Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:04, 13 January 2013

	Brokeback Mountain is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 2, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 18, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed June 7, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: Canadian / Chinese / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force. This article is supported by the Chinese cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada: Alberta Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Wyoming Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Wyoming (assessed as Low-importance).

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives
November — December 2005 January 2006 January — February 2006 February 2006 — May 2006 May 2006 — September 2007

The Bighorn mountains are not in eastern South Dakota

That's all I got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.145.54 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the location to Wyoming where it really was set. A careful examination of any map will show you that not only are the Big Horn Mountains not in eastern South Dakota; there are no real mountains at all in the whole state. There are the Black Hills in Western South Dakota, but they could never be confused with the Big Horns. And there are obviously no mountains of any kind on the Great Plains of eastern South Dakota. The Big Horns are in Wyoming and southern Montana

MStrike32 (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

The plot summary had been tagged as overlong, which at nearly 1600 words was a bit of an understatement. I've trimmed back by effectively reverting to a much earlier version which describes the plot without getting sucked into detail. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You made the plot too short, I disagree with your edit entirely. I check wikipedia for movies plots all the time, especially in this case, when the movie is popular and about a controversial topic. I'm never going to watch it myself, so a long summary is fine. Smooth0707 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The current version is now about 900 words. Thanks, that's pretty good work. --Tony Sidaway 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the tag you placed on Plot Summary, i'm just not convinced its neccessary. There are lots of articles with long movie plots and even less in the article. I count about 880 words here, while for example Back to the Future has about 840 and X-men (film) has well over 1,000. Another movie I just picked at random is The Big Lebowski, with almost 1,000 words as well. It seems the me that this tag is used poorly on wikipedia, and often indiscriminately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooth0707 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: The plot length was updated by MovieMadness, to roughly 710 words, which works for me. Smooth0707 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can count words and say "this one is too long, that one is too short", but there is a level of unnecessary detail to longer summaries. For instance on The Big Lebowski which you mention there is a lot about what happens to the rug and its replacement. This does actually feature in the film but is really only a mcguffin for the plot. In fact the correct way to treat the rug in the Misplaced Pages plot summary of that film would be to simply state something like "Damage to Jeffrey 'The Dude' Lebowski's rug and his subsequent attempts to obtain a replacement are the mcguffin that brings The Dude and his two bowling buddies, Walter and Donny, into contact with his namesake." The rug doesn't need to be mentioned again. Not even the fact that Maude steals it back. Various subplots can be ditched or compressed. The point is to capture the essence of the plot rather than to give a scene-by-scene account of what happens (which is unfortunately what most of our articles about works of fiction do at present). --Tony Sidaway 06:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary - style revision

In the 4th paragraph of the plot summary, could the "Although Ennis hadn't realized it..." be changed to "Unbeknownst to Ennis..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.220.154 (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's usually better to use plain language. "Unbeknownst" is an archaism often used by journalists but hardly ever encountered in real life. --Tony Sidaway 04:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the part which says "Unable to be open about their relationship, Ennis and Jack end up meeting only for infrequent fishing trips." As far as I understand, Jack was willing to expose their relationship to a certain extend. That can be seen in the previous line when Jack talks to Ennis about them living a live together in a ranch. So, saying that both of them were unwilling to expose their relationship seems contraditory and not unaccurate to me. Ennis was the one who was not willing to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyboytoy (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Larry H. Miller incident

In addition to the photo I cropped and uploaded for the Larry H. Miller article, the same photographer has released a a handful of other related photos of Miller and the pro-Brokeback protesters (most of which are dressed in appropriate costume). All of these are available under the creative commons attribution 2.0 license, so take your pick. — CharlotteWebb 13:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Jessica Turner lawsuit

Will anyone object if I remove this? It seems a very minor issue of minimal relevance to the movie itself particular since it involved one single incident, and one lawsuit basically by one defendent. Nil Einne (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it, I agree, I don't think it meets Wiki's notability criteria. Unless the case receives significant media attention, it doesn't belong here. smooth00₇ (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Internet Meme Listing

This page is in the internet meme catagory, but I can't find any reference to them anywhere. The fact I can't think of a related meme doesn't count for much, but if there is one that is notable enough to be included it probably should. If there isn't, shouldn't the page be removed from the catagory? Morgrim (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ang Lee -- Taiwanese

Can someone scrub the reference to Lee being Taiwanese in the second paragraph? I don't see any other articles where the director was prefixed by an nationality and/or ethnicity. He is a naturalized US citizen, so that reference is not technically correct anyway.--24.22.237.86 (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If this article can't be unprotected (for whatever reason), then is an Administrator willing to make changes like this one? 203.213.45.170 (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wedding Banquet

I'm surprised that this article has no mention of The Wedding Banquet (1993), Lee's first film to deal with homosexuality. I'm sure there must be several reliable sources that make this connection. Does anyone know what section this tidbit would be appropriate in? rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not been mentioned because it is not relevant: this article is about Brokeback Mountain. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Producers

Diana Ossana James Schamus Sariadia (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these are already named in the article. Do you have a question or a comment? --Jayron32 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wording of link to Brokeback Mountain (short story)

Since the film is based entirely upon Annie Proulx's short story "Brokeback Mountain", could we not - out of respect to Ms. Proulx - link to the article Brokeback Mountain (short story) in a way that acknowledges this connection? For example, "This article is about the motion picture. For the short story upon which it is based, see..., or ...For the original short story, see.... Saying that the story and the movie are simply "of the same name" suggests that they are not connected and that their shared name is a coincidence. UranianPoet 01:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UranianPoet (talk • contribs)

I changed it to "the original short story", if that's more helpful. DonQuixote (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Inside, hanging on a nail pounded into the door, are the two shirts with a postcard of Brokeback Mountain tacked alongside. Now, Jack's shirt is tucked inside of Ennis's. Ennis carefully fastens the top button of Jack's shirt, and with tears in his eyes mutters, "Jack, I swear..." while slowly straightening the postcard, before closing the door and walking away.

Should be...

Inside, hanging on a nail pounded into the door, are the two shirts with a postcard of Brokeback Mountain tacked alongside. Now, Ennis's shirt is tucked inside of Jack's. Ennis carefully fastens the top button of Jack's shirt, and with tears in his eyes mutters, "Jack, I swear..." while slowly straightening the postcard, before closing the door and walking away.

Mattalexx (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Conversely, others stated that the characters were undoubtedly gay, including GLBT non-fiction author Eric Marcus, who dismissed "talk of Ennis and Jack being anything but gay as box office-influenced political correctness intended to steer straight audiences to the film".

Should be...

Conversely, others stated that the characters were undoubtedly gay, including LGBT non-fiction author Eric Marcus, who dismissed "talk of Ennis and Jack being anything but gay as box office-influenced political correctness intended to steer straight audiences to the film".

Small change, just thought the order of LGBT should be correct.

beasterne (talk) 2:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Jack and Randall

I have seen the film and unless there are some deleted scenes developing that situation, it is not explicit, nor implicit, that Jack and Randall "apparently begin an affair behind their wives' backs". What is implied in the scene is that Randall is another closet homosexual like Jack. It is not implied that they begin an affair, or that they ever meet again: the implication of the scene is that Jack makes the bitter experience of meeting a man -- a rather sad-looking man -- who is apparently in a situation like his own, much like looking in a particularly unpleasant sort of mirror. In the final scenes, Jack's parents mention the fact that Jack talked about a relationship that he had had with another man leaving near his place, but it is not explicit if the relationship was real (or something that Jack made up to appease his loneliness) or that it was with Randall. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult not to infer that Jack begins -- if not an "affair", a regular relationship -- with Randall. Randall seems perfectly comfortable with his bisexuality -- he hits on Jack by mentioning the cabin. It's difficult not to believe that Randall is the person referred to as the man who would replace Ennis for fixing up the farm, as Jack wouldn't drag "just anybody", someone he didn't know well, along to live with him. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is a discussion of the Plot section, though that's not made clear. In any case, I assumed Jack and Randall had some sort of development beyond what's shown in the movie, though I'll grant that's not explicit. If the plot summary does state explicitly that they have relations, that should probably be retooled to reflect what's actually shown rather than implied. Doniago (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just reviewed and cleaned-up the Plot. It didn't (and doesn't) explicitly state that Jack and Randall ever move beyond discussion, so I don't see a problem with the article. Doniago (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I do see a problem. It's difficult to believe Jack and Randall do not enter into a sexual relationship. (I believe Jack says that getting together at the cabin would be a good idea. Not to mention that Randall is ridiculously good-looking.) The scene isn't there just to make the movie longer! Jack "cheated" on Ennis in Mexico; are we to believe he wouldn't do so closer to home? Furthermore, are we supposed to believe that the "other person" Jack wants to join him at his father's farm isn't Randall? There's nothing wrong with saying that the film implies certain things -- which it emphatically does -- especially as Osanna & McMurtry generally follow Annie Proulx's pattern of leaving something for the viewer to fill in. To state obvious implications is hardly OR. If I said "The fact that Luke can travel to other star systems in his X-wing fighter implies that the ship has FTL capability", would that be OR? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's plenty wrong with saying that the film implies things...the plot summary should be limited to what -does- happen, explicitly. It shouldn't include what people -believe- happens, or what's implied. I'd recommend reviewing WP:FILMPLOT. Doniago (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that the discussion had continued here. Actually, it is Randall who suggests that getting together at the cabin would be a good idea, then Jack looks at him funny. It is definitely implied that Jack wonders if Randall is another closet homosexual like him, but the film does not go further. Granted, outlining implications is tricky and potential original research, so we might leave it at that. As for Randall being good-looking, well it's a matter of personal taste. IMHO, Randall is not good looking at all, and just looks like a depressed person, which is why Jack might find a comparizon with him unpleasant. But then again, we can avoid mentioning what is only implied. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead?

I think note #42 ( ^ Palabiyik, Engin. "Top films in critics' top 10 lists: 2005". http://criticstop10.net/2005/. Retrieved 2006-05-27.) doesn't exist anymore. A new link would be helpful, otherwise we should delete it. Reidlos (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right that a new link would be helpful, but deletion doesn't fall within guidelines...see WP:LINKROT.  Frank  |  talk  12:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I found a new source that states the same and is reliable: http://www.metacritic.com/film/awards/2005/toptens.shtml (Scroll down to "Summary of 2005 Critics Top Ten Lists"). What do you think? Reidlos (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Please revert edit by 74.88.220.228

This edit has changed the plot summary so that instead of the accurate description surrounding Jack's death - which is that Ennis imagined Jack being murdered by a gang - to one that says it was a 'flashback' and 'revealed' that Jack was murdered. If I even need to explain how stupid and ill thought out this edit is then there's no hope, but I'll try - you can't 'flash back' to something you weren't involved in. Ennis is only just finding out about Jack's death, and the official cause of death - and therefore the assumed cause - is an exploding tyre. If it was a tyre explosion, the only person who was involved - and therefore the only person who could flash back to this - would be Jack, who of course is dead. If it was a murder, the only people who could flash back would be the murderers, who are obviously not real characters because Ennis has created them in his second's thought. It's absolutely mind-boggling that someone took this pretty clear scene and assumed it was a 'reveal'. It's even worse that the edit was allowed to stand, especially since a moderator presumably had to review it first.

I've reverted it but it won't show until a moderator approves it, which considering they either approved the change in the first place or at least didn't revert it themselves is questionable at best. So on the offchance that they don't approve the revert, then this is here to explain why it needs to be reverted. It cannot be allowed to stay as it is because it's not faithful to what's shown.

rape

When I first read the short story, I was thoroughly confused by Ennis and Jack's initial sex. What, exactly, was the purpose of Jack's "reach around"? It took a long time to recognize the obvious -- he was trying to engage Ennis in mutual masturbation, an activity common among men for thousands of years (if not longer). The normally withdrawn Ennis is extremely upset, presumably because his "personal space" has been invaded. He then rapes Jack, for unspecified reasons. It's arguably a "consensual" rape (however contradictory that might sound), but it is nevertheless a rape. The Plot summary needs to be rewritten to reflect this.

The Plot summary is vague, sometimes misleading, and lacking important detail. I will try to rewrite it (while keeping it short), and discuss it with the original writer before posting it. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing of this was implied in the movie. Maybe you'll want to include it in the article about the short story instead? 83.46.174.205 (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the movie and the short story are not the same thing. The details that may be provided in the story (which I haven't read) are not necessarily faithfully portrayed on screen, so to make presumptions and modify our plot summary on that basis may not be appropriate. As with everything, we need cites from reliable sources . Frank  |  talk  23:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear how this matters. Whether you want to call it rape, consensual rape, love-making, or anything else, the end result is they have sex. Calling it rape seems like an overstatement as Jack neither appears to resist it nor, as shown, hold a grudge after the fact. As for any statement of what Jack was trying to do or why Ennis reacted as he did, that would seem to be based more on implication (or worse, original research) than explicit on-screen evidence, and consequently inappropriate for inclusion. Do you have any reliable sources for these claims beyond your own interpretation? Doniago (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Doniago. And I for one, will revert any changes that involve details that pertain to the story only or viewer interpretation. Millahnna (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We've got to stop meeting like this. (grin) Doniago (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Meme

Awww, there used to be section which described the numerous short spoofs spawned by the movie. Angry bee (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Plot description

An editor changed the term "sodomized" to "making love to" here with the edit summary "Accurate Descriptions: 1, Rabid Social Conservatives: 0." I changed it back. Accusing other editors of being "rabid social conservatives" in edit summaries is not helpful, and "sodomized" is an accurate word, one that correctly describes what happens in the scene concerned. Using the word "sodomized" doesn't mean that we are for or against gay anal sex, since one may be either for or against sodomy. More relevantly, the relevant style guideline, WP:EUPHEMISM, is clear that we aren't supposed to use terms like "make love" or "makes love" to describe sex scenes. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether "making love" is a euphemism or simply a synonym is arguable; that "sodomize" is a loaded term with legal and political overtones is not. "Having sex" is a neutral term, and that is what I've changed it to. Rivertorch (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The style guideline is 100% clear that "making love" is a euphemism, and that we don't use it. So no, the issue is not "arguable" for Misplaced Pages's purposes. "Having sex" is considerably vaguer and less clear that "sodomizing", since it A) does not make clear what kind of sex is happening or B) who is doing what to whom. So we should stick with "sodomizing." I'm sorry if some people think that "sodomizing" is a bad word, but as far as I'm concerned it's simply a term to describe inserting one's penis into somebody's anus, and it doesn't convey either approval or disapproval of the act. Accuracy and clarity are what ought to matter here, not the fact that some people may not like a word. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be at cross purposes. My objection to the use of the word "sodomizing" had nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's disliking the word. What I said was that it was a loaded term with legal and political overtones, which is a verifiable fact. I neglected to mention that it also is an imprecise term, having been used widely in penal codes in the United States during the 20th century (where and when the film was set) to include acts of oral sex. So it's not "simply" the descriptive term you say it is; for the purposes of this article, it's an unacceptably vague term with connotations involving felony crime and codified discrimination. To claim it doesn't convey disapproval of the act is an extraordinary claim indeed.

On a procedural note, you might be interested to know that the application of a Misplaced Pages style guideline most certainly is arguable; guidelines are intended as starting points, not ending points; they're interpreted variously, with exceptions made as the need arises. Policies, on the other hand, are considerably less flexible. When a policy and a guideline conflict, policy takes precedence every time—especially a core content policy like WP:NPOV.

In any event, I see you've gone and added the word "anal" to my wording. While I see no especial need for such specificity at that point in the article, it's perfectly neutral wording and I have no objection. The wording now is better than ever. Thank you. Rivertorch (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the distinction between policies and guidelines; guidelines are nevertheless important and shouldn't be disregarded without good reason. I don't think that there is any good reason for disregarding them here by using a euphemism of the "makes love" variety. I'm also well aware that "sodomy" has a variety of different connotations, so on reflection, I'd agree that it's not the best term. It is, however, important to clarify that the two main characters in the film have anal sex with each other. The film concerns homosexuality and society's disapproval of homosexuality; anal sex being one of the most disapproved of aspects of homosexuality, it certainly matters that Jack and Ennis practice it. It shows how far they're willing to go from what society considers normal or appropriate. Simply saying that they "have sex" doesn't convey that aspect clearly enough. Most readers would probably be able to guess that that is what they do, but Misplaced Pages has an enormously diverse readership, consisting of people of widely varying social backgrounds, ages, and levels of education, so we shouldn't assume that it would be clear to everyone. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I wouldn't be able to guess (if I hadn't seen the film). If it's important for readers to know that, then I think we've succeeded. (Yay, a happy ending!) Rivertorch (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

what terminology is used for sex between men and women or women and women? I think we just say have sex, rather than describe exactly what goes where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.57.148 (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge characters into main page

Considering the pages for Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar are unlikely to expand further, their contents are mostly plot summary, and the characters section on this page is just a list. What is beyond plot summary on the character pages can easily be merged to this section I think. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Characterization sections (including the Sexual orientation subsections) of their articles, which add the real-world context that should be in fictional character articles, are mostly the same (main difference is that they are adjusted to focus on whichever of the two characters the article is about). However, doing a search for them on Google Books shows that there is a lot more that can be stated about the characters and probably how the actors portrayed them. It was once suggested to me that the articles be merged into one article titled Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar. See this discussion about their sexual orientation labels, which also discusses merging the two articles. I still feel that merging the two articles is the better option. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and inform the editor I discussed that with before of this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class film articles
• B-Class Canadian cinema articles
• Canadian cinema task force articles
• B-Class Chinese cinema articles
• Chinese cinema task force articles
• B-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class Canada-related articles
• Low-importance Canada-related articles
• B-Class Alberta articles
• Low-importance Alberta articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class Wyoming articles
• Low-importance Wyoming articles
• WikiProject Wyoming articles
• Wyoming articles with to-do lists
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists