Wikipedia

Talk:Milk (2008 American film)/Archive 1

< Talk:Milk (2008 American film)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Doniago in topic Boyd Holbrook/Denton Smith
Archive 1

Numerous sources on making of the film in San Francisco

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If looking for articles...try sfbaytimes.com and ebar.com - two weekly LGBT newspapers with online news articles. Benjiboi 00:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Harvey milk.jpg

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Resolved
 – image removed

The image Image:Harvey milk.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I removed a picture allegedly showing Penn as Milk addressing a crowd in the Castro. It was so dark Penn couldn't be identified. It could have been depicting any event in the Castro. It really didn't enhance the article as pictures are required to. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. No reasonable person could think we are trying to deceive by presenting a false image. The article is lacking images as well so deleting detracts from the overall quality. The image itself illustrates quite well that the filming indeed took over part of the iconic neighborhood. Are you really challenging that that wasn't Penn as Milk? -- Banjeboi 16:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with 67.79.157.50. Whether or not a "reasonable person could think we are trying to deceive by presenting a false image" isn't the issue, nor is "The article is lacking images" a viable excuse to add some. Articles aren't supposed to be illustrated with multiple images as a form of decoration, they are supposed to have a substantial connection to the subject matter. The image in question does not clearly depict Penn, nor is it a clear representation of the filming of a scene for this project.
Also, unless a substantial amount of information about the event is included, instead of only one sentence, I can see no logical reason to have a subhead for "San Francisco premiere." LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
That was the only image we have of the film in production, I'm re-adding it as orphaned images get deleted. If no one else expands on the SF fundraising fete I will. -- Banjeboi 21:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
When placing images within an article, please avoid creating unsightly wide blank spaces dividing the text. Thank you! LiteraryMaven (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Headlines

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No Milk For Cinemark

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I am trying to figure out why including a link to something mentioned in the article is considered "spam". The link provides further information on what is being said... so why does it keep getting removed? The link in question: http://nomilkforcinemark.com/ Brand Eks (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Because it is spam. Thanks for finally asking for clarification after being warned to stop adding it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, as I already left a message on your talk page, please stop using "minor" edits for every one of your edits. You can change this default setting in Preferences. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
What if we added it as another reference to the relevant sentence in the article? We can put it in context and not necessarily outline it as an external link. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Erik, that would work with me. Jauerback, no, it isn't spam, and also usually my edits ARE minor, hence saying they are. Brand Eks (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think minor edits are more for correcting typos or making grammatical corrections. When you deal in changing the meaning or presence of content, it's more than a minor edit. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Semantics. As far as I'm concerned, unless I am adding a ton of new material or deleting it it's a minor edit. Ya'll can deal. Especially since you can't tell the difference between a link that supports what's being said in the article and "spam". It's no different than the Rotten Tomatoes link (for instance). But hey... continue deleting links just because you can {rolls eyes}. Brand Eks (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, we're not out to get you. I think that Jauerback and I are just wary of "petition" websites. I've personally seen a few, especially ones from fan bases over a film adaptation that did not make them happy (like Dragonball). In the case of Rotten Tomatoes, it is actually less spammy and provides due weight because it supplies a wealth of reviews. That way, we don't have to debate over how to provide due weight in the number and type of reviews for a given film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Gah. I apologize... I just feel strongly about the issue at hand, I read the website and thought that it really should be included as a link on this page, ya know? Plus I fugured it's just a hyperlink, why the big deal? Thanks for the calm and clear responses, Erik. I'll let it drop, Brand Eks (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, we were all probably knee-jerking in having a little bit of an edit war before finally coming here to discuss the issue. Not everyone who adds links, especially those in an indiscriminate manner, tend to be as responsive as you. I will go ahead and add it as a secondary footnote to the article's relevant sentence. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Richard David Boyle

Latest comment: 15 years ago27 comments6 people in discussion

Unfortunately, his comments seem out of place in the general flow of the article. I think that his comments should be integrated somewhere else. 24.32.204.89 (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Reactions regarding the historical accuracy of biopics (from both conventional movie critics and others) are typically added in the section with conventional movie critic remarks, such as in Nixon (film) and JFK (film). A separate section does not seem necessary.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I really call this source into question. Boyle calls himself a political ally of Milk, and I can only guess that he ran against Milk during the 1977 Supervisor race, one amongst 15 other candidates. I doubt this guy had any kind of personal insight into Dan White's motivation for shooting Moscone and Milk, but to introduce that it was because he thought they (or Brown and Silver - this is unclear) were aligned with Jim Jones is really a nutty theory. White had never before expressed any opinion for print on Jones or the Peoples Temple, resigned as supervisor a week before the mass suicides, and being concerned about himself only as usual, expressed disappointment that the suicides knocked him off the front page of the newspaper. And all the sudden he cares so much about Jim Jones that he shoots the mayor and Milk, and considers doing the same to Willie Brown and Carol Ruth Silver? Nuts. He disliked Silver because she and Milk made fun of him while they sat next to him on the board when he had tantrums, and she and Milk agreed on virtually everything. God only knows what he thought he might accomplish by shooting Willie Brown. According to Mike Weiss, the reporter who broke the story that White intended to kill Silver and Brown, he did it "as a blow against liberals who he believed were ruining the city and personally conspiring against him". (San Jose Mercury News, 1998 - no mention of Jones in the article) I also now believe that if I had won my election, White would have shot me as well. Give me a break.
Unsound source. --Moni3 (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does Boyle state that White killed "the Mayor" over Jim Jones, and not because of the fact that wasn't re-appointed by Moscone, Milk, etc.. He says the massive tragedy is what set White off psychologically. In fact, it doesn't even say he planned to kill Brown or Silver for the same, just that Silver was a "snake", and nowhere does the source say they weren't killed for the obvious reason that White thought they opposed his re-appointment. The article mentions in another sentence that White thought Brown and Silver were allied with Jones, and of course Brown most certainly was allied with Jones and I have no idea regarding Silver (or White's belief thereof), but none of that matters anyway.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The real truth came out years later when White got out of prison and told homicide Inspector Frank Falzon that he planned to kill not only Milk and Moscone, but another supervisor, Carol Ruth Silver, who he called a "snake," and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. He thought both were allied with Jones and the People's Temple. Because the writing is unclear - another reason to discard the source. Is this a bad attempt by Boyle to put two sentences together and allow the reader to make the cause and effect relationship, then deny responsibility when it's called into question? White wanted to kill Silver and Brown. He thought they were allied with Jones? Where does he get his information on what White thought of any of these politicians? Boyle is not a historian, but apparently a scriptwriting teacher. I don't trust him to put matters in historical perspective, but I do assume he knows what spins a good story, facts notwithstanding. It's not a good source. This guy is running for office, or trying to get himself some publicity by piggybacking on the film. We've been over this before. --Moni3 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) First, none of this is even cited in this article. Boyle is cited for stating that the film was not a complete portrayal of Milk, praised Sean Penn's performance and stated as one example that it didn't show Milk speaking at the Temple (which he and Boyle did).
(2) Re your quote: Is this a bad attempt by Boyle to put two sentences together and allow the reader to make the cause and effect relationship, then deny responsibility when it's called into question?

  • You're doing that, not the source. Regarding your focus upon some Jim Jones motive, it just states that White knew that Brown and Silver were allied with Jones, and cites the author's personal encounters, such as warning Milk to buy a gun. And anyone's knowledge of the alliance of Brown and Jones, for instance, would hardly be surprising -- it was covered extensively in several newspapers, for instance, before the Moscone and Milk shootings. But again, who cares about any of this, as it's not even touched upon in this article.

(3) Citing Boyle in a film review is also not in any way stating that his take on the film is correct. This is a former political ally and candidate for Supervisor (and later Charter Commission in 1978) of Milk. It's just his take on the film.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If no one is saying Boyle's take on the film is correct - and actually I say it's inaccurate, based on the sources I used for Milk's article - why are Boyle's opinions about historical accuracy in this article? The source on information about White, Jones, and Milk is sloppily written and dubious. Boyle has no place to comment on the accuracy of any of these matters. Information about Boyle's opinions on Jim Jones should be removed from the article. --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: If no one is saying Boyle's take on the film is correct
  • It's a film review. No one is saying anyone's take is correct.
Re: actually I say it's inaccurate,
  • Great. Maybe you can write a review.
Re: Boyle has no place to comment on the accuracy of any of these matters
  • This is ridiculous. Boyle was a San Francisco political candidate at the time who was an ally of Milk's, who among other things, had warned Milk to buy a gun and spoke at the Peoples Temple with Milk. He has written a film review. He hardly has "no place" to even comment.
Re: Information about Boyle's opinions on Jim Jones should be removed from the article.
  • There is not a single shred of opinion on Jim Jones in the article right now. The only thing in the article is that political ally Boyle felt that film wasn't comprehensive, he thought Sean Penn accurately portrayed Milk and that the film left out Milk speaking at the Peoples Temple, a fact which is not even in historical dispute.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My points stand. This is the same tactic you took during Milk's article. I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to play this game with you. You know what I'm referring to, and I would have thought this time was better spent learning about sources, accuracy, and weight. For other editors who are watching this article, if my points need to be clarified on why the connection between Milk and Jones is sloppy for this source, I will be happy to do so. --Moni3 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:My points stand.
Which points were those? They had nothing to do with the text cited in the article.
It's a film review by someone involved with the subjects of the film. He was a local candidate who knew Milk, counseled him to buy a gun and was one of the people who spoke with Milk at the Peoples Temple (which is not in historical dispute). The film review is his take on the film's portrayal of Milk. Not everyone has to agree with it.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

From a Film Project perspective, we of course recommend that reliable sources be used to determine how the film was received. For films, sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited. Should Richard David Boyle be telling the truth about his closeness to Milk and his involvement in the events subsequently portrayed in the film, there is a good argument for his inclusion in the latter category. What needs to be determined is whether his word is reliable. For most of the rest of us, unfamiliar as we are with the fine historical detail, I imagine this is a difficult task, which may be why this discussion has not attracted input from other editors so far. However, it seems clear that agreement is unlikely to be had here, so third-party input will be necessary at some point if this is to be resolved. Mosedschurte, I can easily see that many editors would be uncomfortable with Boyle's word alone that he is expert enough to comment, so it would aid your case if you could present any links that might support Boyle as reliable here. Equally, Moni3, others would be happy to take Boyle's word at face value (he is, after all, being published in an ostensible reliable source), so if you do have any links to support the view that he is not to be trusted, or his opinion is one not shared by the majority of other commentators, these would also be useful. This back and forth, civil though it is, is leading nowhere. Steve T • C 23:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I unfortunately have no links, but rather print sources in the form of Mike Weiss' book Double Play about the City Hall murders and Randy Shilts' The Mayor of Castro Street, among a few others. These sources, which were used in Milk's article, state that Milk was one of many politicians who had minimal and superficial contact with Jones. Based on the work of journalists who chronicled a lot of information about San Francisco in the late 1970s, other statements made in Boyle's article seem to present issues out of proportion (e.g. what Dan White thought about anything, and connecting his unknown thoughts to Jones). The issue for this article is this statement: "[o]ne thing left out in the film 'Milk' is the role in that election of radical preacher Jim Jones and his San Francisco-based Peoples Temple." Boyle has no authority to state this regardless of what he claims his background is, and this statement is refuted by other sources. The Milk article went through a contentious mediation regarding dubious connections that put undue weight on a relationship between Milk and Jones that much more solid and comprehensive sources contradicted. Mosedschurte is a single-purpose account who focuses on Jim Jones and whatever connections he can draw between any individual, no matter how insignificant. --Moni3 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Steve: while I don't really think this is the issue, there's obviously no question that Milk spoke at the Peoples Temple and had several interactions with Jones and much more (and, in fact, wrote handwritten notes to Jones and vigorously defended Jones to President Carter, etc.). That Milk and others did so is well-chronicled in many places, such as here. In fact, Jones is credited by Moscone aides as being vital to Moscone's election (see various sources in the link above). The importance of the Peoples Temple in the 1975 and 1976 elections is discussed extensively by San Francisco political analysts in that link, as well.
However, I also don't think rehashing that old history in this article about the Milk film is the issue here. Rather, this is just a film review by a San Francisco political contemporary and acquaintance. First, Boyle's review isn't limited to Jones related material either. He states that the film made "a good effort at re-creating a turbulent time", wasn't a comprehensive look at Milk's later political career, mentions the Peoples Temple speeches as a particular example and also states that he thought that Sean Penn accurately portrayed Milk. As mentioned, there is no question that Milk spoke at the Peoples Temple. Boyle's comments about absence of this portrayal in this particular film are Boyle's opinion (as is that of any reviewer criticizing absent topics) and what should have been depicted, but the facts themselves are not in dispute.
Regarding Mosedschurte is a single-purpose account who focuses on Jim Jones and whatever connections he can draw between any individual, no matter how insignificant. Not only is this a personal attack, but it's a lie. I would like to avoid such characterizations, and I won't engage in them.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


  • An observation: This arguement is going back and forth about whether or not Boyle's statement is factually true. But this is 100% completely irrevelent. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth. Wikipedia is not a repository of original information. Wikipedia is not a place to create or propose or argue for theories or ideas. This all has nothing to do with wikipedia. It may well be that string theory is nonsense and it will be scientifically disproven very soon. But that means nothing.

Wikipedia is a place that describes what notable and generally considered reliable sources say about a subject. And that is it. That is it. If Boyle's comments are reported in a reliable notable source, than they may belong in Wikipedia. Case closed. 24.32.204.89 (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Per the NPOV policy on undue weight: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." None of the sources I used to write the article on Harvey Milk treated his relationship with Jones as a significant one for either person. Boyle, a screenwriting teacher who ran for Community College Board in San Bernandino, thinks otherwise but does not qualify his unique statements with facts. His essay is actually peppered with things he could not know, and unclear points. His bio drops some serious names, similar to his self-penned essay being used as a source. It's telling that I can find very little information on him. I can't even tell if he won the election to the Community College Board, but I'm guessing no. And this is the authority suggesting a much larger connection between Milk and Jones, despite journalists and historians with actual pedigrees stating otherwise? As long as it stays in, the article is inaccurate. --Moni3 (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You keep trying to make the review something it's not. It's a film review by a San Francisco political contemporary and acquaintance. There's not some new and exciting factual information cited in this article (Milk (film)). Boyle stated that the film made a good effort to cover a turbulent time, that it left out some material he thought should have been included -- such as Milk's interactions with Jones (which no one disputes happened per several sources) -- and that Sean Penn accurately portrayed Milk. And with regard to subjective opinion of a piece of art, every review is essentially a "minority view" of one. Mosedschurte (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the matter at hand is that the statement made by Boyle indicates something he is not qualified to say. Its inclusion in the article puts undue weight on his unqualified opinion. --Moni3 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Would you be happy with his inclusion in the section if the sentence on the Temple were removed? An edited version of the paragraph might read:

Richard David Boyle, who described himself as a former political ally of Milk's, stated that the film made a creditable effort of recreating the era. He also felt that Penn captured Milk's "smile and humanity", and his sense of humor about his homosexuality. Boyle reserved criticism for what he felt was the film's inability to tell the whole story of Milk's election and demise.

My own feeling is that the section should be removed pending confirmation from independent sources as to Boyle's claimed closeness to Milk, but this version would at least present the information in a way that wasn't immediately contentious (until consensus on Boyle's inclusion is reached either way). Steve T • C 23:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Boyle's opinion on the film as a screenwriter is valid. It's his opinions on the historical accuracy that are questionable. I have no problem with your version, Steve. --Moni3 (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Boyle is not a reliable source on Milk's relationship to Jones, and that Steve's version is preferable. (Disclaimer: I got here as an uninvolved editor who read WP:RS/N #Milk (film). I have since contributed this edit about how Oliver Stone wrote an early screenplay for the movie that became Milk. Stone's 1986 film Salvador is about Boyle and was cowritten by Stone and Boyle. Small world, eh?) Eubulides (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I had no idea this was the same Boyle [as was portrayed in Salvador]. Anyway, I've changed the wording to something similar to that proposed above; hopefully, that'll be an end to it. Steve T • C 12:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Same guy. I added back a few words from his main criticism, though I took out that Jones was important for the election (Boyle's opinion) and just added back in his criticism that it merely didn't show Milk speaking at the Temple (which no one questions).Mosedschurte (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
In the above commentary, it is indeed questioned whether the issue of the Milk-Jones connection is reliable and notable for the movie. Also, in WP:RSN #Milk (film) I question whether Boyle is a reliable source on this topic. Boyle certainly has a talent for self-promotion; it's not at all clear that his reports are accurate. I would like to see a better source on the relationship between Jones and Milk (movie); this source is definitely subpar. Eubulides (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
There are probably reliable sources to connect Milk with Jones and the people's temple. But in terms of the movie, it's enough to say that Boyle complains that it didn't cover everything about Milk; there's no reason to give Boyle a pulpit for his particulars in the movie article. It's about the movie, not about Boyle's opinions of what other things could have been in the movie. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Boyle's comment is only on the film and like many reviewers, what is included and what wasn't. He is not the source of the speeches at the Temple, they were quite public in 1976 and 1977, as is discussed here. There's zero reliability issue with including Boyle's example especially because Boyle is just opining (as do most film reviewers on historical films) about what was included or absent from a film. That is hardly unusual (see e.g., W. (film), Downfall (film), Frost/Nixon (film)).Mosedschurte (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Boyle's comment about Jones is tangential to the film, and appears in an extremely obscure review written by a source that has reliability problems on political issues. There is no reason to emphasize that comment in Milk (film), over and above many other topics that far more-reliable reviews give lots more weight to. Please don't attempt to edit-war this topic into an article where it does not belong. Eubulides (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Milk's speaking at the People's Temple has been reported elsewhere and is not at issue, but Boyle's review is just more self-serving Boyle stuff, and there's no reason we should let him get his weird POV any more than a brief mention in the article on the movie, as it's really not relevant. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

American Cinematographer

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

American Cinematographer has an article about the film's cinematography. May be of use. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cast and characters

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Please refer to the recent discussion about cast lists in film articles at [1]. The general consesus seems to be there is no need to list actors in the plot summary and then repeat the names in a cast list. And if character names are wikilinked in the plot summary, there certainly is no need to wikilink them yet again in the cast list. How many times does a name need to be wikilinked within the same article? Once is enough, I should think. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I edited the cast to correctly list that Tom Ammiano as playing himself instead of being portrayed by Eric Stoltz. I saw this in the credits last night after seeing the film and double-checked this on the IMDB page. Hopefully now that I remembered my Wikipedia account password and logged in, this edit won't be reverted for the third time. Admoreily (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I edited the cast to include Brent Corrigan as he is significant enough to include as he tried out for the major role in the film and was considered for the part that went to Lucas Grabeel. Brent Corrigan is still in the film and is is a major star in his own right. Cast is listed as just that "Cast" and not "Lead Actor Only Cast". Other pages on Wikipedia list the full casts for films including supporting players and this page should be no different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacedub (talk • contribs) 01:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you find a source for the full cast, and list them all, that would be OK. But you listed him as starring; that's not OK. Dicklyon (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Boycotting Coors Beer in the film

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry, I missed why Milk's boycotted the beer company Coors, can anyone tell me why or I guess I will rent it again at some point and pay more attention. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.172.9 (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The film does kind of gloss over this, I believe they have Harvey mention something about getting gay delivery people hired. According to the Wikipedia Harvey Milk article: The Teamsters wanted to strike against beer distributors—Coors in particular—who refused to sign the union contract. An organizer asked Milk for assistance with gay bars; in return, Milk asked the union to hire more gay drivers. A few days later, Milk canvassed the gay bars in and surrounding the Castro District, urging them to refuse to sell the beer." Harvey's coalition building is reduced in the film to his appeals to senior citizens and a speech about keeping jobs in the U.S., but this is a idealization/abbreviation. I think it justifiable given format and focus and the film. Cuvtixo (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


Cuba Controversy

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I think it is importaint to include a section on the controversy involving Harvey Milk being protrayed by Sean Penn who openly supports Regimes which oppose human rights, particularly for is support of Raul Castro combined with admiration for his brother Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara. Penns actions have been criticized as hypocritcal especially since Fidel had homosexuals placed in labour camps desinged by Che to be "pollitically re-educated" and rid of “counterrevolutionary tendencies.” Gays along with other sent to this camp for other “counterrevolutionary tendencies” such as listening to "imperialist" rock and roll, were murdered, tortered, and worked to death by guards. By some deffinitions this could be considered genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

“There isn’t a single individual that is taken seriously in the human rights community -- whether you’re talking about Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, or Freedom House -- that would describe the Castro brothers and their regime as anything other than a police state run by thugs and murderers,” says Thor Halvorssen, president of the Human Rights Foundation, which focuses on Latin America. “That Sean Penn would be honored by anyone, let alone the gay community, for having stood by a dictator that put gays into concentration camps is mind-boggling.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't understand anything. Are you talking about the Pig bay? Something fictional in the film or something in the actors private life happening? I just recognized by the lenght of Mr. Penn fingers that he himself must be bisexual.There are some statistics which relate finger lenghts to sexual identity . His right hand seems to be hetero, his left hand homo. So the whole dispute may be this border in him. In life to be urged to pretend hetero or something out of grandmas case.....--Danaide (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It has no direct relevance to the film, its release, or its reception. You point out that no one is talking about it. That is precisely why it is not mentioned in the article. --75.151.116.105 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Significance of the title? Milk?

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

OK, calmly. This has been discussed in the community since the first announcement, and also mentioned in the Philly Gays news. once the film is released it will pop up all over the media because it is so widely discussed in the community. I can try to find the issue of the pgn in my old newspaper stack. Clearly this gay themes make many people uncomfortable so that is why it is important that Wikipedia discusses LBGT issues to educate the majority of all Americans!!76.116.243.246 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that you may be reading a little too much into the first editor's comment. It really does not strike me as an intelligent discussion for a possible double entendre for the film title and more of an immature statement. That was why the discussion was removed; nothing is being censored. I am not sure why you think Gus Van Sant, being understanding and tolerant, would imply a bad innuendo of a "milk mustache" in the film's title. I could argue that the title is Milk because he is a politician and surnames are usually marketed. Films like Nixon and JFK have done this. Regardless, I've looking at Google News Search and Access World News and have found nothing discussing a double meaning to the title. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've again reverted those comments per WP:talk - if a reliable source asserts anything about the title Milk having anything to do with something other than Milk's last name then present that for others to look into. Until then we don't need to perpetuate homophobia and chatroom-like conduct. This is an encyclopedia and we need to rise above that. -- Banjeboi 21:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • To me it appears just like a doublemeaning, the name of the person and the stuff which build babys.May be it's significant to

act on ambiguos and ambivalent titles. If the person should hide he/she transforms their name, if the fluid out of the land of mothers is contamined the significat is rotten.Tolerance in gay themes mustn't mean contamination. It#s always a question of concret borders.--Danaide (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Push to GA

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It would not take much to get this article to GA, and it should be developed further to start viewing the film as a work of art in 2008. Read: the movie has been released and evidence of its impact is clear. Writers should plan to shape how the article will read in a year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, etc.

I don't think I should be the one to improve this article. I want to leave that to someone else. But I should point out the layout guidelines set by WP:Films. It may be difficult to police this article while it's still really popular. For certain, redundancies should be avoided in the first paragraph. I would like to make the point that while the Academy Awards are very prestigious, they should not overshadow all other awards. They should not be mentioned so many times and others neglected that it puts undue weight on their importance. This film was nominated for numerous awards, and won some as well. Two of those awards were Oscars. Very matter of fact...

Anyone interested in getting a GA? --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Being honoured is'nt so bad as it seems to be now. All the odds talking about the surface of this fact are real jelous. Not appriciating values the pretend to admit. It's not a question of years passing; it'S A QUESTION OF FAIR PLAY! All around the world!--Danaide (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


Historical Accuracy

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I loved this movie, but I am aware that every historical movie fudges the truth a little for the sake of storytelling. But I am also not an historian. Someone who is an expert on this topic should enlighten the masses as to what in the movie is different from the actual historical events in a single condensed section on the page, as many other pages on historical films do. That would greatly improve the quality of this page. --75.151.116.105 (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • To me it#s no nescessity to differ historic accuracie from real film story, because in this film it's so well made, that they have built a bridge called historisation. and if the flow between this two topics, reality and film, has in addition to that a didactic perspective, which shelters human right standarts it's enough, to be told.--Danaide (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

best original screenplay?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How can a biography win best original screenplay? Not to mention that In Bruges is better than this film.

That would be a question for the Academy, although I think it has merit. And that Randy Shilts should have been co-nominated for best adapted screenplay. I don't think Black mentioned Shilts during his speech. Maybe a movie will be made about Shilts some day. --Moni3 (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I guess it#s because the time axis is so excellent chained up. Changing perspectives and frames in telling the life of Harvey Milk is tensefull and reasonable. Therefor this biography leads to a film, which tells a life story in extraordinary form.A biography is text material like other stories.--Danaide (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Penn's Transformation

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

CONTENT REMOVED BY -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email --Danaide (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT WP:FORUM WP:SPAM. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Twinkie defense

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Jonestown stuff being omitted from the film (and article) is understandable (though regrettable), but it should be mentioned that the "Twinkie defense" explanation in the movie is flat-out untrue (although a popular urban myth). Twinkie defense has plenty about that, including citations. However, since the Jonestown information was contentious, I wanted to mention that here, not just add it in. Calbaer (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Milk as an icon section

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Historyofmemories (talk · contribs) added this section. It has only three sources cited in the last of 5 paragraphs. One is to YouTube (not a reliable source) and another to harveymilk.co, which is also not a very reliable source for what is being cited. The only ostensibly reliable source is to the LA Times to cite that Milk was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This is a very weak section.

Before I go putting a unreferenced template in this section or go nuts by removing it, does Historyofmemories have any input into this section? Or anyone else? --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the section. --Moni3 (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"assassination"?

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Why are people using the word assassination regarding Milk's death? He was killed, yes, but this does not equate to assassination. Assassination implies a political motive. He was killed as an act of personal vengence. --Rebroad (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The same word is used outside the context of the film, so I don't think this is the best forum for you to raise the matter. Harvey Milk or Moscone-Milk assassinations might be a better place to start. DonIago (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Where it's raised is irrelevant IMHO. It's incorrect, and needs to be changed everywhere (at least on Wikipedia) the term is used, if we desire Wikipedia to be accurate. --Rebroad (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you would need to provide reliable sources that discuss the killings as being apolitical and likewise assert that the proper categorization be as murders, rather than assassinations. A quick review of RS publications discussing the Milk and Moscone murders repeatedly refer to them as "assassinations". This is likely due to the fact that White, Milk, and Moscone also had political affiliations that motivated the killings, even if personal revenge was part of that motivation. In light of that, it's not enough to assert on your own that these were solely apolitical, revenge killings. A good argument could possibly be laid out here, but it would require more than this.Luminum (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The burden of proof is surely on you to demonstrate that the killings were political, since "assassinations" is being disputed, whereas "killings" is not. Showing sources that say they were assassinations is not proving that they were assassinations. You're more than welcome to state "according to [source], these were regarded as assassinations", but to push this POV clearly breaches WP:NPOV. --Rebroad (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The sources already exist that characterize the events as assassinations. Your statement that "according to [source], these were regarded as assassinations" suggests that there is is reliable disagreement to that characterization. As a reader, I would then need to know why there is disagreement and who disagrees. You would therefore need to provide evidence of disagreement. If there is no disagreement from reliable sources, then the line would be misleading per WP:ALLEGED and thus violate WP:BALANCE. However, the statement would be fine if reliable sources with equal weight are provided. Therefore, provide those sources, otherwise it is a baseless expression of doubt.
I also reiterate from the discussion over at Talk:Moscone–Milk_assassinations#Requested_move_22_May_2015 that such evidence cannot be articles that simply refer to the event as killings; they would need to clearly characterize the event as killings because they intentionally do not assess the killings as assassinations. Describing something as a killing can either be for the simple substitution of a more generic term (ex. "Harvey Milk was killed. More specifically, he was assassinated."), or it can be because more specific terms would be incorrect to use (ex. "Harvey Milk was killed, but he was not assassinated."). Just as the statement "John F. Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald" does not necessarily infer a point of view/assessment that he was not assassinated, an article stating that Moscone and Milk were killed would not necessarily infer that they were not assassinated. The article would have to specifically characterize the killings as something other than an assassination (e.g. describe the killings as a crime of passion, as a murder of personal conflict, etc.) or that the characterization of assassination is inconclusive/wrong in order to support the claim.Luminum (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Milk (film). 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Milk (film). 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:

When 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Milk (film). 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:

When 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milk (film). 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:

When 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Boyd Holbrook/Denton Smith

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

The page for actor Boyd Holbrook claims he plays the character of Denton Smith in Milk. I haven't seen the movie, could someone maybe check whether that's true and if so whether it deserves a mention here please?- Kirochi (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be true according to IMDb. However, it's a non-principal role and I don't believe he should be mentioned here. DonIago (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milk_(2008_American_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1148114432"