Talk:Lunch atop a Skyscraper

Can someone please add this parody

The Simpsons parodied Lunch atop a Skyscraper with one of the couch gags in this episode. http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/The_Dad_Who_Knew_Too_Little http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_couch_gags

Title

Note that the correct title of this article should be "Lunch atop a Skyscraper" and not "Lunchtime Atop a Skyscraper". Perhaps someone with sufficient privileges can move it? --84.151.227.46 19:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems odd to say that the one is the correct title and the other isn't. Rather, one has more normal orthography than the other. Anyway, I'll make the change. -- Hoary 10:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have bought a large Posterprint about 12 years ago and it has its title printed in the left bottom corner. It is "Lunchtime Atop a Skyscraper". [kddh]

btw.: If we knew who owns the rights today, we may ask him wether he allows wikipedia to place a image here. [kddh] ....posted at 12:47, 29 December 2006 by 62.104.87.176

I don't think it's significant that one publisher cares to capitalize this preposition. As for reproduction rights, it's not a matter of asking for permission to place an image on WP; instead, it's one of asking for a small version of the image to be copylefted, or more precisely released with the GFDL. -- Hoary 13:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note, the Bettmann Archive lists the name of the photo as "New York Construction Workers Lunching on a Crossbeam" (yes, of course, they also did not know who acknowledge Ebbetts as the photographer until 2003). I think we should be free to use the grammatically correct capitalization. TheMindsEye 16:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, The New York Times is selling prints under the title "Construction Workers Lunching on a Crossbeam, 1932".[1] Ebbets was uncredited until 2003, so there is no official title of his choosing. The fact that "Lunchtime Atop a Skyscraper" appears on a dorm room poster does not, to me, seem determinative.

From what is recorded of the (simultaneous) construction of the Empire State Building, these guys would have a safety net a few yards beneath them, which the cameraman has cropped. I don't know if Ebbets ever admitted it (according to his daughter, he had a "sense of humor and adventure"), but to my eye this is clearly a staged photo. No doubt the workers were real, and their high-wire nonchalance came with the territory. But they were recruited into posing and sitting in a row with their various props, and turning the sky 800 feet above New York into an image of (precarious) domesticity. That's the gimmick here. Sandover 14:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's undoubtedly posed, though there is some dispute regarding the safety net (if there was one, it doesn't seem to me to diminish the effect). But what I'm most interested in from others is the background on the photo. Who were these 11 men? How did Ebbetts come to conceive the shot? Backstory, please, I can not find any elsewhere.Mrbrianlk 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Who were these men? My sister and I think the 3rd from the left was our Grandfather, Bernhard Lawrence. His physical looks (short stubby legs) and dress make him a match. He made his living in NYC working buildings and bridges so it fits. We would like to know the names of all in the picture.

The man on the right is the grandfather of a good friend of mine (Irish Catholic from Brooklyn, Mr. Flynn), he is missing a finger on his left hand. Apparently some of the men were Native American (so said my friend's father and another friend of mine mentioned this as well). However I have heard the photo of the men was actually superimposed over a shot with more altitude (the son of the man on the right said it would make no sense to eat lunch that high up), giving the impression that they are very high up. I actually came to wikipedia to see if that was true. Now I'm not sure. Anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.229.151.216 (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't know for a fact about superimposition, but I will say that both this image and the Men Sleeping on a Girder image have a very obvious haloing effect around the men, which leads me to believe this image was created with printing trickery. I've always loved the image, but I never noticed it until today. Kerαunoςcopia 08:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Noabaak (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if the photographer staged the photo or not. When you frame it, you ARE controlling the scene as well and that kind of argument has been a dead issue for several years. But my questions is After 70 years, how come this photograph still copyrighted though many had been sold by Times, etc? Anybody?

13 years later, I moved it back to 'Atop', as that is was most of the WP:RS report. Example: [2], [3], etc. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Who are they?

We too are very interested in knowing some of the names of the men in the picture Lunch On A Skyscraper. Interestingly, we recognize the third man from the left as possibly a blood relative of Harry W. Schwalm. Every detail of this man could pass for Harry's twin. Is there any source identifying these men?PopNOma (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Ricky Schwalm

Some names are mentioned in discussion on [4], but I am not sure, if it can be trusted.--Petr Dlouhý (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a pub in Laytown, Ireland named "Gilnas" that has the photos and the names of all the men on it . most are native Irish, It is several years ago I saw it. They should still have it over the fireplace in the main bar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.145.132 (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In 1986 I was in the area of Port Stewart when I came across the same photo, with other photographs of the now older men, pointing to who they were in the photograph. Some had been taken in that pub ( I can't remember the name of the pub ), but it looked like a re-union, and would hold with the native Irish claim. It has followed me around ever since! Here it is again!! Tintin47 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There is an issue with ninth worker some time his name mentioned as Stretch Donahue but in the article it's a Peter Sausage. Here is an example http://quigleyscabinet.blogspot.com/2009/06/photography-of-lewis-hine.html --Ayvengo21 (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing information

This articles doesn't provide vital information that most readers would naturally expect for such a peculiar image:

• Are the men indeed 'hundreds of feet above the New York city streets', or what was their altitude?
  •  Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• If they were close to the ground (as can be suspected), how was the photography doctored to make them seem to be so high above street level? References to the photographic technique(s) used preferred; it seems the haze in the upper part of the photo indicates manipulation.
  • Not known. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• What were the safety regulations for these constructions at the time? Where they violated, and if so, did the publication of the photo cause a discussion on regulations?
  • It was a "publicity stunt", the publication did not cause any major discussion. Although, it is an iconic image. As for the regulations, that is not directly related with the article, and mostly no WP:RS covering the topic discuss that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• Was the photo taken seriously at the time? Or was it obvious to contemporaries that it is a montage (if in fact it is)?

The photo could be real, and the men indeed hundreds of feet above street level. However, there's probably a plank floor about six feet below them. At the bottom left, some I-beams can be seen. The photographer probably cropped the photo just where the planks going perpendicular to the beams would come into the frame. PeR (talk)

I agree with PeR, this is basic information. Orielno (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Was the photo a photomontage? The white cloud perfectly behind the workers seem to indicate that (airbrushing on the background negative), but oddly enough I have not been able to find any articles discussing this. Mirarkitty (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Missing References

Man at the right with bottle in his hand is Gusti Popovic, sawyer from Eastern Slovakia - Spiš. He sent this photo in 1932 as a postcard to his wife to Slovakia with words: "Don't worry my dear Mariska, as you see I'm always OK with my bottle. Yours Gusti." (Slovak: "Nič še ty neboj, moja milá Mariška, jak vidziš, ta ja furt s fľašečku. Tvoj Gusti.")

This section of the article should be referenced closer or removed.--Bosintang (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As of this version, it has references. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The men in the photo: Delete the whole section

This edit, in which a sourced claim (well, kind of sourced) was deleted and replaced by an unsourced claim, was merely the latest grisly development in the embarrassingly bad section purporting to identify the men in the photo.

Most of these claims are entirely unsourced. Until a recent edit of mine, the claim that The eighth man has been identified by a nephew as Francis Michael Rafferty; the ninth man is his lifelong best friend, Stretch Donahue [my emphasis] was "sourced" (note 5) to this, wherein somebody unimaginatively calling themself "Anonymous" writes in a comment appended to somebody else's blog entry: "My great Uncle is the fourth one from the right Francis Michael Rafferty, the gentleman to his right is his lifelong friend Stretch Donahue." (Incidentally, why did Wikipedia have "nephew" and not "niece"?)

With the conceivable exception of an article in an Irish newspaper (once available on the web, but seemingly no longer), even the best among the sources cited here are junk. Some person claims that this or that person is the same as his or her grandpappy, great-uncle, or whatever; and gets a journo to quote this or (the Swedish example) writes it himself. This is very, very feeble stuff.

Compare V-J Day in Times Square. I wouldn't propose that as a model for this article: its coverage of the competing claims is verbose. But at least there is citing of attempts to verify, attempts whose crappiness isn't blazingly obvious.

I therefore propose to delete this entire section. Material about identities can be reintroduced IFF the material cites at least one article that itself shows signs of critical intelligence (and therefore scepticism). -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

PS We do have a Wayback-machined copy of the Irish newspaper article; but actually it's a free newspaper, it's an unsigned article, and the credulous writer uncritically recycles what was said to him or her by "Shanaglish publican Michael Whelan", who seems to have uncritically recycled what was said to him by the son of a claimant. Meanwhile, "Shanaglish publican Michael Whelan" seems a favorite of Irish hacks looking for somebody to quote. I'm no more impressed than I was when I wrote my previous comment above. -- Hoary (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeing one's Pa atop a skyscraper seems a popular pursuit (see the comments, unblemished by any hint of real evidence). -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Interim measure

The third attempt by somebody to add an unsourced claim that her Pa was in the photo (and simultaneously to remove the [feebly] sourced claim that it was somebody else) prompted me to remove all the unsourced claims, which of course should never have been added in the first place.

The few remaining "sourced" claims are themselves highly dubious. They all depend on the say-so of some descendant, with little or no evidence of any fact-checking by the publication. If a disinterested historian investigates the matter and publishes the result somewhere credible, I'll think that this section should be based on these findings. I still think that the section as it is now should be scrapped. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I do agree; the sources are just too marginal. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's give it a week and then scrap it if by then there are neither (a) reasoned arguments here for retaining the section with assertions as dubious as those now in it, nor (b) more convincing assertions. Though I'd have no objection to an RfC, if anyone thinks this is warranted. -- Hoary (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A week has gone by with no objection, so I've deleted the section. -- Hoary (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Fourth man from the left

Fourth man from the left is said to be William O'Driscoll from Newfoundland. Added in this edit by 174.119.66.166

First, please don't insert a comment within somebody else's comment. Instead, add it below, and "sign" it by hitting the "~" key four times in a row.

Secondly, each man is said to be this or that person. The evidence adduced so far has been very feeble. If you can present published evidence for this particular claim, showing that the claim has been investigated by some disinterested person, then let's see this evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Men napping atop a skyscraper

There's a related picture Men-Asleep-on-a-Girder of some of them napping after the meal, although I'd have to imagine it was also staged to some effect. Perhaps there should be a link or some quick discussion of this picture in the article? There's a good writeup and more pictures here. Nerfer (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No more unsourced "identification", please

Read the stuff above. You'll see that purported (but worthless) identifications have been added to the article for some time.

In this edit, an IP replaces the unsourced claim that one man was "John Patrick Madden" with the unsourced claim that he was instead "Peter Rice, A Mohawk ironworker from Kahnawake Canada".

As the article says, There have been numerous claims regarding the identities of the men in the image. And none of them has any value whatever, unless reliably sourced.

I have therefore just now removed from the article:

From the left, number three is Joseph Eckner, number four is Michael Breheny, number five is Albin Svensson and number six with the cigarette is Peter Rice, A Mohawk ironworker from Kahnawake Canada.

The source that appears to be adduced for this is "Oběd na vrcholu mrakodrapu: jak to opravdu bylo". It's in Czech. I can't read Czech. I can, however, have my browser show that none of "Eckner", "Breheny", "Svensson", "Madden" or "Rice" appears in that page. So the claims for Eckner, Breheny, Svensson, Madden and Rice have not been accompanied by a source and are worthless.

No more unsourced claims of identification, please. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Some sources in Slovak language mention Gusti Popovič as Nr. 11 on the photo (the person on the right, holding bottle). According to this article (2014) published by Slovak regional newspaper Korzár, the Popovič family archives contain this image send as postcard from US to Slovakia to "Beloved Marička" (his wife Mária) by Gusti. Popovič later returned to Slovakia and was killed by hand grenade at the end of the WWII. On the other hand, a relative speaking in a video in this article (2012) published by the tabloid Nový čas says that the postcard is apparently lost. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging User:Gbreheny (who has just made this edit):

• What does "officially" add to "The Corbis corporation is now officially returning its status to unknown"?
• What reliable evidence is there that "From the left, number three is Joseph Eckner, number four is Michael Breheny, number five is Albin Svensson and number six with the cigarette is Peter Rice, A Mohawk ironworker from Kahnawake Canada"?

-- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Facts section

Does this really need to be there? It contains only one "fact"---which is an anecdote about a British sports team irrelevant to a photo of construction of an American building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:22C0:1AA4:957C:4BD5:4CEA:B8CC (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lunch atop a Skyscraper. 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/20130102064519/http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/reaching-the-heights/ to http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/reaching-the-heights/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

some confusing data about supposed identity of one of the men

In 1932 he sent his wife Mariška a postcard with this photograph on which he wrote, "Don´t you worry, my dear Mariška, as you can see I'm still with bottle. Your Gusti."[12][13] Gustáv and Mariška's joint grave in the Vyšný Slavkov cemetery is decorated with the legendary picture.[14]

the pic of the grave by the 14th reference is confusing

http://www.slovenskezahranicie.sk/data/7508031e51f45ed9cfa4908c1ad4062f.jpg

it shows that his wife has died in 1930 so he couldn't send her a letter in 1932... 93.88.216.35 (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Confusing. Rephrased for now that the image was found on his estate, with the quote written. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Gender identity of the people in the photo

There are several mentions of these people being men, but there is no source to prove that's how they identify. We should update the language to "people" until there are sources that prove how they identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enbylicious (talk • contribs) 03:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the almost universal segregation of gender roles at the time of the photograph a female construction worker would have been so unusual that it would have commented on contemporaneously. JezGrove (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly it, though. During those times, people weren't allowed to express their true gender identity. There's no way of knowing if these people were, in fact, men. We should change the language to reflect that. Enbylicious (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop wasting people's time trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and find something better to spend your limited time on Earth doing. Sincerely, nagualdesign 20:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't always support the essay, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, but this is a very practical example of where it could be used. Regardless, there are sources which say "11 men". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

lol Fuficius Fango (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you for real? 2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:F449:BB87:DCE9:1399 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you serious or just trying to expose the absurdity of the "gender" concept? Impossible to know for sure, even if you claim the former, so a classic example of Poe's law. 2003:E4:973A:A901:F4FB:6CA8:24EE:B685 (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC) hans

Requested move 27 May 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Moved czar 04:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Lunch Atop a Skyscraper → Lunch atop a Skyscraper – Per MOS:TITLECAPS (atop being a preposition of fewer than five letters). Related, but not dispositive, is the fact that the file page on Commons uses lowercase atop. Deor (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support — Fulfills MOS:TITLECAPS ("Prepositions containing four letters or fewer"), doesn't seem to be a critical play on words (a la Star Trek Into Darkness), and consistent with other articles that have less common interior prepositions lowercased (e.g., Tornado over Kansas). "Atop" is also not part of a phrasal verb a la "Get Into" in Getting Into Knives. Reliable sources capitalizing "Atop" needn't supersede a consistent sitewide style. —⁠Collin^{t c} 22:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support — for the reasons given. "Atop" is a preposition. TypoBoy (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment — I appreciate this discussion, but I'll repeat my reasoning. I re-wrote this article and successfully nominated it for GAN. 'a' in 'atop' is in uppercase in most of the WP:RS cited. I assume it is a part of the title of the image, aside from being a preposition. See [5] and [6]. A was also capitalized when the image was first published in NY Herald-Tribune. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Different publishers have different styles with regard to four-letter prepositions in titles. Some capitalize them; some don't. Wikipedia doesn't. Deor (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per what seems to be more common in RS. Btw, commons files names should be considered meaningless to discussions like these, they don't have any consistency, and are never changed unless a file is labeled completely incorrectly. Aza24 (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the file name; I was referring to the title as it appears in the "Summary" section. Deor (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Kavyansh.Singh's explanation. I really don't believe that Wikipedia should alter the titles of published works, known under these published names, just because the publisher used a different style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have a source for an original title of this work? It appears to me to be something made up in the last 20 years or so. Or earliest source about it is from 2003, and doesn't mention any title for this "famous photograph". Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon: Well, I don't have the original source, but [7] has the title in "direct quotation" with 'A' capitalized. That being said, I have no objections if the title is again moved to status quo. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  That source says "Lunch Atop a Skyscraper" was the caption, not the title of the work. Many works use title-case caption style, with various rules for prepositions. This one has it in quotes with lowercase atop. Dicklyon (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:CT. Our Manual of Style trumps external sources. Darkday (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:TITLECAPS. This is a matter of style that varies and we have our own style. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support; there is no good reason for caps there. This should have been a technical undo of the undiscussed move of last month. If there's no obvious consensus here, it should be back to status quo ante. Dicklyon (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2022 (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.

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Lunch atop a Skyscraper - Charles Clyde Ebbets.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 20, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-09-20. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Lunch atop a Skyscraper is a black-and-white photograph taken on September 20, 1932, of eleven ironworkers sitting on a steel beam 850 feet (260 m) above the ground on the sixty-ninth floor of the RCA Building (30 Rockefeller Plaza), then nearing completion, at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan, New York City. It was arranged as a publicity stunt, part of a campaign promoting the skyscraper. The photograph was first published in October 1932, during the construction of Rockefeller Center.

Photograph credit: unknown, possibly Charles Clyde Ebbets

Recently featured:

• Women in World War II
• Trimeresurus popeiorum
• Distinctive feature

a company that provides archived images to professional photographers

In 1995, Corbis Images, a company that provides archived images to professional photographers,...

Why would professional photographers want to buy archived images? Corbis is a stock photo agency, and its customers are media (or advertising) enterprises.2A02:AA1:1001:B042:E1E7:CBEF:5B71:B04 (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Not noticed this separation of English sources and non-English before.

Why do this? Most people in the world can read more than one language.

Is there a Wikipedia policy? EDLIS Café 17:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRicardo (talk • contribs)

Hi! I am not aware of any such guideline, but these decisions are often left to editor's discretion. I had made this separation, primarily as we have large chuck of texts for translation of the non-English source material. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

To add to "Legacy" section

Information to add to the "Legacy" section of this article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/09/lunch-atop-a-skyscraper-rockefeller-center-new-york 98.123.38.211 (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)