![]() | Dallas Buyers Club has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 16, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the film
Dallas Buyers Club is about
Ron Woodroof (played by
Matthew McConaughey), a real-life
AIDS patient who smuggled unapproved pharmaceutical drugs into Texas? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
When this film first came out, there was a section about the misinformation about AZT promulgated in the film. Far from being "toxic" and harmful, AZT save countless lives in the early days when it was the only effective treatment. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/10/what-dallas-buyers-club-got-wrong-about-the-aids-crisis/ is just one of the many articles on the 'net addressing this. Since this misinformation is at least as important as whether or not the main character was bisexual or gay, I think it would rate at least as much mention. 72.64.227.187 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There are problems with how the film is referred to across Wikipedia. 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)
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)
CivisHibernius ( talk) 13:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
CivisHibernius ( talk) 13:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
I agree that having an article on Ron is important. Ron was a person, not a movie. 22:17, 4 April 2014 (UCT)
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)
under "production", the reference [15] 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.[15]" -- 96.63.2.100 ( talk) 19:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
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.) '
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 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 [2] and arguments that the role should have been filled by a transgender actor. [3] [4] [5] 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." [6] Some critics have made more general arguments comparing the use of non-transgender actors in transgender roles to cross-race casting in previous years, [4] and complaining that transgender actors are often relegated to roles such as prostitutes, corpses and other "freaks". [7] [8]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Your concerns have all been addressed, and answered, multiple times, regardless if you like the answers. If you feel the current wording at WP:FURTHER does not reflect a best practice then arguing here is not going to change things. Go there instead and see how things go. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 22:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
A few general comments.
1) The grammar and syntax of this article is not up to par and should be reviewed by a copy-editor. 2) The article is very laudatory of Ron Woodruff and is uncritical of the social context in which he operated. The movie makes him out to be a "hero" without examining his profit motive. In other words, to what extent was he motivated by the common good? 3) There is no questioning of the "heterosexualization" of this story. At that time, the overwhelming majority of activism around access to AIDS drug treatments was initiated by gay men. In this movie, they are relegated to "helpers" and customers, while Woodruff emerges as the "hero," saving the poor gay people. 4) The heterosexual image seems even more exaggerated because of the decision of the screenwriters to portray him as a rodeo rider and barroom fighter (even though he apparently didn't ride bulls and was not confrontational) and to introduce a female love interest (even though he was reported to have been bisexual). Therefore, a closer examination of the comments of gay people who lived through this crisis would create a more balanced work.
Douglas Janoff 74.138.16.205 ( talk) 16:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:FRINGE I think the article needs to tackle the claims made in the plot summary, to some extent. The film is apparently a very good film, but it's also one making some very questionable medical claims, and these need to be pointed out as fringe somehow, probably by a brief mention in the lead, and a longer section later. Lines like 'Dr. Vass, who has had his American medical license revoked, tells him that the AZT is "poisonous" and "kills every cell it comes into contact with".' or 'Meanwhile, Dr. Saks also begins to notice the negative effects of AZT, but is told by her supervisor Dr. Sevard that it cannot be discontinued.' or even just '...the FDA later allowed Woodroof to take peptide T for personal use and that he died of AIDS in 1992, seven years later than his doctors initially predicted.' are all necessary to understand the film's plot - but, because the film is basically advocating for a fringe position, are also highly controversial claims that need discussed. That a film is based on a flawed idea doesn't make it a bad film, but it does mean we have to discuss the flawed idea. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 10:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Dallas Buyers Club firm sued for Godzilla copyright infringement http://www.zdnet.com/article/dallas-buyers-club-firm-sued-for-godzilla-copyright-infringement/
Someone wanna add this? -- Never stop exploring ( talk) 10:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I tried to take this out and was reverted.
There's no explanation given for why this movie, as opposed to any other movie, has a 400-word, three-subsection block of text about the fact that some people pirated the movie, and the producers of the movie didn't like that people pirated the movie. "There's news articles about it" doesn't really cut it -- you can find similar articles for literally any major studio film. Is there something particularly unique about the fact that THIS movie was downloaded or the subject of lawsuits, when that's the case for 300 movies a year? Is there something particularly interesting about the way that happened in Australia or Singapore? This is the only movie on Wikipedia with a "copyright enforcement in Singapore" section, and there's no indication in the article as to why this is. Predestiprestidigitation ( talk) 19:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm in a Women and Gender Studies class at school and i am going to add a section about Jared Leto's character Rayon and how the trans community felt about it and how the community found it offensive about how media portrayed the character. J chotto ( talk) 00:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: you were in a far-left gender ideology indoctrination class and want to add your disgusting propaganda to Wikipedia? How about no. Why is that section about offended trannies even in this article? The absurd opinion of a few degenerate mentally ill freaks violates WP:UNDUE and WP:Fringe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prowlefge ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
As there's at least one editor disagreeing that this film received "universal acclaim", I thought for a second, "What do reliable, secondary sources say that means?"
Keep in mind, please, that our opinions on what "universal acclaim" means are meaningless when it comes to wording in a Wikipedia article. The sources are what matters.
For starters, I saw that Metacritic defines it as a score of "81-100". DBC scores 84 there.
For some non-DBC-related definitions, I dug deeper, and I see that IBT called The Muppets a film with universal acclaim. It scored 75 on Metacritic, for the record.
I don't see anything that defines "universal acclaim" as meaning "every single critic liked it." Based on this quick research, I believe the phrase "universal acclaim" should stay in the lead of this article. Rockypedia ( talk) 02:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that the term "critical acclaim" would more accurately describe the film's critical feedback. Joef1234 ( talk) 07:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
per WP:RS/AC what are the sources being used to do the meta-analysis of "universal acclaim"? If it is just us evaluating the other reviews, that is WP:OR. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Snow White "The film was released to universal acclaim in 1937"
West Side Story "West Side Story was the first of his films to bring him universal acclaim"
Regular Lovers "Winner of numerous international awards and garnering universal acclaim worldwide"
To Be or Not To Be "the picture has since achieved universal acclaim"
The Deer Hunter "Michael Cimino, whose career plunged from universal acclaim with The Deer Hunter,"
Ratatouille "received universal acclaim from film buffs and foodies alike."
The Muppets "The movie received universal acclaim from film critics"
Mother India "Roy's Mother India received universal acclaim"
The King's Speech "Given the universal acclaim and love for The King’s Speech,"
The Social Network "The movie has been received with universal acclaim by critics."
Haider "Haider receives universal acclaim"
Boyhood "the universal acclaim of “Boyhood” is rooted in something more"
Inside Out "getting universal acclaim from critics"
Gravity "one of the unqualified successes of 2013, earning universal acclaim,"
Creed "Yes, Creed has universal critical acclaim. And yes, Creed also has something better: the universal acclaim of the people"
From at least 1937 to 2015. I could go on, as the list is, at least figuratively, although not literally, endless. See what I did there? Rockypedia ( talk) 21:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Dallas Buyers Club. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dallas Buyers Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://cnn.com-news.info/3p55When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The link to "Based on a True True Story? Scene-by-scene Breakdown of Hollywood Films". Information Is Beautiful. Retrieved July 28, 2019. ( https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/based-on-a-true-true-story/) goes only to the main site at present. I couldn't find a better link. -- Calion | Talk 06:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Peter Staley's memoir Never Silent: ACT UP and My Life in Activism will be published later this month and includes lengthy criticism of Melisa Wallack and her role in adding inaccurate AIDS denialism into the script.
Staley wrote that Vallée sought Staley's input after watching How to Survive a Plague and that Staley pointed out the AIDS denialism in the then-current version of the script, helping persuade Vallée to sideline Wallack and remove the problematic aspects. He also mentions that the script inaccurately portrays protagonist Ron Woodroof as being straight.
An excerpt from the book was published by Vanity Fair yesterday: this 2021 The Controversy Behind the Scenes of Dallas Buyers Club, 30 September 2021.
The article should be updated to reflect these details from Staley's memoir. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ ping}} me in replies) 05:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
J chotto.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Shuyu1234567 (
article contribs).
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Shuyu1234567 (
article contribs).
The tone sounds like a refutation rather than just stating the facts. 2601:42:801:9FA0:5CDE:A7CD:CFF1:F63E ( talk) 22:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Dallas Buyers Club has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 16, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the film
Dallas Buyers Club is about
Ron Woodroof (played by
Matthew McConaughey), a real-life
AIDS patient who smuggled unapproved pharmaceutical drugs into Texas? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
When this film first came out, there was a section about the misinformation about AZT promulgated in the film. Far from being "toxic" and harmful, AZT save countless lives in the early days when it was the only effective treatment. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/10/what-dallas-buyers-club-got-wrong-about-the-aids-crisis/ is just one of the many articles on the 'net addressing this. Since this misinformation is at least as important as whether or not the main character was bisexual or gay, I think it would rate at least as much mention. 72.64.227.187 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There are problems with how the film is referred to across Wikipedia. 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)
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)
CivisHibernius ( talk) 13:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
CivisHibernius ( talk) 13:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
I agree that having an article on Ron is important. Ron was a person, not a movie. 22:17, 4 April 2014 (UCT)
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)
under "production", the reference [15] 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.[15]" -- 96.63.2.100 ( talk) 19:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
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.) '
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 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 [2] and arguments that the role should have been filled by a transgender actor. [3] [4] [5] 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." [6] Some critics have made more general arguments comparing the use of non-transgender actors in transgender roles to cross-race casting in previous years, [4] and complaining that transgender actors are often relegated to roles such as prostitutes, corpses and other "freaks". [7] [8]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Your concerns have all been addressed, and answered, multiple times, regardless if you like the answers. If you feel the current wording at WP:FURTHER does not reflect a best practice then arguing here is not going to change things. Go there instead and see how things go. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 22:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
A few general comments.
1) The grammar and syntax of this article is not up to par and should be reviewed by a copy-editor. 2) The article is very laudatory of Ron Woodruff and is uncritical of the social context in which he operated. The movie makes him out to be a "hero" without examining his profit motive. In other words, to what extent was he motivated by the common good? 3) There is no questioning of the "heterosexualization" of this story. At that time, the overwhelming majority of activism around access to AIDS drug treatments was initiated by gay men. In this movie, they are relegated to "helpers" and customers, while Woodruff emerges as the "hero," saving the poor gay people. 4) The heterosexual image seems even more exaggerated because of the decision of the screenwriters to portray him as a rodeo rider and barroom fighter (even though he apparently didn't ride bulls and was not confrontational) and to introduce a female love interest (even though he was reported to have been bisexual). Therefore, a closer examination of the comments of gay people who lived through this crisis would create a more balanced work.
Douglas Janoff 74.138.16.205 ( talk) 16:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:FRINGE I think the article needs to tackle the claims made in the plot summary, to some extent. The film is apparently a very good film, but it's also one making some very questionable medical claims, and these need to be pointed out as fringe somehow, probably by a brief mention in the lead, and a longer section later. Lines like 'Dr. Vass, who has had his American medical license revoked, tells him that the AZT is "poisonous" and "kills every cell it comes into contact with".' or 'Meanwhile, Dr. Saks also begins to notice the negative effects of AZT, but is told by her supervisor Dr. Sevard that it cannot be discontinued.' or even just '...the FDA later allowed Woodroof to take peptide T for personal use and that he died of AIDS in 1992, seven years later than his doctors initially predicted.' are all necessary to understand the film's plot - but, because the film is basically advocating for a fringe position, are also highly controversial claims that need discussed. That a film is based on a flawed idea doesn't make it a bad film, but it does mean we have to discuss the flawed idea. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 10:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Dallas Buyers Club firm sued for Godzilla copyright infringement http://www.zdnet.com/article/dallas-buyers-club-firm-sued-for-godzilla-copyright-infringement/
Someone wanna add this? -- Never stop exploring ( talk) 10:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I tried to take this out and was reverted.
There's no explanation given for why this movie, as opposed to any other movie, has a 400-word, three-subsection block of text about the fact that some people pirated the movie, and the producers of the movie didn't like that people pirated the movie. "There's news articles about it" doesn't really cut it -- you can find similar articles for literally any major studio film. Is there something particularly unique about the fact that THIS movie was downloaded or the subject of lawsuits, when that's the case for 300 movies a year? Is there something particularly interesting about the way that happened in Australia or Singapore? This is the only movie on Wikipedia with a "copyright enforcement in Singapore" section, and there's no indication in the article as to why this is. Predestiprestidigitation ( talk) 19:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm in a Women and Gender Studies class at school and i am going to add a section about Jared Leto's character Rayon and how the trans community felt about it and how the community found it offensive about how media portrayed the character. J chotto ( talk) 00:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: you were in a far-left gender ideology indoctrination class and want to add your disgusting propaganda to Wikipedia? How about no. Why is that section about offended trannies even in this article? The absurd opinion of a few degenerate mentally ill freaks violates WP:UNDUE and WP:Fringe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prowlefge ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
As there's at least one editor disagreeing that this film received "universal acclaim", I thought for a second, "What do reliable, secondary sources say that means?"
Keep in mind, please, that our opinions on what "universal acclaim" means are meaningless when it comes to wording in a Wikipedia article. The sources are what matters.
For starters, I saw that Metacritic defines it as a score of "81-100". DBC scores 84 there.
For some non-DBC-related definitions, I dug deeper, and I see that IBT called The Muppets a film with universal acclaim. It scored 75 on Metacritic, for the record.
I don't see anything that defines "universal acclaim" as meaning "every single critic liked it." Based on this quick research, I believe the phrase "universal acclaim" should stay in the lead of this article. Rockypedia ( talk) 02:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that the term "critical acclaim" would more accurately describe the film's critical feedback. Joef1234 ( talk) 07:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
per WP:RS/AC what are the sources being used to do the meta-analysis of "universal acclaim"? If it is just us evaluating the other reviews, that is WP:OR. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Snow White "The film was released to universal acclaim in 1937"
West Side Story "West Side Story was the first of his films to bring him universal acclaim"
Regular Lovers "Winner of numerous international awards and garnering universal acclaim worldwide"
To Be or Not To Be "the picture has since achieved universal acclaim"
The Deer Hunter "Michael Cimino, whose career plunged from universal acclaim with The Deer Hunter,"
Ratatouille "received universal acclaim from film buffs and foodies alike."
The Muppets "The movie received universal acclaim from film critics"
Mother India "Roy's Mother India received universal acclaim"
The King's Speech "Given the universal acclaim and love for The King’s Speech,"
The Social Network "The movie has been received with universal acclaim by critics."
Haider "Haider receives universal acclaim"
Boyhood "the universal acclaim of “Boyhood” is rooted in something more"
Inside Out "getting universal acclaim from critics"
Gravity "one of the unqualified successes of 2013, earning universal acclaim,"
Creed "Yes, Creed has universal critical acclaim. And yes, Creed also has something better: the universal acclaim of the people"
From at least 1937 to 2015. I could go on, as the list is, at least figuratively, although not literally, endless. See what I did there? Rockypedia ( talk) 21:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Dallas Buyers Club. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dallas Buyers Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://cnn.com-news.info/3p55When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The link to "Based on a True True Story? Scene-by-scene Breakdown of Hollywood Films". Information Is Beautiful. Retrieved July 28, 2019. ( https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/based-on-a-true-true-story/) goes only to the main site at present. I couldn't find a better link. -- Calion | Talk 06:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Peter Staley's memoir Never Silent: ACT UP and My Life in Activism will be published later this month and includes lengthy criticism of Melisa Wallack and her role in adding inaccurate AIDS denialism into the script.
Staley wrote that Vallée sought Staley's input after watching How to Survive a Plague and that Staley pointed out the AIDS denialism in the then-current version of the script, helping persuade Vallée to sideline Wallack and remove the problematic aspects. He also mentions that the script inaccurately portrays protagonist Ron Woodroof as being straight.
An excerpt from the book was published by Vanity Fair yesterday: this 2021 The Controversy Behind the Scenes of Dallas Buyers Club, 30 September 2021.
The article should be updated to reflect these details from Staley's memoir. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ ping}} me in replies) 05:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
J chotto.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Shuyu1234567 (
article contribs).
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Shuyu1234567 (
article contribs).
The tone sounds like a refutation rather than just stating the facts. 2601:42:801:9FA0:5CDE:A7CD:CFF1:F63E ( talk) 22:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)