Talk:Brokeback Mountain/Archive 5

message: (09-May-2006) The article is still the target of daily vandalism, after 2,900+ revisions.
Steps could be taken to reduce the impact of vandalism.
*Moving the overview information into a new small section (called "Overview") allows for separate edit & separate repair of vandalism there.  Perhaps changes to the overview will be more likely to be stamped "Overview" to focus attention for changes there.
Any other changes to help limit vandalism would be beneficial. Wikid77 13:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thwart Vandalism 

message: (10-May-2006) This section addresses a management plan for 2006 to focus efforts for updating the article on Brokeback Mountain. (Rationale: As of 08-May-2006, more than 2,900+ revisions had failed to describe much about the film itself, while the lead-in section was re-written several times, still failing to meet Wikipedia guidelines for the intro.  Although WP:GA update requests were stated, no plan for implementation was attempted. Hence, this plan.)
*Working Lead-In:  The top intro section should be changed to give a complete overview, summarizing all information in the sub-heading sections.  The goal is to provide a standalone description of the film.  Status (10-May-06): still no summary of remaining sections.
*Working WP:GA Plan:  The following tasks were recommended as improvements:
**Parallel Controversy subheads - Status 31-May-06: a few subheads are not parallel.
**Redundant "marries his fiancée" - Status 12-May-06: Done; added "long-term" Wikid77 03:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan2006 

message: I would like to contest the notion that this article is not fairly stable. Although it racks up edits in its edit history, the vast majority of them are vandalism and the reversion of vandalism which have no relevance to GA or FA nominations. Additionally, a good chunk of them are adding links or minor rewordings. For example, here is a look at all of the changes which have occured in the past eleven days. Other than one sentence being added to the plot summary, nothing major takes place. Therefore, I am renominating the article. savidan(talk) (e@) 14:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that vandalism produces an illusion of instability, as even on 26-May-2006, the article was attacked several times, blanking the entire text with a one-line joke (which was reverted by robot).  Potential improvements for WP:GA suggestions are scheduled, immediately above, under Plan2006; in particular, more about international reception could be added, and the Controversy-headers could be reworded as consistent phrases.  -Wikid77 19:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The GA instability failure was written on April 18.. The article was unstable then (aside from vandalism). Davodd 07:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still, IMO, unstable to say the least. Since new edits have reworded almost 40% of the article since the nomination. Lincher 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: 03-Jun-2006: Apparently, there had been prior discussion that Wikipedia articles would not promote neologisms, avoiding any new words not in a main-stream dictionary.  After the Xerox Corporation lost control of the trademark "Xerox" to become the popular term "xeroxing" ("copying"), the proposed cost of removing the trademark from Corporation documents, plus legal fees, was very high (see: Xerox Corporation#Trademark issues).  I have reworded the Trivia point, about "brokeback" being a slang expression, to just state "expression" used by some, and emphasized that "brokeback" typically refers to the film, not slang.  Reworded as follows:
: The film also gave rise to an expression "brokeback" used, by some, to mean gay ; across broader society, "brokeback" means "of the film": example "brokeback poster" refers to the movie poster, where "brokeback" is not a new word, but an ellipsis expression meaning Brokeback Mountain.
A common ellipsis example is, in the express-checkout line, "9 items or less" meaning "9 items or less than 9 items" for the limit.  Perhaps the whole statement about "brokeback" should just be removed. Please discuss.  -Wikid77 12:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm mildly opposed to much of the trivia section to begin with. This is an encyclopedia, and trivia is, well, pretty trivial. In reference to this particular issue, I think the part about brokeback=gay should stay. It's backed up by sources and seems to be used a bit in actual practice. In a little while, if the term has fallen by the wayside, it can come out.  I think the second half of the trivia point, about "brokeback" referring to Brokeback Mountain can come out.  It's a common practice to shorten the title of a book or movie when writing about it.  I also think that the idea of referring to a movie by a word in its own title is pretty glaringly obvious.  It is also unsourced. eaolson 13:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  04-Jun-2006: I added a source. Once other uses of the word "brokeback" are removed, then "brokeback" appears as a neologism meaning "gay" similar to "xerox" used to mean "copy":  either defend "brokeback" as an elliptical phrase for "Brokeback Mountain" or remove the whole statement.  Claiming that "brokeback" means "gay" is disinformation by omission of the broader meaning of "brokeback" as an elliptical phrase meaning "Brokeback Mountain." Sources: "Brokeback film shirts fetch £57000." [ Channel4] and "I will be disappointed if Brokeback actors don't go home with SAG trophies." [ GoldDerbyForums]. Also, I added a bullet about "brokeback horse or mule" to avoid perception as a neologism. -Wikid77 03:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologism 

message: * In the Commercial success section, there is a lot of redundancy in the use of the movie..., variety would be appreciated.
* Also in the Commercial success section, linearity in the dates would be nice. Lincher 22:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further insight on the article and things to work on for GA status 

message: In the plot description, it is stated that Alma insults Ennis' ability to support children by asking him to wear a condom.  When I saw the film, I was struck by the insult in the reverse direction--Ennis tells Alma that if she gets pregnant, he'll support the child, and it weren't for the baby-making, he would not ever touch her. Lippard 05:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot Description

message: The Oscar loss definitely deserves some mention, but ten years from now no one will remember the stupid movie that won, yet Brokeback will never be forgotten. Way too many of the links are dinky articles about Crash and the Oscars.
I propose eliminating some of those Crash links, just keeping some major ones.
Aroundthewayboy 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GO for it. I agree, the Oscar "controversy" or suprise is trivial. DavidH 18:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking of which, how about deleting all but one of the sources at the very end of the opening paragraph - the fact that it lost to Crash is widely known, and 8 footnotes is beyond ridiculous. I'm not sure which one (if one is needed at all) should be kept. Speaking of the intro, perhaps the 'tagline' could be moved into the template on the right? Richard001 05:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Many Links About Crash/The Oscars

message: Fred Phelps was on MSNBC and said something about how this country has "gone the way of the Brokeback Mountain." I think thats a pretty good example of how the film gets name dropped in the culture wars. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree.  It really hasn't been very long since the movie came out.  So I think any attempt to make hay out of the use of "brokeback" in pop culture may just be due to remaining movie buzz.  I'd suggest waiting a while to see if the usage will be persistent. eaolson 19:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Coinages based on "Brokeback" have sure appeared everywhere, probably hundreds of editorial cartoons, jokes, media quotations. But it probably won't last, and isn't that significant unless it does. DavidH 17:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't lasted. Pw33n 03:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One thing I think should be added 

message: This article contains a lot of really odd wikilinks, for instance to Utah and Southeast rather than to the film critics' organizations with Utah and Southeast in their name. TheGrappler 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual wikilinks 

message: Some time ago the issue of the sexuality of the two characters was raised (it's back in archive one now).  Having come across a comment in a review in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review which alludes to Jack and Ennis as bisexual, I wondered if it was worth raising the point again, and perhaps discuss the merit of inserting some commentary about the way the characters were regarded in terms of their sexuality.  Of course, there are about a million references out there to them being "gay cowboys", but I found the following where reviewers and critics deemed them to be bi:
"The film is so discreet and heartfelt in its depiction of an affair between two bisexual cowboys that it may play, like "Philadelphia," to adult audiences regardless of ideological disposition" Ed Blank, Pittsburgh Tribune Review
"Then again, Ennis and Jack aren't exactly gay. They're bisexual, a term that can refer to any number of living arrangements. Ennis, spooked by a horrendous gay-bashing he was made privy to as a child, fully intends to settle down, get married, have kids. Eventually, Jack does the same." Kent Williams, The Daily Page
"Arguably the initiator of their relationship, we later see Jack eagerly engage Lureen sexually, with no explanation as to whether he is bisexual, so in need of physical intimacy that anyone, regardless of gender, will do, or merely very adept at faking it." Tom Ciorciari, Filmcritic.com
"These films will include "Brokeback Mountain," the story of two bisexual male sheepherders who repeatedly committed adultery against their wives to engage in homosexual sex." Traditional Values Coalition - no joke!
"Brokeback’s two main characters, Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar, are gay or bisexual married men, who are cheating on their wives. Alma and Lureen are victims of same sex infidelity. This aspect of Brokeback Mountain has largely been ignored." Ruth Houston, Press Release Newswire
"First of all, the story is not about gay cowboys. Many have pointed out that the two men at the center of attention were sheep herders; but fewer have recognized that the characters, if they can be labeled at all, are closer to bisexual than strictly gay. In the story, the men were portrayed as married and heterosexually responsive. Factor in the main event; two men having intermittent sexual flings, and it is clear the fictional pair were bisexually capable." Dr. Warren Throckmorton, National Association of Research & Therapy of Homosexuality
"Two bisexual cowboys must deal with their secret love for one another as they meet on camping trips over the course of several decades." Screen It! Entertainment Reviews
"Brokeback Mountain is not a movie about gay people, and there are no gay people in it. There. I said it. Despite what you may have read in the many reviews that have come out about this new cowboy feature film, Brokeback Mountain is a bisexual picture. Why can't film reviewers say the word "bisexual" when they see lead characters with sexual and romantic relationships with both men and women?  I am unaware of a single review of Brokeback calling the leads what they are – a sad statement on the invisibility of bisexual experience and the level of biphobia in both the mainstream and gay media." Amy Andre, National Sexuality Magazine
"Heath Ledger is receiving great reviews and many nominations for his role in Brokeback Mountain. His role as a bisexual cowboy may be his finest screen appearance." Eric Nash, Three Movie Buffs
"Certainly, Lee's film has enjoyed both curiosity and novelty value in being known as the "gay cowboy movie." Never mind that its protagonists are actually bisexual sheep herders. The vernacular tagline proved so effective that you can still practically hear Universal Pictures' advertising department breathing a collective sigh of relief at not having to sell America on "that bi shepherds flick." Godfrey Cheshire, The Independent Weekly
"Annie Proulx’s heart-wrenching short story about two ranch hands whose overwhelming passion for each other is at odds with everything they think they know about themselves and their world is not, as has been pointed out ad nauseam regarding the film version, a “gay cowboy” story. In fact, the film’s depiction of ostensibly straight men in a hyper-masculine culture can more easily be understood as a metaphor for the experience of many men who do not identify as gay or even bisexual, but who nevertheless have sex with other men." Clarence Patton & Christopher Murray, Gay City News
And, of course, there's Gyllenhaal's comments, in an interview in Details, that he viewed Ennis and Jack as straight men who fall in love; and Ledger's comments in Time: "I don't think Ennis could be labeled as gay. Without Jack Twist, I don't know that he ever would have come out. I think the whole point was that it was two souls that fell in love with each other."
There's a whole article here on the matter: Probing the 'Brokeback Syndrome', Southern Voice
Seems like some interesting comments out there that might add to this article...? --gbambino 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well, with no input I guess there's no objection, so I've inserted some of this commentary into the article. --gbambino 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excuse me. Having read all of the above claims of "bisexuality," consider the following: Is there any representation in the film where either Ennis or Jack have any extramarital dalliances, or even desires, toward other women? Not to my knowledge. I think that the film clearly suggests that their sexuality is in fact gay, even though they are able to "perform" with their wives. They are never attracted to other women. They do not cheat on their wives with other women. Jack looks only for other men if he is unable to find Ennis; he has sex with other men, but never with other women. The film may not be one hundred per cent crystal clear on this, but the viewer has to be assumed to have minimal powers of perception, no? 66.108.4.183 21:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Give me a break. There are differences of opinion, and in this case, as in others, sometimes one opinion is not well-founded. Some viewers thought they were straight? That just confirms my point even stronger. In this regard, consider the plot in any fictional or cinematic romance: Do people typically say, "Hmmm...The sexuality of Romeo and Juliet is unclear....They could be bisexual....They may be gay....  Or, Scarlett and Rhett....or Anna and Vronsky...."    Clearly this attempt at reading beyong the text (or film) does not generally happen. Why does it, in this case? Read my above comment again, and then review your conclusions. 66.108.4.183 01:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no need for me to review my conclusions.  If you want to live in denial of the fact that numerous other people have differing opinions then go ahead and do so.  I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but the various views are out there, and they are documented.  Of course, you should know damn well why Brokeback Mountain differs from the other stories you referred to. --gbambino 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not denying that other points of view exist; that is clear. I was commenting on whether those other points of view have any well-founded basis. I think they do not. As for whether Brokeback Mountain differs from other romances, it does not. Not fundamentally. The reason why it is treated differently is because it portrays a gay relationship, in a world where the target audience is mostly straight, and it was aimed at a mass audience. The types of comments and opinions I am criticizing have no basis in the film itself; they were projected with the aim of drawing more box-office for a film whose subject matter is revolting to many. But they misread the film fundamentally, and intentionally so. Not that any of this is so important. It is only a mass-appeal Hollywood love story, and not a great one at that. But silly comments that are so clearly ill-founded deserve a rebuttal. 66.108.4.183 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You may well think the opinions of others lack a well-founded basis, but, respectfully, it doesn't matter - not here anyway.  They think they have a well founded basis for their view, so we just have to accept the existence of their opinions.  I don't see why film critics or sex researchers would care about any film's box office intake.  Further, I thought it was blatantly clear that Brokeback differed from Romeo and Julliet because Romeo didn't have an ongoing relationship with a man while courting Julliet.  It is the very fact that Jack and Ennis don't adopt a gay lifestyle (per se), that they both engage both sexes willingly, that one only desires one man while the other sought sex from other men, etc., that people have differing opinioins about their sexuality.  You see them as gay, and others don't.  But others agree with you (as acknowledged in the article), and so they provide the rebuttal.  For the purpose of an encyclopaedia article we need to acknowledge the spread of interpretations. --gbambino 01:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of protagonists' sexuality 

message: As part of the wikiproject to reduce the amount of trivia, I went through the trivia section and removed the more 'trivial trivia' and some trivia without references.  If some of what I removed is deemed by the editors of this article to be necessary information, please find a way to incorporate it into the article proper, rather than re-adding it to the trivia section.  Wikipedia does not outright ban trivia, but it strongly recommends that it not be included in articles.  The guidelines state that trivia sections are particularly okay in new articles because they can add information before the article is formatted.  However, once an article is as developed as this one is, the trivia needs to be removed from the trivia section and incorporated into the article proper. I strongly recommend that editors here try and do this if they want the trivia information to stay as there is a growing movement to remove trivia.  More trivia may be removed if not incorporated.  --The Way 02:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Turkey is considered part of the middle east. Turkey sits on an area called "Asia Minor" and as such is considered to be part of the middle east. You would be hard-pressed to find any scholar who would suggest otherwise. Jtpaladin 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Is there any reason that the article is repeated? It seems to me some copy/paste error made the text and images appear twice in the article!? -- Bakabaka 17:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, an edit on November 22 duplicated the article.  Some edits have been made to the text since then, so somebody needs to go through and make sure that when the article is "unduplicated", those changes still get made in the appropriate sections.  --Psiphiorg 07:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: I'm a bit confused. The reception section just seems to list the favorable reviews, whereas all the bad reviews and reception are put under the "controversy" section. Surely they should be integrated. I mean, a few of the paragraphs under the controversy section don't even say how they were controversial. They just seem to be there because they were unfavorable opinions. Voretus 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially since, you know, Gene Shalit is a movie critic. Voretus 14:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception

message: Calling Michael Medved a "right wing" critic is to ignore Roger Ebert as a "left wing" critic. When Ebert is so designated, then Medved should be so designated. In the meantime, it was inappropriate to single out Medved for his political stance. Jtpaladin 00:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Medved 

message: I modified the China reference. As far as I can tell, it was not banned. One of the difficulties is that China only allows a limited number of imported movies can be shown each year (I heard the number is 25 in recent news reports). We can report on the official reason and any reliably sourced claims by other people why the movie was not shown but it's quite wrong to suggest the movie was banned when it wasn't Nil Einne 09:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China 

message: Citation in this article is inconsistent.  Some use  while others use .  This should be fixed (see WP:CITE). -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 18:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Over the past 2 days I've edited every ref tag to use cite web tags which produced a uniform Footnotes style.  Duplicate references were consolidated. Some references were dead and I made substitutions where possible.  I've completed my citation contributions and suggest peer review. Conrad T. Pino 06:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation consitency and style 

message: I've removed the entire Symbolism section. It was uncited, and original research. Without some sort of citation from someone involved in the movie, it's inappropriate to claim one thing symbolizes another. For example, the section said a green bowl symbolizes life and connects Ennis's earth colors to Jack's sky colors. Well, how did we know the production designer didn't just pick that bowl because it was on sale at Target? eaolson 00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbolism section

message: Isn't that a redundancy, given that winning an Oscar is acclaim? Maybe "critically acclaimed" or "widely acclaimed" or something would be better. Loganberry (Talk) 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "acclaimed Academy Award-winning" 

message: Anybody else think this entry is too long, especially in its, um, 'summary' of the plot? Figureground 04:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long? 

message: :Image:Brokebackmountainheathledger.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Brokebackmountainheathledger.jpg

message: It seems the entire 'plot' section has been reduced to 3 sentences, whereas it use dot be huge...  -156.34.13.145 17:25 14-July-2007
: 20-July-2007: I found the plot was 98% blanked on 10-July-07 by new User:Ilcamds (who has a total of 51 Wikipedia edits), so now I have restored the "Plot" section from that time.  -Wikid77 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also restored the Ratings table (nations) and 3 negative review links, blanked on 10-July-07 by User:Ilcamds [contribs]. That restores all from 10July07. -Wikid77 19:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd... 

message: The Pop culture impact section was deleted.  Strikes me as a lot of copy to throw away.  Anyone think it's worthwhile bringing it back?  Conrad T. Pino 06:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture impact section deleted 16-Jul-2007! Revert? 

message: The link in 'Plot' to Signal, Wyoming currently just redirects back to the main Brokeback Mountain article. Is this a mistake, or is it our way of saying that the two are interchangeable? There is a separate Wikipedia entry on Signal Mountain, Wyoming but I haven't changed the link to go there as I don't know enough about the geography. --Thoughtcat 07:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signal, Wyoming link