Talk:A Few Good Men (play)

message: I've changed what was Jessop to Jessup, since that is the name used in Amazon, Barnes and Noble and on the NY Times movie review. Also, Google search results:
* Jessup - 8,240 
* Jessop - 803 
* Jessep - 799 
It seems even IMDB has it wrong . That's one reason why Reuters has specifically NOT approved Wikipedia or IMDB to be citable sources. Fuzheado | Talk 22:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jess[eou]p?

message: Someone recently added a "Progression" section were he/she claims this is an anti-American/anti-military movie, something which is a) unclear (and false in my opinion) and b) unsupported original research, something frowned upon by Wikipedia's rules. I'm eliminating this section and reverting to the previous version. This is what gets eliminated:
:Progression.
:This movie seems to be a progression of anti-military movies generated by Hollywood (like From Here to Eternity). It seems the insipiration for the battle between lawyers on behalf of junior officers vs. senior officers or commanders was the depiction in the movie The Caine Mutiny. In the Caine Mutiny the initial drafts were anti-Navy written by a writer with Communist sympathies in the beginning of the cold war. Towards the conclusion of the movie the lawyer who convicts the General chances upon a group of celebrating and mutinous sailors who are then informed that they have done a disservice to their country by pressing charges against their Captain. Apparently a Few Good Men was written as a rebuttal to make amends for that last shred of vaguely pro military view.
201.235.51.167 01:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsupported Assertion: anti-American movie?

message: There was a line in the article that read, "... his history of quickly settling cases, which would remove the cloud of suspicion that could bring the Marine Corps embarrassment". This detail wasn't 100% accurate, probably closer to 90%. I added/changed the line to "... his history of quickly settling cases by plea bargains, which would have prevented the case from ever going to trial, bringing the Marine Corps embarrassment". Quickly settling cases implies still having gone to trial, i added the lines "by plea bargains" and "prevented the case from ever going to trial" to emphasize the facts that A, Kaffee reguarly settles cases by plea bargains to avoid trials, and B, explicitly show that keeping the case out of trial was exactly what was desired because it involves investigations and questionings. I just felt this was a bit more accurate.Watemon 10:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Change

message: Just finished editing to replace the severely muddied and Orwellian definition of "code-red" with something more brief, appropriate, and factual. Any objections, please post them here. --68.100.2.20 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Replaced definition of "code-red"

message: Where was this movie filmed?  I can't place the city... Annapolis?
Functionform 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where was this movie filmed

message: I'm pretty certain that I heard Jessup say to the judge in the movie "Colonel, what's going on?" after the court members are cleared from the courtroom, not just "What's going on?". Is that accurate? If it is, it'd be notable in that it's the only time when Jessup looks like he has no idea, and no control, over what's happening. Ironic given Downey's on-the-stand confusion when questioned by Ross. Wl219 21:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "You can't handle the truth" denouement

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright.  If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally.  Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: YouTube links

message: The term "Code Red" may be fictional, but the practice of using physical means to correct the actions/attitude of a fellow soldier is still in use.  In the Army we called it a "Blanket party"- when the individual in question is in his bunk, a group of guys will rush in and throw a blanket over him. Two to four guys will hold the blanket tight, effectively pinning the "Correctee" down, while others will pummel him with pillowcases full of soap (or other objects) or simply beat him with their fists.  Head and face shots are avoided, and the correctee usually just gets a few bruises.  This is a barbaric and (obviously) illegal practice, but I have seen it straighten out a couple of soldiers in Basic Training who were not team players.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.166.78.66 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 November 2006
:Wow, that's a scene straight out of Full Metal Jacket. Head and face shots are avoided? What about shots to the genitals? Also, do women in the service get the same barbaric treatment? If so, what about shots to the boobs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenFehling (talk • contribs) 01:42, 24 May 2007
::Talk pages aren't really the place to bring up issues of discussion.  BUT.... Blanket Party is apparently now an article (haven't checked it.)  Blanket parties are real and do occur (at least, when I went through Army Basic in 1986.  It's a tradition that is strictly forbidden by TRADOC (again, a couple of decades ago,) but nevertheless occurs and is persistent in Initial Training.  As such, there are no "rules" per se, but again tradition holds that you don't render someone unfit for duty, nor cause bruises, etc. that would be visible when wearing uniform, nor cause permanent injury.  You just pummel them so that they know they're fucking up not just themselves, but the unit.  I can't speak to women recruits. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Blanket Party"- another term for Code Red

message: There is a line in the trivia section that seems to be missing a word or have accidentally replaced a word such that it doesn't make any sense. "The play was sent being performed on stage and being sent to producers as a sample of Aaron Sorkin's writing ability. It was never intended to be used as screenplay material." In particular, the first "sent" makes the sentence very confusing. Could someone else take a look at this?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.163.47 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 November 2006
Is the trivia section necessary for this article? Having viewed it briefly I can think some of these points could be included in the article. For discussion..... Lukeyboyuk (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: In the article, it says that the "Code Red" is not real and that it was created for the movie. However, in a documentary included on the DVD version of the film, Aaron Sorkin says that it is a real term. The page on the various "Code Reds" states that the term is a slang term for roughing up an uncooperative soldier. I'm not sure which is right-the documentary and the "Code Red" page, or the article on the film. Anyone know for sure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CJS102793 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the text has been cleared up somewhat.  In the film, one of the witnesses states that it is a term used only at Gitmo.  It wouldn't surprise me that Blanket Parties have different terms at different bases, though.  So the complex answer in the article right now is probably correct -- the term itself may have been invented for the movie for a very real act...  Or it could be that somewhere, someplace, Code Red was a real term.  Maybe citing the commentary would solve the problem? 98.215.48.213 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Code Red

message: I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but this article, near the top, states the character of Lt. Caffey is based on "the exploits of" Don Macari, while farther down it states the character is based on David Inglesias, now famous as one of the eight U.S. attorneys dismissed by the Bush Administration. Is there a conflict of facts here, or is the Caffey character constructed from bits of both men? Of the two statements, I tend to believe the character is based on Inglesias, since this has been reported widely on the web. But that is not conclusive proof.
Gladmax 14:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On which real person is Caffey based?

message: is far too long, and would profit from hitting the high points and cutting the play-by-play. I have done a little basic copy-editing, but see this as requiring more time than I am willing to spend. JNW 20:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the 2300-word summary from an older revision of the article .  At 800 words, this isn't as short as it could be, but I think it's more readable and it's more in keeping with Wikipedia's style. --Tony Sidaway 06:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot description

message: The statement, "Marines do not salute whilst indoors, unless under arms (ie, carrying a weapon and wearing cover)." was labeled with a Fact tag.  I removed it, because this is something elementary that every soldier in the United States knows.  I'm sure that a citation could easily be found for it, but IMVHO it doesn't need to be because it's a case of drive-by tagging. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed fact tag

message: The film and the play should have their own separate articles. They are different enough to justifiy seperating them. 61.72.47.41 (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur--Levineps (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Seperation

message: Is it normal, in the USN JAG, for the lead counsel (LTJG Kaffee) to be out-ranked by his junior counsel (LCDR Galloway). Is this an error of the writer or is it explained somewhere? Avalon (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranks

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on A Few Good Men (play). 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/20081219224734/http://www.ibdb.com:80/awardproduction.asp?id=4255 to http://www.ibdb.com/awardproduction.asp?id=4255
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A Few Good Men (play). 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/20101105223350/http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/may/10/fired-us-attorney-david-iglesias-embraces-media-hi/ to http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/may/10/fired-us-attorney-david-iglesias-embraces-media-hi/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Currently the name "Jessep" occurs seven times in this article and "Jessup" 14 times.
* Should just one spelling be used?
* If so, which one?
The article A Few Good Men (film) uses only "Jessup". Michael Hardy (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jessup versus Jessep