Talk:Brokeback Mountain/Archive 6

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 [1] 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 Wikipedia 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. smooth0⁷0₇ (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 ^talk/_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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_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)

Would we be able to incorporate all the potential distinct characterization and reception etc stuff into the main article? I fear that the ins and outs of the fictional characters themselves might not be suited to the main film article. Would it not detract? Perhaps the two articles could become Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar. There is at least precedent for single-work characters (e.g. Astrid Peth) to have separate articles to that single work if and only if there is distinct, substantial real world information which would be out of place on the main page. Academic interest in the characters and the separate reception and production information of the short story might also make for a compelling case.Zythe (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Either to the main page or to a combined page, but so much of the two pages are duplicate that it seems questionable for them to have separate pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that Zythe still feels that these two characters don't need separate articles, at least not yet. And per above, I also feel that way. So that's three of us with the same mindset on this thus far, with two of us more so for them having a combined article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying not to be emphatic because my views aren't extremely strong, but I think a merged article separate from the film page could be a potential FA one day.Zythe (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merge with this article. Considering the Ghits for both characters, both articles are likely to be expanded and improved until GA (or even FA). First of all, have you tried to expand them? (this is for the line "unlikely to expand further"). Although their articles are based upon what can be watched in BBM, there are multiple books and reviews which analyse them with critical commentary. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How 'bout a single page for both characters though? I stumbled upon both and was struck by how similar the pages were. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with that merge, but if somebody, someday, expands that article, and it becomes long enough, it should be split again. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And I have no problem with that split if it becomes necessary in the future :) Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Chiming in belatedly to oppose merger with this article. There's considerable content in the articles on those characters that would be beyond the scope of the main article on the film. Merging Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar into a single article seems reasonable, pending enough sourced content about either character to warrant a separate article for each. Rivertorch (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Support. I for one do not believe that they meet the notability guidelines for an article. Especially when they aren't about characters in a series of books/films. MisterShiney ✉ 17:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• They appear in a series of a book AND a movie, though. There are sources describing the adaptation from one medium to the other. Diego (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, as do characters in hundreds of stand a lone adaptations. But they rarely have a separate articles for individual characters. MisterShiney ✉ 13:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, because they don't have direct analysis about the individual characters like these have, and/or they base article about the work where they're included isn't more than 50KB long. Diego (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Agree with MisterShiney's reasoning; info regarding the two characters isn't extensive enough to merit separation from movie article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

MisterShiney and Ohnoitsjamie, are you two also against the characters' articles being merged into one article? Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

In all honesty I just don't see the point in them having an article all to themselves. I mean, what is covered there that can't be covered in the cast section as per MOS:FILM cast? MisterShiney ✉ 18:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PAGEDECIDE for some guidelines to create separate pages. There are reasons to split the content even if it would also fit here - one of them is size; also detail that has undue weight in this article (such as appearances of the characters in other media) could be reasonably be included in a separate page. The amount of context in the Characterization sections of the separate pages are enough to establish independent notability, so that's not a concern. Diego (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

But they haven't been in any other media though. A large part of the information is the character history which is the plot of the film, and as has already been said it is all largely duplicated information anyway. Size only matters if it is all pointless info, take a look at Dark Knight Rises, that article is huge, and a lot of the character information is included within the cast section as per MOS. MisterShiney ✉ 21:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merging those here per WP:SIZE and WP:SPINOUT - the current article is about 50KB of text already. I'm OK with merging both into a single independent article though. Diego (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Clarification articles should be merged into the respective book/film articles as they different (and only details that aren't already covered in the respective plot summaries. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The article subjects fail notability guidelines separate from the movie. The Google Books mentions linked above are in this context only. What little useful content there is one the individual pages can easily be merged. Hekerui (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge with this article per Rivertorch. I also oppose "single page for both characters" proposal, because both articles are likely to be expanded further.--В и к и T 11:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The film has been out for 5 years, the book for 15. How are they going to be expanded? All the information available (which is minimal at that) is currently being shown in the article. The support not merging group need to find a reason that justifies how this is notable enough for a septate article considering all that is being shown is a the character history which no other article relating to films has. MisterShiney ✉ 12:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, "the support not mergint group" doesn't need to find anything - if there's no consensus, the pages won't be merged. That said, there are policy-based reasons to have separate articles for the character - the most important being WP:NOTPAPER (we don't need to restrict details for size reasons), WP:SIZE (the current article is too big for the available detail), and WP:GNG (the characters don't need to be the main topic of the source material, so being cited always with the movies is not a problem). Per WP:SPLIT, it's recommended having a separate article with the detailed characterizations and analysis of sexual orientation from reliable sources, that don't fit here. Diego (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well if they aren't merged then they need to be deleted because they are not Notable enough for an article. And the characterisation isn't detailed. It just has the same information on both pages. The only real difference being is the name and picture. There is no "detailed characterisations and analysis of sexual orientation" I am just really struggling to see the justification on them having an article when no other film characters (that I know of) unless are part of a film series have a page to themselves. MisterShiney ✉ 18:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Too bad then that "being part of a film series" isn't the criterion that defines notability, isn't it? Diego (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting what I mean, I am saying that is one of things that would make it notable enough to justify an article about the characters. MisterShiney ✉ 17:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it would be enough, but not on the contrary - failing that property doesn't mean that the article "need to be deleted", because there are other ways to be notable. Diego (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose because it looks like plenty has been written about both characters in both the story and the film. However, I like the idea of combining the character articles. Something like this would be useful for covering that key relationship in such an article. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  I bow to Erik's experience on this. A merge would be beneficial, it could also open it up to additional sections for the rest of the characters. MisterShiney ✉ 19:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  I think it can be a tricky business when it comes to stand-alone character articles. Some people like having such articles because a character has appeared multiple times across multiple media, but it is not always the case that there will be much to say about that character. Some characters may even more notable enough to have their own article even if they only appear in one thing. This does mean that there is going to be redundancy, which is not a bad thing -- it just means that the focus should be different. Here, while we have just two appearances, these characters have been the subject of plenty of academic discourse and are closely entwined with each other that a combined character article makes sense to me. The unfortunate problem is, is anyone ever going to make these topics the best they can be? Wikipedia is always a work in progress, so we have to hope that it will happen someday. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The pages have more than enough sources to justify standalone articles. Additionally, the information there would not fit well into this page, as it would make this page unbalanced. FurrySings (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The characters only exist in two closely-related works, there is not so much detailed information about them that it is going to overwhelm articles on the two works, and they don't exist in popular awareness beyond the context of those works - it seems highly unlikely to me that anyone would search for Jack Twist the way they might for Mickey Mouse or James Bond, say. Barnabypage (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to put words in your mouth and forgive me if I am wrong, but your reason would seem to imply that you SUPPORT the merge rather than OPPOSE it...? MisterShiney ✉ 13:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, yeah, combination of caffeine deprivation and a while away from Wikipedia! Fixed now. Barnabypage (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that they lack independent notability for 2 separate articles, but are you opposed to a merged character article based on the wealth of critical analysis that exists for their relationship and differing depictions of same-sex sexuality in print and on film?Zythe (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems that there is enough support for someone to go ahead and merge the character articles; I mean merge them with each other, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking that Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies should be asked to weigh in on this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Brokeback Mountain is solely about the movie, whereas the character pages are not. Therefore, they should not be merged. --Metsfreak2121 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

They are about the same thing. They are Characters from the Film. They go hand in hand. MisterShiney ✉ 22:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

They are characters from a short story that was adapted for film. Rivertorch (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

But if you accept the premise that the fact that they appear in short stories confers extra notability (which is certainly not the case for most characters in films based either on short stories or full-length novels), you still have a hard time defending them having two articles when really they are inextricably linked, in every sense that is notable (i.e. in reception, analysis, impact, conception, film portrayal, etc).Zythe (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Did I defend their having two articles? I don't remember doing that. Rivertorch (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I was asking you to weigh in on the merger alternative.Zythe (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate, I've already said that I think merging Twist and Del Mar into a single article would be reasonable. I'm afraid I can't get too enthusiastic about it, but I do think it's a reasonable approach. Merging them into this article would be completely inappropriate. I think we probably have consensus for all of the above at this point. If moves and merges and the like didn't make me break out in a cold sweat, I just might be bold and give it a try.  ;) Rivertorch (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We should remember to be careful about the sexual orientation categories, though. They were usually kept out of the gay and bisexual categories because their sexual orientations are debated, which is discussed on their talk pages.[2][3] Zythe and I also discussed the matter, as seen in my first post above. There were editors who would put them in Category:Fictional gay males (used to be titled Category:Fictional gay men) and then take them out of Category:Fictional bisexuals, and vice versa (and I see that the Fictional bisexual category now has a subcategory for males and a subcategory for females). We have usually kept them only in Category:Fictional LGBT characters because they are LGBT figures, and because it is a compromise for those wanting to put them in either the gay male or fictional bisexual categories. I even suggested that we put them in both categories or no specific LGBT category. Like I stated, no specific LGBT category is what was decided on. Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, anyone got any preference for whose name should be put first in the title of their merged article? I prefer Ennis's name coming first, but I don't care much about that matter; it is trivial, I know. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they are bisexual any more (isn't the whole plot about them being closeted? Amy Whatever's analysis is hinged on how manly she thinks Heath Ledger is) but in any case, both categories are fine since categories are meant to be enyclopedic indexes of Topic X in fiction, and someone looking fictional bisexuals might enjoy the discussion if they don't get too caught up in putting them in the "correct" taxonomical category...

As for the naming order, it doesn't matter at all. I would put Jack first purely because it flows better.Zythe (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean that you would put them in both categories at the same time? Or rather either? The issue I have with putting them in either (only one of the categories) is what I've already stated on the matter. It's like a judgment call either way, and there are always going to be people removing them from one category and placing them in the "correct" category. As for putting whose name first, I meant "I prefer Ennis's name coming first," and I corrected that above. But I agree that Jack's name coming first somehow flows better, which is probably why I mentioned Jack instead of Ennis before correcting what I meant. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Both as in both, not both as in "potentially either"! Was Ennis more central to the plot? He might have been. I am indifferent on that one really.Zythe (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think again on the discussion shown on their talk pages, about their sexual orientations, they were in both categories (which was a compromise for the reasons I mentioned above). Then an editor removed them from one (the gay category), and then that led to the talk page discussion linked above (which is duplicated on both of their talk pages). Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, Category:Fictional LGBT characters is appropriate; inclusion in either Category:Fictional gay males and Category:Fictional bisexual males involves making some assumptions which probably shouldn't be made. Ennis has the advantage of outliving Jack—he's in the whole story/movie, while Jack is not—but they're really equally central to the plot, and Jack is still of the utmost importance even after he's gone. I'd vote for ordering them alphabetically. Rivertorch (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetical order works for me too. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Should be no surprise that I agree 100% with Rivertorch about the sexual orientation categorization. And as for the order, I take it that is referring to the title of the article; I have no problem with going by that, name preference aside, whether going by first or last name. Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gibson

"Not going to fight over it" seems like a strange edit summary to use when restoring one's reverted edit. I have no objection to the primary ref being "'The John Gibson Show, Fox News Radio, January 25, 2008". Radio broadcasts are ephemeral, though, and with the possible exception of little green persons intercepting the transmission from light years away, it is impossible for anyone to verify what was said. Therefore, the original ref should be left in place for verification purposes. I'm adding it now with the hope that it's an acceptable compromise. Rivertorch (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just not convinced using such a blatantly partisan source is worth doing in this instance. It's equally "impossible" to verify that the transcript provided by Media Matters is accurate in this case, and it's fairly standard in all areas of work (academic, journalistic, and otherwise) to quote a program even if you don't have a direct transcript. I don't want to fight over it means I'm not going to revert you again on it, but there are standards when it comes to living people, and I don't see how the use of that source meets it when we can simply cite the program directly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Snippets of transcript are available in a variety of places, but I'm not sure how many of them are strictly nonpartisan. In any event, I guess we can cross the verification bridge if someone questions it. Hopefully, that won't happen. I've removed the restored citation. Rivertorch (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Timespan of film and relationship of characters.

This seems to be a touchy subject judging by the number of times dates have been swapped. I'm afraid I just added to that by switching the first para "relationship" dates back to 1963-81.

In the original short story the dates of the relationship (assuming a relationship technically ends when one partner dies) are clearly indicated to be summer of 1963 to some time after May 1983 ("It was months before Ennis heard of the accident.") The story itself covers a longer period than that twenty years since we are not told when the prologue takes place.

However, the film had the dates as 1963 (as shown onscreen at the start) to sometime after May 1981 (Ennis receives back his postcard concerning a possible fishing trip planned for November 1981.) The final scene is dated in the screenplay as 1984. Josedley (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Stars vs. cast members

To "star" in a movie is to play a principal or leading role in the cast. We now have in the infobox that the film starred seven actors—Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, Linda Cardellini, Anna Faris, Anne Hathaway, Michelle Williams, and Randy Quaid—and I don't think that can be correct. I propose reducing it to Ledger, Gyllenhaal, Hathaway, and Williams, whose names receive prominent, above-the-title billing on the theatre poster displayed in the infobox and who clearly did have leading parts. Rivertorch (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Edited this section as part of education project, please see Queen Mary Section Below. ( removed Cardellini, Farris and Quaid from infobox starring section and introduction - they aren't starring actors in the sense that they play a leading role in the cast. The actors left are the ones who receive above title focus on the published material (dvd covers/posters/ect). The others actors remain in the cast section) DanielleBufton (talk)

Gene Shalit controversy

An important point left out of the discussion is that Gene Shalit's son, who defended his father's review, is openly gay and that his father has been a longtime supporter not just of him personally, but of the gay community. The information is in the Gene Shalit article and the original source is available here: http://www.advocate.com/news/2006/01/10/peter-shalit-responds160.111.254.17 (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Production/development

Some more background on the production/development of the film, the ideas, scriptwriting, getting Ang Lee on board, casting, etc. would improve the article. -KaJunl (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have now added a few extra sentences about the production of the film. The information has been sourced in Magazine articles published around the time of the film's release - -Yanikaaaaaa (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brokeback Mountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070203090428/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2006/02/24/20060224-albertatourism.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/02/24/20060224-albertatourism.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927185212/http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9916/MEDIA/misc/ to http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9916/MEDIA/misc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I have gone through all the links in the "Home Media" section and "Discussions about sexuality of characters section" to remove and replace any dead links for articles. Most dead links were simple to replace however some release dates in the "Home Media" section were incorrect. This has now been changed with supporting links Yanikaaaaaa (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Make subheadings parallel

The 'improvements needed' section suggests making subheads under the Controversy section parallel. I'm not sure what 'parallel' means in Wikipedia editing terms and would appreciate if someone could inform me so that I know whether the improvements have been made. Lukejamieson95 (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Good question. I've never heard of it, and can't find it in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Pinging @Josve05a: Barte (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard it before, might be related to WP:parallel which redirects to Wikipedia:Related? Ping Barte (t) Josve05a (c) 19:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lukejamieson95 and Barte: That was added in 2006; and no doubt has the article changed it's sections etc. since then, so that point might be best to be ignored, if you can't figure out what they ment. If you want a "new" to-do list instead, I'd suggest WP:Peer review or nominate the article to get 'good article' status and wait for someone to make comments about how th artcle looks right now and what needs to change. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. For me, it was not so much a wish to elevate the status as to understand the idea of "parallel subheads". Sounds like a term whose time never came. Barte (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Queen Mary Education Project

We're currently editing this page for a university project. If you have any questions please contact Laramubaydeen (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC), Yanikaaaaaa (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Sgarane (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC) --DanielleBufton (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Lukejamieson95 (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm removing the review by Christian Today from the reception section. It does not seem like an appropriate source for a review as it judges the film based on its depiction of homosexuality on screen. My issue with it is that it does not consider how the film depicts homosexuality but just that it does and knocks stars of the films overall rating simply because of this. It's biased and as well as this you cannot access the review without a subscription to the magazine which doesn't make it useful at all. Sgarane (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment...subscription-only access isn't a valid reason for striking references as this has been the case for decades (before the internet). Such references can usually be accessed through libraries (inter-library loans, etc.). DonQuixote (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like you're questioning the criteria of the reviewer, but that alone isn't sufficient to delete it. The larger question is: is the review a complete anomaly or does is it representative of how some reviewers chose to judge the film? Barte (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, those are very important points but if the article isn't accessible how can the reader follow up with the source? I can restore the article but I feel that it simply serves as a disclaimer for Christian movie goers. What I'm getting at is maybe the article does not belong in the reception category alongside reviewers known for judging a film based on quality and how it holds up as a piece of cinema. The Christian Today seems to take issue with the "agenda" of the film. Sgarane (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Per DonQuixote's note above, online accessibility alone isn't sufficient to delete the source. If we reference a book of film criticism, for example, that source too is probably not available online--but the book is still a valid source. Your other point goes more to the core of Wikipedia editing. Our job as editors is not to judge the criteria of the review, but to get a representative sample of how the film was received. If some reviewers can't get by the depiction of homosexuality in Brokeback, if that clouds their judgement, we still would want to represent that point of view in the reception area. Because like it or not, that is part of how Brokeback was received. That's a judgement call, of course. If you are looking at a lot of reviews, you might argue that this one is so far afield that it doesn't represent anything beyond itself. Or....you might find a similar review that's available online. Substituting it in would be useful here. But in general, the goal is not to resolve a controversy, but to cover it. Make sense? Barte (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for clearing that up. I put the article back but I would still like to, as you said, replace or add something similar. I wonder would it be better to move it into a different category? It seems more concerned with the controversial aspects of the film...maybe it belongs in the controversy section? Is that more useful than just removing it? Sgarane (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for putting back. As to moving it to the controversy section, my take is that it should stay put. My read is that the controversy largely attacked the ideas and themes of the film, rather than its merits as a film. Whereas the Christianity Today review at least states up front (and, admittedly, I can only see the first few paragraphs) that the "3-star rating...is only in reference to the quality of the filmmaking, the acting, the cinematography...." I think that intent matters here, however well we think they succeeded.

Looking at the article, I notice that almost all the references are contemporaneous to its release and immediate reactions. Which begs the question: in the intervening years since 2005, what was film's legacy? Did it influence younger filmmakers. Is it considered, in retrospect, a milestone? Are there any revisionist reviews? Googling "brokeback mountain 10 year anniversary" pull up some material. I suspect other sources are to be found in books. Just a thought. Barte (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. It's very helpful! I just added to "discussions of sexuality section" I hope my contribution is alright and in the right catergory. Sgarane (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed Cardellini, Farris and Quaid from infobox starring section and introduction - they aren't starring actors in the sense that they play a leading role in the cast. The actors left are the ones who receive above title focus on the published material (dvd covers/posters/ect). The others actors remain in the cast section DanielleBufton (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added a link to Diana Ossana's wikipedia page where her name is written in infobox. DanielleBufton (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence 'some of the most significant awards received by Brokeback Mountain are listed below' from the introduction to the accolades section, as the significance of these awards is unclear and biased. Lukejamieson95 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have separated the introduction in to two paragraphs, as it contains two subjects: awards received by the film and the film's significance in the context of other LGBT films in 2005.Lukejamieson95 (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have now added a few extra sentences about Ang Lee's initial involvement with the film. The information has been sourced in Magazine articles published around the time of the film's release - Yanikaaaaaa (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Added the information about casting announcements and as well and how the film sparked the popularity of the term "gay cowboy" or "gay cowboy movie" Sgarane (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Added Scott Michael Campbell as Monroe and Graham Beckel as L.D Newsome into cast section - two notable male american actors who were missed from the talk page - also linked their wiki pages. DanielleBufton (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Renamed the 'Film's influence' section 'Influence and legacy', as the wording of the original title is a little clumsy. Including the word 'legacy' also highlights that the section deals with how the film itself has been remembered over time, and not just its impact. Laramubaydeen (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Rearranged the Influence and legacy section out of its list format and into paragraphs with relevant subheadings. Laramubaydeen (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Added sentence in the 'post Academy Awards debate' section on the 2015 Hollywood Reporter poll in which Brokeback won the revote for Best Picture. Lukejamieson95 (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Changed heading to 'U.S. conservative media' as the section focuses exclusively on U.S. political pundits. Lukejamieson95 (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added a brief subsection exploring the film's impact on the film industry to the Influence and legacy section of the article. Laramubaydeen (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Added hyperlinks to the Wikipedia articles about the films mentioned in the 'Impact on film industry' subsection. Laramubaydeen (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Added a chapter from B. Ruby Rich's New Queer Cinema to the further reading, as it explores the film's cultural impact in greater detail. Laramubaydeen (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Replaced the dead end links that were cited in the 'Shirt auction' subsection. Laramubaydeen (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed an uncited sentence suggesting that Israel was the only country in the Middle East to screen an uncensored version of the film. Laramubaydeen (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Added a citation for the section from an interview from an archived version of Proulx's official website, as the site itself has since been taken down. Laramubaydeen (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Moved sentence on Rush Limbaugh and Don Imus from 'U.S. social conservatives' to 'U.S. conservative media' as I feel this is a more appropriate section for their comments to be mentioned. Lukejamieson95 (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Added citation to the stagings of Beyond Brokeback and removed two dead links in the same sub section. Laramubaydeen (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Added information to the 'Criticism of marketing' section regarding Mandelsohn's claims that the film sought to hide homosexual aspects in marketing. I also included James Schamus' response.Lukejamieson95 (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Renamed the 'International reception' section 'International reception and distribution' to reflect the information given in the section. Laramubaydeen (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Updated a dead link in the 'International reception and distribution' section that deals with the film's distribution in UAE. Laramubaydeen (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at the 'Comparison to original story" section and it is very short. I think it would be worth getting any academic sources or scholarly sources that talk about the film vs the short story? Maybe even Proulx herself? I'm only asking because there are very few citations on the section. It comes across as opinion from a Wikipedia User rather than a trustworthy analysis of the film and story. What do you think? Sgarane (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, the second half of the article does seem a lot more like analysis than fact. Perhaps I could remove that part of the section and then merge what's left of it (ie. Proulx's reaction, which is cited) with the Production section? Laramubaydeen (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on our group discussions, I have since made these changes to the article as it felt more beneficial to include Proulx's reaction rather than an uncitable opinion. Laramubaydeen (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have gone through all the links in the "Home Media" section and "Discussions about sexuality of characters section" to remove and replace any dead links for articles. Most dead links were simple to replace however some release dates in the "Home Media" section were incorrect. This has now been changed with supporting links Yanikaaaaaa (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Added a citation needed to the sentence discussing the different languages available on the film's DVD in the 'International distribution and reception' section. Laramubaydeen (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Bot

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brokeback Mountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060903190922/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein01feb01,0,2740219.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions to http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein01feb01,0,2740219.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked, and partly rverted. Replaced with a new working link instaed. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)