Talk:Brokeback Mountain/Archive 4

message: In order to save space, I also propose that we use a compressed listing format, listing all awards for one association on a single line. Rather than:
Boston Society of Film Critics:
*Best Picture
*Best Director (Ang Lee)
Central Ohio Film Critics Association:
*Top 10 Films
*Best Lead Performance (Heath Ledger)
*Best Screenplay
Chicago Film Critics Association:
*Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)
*Best Score (Gustavo Santaolalla)
Critics' Choice Award:
* Best Picture
* Best Director (Ang Lee)
* Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams)
Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association:
*Top 10 Films
*Best Picture
*Best Director (Ang Lee)
*Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)
*Best Cinematography (Roberto Prieto)
Director's Guild Awards:
*Director of the Year Award - Theatrical Motion Picture
European Film Awards:
*Best Director (Ang Lee)
Florida Film Critics Circle: 
*Best Picture
*Best Director (Ang Lee)
*Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)
*Cinematography (Roberto Prieto)
We could have instead the following, which takes up one third the vertical space:
*Boston Society of Film Critics: Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee)
*Central Ohio Film Critics Association: Top 10 Films, Best Lead Performance (Heath Ledger), Best Screenplay
*Chicago Film Critics Association: Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana), Best Score (Gustavo Santaolalla)
*Critics' Choice Award:  Best Picture,  Best Director (Ang Lee),  Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams)
*Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association: Top 10 Films, Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana), Best Cinematography (Roberto Prieto)
*Director's Guild Awards: Director of the Year Award - Theatrical Motion Picture
*European Film Awards: Best Director (Ang Lee)
*Florida Film Critics Circle: , Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana), Cinematography (Roberto Prieto)
Nohat 07:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one seems to object (or care), I'm going to go ahead and reformat the awards thus. Nohat 02:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this change.  User:Zoe|(talk) 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support the more compressed format.  I would also like to suggest cutting many of the award listings altogether.  Brokeback Mountain has a lot of awards and nominations, and I don't see the benefit of listing every small regional film award it managed to pick up.  Especially not since this article is rather overlong already.  Wikipedia readers may want to know that Ang Lee won the Oscar for Best Director for Brokeback Mountain, but I doubt many would care that he won the same title from the Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association and Florida Film Critics Circle. KGiles 05:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on award listings 

message: To Moncrief: please see the piped links guidelines. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Eternal Equinox:  Having a year linked to a "year in film" article seems to be the norm in film articles.  Having the year it is released linked to "year in film" does not seem out of line with the guidelines.  Certainly, if it bothers you, you could have changed it to "released in 2005" which would not have been an easter egg. -- Samuel Wantman 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Samuel Wantman.  You are being silly, EE.  Moncrief 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: November, a featured article, displays the wikilinks 2004 in film and 2005 in film in parenthesis, and not within a piped link. In the words of Wikipedia:Piped link: Please note that links to "year-in-x" articles (such as 2003 in film) should be labeled accordingly, and not with just the year. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Wikipedia:WikiProject Music standards, Wikipedia talk:Music standards archive 1 and Talk:Bad Religion for discussion and further details on this. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see your most recent edit Moncrief. You can revert if you feel the need to. By the way, no, it does not bother me; it is violating the Wikipedia guideline and I am only attempting to ensure that barriers are not crossed. Now, it's time to do something about that holy-out-of-this-world trivia section. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So rather than remove it, fix it, and then we'll all feel like we are working together! -- Samuel Wantman 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Piped links

message: Considering the degree of vandalism to some articles on Wikipedia, it seems rather odd tha this one has been protected for a few juvenile changes tonight.  Enough people have their eye on this article that I think it can be safely unprotected - as long as we aren't shy about blocking repeat vandals.  Moncrief 07:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the yahoo group.  I'm tempted to remove the davecullen group as well.  If there is a discussion group linked, I don't think it should be an age restricted group that requires membership before you can see any postings.  The problem with linking any discussion group is that if one is there, all the others want to be posted as well. -- Samuel Wantman 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I also removed it one of the times it was posted.  I don't think it's appropriate to have links to Yahoo groups that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  Would it be OK linking to a whites-only group?  Then there's the whole issue of the group not being open to anyone unless they register and give out personal information.  I'm glad to see you've removed the spoiler from the home page, though. eaolson 04:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect?

message: I've tagged the controversies section for cleanup, because at the moment it reads like a long diatribe of problems specific groups have had with the film. Yes, there was a lot of controvesy surrounding the film but surely it can be put in a more succinct and clear format. čĥàñľōŕď 03:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheating is cheating is true, but there are circumstances where the social climate of the time required them to get a wife and settle down. At the time, it's what you do. And yes, there is a certain amount of bisexuality to the characters. However, loads of films that are romance/drama films deal with cheating and infidelity. Wasn't Rose from Titanic cheating on Caledon Hockley with Jack? I don't think this particular film needs to singled out because "Shock horror, people cheat with other people". It seems that this in particular is singled out because it has a homosexual context and somehow people think it give weight to the homosexual sterotype of Promiscuity -- CHANLORD [T]/[C]  00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter. It's still lying to the women involved, and putting them at risk to a certain extent. I'd say Rose wasn't cheating as her involvement with the man in question was not sexual or even confirmed, and was forced on her by others rather than chosen by her. The characters in Brokeback Mountain did make the choices (to be involved with those women), and they did lie. I think we could do better for something to represent us than making excuses for the characters being liars and cheats. -RannXXV 01:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At risk to what? Anyway, this isn't the place for such a discussion. Yes, they did cheat on their wives, but loads of real-life people do. I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to place moral values on the film. The world isn't perfect and neither are homosexuals (well, any more so than heterosexuals). -- CHANLORD [T]/[C]  01:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point to start with, though, was more along the lines that all the controversies focused on groups that disliked it purely for the homosexual content, and there's little to no mention of anyone disliking it for other reasons. I'm only aware of a couple on blogs, and I'm a little fuzzy on where they fit in with being considered for inclusion in Wikipedia. -RannXXV 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs are POV and rarely fit into the inclusion of Wikipedia. In terms of the controversy section, I think it is way way way too long and that's why I tagged it for cleanup. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C]  02:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't reviews and opinions on a film (which is basically what the controversy section is about) POV by their very nature? I mean, a film critic by definition gives their opinion of a film, and thus every film review and opinion of it is POV. -RannXXV 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but not everyone's opinion is note-worthy to put in the article. That's why I propose reducing the length of this section because this article is about the film itself. We don't need to go into a long diatribe about every reviewer/blogger/groups problem with the film. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C]  03:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the cleanup tag. I've been over this whole section in a few sweeps and done any copyediting that appeared necessary to clean it up. The section no longer needs cleanup. If there is anything wrong with it now (and it seems fine to me), it's something else. Metamagician3000 08:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup controversies

message: There is nothing wrong with having a brief description of the movie in the opening paragraphs.  In fact, this is very common.  The Godfather says it is a Mafia movie that takes place in from 1945 to 1955.  Sometimes the articles have a fairly detailed description of the movie.  Here is the opening paragraph of Casablanca which is a featured article:
:Casablanca is a 1942 film set during World War II in the Vichy-controlled Moroccan city of Casablanca. The film was directed by Michael Curtiz, and stars Humphrey Bogart as Rick and Ingrid Bergman as Ilsa. It focuses on Rick's conflict between, in the words of one character, love and virtue: he must choose between his love for Ilsa and his need to do the right thing by helping her husband, Resistance hero Victor Laszlo, escape from Casablanca and continue his fight against the Nazis.
Saying that Brokeback Mountain is about a same-sex relationship is as much of a spoiler as saying that Titanic was about a love affair on a big ship that hits an iceburg, which begins...
:Titanic is an Academy Award winning 1997 dramatic film released by Paramount Pictures and 20th Century Fox. The bulk of the plot is set aboard the ill-fated RMS Titanic during her maiden voyage in 1912. 
Please discuss this here. -- Samuel Wantman 02:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe in multiple reverts. I will wait for someone who agrees with me to revert your pursuit of insisting this is a spoiler.  If you have reasons, state them. -- Samuel Wantman 03:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the article. eaolson 04:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have reverted it back.  I like the previous description.  Waya sahoni 07:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well! This is quite odd.  It looks like you both made the same revert.  If you look at the history this edit shows that text already reverted, yet the next edit shows it being reverted.  I don't understand what happened. --Samuel Wantman 08:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Samuel Wantman. I don't believe that it would hurt the article. A portion of the plot does not qualify as "spoilers". —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That is terribly odd.  I don't understand what happened with that revert.  And, Waya sahoni, what is with the unsubstantiated accusation of copyright violations? eaolson 15:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted a question about this at Village pump (technical) -- Samuel Wantman 22:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ooops!  It appears that Waya sahoni put the text back in the plot section, and  eaolson put it in the opening paragraph.  So there is nothing odd. -- Samuel Wantman 10:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: Do we really need to specify that the movie is set in Wyoming, United States?  It's not like there's another Wyoming, and I can't imagine that anyone who's heard of this movie doesn't knows it's set in the US.  But whenever "United States" is edited out, it gets put back in again.  Can anyone present a good reason why the country needs to be included?  "Wyoming, United States' fictional Brokeback Mountain" seems like a clumsy phrase to me.  I think "Wyoming's fictional Brokeback Mountain" reads better and conveys all the necessary information.  KGiles 00:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One may not know where Wyoming is located. The United States is not the most important nation in the world, therefore we cannot assume everyone will be aware of its location. "United States" should be included in the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I don't think people are as stupid as you do.  One need not have ever heard of Wyoming to be able to figure out that an American-made film based on a story by an American author and starring two guys in cowboy hats is probably set in the US.  If someone actually was confused as to where Wyoming might be, they could simply click on the Wyoming link and learn all about it.  Other articles for Westerns don't insult the intelligence of their readers by explaining that US states are actually in the US.  (See Dances with Wolves, The Missing, The Outlaw Josey Wales, etc.)  Even the Brokeback Mountain article mentions Texas without specifying "Texas, United States."  If you're just looking to make some political point about the US not being "the most important nation in the world" then this is the wrong place to do it.  It's also an ineffective technique, as sticking "United States" into articles where it isn't necessary looks more like an overpatriotic attempt to promote the US than anything else.  That said, whoever changed the line in question from "Wyoming, United States' fictional Brokeback Mountain" to "the fictional Brokeback Mountain in Wyoming, United States" did manage to reduce the clumsiness of the phrase.  I still think it's stupid and awkward to specify the country, but at least it doesn't read quite as badly now. KGiles 18:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with KGiles about this.  If anyone doesn't know where Wyoming is, they can and should click on the link. -- Samuel Wantman 20:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There's considerable confusion about what particular fact?  I haven't seen that anyone is actually confused as to which country Wyoming is in.  But I think Samuel Wantman's edit looks good and should clear things up for anyone who thinks Wyoming is a Canadian province or something.  The general setting of the American West probably does merit mention in the opening paragraph anyway, since "Brokeback Mountain" has gained attention for being the first major Western genre film in several years. KGiles 04:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: KGiles, I never said that anyone was stupid. I merely stated the truth: not everyone is going to know where Wyoming is located. Yes, I agree with Exploding Boy. If "United States" is not required next to "Wyoming", then there is certainly no need to have "Canada" next to "Alberta", correct? :) —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if I've given you the impression that I am opposed to ever mentioning the names of countries.  I am opposed only when doing so is both unnecessary and awkward.  I don't feel it's necessary to explain to people that Alberta is in Canada, but at least "The film was shot primarily in Alberta, Canada" is short and simple.  "The two young men meet in 1963 on a sheep herding job on Wyoming, United States' fictional Brokeback Mountain" (which was the original sentence I objected to) is hideously clumsy.  But as I say above, I think Samuel Wantman's latest revision looks good, and I hope it makes everyone here happy. KGiles 04:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yet we still have to add "Canada" to "Alberta"? Personally, the logic is confusing so I will be removing "Canada". —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The logic I am using is that ugly, clumsy writing should be revised. The questionable benefit of telling people what country Wyoming is in does not outweigh the fact that the original sentence I objected to was awkward and overlong.  "The film was shot primarily in Alberta, Canada" is both clear and brief, so I don't care if the country name is included or not. I have no special agenda with regard to country names. My chief concern is good writing. One of Wikipedia's biggest flaws is that the quality of writing is often quite low, and I think we all need to try to do a better job in that regard. KGiles 00:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks to Samuel Wantman for attempting to compromise the situation, however, this edit does not explain that Wyoming is located in the U.S.; it states that the film attracted criticism and praise in the nation. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My later edit does make that clearer.  The way I read the sentence clearly puts the location of the film in the US. -- Samuel Wantman 22:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to interpret it this way though. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont understand. I interpret "The film depicts a sexual and emotional relationship between  two men living in the American West in the 1960s and 1970s." to mean that the film takes place in the western part of the US, so when Wyoming is mentioned later, you infer that Wyoming is in the US.  How do you interpret it? -- Samuel Wantman 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wyoming, United States 

message: The text says that "the willingness of production companies in Canada to assist with the project" was part of what motivated Ang Lee to film in Canada. This is too obvious to require stating--if they had been unwilling to assist with the project, he couldn't have shot there--unless the implication is that American companies were unwilling to assist. If this is true, then it should be stated directly, rather than implied. I'm going to remove the sentence. Babajobu 02:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the statement that "many predominantly Catholic countries" have banned the film? Name them. Until then, I'm taking the sentence out. Babajobu 02:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No no, the Alberta Film Development Corporation is a public company funded by the provincial crown. It is far from insignificant that this form of support was available in Alberta Masalai 02:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian companies willingness to assist with the project

message: I've rewritten the lead section a bit.  The "controversy" sentence made it sound as if setting the movie in the American West was causing controversy.  I haven't really heard much talk about "controversy" lately, personally.  Perhaps that's blown over.  How about just leaving discussion of any such controversy until later in the article. eaolson 04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: I realize that it's a general 'rule' that active voice is preferred over passive, but the phrasing in the lead, "frankly depicts" still feels awkward and clumsy.  I'm willing to believe that it feels that way because the phrase is so infrequently used compared to the alternate (though passive) version "a frank depiction."  Google says the passive is far more commonly used than the active. Personally, I think this is the exception that proves the rule - the passive but familiar is better than the active but awkward.  AUTiger ʃ talk/work 16:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Something like "The film presents a frank depiction of..." would sound better to me. KGiles 17:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Active voice vs. common usage

message: The MoS states that "died" should be replaced with "passed away" as it is more formal. Therefore, I would appreciate it if users didn't revert my edit. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't find that preference at the link you provided.  I have seen other discussions preferring "died" to "passed away". -- Samuel Wantman 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It most certainly does not. However, Wikipedia:How to write a great article specifically says avoid using euphemisms, such as "passed away" for "died". I'm not sure what your issue is on this subject, but deliberately misrepresenting something so easily verified is a good way to destroy your credibility here. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 02:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:How to write a great article  clearly says this.  I'm in favour of every example of "passed away" being replaced with "died".  Wikipedia should be consistently rejecting euphemisms as "non-encyclopedic".  I shudder to think that Wikipedia:Manual of Style would ever be advocating the use of euphemism above descriptive and correct usage of words.  MoS says nothing of the kind - did you really think anyone would buy that? Rossrs 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: EE, are you editing in good faith here?  I don't see how anyeone could look at the MOS and honestly believe it said what you claimed.  There's nothing at all in the MOS about use of euphemisms, and there's certainly nothing stating that all instances of "died" should be replaced with "passed away".  "Passed away in an accident" is particularly awkward, almost to the point of being comic.  Such phrasing has no place in an encyclopedia article. KGiles 19:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same goes for "lost," "passed on," "go on one's long journey," "pushing up daisies," "on one's fluffy cloud," "in a better place," "meet one's maker," "kick the bucket," "buy the farm," and any of those other ways of expressing "die."  Exploding Boy 19:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, it was not my intention to direct you to the MoS until I realized that I already had. When I discovered this, I was going to point out the how to write a great article guideline, however, I had to depart from the computer. So I made a mistake but this does not warrant every user to shoot me in the foot. No, I did not believe that anyone was going to buy "that" because it hadn't been what I was meaning to do. Anyway, on a different note, since I believe that this article is not aiming at any type of future, I'm going to refrain from editing here. I don't type these words in hate but in frustration. So I say goodbye from this article, but perhaps I'll stumble upon one of you on a different one where we could create a mutual relationship. Take care of this article! Ciao! —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, remember that there is a peer review to refer to if one ever does decide on attempting featured article status for Brokeback Mountain. Good luck to the person who chooses to. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MoS

message: I don't think that the section title "Liberal groups controversy" is appropriate.  The term "liberal group" is POV, not to mention innacurate, as the section talks about criticism from journalists and others.  I just can't think of a better title.  "Pro-gay groups" would be POV.  "Objections to the marketing campaign" is more accurate but terribly awkward.  Anyone have any better suggestions? eaolson 16:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Liberal groups" section title

message: I've started converting the citations in the article to inline citations, adding notes, etc. Quite a few of these citations are actually broken, though. Does anyone have information on the citation about Brokeback Mountain being high-grossing from indiewire? Jude(talk,contribs) 05:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations 

message: Only 5 of the 8 Academy Awards nominations were listed. I added the missing 3, but I don't have access to the people that won them (i.e. for the soundtrack). Did somebody else see them?
Liastnir 04:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations Help! 

message: It's not clear to me how these two sentences fit together.  At the top of the section commercial success
:Brokeback Mountain cost about U.S.$14 million to produce, excluding its advertising budget.
:As of March 5, 2006, Brokeback Mountain had grossed more than $78 million in North America and $51 million elsewhere, adding up to a worldwide gross of more than $129 million. 
And at the bottom of the same section
:According to interviews with the filmmakers, Focus Features was able to recoup their production costs by selling overseas rights to the film so, from the outset, the film was not in danger of losing very much money.
Does it means they had already sold enough to cover the cost even before the film was shown in the US?  It is confusing to me when almost a 10X gain and "losing money" were discussed in the same section. Kowloonese 18:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was confusing too.  I've moved the information about overseas rights up the the first paragraph of the section, and deleted the rather pointless and misleading bit about "not in danger of losing very much money". I hope this will be more clear to readers.  KGiles 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: I realize that this is a recent, popular and (for some) controversial movie, but can we please stop messing around with the plot summary?  It's just fine as it is; we don't need to mention every little detail that happens in the film.  Exploding Boy 22:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in general, but I think your recent changes cut just a tad too much and wound up making some of the transitions awkward.  Jack's dad is refusing to let Ennis have Jack's ashes, and then suddenly Ennis is looking at shirts in Jack's old closet?  The summary definitely does not need to give away every detail, but it does need to make sense even to people who haven't seen the movie.  I've added in a few explanatory sentences to make things more clear to the reader.  KGiles 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary

message: This page needs its references worked on.  It has over fourty external links interleaved with the text.  Ugh.  --Cyde Weys 18:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: For heaven's sake, please provide ANY reference that says that "Ennis'" is more gramatically correct than "Ennis's."  I challenge you to provide one. Moncrief 05:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Nohat. Talk about petty.  Moncrief 05:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strunk and White appear to agree with you. I'll withdraw my complaint. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Ardenn 05:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gramatically inccrrect

message: I added in some more detail. The first time I read the article, it was strange to me that there was nothing about their first encounter in camp, that after the first paragraph, it went straight to after they left the mountain. So I wrote up how the sexual relationship started. I also added some details at the end. The symbolism of the shirts is so important to the movie, I thought it should be in there. And, I added the last line, partly because it is so impossible to know exactly what Ennis says unless you have the DVD and watch the subtitles. Hope this doesn't upset anyone too much. DavidH 07:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is far too much.  We don't need to have every aspect of the movie.  Some of the terms chosen are a little awkward ("couple passionately").  There's just too much information.  This is supposed to be a short summary that gives the main thrust of the action (sorry!), not a rewriting of the film.  This section is always unstable I've noticed, but I think it's getting out of control.  It's not Coles Notes.  It needs paring down.  Exploding Boy 18:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...Too much" "Every aspect" "out of control" "too much information" and "needs paring down" are somewhat vague criticisms that don't address any of the specific additions. Of course, improve any phrasing you find awkward. But the previous version, which started with them leaving the mountain, left out too much. Many other films on Wikipedia have much more detailed summaries, even scene-by-scene synopses. This certainly doesn't go that far, but does highlight some important points that were missing IMO. And I'm eager to see someone get a good handle on the first night in the tent scene -- "quick bout of anal sex"? "Drunken fuck"? "Passionate lovemaking session"? DavidH 19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's what I think the synopsis should look like (the part between the spoiler tags):
The two men meet on a sheepherding job on Brokeback Mountain in Wyoming.  One night, after sharing a bottle of whiskey, they have sex.
After the two part ways at the end of their job, Ennis marries his fiancée, Alma Beers (Williams) and starts a family. Jack moves to Texas where he meets Lureen Newsome (Hathaway), whom he subsequently marries.
Four years later, Ennis receives a postcard from Jack saying that he will soon be in town and hopes Ennis will want to see him again. The two men reunite and find their passion is as strong as ever. Jack broaches the subject of creating a life together operating a small ranch. Ennis, haunted by a childhood memory of the torture and murder of a man suspected of being homosexual in his home town, fears that such an arrangement can only end in tragedy. He is also unwilling to leave his family. Unable to be open about their relationship, Ennis and Jack settle for infrequent meetings on camping trips in the mountains.
 
As the years pass, Ennis's marriage deteriorates. Alma eventually divorces him and takes custody of their children. Jack hopes that Ennis's divorce will allow them to live together at last, but Ennis refuses to move away from his daughters. 
Several months after their last meeting, Ennis learns that Jack has died when a postcard Ennis sent him is returned, stamped "deceased". In a strained telephone conversation, Jack's wife Lureen tells Ennis that Jack died in an accident. As she explains, a brief scene of Jack being brutally murdered illustrates Ennis's fears that Jack's death was not accidental. Lureen tells Ennis that Jack wished to have his ashes scattered on Brokeback Mountain, and suggests contacting his parents.
Ennis visits Jack's parents and offers to take Jack's ashes to Brokeback Mountain. Jack's father refuses, insisting that Jack's remains be buried in the family plot. Jack's mother is more welcoming, and invites Ennis to go upstairs to Jack's boyhood bedroom. There, Ennis discovers two old shirts hidden in the back of the closet. The bloodstained shirts, with Jack's enclosing Ennis' shirt on the same hanger, are the ones the two men were wearing on their last day on Brokeback Mountain in 1963.
At the end of the movie, Ennis opens his own closet to reveal that he has hung the two shirts, this time with his surrounding Jack's, inside the door with a postcard of Brokeback Mountain. 
Exploding Boy 20:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OK, but pretty "Just the facts, maam." I like some more rhythm and expansion of a few points. Wikipedia has no space limitations, so I don't favor shorter just for shorter's sake, and I don't think the revision is so long that it's hard to follow. It's probably just a matter of taste, let's see if others have a strong preference. DavidH 20:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary

message: Removed the graf on the supposed controversy of a school chastising an actress in the film. Preserving it here:
:Former School of Brokeback actress rejects her
:The former school of actress Michelle Williams, Santa Fe Christian School in San Diego, has shunned Williams as a result of her participation in the movie. Even though she did not play a controversial character, her former headmaster feels that they don't wish to be associated with the film. "We don't want to have anything to do with her in relation to that movie," said the school's headmaster, Jim Hopson. '"Michelle doesn't represent the values of this institution. Brokeback Mountain basically promotes a lifestyle we don't promote."'
Unlike the significant events documented in the controversy section, this is one small person making a comment basically, with no response from the film company. The article is long, has a robust controversy section. I don't see much encyclopedic value in reporting the high school headmaster not liking the film. Maybe she was a bad student, too. DavidH 05:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy graf - removed 1 

message: Looking for input on the first two grafs. I'm really leaning toward whacking this down. It's overlinked, repeats much of what comes later, and buries the meat of the matter (the story comes after the stars; isn't celebrity-obsession unencyclopedic?). Rather than list the awards, "award winning" can suffice (different if it had won Best Picture). Rather than list five or more actors, (all in the info box), name the leads. Rather than mention McMurtry and Proulx's Pulitzer prizes, let readers read their articles. Any why mention Trash, I mean Crash, in the intro at all? How many other film articles, in the first graf, name the film that the subject film lost to at the Academy Awards? 
All in all, I think it's too dense with links and infobits; the lead should be spare and beautiful -- like the film. DavidH 05:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, why mention Trash, I mean Crash? The Academy did itself bad in 2006! River 17:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro upgrade 

message: Removed a section recently added that attempted to analyze some plot points and make conclusions about the characters:
Brokeback Mountain Ending:  The quiet ending of the movie has confused many people; and the ending created many debates about the way events are resolved:  one person even wondered if Ennis had a flashback of killing Jack, in jealousy.  The author Annie Proulx was asked about the movie, and she replied that there is only one way the story could end [see ^AP].  The following detailed plot-points help to explain the subtle resolution of the film:
* Despite their final argument, Ennis still loved Jack; and wrote to meet him again.
* Ennis travels to Jack's parents:  Jack's father tells Ennis that Jack wanted to move to the ranch with Ennis but then with another man, a ranch-neighbor, that final year.
* Ennis realizes that Jack revealed himself to others: Jack was killed, by tire iron, as evidenced by both the broken jaw & broken nose.
* Ennis goes upstairs to Jack's room and finds the 2 shirts. Ennis sees it is a shirt of his, not the ranch-neighbor, that is inside Jack's shirt: Jack truly loved Ennis.
* No other person wanted to take Jack's ashes to Brokeback: not his wife, not his parents, and not the new ranch-neighbor. Only Ennis loved Jack enough for that.
* The father knew of Brokeback, but decides to bury the ashes. Ennis agrees and smiles unexpectedly; as if making other plans, Ennis only smiles.
* It will be the family cemetery. (In the book, Ennis drives by the cemetery; but Ennis refuses to imagine leaving the ashes there.)
* Taking Jack's ashes to Brokeback is a major pending issue: for ending the story.
* Ennis plans to attend daughter Alma's wedding: losing his job, which had kept Ennis from Jack.
* Ennis folds Alma's sweater carefully and places it in the closet: near the 2 shirts. Ennis also buttons Jack's shirt carefully.
*Ennis then promises, "Jack, I swear-": his final words in the movie and the book.
The short story seems to emphasize the unfinished and thwarted plans of Ennis; however, the movie emphasizes a change of attitude: Ennis plans to attend his daughter's wedding,
losing his job which had kept him from Jack. Then, Ennis carefully places Alma's sweater near the two shirts, which have been carefully reversed with his shirt hugging Jack's shirt (as Jack's favorite memory was being hugged by Ennis over his shoulders). Ennis carefully fastens the top button of Jack's shirt: finishing unfinished business.  Ennis has promised to do the right thing to attend Alma's wedding. Now, Ennis is willing to make another promise, as he looks at the postcard of Brokeback Mountain. Ennis says: "Jack, I swear": to do the right thing: to complete Jack's final wish on Brokeback, to avenge Jack's death, or even to change the world.  The ending remains uncertain at that point.
Ennis had been too afraid to make a commitment to Jack before. But, Ennis is no longer afraid, even of losing his job. Actually, this is hinted in the short story:   "Jack, I swear--": he said, though Jack had never asked him to swear anything and was himself not the swearing kind. Around that time, Jack began to appear in his dreams, Jack as he had first seen him...." [last page of story]. 
Finally, Ennis, who was not the swearing-kind, has changed. Finally, Ennis has sworn to live his life for Jack, with a new beginning on Brokeback Mountain. 
This section strays into original research and personal conclusions that are arguable. Did Jack "reveal" himself to others or was he found out? More importantly, the assertion that Ennis has changed, and now would commit to a gay relationship is hard to support. The point of the entire story, the tragedy of it, is that Ennis rejects a relationship that he desperately needed; a sudden change in his entire outlook at the end makes for a happier ending than the story seems to demand. Also, the final scene between Ennis and Alma Jr. is not in the short story; Ennis deciding he can lose his job rather than miss his daughter's wedding suggests a new commitment to family more than a change in attitude regarding a relationship with Jack. In sum, there could be a place for some plot analysis, but it would have to be based on quotes from either published critques or commentary from the Proulx or the screenwriters, not the points made above, apparently the conclusions of one person, which others might easily disagree with. DavidH 15:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed plot analysis section