Talk:Brokeback Mountain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brokeback Mountain article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Brokeback Mountain is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

Brokeback Mountain has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

To-do list for Brokeback Mountain:

edit · history · watch · refresh

[edit] IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED FOR WP:GA Well written Passed. Further improve: Make subheads under Controversy section parallel; rethink wordy/awkward/redundant/verb-tense phrases such as "not yet twenty, "marries his fiancée," "critics have heaped praise," use of "over" instead of the more accurate "more than." Additionally, the Awards section could use a little more prose other than "Some of the most significant awards and nominations for Brokeback Mountain are listed below," maybe by including part of the lead from Brokeback Mountain awards Factually Accurate Passed. Good citations. Further improve: Expand film's status as being one of the first major films to be released for legal Internet downloads. Broad Coverage Passed. Further improve: More on international reception. NPOV Passed. Good cites. Further improve: In-line cite the Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine homophobia claim. Stable Failed. Major changes to prose within the last seven days. Please re-nominate when the article is more stable. Appropriate Images Passed. Real-world context for articles dealing with fiction Passed

Archives
November — December 2005 January 2006 January — February 2006 February 2006 — May 2006

Contents 1 IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED FOR WP:GA 2 Expanding Cinematic Analysis 3 Minor Edits/Vandalism 4 Thwart Vandalism 5 Plan2006 6 GA 7 WIKI = We Instantly Kill Information 8 Censorship 9 Suggestion for dealing with vandalism 10 Neologism 11 Further insight on the article and things to work on for GA status 12 Too Many Links About Crash/The Oscars 13 One thing I think should be added 14 Unusual wikilinks 15 Interpretation of protagonists' sexuality 16 Trivia 17 Duplication

[edit] Expanding Cinematic Analysis

26May06: I have been rethinking the feasiblity of Cinematic Analysis, and now believe it could be a separate article, like the soundtrack. Over the past month, I've seen the difficulty & hours burned to get the simplest of statements allowed into the Brokeback article. Wikipedia seems obviously lacking in proper management techniques: it appears as "semi-managed chaos" that insults knowledgeable people and empowers pranks. Perhaps a screened membership approach could be added to promote serious edits and respect for contributors; plus, some focused implementation-plans could be recommended for large articles. (Please advise Wikipedia managers.) -Wikid77 23:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

30-May-06: DONE: Other articles were changed to link new article Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis, an extensive, semi-draft "stub" article. Continue discussion there: Talk:Brokeback Mountain cinematic analysis.

Reasons: (08-May-2006) Compared to other Wikipedia articles about specific films, there is very limited information about the contents of Brokeback Mountain as a film, rather than the news events and controversy about theatrical release [Film examples: Casablanca (film), Gone with the Wind (film)]. Based on other people's suggestions, a new section "Cinematic Analysis" is being added to allow specifying long-term information about the film, per se, rather than time-dated events about the release of the film, official awards/judgment, and commercial concerns. The Cinematic Analysis is intended to describe the screenplay writing, direction, acting, cinematography, musical score, pace, emotional impact, plot/subplot development, character development, symbolism, film editing, sound editing, special effects, and other issues about the film itself.

Extensive Spoiler Information: (08-May-06) The details in the Cinematic Analysis will also be wholistic in nature, including plot details and character changes revealing potential surprises about the events and ending of the film, so a spoiler warning will apply to most of the entire Cinematic Analysis. Therefore, contributions to the Cinematic Analysis would not be censored for plot-related, character-change or emotional-impact details.

Focus/Scope for Artistic/Technical Details: (08-May-06) The focus of the Cinematic Analysis concerns primarily the artistic & technical details of the film, rather than socio-political aspects of market appeal, professional/public awards, or profit margin of production tasks. However, the section should not be censored against all connections to socio-political aspects of the film in society at large. For example, a brief mention of winning awards for cinematography should not be grounds for censorship; however, extensive details about the awards & their selection should be limited to other sections. The scope of details should be limited to the major artistic/technical aspects of the film, such as screenplay writing, direction, acting, cinematography, musical score, pace, emotional impact, plot/subplot development, character development, symbolism, film editing, sound editing, special effects, and other traditional major aspects. If an aspect seems debatable for inclusion, it is better to err on the side of acceptance, rather than censorship, which has had a chilling effect toward the dearth of information contained in Wikipedia for this film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.214.45.22 (talk • contribs) 17:28, May 8, 2006.

The two examples you list have been around quite a bit longer than BM, so it's expected that there will have been more analysis and study done on them. As long as you can back up the analysis you want to add with the appropriate citations to ensure verifiability, then I certainly have no objection. If it's just your own opinion of the film, then it's original research and doesn't belong in this article. eaolson 02:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Edits/Vandalism

This section discusses & reports some minor edits & several due to vandalism:

• On 08-May-2006, vandalism reversed: entire Plot replaced with a Brokeback joke.
• On 08-May-2006, vandalism reversed: entire Subplots replaced with "Borke Back" words.
• On 09-May-2006, unused reference was removed: "The Real Brokeback Mountain Ski Resort" added by 64.136.149.25 (Revision 23:38, 8-May-2006).
• On 09-May-2006 04:21, vandalism rv: unused link "Ski Resort" had been re-added.
• On 09-May-2006 10:59, spelling error was fixed ("subsqequent").
• On 09-May-2006 12:45, vandalism rv: film name "Nate Westerman" (put by 66.199.217.3 @12:32 9 May 2006)
• On 09-May-2006 13:09, vandalism rv: director-name hidden link to "Nate Westermann" (put by 66.199.217.3 @12:40 9-May-2006).
• On 09-May-2006 14:50, fixed date eBay shirts sold (Feb.20 not 21)+price US$101,100 +source#2 starpulse.com +removed plot-point "Ennis finds...closet" as "shirts from film" instead.
• On 21-May-2006 11:54, moved "short story" as prefix before title to avoid punctuation issue about interleaved comma ("Brokeback Mountain,"); an ending comma belongs inside a quotation but seems spastic to the nesting of paired quotation marks. For a magazine article, the title is usually put in quotation marks. Wikid77 12:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• On 26-May-2006 12:05, removed Trivia comment (below) about South Park, because it mentioned a lawsuit threat, unsourced, bordering on libel of motives (not in a comedy venue); or it's a protracted joke. -Wikid77 19:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Trivia: "South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone threatened to sue the producers of the film if it involved the main characters eating pudding at any time within the film's story, as independent films were refered to being about "gay cowboys eating pudding" by Cartman in a 1998 episode of South Park."

• On 26-May-2006 12:11, changed plural link to awards by adding "s" after the double brackets as "...Golden Globe Award]]s" with no space after brackets. Wikipedia also highlights text attached to brackets such as "...computer]]ized" so the blue-link text appears as "computerized" showing one word.
• On 26-May-2006 19:56, re-added ^DVDCC/^MOVL notes into "External References" section, which had been titled "External Links" perhaps giving the impression of webpage hyperlinks. Since other references are not links to webpages, the title "External References" allows connection to other explanations and sources, including hard-copy articles, books, etc. The reference id "^DVDCC" was re-added about the "closed-caption" (CC) text on the DVD; the use of the caret-prefix ("^") indicates that the id refers to an external reference, and is not just a word in brackets. Also, using a mnemonic id such as "^DVDCC" allows the reference to be mentioned in several places, unlike footnotes, which must be respecified at each location. A reference to a small source could be the basis of several facts throughout an article. Both ids (^DVDCC/^MOVL) had been left in the text, but both actual sources had been deleted. Of course, finding, re-adding, and explaining the references has been a major pain; but, hey, WIKI = "We Instantly Kill Information" so.... -Wikid77 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the "External References" section back to "Links" to match the Standard appendices. I also removed the "DVDCC" and "MOVL" links. I don't understand what "DVDCC" means, (I'm guessing it has something to do with closed captioning) or why it's necessary to specify how the editor that added that line knows what the line is. The link you had specified with MOVL was dead, and I replaced it with a still-valid link from USA Today. I also changed it to a footnote, since it's being used to specifiy the source for a given fact.

I also don't agree with your use of the caret in a non-standard way and use it to, apparently specify footnotes along with some specifying text. Wikipedia already has several methods of citing sources, and this one is not any established practice either on WP or elsewhere that I am aware of. eaolson 20:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

26May06: I have re-documented the closed-captioning in a footnote at the final-words, using a ref-tag section. There has been considerable debate about the final words, with some thinking "Jake" or "Jeez" as the name, so the CC-mode is definitive. I realize that the mnemonic footnote ids (such as "^DVDCC"), which I considered an easy extension of Harvard referencing, could be seen as too advanced here for Wikipedia-speed progress. -Wikid77 23:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This section also just alerts others to some details about the kind of minor edits that occur, and it is not intended to explain all minor edits. The (daily) frequency of vandalism to this article affects its stability for WP:GA. Wikid77 13:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect most editors have been around long enough to be aware that vandalism happens, and should be reverted as soon as possible. It happens on pretty much every page. The history of vandalism is archived for anyone that wishes to click the "history" tab. Why is is necessary to immortalize it here? eaolson 17:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps analyzing vandalism & minor-edit changes could reveal why the article about Brokeback Mountain contains so little significant information, mostly just links to other websites & news reports. Perhaps different management techniques could be used to improve the depth & quality of the information in the article. Censoring information about vandalism might foster more censorship within the article itself, further limiting the already hollow content of the article that says so little after 2,900+ revisions. Wikid77 11:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, no one is "censoring" anything. Also, I don't understand why you say this article is "hollow" and contains "little information." I think it's quite lengthly, especially for a movie that is so recent. It's comparable to the entry for Crash, for example. Yes, the number of external links is too high, but that can be trimmed down.

Again, I just don't understand the rationale behind recreating the article history on the Talk page, exclusively for vandal edits. It doesn't seem to get vandalized significantly more than a lot of other pages. If a particular user is causing a problem, there are procedures for warning and banning them over at WP:Vandalism. eaolson 23:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thwart Vandalism

(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)

[edit] Plan2006

(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)
  • Reword Awkward phrase - Status 12-May-06: unknown?
  • Expand legal-download - Status 09-May-06: Done (re-stated exact issue + new reference).
  • International Reception - Status 31-May-06: new header "International reception" but needs more detail.
  • Source Curtis/Borgnine - Status 12-May-06: (needed source) Done. [[1]] IronDuke 00:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Working Typos: The following tasks are recommended to fix minor formatting or spelling errors:
  • Brokeback Italics - Status 10-May-06: done (in Trivia, title is italicized).

Other tasks should be added here to help direct efforts toward improving the article with significant new information & major corrections to faults. Wikid77 03:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA

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)

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)

The GA instability failure was written on April 18.. The article was unstable then (aside from vandalism). Davodd 07:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] WIKI = We Instantly Kill Information

26May06: I realize that much information in the Wikipedia (for both English and foreign languages) is quickly deleted or removed in some manner. Are there any Wikipedia articles that suggest how to get people to actually contribute valuable information and stop deleting/censoring other information? Please discuss here. Thanks. -Wikid77

[edit] Censorship

26-May-2006: Over the past month, I've seen the difficulty and hours burned to get the simplest of statements allowed into the Brokeback article. On May 26, 2006, I again attempted to document the last words in the film ("Jack, I swear") as being visible on the close-captioning mode of the DVD, because they have been debated from being spoken in a strained voice. Within a few hours, my footnote was deleted/rewritten (introducing a comma-punctuation error at the footnote-reference), this time by "Eaolson" and raising my frustration to very high levels; however, it is not just one person, but several people, and represents a systemic problem in Wikipedia updates.

This unbridled censorship, micro-management, or disguised form of vandalism must stop; it has had a chilling effect on the information in the article. Brokeback Mountain was the most honored film of 2005, but reading the WP article about Brokeback Mountain provides almost no information to explain the movie itself, but rather contains disjoint references to many "politically correct" sources, but no real information about the film, per se, that could explain its appeal. With the rampant censorship, nit-picking, and insulting edits, no wonder other editors have abandoned this article against significant improvements.

Wikipedia seems obviously lacking in proper management techniques: it appears as "semi-managed chaos" that insults knowledgeable people and empowers pranks. Perhaps a screened membership approach could be added to promote serious edits and respect for contributors; plus, some focused implementation-plans could be recommended for large articles. (Please advise Wikipedia upper-level managers.) In the present form, I very clearly see Wikipedia as an obvious management failure on the goal of inviting and maintaining detailed information. -Wikid77 01:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you or changing one of your edits is neither censorship nor vandalism. You appear to not be assuming good faith on my part and the part of other editors. You are not being censored -- your point of view is not being suppressed -- nor are they vandalism. They are a good-faith attempt to improve the quality of the article. Changing the text of an article gradually and over time is a big part of how Wikipedia works. This is not an attack on your edits, many of which have improved this article.

You are attempting to support a fact (i.e. the actual closing line of the movie) by citing a Google search. I changed that to a link to the IMDB quotes page that lists that line for several reasons:

1. Most of all, it was not relevant to the fact you were trying to cite. Most of the results from that Google search led to blog posts about Brokeback, not a discussion of what the actual line in the film was.
2. A Google search is not fixed. Not only will different people get different results based on their location (I think), but it will change over time. Next week, the results of that search will probably be different than they are today, as Google indexes different pages and PageRank changes.
3. The implied claim that this line is difficult to understand and has led to widespread confusion is unverified. I'm sure there are some people that have had difficulty understanding this line, but I don't think that alone warrants a two-line footnote. Show me some news article saying that a significant fraction of movie viewers left the theater confused, and I'll change my position in a heartbeat. Response 30-May-06: I don't believe people have to prove information is valuable before adding it to Wikipedia, but that also could be called "censorship"; perhaps some people should question their own reasons for why they feel compelled to remove information from Wikipedia articles, beyond reason of Wikipedia guidelines. On Brokeback words: "What is the last line in “Brokeback Mountain”? Heath Ledger mumbles brilliantly throughout the film, but his last line is downright unintelligible, even after repeated listenings." [from AccessAtlanta.com, MovieTalk, 31-March-2006; see also: Google Questions]. Yes, people want to look at closed-caption words. -Wikid77 19:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As for Wikipedia requiring "proper" management techniques, if you really feel that way, a better forum might be to take it up with WP administration or maybe at the village pump. eaolson 14:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, you have to remember that if you contribute, your words are here for merciless editing. Don't take it personally; discuss and get others to agree. As to the last line, it is unintelligible, but it's not unknown. The subtitles have it. It is the exact same line from Annie Proulx's story. Yes he mumbles it, he's near tears and he has that tight-jaw locution through the whole film, and many soundtracks make dialog hard to hear to my ears. But the fact that it's hard to hear is a pretty minor point. Once you know what he says, it's hard to decipher anyway -- it's one of the dangling points that the story leaves you mulling over for days anyway. Does he mean he would do things differently? Is he remembering a happy moment and chiding Jack affectionately? Is he making an unspoken vow? DavidH 18:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, that guy was right..."Eaolson" deletes everyone's articles or additions with little or no impugnity whatsoever. The guy is a cancer on Wikipedia and is ruining it for everyone. MonkBirdDuke [24 September 2006]

21-Oct-2006: After considering the changes 5 months later, I noticed that "Eaolson" had worked for hours revising added statements to appear consistent with past text; however, it seemed that "Eaolson" was re-writing every addition, in the manner of micro-management, rather than let others choose their own phrasing, and the result was unsettling plus sometimes introduced punctuation errors in the haste of re-phrasing other people's additions. Management practices could warn of the psychological chill caused by re-writing/re-doing every small change that others perform: micromanagement often drives many people away. -Wikid77 12:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for dealing with vandalism

I know this is not a prefect solution, but how about adding "{{ sprotected }}" Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance to at least prevent users that have not registered from altering the article (which from what I've seen is the wast[vast] majority of the vandals). I feel that this is a good article, but I'm tired of all the derogatory information that is posted on this article.

Just a thought, Pgadfor 21:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

30-May-2006: I agree with that approach of limiting revisions of the main article for Brokeback Mountain to registered users, at this point. I strongly suspect, the title alone, Brokeback Mountain, invites the vandalism. Other related articles (with additional words in the title) do not seem to be vandalized as often, in that daily manner. Some of the jokes/vandalism is difficult to detect, disguised as internal links, or added as Trivia statements. Protecting the main article, by limiting revisions to registered users, seems like an appropriate solution. -Wikid77

[edit] Neologism

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 [2]; 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)

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)

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)

[edit] Further insight on the article and things to work on for GA status

• 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)

• In the Controversy section, it is prefered to have footnotes than links to external sites in the article.
• The trivia section should be included in the text or discarded as it is not encyclopedic and not necessary unless included as part of some sections.
• The Awards section should be a continuous prose instead of a list.
• What does this mean The film moved more than 1.4 million copies on its first day of release... ... moved?
• See also should be links with no text or these other articles mentioned should find their place in the article body. Lincher 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Many Links About Crash/The Oscars

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)

GO for it. I agree, the Oscar "controversy" or suprise is trivial. DavidH 18:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] One thing I think should be added

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Unusual wikilinks

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)

[edit] Interpretation of protagonists' sexuality

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)

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)

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) Allen Roth

Well, Ennis dated the waitress for an unknown period of time. But, that's not really the point of accumulating the above information. What the quotes and exerpts from reviews and articles shows is that there were many varying takes on the characters' sexuality - some said they were gay, some said they were bi, a small few said straight, and others said they were none of the above. These viewers obviously did have at least minimal powers of perception, and, interestingly, their perceptions vary. --gbambino 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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) Allen Roth

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)

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) Allen Roth

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)

[edit] Trivia

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)

"Homosexuality remains a serious crime in most Middle Eastern nations and remains a taboo subject even in the few nations where it is legal. Hence, the film was released in Turkey, but only with a condition that audience members must be older than 18" I've heard that you should be 16 or older in Ireland, Brazil or Argentine and 21 or older in Singapore to see the film. None of those countries are in the mid east. So saying homosexuality was a taboo in the mideast "hence" it was shown in Turkey to an audience of 18+ years old seems to me as a biased statement. Deleting the sentence about Turkish rule may be better. Filanca 21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for articles with too much trivia and found this one. I cut and moved enough to remove the template. However, what I moved was just moved. It is not incorporated with the prose and so it does not flow. Someone who is more familiar with the article should look at the changes and, if he agrees, incorporate them into the prose. Thanks.--Supernumerary 20:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication

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)

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)