Jump to content

Talk:Dog Day Afternoon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleDog Day Afternoon is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleDog Day Afternoon has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 21, 2006.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 10, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
October 28, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
February 26, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 21, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the film Dog Day Afternoon, Al Pacino improvised the "Attica! Attica!" scene following the suggestion of an assistant director?
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

GOCE copyedit request

[edit]

There's a few things which aren't copyedit-related, but they might be something to consider before an assessment. I've marked those in gray.

  • Before the script was written, Elfand wanted to insure he had signed releases by all of the interviewed for the story rights. Emphasis added. I'm assuming that ensure is meant here instead of insure? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, I just got carried away by the phonetic similarity.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Changed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, one of the hostages that requested more money was not included in the script [...] Was there more than one hostage from the original incident who asked for more money? Did all but one succeed in being included? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The hostages got paid to "clear the rights" of the story if you will. The original names were not used to avoid lawsuits, but they did include some of their characteristics. According to the cited source, a hostage wanted more money and got "written out".--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Reworded to make it clearer there was only one hostage who did so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pierson was referring in that interview to the past broken promises that Wojtowicz had made to the people he knew, and how they believed in him. Pierson saw the happenings of the robbery as a reflection of people trusting him, and Wojtowicz failing. He promised his accomplices money, he failed to deliver. He promised the hostages a quick robbery, they were held for most of the day. He promised Sal to get away safe, Sal got killed.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Switching to a plural pronoun, so that should make it clearer that it refers to the broken promises. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bregman attributed it to method acting, and stated that it "might have been a world (Pacino) did not want to explore". Something similar appears later in the article in a quote box, but is "(Pacino)" here supposed to be a change to the quote made by an editor? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original quote was "When you play a character , you become the character , especially when you ' re Al , and that might have been a world he did not want to explore". I added "Pacino" to provide a context as to who I was referring to.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Switching to square brackets to denote editorial changes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Pacino was at the time more stressed by the workload of being an actor than he was about portraying an homosexual character.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Merged it with the previous sentence to keep the reasoning consistent. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was the only name that was not modified. Even the name of the main role was not the original.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Made it clear that it was the only name left unchanged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by the source, yes. Naturile was young, Cazale was balding and pushing forty.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Made it into a parenthetical thought. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Moretti was "made up" by Pierson.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Specified to be an original character. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is the scene that opens the film.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Merged with below. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually the "getaway car", Stevie is driving. But I couldn't establish whose car really was.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Changing to "getaway car". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is it.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Clarified. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they re-routed it to let Lumet use the whole street unrestricted.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Clarified. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the script Sonny asks the question. Cazale was not supposed to reply. He improvised an answer instead.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Made a tweak. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change to provide context as to what the quote referred to.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Changing to square brackets to mark as editorial changes. I also decapitalised wedding as it didn't seem to be a proper noun. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It featured Wojtowicz in his army uniform, as he presented a wedding ring with a flash cube attached to it to Eden, who wore a wedding dress. Wojtowicz's mother was present, as well as eight male bridesmaids. Link removed. Seems like excessive detail. Might want to evaluate if it's encyclopedically relevant. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the level of detail (and the inclusion of the quote box regarding it) is to mark the fine line Lumet was trying to keep. He was trying to make a mainstream film in the 1970s regarding a main character who was gay, and trying that people do not laugh at it. He wanted to include real footage in the film, but he felt it would be too outlandish for the audiences, that they would be so to speak weirded out. He feared to either cause a violent reaction, or for them to laugh it down. That means that though he pretty much stuck to the real facts, he chose deliberately to not use the only real footage he saw because of that.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've tried to incorporate it into the text. I still think the actual details themselves detract from the point being made, but I'll leave that for a reviewer to determine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, I'll bring that up during the nomination. I somehow feel it to be relevant as to how careful the director was being and such. But, more discussion to come in the future.--GDuwenHoller! 19:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was the nationwide opening. The source indicates it as the "release date", and other sources also indicate October. We know that it was first seen in San Sebastián, and then we have the limited release in New York City. The New York reviews (NYT, Daily News, Village Voice) are all from September. The rest of the reviews are from October and on.
 Done. Made it clear it was a national release. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Siskel talked about Pacino's display of "so much energy" that made ___ "believe the unbelievable" Blank added. Who "believe[d] the unbelievable"? There is a person (or persons) missing where the blank is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the audience in my estimation. (clipping)
 Done. Checking the source it appears to be Siskel himself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mhm, no particular reason. I probably thought I hadn't introduced Peretz before anywhere in the article. But I did. We can get rid of that instance.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed it. Peppered in mentions of her character's name Angie. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another editorial change. "I can't stand how Sidney cast the role" was the original quote. article
 Done. Switching to square brackets. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Later analysis relative to a 1970s release (the cited books and articles were published during the 2000s and 2010s).--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Used a more absolute term. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was already there. I didn't see it. We can remove it without an issue.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Simplified it to just "documentary about the film". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Manhattan skyline is seen from the cemetery.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Merged with above. exclamation mark  You might want to create a sentence that ties the first paragraph together, as right now it reads like trivia to me that doesn't establish any larger point. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sheldon was waiting at the tarmac. He got a hold of the rifle through the window. While he didn't remove it from his hands, he just pushed it against the dashboard to neutralize him. Another agent put a gun to his head. But I do think that is going in too much detail.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Leaving this to the primary editor to determine what should go in §Plot. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Lumet said he wanted to make really noticeable the difference between the characters. My understanding of that is that Moretti is a cop used to deal with criminals day-to-day, a character who speaks a similar lingo to that of Sonny. Sheldon is a "desk" agent, the difference in his language is marked, and so it is in the style of negotiation both had. Moretti is warmer, while Sheldon is matter-of-fact, no-nonsense.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason why it threw me off is because this sentence sounds like it establishes information about the roles of Sheldon and Moretti, but comes after the idea is introduced.
question mark Suggestion: How about moving this sentence to before Lumet initially casted Charles Durning [...], mention the actors who finally portrayed them, with the end mentioning what their roles were supposed to be before Pacino interfered? I'm thinking this:

Lumet wanted to portray the difference between a police officer that works on the streets and one at a desk. Charles Durning and James Broderick were cast as Moretti and Sheldon respectively, though Lumet initially decided on Durning being the bank manager and Broderick playing Moretti until Pacino intervened.

 —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a fair assessment. The source further clarifies that Broderick was particularly cast for being a remarkable method actor. Lumet felt that he could adapt to anything, and he had no issues with shifting him from Moretti to Sheldon. It really did not occur to me how to work that into a phrase that was already a little oddly constructed.--GDuwenHoller! 19:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I did some restructuring here, but that should be fine now. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your responses. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: Thanks for you remarkable work copy-editing, you provided a real thorough analysis of the text. I hope the information I just provided is enough to clear doubt. Also looking forward to further questions.--GDuwenHoller! 20:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GDuwen: That's mostly everything. Just checking in to see if my proposed rewording is to your liking. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: The rewording is fine, I went on a little more detail above. About your remark on "copyright 1.4" regarding the phrase "To avoid it, he focused on portraying emotional performances by the actors throughout the film." I can only suggest "intense performances"?--GDuwenHoller! 19:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GDuwen: I've gone ahead with the rewording. In regards to emotional performances, I'd be able to make a more informed decision with the source's exact wording, as quoting might be a possibility. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GDuwen: Well, I think that's everything from my end. Anything else you want to cover before I consider the request complete? As an unrelated suggestion, have you considered using the {{quote box}} template for the quote boxes? It uses a more neutral colour and the parameters require less HTML fiddling. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: Well, Lumet called the performances "emotional", but I guess we can let the reviewer decide on those things. I can also call them "intense", but it really doesn't worry me that much. Anyway, I want to thank you again for your work, and I feel this article has been improved a heck of a lot!--GDuwenHoller! 19:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: or has been improven?? you're the copy-editor!--GDuwenHoller! 19:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GDuwen: Haha, definitely "improved". I'll leave that conversation for you and the reviewer as to what the performances will be called. Good luck with the review! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further editing

[edit]

@Twofingered Typist: Hello there! I noticed you've been doing some further copy-editing. I've nominated the article. Is it still officially "in use" by the Guild or closed? Thanks for your contributions by the way.--GDuwenHoller! 22:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dog Day Afternoon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 19:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 19:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the review, and for your usual careful work reviewing citations. I'll go marking your requests as done, or providing further commentary as we go through the process.--GDuwenHoller! 21:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]
 Done
  • Move Thomas Moore to after P. F. Kluge with {{Based on|"The Boys in the Bank"|P. F. Kluge and Thomas Moore}} since they both wrote the article.
 Done
  • Also, is his name Thomas Moore or Thomas Mooreen (as seen in #Pre-production)?
 Fixed
  • The poster usually serves as a source for the infobox, but Victor J. Kemper isn't mentioned so he needs a reference.
Kemper is mentioned a couple of times throughout the article: in the Production, Reception and Legacy sections. The story by Kluge and Moore is not mentioned in the poster either, but we have the mentions along the article.--GDuwenHoller! 20:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Running time needs a reference.
 Done
  • It has already been established that the film was American so US$ isn't needed in the infobox.
 Fixed
  • "US$3.5[1] to US$3.8 million[2]" → "$3.5–$3.8 million[1][2]"
 Fixed
  • "US$50 million[3] to US$56 million[2]" → "$50–56 million[3][2]"
 Fixed
  • So is "US$" going to be changed to just "$"?

Lead

[edit]
  • Remove the comma after "directed by Sidney Lumet".
 Done
  • Remove the comma after "written by Frank Pierson".
 Done
  • "Upon release" → "Upon theatrical release"
 Done
  • Remove the comma after "Golden Globe awards".
 Done
  • "seven [[Golden Globe Award|Golden Globe]] awards" → "seven [[Golden Globe Awards]]"
 Done

Plot and cast

[edit]
  • Both these sections look good.

Background

[edit]

The robbery

[edit]
  • Link John Wojtowicz and Salvatore Naturile (in case a reader skips through to #Background and needs the links).
 Done
 Done
  • "The requested" → "They requested"
 Fixed
  • "They requested" → "They also requested"
 Done
  • "After fourteen hours" → "After more than fourteen hours" or "After fifteen hours"
Let's leave it at "After more than fourteen hours", all the sources I find really contradict themselves.--GDuwenHoller! 20:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source is needed for the quote after "Aurichio recalled Eden told him".
I repeated the existing one, it's on the same page.--GDuwenHoller! 20:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-production

[edit]
  • In the reference right after "their captors", the word "Boys" should be capitalized.
 Fixed
  • The reference after "Serpico at the box office" needs a reference.
 Done
  • "Serpico at the box office" → "Serpico (1973) at the box office" or "Serpico at the box office in 1973"
I like Serpico (1973).--GDuwenHoller! 21:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yea I mistook it with this one that is some kind of amalgam of two news pieces by different news wires the New Jersey Home News edited together. The examiner ran the piece of Newsday.  Fixed--GDuwenHoller! 21:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a rule on Wiki that says that every quote needs a reference right after the quotation marks so I would just cite the same source again after each "end-quote".
I don't see anything wrong with the citation being at the end of the phrase. I could only find on Wikipedia:Quotations that citations have to be provided. Do you have any other link of the MoS? In my estimation, if the quote can be found on the cited website/newspaper/book, it should be enough.--GDuwenHoller! 21:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found the rule at WP:UNSOURCED and WP:MINREF, which say to "attribute all quotations".
Let's better be on the safe side of the rule. I'll just go ahead and repeat the inline citation for each quote. I may be the type of reader that finds them bothersome and prefers it at the end of the phrase, but we can cover all bases.--GDuwenHoller! 19:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change all quotation uses of "..." to "[...]", in this section and in #Production.
About that use, it is not clear to me which one is right. Two members of the GOCE worked on the article before I nominated it, and they changed the former [...]. I suppose they know something I don't.--GDuwenHoller! 21:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]
  • "bridges, beaches and neighborhoods" → "bridges, beaches, and neighborhoods"
  • Remove the comma after "own clothes".
  • "hotel those" → "hotel for those"
  • "To amplify the effect in film" → "To amplify the effect in the film"
  • Remove the comma after "lasted longer".
  • Remove the comma after "centered on Pacino".
All  Fixed----GDuwenHoller! 20:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release and reception

[edit]
All  Fixed----GDuwenHoller! 20:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits

[edit]
  • "her depiction on the film" → "her depiction in the film"
  • "coauthor" → "a coauthor"
  • "Wojtowicz filled" → "Wojtowicz filed"
All  Fixed----GDuwenHoller! 20:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]
  • "Vietnam war" → "Vietnam War"
  • "Watergate scandal" → "the Watergate scandal"
  • "two disc" → "two-disc"
  • "tribute for Pierson's" → "tribute to Pierson's"
I made a slight modification to the phrase.--GDuwenHoller! 20:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All  Fixed----GDuwenHoller! 20:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • Remove the colon after including.
 Fixed

Accolades

[edit]
  • The nominee for the British Academy Film Award for Best Film should be for the film, not the director.
 Fixed
  • What makes the Online Film & Television Association notable for the list (it doesn't look official)?
Not sure what to make out of that award. I see it listed throughout Wikipedia (most of List of awards and nominations received by xx). I think though, it may be relevant enough. It appears in news pieces written the last few years, and a quick Google search reveals around 45,000 pages mentioning it.--GDuwenHoller! 21:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominee for the British Academy Film Award for Best Direction should be for the director, not the film.
 Fixed on the table too.--GDuwenHoller! 21:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • Link all websites.
  • Link all authors (such as Arthur Bell).
  • Archive all archivable sources.
I linked as many of the publishers and authors as possible. About archiving the URLs, I took care of that last week manually on the internet archive.--GDuwenHoller! 19:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a reference with a typo ("Los Ageles Times"), so I would change it.
 Fixed----GDuwenHoller! 21:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • Remove the links to AllMovie, Box Office Mojo, and Rotten Tomatoes per WP:ELRC.
 Fixed----GDuwenHoller! 21:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Al Pacino and Penelope Allen in Dog Day Afternoon
Al Pacino and Penelope Allen in Dog Day Afternoon

Improved to Good Article status by GDuwen (talk). Self-nominated at 22:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Everything looks good here. Krakkos (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the use of pronouns regarding the character "Leon", and the real person

[edit]

I recently did a major expansion on this article. My intention is to have a detailed entry (on what I personally consider) a wonderful film that featured: the great acting of Al Pacino, John Cazale, and the rest of the cast. And of course, Sidney Lumet's direction.

That being said, I've noticed there were a number of recent edits regarding the pronouns used for the character "Leon". Now, Frank Pierson, the writer of the script made clear that he was writing a fiction story based on the Life magazine article. The writer was unhappy with the studio's decision to publicize the film as a "true story", and he went as far as to declare that he would take his case to the Writers Guild of America.

Now, here we want to make a distinction between Elizabeth Eden, the actual person, and "Leon", a fictional character. The sections dealing with the actual person refer merely to the subject as Eden, without making any use of pronouns. I did that intentionally, since I am aware of the current discussion surrounding the use of pronouns. The use of any of the two would cause the people who do not agree to change them, and then that others revert its use because they don't agree either. As a side note, I did clarify that Eden's former name was Ernie Aron in the body of the article because of the use of the name in the newspaper articles written at the time of the robbery.1, 2

Talking about the character "Leon", the screenplay refers to the subject as "him" (eg. "The crowd yelling in increasing waves of SOUND; Moretti and cops pick up Leon and rush him toward the barbershop"), and so do the characters in the movie. Doing otherwise makes the changes to the plot confusing. Meanwhile, I don't see an use of describing the character as Elizabeth Eden, since Eden was a real person, and not a fictional character. Plus, the on-screen text did not make any mention to Leon now being named Elizabeth (I corrected that part on the plot). The screenplay suggested that Leon "is now a woman named Lana", but the final on-screen text said "Leon Shermer is now a woman living in New York City".

On the featurette Dog Day Afternoon': The Story, as well as on the Los Angeles Times piece linked above, Pierson clarifies that the story of film is centered in the constant failure of the main character to deliver his promises. The film is not focused on Leon's surgery, nor around Sonny being bisexual. As the director mentions it on the featurette, as well as other interviews, Sonny's relation to Leon is just presented matter-of-fact: the guy robbing the bank happens to be bisexual. It is the story of a poorly planned robbery, a neurotic bank robber, and the people caught in between (inside and outside of the bank).

For the time being, the article is being protected with "pending changes", but I don't see this situation with the constant reverting of edits changing any time in the future. In my estimation, it should be kept that way so that any discussion takes place here on the talk page, instead of having this constant edit wars that threaten the article's stability.--GDuwenHoller! 21:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

[edit]

The article has been protected not long ago to avoid the constant change of the pronouns on the plot section that refer to the character "Leon". I started a subsection on this talk page to have an open discussion about it, but still edits are being made without any commentary. Thus, I resort to Wikipedia:Requests for comment to have a discussion with other fellow users to reach the needed consensus. Some sort of notice can be added within the editing screen with the result to grant this article the stability that it deserves.--GDuwenHoller! 13:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was brought here by a bot request, so I have no existing knowledge of this. Is this RFC basically just asking "refer to Leon as he/him or she/her in the plot summary?" And your feeling is it should be he/him because that's what it says in the screenplay? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's just me but I do not think this is a proper RfC. What exactly do you want contributors to do here? Shouldn't you have posed a clear question? -18:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish:Well, I posted a detailed description just above the request. I've been having some edits going back and forth with this whole issue with the pronouns.
I wanted to have the opinion of some other users to see how they feel about keeping the current use, and obviously if they do not agree, to have an open discussion as to why we should change them. I voiced my opinion above as to why I consider the current use acceptable. Hence, the request for comment.
I may add that after some further thought, I started to consider that it would somehow be better to rephrase the sentence to avoid using any pronoun altogether (as I did with the section of the article that discusses the real person, Elizabeth Eden). But, I'm not to sure how to change the only sentence that refers to the character with a male pronoun in a way that makes sense.
My particular interest in this subject is avoiding people who don't agree with each other to constantly revert the editions of the others. And that is why I need some help.--GDuwenHoller! 19:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC is generally to answer a specific question stated neutrally at the top of the RFC, rather than an actual "request for a bunch of people to comment on something in general." In general, however, I think that pronoun use has changed since the movie was written and at the time it was standard to call someone without surgery by their assigned sex. At this point things have changed. I would say there is no reason not to use she/her pronouns for a character who identifies as a woman and simply cannot afford surgery. I just made a quick edit which removes most of the pronoun use and solves some ambiguity from using "he" in a sentence with two people being referred to with that pronoun. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish:Well, I misunderstood the concept of request for comments then. I still don't understand the use of "they", since you are talking about just one person. If said person is referred to as "he"/"him" by the other characters, and the script directions also have Leon presented as such, I see how that would confuse the readers. It may have been written in the 1970s, but it is still the original material source, and therefore reliable.
I would rephrase it to plainly refer to the character as "Leon" without using any further pronouns (not "he", not "she" nor "they"). There's enough people in disagreement on both sides with the whole pronoun topic to not expect that it gets constantly reverted. By not using any pronouns at all, we don't have this issue and we stick to the original script.--GDuwenHoller! 17:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On an update, I just modified the phrase in an attempt to avoid the use of any pronoun. I think that is the best way to go without any further editing.--GDuwenHoller! 18:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

possible use of incorrect words?

[edit]

the "caravan" to the airport? think you mean 'convoy'. 209.171.85.191 (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

names

[edit]

when reporting monies paid, at least twice, Angie W, the wife, is called Carmen - who is one of her daughters. confusing. 209.171.85.191 (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angie is the name of the character while Carmen Wojtowicz was the name of the real person (see Cast section).--GDuwenHoller! 18:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wedding footage

[edit]

I believe the quote from Lumet(?) re wedding footage comes up before any mention of the wedding scene included in the screenplay. 209.171.85.191 (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see the formatting comes out that way on the mobile version. On the web browser version it's seen to the right next to the paragraph that mentions the wedding.--GDuwenHoller! 18:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dog_Day_Afternoon&oldid=1206997614"