# Talk:Dallas Buyers Club

When this film first came out, there was a section about the misinformation about AZT promulgated in the film. Far from being "toxic" and harmful, AZT save countless lives in the early days when it was the only effective treatment. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/10/what-dallas-buyers-club-got-wrong-about-the-aids-crisis/
is just one of the many articles on the 'net addressing this. Since this misinformation is at least as important as whether or not the main character was bisexual or gay, I think it would rate at least as much mention. 72.64.227.187 (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC) 

I watched this movie recently; went straight to Wikipedia afterwards and was left confused. The link provided above is excellent (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/10/what-dallas-buyers-club-got-wrong-about-the-aids-crisis/) and should be mentioned somewhere in the article, probably in the lead. EvMsmile (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There are problems with how the film is referred to across Wikipedia. Is it "Buyers Club"? "Buyers' Club" or "Buyer's Club."  Obviously, the media also is having difficulty with the plural apostrophe concept, but there needs to be some consistency.
Also, much of the information is biased and also is taken directly from the IMDB summary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.18.89 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 

I would think the same thing, however the IMDB entry, as well as the promotional posters, and every other media source, don't use the possessive apostrophe. So that is the reason for the title as it is. Shadowjams (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Currently the text in the 'historical accuracy' section seems intended to suggest that Woodroof faced no risks due to the FDA's 'tacit acceptance' of buyers' clubs, but a more nuanced contemporary article reproduced here shows that he faced border arrests, confiscation, and unpredictable changes of federal policy at any time. Suggested for expansion, perhaps moved to a section titled 'background' or similar. --Dhartung | Talk 21:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the previous section on historical accuracy. Most groups had approval from the FDA and nearly all of them disbanded after the development of HAART. The FDA doesn't regulate border crossings or commerce between the US and Mexico.
CivisHibernius (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That's misleading Civis... that the FDA isn't a law enforcement agency doesn't mean they don't set laws that can be enforced by other agencies. That said, Dhartung should incorporate the source into the article. Removing it altogether is inappropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The only one whose being misleading is Dhartung. If you want to add something to the historical accuracy section, obtain a source or reference from that time period, which is reputable (not some National Health Federation crap for example).
CivisHibernius (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The entry is biased (and unsupported) in its claim that HIV/AIDS was under researched in the mid 1980s. HIV/AIDS was novel, and widely misunderstood as a disease applicable to male homosexuals (hence Woodroof's own apparent confusion as to his diagnosis).  Ddpeck (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Woodroof was, in reality, openly bisexual and assumed he had contracted the disease from sex with men.  The part about him being homophobic and being infected from a prostitute is made up to give a story to the movie, which has huge problems with accuracy both in its personalities and its general approach (not surprising since it's written by an AIDS denialist/conspiracy theorist).  Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to have the article on the actual person Ron Woodroof redirect to an article on a movie with fictionalized details. I think, as long as there isn't an article written on Ron Woodroof, it should not redirect at all. Are there examples of other real people whose articles redirect to fictionalized accounts of their lives?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davvolun (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 
We should have an article on him as Loeba says.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I second that Gts-tg (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that having an article on Ron is important.  Ron was a person, not a movie.  22:17, 4 April 2014 (UCT)

Should the plot summary use male or female pronouns when referring to Rayon? I seem to remember the character being referred to as "he" in the film, which makes me think we should do the same. Agree? Disagree? We should attempt to come to a consensus over this and then put a hidden note in the plot summary, otherwise I can imagine it always being changed back and forth... --Loeba (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
"It"? Just kidding, I think he, his natural state, but we could always use he/she. Given that the Oscars are only what 6 weeks away?? I think we should try to get this up to a reasonable status. Quite sad really that films like this are neglected and the superhero blockbusters are always crammed full even by the time of release!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The article describes Rayon as a trans woman. If this is accurate, Rayon should only & always be referred to as "she.". If Rayon is not actually a trans woman, then the article should be changed to reflect that. →mrs smartygirl← | Talk 19:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I, for one, don't get the joke. --Matt (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
If anyone actually watched the film, Rayon is NOT a transsexual woman. Rayon is a transvestite, i.e., cross-dresser. Let's not confuse the two. In the scene where Woodroof and Rayon are in the supermarket, Woodroof introduces Rayon to an acquaintance and orders the guy to "shake his hand" when referring to Rayon. At no point is Rayon ever called by a female pronoun. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The fact that Woodroof calls Rayon "he" could be explained away by Woodroof's bigotry throughout the film, even after he befriended Ray. However, Ray's doctor and childhood friend who was not bigotted also used the masculine pronoun several times (eg. "He was my friend, too.") I agree with the analysis that Ray was a transvestite rather than a transsexual. The article should be corrected to reflect this. 147.251.210.124 (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I might be late to the game, and I don't know if this is even possible, but the "It"? joke is something, as a transperson, that I find quite offensive. It bums me out to have to see that as I work my way through wikipedia. Is it possible to delete a comment or revise it? It's just something that, on a day to day basis, adds to the microaggressions that trans people experience. I understand that Dr. Blofeld's comment generally is a valid comment and is engaged with a question about pronouns, etc - that is not what I take issue with. I am not trying to attack or dismiss the overall content of this conversation, just the beginning "joke." The "just kidding" doesn't take away the fact that they felt it appropriate to make the joke in the first place. Transunicorn (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. The character is a man, is understood by all other characters to be a man, and never in the entire movie indicates that he identifies as anything other than a man. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, so logic applies. 85.218.118.113 (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
My edit was reverted due a need for "consensus". However, judging by the timestamps, there does not seem to be an active conversation. In fact, there have been several previous comments suggesting the pronouns should be changed, citing the content of the the film. Since this is a fictional character, I think the film is really all we have to go by. Unless it is the position of Wikipedia that all male transvestites are actually women who mistakenly identify as men, it seems the default choice should be to use male pronouns, since all of the data that we have from the film point towards that conclusion. If people do feel that all male transvestites should be referred to as women on Wikipedia regardless of their identity as men, that seems like a conversation for somewhere else. I do agree with User:Mrs smartygirl, however I think this puts the articles characterization of Rayon as a "trans woman" in question. I don't remember him ever being referred to as a "trans woman" in the movie.85.218.118.113 (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
See [1], [2], [3], [4], and many other reliable sources. If reliable secondary sources refer to the character of Rayon as a trans woman, then this article does too. Pretty clear-cut. Rockypedia (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
No, what actually matters is the primary source. I could provide secondary sources which correctly refer to the character, but they are of no relevance. 85.218.118.113 (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The opposite of what you just said is true, if you read this. The relevant sentence: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."
OK, then I refer to the first link that you shared[5]: "That's how the role was written, with Rayon as a flamboyant, full-time crossdresser, but not a transgender woman". The article also mentions that the director always referred to Rayon as a "guy", and that Rayon is referred to throughout the entire script as a man. It also discusses Jared Leto's ideas about his character, but I don't think that these are particularly relevant for our purposes here. What matters is the actual movie, and here we have an authoritative secondary source explaining it. Sure, there are plenty of popular media sources that have been using the wrong pronouns for Rayon and imposing contemporary ideas about transgenderism onto a film that was set 30 years ago. This is a real cultural phenomenon, and if you want to add a section to the article about this, then go ahead. But let's get the content correct. 85.218.118.113 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
You cited a paragraph that pretty much directly confirms Rayon should be referred to as a trans woman. The role was originally written as a cross-dressing man, but this article isn't about the first draft of the script. It's about the finished product - the film as it exists. Your characterization of the next sentence as "It also discusses Jared Leto's ideas about his character" is completely misleading - that sentence states flat-out "Leto later decided to play the character as a transgender woman." You're really reaching now, and it doesn't seem like any further conversation with you will be productive, so I would recommend that you elevate this issue to an admin if you want it changed. You certainly have not reached any consensus here that will allow the change you want. Sorry, and have a nice day. Rockypedia (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

under "production", the reference [15] given in the following sentence makes no sense: 
"Principal photography began in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA in mid-2012, after considerable delay and concerns about the project from the producers and cast.[15]"
--96.63.2.100 (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some evidence, or at least speculation, that Ron Woodroof was not straight, and maybe more likely bisexual.  See:
"Was the Hero of Dallas Buyers Club Actually Bisexual?", http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/17/was_dallas_buyers_club_s_ron_woodroof_gay_or_bisexual_friends_and_doctor.html
I feel this is something that is of "historical importance" if it is indeed fact, so I thought noting it here in the Talk section would be appropriate until there is more definite confirmation.
Quoting from that article:
'
Those who knew Woodroof were surprised when they saw him portrayed this way on the screen. In November, Arnold Wayne Jones wrote an article for the Dallas Voice, which stated that Woodroof “was not a homophobe … according to those who knew him, but rather openly bisexual.” This week I contacted one of Jones’ sources, Dr. Steven Pounders, who was Woodroof’s primary care physician. “I never witnessed any homophobia in the time I knew him from 1988 through his death in 1992,” Dr. Pounders told me. “He fit right in the gay environment without problems.” Was Woodroof straight? “Brenda, his ex-wife, stated that he was bisexual,” says Dr. Pounders. (“Brenda and he were married, then divorced, but they remained close until his death,” he explained.)
'

This article is about an American, in an American film, and used the British English "at hospital" and "in hospital".  I felt it was more appropriate to use the American form for this clause, so I changed it.Networkprosource (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote most of the plot summary and I am indeed a Brit - I didn't realise AmEng needed a definite article for "hospital"! Thanks. --Loeba (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad this was addressed.  I love British English, but as an American, this is the one style usage that drives me batty. Viriditas (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

My removal of the section was reverted simply as "further reading is acceptable."  I do not see how this is not just a section for external links that don't conform to our guidelines. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Further reading, spells out that they are acceptable, but should be used with consideration. The external links you removed actually are also considered acceptable by many, but the external links are apparently held to a higher standard of inclusion. As the article developed it's likely entries in the further reading section will be converted into references for the article, but i see no problem with them remaining there for readers who actually get to the bottom of the article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Further reading is basically a failed guideline with no support to speak of.  If we can use those as references, we should, but there's no evidence that they're supported by existing guidelines currently. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a spin out from Wikipedia:Layout#Further reading, which gives a brief take on how to look at such sections. In short it's to help the reader, and should not be too duplicative of the references, or content already in the article. I think it's a supplement to the article, and remains acceptable to include. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Layout is a style, not a content guideline.  Besides, as it says, "This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content."  Even by your own justifications, it should be removed as is.  Can we do that and move on? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed the one entry that was already in the article as a reference. I see no reason to delete perfectly good link that is useful to readers, and remains non-redundant. You are free to move on whenever you wish. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you're not using it as a reference already? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, i didn't write the article so have only looked at one aspect of the film, and the references for that one aspect. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So you included something in the article you haven't looked at?  Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I restored content removed for what I saw as faulty reasoning. I think the link does have value to the article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So where in the article do you plan to use it as a reference?  Can you take care of that since you believe the link has value? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
It's very kind of you to assume that I'm responsible for working that reference into the article, or even that I am fully aware of all the sourcing available and how it should be best used in the article. Actually I was addressing one facet of this article and I did that. I see no WP:Deadline to incorporate that link, nor any other links that others may present as valid, nor do I assume anything about them except that someone feels they are useful to the reader who is looking for information on the subject. And that's why we're here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Then we can remove it until the link has a use in the article where it belongs. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 The further reading section is a part of the article, just like the see also section, these sections have content that when used in the main parts of the article can be removed as redundant. Until then they are perfectly fine as is. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
It is up to the person who wants to include the link to justify it.  You have offered no policy reason to do so, thus it should be removed.  The amount of time you've spent battling me on this when you could just include the link where you believe it belongs is ultimately becoming disruptive.  If you can use the link, then do so or remove it from a place it doesn't belong. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I think if you'll recheck you'll find the manual of Style is aligned with policy, and supports the Further reading section exactly as it has been presently currently:
Per WP:Further; An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations. Publications listed in Further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article.  The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list.  This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content.
No where does this suggest these sections should be deleted or the links removed until someone else discovers them. Nor does it set time limits, or dictate who needs to address the links. I accept that you did not know this or thought, for whatever reasons, these sections should go. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You're using a random essay as some sort of justification.  WP:V requires those who want to include information to justify it.  Since you're using the section as an external link, WP:EL also applies.  Please stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
please follow the link, WP:Further, it is not an essay, random or otherwise. I've explained how See also and Further Reading sections are different in standards and usage in articles, and are not governed by WP:ELNO. And the links' inclusion has been justified, which is easily confirmed by looking at the source. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're using a format guideline to forgive your content guideline violations.  The link's inclusion has not been validated using our guidelines. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The "Further reading" material is useful to the reader and it does not violate policy. A style guideline exists which suggests that it is possible for the Further reading section to have a link such as this one to a relevant newspaper article. Thargor Orlando cannot insist that it be incorporated into the article body or removed entirely. The Further reading section should be allowed to stay until such a time that another editor is able to incorporate the link as a reference. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I can insist that those who want to include something in the article do so.  It would be disruptive for me to just add it in somewhere as I have no idea where it's intended to go and don't know enough about this topic to do it justice.  It's an external link masked as "further reading." Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
You have no basis for such insistence. There is nothing in policy that says a potential source must be incorporated into the article or removed entirely. Whether this newspaper article is an external link or further reading matters not. It is relevant reading in either case, and you cannot expect to tag it out of existence. Binksternet (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, that's what's expected from external links that should be references, as you know.  I have no interest in tagging it out of existence, I'd just like to see those who think it has a place here to include it in the article so we don't see this become another link dump. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thargor Orlando, please stop disrupting multiple articles through the removal of sections and maintenance tag warring.  There is no support for your continuing addition of the {{external links}} tag, and I support Binsternet and Sportfan5000 in removing it.  Since there is consensus against your edits, do not continue to disrupt this article. Viriditas (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Zeitchik and Minutaglio - the drama at ANI seems related to these two floating WP:EL, though I note Minutaglio is now more correctly placed at note [7]. Can someone explain Zeitchik is "directly related" to what in the article exactly? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be an article related to the events covered in the film, no?  I see no glaring problem about keeping both links.  Is there a hard and fast rule against this?  If so, seems like a dumb rule.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:FURTHER has always differentiated this section from external links and reference appendices.  It is neither an external link nor a reference section.  Thargor (and others) refuse to accept this, even thought the citations (and links) meet the requirements of WP:EL. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there an argument against including it in the article properly? Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
As you've been repeatedly informed over and over again, no such argument is needed or required for further reading sections. Viriditas (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
And yet you fail to answer the question. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Red herrings, misleading questions, distractions and denial, do you do anything except disrupt Wikipedia?  The question does not need to be answered because the question does not need to be asked. "The Further reading section" may include a "reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject" and it "should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section".  In other words, it does not need to be included in the article at all.  So stop asking why it isn't.  Do you understand, or will you now reply with another distraction?  The consensus is against you. Please stop ignoring it. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
If it doesn't need to be included in the article, we should remove it.  That's not the answer you meant to give, though, so let's stop with the bad faith accusations and maybe answer the question posed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 Your concerns have all been addressed, and answered, multiple times, regardless if you like the answers. If you feel the current wording at WP:FURTHER does not reflect a best practice then arguing here is not going to change things. Go there instead and see how things go. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The question being asked is whether there's an argument against including it in the article properly.  I.E., if we can find a spot for it, can we do so.  You implied above that you'd be open to that, is it still the case? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you can do it yourself, Thargor, and save everybody from further debate. People here are volunteers, not yours to direct. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
That's the eventual plan, I hope, but seeing how I'm being accused of all sorts of nefarious things, I figured I'd ask before doing something that someone might perceive wrongly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A few general comments. 
1) The grammar and syntax of this article is not up to par and should be reviewed by a copy-editor.
2) The article is very laudatory of Ron Woodruff and is uncritical of the social context in which he operated. The movie makes him out to be a "hero" without examining his profit motive. In other words, to what extent was he motivated by the common good?
3) There is no questioning of the "heterosexualization" of this story. At that time, the overwhelming majority of activism around access to AIDS drug treatments was initiated by gay men. In this movie, they are relegated to "helpers" and customers, while Woodruff emerges as the "hero," saving the poor gay people.
4) The heterosexual image seems even more exaggerated because of the decision of the screenwriters to portray him as a rodeo rider and barroom fighter (even though he apparently didn't ride bulls and was not confrontational) and to introduce a female love interest (even though he was reported to have been bisexual). Therefore, a closer examination of the comments of gay people who lived through this crisis would create a more balanced work.
Douglas Janoff74.138.16.205 (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE I think the article needs to tackle the claims made in the plot summary, to some extent. The film is apparently a very good film, but it's also one making some very questionable medical claims, and these need to be pointed out as fringe somehow, probably by a brief mention in the lead, and a longer section later. Lines like 'Dr. Vass, who has had his American medical license revoked, tells him that the AZT is "poisonous" and "kills every cell it comes into contact with".' or 'Meanwhile, Dr. Saks also begins to notice the negative effects of AZT, but is told by her supervisor Dr. Sevard that it cannot be discontinued.' or even just '...the FDA later allowed Woodroof to take peptide T for personal use and that he died of AIDS in 1992, seven years later than his doctors initially predicted.' are all necessary to understand the film's plot - but, because the film is basically advocating for a fringe position, are also highly controversial claims that need discussed. That a film is based on a flawed idea doesn't make it a bad film, but it does mean we have to discuss the flawed idea. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, I think I might be help. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Just re-iterating what I said above on this talk page: I agree, the (misleading) information about AZT and peptide should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article and this could be used as a source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/10/what-dallas-buyers-club-got-wrong-about-the-aids-crisis/ EvMsmile (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dallas Buyers Club firm sued for Godzilla copyright infringement
http://www.zdnet.com/article/dallas-buyers-club-firm-sued-for-godzilla-copyright-infringement/
Someone wanna add this? --Never stop exploring (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried to take this out and was reverted.
There's no explanation given for why this movie, as opposed to any other movie, has a 400-word, three-subsection block of text about the fact that some people pirated the movie, and the producers of the movie didn't like that people pirated the movie. "There's news articles about it" doesn't really cut it -- you can find similar articles for literally any major studio film. Is there something particularly unique about the fact that THIS movie was downloaded or the subject of lawsuits, when that's the case for 300 movies a year? Is there something particularly interesting about the way that happened in Australia or Singapore? This is the only movie on Wikipedia with a "copyright enforcement in Singapore" section, and there's no indication in the article as to why this is. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It matters that there are news articles about it. Our article on this topic should represent the literature on the topic. If the literature includes enough about piracy, then piracy is what we relay to the reader. Certainly the information may be reduced, to more accurately represent the balance of how the topic is portrayed in all the literature, but wholesale removal is not indicated. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
This doesn't really answer my question. Again, every movie is pirated. You can find a news article for any mainstream movie about how the studio behind it is pursuing action against pirates. Why does THIS article have three paragraphs on the topic, including summaries of articles which amount to "and it was also pirated in Australia and Singapore!" when this is not the case for most movies on Wikipedia? Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm in a Women and Gender Studies class at school and i am going to add a section about Jared Leto's character Rayon and how the trans community felt about it and how the community found it offensive about how media portrayed the character.J chotto (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

J chotto See the RFC above, and there is already content in this vein in the article, starting in the final paragraph of this section Dallas_Buyers_Club#Critical_response Gaijin42 (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As there's at least one editor disagreeing that this film received "universal acclaim", I thought for a second, "What do reliable, secondary sources say that means?"
Keep in mind, please, that our opinions on what "universal acclaim" means are meaningless when it comes to wording in a Wikipedia article. The sources are what matters.
For starters, I saw that Metacritic defines it as a score of "81-100". DBC scores 84 there.
For some non-DBC-related definitions, I dug deeper, and I see that IBT called The Muppets a film with universal acclaim. It scored 75 on Metacritic, for the record.
I don't see anything that defines "universal acclaim" as meaning "every single critic liked it."  Based on this quick research, I believe the phrase "universal acclaim" should stay in the lead of this article. Rockypedia (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that the term "critical acclaim" would more accurately describe the film's critical feedback.Joef1234 (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what you THINK.  But what sources back that up? After all, this is Wikipedia - what we think doesn't matter. Rockypedia (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
"Universal" implies "without exception". That's at least one dictionary's definition, and is in line with my understanding. When you quote Metacritic's use of the term, I think that's OK. But when you use "universal acclaim" without quotes, you are summarizing; and justification to use the term hasn't been demonstrated, either by Metacritic, which only tracks a subset of published reviews (and where the use of the term in this article doesn't limit the acclaim to published reviews), or by your IBT example above, where the newspaper applies the term to a film given only a 97% fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
"Universal" implies "without exception", but "universal acclaim" when referring to a film doesn't mean that at all - there's never been a movie that 100% of the world has liked, and there never will be, yet the term is used when referring to films. Obviously, since this is an article about a film, the term applies here, since multiple sources besides Metacritic use exactly that term to describe it. I could list about 100 other links that use the term to describe other films as well, but those you can Google yourself. Also, your contention in your last edit that 2 users on this talk page is a "consensus" is ridiculous. I'd like to hear what Earthh has to say on the matter, for starters. Rockypedia (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
You agree on the meaning of "universal" but say that "universal acclaim" means something else, as though "acclaim" modifies "universal", rather than the other way around. You then say that there's no such thing as 100% agreement on films, but we have to use "universal acclaim" anyway. Why? Because it sounds like peacock-wording to me. You can find sources who use the term but are any reliable? Popular, but much-complained-about Metacritic and those who ape its style? I didn't see any in the league of, say, the "New York Times", or "Time", or even "Variety", which has been known to differ with Webster on points of usage. And, no, I didn't mean to say that final consensus has been reached, but you changed the article while discussion was ongoing, and while your view seemed to be in the minority, in violation of STATUSQUO, BRD, etc. I will change it back until you get your consensus ("universal acclaim" did seem to be longstanding usage in part of the article, and that should stand as well, until this gets hashed out). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that you ignored the salient point - that "universal acclaim" when referring to a film (and some other works of art) is, in fact, used with a meaning other than "everyone acclaimed it." It's used that way all over the English-speaking world, often, including on Wikipedia itself, where the phrase appears over 1000 times, and you know that there isn't a single work, in any media, that everyone in the universe liked. I'm not sure why you're choosing to pick a fight over a turn of phrase that you yourself saw was in use in the Critical Reception part of the article - my initial change was more directed at consistency between the lead, which is to serve as a summary of the article, and the contents within.  As you pointed out, the phrase was already used later in the article, with good reason: the film was universally acclaimed! Why would we use a different phrase in the lead? Rockypedia (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
As there's been no reply to this comment after 11 days, I feel it's better to keep the wording consistent throughout the article, and I'll be doing just that. Rockypedia (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
You yourself have said "universal acclaim" is meaningless other than a term-of-art used by a particular website and by people who wish to transcribe it here. "Widespread acclaim" is less contentious (others have objected to "universal", I think, in the edit history) and the way it was written in the lead. My lack of reply doesn't mean you can resolve inconsistency in your favor, without further agreement from others. I've made my case. I'm not going to keep restating it. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Made your case? All you've done here is claim that I said something that I never said. It's not one particular website, it's widely-used term to describe a film that nearly all critics review favorably, and not just by "one website".  You ignored the multiple sites I posted above that use exactly that term. Then you say "you think" others have objected to it in the edit history, when actually it's only been you. In fact, I'm not even the one who initially changed the lead to match the body of the article, that was Earthh (talk). You're one editor that insists that the literal meaning of "universal acclaim" has to be enforced here, when in the real world the term is used all over the place to describe films that are reviewed favorably, and not just this one, as I cited above. I'm changing it back simply because you have no good reason for your reverts, except that you've staked out this page as your own personal fiefdom and have declared that no one can change it but you. If you want to take it higher, you know the mountain of evidence will favor the use of "universal acclaim", so I welcome that, since it seems that will be the only thing that get you to stop reverting just because your feelings are hurt. Rockypedia (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 per WP:RS/AC what are the sources being used to do the meta-analysis of "universal acclaim"? If it is just us evaluating the other reviews, that is WP:OR. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
How that can be WP:OR when Metacritic clearly indicates "universal acclaim"?--Earthh (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll copy/paste my comment from above:  It's not just Metacritic; "the term is widely used when referring to films. Obviously, since this is an article about a film, the term applies here, since multiple sources besides Metacritic use exactly that term to describe it." Also, Bollywood Life said the same.

Snow White "The film was released to universal acclaim in 1937"
West Side Story "West Side Story was the first of his films to bring him universal acclaim"
Regular Lovers "Winner of numerous international awards and garnering universal acclaim worldwide"
To Be or Not To Be "the picture has since achieved universal acclaim" 
The Deer Hunter "Michael Cimino, whose career plunged from universal acclaim with The Deer Hunter,"
Ratatouille "received universal acclaim from film buffs and foodies alike."
The Muppets "The movie received universal acclaim from film critics"
Mother India "Roy's Mother India received universal acclaim"
The King's Speech "Given the universal acclaim and love for The King’s Speech,"
The Social Network "The movie has been received with universal acclaim by critics."
Haider "Haider receives universal acclaim"
Boyhood "the universal acclaim of “Boyhood” is rooted in something more"
Inside Out "getting universal acclaim from critics"
Gravity "one of the unqualified successes of 2013, earning universal acclaim,"
Creed "Yes, Creed has universal critical acclaim. And yes, Creed also has something better: the universal acclaim of the people"
From at least 1937 to 2015. I could go on, as the list is, at least figuratively, although not literally, endless. See what I did there? Rockypedia (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Dallas Buyers Club. 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:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hfpa.org/timetable71/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
http://www.hfpa.org/timetable71/ [not working]
https://web.archive.org/web/20140111050927/http://www.hfpa.org/timetable71/ [working]
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Checked, but link listed here doesn't work. Adding working link. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dallas Buyers Club. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140712124901/http://www.studiosystemnews.com/awards-spotlight-screenwriter-craig-borten-reflects-on-the-20-year-journey-to-bring-dallas-buyers-club-to-theaters/ to http://www.studiosystemnews.com/awards-spotlight-screenwriter-craig-borten-reflects-on-the-20-year-journey-to-bring-dallas-buyers-club-to-theaters/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140818023735/http://www.homorazzi.com/article/dallas-buyers-club-soundtrack-album-review-best-tracks-blondfire-tegan-and-sara/ to http://www.homorazzi.com/article/dallas-buyers-club-soundtrack-album-review-best-tracks-blondfire-tegan-and-sara/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cnn.com-news.info/3p55
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140618162130/http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/dallas-buyers-club-makeup-oscar-nomination to http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/dallas-buyers-club-makeup-oscar-nomination
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The link to "Based on a True True Story? Scene-by-scene Breakdown of Hollywood Films". Information Is Beautiful. Retrieved July 28, 2019. (https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/based-on-a-true-true-story/) goes only to the main site at present. I couldn't find a better link.  -- Calion | Talk 06:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Peter Staley's memoir Never Silent: ACT UP and My Life in Activism will be published later this month and includes lengthy criticism of Melisa Wallack and her role in adding inaccurate AIDS denialism into the script.
Staley wrote that Vallée sought Staley's input after watching How to Survive a Plague and that Staley pointed out the AIDS denialism in the then-current version of the script, helping persuade Vallée to sideline Wallack and remove the problematic aspects. He also mentions that the script inaccurately portrays protagonist Ron Woodroof as being straight.
An excerpt from the book was published by Vanity Fair yesterday: this 2021 The Controversy Behind the Scenes of Dallas Buyers Club, 30 September 2021.
The article should be updated to reflect these details from Staley's memoir. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 05:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): J chotto.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shuyu1234567 (article contribs).

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shuyu1234567 (article contribs).

The tone sounds like a refutation rather than just stating the facts. 2601:42:801:9FA0:5CDE:A7CD:CFF1:F63E (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)