could give brief mentions of the above articles, as we have done with others, but it is giving a misrepresentative, and possibly slanted, picture to not include any of them at all. David A (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not include any of them at all? You've got your paragraph, and now you want to add to it. This is going against WP:UNDUE. The critical consensus is much more positive than negative. Stop with this crusade to overemphasize the minority viewpoint. You need consensus to put any more in. And your claim on your Talk page that the film "idolises" Kyle is not true. The film is ambiguous, and shows him conflicted. It is a misrepresentation to claim it is a pro-war film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, there have been lots of critical responses, so please stop your crusade to censor most of the references that you disagree with. The positive ones have been given far more room anyway. There was a heavily compressed paragraph as a counterpoint, but that is all. However, if you wish to shorten down the 3 new references that I added, I am openminded about that option. Removing valid notable sources altogether is morally unacceptable however. Also, the point is that going by the quotes that I have seen from Kyle, the film attempts to portray him in an enormously more favourable light. You can try reading through the criticism that I linked to if you wish. David A (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop acting as if you don't understand the concept of proportionality. You are going against WP:UNDUE. Your paragraph should be shorter because it is a minority viewpoint. This article is about the film, not Kyle. Those quotes are taken out of context and are made to sound as if Kyle was talking about all Iraqis, when he actually meant the insurgents - active combatants. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not good at compressing things completely, but am perfectly fine with if you wish to do it. Also, as I illustrated above, there are lots of critical voices about the movie, including the extremely valid The Guardian article that you attempted to remove. In addition, I have a very hard time seeing how quotes about taking excruciating pleasure killing savages, and wishing to kill anybody with a Quoran (all Muslims) can be taken out of context. David A (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

How about if we include most of the new above references in the extremely compressed format of: "Other critical voices include: (Writer A) of (Publication A),(Reference) (Writer B) of (Publication B), (Reference)..."? Would this be an acceptable compromise? David A (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Its kind of fascinating to me that rags like Salon actually pay people of limited journalist integrity and zero ability to do investigative journalism (these tall tales would never hold up in a court of law) to write articles for them....I guess there is a target audience of persons with a predisposed bias that only want to read about things that support their biases. Anyway, why are we, quotefarming the opinions of "journalists" that are not even movie critics by trade? Some opinions are fine including movie directors such as Michael Moore....but Jiliani? That guy was too radical even for his ultra liberal PAC...he was fired after he made anti-Semitic comments and questioned Obama's Afghanistan troop surge. I will say that this issue is not limited to the criticism section...The critique both pro and con does not need nor should it be half the article...that would be undue.--MONGO 12:43, 28 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)

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)

• 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.

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)

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)

1. "American Sniper Home Page". American Sniper Official Movie Site. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
2. 'American Sniper' is almost too dumb to criticize (2015-01-23), Rolling Stone Magazine
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/24/american-sniper-anti-muslim-threats_n_6537950.html
4. http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7641189/american-sniper-history
5. Michael Moore Responds to 'Haters' After 'American Sniper' Uproar (2015-01-25), Rolling Stone Magazine. ""Here's the truth they can't or won't report: I'm the one who has supported these troops - much more than the bloviators on Fox News," Moore writes."
6. Hollywood uses ‘American Sniper’ to destroy history & create myth. John Wight, 23 January 2015. Russia Today Op Edge.
7. 'American Sniper' is almost too dumb to criticize (2015-01-23), Rolling Stone Magazine
8. Jilani, Zaid (23 Jan 2015). "7 heinous lies 'American Sniper' is telling America". Salon. Retrieved 25 Jan 2015.
9. American Sniper: Honoring a Fallen Hero or Whitewashing a Murderous Occupation?, The Real News
10. WATCH: Chomsky Blasts 'American Sniper' and the Media that Glorifies It
11. Seth Rogen Tweet on 'American Sniper'

• C-Class film articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class Pritzker Military Library-related articles
• Low-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles