Talk:The Boys in the Band (1970 film)

Adverse criticisms
Friedkin's film Cruising was described in this article as "widely panned as being a horrible and homophobic film". It's well-established that it was widely criticized as homophobic. It's not well-established that it was widely called "horrible". Before we include such a value judgement we should be surer that it was that value judgement that was made and that someone who thinks the movie was horrible isn't exaggerating others' reactions to it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pauline Kael
I removed the sentence "Among the major critics, the notably homophobic Pauline Kael, who despised Friedkin and panned everything he made, was alone in finding absolutely nothing redeeming about it" because it makes three fairly strong, broad assertions without providing any evidence. Kael's article does not seem to mention homophobia, so where is this coming from? Bhumiya (said/done) 03:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The sentence was reinserted. I am removing it again. It is inherently POV, as well as not being backed up by a reference. The only reference cited states kael was "arguably homophobic". That acknowledges the POV and is decidedly different from what the wiki article says. Jeffpw 08:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement that Kael "disliked Friedkin and panned everything he made" is also inaccurate. Her review of The French Connection is largely dismissive but many credits are given. Don't have the book handy to fix this myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.79.210 (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LeonardFrey.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:LeonardFrey.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Can this possibly add up?/Box office
"Budget	$5.5 million Gross revenue	$2,695"

--12.213.80.54 (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this myself. This seems unlikely as the film was a minor success. Even if it wasn't, a $5 million budget with $2600 box office would indicate that it was a tremendous flop. Where is the source for this?  freshacconci  talk talk  18:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Honestly, at least the $2,695 should be removed. That's just a ridiculous thing to even have up there. 74.96.75.228 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (2012)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved, still no consensus to move after the previous close (not moved) and subsequent reopening/relisting. From earlier close: Page views, interpreted accurately and not uncritically, indicate this is the correct arrangement. Even if 100% of the the viewers of the play cam through the film page, that still leaves a 3-to-1 benefit to the film viewers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

– The play which was adapted into a film is less popular than the film adaptation itself. However, the film was derived from the play, so it should not be the primary topic, as Doctor Zhivago (film) should not be the primary topic, according to Talk:Doctor Zhivago. Under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, neither "usage" nor "long-term significance" criterion is the only criterion, as "there is no single criterion" to define actual topic. "The End of the Innocence" was having big numbers as an album page, but, after the page turned into a "disambiguation" page, the album page that was disambiguated has been losing numbers]. After move, the album has 1727, while the song has 1498 views (86.74% of the album). Also, per Talk:All That Jazz, people agreed that the film "All That Jazz" is not the "primary topic", in spite of big numbers for the film. Getting back to play and film, the play might be the "primary topic", but the numbers have been low. The film is popular, but it hasn't been disambiguated yet, and it is derived from the play. I bet the play will have bigger numbers if the move happens, but that's all I can say. relisted by Anthony Appleyard 05:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC) ‎ George Ho (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Boys in the Band → The Boys in the Band (film)
 * The Boys in the Band (disambiguation) → The Boys in the Band


 * Support. But I think it is futile and a waste of life to look for the primary topic here (and in very many cases), where hardly anything is gained by wrangling over such a question. Readers are far better served if there are these articles:
 * The Boys in the Band (play)
 * The Boys in the Band (film)
 * Boys in the Band (DVD)
 * ... and whatever others are required, and a DAB page to sort things out for readers unsure of what they might want among those, or who just want a survey of all uses of the term:
 * Boys in the Band
 * Google searching and internal Wikipedia searching work admirably with such an arrangement. Indeed, they work optimally.
 * Is there a third comparably well-used way of finding Wikipedia articles, which I have not covered? If there is, let's discuss that too.
 * Why editors would agonise to find a "primary topic" among any of the articles mentioned above is a matter for investigation in cognitive psychology and personality theory. There is no benefit to readers in doing such a thing, except in the most extreme cases like Barack Obama and London.
 * N oetica Tea? 03:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * N oetica Tea? 03:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A topic can be primary either with respect to either traffic or enduring significance. There is no suggestion in the guideline that it has to be both. The article for the film got 16,000 page views in the last 90 days, the one for play got 4,100. The proposed move would make it harder to find the film, and would do nothing to improve access to the play. Kauffner (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kauffner, I really don't want to go on about this, but it seems nothing will stop you. Here you are again, presenting utterly useless statistics in an RM discussion. Worse: they are grossly misleading. Worse again, they are often enough accepted: uncritically, by those contributing after you and sometimes even by the closing admin. This might seem to be merely careless on your part; but it has been pointed out to you again and again. You never answer even perfectly rational objections, and you go on blithely to do it again. That is irresponsible conduct, in discussions that are supposed to be a dialogue between reasonable people.
 * Pageview statistics are often useful; but they need to be interpreted accurately.
 * So one more time now: If the title of an article is not precise – for example lacking "(film)", in the present case – we have no way of knowing that the pageviews were satisfied. It is entirely misleading to say that "the article for the film got 16,000 page views in the last 90 days". There are other possible targets when people click on such a title that is wilfully left imprecise, and we do not know what proportions of enquiries were aimed at which of these.
 * To compound the irresponsibility, although your points are attended to and answered, you choose to ignore points made by others. You talk right past them. What part of the term "dialogue" are you having trouble understanding? Come to my talkpage if you like; I can help you with that fundamental concept. ☺
 * N oetica Tea? 06:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Haven't looked at this one closely, but George, can you please stop citing ongoing RMs, such as Talk:Doctor Zhivago, as precedents? Jenks24 (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where's the rule about that? --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no "rule", it's just disingenuous to say "Doctor Zhivago (film) should not be the primary topic, according to Talk:Doctor Zhivago#Requested move" when that discussion has not concluded and for all you or anyone else knows the outcome could be the exact opposite of what you claim. Jenks24 (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll unstrike either of them when one discussion is over. --George Ho (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thank you to Anthony Appleyard for re-opening this discussion. See the history of this talkpage, and these two diffs in particular: JHunterJ's closure and the reversal of that closure.
 * I now request that:
 * JHunterJ not intervene as an admin in this case from now on, since he has become involved through closing it.
 * A further seven days be allowed for discussion, so that all the issues that have been ignored will now can be properly addressed, and new argument that will be put forward.
 * The closer of this RM give reasons in full for accepting or rejecting all arguments that will be put, and explain how the decision has been reached by consideration of those arguments.
 * I had specifically put objections to Kauffner's "evidence"; and I was holding off on the rest of my own evidence till he had answered what I put to him. I am still waiting.
 * N oetica Tea? 06:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How have I become involved in the discussion by closing the discussion through the normal and usual RM closing process? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous closure that you did counts as "involved", even if you do not believe it. --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I only don't believe because it cannot be made to make sense. If closing a move "involves" the closer, and only uninvolved editors can be closers, then no move can ever be closed. Since that is an impossible conclusion, the assumption must be false. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...Look, I know your interactions with Noetica. Don't take this out on this proposal and other proposals that Noetica involves in just because you have conflicts with Noetica and your own beliefs on policies, evidences, and guidelines; see WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions and WT:disambiguation (as a whole). COI section provides examples of COI; they are not the only examples. --George Ho (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, no problem. You only need to look at the RMs I closed today to see that I close some in agreement with Noetica's !votes and others in disagreement with Noetica's !votes. How Noetica in particular !votes does not get weighed any differently just because it has his sig attached. I have no conflict of interest in any of these move requests, this one included. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which ones? Your contributions log is too long to navigate. --George Ho (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For me as well. You can take my word for it, or wade through them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A possible time-saver did occur to me. You can look at the ones that are on the "old" left side here. The ones I closed will be there, but not on the right. Of course, some of the ones on the left may have been closed by others. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A possible time-saver did occur to me. You can look at the ones that are on the "old" left side here. The ones I closed will be there, but not on the right. Of course, some of the ones on the left may have been closed by others. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyway, let's get back on topic, okay? I will discuss you later. --George Ho (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - There's no point arguing over which is primary here, the play or the film; furthermore, the disambiguation page as it stands is extremely useful to any reader searching for a particular article, and similarly named ones. I say, just leave it alone, it works fine as it is.  There are lots more things that actually need fixing on WP, this discussion is a waste of editors' time, IMO.  Textorus (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Examples are unstruck. Well, someone said that Doctor Zhivago (film) must be primary by usage, but... Anyway, I bet the numbers for "The Boys in the Band" may change. --George Ho (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – ambiguous, no clear primary. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2013)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved  per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Staberinde (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

– Although the film is apparently more viewed than the original play, I still do not think the stats alone warrants the film as absolutely primary of the same title, as said in 2012 discussion. How do we know that readers want to know more about either the film or the play, considering the small number of views-per-day for each? Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, popularity criterion alone does not justify which is primary. Look at Doctor Zhivago. The film is more popular, but neither film nor novel is primary because long-term significance for one is equally balanced with another, even if the title is well-known but not ambiguous. Back to this request, since the 2012 request failed, I have improved an article about the play itself. Weights of long-term significance for both a play and a film adaptation are and should be equal. If the film is renamed (or disambiguated), then the view numbers may possibly go down. George Ho (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Boys in the Band → The Boys in the Band (film)
 * The Boys in the Band (disambiguation) → The Boys in the Band

Looking at previous discussion, Kauffner's arguments for opposition was based solely on statistics, as he often did in other discussions. Noetica did rebute Kauffner's arguments as totally inadequate; however, the closer JHunterJ dismissed them as not strong enough. The feud between Noetica and JHunterJ (if not SmokeyJoe) is exemplified in Talk:Big (film), WT:disambiguation, and elsewhere. I would love to raise issues of prior discussion in WP:move review, but I realize that arguing about just arguments on the title request is pointless. --George Ho (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Let bygones be bygones. Apology is issued; administrators side with you and recommend me to apologize to you, even when I didn't have to. So there! --George Ho (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nothing has changed since the 2012 request, not even George Ho's inability to focus on the content instead of the editors. The arguments against moving are based on the consensus guidelines, and the arguments for moving are based on your theory that maybe, for reasons unknown, in this case, the guidelines yield the wrong result, but there was no consensus to ignore the rules here just in case the guidelines yield the wrong result. As you say, George, the film is more popular, and neither has a hold on the long-term significance, so the current arrangement still appears to be correct. The presence of two criteria in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria does not mean that if one of the criteria is "tied" (long-term significance) we ignore the other (reader usage). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have enhanced the article of the original play to justify the long-term significance. How am I unable to focus on content? At the time I requested it last year, the play article look like this. The film is always a derivate, and somehow it's not passing 500 views per day or 200. --George Ho (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are unable to focus on the content instead of editors when you propose the move with 7 editor name-checks, including the categorization of Noetica's objections to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a "feud" with me. Wikipedia edits do not affect topics' long-term significance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet such an edit may affect an editor's judgment on the proposal. --George Ho (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, 100 views per day does not make this film hugely more popular than the other, and it alone does not adequately meet "usage" criterion. If the move happens, then the readers will become aware of the play and find more significance. As for the film itself, it's very dated based on the age and dated structure. Even fashion in the film is very dated. Meanwhile, the original play... did inspire Stonewall riots and the film, and it has been revived several times over the years. Moreover, it spawned its sequel, The Men from the Boys. --George Ho (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your note in the proposal that "The film is more popular". If you would like to show the full traffic counts for January or something, please do. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I'll do it:
 * The Boys in the Band: 5683
 * The Boys in the Band (disambiguation): 57
 * The Boys in the Band (play): 1294
 * The current arrangement appears to suit 90% 99% of the readership (those reaching the base name who do not continue on to the disambiguation page), and the readers of the play article appear to be reaching it without the navigational aid of the disambiguation page. No reason to move the little-used disambiguation page to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes no difference to me. Totalling stats of 90 days doesn't make numbers that huge. Also, meeting both usage and long-term significance criteria does not make current primary topic stay primary forever. Even film's high ratio and play's low ratio do not make criteria absolute. Mathematically, these numbers are nothing compared to other LGBT-related entertainment materials: Queer as Folk (UK) and its North American counterpart, Brokeback Mountain and its film adaptation. Also, per Talk:All That Jazz (film), even hugh numbers do not make one more primary than the other. --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You refer to a lot of local consensuses as if they were broader guidelines. Mathematically, these numbers are not nothing; mathematically, zero is nothing, and none of these numbers are zero. Numbers are indeed part of the actual WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria; numbers don't make the topic primary, but being primary makes the numbers, which is why we use them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How is 100 vs. 30 views no different from 4,000 vs. 200? Seriously, why would common sense not overcome the guideline that is currently under discussion? --George Ho (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How is 5683 not more than 1294? Seriously, apply that common sense. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Even the 90-day total doesn't change my views about the day-to-day numbers. Aha, I can see the "creativity" and "origin" of your "comments", especially whenever I reply to you. --George Ho (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Even your views do not change the criteria or the numbers. I "did" not "think" the "creativity" or "origin" of "my" comments "was" particularly "subtle"; when arguments are presented poorly, or poor arguments are presented, the faults are often most easily illustrated by extension or reversal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Either you apologize to me for calling my arguments poor, or you need to leave. I am really hurt by your superiority attitude. --George Ho (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hysterical. Perhaps you should apologize to me for accusing me of stooping low, for accusing me of mocking people, for claiming that I was feuding with Noetica, and for implying that I lack common sense. Some of your arguments are poor; if your arguments are not subject to discussion, perhaps you need to leave. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The play inspired a riot? Did the audience demand their money back or something? Although the article on the Stonewall riots is quite detailed, it does not mention this play. Kauffner (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support disambiguation -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I also support disambiguation. Disambiguation includes placing the primary topic (if there is one) at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * JHunterJ, do you know better than stooping that low, like mocking people this way? I am sure that he supports the proposal. --George Ho (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * George Ho, you know better than assuming bad faith, and you know better than to make personal attacks. My response was not mocking people. I did, however, point out the problems with !votes that are too terse to carry meaning. RM discussions are not polls, so the !votes are supposed to carry rationale with them, and "disambiguation" is not a rationale. - JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he did not mean to. By the way, I've contacted him, so he can come over and enhance his comments. --George Ho (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer having the disambiguation page at the undisambiguated location. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you disagree with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Note also that Earth (disambiguation), William Shakespeare (disambiguation), and Apple (disambiguation) are also not at the undisambiguated location. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Page views show the film to be the clear primary topic. Cheers! bd2412  T 15:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Page views still don't make a popular topic with a same name primary. Even 30 people do not have to read the whole article about the film. Even number of people clicking to hatnotes would count in the stats, making numbers less accurate. --George Ho (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose in agreement with BD2412's rationale. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The film is clearly the primary topic and it is easy enough for a curious reader to click on the hatnotes to find the info on the play or other uses of the term.  freshacconci  talk talk  17:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? I don't see how you adequately believe that, under these articles' conditions, either of them is primary. --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The film got 15,286 page views in the last 90 days, the play 3,759. The first page of google results for refer mainly to the film. The nomination is all dreamy possibilities. I don't see an argument for a move. Kauffner (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Also, The Boys in the Band (disambiguation) will be moved to the base title. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The Boys in the Band → The Boys in the Band (1970 film) – Judging from the talk page this was an acrimonious discussion six years ago, but now that the original play has two film adaptations, it seems obvious that the source material (The Boys in the Band (play)) should be The Boys in the Band, while the two films should be The Boys in the Band (1970 film) and The Boys in the Band (2020 film). Morgan695 (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, beside a subjective "it seems obvious", evidence is requiered the 1970 film is not the primary topic anymore, as marked by the previous 2 RMs. We are living in a remake/reboot era, so that shouldn't be enough justification to move pages. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 21:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 *  Unsure ( No primary topic ?)  - Last year's stats says that the 1970 film has more views than the original play, but the Broadway revival has caused the play page to earn increased viewership from the preceding year, 2017. This year's stats (especially the last 60 days) show that the stats of the play and the 1970 film have small view differences, i.e. the play has been viewed as much as the 1970 film. Before the Broadway revival, I couldn't tell whether the old film adaptation and/or the play have equal or greater historical significance than the other. All I knew were page views stats and my literal interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Recently, I figure that, with Tony wins and nominations, the play is historically significant equally as or greater than the old film adaptation. Still, based on the stats, neither should be the primary topic. However, the newer film adaptation as-is is not yet released, yet it is most viewed in recent weeks. When the newer film is released, and if the discussion is closed as unsuccessful, perhaps we can revisit this some other time. BTW, I previously unsuccessfully proposed twice that the dabpage take over the base name. -- George Ho (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC); amended vote, 01:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think keeping the play as The Boys in the Band (play), having the two film adaptations as The Boys in the Band (1970 film) and The Boys in the Band (2020 film) respectively, and adapting the disambig language accordingly, would also be fine as a fix. The confusion caused by having an adapted work as the main namespace is, in my view, the main issue here. Morgan695 (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * For clarity, that's support for disambiguating all pages. Morgan695 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this disambiguation and favor for all topics to be disambiguated from each other. With the Broadway revival and the 2020 film coming out, if the 1970 film stays the primary topic, it is likely we will go through another RM discussion. We can see in 2021 or afterward if there really is a primary topic to be had. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but move dab page to basename. No primary topic (we can evaluate that later), so the disambiguation page "The Boys in the Band (disambiguation)" should be moved to the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Boys in the Band Scene 2.jpg