Talk:And the Band Played On

message: Also, the boook is more focused on the politics and lack of support for the investigators than it is a chronicle of the effect on the gay community. Jliberty 01:58, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
Anyone know where the name of the film was originally taken from? Martschink 06:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005

message: Because this article deals with both the book and the film, both of which will require separate infoboxes, perhaps the article should be split into two: And the Band Played On and And the Band Played On (film).  This will cut down on confusion as well as length.  Thoughts? María: (habla ~ cosas)  15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The film now has a separate article. --BelovedFreak 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: I disagree with the assertion that the book does not give the same weight to the gay community as it does politics and medicine. The most drama and the closest we ever see the characters in the book are in the gay community: Bill Kraus, Cleve Jones, Paul Popham, Larry Kramer, and Gary Walsh all have extensive reporting done on them. Not only their roles in the gay community but their frustration within the gay community to get other gays to care, and to get politicians to care as well. I think Randy Shilts did a tremendous job looking at a very difficult and complex topic. The initial reaction to AIDS by *everyone* was awful, including those in the gay community. That the gay community responded first, doesn't necessarily mean that they responded well initially.Moni3 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight Given to Gay Community in the Book 

message: From WP:Books, you can find here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books#And_the_Band_Played_On  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions solicited 

message: 1. MoS and prose PASS
Looks good, only one thing needs to be fixed.
* "Doctors, of course, were the first to deal with the toll that AIDS would take in the United States." Remove the weasel-ish "of course".
::Not sure how that was weaselish, but it's gone.
2. Factual accuracy and verifiability FAIL
*The entire "gay community" section could use some citations and sources. Specifically stuff that will DEFINITELY be challenged.
*The entire "The medical community" section could use some citations and sources.
*The entire "the political and government agencies" section could use some more citations and sources.
::This is where I sought some feedback in a peer review because this is unclear to me. These sections report accurately what Shilts wrote about. I did my best to include "Shilts wrote that..." and "Shilts reported that..." instead of leaving these issues POV. The only citations that can be provided for this section are for Shilts' book since the article is about what Shilts wrote, and some of the points take up multiple chapters, so it's quite difficult to cite, for example, every time the CDC fought with itself over funding, or the myriad times doctors and gay activists begged for money for research. How would you suggest this be handled? --Moni3 (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. Just forget that then. FamicomJL (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I went ahead and put some references from the book in anyway, while I was waiting for your response (just in case. Are there objections to the article you still have? --Moni3 (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of right now, no. The article looks fine. If you are all done, tell me and I will pass the article. FamicomJL (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm done, thank you. And thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations then, the article has passed for GA candidancy! Great work! FamicomJL (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added more sources and citations to this section. --Moni3 (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This has a citation. --Moni3 (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: Obviously the CDC staffer is one of the main characters in the book, but no mention or link except to say he was portrayed in the film--Mongreilf (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don Francis 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on And the Band Played On. 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/20070407193541/http://www.ala.org/ala/glbtrt/stonewall/stonewallbook.htm to http://www.ala.org/ala/glbtrt/stonewall/stonewallbook.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shilts' book has been used as a standard by the lay press when reviewing books chronicling subsequent medical crises including breast cancer,[48] chronic fatigue syndrome,[49] Agent Orange,[50] and continued response to AIDS.
This isn’t true, and reads like an opinion. The citations don’t prove anything. 2601:483:101:86B5:81C9:99B9:F3FC:E303 (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don’t think so. 

message: The article currently contains this gobbledygook:
As a scientific necessity to compare it to the American version of HIV, French doctors representing the Pasteur Institute sent a colleague to the National Cancer Institute, where Robert Gallo was also working on the virus. The colleague switched the samples, Shilts reported, because of a grudge he had against the Pasteur Institute.[18] Instead of Gallo comparing his samples with the French samples, he found the very same retrovirus as the French sample, putting back any new results in AIDS research for at least a year.[19]
This is poorly written nonsense.  It raises a number of questions:
* Was the "colleague" a member of the Pasteur Institute?  Why would he have a grudge against his own institute?  Why would the Pasteur doctors trust someone who has a grudge against the institute (one strong enough to set back AIDS research) to bring the precious sample to America?
* Or does the "he" in "grudge he had" refer to Gallo?
* Gallo wanted to look at the French sample to compare it with the American one, so the French sent him the sample but someone intentionally mixed it up, then Gallo found the same retrovirus as in the French sample (wasn't this what he was trying to do in the first place?) which somehow set back "any new results in AIDS research" for a year?  There was nothing published on AIDS for that entire year?  This sentence makes absolutely no sense at all.
This is dreadful.  Can someone who owns this book do a proper retelling of this? Bueller 007 (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor, vague writing about a potentially important incident