Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:20, 11 March 2014

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: 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 American cinema task force. This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Cinema 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 Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. AIDS This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.AIDSWikipedia:WikiProject AIDSTemplate:WikiProject AIDSAIDS ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. 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

Title

There are problems with how the film is referred to across Misplaced Pages. Is it "Buyers Club"? "Buyers' Club" or "Buyer's Club." Obviously, the media also is having difficulty with the plural apostrophe concept, but there needs to be some consistency.

Also, much of the information is biased and also is taken directly from the IMDB summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.18.89 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I would think the same thing, however the IMDB entry, as well as the promotional posters, and every other media source, don't use the possessive apostrophe. So that is the reason for the title as it is. Shadowjams (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy

Currently the text in the 'historical accuracy' section seems intended to suggest that Woodroof faced no risks due to the FDA's 'tacit acceptance' of buyers' clubs, but a more nuanced contemporary article reproduced here shows that he faced border arrests, confiscation, and unpredictable changes of federal policy at any time. Suggested for expansion, perhaps moved to a section titled 'background' or similar. --Dhartung | Talk 21:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the previous section on historical accuracy. Most groups had approval from the FDA and nearly all of them disbanded after the development of HAART. The FDA doesn't regulate border crossings or commerce between the US and Mexico.

CivisHibernius (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That's misleading Civis... that the FDA isn't a law enforcement agency doesn't mean they don't set laws that can be enforced by other agencies. That said, Dhartung should incorporate the source into the article. Removing it altogether is inappropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The only one whose being misleading is Dhartung. If you want to add something to the historical accuracy section, obtain a source or reference from that time period, which is reputable (not some National Health Federation crap for example).

CivisHibernius (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ron Woodroof Redirect

I don't think it's appropriate to have the article on the actual person Ron Woodroof redirect to an article on a movie with fictionalized details. I think, as long as there isn't an article written on Ron Woodroof, it should not redirect at all. Are there examples of other real people whose articles redirect to fictionalized accounts of their lives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davvolun (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We should have an article on him as Loeba says.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I second that Gts-tg (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

How to refer to Rayon?

Should the plot summary use male or female pronouns when referring to Rayon? I seem to remember the character being referred to as "he" in the film, which makes me think we should do the same. Agree? Disagree? We should attempt to come to a consensus over this and then put a hidden note in the plot summary, otherwise I can imagine it always being changed back and forth... --Loeba (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"It"? Just kidding, I think he, his natural state, but we could always use he/she. Given that the Oscars are only what 6 weeks away?? I think we should try to get this up to a reasonable status. Quite sad really that films like this are neglected and the superhero blockbusters are always crammed full even by the time of release!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The article describes Rayon as a trans woman. If this is accurate, Rayon should only & always be referred to as "she.". If Rayon is not actually a trans woman, then the article should be changed to reflect that. →mrs smartygirl← | Talk 19:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

wrong link/reference?

under "production", the reference given in the following sentence makes no sense: "Principal photography began in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA in mid-2012, after considerable delay and concerns about the project from the producers and cast." --96.63.2.100 (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ron Woodroof bisexual?

There seems to be some evidence, or at least speculation, that Ron Woodroof was not straight, and maybe more likely bisexual. See:

"Was the Hero of Dallas Buyers Club Actually Bisexual?", http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/17/was_dallas_buyers_club_s_ron_woodroof_gay_or_bisexual_friends_and_doctor.html

I feel this is something that is of "historical importance" if it is indeed fact, so I thought noting it here in the Talk section would be appropriate until there is more definite confirmation.

Quoting from that article: ' Those who knew Woodroof were surprised when they saw him portrayed this way on the screen. In November, Arnold Wayne Jones wrote an article for the Dallas Voice, which stated that Woodroof “was not a homophobe … according to those who knew him, but rather openly bisexual.” This week I contacted one of Jones’ sources, Dr. Steven Pounders, who was Woodroof’s primary care physician. “I never witnessed any homophobia in the time I knew him from 1988 through his death in 1992,” Dr. Pounders told me. “He fit right in the gay environment without problems.” Was Woodroof straight? “Brenda, his ex-wife, stated that he was bisexual,” says Dr. Pounders. (“Brenda and he were married, then divorced, but they remained close until his death,” he explained.) '

American use of "the hospital"

This article is about an American, in an American film, and used the British English "at hospital" and "in hospital". I felt it was more appropriate to use the American form for this clause, so I changed it.Networkprosource (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote most of the plot summary and I am indeed a Brit - I didn't realise AmEng needed a definite article for "hospital"! Thanks. --Loeba (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

transgender casting controversy RFC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Society, sports, and culture Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I added a section about controversy of Leto being cast in the transgender role of Rayon. The content has been reverted twice, once by Earthh, and once by an IP (that I assume to be Earthh based on the similar wording in the edit summary) The section is below. It includes commentary from The Guardian, The Advocate, The Independent, the La Times, etc. Should this topic be covered in this article?

The casting of Jared Leto in the transgender role of Rayon has led to accusations of transmisogyny and arguments that the role should have been filled by a transgender actor. Leto responded to one heckler making the accusation by saying "So you would hold a role against someone who happened to be gay or lesbian — they can't play a straight part? Then you've made sure people that are gay, people that aren't straight, people like the Rayons of the world, would never have the opportunity to turn the tables and explore parts of that art." Some critics have made more general arguments comparing the use of non-transgender actors in transgender roles to cross-race casting in previous years, and complaining that transgender actors are often relegated to roles such as prostitutes, corpses and other "freaks".

Survey

• include Although no prejudice to any particular wording. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Include, but shorten: I'm not loving the phrasing, but I think a smaller section might be worth it, along the lines of "The film was also criticized by some critics due to Leto, rather than a trans actor, being cast in the role. One heckler accused Leto of "trans-misogyny" at an event, with Leto responding "So you would hold a role against someone who happened to be gay or lesbian — they can't play a straight part? Then you've made sure people that are gay, people that aren't straight, people like the Rayons of the world, would never have the opportunity to turn the tables and explore parts of that art." I don't think it needs much more than that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Include I haven't done a careful review of additional sources outside of what's in the article, so, like Gaijin42, I'm neutral so far as to wording and the amount of coverage. It's clear that there's enough sourcing to merit some discussion in this article. --j⚛e decker 17:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• That IP is not mine. I removed that content since it seemed that controversy was provoked after the accusations of one heckler which are not noteworthy and neither encyclopedic. I would include a short paragraph in the Reception section in which the points that keep coming up in reviews can be summarised with a cited note ("The film was criticized by some critics due to the casting of Rayon given to a straight actor rather than a transgender actor..."). That "transgender actors are often relegated to roles such as prostitutes, corpses and other freaks" is not so relevant here.--Earthh (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Include, omit the heckler, and response, focus on the more reliable sources. I have taken a try at Dallas Buyers Club#Critical response. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• include in some format the issue has received enough coverage in enough sources that per WP:UNDUE it deserves some mention. The particular wordings and phrasings and length of coverage are of course subject to word-smithing and further refinement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• include briefly. On the "include" side of the equation, the complaint was made and got covered in sources. On the "exclude / minimize" side of the equation, this is literally covering what someone said about the subject of the article, not directly coverage about the subject of the article, so it is "one step down" on the relevance scale. North8000 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

It looks like someone else has added a similar bit to the article. Here is a new oped from the advocate on the issue as well. http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/03/05/op-ed-defense-jared-leto Gaijin42 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

references

1. "GLAAD Media Reference Guide - Transgender Glossary of Terms". GLAAD. Retrieved 12 February 2014.
2. "Jared Leto Heckled, Accused of 'Trans-Misogyny' at Santa Barbara Event (Audio)". The Hollywood Reporter. 2014-02-04. Retrieved 2014-03-02.
3. ""Dallas Buyers Club" fails trans actors". Salon.com. 2013-11-13. Retrieved 2014-03-02.
4. ^ "Jared Leto a 'revelation' in 'Dallas Buyer's Club.' But the role should've gone to a trans actor. - Los Angeles Times". Articles.latimes.com. 2013-11-01. Retrieved 2014-03-02.
5. "10 Trans Actors Who Could Have Played Jared Leto's Role in 'Dallas Buyers Club' | /Bent". Blogs.indiewire.com. Retrieved 2014-03-02.
6. Marie, Parker (2014-02-06). "Jared Leto Accused of Transmisogyny at Award Ceremony". Advocate.com. Retrieved 2014-03-02.
7. "Should trans screen roles be played by trans actors? | Juliet Jacques | Comment is free". theguardian.com. 2014-02-03. Retrieved 2014-03-02.
8. Paris Lees (2014-02-02). "Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club: Why can't we cast trans people in trans roles? - Features - Films". The Independent. Retrieved 2014-03-02.

As there appears to be WP:SNOW support for some inclusion, I am going to restore my section. Normal WP:BRD can then begin on the wording. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Further reading

My removal of the section was reverted simply as "further reading is acceptable." I do not see how this is not just a section for external links that don't conform to our guidelines. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Further reading, spells out that they are acceptable, but should be used with consideration. The external links you removed actually are also considered acceptable by many, but the external links are apparently held to a higher standard of inclusion. As the article developed it's likely entries in the further reading section will be converted into references for the article, but i see no problem with them remaining there for readers who actually get to the bottom of the article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Further reading is basically a failed guideline with no support to speak of. If we can use those as references, we should, but there's no evidence that they're supported by existing guidelines currently. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a spin out from Misplaced Pages:Layout#Further reading, which gives a brief take on how to look at such sections. In short it's to help the reader, and should not be too duplicative of the references, or content already in the article. I think it's a supplement to the article, and remains acceptable to include. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Layout is a style, not a content guideline. Besides, as it says, "This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content." Even by your own justifications, it should be removed as is. Can we do that and move on? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the one entry that was already in the article as a reference. I see no reason to delete perfectly good link that is useful to readers, and remains non-redundant. You are free to move on whenever you wish. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're not using it as a reference already? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, i didn't write the article so have only looked at one aspect of the film, and the references for that one aspect. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So you included something in the article you haven't looked at? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I restored content removed for what I saw as faulty reasoning. I think the link does have value to the article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So where in the article do you plan to use it as a reference? Can you take care of that since you believe the link has value? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's very kind of you to assume that I'm responsible for working that reference into the article, or even that I am fully aware of all the sourcing available and how it should be best used in the article. Actually I was addressing one facet of this article and I did that. I see no WP:Deadline to incorporate that link, nor any other links that others may present as valid, nor do I assume anything about them except that someone feels they are useful to the reader who is looking for information on the subject. And that's why we're here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Then we can remove it until the link has a use in the article where it belongs. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The further reading section is a part of the article, just like the see also section, these sections have content that when used in the main parts of the article can be removed as redundant. Until then they are perfectly fine as is. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It is up to the person who wants to include the link to justify it. You have offered no policy reason to do so, thus it should be removed. The amount of time you've spent battling me on this when you could just include the link where you believe it belongs is ultimately becoming disruptive. If you can use the link, then do so or remove it from a place it doesn't belong. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think if you'll recheck you'll find the manual of Style is aligned with policy, and supports the Further reading section exactly as it has been presently currently:

Per WP:Further;

An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations. Publications listed in Further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article. The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list. This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content.

No where does this suggest these sections should be deleted or the links removed until someone else discovers them. Nor does it set time limits, or dictate who needs to address the links. I accept that you did not know this or thought, for whatever reasons, these sections should go. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You're using a random essay as some sort of justification. WP:V requires those who want to include information to justify it. Since you're using the section as an external link, WP:EL also applies. Please stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

please follow the link, WP:Further, it is not an essay, random or otherwise. I've explained how See also and Further Reading sections are different in standards and usage in articles, and are not governed by WP:ELNO. And the links' inclusion has been justified, which is easily confirmed by looking at the source. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're using a format guideline to forgive your content guideline violations. The link's inclusion has not been validated using our guidelines. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The "Further reading" material is useful to the reader and it does not violate policy. A style guideline exists which suggests that it is possible for the Further reading section to have a link such as this one to a relevant newspaper article. Thargor Orlando cannot insist that it be incorporated into the article body or removed entirely. The Further reading section should be allowed to stay until such a time that another editor is able to incorporate the link as a reference. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I can insist that those who want to include something in the article do so. It would be disruptive for me to just add it in somewhere as I have no idea where it's intended to go and don't know enough about this topic to do it justice. It's an external link masked as "further reading." Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You have no basis for such insistence. There is nothing in policy that says a potential source must be incorporated into the article or removed entirely. Whether this newspaper article is an external link or further reading matters not. It is relevant reading in either case, and you cannot expect to tag it out of existence. Binksternet (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, please stop disrupting multiple articles through the removal of sections and maintenance tag warring. There is no support for your continuing addition of the {{external links}} tag, and I support Binsternet and Sportfan5000 in removing it. Since there is consensus against your edits, do not continue to disrupt this article. Viriditas (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• American cinema articles needing an image
• Film articles needing an image
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Low-importance American cinema articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class AIDS articles
• Unknown-importance AIDS articles
• WikiProject AIDS articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment