Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)

Differences between the film and the play

This contains original, unsourced content so I'm placing it here until it can be sourced. --J.D. (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The most important way in which the film differs from the play is the addition of a famous scene known as "Coffee's For Closers" written by Mamet involving a character named Blake, written specifically for Alec Baldwin. Blake gives the main characters a more immediate motivation for selling real estate — namely that their jobs are on the line.

The scenes that show Shelley going to visit an uninterested potential client were added for the film. Some of his phone conversations are added as well. The additions add an even deeper sense of sad desperation for Lemmon's character than appeared in the original play.

The film also differs in geographic location. While the play's original references to the Chicago area remain intact throughout, the film credits list it as having been filmed "on location" in New York City. As such, there are some scenes which do refer to New York, such as the opening scene, in which the pay phone Shelley Levene (Lemmon) uses clearly reads "New York." Also, George Aaronow (Arkin) comments to Shelley, "I had a woman in White Plains on the hook ...," an obvious reference to White Plains, New York. The final scene also features a subway car with "Sheepshead Bay" (as in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn) as the destination. The scene in which Pacino's character arrives at the office clearly shows an NYPD squad car. However, when Shelley engages in conversation in one scene he twice says "Kenilworth" — which is the name of both an affluent Chicago suburb on the north shore of Lake Michigan and a middle class New York City suburb in Union County, New Jersey.

David Mamet also altered the original ending of the movie. In the play, Roma flatters Shelley and suggests that the two work together. Then, when Shelley leaves the room, Roma turns on Shelley and reveals that his flattery was only a con to get a share of Shelley's sales. In the movie, this last-second turn is omitted, and Roma's flattery is assumed to be sincere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J.D. (talk • contribs) 07:37, January 2, 2008‎

In Die Hard 2's scenes in Dulles Airport, the payphones are Pacific Bell and there are maps on the walls for the Los Angeles. Those are clearly "revealing" mistakes: Scenes were filmed "on location" is an airport, but a different airport. Yes, portions of the film were shot in New York City and visible details show it. 10th & Wolf, set in Philadelphia, was shot "on location" in Pittsburgh.

Listing things that might refer to Chicago/NYC/Borneo/Mars is WP:OR. Comparing proper nouns to real world locations and deciding the film is "set in" Chicago/NYC/Borneo/Mars is WP:SYN. Do we have an incontrovertible reference to them being in Chicago/NYC in the film or reliable sources stating it? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review

Howdy, i will be your reviewer for this article.

• The list of songs in the soundtrack section needs to either be in context, with an introduction and some production information, or removed completely. (WP:EMBED)
• The awards section has to be merged with the reception section or completely separated from it, that's if there is enough 3-level heading-worthy material.
• The plot section has a couple of problems, like jargon (the corporate office ("downtown") (??)) and point of view (delivers a long, disjointed but compelling monologue to a meek. PS:what does he say?).
• I got completely lost in the Production section, the screenplay comes and goes, and producers and actors...it needs a major copy-edit for the sake of coherency (merge some phrases, remove a couple of repetitions, etc).
• The references are not great, if you want to take it up a notch i'd suggest checking out the DVD's extra features.

If i didn't make myself clear in any point, ask me, (oh, oh, oh) ask me. I'll take another look in 7 days.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 17:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've failed the article. If you disagree with this review feel free to ask for a reassessment.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Tokofsky sued to strip Zupnik of his producer’s credit and share of the producer’s fee.[7] Zupnik claimed that he personally put up $2 million of the film’s budget and countersued, claiming that Tokofsky was fired for embezzlement.[7]

This line is dying for some resolution. What happened to the lawsuits? Who won each one? Or, more likely, how long was it before each suit was settled out of court? Tempshill (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

POV statement

His abusive diatribe with the recurrent theme of "A..B..C...Always Be Closing!" interspersed with threats and obscenities is a microcosm of the American business world gone very, very bad.

If this is from a source, it needs proper attribution. If this from an editor, it does not belong. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed.--J.D. (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There is still a very negative appraisal of this speech which, judging by its popularity on Youtube[1], is thought to be quite profound by some. --Timtak (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Reader Response

Describing the characters as "real estate agents" does no justice to the characters or to authentic real estate agents. This shop is a boiler room and they are selling swamp land in Florida. These men are cons.

The play/film is also based on David Mamet's real life experiences early in his career.

64.231.66.157 (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)B Kennedy

References in pop culture

this section needs to be properly sourced before it can be a part of the article. Otherwise, it will never pass to the next level.--J.D. (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Alec Baldwin reprised his role from the movie in a Saturday Night Live Christmas-themed parody as an elf brought in from the "corporate office" (presumably sent from Santa Claus) to motivate the elves. The elves, played by Rachel Dratch, Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers, complain about the quality of the "workplace" (toy assembly) and are clearly unmotivated until Baldwin's arrival, whereupon he persistently berates them and demands that they increase production, stating that third prize in the production competition is "You're fired!". The scene is most noted for the cast's inability to refrain from laughing at Baldwin's comedic performance, especially his bungling of a line where he points at a chalkboard that says "(A)lways (B)e (C)obbling", but gets too caught up in his role and at first says "Always be closing" instead. Jack Lemmon's character Shelley Levene is also the inspiration for Gil Gunderson, a minor character from the TV show The Simpsons.

I put the Simpsons character into the 'Reception' section as I think it is worthy of inclusion but enough to justify a whole section to itself.--EchetusXe 23:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There are undoubtedly enough references to this film in pop culture to merit a "In Pop Culture" section a la Full Metal Jacket. Whatever squabbles may exist over formatting I leave to you guys that no better, but stuff like the Simpsons character, the SNL skit, the song title, and the many other references to this film that exist in popular culture. --Chorder (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Coffee's for closers be merged into Glengarry Glen Ross (film). A separate article is unnecessary. A section within the destination article would best serve visitors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge. It will slot into this article nicely as a new section. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Reservoir Dogs

This film was released several weeks before Reservoir Dogs, with critics like John Hartl comparing the two films.[2] This article needs to discuss the relationship between the two films, if any. From Hartl's article:

Because of its all-male cast, gutter language and black-comedy touches, "Reservoir Dogs" has also been compared to James Foley's film of David Mamet's play, "Glengarry Glen Ross." At first, Tarantino wasn't sure what to make of the comparisons, but a Toronto festival official came up with an explanation that satisfies him. "He told me that `Glengarry' is a stylized theatrical piece that Foley shoots like an action movie, whereas `Reservoir Dogs' is an action movie with elements of theater. It's really a big talkfest."

Please add this to the to do list. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sub-section: Coffee's for closers

Per the discussion on the talk page, the result was a merge. The information has not been merged. The dialog is quite notable, it can be reworded, but is necessary for the article. Valoem ^talk 20:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you think so. I disagree.

Because I already had the article on My watchlist I have been fully aware of the 'merge' from the outset ... I wonder if you had noticed this revision?

I tend to agree with RJ. But you are correct. It probably should be discussed on the article's talk page, rather than here, so I shall copy'n'paste this section there. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is it necessary? You've given no reason that this one line requires its own section. One short paragraph in the production section would be enough to say that Mamet wrote the lines especially for Baldwin, but only if there is a reliable source that says so. The other trivia you added is not needed at all. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think the line (or the monologue from which it's lifted) merit their own special section. Esrever ^(klaT) 01:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on several sources including [3], its reference in popular culture [4], and the outcome from the merge proposal, my actions for it's inclusion is warranted. The prominence of this monologue in screen acting auditions is more than notable. Valoem ^talk 14:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The lyrics page is trivial, so there's no reason to give that any weight. The film.com source is notable, though, but it still does not justify that one line of dialogue having its own section. As I said above, a short paragraph in the production section would be ample, and would still satisfy the merge discussion. Nothing you have said, Varlaam, justifies a special section just for that dialogue. And, as I said, the "references in pop culture" stuff is just trivia. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Coffee is for closers - merger revert

I'm confused. The start of this thread says "The information has not been merged." I merged it into this article at 11:43, 19 June 2012 in this edit.

I just now restored "Coffee is for closers" part. It was removed at 19:46, 23 July 2012 in this edit with the somewhat misleading edit summary "Reverted to revision 503708721 by Hmainsbot1: Rm redundant copy."

It started out as a separate article, but was merged here at 11:43, 19 June 2012 per: Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)#Merger proposal.

It was restored at Coffee is for closers by an IP at 14:58, 21 November 2012‎ in this edit. I believe that IP was User:Valoem.

Was the merge discussion not left open long enough.? Consensus seemed to be there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, there is no need for that one phrase to have its own subsection. One paragraph in the production section would be sufficient. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Now it exists nowhere. Please restore whatever part of it to whichever section you like. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reception

Re: Newsweek magazine's Jack Kroll praised Alec Baldwin's performance: "Baldwin is sleekly sinister in the role of Blake, a troubleshooter called in to shake up the salesmen. He shakes them up, all right, but this character (not in the original play) also shakes up the movie's toned balance with his sheer noise and scatological fury."

This is very obviously the opposite of praise. Clearly reviews were not unanimously favorable as the the article currently implies. TheScotch (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm ... not sure that it "is very obviously the opposite of praise." Surely more an evaluation.
How do you know he is not in favour of the performance of Baldwin as the sales trainer?
^{A job that I happen to know a great deal about.}
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 05:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Because he says that performance "also shakes up the movie's toned balance". If the word obvious means anything at all, this is obviously deprecation, and deprecation is obviously the opposite of praise. TheScotch (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

While the Kroll review does identify weaknesses (as he sees them), esp. in comparison with the stage play, it does seem on the whole favorable, with the summary: Still, "Glengarry" is a compelling look at one of the closed-out items in the catalog of American dreams. On the other hand, the Baldwin quote's "praise" is, at best, heavily adulterated--perhaps change to "...Kroll observed of Alec Baldwin's performance..." ? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Good compromise, Hobbes Goodyear – have made the revision, "Kroll observed of Alec Baldwin's performance, ..."
—Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 07:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"Death of a Fuckin' Salesman"

Great inclusion and titbit. The only problem I have with it is the way it's linked to 'Death of a Salesman'; when I first saw this I thought (rather stupidly) that there was a whole article about this anecdote. I'd say that Death of a Salesman is a well-known enough cultural reference that people don't need the link and the connection between the two is shallow at best; they didn't use the reference because of similarities of plot – it was simply because a vague overlap in tone and the fact they both feature salesmen. If a link has to remain, I'd suggest putting something like '(a reference to the Arthur Miller play)' and use that as the hyperlink text. Just my two cents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.92.194 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I've too often seen hyperlinks in quotes that were never there in the original, and they disrupt the impact of the quote. Maybe there should be a footnote with the hyperlink. Not so sure about plonking a reference to the Arthur Miller play in there — would it clutter things?--A bit iffy (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

New edits by two editors reverted and changed back

The latest edits to this article had nothing wrong with them, yet they were reverted repeatedly by one editor. No effort toward discussion has been started by the editor reverting the changes back, so I am opening this thread to get a discussion going. Gareth Griffith-Jones: please begin the discussion by explaining what you found so completely wrong with these edits that you had to revert four times. Your edit summaries gave no discernible reasoning that would lead either of us to understand why the edits we made were damaging to the article. Winkelvi (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that you followed Gareth here in order to revert his edits. You then encouraged the anonymous editor to continue his edits without any edit summary or discussion. How were your edits anything other than deliberate disruption? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest that everyone focus on the content dispute and drop the attacks on each other. You have a few days to work this out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now that we've established that all involved editors feel that the other editors done them wrong, would anyone care to discuss the disputed content? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Mamet play is "acclaimed," so I believe the adjective is justified. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"Acclaimed" is broad and vague. A source for that would likely be someone's opinion. (Kinda like saying "Joe Blow is an acclaimed actor": vague, hard to source and easy to dispute. OTOH, "Joe Blow is an Academy Award winning actor" is specific, easily sourced and hard to dispute.) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The relevant party of the sentence reads "his acclaimed 1984 Pulitzer Prize- and Tony-winning play", so, perhaps acclaimed isn't necessary after all. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In that context, "acclaimed" would seem, IMO, to be redundant peacockery. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We should wait to hear from other editors, but I would have no problem with it being removed. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There's now no problem with the peacockery being removed, but when the IP editor removed it (even when he stated why he removed it), it kept getting re-added. Winkelvi (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that we've established that all involved editors feel that the other editors done them wrong, would you care to discuss the disputed content? - SummerPhD (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

So far, we have a suggestion to remove the word "acclaimed". Any arguments against that or for any other changes from the current state? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It's peacockery, it's not backed up by a reference. It should be removed on both points (when the article opens up again, that is). Winkelvi (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether "acclaimed" is or is not included ... "Well. Frankly, I could not give a damn".
What infuriates me is the feigned innocence that this is the issue in hand.
It is not.
Winkelvi is attempting to sweep in this editing under the cover of the removal in the opening sentence of the so-called peacocky — not "peacockery" — adjective.
This unpleasantness is actually about his poor revision to which I have hyperlinked here (in this post).
I thank you, SummerPhD, for your input here.
Sincerely,
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 10:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Acclaimed should not be restored, as I said above, but I also agree with Gareth that Winkelvi's changes to the lede should not be restored either. Frankly, that was terrible writing. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 10:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"It's peacockery, it's not backed up by a reference" — What is even more absurd is the removal of an adjective about the stageplay, not this article, and a play that is both 1984 Pulitzer Prize and Tony-winning. Surely, that is sufficiently referenced for Wikipedia, isn't it?
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 11:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's try this again: DISCUSS CONTENT NOT EDITORS. What should the article say and how should it be worded? What are the sources for that? If you have difficulty doing that, I'd suggest you simply find another article to edit. There are plenty of others. Failing that, I guess warnings and blocks would be needed. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No need to *shout*, and I read it before your emboldening ... No, I don't follow you now. You will have to be more specific. To whom and which content are you referring?
Thanks.
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 14:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edit at 10:40, 26 March 2013 is a perfect example of what I am asking you NOT to do. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)This is the last thing I will say about this here: do not refer to the other editors and their actions. Discuss what should be changed in the article and the sources that support those changes. Your other options are limited: Walk away from this article or continue this discussion at AN/I. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You are now demonstrating a complete lack of either having read the editing history carefully or grasping the whole point of my post ... the changed content is the subject, not the argument about "acclaimed".
Well done!
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 15:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Very briefly and directly: What do you wish to add/remove/change and what sources support that? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The article edit history shows that I have not recently attempted to add or remove any new content. All the changes that I have made since this revision on February 9 have been to restore the article to its more than satisfactory state; indeed as you have done so too here
Sincerely,
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 09:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"More than satisfactory state"? This is in conflict with the very nature of Wikipedia. It is meant to continually evolve. Articles are not meant to be considered finished and never needing editing. Winkelvi (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Will you both PLEASE stop? These two edits amount to "I was just trying to fix what he messed up." and "You don't know what you are talking about." If there is nothing that you would like to add/remove/change, you are done here; time to move along. If there is something you wish to add/remove/change, state what it is and what sources support that change. Discuss content (rather than who did what to whom). - 14:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I will take your comments in as much good faith as I can, SummerPhD. But I'm getting the impression your are jumping to conclusions about where those of us in this discussion are coming from. I was just trying to understand where Gareth, Ring Cinema, and Jacobite are coming from. I think it's important to know why the three of them think the articles they watchlist and edit are perfectly fine and need no improvements. My comments meant nothing other than, "Why do you think that?" I wasn't making accusations or pointing a finger their direction. I think it's a legitimate question to ask and I assure you there's no malice behind it. I'm not talking about who did what to whom (as you have repeated and accused us all of numerous times now). I note you are not an administrator, and you did kind of pop in out of the blue, so I have to wonder why you are acting like a mediator on steroids. Perhaps you could assume a little good faith yourself? Winkelvi (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

... and I was replying courteously to SummerPhd.
Maybe for the first time, I thoroughly endorse Winkelvi's observations immediately above. My patience has been tested too with the holier than thou attitude, which at the same time offers nothing constructive –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Setting of the Film (New York vs. Chicago)

There seems to be some ongoing disagreement about the city in which the film was set. This movie was set (and filmed on location) in New York City. This is in contrast to David Mamet's play, which was set in Chicago, and it makes for an interesting distinction between the film and the play.

Some tertiary sources such as IMDb (and even some DVD dust jackets) confuse the setting of the film with that of the play. However, there is overwhelming evidence throughout the motion picture and elsewhere that the story is set in New York City, and the characters themselves refer to locations in NYC. For example:

• All of the characters' vehicles seen in the movie bear New York license plates.
• In the opening scene the pay phone which Shelley Levene (Lemmon) uses clearly reads "New York Telephone - NYNEX Company."
• George Aaronow (Arkin) comments to Shelley, "I had a woman in White Plains on the hook ..."[The characters in this film are salesmen who typically drive to their prospect's homes to close the sale]
• The final scene features a subway car with "Sheepshead Bay" (Brooklyn) as the destination.
• The scene in which Al Pacino's character arrives at the office features an NYPD squad car parked at the curb (in foreground), and actors in New York police uniforms.
• The Detective (Jude Ciccolella) wears a New York City detective's badge. (If the story were supposed to be in Chicago, at the very least the director would have given the detective a Chicago or generic-looking badge instead of the distinctive New York badge).
• The film's ending credits state that movie was "filmed on location in New York City."

Based upon all of these factors combined, it seems plain that the setting was New York City. It is true that some secondary sources are at variance with the primary source material. However, in this case the primary source is the original motion picture, which is an AV media source -- to which Wiki rules allow direct citation.

If I have missed something, please say so below! Xanthis (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As I stated, various details in the movie can be interpreted as saying the film is set in NYC, others as Chicago. This is original research, which is not useful here. Unless there is an unequivocal reference to where the action is occurring, we really shouldn't say anything based on the content of the film itself. Yes, it is the primary source, which is exactly the point: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

Portions of IMDb say that the action takes place in Chicago. IMDb is not a reliable source for this material.

Yes, IMDb, the NYT article and the end credits say it was filmed "on location" in New York City. This, however, does not mean that the action takes place in New York City. "On location" merely means that filming took place at an existing location, rather than a sound stage or constructed set. Die Hard 2 scenes set in Dulles Airport (just outside Washington, DC) show Pacific Bell payphones and maps for Los Angeles. It was filmed "on location" in LAX. Various science fiction films -- set on other planets -- are filmed "on location" in the deserts outside of Hollywood.

We can certainly find unreliable sources saying the film is set in Chicago or NYC. This is why we don't use unreliable sources. We can argue various film details mean NYC or Chicago (Who travels from NYC to Wisconsin to go fishing? If those are supposed to be New York accents, the cast should be ashamed of themselves.). This is why we don't allow original research.

Maybe it is supposed to be NYC. Maybe it's supposed to be merely a city. IMO, the specific city doesn't seem to matter as the film has nothing to say about a specific city.

Long story short: Unless there is an independent, secondary reliable source (or a direct statement in the film as to where they are), we simply have nothing to say. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, SummerPhD. While I share your hesitancy to rely on primary sources, I hope I can convince you that the reference in this particular case is complete and proper.

You wrote, "[V]arious details in the movie can be interpreted as saying the film is set in . . . Chicago."

As my father would say: "Name two."

(BTW, no cast member says they are going to Wisconsin to go fishing. Lemmon's character says that he fished there for many years.)

With respect, it is not original research to cite directly to plain facts in a primary source. Indeed, according to the Wiki rules, primary sources may be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." [5]

As for the source itself, of course one or two elements visible in background do not necessarily establish the setting of a motion picture. And it is true that any film shot on location (like Die Hard) may have bits of location background that are inconsistent with the story's supposed setting. However, we cannot manufacture doubt by blindly focusing on the weakest individual pieces of evidence while ignoring the overwhelming totality of the facts as plainly evident and apparent in a source.

I hope we can agree that they do not have NYPD police cruisers in Chicago. Nor would they have New York state license plates (on major character's cars, center screen in full focus). Actors are not dressed in New York City police uniforms -- nor do they wear New York City detective's badges in major scenes -- unless they are in New York. And there is no "White Plains" in the greater Chicago area (to which Aaronow refers in spoken dialogue, making it clear that his character is aware of what is already obvious to the viewer: that they are in New York City). Finally, these are not elements of location background (as in Die Hard) -- they are foreground props intentionally furnished by the director for the purpose of making a statement about setting. And, critically, they are all consistent with each other throughout the film in affirming that New York is the setting.

A more direct statement is not possible. It is not interpretation, analysis, or original research. Rather, it is manifest fact, as plainly evident in a primary source.

Finally, I propose that it is relevant. The backdrop sets the mood of a story and our understanding of the characters; it firmly fixes the narrative within the cultural context of that place. Certainly many editors have found setting to be relevant in the case of the Wiki page on the play, and I propose that giving the same information in the page about the film promotes uniformity of style, if nothing else. It also facilitates comparison and contrast between the play and the film.

You wrote, "Unless there is an independent, secondary reliable source (or a direct statement in the film as to where they are), we simply have nothing to say."

That position is at variance with your original preference, which was to revert "New York" to an equally un-cited statement of location (presumably the one preferred by you). Please see my comment on [|your talk page].

Xanthis (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, if I were filming a movie and felt the location was an important element of the story, I wouldn't depend on people noticing details like a a police cruiser's make or knowing the subway stops in New York City. I might go for something blunt like an establishing shot of the NYC skyline, text over the first shot ("New York City, 1984") or something similar. I know that's as subtle as a Madonna video. What can I say?

In the end, there is lots of material we can extract from the film. Maybe the clothes the characters wear are important. Perhaps every change to dialogue is relevant. Let's invoke Chekhov's gun and discuss the typewriter that is seen but never used -- it must mean something. That one character has a haircut that is pretty old fashioned for 1984 New York. Whatever. If this were a comparative lit class, we could discuss it all until our ears bled. If the comparison between Chicago and NYC is a critical piece of the comparison of the play and the film, a reliable source will have discussed it. Unless you have a direct citation of Chicago -- not something you believe can only be Chicago -- I'm going to Wisconsin. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you have removed all of my references and replaced them with a "citation needed" note. This is contrary to Wiki practice of using the best available references while searching for better ones, and is also contrary to the convention of not making changes to a contribution while an attempt to seek consensus is underway on a talk page. I must respectfully request that you cease that behavior.

I have removed the reference to IMDb. You are quite right that it is not a very good reference. The other two references can stand on their own.

You write, "Personally, if I were filming a movie . . . I might go for something blunt like an establishing shot of the NYC skyline, text over the first shot ("New York City, 1984") or something similar. I know that's as subtle as a Madonna video. What can I say?"

Ha ha. Probably a good idea! It would certainly avoid arguments like this. Well, the presence of a New York City police cruiser (not in background but as a foreground prop placed there by the director) among many other elements says "New York" as clearly as any skyline shot. If that isn't enough, characters referring in dialogue to places in New York City should be.

(In any event, I don't think that the director could do a wide open shot of the skyline because that would be contrary to the theme of the film about these men being trapped and hemmed in. Notice that all of the shots are close shots.) And a screen title card that says, "New York City, 1993" is asking for a level of proof that is never used in motion pictures unless it is actually needed for the audience (e.g.: "Algeria, 1914.") It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where John Cleese demands a license for his pet fish, and upon being told that there is no such license, demands absolute proof to that effect in the form of a statement personally signed by the Lord Mayor.

Well . . . that signed statement by the Lord Mayor might be out there. Let's begin our search for those better references. I'll do my part! But in the meantime, I propose that it is pretty plain that this movie is set in New York City. -Xanthis (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You cited three sources that do not verify the information they are cited for. IMDb, in addition to not being a reliable source states (in various places) BOTH opinions (Chicago and NYC). The NYT article does not state the action is set in NYC, only that it was filmed there. Synthesis is needed to do that (A: There are various proper nouns in the film. B: Many (but not all) of those proper nouns can be found in and around NYC. A B = C: The film must be set in NYC.) Similarly, "I'm not going home, I'm going to Wisconsin", a decision made at the spur of the moment at night, might mean he's going to drive from Chicago to Wisconsin (looks to be perhaps a 2 hour drive), maybe it's NYC to Wisconsin (probably a solid day of driving), maybe it's a metaphor, maybe it some other city (real or fictional) to Wisconsin, whatever. (MoreWP:OR: The "Glengarry Highlands" are in Wisconsin.[6])

The bottom line is this: I do not care whether the film is set in Chicago, NYC or a quonset hut on Midway Island. I do care whether or not it is verifiable. I see that you believe that various details in the film establish it is in NYC. I feel this matches the known fact that it was filmed in NYC, but does not establish the action as occurring there. I also see other editors who believe it is set in Chicago and/or NYC (here, on IMDb and elsewhere). To this point, I have not seen a reliable source say either. I have not seen any indication that it is relevant (you say it is, another editor said it isn't, I'm neutral). New York/NYC and Chicago have been repeatedly added, removed and reverted. IMDb has been claimed for both. Details in the film have been claimed for both. I think we've reached a point where saying what reliable sources say and not saying what they don't say would be a good idea. We have unreliable sources an original research for both. I looked through all the reviews I could find. I found a grand total of one source giving a location. You aren't going to like it: "A group of real estate salesmen in Chicago..."[7] - SummerPhD (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Found another: "...about a Chicago real estate office full of shabby, desperate swindlers..."[8] - SummerPhD (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Still looking. "The shabby Chicago real estate office..."[9] - SummerPhD (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have found the reliable secondary source for which you have been hankering. It is a journal article authored by Dr. Jared Champion, Ph.D. (who specializes in the study of American literature and culture) [10], published in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. If a peer-reviewed academic journal doesn't constitute a most reliable secondary source, then I'll eat my hat.

While the whole exercise seems rather talismanic to me, I hope this provides the secondary reference that you feel is necessary. I think we can both say with genuine pride that this is now among the best-referenced statements on Wikipedia (at least when it comes to settings of movies).

You wrote, "I feel this matches the known fact that it was filmed in NYC, but does not establish the action as occurring there."

That is nonsense and you know it: this is precisely how setting is established in almost all motion pictures. Where random elements of shooting location are accidentally visible in the background (like Die Hard), then I agree with you: it doesn't establish setting.

However, where a director (as here) furnishes foreground props (such as Detective Baylen's badge, the police uniforms, the squad car, the character's license plates), which all consistently identify "New York" as the place, then that sets the story in New York. These are elements within the director's control. Why would he choose them, particularly where there are generic alternatives available for each of these props (i.e., generic squad car, generic police badges, generic license plate on character's car, generic subway shot that doesn't show a place name, generic place names in character dialogue, etc . . .)? At some point you have to ask yourself, "What exactly would it take to convince me?"

You seem to be creating a situation where the only thing in a primary source that could possibly convince you of the setting of any film is either (a) a title card which says "New York City, 1992", (b) a statement by the director, or (c) a main character saying, "Here we are, in the great City of New York" (though how Aaronow's reference to White Plains doesn't fall into that category baffles me). That may be the level of proof that you personally require, but that level of proof is abnormal.

Thank your for pushing me to be a stronger contributor. At this point, why don't we both go and turn our attention to more pressing matters: for example, virtually every single statement in the entire Characters section of the Glengarry Glen Ross article is pure interpretation and analysis, and is totally unreferenced. In fact, most of the statements in the Productions section are similarly totally unreferenced (or cite to IMDb). -Xanthis (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss content not contributors. The apparently absurd notion that the film might not be set in NYC is shared by at least three editors here, a handful of people editing IMDb and -- much less importantly, obviously -- Entertainment Weekly, Roger Ebert and the distributor of the DVD.

I feel there are LOTS of way to establish location. Yes, establishing shots, title cards, voice overs and dialogue are widely used. This is especially the case where the location is an important part of the film. I've also seen details of set/props highlighted to set the film. Near the beginning of a film I've seen:

• a character pushed into a squad car and the door slams, leaving a full screen shot of the logo of location's police department.
• close-ups of letterhead.
• close-ups of business signs, saying "(location) Branch".
• birdseye views of characters walking in the area, with a large business sign featured in the shot saying "(location)'s Best Coffee".

And, of course, many more. When establishing the location is important to the director, the information is obvious and early. It's not small print in a logo in the background. It's not a name of a subway line that most people won't know. It's not ambiguous proper nouns, scattered throughout that people will mostly ignore (check the 'net for all the discussions of people trying to figure out the title of the movie when the place names are mentioned in the film). The upshot here is that I think there is very good reason to question what some people feel is "obvious" (especially when various conclusions are drawn from that information). I also believe the film makers were not particularly concerned with establishing a location. Again, in a film or lit class, sit around for hours discussing it. You'll come up with airtight cases for "facts" that turn out to be wrong. In my life, I've had three completely unrelated classes (two different high schools' lit classes and one undergrad class) that presented the supposed censorship theme in Fahrenheit 451, which is far more obvious than NYC is here and is simply wrong.

Back to the article. Yes, the best possible source for anything in this article would be review articles focused on this very issue from peer-reviewed film journals. In the real world, that won't happen. Instead, we have an English professor, focused on expressions of gender expression, published in an online journal, Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality. (Incidentally: A clear sign this movie isn't about NYC is that the scholarly literature about it is discussing masculinity and -- to a lesser extent -- capitalism, not location.)

Long story short, I find numerous scholarly theatre sources (some better than others) discussing the play (duh, it Mamet -- every line has been dissected twenty different ways). I find several scholarly gender studies sources discussing the story (with little apparent distinction between the play and the film). I find a few scholarly business sources, mostly discussing the film. I find a scattering of scholarly sources from other disciplines (American studies, philosophy/dialectics, etc. I didn't find scholarly cinema sources or scholarly sources making detailed comparisons between the play and the film.

I don't think the setting is important here. I think the one journal we have is making a brief mention by an author writing on a very different subject, saying NYC. I think we have solid sources -- including the distributor -- saying Chicago. Were it an author writing on point is a journal related to the issue, I'd say we should have text saying it's set in NYC, though some sources say Chicago. As it stands at the moment, I cannot see dismissing EW, Ebert and the distributor over the off-topic journal mention. I think we should mention both, probably not in the lead section, most likely in the plot section. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

SummerPhD, please stop. This is the second time that you have removed the same material without consensus and in the midst of discussion, against Wiki guidelines. Please see my comment on your talk page -Xanthis (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed on this much: The NYT article does not say where the film is set. It does say where it was filmed.

Pulling details out of the film, comparing them to locations near NYC and determining that it must be set in NYC (but Die Hard 2 is not set in California) is "original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."WP:PSTS

Until you agree with this, I'll leave them marked as "failed verification". If you disagree, I will take them to the reliable sources noticeboard. While I think the third source is weak and contradicted by other sources that haven't been added yet, I'm leaving it alone. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think some input from others on what references are reliable is an excellent idea. I have been known to be wrong, and it might help to settle the issue.

But what we have here is not merely a dispute about what references are reliable, but a problem of weighing evidence. My personal belief is that (like a person whose goal is to prove the proposition that the earth is not more than 5,000 years old, or that tobacco smoking is not harmful to health) your strategy is simply to throw stones at the facts you disagree with, disqualifying or excluding them in whatever way you can.

You wrote, "When establishing the location is important to the director, the information is obvious and early . . . I also believe the film makers were not particularly concerned with establishing a location." I agree totally. It seems clear that (aside from "major American city") the setting was not very important to the film-makers. But that doesn't mean they didn't choose a setting. Just because information isn't "obvious and early" does not mean that it isn't clear.

Once again my statement and direct question to you is: "Where a director (as here) furnishes foreground props (such as Detective Baylen's badge, the police uniforms, the squad car, the character's license plates), which each consistently identify "New York" as the place, then that sets the story in New York. These are elements within the director's control. Why would he choose these, particularly where there are generic alternatives available for each of these props (i.e., generic squad car, generic police badges, generic license plate on character's car, generic subway shot that doesn't show a place name, generic place names in character dialogue, etc . . .)?"

Second question: Weighed against all of this, what real evidence is there that Chicago is actually the setting?

It is possible to create the illusion of doubt about anything. Allow me:

• "A character pushed into a squad car and the door slams, leaving a full screen shot of the logo of location's police department." -- Counter: but if the car is sort of to the side, then that doesn't count any more, despite the fact that the director could have used a generic police cruiser.
• "close-ups of letterhead" -- Counter: it is well established that these characters lie all of the time about their true titles and positions in their organization. Sleazy companies are known for using mail receiving services in respectable sounding cities, and Romo, Shelley, and Murray are each established to lie about just having flown into town.
• The film opens with a stationary skyline of the city at night -- Counter: the director needed a skyline shot, so they had to use real footage of something. The setting is simply a major city.
• "close-ups of business signs, saying "(location) Branch" -- No director would waste screen time on such a thing unless it was really important to the plot. In this case, even the title of the office "Premiere Properties" is off to the side (like the police car) - does that mean that you also doubt this was the real name of their office? Does it?
• "birdseye views of characters walking in the area, with a large business sign featured in the shot saying "(location)'s Best Coffee" -- Again, the level of proof that you are demanding in order to establish setting seems ridiculous.

-Xanthis (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not demanding any of these. These were merely examples I have seen used at the beginnings of films to establish setting. I am not seeking any proof of any kind from the primary source. I am saying we have reliable secondary sources that say two different things as the reliability of the sources is not weighted in such a way that we can ignore one over the other (i.e., when the foreword of a pulp novel and an NYT obituary disagree over a date of death, we would generally go with the NYTs date; when People magazine disagrees with Entertainment Weekly, we use both). Roger Ebert, Entertainment Weekly and the distributor are certainly reliable sources for this information.

I am not in favor of the film being set anywhere. I don't care. I was not and am not plotting, as you suggest, to weaken anything saying NYC, strengthen anything saying Chicago and eventually bury or remove NYC. I am not trying to find "the truth". My aim is to produced a balanced summary of verifiable material from reliable secondary sources. Nothing more, nothing less.

If someone wants to discuss one of the character's hairstyle or clothes (and we have had both show up in film articles), I would want meaningful coverage in independent reliable sources. Otherwise, I'd dismiss it as trivial. As it stands, I'm not seeing much coverage of the setting -- the overwhelming majority of sources I've looked at simply don't mention it (in stark contrast to articles about the play). I found two professional reviews that mentioned the setting and a plot summary from the distributor. They say Chicago. They might be wrong. I don't know. You found a professor from a tiny college writing about masculinity (a dominant theme, it seems, of the film, not that it shows in this article) who says New York City. Whatever. Put them both in, cite the sources that say it. Add in that it was filmed in NYC and cite the NYT article. Fine. It's a detail. There is far more meaningful material in the journal articles (re masculinity, marketing, etc.) than this trivial detail that few sources mention and no one seems to have discussed. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm here to offer a third opinion per this request.[11] Having read the discussion here, I am confident that listing the setting as NYC is acceptable under WP:V. In general, I would have no problem listing the filming location as the setting for any movie, unless the directors tells audiences to believe otherwise. If a film is obviously shot in San Francisco and no evidence is ever given to suggest that the intended setting is some place different, then it's safe to assume that San Francisco is the intended setting. Keihatsu ^talk 20:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Keihatsu: Roger Ebert, Entertainment Weekly, Metacritic and the DVD's distributor all say the film was set in Chicago. Is that not verifiable? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• A lot of films that are "set" in a specific location are not actually filmed in or at those actual locations for many reasons. To find the right look and feel that he wanted, George Lucas chose the city of Turlock, California to be the setting of Modesto, California for his film: American Graffiti. It is easily recognizable to me, as someone that grew up near Turlock, what streets and intersections were used, buildings, parking lots, etc....but for me to go to either article and use that knowledge as the basis to argue that the film is actually set in Turlock and not Modesto is absurd.....and the two cities are about 20 miles apart on the same freeway (Interstate 99). New York and Chicago have a generic, gritty East Coast city "look". In many ways they are interchangeable. I see no real evidence that the film's setting is New York and that should not be altered however, this is just as notable as the American Graffiti trivia and should be mentioned if reliable sources are used reference any claim that is likely to be challenged. if there is no secondary commentary, summary or analysis of the comparison, it is original research to add the content.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Belated contribution, after the RFC: I just wanted to note that if you look at the original script for the play [12], no location for geographical setting is given. If this information is given at all, it's given in the playbill - a recent performance I attended notes at the bottom of the playbill "1984, the suburbs of Chigago", followed by "Act 1 takes place in a Chinese restuarant/Act 2 in a real estate office". But even that minimal information varies between productions, and may or may not be given at all [13][14]. The published screenplay doesn't give a city either [15]. (Generally speaking, all of the geographical locations given are fictional, with the exception of Rio Rancho (though the movie changes even this from New Mexico to Arizona), which ties the characters in with one of the better known land scams of the past 50 years.)

The additional dialog and production design of the film firmly establish the setting as New York City. Since the movie was filmed there, that was an obvious expedient that would allow location shooting without having to change around details all over the place to make it look like it was set in Chicago. They also changed the time from the early 80s to the early 90s by advancing the past years Shelly mentions by 10 years. (As to Ebert, etc mention of the movie being set in Chicago - I'm sure they were familiar with the earlier play, which was had its first US production in and was generally assumed to be set in Chicago, and simply transferred that assumption onto the movie, without looking at the details of the film with clearly give a New York location.)

In any event, this is a very minor detail, since the setting is largely avoided in the original screenplay as a superfluous to the plotline. Really, it could be set anywhere in the urban US (though most likely in a large northeastern city) any time in the latter part of the 20th Century. (Setting it later than that, of course, would present complications on dealing with how the characters are clearly tied down to land lines and the disruption of stealing the phones.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is there enough evidence that the film is set in New York City?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The only consensus in this RFC is that both cities (Chicago and NewYork) should be mentioned in some way. AlbinoFerret 05:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Is there enough evidence that the film is set in New York City? Are the references adequate? Xanthis (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC) See discussion "Setting of the Film (New York vs. Chicago)", above. Xanthis (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• CommentIt is verifiable that the film is set in New York City. It is also verifiable that the film is set in Chicago.
  • Jared Champion, an English professor at Young Harris College, focused on expressions of gender, published in an online journal, says New York City.
  • Roger Ebert (Pulitzer Prize, film critic at Chicago Sun-Times for 46 years, Sneak Previews, At the Movies, Hollywood Walk of Fame, etc.) says Chicago.
  • Entertainment Weekly says Chicago.
  • The film's distributor say Chicago.

IMO, selecting the opinion of a non-notable professor at a tiny college writing in a non-notable journal on a topic having nothing to do with the film's setting over those sources is a serious WP:WEIGHT issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Some confusion among commentators is understandable given the fact that the original stage play was set in Chicago. But the actual evidence in the motion picture (including foreground props, costumes, and character dialogue) is consistent and overpowering in its depiction of New York City. Among other things:
  • All of the characters' vehicles seen in the movie bear New York license plates.
  • In the opening scene the pay phone which Shelley Levene (Lemmon) uses clearly reads "New York Telephone - NYNEX Company."
  • George Aaronow (Arkin) comments to Shelley, "I had a woman in White Plains on the hook ..."[The characters in this film are salesmen who typically drive to their prospect's homes to close the sale]
  • The final scene features a subway car with "Sheepshead Bay" (Brooklyn) as the destination.
  • The scene in which Al Pacino's character arrives at the office features an NYPD squad car parked at the curb (in foreground), and actors in New York police uniforms.
  • The Detective (Jude Ciccolella) wears a New York City detective's badge. (If the story were supposed to be in Chicago, at the very least the director would have given the detective a Chicago or generic-looking badge instead of the distinctive New York badge).
  • The film's ending credits state that movie was "filmed on location in New York City."

By contrast, there is nothing in the film that points to Chicago as the setting.

Good quality secondary sources are preferred on Wiki. But secondary sources themselves are not evidence: they carry weight (and explanatory power) only if they refer back to some observable facts in a primary source. If two people in a dark room disagree about the color of the sky, it is silly not to look out a window at the primary source. I believe that in this context, direct reference to the film is an allowable use of a primary source to cite a "straightforward, descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The fact that some secondary sources make mention of Chicago (where the play was set) is not enough to cast doubt on what can be plainly seen in the motion picture.

In my opinion, it is pretty clear that the film was set in New York. Xanthis (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• I believe that the visual elements which clearly indicate new York (police uniforms, badges, and cars, license plates, telephone booth signage, subway destinations, etc.) are perfectly valid and sufficient evidence that the film takes place in NYC. True, secondary sources are preferred, but most of the time those secondary sources are to assert information for which a primary source might be unreliable. But you don't need a published review by a film critic asserting that Schwartzenegger said "I'll be back" to know that he said that, nor do you need a film critic confirming that a telephone booth clearly labeled as a New York telephone booth was in the movie to mention it, the movie itself is uncontroversial and verifiable proof that this is the case, so in this case I think citing the movie's visual elements as a verifiable source that the movie takes place in NYC is entirely appropriate. And if all else fails, WP:IGNORE. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• The proper thing to do when the Truth and WP:TRUTH point in such disparate directions is th fully inform the reader. Xanthis has presented a littany of evidence that the film was set in NYC despite WP:RS to the contrary. What the article should say is that "The film is based on the stage play that was set in Chicago. Several sources including X, Y and Z claim that the films was set in Chicago. A, B and C sources claim that the film was set in NYC. The following scenes support the claim that the film was set in NYC." Then the list above should be introduced. For each item the minute:second marker of the DVD should be presented as a WP:IC.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• I can't recall just how specific the movie is, so I'm only speaking in general terms here, but -- it may not be set anywhere in the sense of intended to be understood as located in a particular place. It's not uncommon for movies to be ambiguous as to location, whether deliberately or by oversight. Barnabypage (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - This is a film adaption of a play, and the play was the story of a group of Chicago real-estate salesmen. So, what we have here is - a story of a group of Chicago real-estate salesmen that was filmed on location in New York City. I don't see any problem with saying it just like that. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Run the RfC. At present the main body of the article does not support this by WP:LEDE with templates or without templates. Are you really stating that you wish to rewrite the Plot summary to reflect NY geography and NY references in order to then summarize such revisions in the LEDE? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lawrence, I have reverted your deletion of the material. Per WP:BRD, please refrain from making further unilateral changes without a consensus. The community is currently engaged in a substantive review of the content. I suggest that, for the time being, visibility of the content along with its references (and the citation flags) is best, both in order to alert readers to this discussion on the talk page, and to facilitate editors' review of the references. It has not yet been decided whether this content will even stay in the article. In deciding whether to keep it or not, I think we should consider all reasons, including your WP:LEDE style concern that the body of the article should reference the material in the Leader section. If you have style suggestions for the best way to incorporate this material into the content (whether that is complete removal for substantive and/or style reasons, moving the reference to the body of the article and/or out of the leader, etc.) then let's consider them. Let's see if we can get a consensus. Thanks! Xanthis (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You have given no answer to the rewrite question. Your changes to the Lede before the closing of this RfC currently has no support and is a violation of WP:LEDE. Your next revert puts you at three reverts. Please follow Wikipedia procedure and policy for WP:LEDE and for awaiting the close of the RfC. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Lawrence, what on earth are you doing? Please stop the deletions. To answer your question: of course - if the community decides to keep the material - I would have no objection to us inserting text into the body of the article to support the text in the leader, per the wiki style guidelines in WP:LEDE. Or even moving it to the body altogether. As you can see, we are in the middle of discussing suggestions for how to deal with this very thing. Please wait before unilaterally deleting material which is the subject-matter of the RfC. I don't think that threatening to close the RfC yourself because it is "poorly formed" is the correct course of action either. Xanthis (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Supplement: User:Xanth has messaged me on my Talk page and has been made aware that the current version of the lead section is in violation of WP:LEDE since nothing in the main body of the current article supports inclusion of the New York City material in the LEDE. User:Xanth is also forcing the material into the LEDE prior to the completion of this RfC. This RfC appears to be poorly formed since User:Xanth is apparently asking for a rewrite of the entire Plot section with NYC geography and NYC references to replace the current version of the Plot section in order to allow for the LEDE to be changed. This RfC may be closed as poorly formed by any of the participating editors. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not forced any material into the leader prior to the close of the RfC: you came along and deleted what was there when the RfC opened. Please stop doing that while the RfC is open. I am not asking for a rewrite of the entire plot section. See also my response to your other comments which you made above, and my proposed solution to the WP:LEDE style issue you have raised. Xanthis (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• How about we say "Although the play was set in Chicago, the film is set in New York City..." with an explanatory footnote? Eman235/talk 15:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - A non-notable professor that wrote an article not focused on the film is not a reliable source that should be given weight in light of 2 widely-accepted reliable sources (Entertainment Weekly, Roger Ebert) plus the film's distributor stating Chicago. The rundown above is perfectly reasonable, but it is not a reliable source per se for a definite statement on a NYC setting. As indicated in the above section, such is an analysis and synthesis of a primary source (that evidently does not explicitly state NYC is the setting of the narrative, as opposed to just the filming location). The physical clues given by the film that the characters are in NYC (badges, license plates, etc) should be noted in the article but the reliable, secondary sources that state Chicago should also be cited. It it best to not append editor POV and only present what the primary source depicts and what the secondary sources say. I agree with TonyTheTiger's suggestion on what the article may say, with the exception of "A, B and C sources claim that the film was set in NYC". That is if the setting of the film is as important as all this discussion would lead one to believe. Otherwise, just the primary source description and a mention that it is an adaption of a play on "a group of Chicago real-estate salesmen" would suffice. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. This should be settled per what a consensus here indicates (in accordance with WP guidelines). I personally don't think the setting of the film is important enough to devote prose to what source 1 source 2 , etc, claims the film's setting to be. --Lapadite (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability of authors has nothing to do with reliability of sources. About 99.99% of academics are non-notable. I have no comment on this particular author; I'm just responding to Lapadite77's incorrect analysis of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not referring to WP's notability guideline for articles. The reliability of the source per se is questionable, and either way, It's not a source that should be given undue weight. And that source is not the focus of my post. --Lapadite (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• The play is set in Chicago, but the film in New York, because textual elements in the film identify the location. While it's generally original research to engage in an analysis of what is seen in a film to try to determine the location, any actual, clear statement of the location, in on-screen text or in dialogue, is quotable source material, and would not constitute original research , but only if they are very clearly visible for long enough that viewers are expected to read them (or spoken clearly enough that viewers will catch it). Signage in the film giving specific locations (subway, phone booth) constitutes such textual sourcing. As for any disagreements between sources: If in fact we have reliable sources that set the film in two different locations, this may be enough reason to document in the article that sources differ on the interpretation of the location. Trying on our own to determine which side of that debate is correct by weighing this vs. that non-verbal evidence in the film and how to interpret it, or comparing-constrasting different writers' theories for why the location is this place vs. that one, is original research. If there's a source reliability issue with one side or other, that's a different issue. A passing mention by one writer that the film is set in Chicago, if all other sources say New York (or the other way around), is insufficient reason to declare the location controversial, unless the Chicago-favoring writer laid out a case for why they think NY is an error (or vice versa). Then we have a controversy, and cannot pick a side in it. If the writer who favored a different location from everyone else gave no reason for their choice, it's probably just a mistake on their part. We're not bound to mention in this (or any other) article every variant viewpoint that cannot be explained, even if we're also not in a position to declare well-reasoned arguments for position A to be superior to those for position B (which is also a WP:NPOV policy matter as well as WP:NOR one). A "hey, I know that corner in New York" argument is purely original research, as is "I know that skyline", etc. "Filmed on location" information is totally meaningless for this sort of question. A tremendous number of movies set everywhere from Alaska to Mars are "filmed on location" in Hollywood studios, and this is irrelevant. More to the point, a substantial number of films set in various cities in the eastern US, including both New York and Chicago, are actually filmed in Toronto, because the architecture in the old neighborhoods is similar, and it's more financially practical for various reasons. It just doesn't matter where the film was shot. Finally, it's fairly likely that the location was left vague on purpose, because the film is entirely fictional, not a representation of specific historical events. I'd be surprised if some film critic or film study sources don't make this observation explicitly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• If the film's setting is that obvious by simple photography of specific elements that determine such plot locations, such as close ups on phone books, well known city locations and extras or bit players in costumes that have a specific city imprinted on them, then you have a film's setting by default to the primary work itself and what is depicted. Now, if the all the elements that are being listed, such as the NYPD jackets, the phone book were just accidental and not primary to the story or plot and the location is only well known to locals....then you don't really have as strong an argument as you may think.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Without having recently seen the film, I'm inclined to agree with TonyTheTiger that the textual elements of the film identify the location. This is not original research; it's citing the details of the film. Just because the concept of a "textual" citation doesn't translate as easily from written media to to visual doesn't mean mean it can't be used as a reliable source. As we have such a conflict between our sources, I think it's fair to include the controversy for the sake of keeping the reader informed. FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Clarifiction: There is no "controversy" here. Reliable sources are not debating this. Most sources say nothing about the identity of the city. We have three (Roger Ebert, Entertainment Weekly and the film's distributor) saying Chicago; Jared Champion, an English professor at Young Harris College, saying NYC and our interpretations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhD (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 March 2015‎

• The thing that worries me is that all of these secondary sources are fairly low quality in the sense that they mention the city purely in passing: there is no analysis. It might easily be an "echo chamber" situation where a small mistake was repeated by others. Yet all of the elements in the movie (including textual elements, props, and dialogue) consistently indicate New York and no other city. This, combined with a peer-reviewed academic paper which also says New York City, seems to me to constitute a real conflict that we cannot simply gloss over. Xanthis (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I find it rather hard to fathom that Roger Ebert, Entertainment Weekly and the film's distributor are drawing basic plot info from each other. The English professor writing about masculinity was certainly mentioning the city in passing. We have a few sources saying Chicago. We have one source saying NYC. We have synthesis. The overwhelming majority of sources do not specify a city. I remain convinced the choice of city simply isn't relevant (if it is, the lack of reliable sources discussing the hypothesized change from Chicago to NYC is puzzling). The insistence on including the claim -- which I feel is a mistake -- seems to push us to core policy: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view....Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy....Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself..." (WP:V) While I continue to maintain that I see no indication the identification of the city is relevant, I see no argument that Roger Ebert, Entertainment Weekly and the film's distributor are not reliable sources (though an argument can be made that it is not a fully "independent" source). Drawing some elements from the film is analysis of the primary source. Adding those elements together to conclude that the film is intentionally set in a particular city is synthesis of the primary source. Such analysis of Die Hard 2 (Pacific Bell payphones and maps for Los Angeles in the airport) contradict Roger Ebert saying the scenes take place in Washington DC. Who travels from NYC to Wisconsin to go fishing on the spur of the moment? (In the play, it's a logical place for a spur of the moment fishing trip.) If those are supposed to be New York accents, the cast should be ashamed of themselves.) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I honestly don't care to wade through all of this, but I'll throw my two cents in and keep it short & sweet. Does any event shown by both sound & image in the film occur in Chicago? If so, BOOM! Set in Chicago! Does any event shown by both sound & image in the film occur in New York City? If so, BOOM! Set in New York City! And both can be true. It doesn't matter where the movie was shot. I've seen lots of articles that have multiple settings, some even for only the briefest of moments. It still counts. LazyBastardGuy 01:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been told that the film doesn't really make it clear whether certain parts are set in Chicago or not. On that point alone, I would say it's not set in Chicago... but then again we can resort to what the creator(s) of the work say about that in reliable sources. If they say those parts are set in Chicago, then that's good as far as I'm concerned. LazyBastardGuy 03:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. What if (as in this case) the creators of the work have said nothing? On one hand we have the New York scenes in the film and the academic journal article saying the film is set in New York. On the other hand we have film reviewers mentioning Chicago (though both in passing, and both in the same breath as the original play which was set in Chicago)? @LazyBastardGuy Xanthis (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"In passing" is a stretch. The two sentence description of the film by Artisan Entertainment, the distributor, says "Chicago".[16] (also on the back of the DVD case[17]) Entertainment Weekly gives a one sentence plot summary, including "Chicago".[18] his compared to a parenthetical in an article about masculinity. Incidentally, are we done yet with the two sources that don't say "New York" being used as sources for "New York"? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I would consider the DVD case as SummerPhD brought up to be a source representing the creator(s)' statement on the matter, and therefore sufficient to say the film is set, at least in part, in Chicago. LazyBastardGuy 00:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a statement by the original creative team (director, writers, etc.) would be definitive. But I can't agree that a DVD case carries such weight. DVD release of older movies is often done by unaffiliated media companies who purchase DVD distribution rights. The company which buys the rights is responsible for creating their own artwork and verbiage for the DVD jacket (work they may do in-house or subcontract to a design firm). The original film production company (which in this case is dissolved, so we are dealing with whatever successor corporation is the current copyright holder) might demand the right to review the DVD jacket for legal issues before it is released, but that hardly equates the blurb with any kind of statement by the film's creative team. -Xanthis (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

"Night Hawks" cafe

"Zannis Luncheonette", in the film (shown here: http://i.imgur.com/BpH3V5p.png), is a model of the diner in Edward Hoppers 1942 painting, "Nighthawks". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nighthawks#mediaviewer/File:Nighthawks_by_Edward_Hopper_1942.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nighthawks 165.120.235.87 (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Set in... Filmed in...

Per the discussion above (in "RfC: Is there enough evidence that the film is set in New York City?"), I have edited the section to state the film is "set in New York City or Chicago" and "filmed in New York City". I have included the journal article that sets it in NYC and Entertainment Weekly, Roger Ebert and Artisan cites for Chicago. I moved the NYT cite to support filmed in NYC, as it does not discuss the setting but does support the uncontested statement that it was filmed in NYC. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a very well-written implementation of the RfC consensus. Thanks for taking the time to write it, SummerPhD. ─Xanthis (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's incorrect. Mamet did not specify a Chicago setting for the play nor a New York setting for the film. The notion that the play is set in Chicago comes from extra-theatrical promotional material based on the fact that Mamet wrote about his experience as a Chicago real estate man in the late 1960s. The fact that the film was made in New York is beyond doubt. Therefore it is incorrect for the article to specify the setting. Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I realize this is original research, but it's worth a mention: A majority of the actors are using their strong natural, or else attempting to imitate, New York accents. I'd say I have a solid intermediate level knowledge of sociolinguistics, especially when it comes to American dialects, and, more to the point, I'd be happy to list the phonological features of such an accent to make this clear if anyone feels confused. Meanwhile, exactly zero of the actors are using or attempting Chicago accents. This, for me, made me immediately recognize the location as likely somewhere in the New York metropolitan area. It seems beyond just a coincidence, since an American audience can notice that even the Welsh actor Jonathan Pryce is putting on a New York accent -- not a General American accent. Wolfdog (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is original research. You're missing that it is also the application of specialized knowledge. The reliable sources did not note accents. The prolonged mining of details from the film attempting to show it is set in NYC did not note accents. Long story short, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

I've long maintained that the specific city in this film is trivial. Given the film makes no overt attempts to broadcast its location (establishing shots, titles, voice overs, etc.), I see no reason to discuss it in the article. That said, as established above, if the information is going to be in the article, it needs to be sourced. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

There is an establishing shot at the end of a train car passing. It reflects the sign for Sheepshead Bay station. This is in Brookyln. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:1413:5600:30DD:DDA:ADF1:D471 (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Considerable discussion and an RfC have discussed this issue and settled the issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

David Mamet Template

Now I'm just curious... why exactly isn't the David Mamet template considered relevant for this article? Given that he wrote the play the film is based on as well as the screenplay, it seems relevant to me. I won't re-add it if User:TheOldJacobite and User:Gareth Griffith-Jones are so insistent about it not being on there, but I am pretty curious why you consider it irrelevant here. Thanks.--Bernie44 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

David Mamet is linked in the Info' box AND at the start of the Lead. To my mind, as the article is about the film, there is no requirement for the additional box. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

James Foley is also linked in the infobox as well as the lead, and there is a navigational box for his filmography at the bottom of the article. So why not one for Mamet? This film is associated far more with Mamet than with Foley. Also, linking to someone's Wikipedia page is not the same as linking to their navigational box, which serves as a quick and handy reference to view their other work.--Bernie44 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Checking a random selection of 6 links in the navbox, the navbox is on all six pages. It is also on David Mamet, of course.

Yes, clicking through to David Mamet will eventually lead a reader to other Mamet works (relatives, etc.). The navbox is intended for those who may wish to read through all of his plays, films, etc.; it ties them all together. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The Mamet navbox is actually on every single film Mamet wrote EXCEPT for Glengarry Glen Ross. So it's on 13 out of the 14 films for which he just wrote the screenplay. I think it's clear it should be added to Glengarry Glen Ross.--Bernie44 (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glengarry Glen Ross (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128132331/http://www.jmmsweb.org/issues/volume5/number2/pp77-96 to http://www.jmmsweb.org/issues/volume5/number2/pp77-96

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Film Setting

The opening sentence in the article says " The film is set in either New York City or Chicago." However, in the very first scene in the film a pay phone is shown which clearly is labeled "New York Telephone." Therefore the film has to be set in New York, not Chicago. Dwight Burdette (talk)

"Set in New York City"

The introduction says the film is set in New York City. Is there any reason to believe this is actually true? The source link only states that that the film was shot in NYC, but nothing about the film's fictional setting. In the film, Moss says, "I'm going to Wisconsin." This would suggest Chicago as a likelier setting, though there may be no reason to assume the movie takes place in any particular place.

Yeah, there's no basis for saying it's set in NYC. The source provided only says it was filmed there. I've changed the wording to reflect this. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times review cited in the article says the "real estate salesmen [are] on the North Side of Chicago". Note that David Mamet is from Chicago. --50.53.37.43 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been badly vandalized, need to rollback the Plot section to the better-written prior version

I'm referring to this edit on 8 November 2019 by 69.126.201.204, who clearly has no idea how to concisely summarize the plot of a film in a manner that is in compliance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style and the WP:FILM guidelines. It looks like some editors have tried to clean up and shorten that poorly written plot summary, but the result is still not as concise and clear as it was before. I propose reverting the plot section back to the much better version prior to 8 November 2019. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Cool Caesar, none atall. Go ahead! Cheers!
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Cool Caesar, I have just carried out your request.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Terrific, thanks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)