Talk:The Godfather/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Deleted a couple hastily added sentences.

Deleted: "this is one of the most shocking scenes in the entire film.", "This scene alone makes you so angry at the Tattaliga's." ClickClickDerp 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "differences" section

Critic #1 says Movie A is "Funny". Critics #2 says Movie A is "Not funny." I write: "Critics disagree whether the film is funny or not."

This is not "original research", this is observation.

Book B says Character C has blonde hair. Movie B made from Book B depicts character C with red hair. I write "The movie differs from the book in the color of Character C's hair."

This is not "original research", this is observation.

The best source of information about a media object -- book, recording, film, whatever -- is the object itself, which can be examined by anyone to confirm what's been written about it. There is no need for another party to make observations that the editor can make directly. (Conclusions about the meaning, purpose, or reason for such differences are another matter -- as they are not direct observations.)

For these reasons I have reverted the deletion of the "differences" section. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 05:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Rocco Lampone — not a caporegime

Rocco was not a caporegime in the Corleone family. In the time frame of the movie Tessio and Clemenza were the only caporegimes. Why was this edit undone? --Kenhullett (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rocco became a de facto caporegime when Michael started to build a force of men (a "regime") seperate from Tessio and Clemenza in preparation for the move to Las Vegas and the settling of family scores. Tom Hagen complains about this to Michael in the scene where Tessio and Clemenza ask to break off from the family, and Tom Hagen is told that he is no longer consigliere. Hagen noticed the secret regime being built under Rocco, that the men are too good for their jobs and are being paid more than they're worth, and Don Corleone remarks to Michael "I told you this wouldn't escape his eye." A new regime, with Rocco as the head ("capo") makes Rocco a caporegime, although only the Don and Michael (and Hagen) know it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^(talk/cont) 09:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Whitespace

Instead of turning this into a lame edit war, maybe it's a good idea to discuss if additional whitespace after the lead is needed. I don't believe it is, but let's get some consensus on it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let's discuss it!

One of my primary concerns in editing on Wikipedia is to improve reader usability. It seems to me often the case that little thought is given to the fact that Wikipedia exists for the user and not for the editor, and therefore anything which helps to improve the readability of an article is a positive thing, as the easier it is to read, the easier it is to use. I follow this precept not only in the many copyedits that I do, attempting to make sure that the text is clear and says what it means to say (as well as saying what is accurate, of course), but also in looking at an article's layout, use of whitespace, size of images and so on. Anything that improves the flow of the article for the reader is (all other things being equal) good, and anything that detracts from that flow is bad and should be changed.

In this instance, for some reason I've never quite understood, the system automatically places the table of contents extremely close to the end of the lede, and the visual impact of that is, to the discerning eye, interruptive. The lede is exactly what it says, the beginning of the article, a nugget (although some are rather oversized nuggets!) which should be able to stand alone and tell the reader a minimally sufficient amount about the subject so that they know they've come to the right place, and can decide if they want to go on. A good lede will answer many of a reader's immediate questions about the subject, but not drown them in details.

Because it can stand alone, it should indeed visually stand very slightly apart from the body of the article, and this is hard to do when the TOC is bumping right up against it from below. It's visually disruptive and not ... well, aesthetically pleasing is really the best way to describe it. I find that a couple of blank lines at the end of the lede help to move the TOC away from the end of the section, and provide the visual balance that I think is called for.

I'm not a maniac in proselytizing this belief, I haven't (as I've seen others do with their pet issues) created a robot to wander aimlessly throughout Wikipedia inserting blank lines at the end of every lede. In fact, I don't even do it myself to the vast majority of articles I've edited. However, there are some articles that I've taken a special interest in, and have worked diligently on over the years, and for those articles, I do like to insert those extra lines and create some "breathing room" (if you will) for the lede.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. They may be daft, but they are at least (I hope!) coherent. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^(talk/cont) 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

One further thought, if I may -- to call it a "whitespace" issue is, I think, somewhat misleading. I am very aware that many articles have too much whitespace in them, mostly because of misplaced images, and whenever I come across it I take pains to fix the problem. I know that too much blank space is just as disruptive as too little, but what I'm looking for is a balance between the two. In this instance, the space I'm trying to insure between the end of the lede and the top of the TOC is really no more disruptive than the space between one section and another. In the latter case that space is automatically created by the system software, but in the former it is not, and needs to be inserted by hand. Imagine how unreadable articles would be if all those spaces were collapsed and every section began immediately after the one above! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^(talk/cont) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see also that an argument has been made that "there is no point to putting this whitespace here, if anything it looks odd to the reader who has been viewing other articles that lack this whitespace". I think I've sufficiently laid out the reasons I believe there is a "point" to the extra blank lines (which incidentally, the system compresses to about the equivalent of a line and a half of print) where I've inserted them, but the second part of the argument is also unconvincing -- that a reader, used to the visual relationship between the lede and the table of contents in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, would come across one where I've inserted extra lines, and be... what, struck by the oddity of it?! To the extent that it would inhibit their reading of the article? Or something like that.

This is just plain silly, really, because most readers will not notice it one way or the other, just as most readers do not notice effective layouts in magazines, advertisements or other media. The effect is subtle, and not one that most people will be aware of -- but that doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to readability! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^(talk/cont) 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

mirrored

i don't know how to change this but the image of the godfather is mirrored —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.31.198 (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've flipped it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Writing credit

I don't know if Robert Towne was an uncredited writer for The Godfather or not -- if he was, if would be good to have it in the article -- but since it's an unsual piece of information which has never been mentioned before, you're going to need a reference to back it up, some authoritative source to cite which says that Towne was involved. Continuing to add the information without the citation isn't going to help, because it's going to continue to be deleted without some sort of backing. Get a cite, and you're in! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a citation in a reliable source (the New York Times), so I restored the information, with the cite. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis Ford Coppola

He directed four previous features: Dementia 13, You're A Big Boy Now, Finian's Rainbow and The Rain People. Who ever keeps changing it to 8 films is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.84.218 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I pointed you to IMDB before, but you apparenly haven't been there:

• The Godfather (1972)
• ... aka Mario Puzo's The Godfather (USA: complete title)
• 1 The Rain People (1969)
• 2 Finian's Rainbow (1968)
• 3 You're a Big Boy Now (1966)
• 4 Dementia 13 (1963) (as Francis Coppola)
• ... aka The Haunted and the Hunted (UK)
• 5 The Terror (1963) (uncredited)
• ... aka Lady of the Shadows
• ... aka Roger Corman's The Terror (USA: uncensored intended title)
• ... aka Roger Corman's The Terror: Original Uncut Version (USA)
• ... aka The Castle of Terror
• ... aka The Haunting (USA: TV title)
• 6 Tonight for Sure (1962)
• ... aka Meet Me Tonight for Sure (USA: bowdlerized title)
• ... aka Tonite for Sure
• ... aka Wide Open Spaces
• 7 The Bellboy and the Playgirls (1962)
• ... aka Mit Eva fing die Sünde an (West Germany)
• ... aka The Playgirls and the Bellboy
• 8 Nebo zovyot (1960) (as Thomas Colchart) (re-edited version with new footage)
• ... aka Battle Beyond the Sun (USA)
• ... aka The Heavens Call
• ... aka The Sky Calls
• ... aka The Sky Is Calling

That's eight. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

color blue for cast

I added Julie Gregg as Sandra Corleone to the cast list, but while all cast members are in blue, mine is a sort of grey. I used all the same descriptions in the edit. What's making the blue? Jlawniczak (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing blue. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Speak Softly, Love" is the main theme?

The article names "Speak Softly Love" as the main theme, but it's noted in the CD that is considered the love theme. The actual main theme, as I know it, is "the Godfather Waltz". Why? Several reasons. "Speak Softly Love" is only played in the scenes in Sicily, and represents mostly the love between Michael and Apollonia and Sicily itself ("Sicilian Pastorale" is the first track to feature the love theme), but this isn't the main core for the movie. This not only happens in the original, but also in part III. The Waltz serves as a theme for Don Vito Corleone and as a new theme for Michael, after he's the head of the Family. So it represents the Godfather itself, that is, his power and presence. You can notice it in all of the openings for the three movies, although part II features the theme morphing into Michael's theme ("The New Godfather"). I'm no specialist in music, but I think it's wrong to consider "Speak Softly Love" as the main theme. --Surten (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Surten

Vandalism

There is some mindles vandalism in the box with the details of the film. E.g. Director: Samuel L. Jackson. 58.174.40.240 (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Length of Plot

I just have a suggestion: As a reader I would like to get an idea of the plot within a few seconds. Therefore I would recommend to include - besides the very detailed description of the plot - a short summary what's the film about. This would be a more "encyclopedic" style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.61.199.96 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Brando vs. Pacino

marlon brando before alpachino?

i just think thats micheal corlone is more of an important character than vito colerone because vito isnt even in half the movie so im changing the way the cast lists.

Brando was an established star at the time, Pacino was not. Brando had top billing, Pacino did not. Vito is "the Godfather", the titular character for most of the movie, Michael is only "the Godfather" for the last part. I've reverted your edit. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ed, it goes without saying that your revert was correct. But to whom the term "Godfather" refers is subject to some question. I mean, who is the key character of Star Wars? If you only saw the first movie (Episode IV) you would clearly believe that the movie was about Luke Skywalker. But seen en toto, the Star Wars saga is clearly the story of Anakin Skywalker. Similarly, the term "Godfather" appears to be about Vito, seeing only this movie. But taken as a single entity (Parts I, II, and III), it seems clear it is the story of Michael Corleone, methinks. None of this is relevant to the issue of the revert, however, since a) this article is about this particular part of the movie, and b) it is up to the studios, not Wikieditors, to determine billing. (who else would've given James Cagney lead billing in Ragtime?) Unschool (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis 100% - I'd say that by the end of even the first film, it's reasonable to see "The Godfather" as referring to Michael, and not Vito. But, as you say, that doesn't change the realities of billing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a crime film?

Earlier this month, I changed an edit that called The Godfather a "crime drama" in the opening sentence. I felt that his was too narrow a perspective, besides which, I thought, it made it sound like a weekly TV series on the par with Cagney & Lacey. Anyway, a well-intentioned anon has just made the wording a "crime film". I still think that this is way too limiting. The Godfather is, yes, about crime, but it is just as much about family, it is about the ethnic experience in America, etc.

I don't find the current version using "crime film" as bad as "crime drama" was, but I still don't like it. I am wondering what others think. Unschool (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I thought I'd reverted that, but you must've beaten me to it! Anyway, FWIW, I reckon it's too limiting to describe it as a "crime film" as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Crime film still appears at the start of the Godfather article. It cross references to the entry on crime film which gives the Godfather as one example of a crime film. So if crime film is removed from the Godfather, then the Godfather should also, for consistency) be removed as an example of a crime film. The Godfather is certainly a crime film using those words in their ordinary English usage, but I agree that to pigeonhole it into a genre of "crime film" is limiting. Seems like a close call to me, but I'd probably take it out, Jlawniczak (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Including a film in a genre isn't at all "pigeonholing" it or limit it. In genre studies, the Godfather is universally considered a "gangster film," which is a subgenre of the crime film. Paramount conceived of it as a Genre film. See David A. Cook's History of the American Cinema: Lost Illusions, University of California Press, 183. Giving the generic context of the film doesn't limit it; rather it gives the correct context of conventions with and against which the film works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.124.55 (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The intent of the creators is important, but not definitive. The film certainly involves the commission of crimes, but it's also a drama of the first order, which is what makes the film great. The character study of Don Corleone and Michael, how Michael changes, their relationship, etc. are the core of the film. These elements make it a "crime drama" rather than simply a "crime film". Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(out)Sorry, I wasn't getting that the objection was to of the WP articles "crime drama" and "crime film", "crime film" was the more appropriate -- I was dealing with this strictly as a question of genre definition. The problem was that "crime drama" was redirecting to "police procedural", which it shouldn't have. I've fixed that, making it redirect to "crime film". So now that both phrases end up at the same place in Wikipedia, the one which best describes this film, "crime drama", can be restored to the article with (hopefully) no objections. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 06:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Inspired By Films

Shouldn't there be a note about other films that were inspired by it, most recently the Indian Sarkar and Sarkar Raj? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.202.33 (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure -- why don't you add that to the article?

BTW, new comments should go on the bottom of the page, and you should sign your comment by using 4 tildes (~). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Godfather series article

I think that an article about The Godfather series/franchise as a whole is in order. Perhaps one in a similar vein to Terminator (franchise), Alien (franchise), or Superman (film series). I think some of the information in the article about the first film (DVD releases, sequels, etc.) would work better if moved to an article about the series. I already have a rough sketch of an article edited out and saved in my computer but didn't want to create it before consulting here. What do you think? Thief12 (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a "series" article is necessary. There are only three films, all of which are well covered in their seperate articles. There's not really a "franchise" to speak of. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There are also three related books (The Sicilian, Godfather Returns, and Godfather's Revenge) and two video games. Thief12 (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Still doesn't seem like much of a franchise. Let me be clear about my objections -- if you think a franchise article is justified, that's fine with me, just as long as no material is deleted from the current individual film and book articles. Copying stuff is fine, just don't delete it from the source article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

IMDb rating

Both The Godfather and The Godfather Part II articles have references to their ranking on the IMDb Top 250. Unfortunately, IMDb is a user-generated poll and doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:MOSFILMS#Critical_reception. User:Ed Fitzgerald argues here for the IMDb details to remain, even though we don't have any "grandfather clauses" on Wiki suggesting otherwise.

Both articles list dozens of accolades from recognized critics and professional organizations; the removal of the IMDb rating from the articles would not change their long-standing reputation, and would put the articles back in compliance with existing Wiki-MOS guidelines. --Madchester (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the films are able to demonstrate their reputations without needing to cite the user ratings from IMDb. Such ratings are not of a bona fide nature, resulting in vote stacking and demographic skew. The latter is particularly obvious with the films' ratings, not being representative of film audiences with an extremely heavy skew toward males, within that a skew itself toward a younger age range. In addition, IMDb has been rejected as a reliable source multiple times in FAC processes with film articles. We clearly have suitable reliable sources that indicate the long-term popularity of the films, so there is no pressing need to include user ratings. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be a fact, but I'd hardly call it significant; it certainly isn't something that should be in the lead of these articles. These are both highly notable films, and they don't need to reference a user rating on IMDb to underline this fact. The MOS is quite specific, so I would take them out again. As Erik says, they wouldn't get past FAC anyway, assuming the articles ever get that far. PC78 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, how do I know how long the film as been there? There isn't a date attached to it. Given that the voting is restricted to just IMDb members, and there is no way of saying whether they actually saw the film or not, it's a completely unreliable survey.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this is even a potential argument. If a website is in violation of Wiki guidelines, it should not be used. I don't believe anyone will remain stubbornly unconvinced of the film series' lasting appeal without "verification" from IMDb user-generated polling. All references to IMDb Top 250 ranking are now removed. Consider the issue settled. Somanytictoc (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your premature removal while discussion in ongoing. Your fiat doesn't settle the matter. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree that because of its dubious methodology, the IMDB rating should not receive a lot of weight in an article, and therefore should not be part of the lede; I also agree that we shouldn't use the IMDB rating to establish notability. My argument is specific to this film and a few other which have, over the course of a fairly long period of time, maintained a high rating on the list. While that doesn't in any way establish notability, these films don't need to have their notability established, they are already clearly important. In those cases (and again, my argument is specific to those few films which meet these requirements, and is not an argument for keeping IMDB ratings generally), I see nothing wrong with a mention of the IMDB rating in an "Awards and honors" section, or some other suitable place. The existence of the rating is a fact, and reporting facts is generally not a bad thing. It's the weight given to it which is important, and a passing mention seems about as much weight as that fact deserves. Ignoring it entirely seems unreasonable. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If films' long-term notoriety are already established through reliable sources, then why do we need to supplement that perspective with the opinion of a group who frequents a website? It sets an unnecessary precedent to include their user ratings -- how long should a film be in the Top 250 to warrant mention? Should we deem it a "fact" that a summer blockbuster penetrated the Top 250? I'm not seeing why IMDb needs to be explicitly discussed in the text; it's hardly a gold standard where articles like The Godfather have already met gold standards of reliable sources elsewhere. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't "establish" anything, nor do the vast majority of facts in the article, it's simply another aspect of describing the film, in terms of a website that's very well-known to most readers. It's an aspect of the film's cultural impact, and ignoring it -- at least for those few films which have been at the top of the list for long periods of time -- seems more like refusing to recognize reality than anything else. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the poll is administered in a poorly-controlled and non-statistically valid manner, it's hard to lend any credence to the results, which cannot be said to objectively establish anything factual. This would exclude it from any sort of appeal to WP:RS. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been excluded from The Dark Knight for a reason, and that is because it is unreliable enough that it should not be considered on any page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.59.144 (talk • contribs)

(out) Not to preclude further discussion, but I have removed the IMDB ratings from the ledes of this article and Part II as well. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the imdb rating should be included. After all, it is the main way of evaluating movies and is very reliable. The Godfather is rated #2 to The Dark Knight. Wallie (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by JohnnyBlue

This user is blanking the main article, keep an eye on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.196.189 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is The Godfather a Thriller?

IMDB Classifies the series as Drama / Thriller, they even removed the crime genre from it. I don't think the series has enough suspense to be considered thriller.

What do you think? Amigo Fura Olho (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, thrillers have a lot more physical action than The Godfather, which is more of a character study than a thriller. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed++ - the wiki article for Thriller (genre) says (as of 8/31/09) that a thriller is characterized by "fast pacing, frequent action, and resourceful heroes who must thwart the plans of more-powerful and better-equipped villains."

• fast pacing? the movie is 3 hours long and the plot spans a considerably long time. if anything, this makes godfather an "epic"
• frequent action? off the top of my head, the "action" segments of godfather are:
  • don vito getting shot
  • sonny getting shot
  • michael being attacked in sicily
  • the hits on the bosses of the five families

most of the other executions are not particulary "active", unless you call someone getting guerotted or capped in a car an "action sequence"

• heroes/villians? the protagonists and antagonists of godfather arguably don't fit these archetypes. while the other families can be considered to be "more powerful", it can also be argued that don vito as a figure is more powerful than the other bosses as he is able to keep the peace and all that shit. and of course the corleones displayed plenty of firepower in hitting the other bosses.

furthermore, in the thriller article, it is stated "Crime thrillers usually emphasize action over psychological aspects." this is clearly not the case with godfather. imho, regardless of what imdb or other websites use to classify genres, wikipedia is not imdb, and it's more important that genre classification is consistent with a) the wiki's own definition of the genre b) popular consensus of interested collaborators. further down in the talk page there is an even longer discussion over whether godfather is a "crime drama". i think that if we have to be such cunts about what constitutes a genre, then it's better to leave it out of that first sentence entirely. in any case, godfather is not a thriller. it has some "thrilling" elements, it has suspense, it has (a relatively modest amount of) action. personally i would describe it as an epic crime drama, and it's actually named as the "archetypal crime epic" under the Epic film article. anyway, in an ideal wikipedia i would not have to type all of this annoying (both to read and write) bullshit out and anonymous cunts would not undo edits without giving a second thought.

dixi

X \' Z Z \' (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely have to agree with the above editor, this should be in the Epic or Crime genre, not the thriller one. 71.169.185.194 (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Take a hit on Ebert

Didn't Joe Colombo sue over use of "mafia" in the film, & lose? (If he did, can you add here?) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

name of don corleone wife

In italian the name of the corleone wife is spelled as carmela with a single l and not with a double l. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.102.213 (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Promotion to B-class: References and citations (WikiProject Films classification)

I'm interested in working to bring this article from Start-class to B-class and the first thing to check is the references. I'm new, so I have no experience with checking references. I'm assuming I should check the existing references first, but how do I tell whether something needs a reference or not? Any WP literature for me to check out? Moment Deuterium (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any sources for the paragraph starting with "The shooting of Moe Green through the eye was inspired by the death of gangster Bugsy Siegel..." The paragraph should be yanked, no? Moment Deuterium (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Since rumor had it that Siegel was shot through the eye (rumor that was incorrect - see the Bugsy Siegel article - I'd say that the statement has a pretty good chance of being true, and shouldn't be yanked. At worst, it can be tagged with a fact tag to provoke someone to provide a citation. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's had a fact tag since August. What is a reasonable time to wait after a fact tag has been placed? Moment Deuterium (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say a year at minimum. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. That's quite a long time to me. Moment Deuterium (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Vanity Fair March 2009: The Godfather Wars by by Mark Seal

On the Vanity Fair March 2009 issue there is an article by Mark Seal called The Godfather Wars. It tells more or less stories that have been already reported by Harlen Lebo on his book 'The Godfather Legacy' but with some interesting photos, including Mario Puzo's letter to Marlon Brando. You can find the article on VF's web site.--85.18.81.137 (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sergio Leone

In the 'Production' section (under 'Coppola and Paramount'), it says that director Sergio Leone turned down the offer to direct The Godfather in order to work on Once Upon a Time in America. While there is a source to support this assertion, I'm puzzled: the films were shot twelve years apart. The Once Upon a Time in America article claims that production on that film took so long because the author of the novel on which the film was based refused to allow a film adaptation to be made until the late 1970s. However, there is no source, and this explanation just doesn't make much sense, at least to me. Can anyone shed some light on this? Was Leone really offered the film? And if so, could we expound a little on the reasons he turned it down? faithless (^speak) 06:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Error?

It says in the introduction that The Godfather is the second AFI top 100 films, but on looking at the list, it is actually number 3 on the list. I am not sure how to amend this though. Clare —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.5.81 (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I followed the internal and the external link and both point to a 2nd position, where did you get 3rd? --M4gnum0n (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing credits for Laub and Solomon?

Marc Laub and Murray Solomon are presently listed as editors in the infobox for this film. They were not included as editors for the formal credits for the film, and did not share its Oscar nomination. They are not generally mentioned in discussions of the film's editing; see Tony Sloman's obituary cited in the Peter Zinner article. So I'd say they should be removed from the list of editors in the infobox, which seems a poor place to inject anything controversial. We could discuss whether anyone wants to add a discussion of the tumultuous post-production of this film to the main article. Easchiff (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Allmovie

• The Godfather at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed WikiProject Crime banner

I removed the WP:CRIME banner because that project deals with true crime-related articles not crime fiction. momoricks 10:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Horse's name

I believe Jack Woltz's horse's name was Khartoum, like the capital of Sudan. Anyone object to changing it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdeco78 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening

The wedding of Connie Corleone was, just like in the novel, "on the last saturday of August". --24.132.210.122 (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Provide a source that proves it, or forget it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The source is the orginal novel itself, and I suggest you read it first before pretending you know better. --24.132.210.122 (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The current date is long-standing, so if you want to change it, you need to provide a specific source that shows that the movie, not the book, began on a specific date. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Arthurprica's recent edits

I take objection to the recent expansion of the lede by this apparently new editor. Details about the film's reception, including its place on "best films ever made" lists, belong in the reception section. Simply put, the lede is not the place for excessive detail, it is simply to provide a brief outline of the article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

List of additional scenes

I added a complete list of additional scenes from the movie which were added to the Saga, Epic & Trilogy, only to have the list deleted repeatedly by the same person citing the information as "rubbish". I believe this list is very informational as to what was cut from the original theatrical release. Does anyone think this information is relevant or important enough to keep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou72JG (talk • contribs) (12:07, 10 May 2010)

It was not "deleted repeatedly by the same person," it was removed by two different editors (one of whom was me) repeatedly, at different times, and our reasons were given in our edit summaries. You did not provide a notable source for that information. And, rather than discuss it here, you just kept readding it, with no further attempt to show the notability of the source. So, yes, you were repeatedly reverted. And rightfully so. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I added my source the second time, and you dissed it as not credible. So don't carry on like I made that information up. I guess there are just certain people on here that just think they are authorities on everything and have to get their way. Lou72JG (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

One of greatest films?

Shouldn't we add this is one of the greatest films of all time just like Citizen kane and Seven Samurai and jaws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurprica (talk • contribs) 10:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not in the lede, no. And only in the reception section if the writing is NPOV and well-sourced. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Beginnings.

I removed the following and bring it here for discussion:

The making of The Godfather had an inauspicious start. Paramount had already tried and failed to get a big success in the crime genre with its previous release The Brotherhood which was also a gangster movie performing below expectations at the box office. Hence going for another movie was looked upon as a financial risk at that time. But on the other hand Mario Puzo's novel "The Godfather" was a huge success and Paramount thought that it could build on the novel's popularity. So in 1970, Paramount announced that the movie would be made, but to be on the safe side, the budget was set low at $6 million.

But troubles were just starting to escalate at that point. News of the film enraged a powerful civil rights organization named the Italian-American Civil Rights League. It was headed by a real life mobster and crime boss Joe Colombo. The league's mission was to challenge the stereotype that all Italian-Americans were involved in organized crime. Members of the league began protesting against the making of the film on the streets. Paramount began to receive threats from the mob. Sinister phone calls were made to producer Albert Ruddy threatening his life. The head of the production Robert Evans and his wife were also threatened. Attempts to shoot the film on the streets of Little Italy were severely hindered by the mob. In one particular instance a cinemobile used by the production staff was stolen from the shooting location.

Left with no choice producer Ruddy tried to negotiate with the league. He set up a meeting with Joe Colombo at a hotel in midtown Manhattan. There he expected to meet some guys of the league and settle the differences with them. But instead he was led to a giant ballroom with about 600 members of the league waiting for him. He tried to explain to them and clarify that the movie wouldn't be a cliche that will depict all Italian Americans as gangsters. Rather they would show a balanced perspective of the crime world. This was also necessary for the film so that it would have a broad appeal to the audience like the novel on which it was based. To confirm Ruddy's claims Joe Colombo demanded a private meeting to read the script. So another meeting was held between Joe Colombo and producer Albert Ruddy in which Ruddy provided Joe to have a look at the film's script. As the script was long, so Joe Colombo didn't read all of the script. Rather he offered a deal to Ruddy that the word "mafia" shouldn't be used anywhere in the film's script and only then would the league allow the shooting of the film to go on. Ruddy agreed and the deal was struck. Originally there was just one place where the word 'mafia' was mentioned in the film's script which was later omitted as per the deal. After this, permission was given by the league and shooting of the film finally began in the premises of Little Italy and other sites in New York City.

First of all, this is not well written, written in a prose style more appropriate for an informal magazine article. Second, but more importantly, this is not adequately referenced (as I said repeatedly in edit summaries when I removed this information back in June) for the claims it makes. The more extreme the claims are, the better the sources need to be. In this case, we have an IMDB link, which is inadequate, and a link to a page with a (likely copyrighted) television film which was purportedly originally aired on the BBC. If the film exists, an attempt should be made to cite specific claims with information from the film. As it stands, this simply offers prose with no specific cites to back the claims. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Genre

Please do not edit the genre tags without discussion. I've cited allmovie as a source which I think is valid. If any questions are raised feel free to edit it here. Please note that we do not consider IMDb as a source by WP:Film standards. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thriller film? Seriously? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

For someone who considers Natalie Portman and Dakota Fanning action movie actresses, The Godfather is definitely a thriller. 201.68.205.40 (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a thriller, it is mostly a drama, but it has many suspenseful moments (like the restaurant scene, the death of Sonny and the killings of the 5 families). 201.68.196.136 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you back, Tom Lennox! You've been gone longer than I expected. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you have no proof to claim Natalie Portman, Heath Ledger and Dakota Fanning are action film actors. 201.68.205.40 (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Google Books does not really identify it as a drama film, nor does Google Scholar. Both Books and Scholar identify it as a gangster film, however. I'm editing accordingly. Erik (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's what the best sources say, then I reckon go with "gangster film". I wasn't sure, but upon reflection it seems a good fit, seemingly encompassing or at least implying most of the other "sub-genres" one could try to fit the film into. Steve ^T • C 20:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

All three articles on the film series should have the same genre, which they now do. This is not a thriller, as every discussion on this issue has concluded. Gangster film is the most appropriate genre. Furthermore, the edits of the IP range should be reverted on sight. It is clear this user's intention is disruption.

IMDB list it as crime/drama/thriller, Allmovie has the genre down just as crime, while the NYTimes classify it as Action/Adaptation/Crime, so the crime genre is the one genre they all agree on. Personally I'd say the genre is "crime drama", and "gangster film" is a sub-genre (think science fiction - time travel). This is currently under dispute so either way it's probably better if the genre is sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The only dispute comes from anon. editors bent on disruption. This is a gangster film, and calling it anything else is absurd. Crime drama is not specific enough. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Gangster film is not a genre. It is usually a sub genre of Crime. Crime Drama is pretty much the standard category for the Godfather. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, on wikipedia it looks like Mob Film is the official sub genre of crime that the godfather would belong to. I do believe we should mention both the broad genre and the sub genre (as just mentioning one could produce confusion and is poor categorization). Mob Film seems more accurate than gangster movie, as most modern fans associate "gangster" with older, pre-godfather movies. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor corrections

Could somebody who has the power to unlock this article please fix the following: Johnny Fontaine asks Don Corleone for help landing a movie role to reviltalize his *flagging* career, not his *fledgling* career. Fledgling means beginning (like a baby bird); flagging means sagging. The dialog in the scene makes it clear which is meant. Thanks, Tulliux (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. ... discospinster _talk 15:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ti ringrazio! Tulliux (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Gender Stereotyping

There is nothing wrong with including this sources opinion about the movie, but the present phrasing supports the source's conclusions: "The setting of a criminal counterculture allows for unapologetic gender stereotyping, considered an important part of the film's appeal. ("You can act like a man!", Don Vito tells a weepy Johnny Fontane.)" To say that the setting allows for stereotyping is an opinion. It should read something like "Some critics argue that the setting of a criminal counterculture allows for...". Also not every critic agrees on this point. The counter position should also be presented. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You clearly know nothing of WP's rules for presentation of sourced content. We have an opinion from a reputable source, with two citations. No other opinion or source has to be presented. If there is a reputable source, and it disagrees, we can add it, but there is no requirement that another opinion be presented. Stop removing sourced information. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You are perfectly free to perform the changes that you suggest. MarnetteD | Talk 15:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I know the rules well. You can present a person's opinion as an opinion if it is sourced. However a film critics opinion cannot be presented itself as a fact. The way this is presently phrased, it is presented as fact "The setting of a criminal counter culture allows for..." that is a factual statement. I am making the change to something more factual, and I strongly suggest editors include alternate points of view. This section is about a person's analysis of the movie. That should never be presented as a fact itself. You cannot for example, say "The subtext of Amadeus is the unspoken homosexual attraction between Mozart and Salieri, as so and so argues in...". You would have to phrase it "So and so argues that the subtext of Amadeus is...". 24.61.171.248 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked the book (on Google books) and I can't see the text referred to as being on page 119 - maybe I missed something, but regardless of whether it's opinion or not, if it's not referenced, it shouldn't be there anyway. Apau98 (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If the quotation is not in the book, it should be stricken. But, can someone check the actual book, rather than Google books? I am not distrusting your examination, Apau98, but I know that Google books is incomplete. It could be that this entire matter is moot, if, in fact, the quotation is not in the book. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the book a bit, and some of what is referenced appears to be in there, while other parts are vaguely supported. The book definitely says some feel the movie excuses sexism. Not sure if it makes the direct connection between the criminal setting and gender stereotypes, but that really isn't much of a stretch from what the book says. I think this can basically be included, with some minor tweaking to reflect 100% what the book itself says. However that is just on a quick examination on my part. I could have missed some minor detail in the book. I would also like, however to see some counter examples and some discussion on positive critical analysis of the movie. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The page referenced was inappropriate, so I have fixed it. The book has a entire chapter on this subject: "Act Like a Man: Sex and Gender in Mafia Myth". To add "Some critics" is just putting in WP:WEASEL words. The phrase doesn't tell the reader anything unless your inviting a contrast with other critics, which in this case is just a hypothetical group. Kauffner (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I Don't see how adding "some critics" makes it more problematic. Before the way it was written, it presented the viewpoint expressed in the source as a fact, rather than an opinion. If you want to limit it to the critic in the book, instead of saying "some critics", that is fine (though I have certainly heard this criticism from more than one critic before). Again, my issue here is that other view points aren't expressed. An Offer We Can't Refuse is an extraordinarily opinionated book,and one many, many people take exception to (particularly many Italian Americans). 24.61.171.248 (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the sentence should be part of an "Analysis" section. I do not think that the sentence is presented as fact, but it could be placed in an area that makes it clear that it is analysis of the film. For example, see American Beauty (film)#Themes and analysis, which uses occasional attribution. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Erik's suggestion. I also reiterate that the sentence is clearly expressing an opinion, not a fact, and that we do need to add "weasel words" in order to fix it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, the problem is even in analysis section, if you state something as a fact, its a problem. The original phrasing made it sound like the analysis was a fact, not an opinion. I changed it, adding what you call "weasel words" to make it clear the point of view being expressed was an academic's opinion, not the only possible analysis of the movie. Perhaps the words I selected could be changed to more specifically refer to An Offer We Can't Refuse. But just starting out with "The criminal setting allows for gender stereotyping..." is a violation of NPOV. It presents one analysis as fact, and as the one true analysis. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also just add, the original sentence was not clearly expressing an opinion. It seemed to be offering up some kind of objective consensus view among historians or critical studies departments. And if the same POV issue appears in other articles, that doesn't mean those should be held up as examples of why its okay. Those too, should be changed. Presenting analysis of a film is fine, but you have to attribute it to the proper person and phrase it so it is clear it is one person's analysis. It can be phrased "In x's opinion, Y is the case" or "X argues Y" but it cannot be phrased "Y is the case", which is exactly how it was originally phrased. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the American Beauty section on analysis, I would say that is also very problematic. The opening section on multiple points of view is fine, but the individual sections read like papers by film students or essays by film critics, rather than an overview of one or two peoples' interpretation. The problem is once again the phrasing. It says things like "The movie is about X" rather than "So and so, argues the movie is about X". You may not think this is an issue, but it is potentially confusing to people who will not understand that it is just presenting one person's opinion. Just because this was done wrong in American Beauty, doesn't mean we should do it wrong in the Godfather. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes it to:George De Stefano argues that the setting of a criminal counterculture allows for unapologetic gender stereotyping, and is an important part of the film's appeal.[29] ("You can act like a man!", Don Vito tells a weepy Johnny Fontane.)[29]

I believe this is the most accurate way to phrase it. However I do think counter points of analysis are needed. This film is hotly debated. It takes on biblical themes, themes of Italian Identity, Themes of Masculine Identity, themes of class struggle and empowerment, etc. Lots of people have offered different arguments on the merits (and lack thereof) of each. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No one agrees with your reading of the section, so please stop changing it. Discussion should proceed and the section should only be changed when and if consensus is reached. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is writing 101. The phrasing is expressed as an opinion and doesn't properly tie it to Stephano. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite: COnsensus is important, but not the only criteria for removing stuff. Something that presents opinion as fact (ie. "The godfather is about X" rather than "George Stephano argues the Godfather is about X"), violates NPOV and should be changed to conform with that guideline. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate: no one agrees with your reading of that statement. So, once again, no consensus for the changes you are seeking. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I believe one person did agree, and consensus isn't an excuse for not following the guidelines. That is the only correct reading of the statement. I am an English teacher, I think I know what the sentence means. It was originally phrased as a fact, not as someone's opinion, and many other parts of the paragraph are similarly phrased. This is a clear violation of NPOV. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the consensus guidelines are clear about this. You can't use consensus to break other guidelines. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is merely your opinion that a guideline has been broken. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

By any objective reading of the text, it has. Again, something is being stated about the movie as a fact, though it is just a critic's opinion. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If anybody here is curious to know. 24.61.171.248 is user BlennGeck; I don't know why he is editing here under an IP.AerobicFox (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

About Synopsis

This suffers from the common Wiki Synopsis flaws. It is written like a poor book report. A synopsis has a purpose and it is not the place for details that do not contribute to the motivation of the storyline. In this case, I had to laugh that someone wrote that Luca Brazi is "stabbed in the hand" and garroted. One could argue that being stabbed in the hand had a symbolic meaning to the story, but I suspect this is not being asserted; even if it were, it would not be part of synopsis but an analysis of symbolism. Things like this smack of elementary school writing and thought. Whether he was stabbed in the hand before being killed, drinking a vodka tonic, whether Sonny made a goofy face before being shot, whether Don Corleone got shot buying apples or oranges detracts from synopsis and it should be rewritten with this in mind. ( See the Youtube video "Star Wars according to a 3 year old." for how not to write a synopsis.) --APDEF (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I Agree, the plot bloat in this PS is out of control and should be fixed. Also, why are there refs in the first sentence about when the wedding takes place? Per WP:FILMPLOT, "simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article". There is nothing in the film that says when the wedding occurs. Secondary sources commenting on this is irrelevant to the plot summary, and should appear elsewhere in the article. Shirtwaist ☎ 03:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the reference in the first sentence: this was placed by an editor sometime back to prove that the wedding takes place in July. The fact is, the month the wedding takes place is irrelevant, and, as far as I am aware, the month is never stated in the film, nor is there any significance to it. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 20:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I'll fix that, and try to streamline the rest of the Plot Summary. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

chronological video

i have here a video set for the 1901-1980 trilogy. it's copyrighted 1997, spans only 4 cassettes in total and has a run time of over 10 hours. could this be the legendary full chronological movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.10.217 (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Candidate for anniversary collaboration

Hello, the film The Godfather/Archive 2 is one of the candidates for WikiProject Film's anniversary collaboration. Please see the discussion about the collaboration here. Feel free to support this candidate, the other candidates, or even nominate other films as candidates for the anniversary collaboration. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Differences from the novel"

Re recent reverts of this section, I must point out this guideline from WP:MOSFILM: "Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged". Unless real-world context from secondary sources can be found that talk about differences between a film and its source material, the section as it is should be removed. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I removed it earlier. I will not delete it again, but it is clearly original research, with one, sub-par, reference. It should go. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree. The book's plot is sourced by the book, the film's plot is sourced by the film -- this is the reason we have (apparently unsourced) plot sections in our articles. To describe what is in one and not in the other is no different than saying "Mr. A says X" (sourced by P) "but Mr B says Y" (sourced by Q). This is not original research, any more than adding two numbers together is, it's simple observation. As long as the "differences" section does not stray into saying why the changes were made, without sourcing the analysis -- which would be OR -- there's no problem. As with popcult entries, straightforward description sourced by the media item itself (book, film, TV show, CD, whatever) are valid and acceptable. MOSFILM needs to be brought up to speed with reality, sections such as this are a service to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

BMK - I have to disagree on two points. First, plot summaries are a special case in WP as plots are primary sources used to make the summary only. But there is no such allowance for any other sections, including "Differences from...", so when you start comparing two different plots, you are entering into OR by making yourself the "secondary source" that is doing the comparing, even if you limit yourself to bare descriptions. Your analogy "Mr. A says X" (sourced by P) "but Mr B says Y" (sourced by Q)" doesn't work because in this instance, an editor, not a RS, is taking the two primary sources and synthesizing the comparison. This would be just as improper as comparing the plots of two completely different films without using a RS to verify what you're telling the reader. Second, "In popular culture" sections should, imo, only include popcult references pointed out by reliable sources that cover those subjects, as is recommended in this essay. Otherwise, there would be nothing to stop the buildup of cruft in a good article. I'd also point out that I've never seen an unsourced "Differences from the (X)" section in any G or FA article. Any such section left in this one would surely be removed in the GAN and FAC process anyway on the basis of the WP:MOSFILM guideline I quoted. A much better approach would be to put facts from secondary sources about such things as why the changes took place, how they affected production, etc., in the appropriate sections of the article body. Shirtwaist ☎ 02:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Very well said, Shirtwaist. That is essentially what I was thinking and could not quite express. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

As this discussion seems to have no more arguments being made, I suggest the "Differences from the novel" section be deleted. Any objections or further opinions? Shirtwaist ☎ 22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My editing time has been limited, but I do plan to respond. I would suggestion that this section, which has been in the article for a very long time, remain in the article for a while longer. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with its removal. It can be restored if a consensus is reached for its inclusion. The amount of time it has been in the article seems irrelevant. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The primary argument here is that a "difference" section is WP:OR, however even WP:MOSFILM agrees that this is not the case. Original research is not allowed, by policy, however MOSFILM says "Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." (Emphasis added.) If a "difference" section was OR, it would not need to be "discouraged", it would be just plain not allowed, outright. One can only discourage what is allowed but not preferred. Since this is the case, the arguements presented here that "difference" sections are OR are not valid.

As I have been arguing throughout, these sections are no different from any other material which is supported by a primary source, which are allowed as long as what's presented is straightforward description, with no interpretation or analysis. I could, if forced to, take every statement in a "difference" section and source every single statement in it from the book and the film, but just like a "plot" section, this is not necessary or required. There is no legitimate policy-based argument for deleting a "difference" section which is properly written and does not stray into analysis or interpretation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Per your first point - I believe this type of section violates WP:NOR because the act of simply adding a significant (to the editor) difference constitutes an assertion by the editor, derived from studying both sources, that that particular difference is "important" enough to mention, while others are not.

It's true that unsourced Differences from... sections with no real-world context are not strictly prohibited(yet), but even if I agreed with your opinion that WP:OR doesn't apply (I don't as explained above), what justification could there be to go against MOSFILM's consensus-based admonishment against unsourced lists of differences with no real-world context? Just because we can create a sub-standard article that includes an unsourced Differences from... section (that would in all likelihood prevent that article from ever becoming a GA and FA) doesn't mean we should. This is not to say a proper Differences from... section cannot be written. Apt Pupil and Golden Compass are two such examples of how they should be written. I have no doubt that notable material from a RS relating to novel and film differences in this article can either be integrated into appropriate sections like "Production", "Criticism", etc., or put into a well-written well-sourced Differences from... section. But a simple list such as now exists is neither very meaningful for the reader, nor beneficial to the overall quality of the article and WP as a project, as I believe allowing this type of list to stand would only encourage more piling on of crufty trivial material into it. How would you, for example, use your "It's not OR" argument to prevent someone from adding a comparison of (in your view) irrelevant minutiae like differing addresses, or minor character name, or a thousand other things that could be named as a "difference from the (X)"? The things you think are worth mentioning might not be so to anyone else, and vice-versa. That's why we should leave such comparisons to secondary sources to decide which is worth mentioning, and which is not.

But there are several other policies in play here besides OR -specifically WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:RS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA and WP:IN-U, all of which can be used against a basic list-type section. But let's say there is no, as you say, "legitimate policy-based argument for deleting a "difference" section which is properly written and does not stray into analysis or interpretation". That would mean that the issue was more a matter of consensus than policy, wouldn't it? In that case, I would point out that a solid consensus against unsourced, non-contextual Differences from... sections in film articles has apparently been reached at this WikiProject Film discussion and this WikiProject Film RfC. Shirtwaist ☎ 05:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding "consensus", can you point me to the consensus-producing discussion which resulted in the admonishing in MOSFILM?

As to why one would want to go against consensus: the ultimate reason is that it's a service to our readers, who really don't care about our internecine disputes and discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and just want information -- and one of the things they want to know is "How is this movie different from the book it is based on?" If we can provide that information without violating basic Wikipedia policy – and we most certainly can – then the admonition against it in MOSFILM does not serve the encyclopedia well, because it does not serve our readers well, no matter how many editors agreed to it. (My observation is that many Wikipedia editors get lost in a maze, and tend to forget why it is we are here, and who it is we are serving.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you know that all WP policies and guidelines, including MOS and MOSFILM, are the result of community consensus. Is it your contention that the presence of this section in MOSFILM does not reflect community consensus? I'm afraid ignoring consensus in this or any other issue in WP "no matter how many editors agreed to it", as opposed to attempting to build a new consensus you think is appropriate, is not a constructive approach to editing. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many way of building consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove the section based on MOSFILM and established consensus, but I agree with RepublicanJacobite that it can be restored if consensus is reached to do so. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Better reception

Updated and broadened the critical reception which this film received.Xela Zeugirdor (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Italian-American, adjective hyphenated

I corrected the term in the lead section here back in August and again yesterday. I think at least two editors are under the mistaken impression that it is being used as a noun in the lead, or else they don't make the distinction. Please see the article Italian American (noun) and see how it is hyphenated when used as an adjective, as it is here in the lead. -A98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again, there is no discussion of the adjectival form at that article. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say the form was discussed there. It is properly hyphenated there and in many other articles. Also see WP's English_compound#Hyphenated_compound_adjectives. Do you have a source for the un-hyphenated form? -A98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking closely at the edit history, I see that RJ removed the hyphenated link after it stood for over 2 months (i mistakenly said 6 weeks in my edit summary just now), on Oct. 23, with no justification. The burden is also on him to engage in this discussion beyond (paraphrasing) "that article doesn't mention adjectival." El duderino (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the hyphenated term Italian-American appears (at least) four times in the body text. Italian American (unhyphenated) does not. El duderino (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should keep the hyphenated form since some of the characters come from Italy. Any opinions or objections? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the hyphenated form "Italian-American" should be used throughout the article where it's an adjective. Deryck C. 00:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason, it seems, for the inconsistency with the hyphenated and unhyphenated Italian American (as well as other articles about "Hyphenated Americans"), is that the article was moved from the hyphenated to the unhyphenated name in '05 and not all uses of the term were change within the bodies of articles. That said, the adjectival use should be hyphenated, but we must be clear about this so that, in future, well-meaning editors are not changing it back and forth, something I can quite easily imagine happening. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, this has not occured during the past five months, either with The Sopranos or here.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Good work!

Hello JTBX (talk),

I just wanted to tell you how pleased I am with your editing of the Plot summary in The Godfather article this afternoon (I'm in the UK... where are you?) and to let you know that I have put the paragraphs back as they were to facilitate comparison with earlier edits. This may help to avoid any possible hysterical reverting of your excellent work. I have also made a few minor edits. Have a look! All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Just doing my job. I trust you know better about this in terms of why you changed the paragraphs back etc. JTBX (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I now understand why you moved them, kinda tired, sorry. I am also from the UK. Thanks again JTBX (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing The Godfather without an explanation

• Take a look at revision history! A new editor has made 187 uninterrupted revisions within the period, 10:42 hrs. (GMT) April 1 – 17:13 hrs. (GMT) April 2, without an explanation.

• I have just posted this on the user's talk page:

Thank you for your recent contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your edit to any article, please provide an edit summary. So far you have not done so, for example, during your editing The Godfather (film). You made 187 uninterrupted revisions within the period, 10:42 hrs. (GMT) April 1 – 17:13 hrs. (GMT) April 2, without an explanation of the reasons for your changes.

Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit, and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism.

It is also helpful to other users reading the edit history of the page.

With kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:33 hrs. (GMT) April 2, 2012

• Surely this is unacceptable behaviour. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my recent edits and their lack of explanations. I had just watched the films (The Godfather I and II) recently and after looking at their Wikipedia articles I felt like I needed to update the pages. The 187 uninterrupted revisions were due to me wanting to save the edits little by little as I could have messed up if I had just done one or two big edits. As for the lack of edit explanations, my head was filled with plenty of ideas that I didn't want to forget and thus I forgot to type the edit summaries. As mentioned earlier, I apologize for my edits. Next time, when I edit a page I will be careful to leave summaries so the everyone understands the intention of my edit. Wrath X (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My intentions were not vandalism. I just felt that the article of the film The Godfather needed to be updated as it is a very influential film. I hope that my behavior has not offended or confused too many users. Wrath X (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrath X, thank you for responding. Having examined many of your revisions, I had never imagined that your editing was anything other than well-intended. Well done! Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pleased to find agreement with my proposal, but we don't decide by majority. Moreover, I don't feel like this section can't be improved. A film with this much prominence deserves careful consideration. For example, there is not a section on its release and there should be; that can include its distribution to television as well. I also feel that its connection to the sequel might be overlooked, since many treat the two as one work. Is enough attention given to post-production? In this case, my understanding is that a lot of shaping happened at that time. These things matter more to me than the payroll details, which I would not include in the first place. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have your involvement. Your comments above all meet with my approval – you have already implemented many of your proposals – but I agree that there is more to be done.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sonny's death

I don't remember the facts on one aspect and thought you might. My memory was that the phone call to Sonny that lured him to the toll booth was not about a real attack on Connie, but was just a device to play on his Achilles' heel. Am I wrong? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

I have the three films, so although I suspect I can answer your question accurately, I shall watch it this afternoon after my lunch (which is on the table!) and get back to you later today. It is 14:36 hrs. British Summer Time in the old UK, and I have just come in late from walking with my dog...

Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That was great! Will now rewatch "II" & "III" for the countless time.

Okay, the sequence of events:

• Heavily pregnant Connie answers the phone to a female who says, "Tell Carlo, I can't see him tonight."
• She tells him that his dinner is ready. He says that he doesn't want it.
• Fearsome row ensues ... Connie smashes crockery ... he gives her a dreadful beating.
• Carlo leaves. Connie telephones. Sonny, wild with temper, races off alone ...

• Must be a setup: Ambush waiting at the toll booth.

Oh, and it is 1946 (not '45) mentioned at the time of the attack on Vito. I have made that edit now.

All the best,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, but I'm not clear on one thing: how do you know it's a setup? I thought that they were trying to lure him out to the toll booth, but what was the actual plan? Did Carlo beat her for the purpose of getting him to come to her aid? That seems like a dubious plan. Thanks. (And feel free to answer here -- I monitor your talk page changes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Only reason I think that it was pre-planned, is how else would they be expecting Sonny to drive through the toll booth at that particular time. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree it was extreme. I suppose the phone call was the setup and the fight was worse than Carlo anticipated, but achieved the required result.

Since posting the 1946 edit, some anon has added an exec. prod., Robert Evans to the info' box. I shall delete it. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

How else would they have known? Okay, that is evidence they were listening in on a phone call. Or were told by Carlo that Connie called him (if he knew). So yes that is the key question. Or, what did Carlo do that betrayed Sonny? Same question in a different form. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I also have the novel here, but a long time since I read it. See if that helps. Shall do that this morning. I agree with your analysis, and, in my opinion, was probably explained in the filming, but left on the editor's floor. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the book is no help at all: Carlo does not leave their home. Is very drunk and sleeps. Then, after a few hours, Connie phones her parent's home intending to speak to Hagan or her mother, not wanting to speak to Santino. Her mother answers, but Sonny takes the phone from her.

So, the "only possible explanation" of how Barzini's men were already waiting at the toll booth – that he awoke and heard his wife's telephone call, is null and void. They did not have enough time to arrange the ambush. Furthermore, the war of the Five Families is regarded to be over at this point, so Sonny and Hagan were not anticipating a setup. Yet at the end of the novel, Michael tricks Carlo into telling him that he did inform Barzini ... over to you ... Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Is this "narrative art"? Notice they separate the revelation that Carlo betrayed Sonny from the events. So at the moment I write it off to a little plot hole that they couldn't figure out how to close. Still, I'm thinking about it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Only with your approval of course, I am considering copying this to Talk:The Godfather. What do you think? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it's fine. Thanks for asking. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

An extract from a discussion a year ago

All still relevant today

• I thought that this, from last year, might be worth revisiting -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)

This suffers from the common Wiki Synopsis flaws. It is written like a poor book report. A synopsis has a purpose and it is not the place for details that do not contribute to the motivation of the storyline. In this case, I had to laugh that someone wrote that Luca Brazi is "stabbed in the hand" and garroted. One could argue that being stabbed in the hand had a symbolic meaning to the story, but I suspect this is not being asserted; even if it were, it would not be part of synopsis but an analysis of symbolism. Things like this smack of elementary school writing and thought. Whether he was stabbed in the hand before being killed, drinking a vodka tonic, whether Sonny made a goofy face before being shot, whether Don Corleone got shot buying apples or oranges detracts from synopsis and it should be rewritten with this in mind. ( See the Youtube video "Star Wars according to a 3 year old." for how not to write a synopsis.) --APDEF (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I Agree, the plot bloat in this PS is out of control and should be fixed. Also, why are there refs in the first sentence about when the wedding takes place? Per WP:FILMPLOT, "simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article". There is nothing in the film that says when the wedding occurs. Secondary sources commenting on this is irrelevant to the plot summary, and should appear elsewhere in the article. Shirtwaist ☎ 03:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the reference in the first sentence: this was placed by an editor sometime back to prove that the wedding takes place in July. The fact is, the month the wedding takes place is irrelevant, and, as far as I am aware, the month is never stated in the film, nor is there any significance to it. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 20:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• This will go on and on... Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I was correct. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Plot Draft

Okay so seeing how films like Mulholland Drive and Inception (please see their respective talk pages on which I have commented) are allowed to have a larger plot count than 700, I think we can reach a consensus since this a major, well-known film and is 3 hours long. Upon recently re-watching it I saw many details left out. I therefore have edited it, yes it is much longer, but you can see for yourself if this is an improvement. For starters, the film begins 1945, but ends in 1955. I think it is Clemenza who at one point says "its nearly 1946" at the point of Vito's assassination attempt when it is Christmas and snowing. So you have these details, plus all these other characters introduced late in the previous plot like Clemenza himself who is mentioned in at the time of killing Carlo, which is way too late in my opinion. He has a much larger role throughout. This and other details I have added so what is it we do? vote ? I vote support to allow an exception. Sorry if there are spelling mistakes and so on I'm tired now. Okay well here are some changes: Sollozzo is not Turkish but from Turkey, Vito never told Sonny to take command he assumes it himself, previous plot didn't include the death of Paulie (leave the gun, take the canolis), the hospital bit where Michael moves the bed, can't think of others now, oh yeah, the fact the guy requesting a favour at the beginning returns it by sorting out Sonny's body. --JTBX (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the dates are also mentioned specifically in Godfather Part II, --JTBX (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

also, is the image really necessary? JTBX (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This Draft is clumsy and long, although some ideas are good. We should definitely correct any errors, though. Let's start with that. The image contributes little, that is for sure, but it's not a problem. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The plot summary should focus on the events that happen in the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Its hardly clumsy, by introducing the characters at the beginning as they are in the film I get the bulk of text and confusion out of the way, then comes incorrect details such as "1946" when it is certainly 1945 as I have mentioned already (read the intro to the article, read the novel). Again, the 700 words are a guideline, not the rule. It is still very summarised, what I did is include the significant details missing. JTBX (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the character summaries. That's not the action of the film. That material can be covered in Cast. I think we agree on most of it though and I thank you for your interest. 45 or 46 is something I think we need more opinion on, because another editor was pretty sure the film is 46. I hope we have corrected any errors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

But two months ago you were busy trimming the plot summary, in order to reduce its size? Remember this (Also above – see Section: Good work!)?

• You seemed to be "hell-bent" on brevity then, only two months ago.

• We watch with great interest. Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I still am, and still go around plots making sure they are concise and tidy, but this film is of course different, and very long. If you have read my draft please consider it, as way too many details were being left out at the expense of sacrificing notable information. --JTBX (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sure. I was heads up on this last night, but thought you were going to wait until you had some response to your posting here on the article's Talk page at 21:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

• Then I found my friend User:Ring Cinema was on the case. I am sure we three can work well together. Cheers, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I incorporated some nice improvements from this draft, so I don't see the need to edit here. I don't want to substitute this draft for the plot summary we have. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a few edits to this draft earlier this evening. I had thought we could have moved on. It just keeps growing. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Just edited my draft again. Current plot on wikipedia: 780 words, my draft: 739. Hilarity ensues. JTBX (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You were up early ... or is it still up late?

...made a few more edits ... -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I sleep during the day and wake at night, currently unemployed, going to University this year, so yes a lot of spare time. Also you added more words in your edit to the draft, but it is an improvement. I guess that matters more than word count, good show. JTBX (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad you approve. I am not counting ... quality copy is what we are after here ... coming together well in my opinion.

Um..? You are obviously awake now. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we already have a good plot summary. The draft here had so much unnecessary detail and other problems that are already solved in the article. Please edit the article if you have ideas for changes, as I have done.

Why are you editing the draft on the talk page? As I already mentioned, all the useful elements have been incorporated into the article already. Please stop. I don't want a wholesale replacement of what is already a reasonably good plot summary. Every difference between the two drafts is better in the article. Edit the article if you want to improve the plot summary. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

When I posted the above on your page – Section: Good work! – on 18 April 2012, which I had copied from both my Talk page and JTBXs talk page, I expected you, Ring, to reply to me. Then I got the impression that you were having a "co-operating dialogue" with User:JTBX here on The Godfather discussion page, whereas I was in total amazement that here he was expanding the plot without any edit summaries – just like User:Wrath X was on April 1 and April 2 until my intervention – when two months ago, I was saying "Well done!" _{(I posted that dialogue with User:JTBX here – see above)}...:He was "hell-bent" on brevity then, only two months ago.

You are still, today, working together on it, aren't you?

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am observing. What happened was that I asked JTBX to put a draft on the talk page. I took the parts I thought were improvements in the article. I thought you would notice that, so I wasn't explicit about it. Then you edited the talk page, and I left you the note that I'd prefer we edit the article. Then you continued to edit the article. So here we are. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I edited the article, you reversed all my changes and said bring it to the talk page. Per policy to reach a consensus I bring things to the talk page to help improve it to a quality copy with Gareth, even making it shorter than the article and yet including more detail, but now your telling me to add the changes to the article? And Gareth, I sometimes just have naps, my sleep is on/off haha. JTBX (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ring, you talk about improving changes yet what you have just done is lifted the entire plot from the main article and placed it here replacing my draft, and called it "the best version". I feel mine was better placed because like the film, I got the character introductions out of the way in the first paragraph, as a major theme in the film is how Michael, an educated outsider and war hero, becomes Don. Your plot furthermore leaves out characters such as Paulie and Clemenza, and includes unnecessary repetition which does not read well like how the bomb ("takes the life of his new wife" instead of the shorter "she is killed", and Sonny "riddled with machine gun fire". If anything it is your plot which includes the more unneeded detail. I wanted to avoid an edit war but the way you're going about it is strange. --JTBX (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

After you brought it here I incorporated your suggestions and left a note to please edit the article. Gareth misunderstood. We don't need a wholesale change to the plot summary, although it can be improved in places. No disrespect intended, I hope you realize. Of course let's make the article as good as possible. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I said I vote to allow an exception: Editor consensus over> quality over> word count guideline JTBX (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, most of the current summary is not mine. I'm not owning it. I just want the best plot summary. The plot section should tell what happens in the film, an the Cast section can handle the character summaries. Not in both places. Yes, a couple characters are not included in the current summary. That's typical and we have to use our best judgement. However, I am open to your suggestions and I know Gareth is, too. I also agree that it would be good to bring out the transformation in Michael in some subtle ways. No, I don't want to war about it, but you made many changes without pausing to get the response. It would be better to change, wait, see how it is received. I hope we can work together on that basis. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Ring, Yes, I understand now, but I had been, mistakenly, believing that the draft was your work. The request to put a draft on the discussion page missed me – where is it? Did you e-mail User:JTBX? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This idea of the two versions here is good in that if the article is left quiet, it will attract less notice. Of course, we will continue to watch it carefully. We three have the same common objective. There is no suggestion of an edit war, or anything near it, and the experience of the April 1 – April 2 (see the section above this) still lives with me. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We will have to see, maybe some minor tweaks here and there but Ring Cinema will not allow it haha. I went on his talk page and it seems he has suffered blocks for reverting edits, which is what he did to our draft. I hope he realises we must work together instead of enforcing his own opinion. I personally think that the draft he wants to improve is already improved (our version):

• It has about the same amount of words (750ish, not bad because guidelines are 700)
• decent flow and paragraphing
• correct details (1945, when Michael returns from World War II and in Christmas 45 Kay buys Michael presents while Vito buys fruit and is nearly killed, Clemenza mentions "jesus its nearly 1946")
• Character introductions. In the current plot on the article and in the Ring-Cinema version, Clemenza is not introduced but it says in the last paragraph "Carlo is garroted by Clemenza", confusing for people reading the article RIGHT NOW AS OF THIS MINUTE hahah

But in all seriousness we need to have a plot summary that is easily understood and summarised to the audience with quality of course. All of this is important above cutting out details as I have already stated. JTBX (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I placed the version into the article and trimmed it down, I think Ring can agree on this maybe. JTBX (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Added plot to article. JTBX (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to announce that, taking Ring-Cinema's idea of cutting out extra language and information while including flow and details, the plot is now 710 words and is the same version in the article. Gareth would also back me up on the correct details such as the year. If you are all unsure just look it up on the internet or Wikipedia pages concerning relevant characters. JTBX (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Made some more edits, now 708 apparantly, which is good news. JTBX (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Now 704, come on we can do this. JTBX (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

700 words accomplished. Of course, this is not the end, improvements happen all the time. JTBX (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Disappointing. I asked you to make incremental changes, if you saw some areas to improve, and then pause to see if it is accepted. I'm sorry but you don't seem that interested in working with the other editors. I hope you prove me wrong, since that is how it is done here. I specifically mentioned that I agreed we should work in Michael's transformation. Maybe that would be a good place to start. Some of your ideas are good, so it's a shame to waste them. I'm going to try to incorporate as much as I can from your hard work. Thanks for your interest in improving the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at it carefully, and have incorporated some of your suggestions, JTBX. Especially the second paragraph's beginning. Of course there are some possible improvements. I'm not sure why you're so determined to call Fredo "dim-witted" but I'd suggest we leave that interpretation to the viewers. It is suspicious. (By the way, if memory serves, the meeting with the Hollywood producer is not in California. I believe that was corrected once before.) I'm not uncomfortable with the summary at this length, either, because there isn't really bloat going on. You may think that Vito's wishes for Michael are superfluous, but I think it's important to understand the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You revert was not an improvement at all. You increased the word count first of all. Gareth rewatched it and told me it was 1945 (this is such an obvious fact anyway), the characterisation of Fredo is important because he sides with Greene and is incapable of responsibility (he is weak and stupid as described in the second film). The meeting is definately in California, Hagen has to catch a flight there and back (the slow jazz music plays). I didnt cut out Vito's wishes, I don't actually think you have been reading. JTBX (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edits seem to be based on an assumption of what you think you remember. I advise you watch the film as I have a day ago. JTBX (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, JT, that you are unable to understand something this simple, but I will explain it to you. See, you and Gareth both said you were sure, but you said 1945 and he said 1946. So I made the completely correct decision that we should make sure before changing the summary. And you complained extremely unpleasantly even though it's obvious that it was in order to double check first and make the change afterward. So we checked and we got it right. Now, I know that is complicated for you, so if you have any questions be sure to ask. For me it's simple and easy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I consider the plot summary is better than how it was when we three started out after User WrathX had created mayhem on April 1 and April 2 (see The Godfather talk page) You kept, and bettered, your word regarding "brevity". It is 1945 (I have already admitted that I missed the "almost" in the film – before 1946) and, as you know, I have the novel, and on page 8, I quote, "... to the wedding of Miss Constanzia Corleone, to be celebrated on the last Saturday in August 1945. The father of the bride, Don Vito Corleone, never forgot ..." -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing that the plot summary is improved than how it was initially, though due to Ring Cinema's unexplained reverts it will never appear on the page. Also, I am still editing it as it still is 708 words but that is fine, the plot in the article is 750 words. Thank you so much for your concerted help and effort as well as helping find additional evidence, though it was unneccessary. It is basically a good quality plot now. JTBX (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

JT, I'm not sure I understand your comment. You are saying the current summary is improved, but the improvements won't be seen? But it is obvious that Gareth is saying the current summary is better. And you say the current summary is better. But those improvements are seen. What does that have to do with your proposals that never gained consensus and are not seen? Nothing? So why do you mention them? Ask me if you have any questions, because I don't think you understood Gareth's comment. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

At 04:39, 25 April 25 2012 (UTC) Admin EdJohnston protected The Godfather because of Edit warring / Content dispute: WP:AN3#User:Ring Cinema reported by User:JTBX (Result: Protected) This expires at 04:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)) Regarding the previous posting, Ring Cinema is correct here. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about the draft, the draft is much better than the plot summary but will never appear on the page due to your reverts. I was in a rush there but that is what I meant. Most of the improvements won't appear anyway, seeing as you did incorporate some information of a fraction of the effort I put into this, such as the second paragraph. JTBX (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I have placed my justification for the plot draft in blue (I shouldn't even be doing this), take a look. Gareth, what do you think? JTBX (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I almost forgot about this section's opening discussion. I no longer find it relevant, because the draft I was improving is a few words more than 700. So I do not see the point of continuing this debate. JTBX (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course I will respond, JT, especially when you continue making personal attacks. Whether you like it or not, this page is still edited on a consensus basis. The best way for us to proceed, since there are just a few of us, is to make changes on a unanimous basis. That way Gareth won't feel like he's in the middle constantly, which is unfair to him. I hope you see the practicality of that. I will respond to your blue comments when I have a chance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, thank you Ring for your consideration, and I agree ... the best way for us to proceed, since there are just a few of us, is to make changes on a unanimous basis. That is why I have reverted JTBX 's hasty return to the article as soon as the protection order was lifted. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition of compromise

Let's just say that we'll stick to the changes we both agree to. Then you won't feel like you're being ignored by anyone.

• Length. Most of the difference in length comes from cutting the modifiers and connections that give the summary its readability and clarity. So I consider your cuts a pyrrhic victory. They don't really make the summary better. Some things are more important than the word count.

• Chronology. I'm aware the current summary is not always chronological. I have noted this previously. For a short summary, sometimes it is helpful to focus on character arcs in a paragraph instead of simply listing the incidents in order. It is a summary, not a scene by scene synopsis, so we have some latitude.

• 1955. "By 1955"? That's not how a native English speaker would say it. The event happened in 1955, so we just say that. A native English speaker says "by 1955" to indicate that a series of events culminated in that year (e.g. "By 1955, he had completed his studies and was ready to begin his career.") Here are examples of how to use this phrase correctly.

• Tendentious. What exactly is tendentious? Was it tendentious of me to mention that I thought you had some good ideas? I think that you are taking the attitude that it's tendentious to disagree with you. That does not square with the dictionary definition.

• Michael's transformation. As I've mentioned before, this is something we should see about including if we can agree on the means of accomplishing this.

--Ring Cinema (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Length - I agree with you, Ring, length must not compromise quality, and as JTBX pointed out when I challenged him on April 18, it is a lengthy, complicated film. We must not let that guideline get in our way of good copy.

• Chronology. Remember, the plot section of articles summarises the actions simply, and interpretation is left to cited scholars in other parts of the article.

• 1955. Here I agree with Ring.

• Tendentious. I suppose you meant "biased" ... in which case I don't understand your intention here. Surely we three have the same motivation.

• Michael's 'transformation'. Surely, it is his natural, inherited nature that emerges. Not part of the plot summary.

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks, Gareth. Re: chronology, I don't think this is an issue of imposing an interpretation. I'm saying that telling the film events in order is not always most transparent about the action of the film. For example, Annie Hall has a very complex timeline that is not coherent in film order for a summary. We just want to be clear about what happens in the story, I believe, so that the rest of the article makes sense. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am now refusing to engage with RC any longer, "Length. Most of the difference in length comes from cutting the modifiers and connections that give the summary its readability and clarity. So I consider your cuts a pyrrhic victory. They don't really make the summary better. Some things are more important than the word count" Just look at this sentence from the article summary: "Despite a clamp down from the authorities, the Five Families erupt in open warfare and the brothers fear for their safety" from the article summary, those are the kind of cuts I made, yet Ring-Cinema would continually revert these changes for no reason. There is absolutely no reason for you to revert anything because as I have stated I improved the plot and shortened it to nearly 700 words so it can only be WP:TE, and the only thing I can agree with is how 1955 is written (By 1955), hardly an issue when considering the mammoth problems of the current summary. We would have got around to improving those things as Gareth and I are doing so now with the plot draft. Seriously, you are just a troll. I do not consider the truth "Personal attacks" WP:PLOTSUM please read it once more. You do not own any articles, neither do you have the right to respond to anywhere you please, including the 3RR noticeboard which you turned into a mess. Otherwise, how would YOU like it if I reverted what you have written on here and elsewhere because I deem "only 10% of it acceptable" (your language - remeber how you reverted my plot draft on the talk page, I have it all saved so perhaps expect a Rfc soon because this issue will never be resolved). --JTBX (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. So many mistakes you make here. I don't have the right to respond on the Edit Warring site? It doesn't sound good for you when you say things like that. I said "only 10% of it acceptable"? No, that is not my language. Changes require consensus. Some of your changes lacked consensus. That is why they are not in the article. I would point out that Ed Johnston rejected your claims and instead mentioned that your personal attacks made him consider sanctions for you. I thought you would take that to heart, but you continue with personal attacks. I think you have to ask yourself how you are going to make yourself useful as an editor on this page. On the substance, our differences are small. The road is clear for you to find the areas where we can make meaningful improvements. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's called sarcasm, I tried to turn on you how you treat others. You can't blame EJ, he only sees things quickly as admins are busy and don't have time, and he saw my replies to you as personal attacks because of your nonsense dressed in sophistication. Also I just noticed through your contributions that the only thing you do is cut or revert, you never actually have contributed anything worthwhile to articles and that all of your major edits have been to talk pages where you lead editors in circles, as editors have pointed out on the talk page on No Country for Old Men (film), which I have just edited. Hmmm.... I think you have to ask yourself how you are going to make yourself useful as an editor on Wikipedia. "The road is clear for you to find the areas where we can make meaningful improvements." Again, in circles. Which is what I have been doing, you have contributed nothing. JTBX (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, thank you Ring for your consideration, and I agree ... the best way for us to proceed, since there are just a few of us, is to make changes on a unanimous basis. That is why I have reverted JTBX 's hasty return to the article as soon as the protection order was lifted. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

None of this nonsense is germane to improving the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

But I had already put days worth of work into improving the article, its your protectionist and conservative WP:OWN positions that are leading us here in days of conflict. You orchestrate this entire conflict and then simply brush it off as "nonsense" If I wasn't here you'd probably be doing the same to Gareth. JTBX (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

References

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPA9-kpPo_g

Clarification

The current draft of the plot summary is in the article. The draft on the talk page is just JT's rejected draft. So, if you want to seriously discuss changing the plot summary, the editing should be done on the current draft. That is in the article, not on the talk page. I would recommend, to keep it simple, that you refrain from editing JT's work on the talk page. That is his idea of what he wants. There's no consensus for that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort but you left out the Clemenza killing Paulie, Michael visiting his father and so on? Is it ok if I revert it back and include aspects of your improvement (which I think was good) JTBX (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant to leave those parts out. But, of course, it is your draft and you may do as you feel best. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But there's no consensus for this draft. The current plot summary is in the article. This is just JT's draft, not the article plot summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is me and Gareth. I attempted to include some of what you wanted and even cut down the words, something which I didn't want to do originally (see section, Plot word count) but thought you wanted. Then you turn around and said there is no need for this draft and we should just edit the article, when I attempt to do so you reverted my contributions and pasted the article summary, replacing our draft, at one point at the talk page. Seeing as you have contributed minimally to the article or not made it clear what you are after and simply misled Gareth, I do not see what is to discuss with you here. JTBX (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you and Gareth aren't a consensus. Do you mean that you and Gareth are a consensus for changing the Talk page? No consensus is required for that. However, changing the article requires the consensus of the editors involved. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't require everyone involved, but if there is a clear majority then we may proceed. So stop reverting. JTBX (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

@JTBX - You cannot state here that "The consensus is me and Gareth. I cannot allow this to pass unchallenged.

Throughout this ever-tedious episode – by far the worst in my all-too-short history of Wikipedian editing – I have endeavoured to look at the arguments, that each of you have offered, with neutrality and tried to act as a buffer.

This whole idea of a draft plot on this page, as you know, Ring, has confused me from its inception. And I still don't know whose idea it was (!)

Let us draw breath, stand back and consider the mess that has resulted. It cannot continue. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Again, thank you Ring for your consideration, and I agree ... the best way for us to proceed, since there are just a few of us, is to make changes on a unanimous basis. That is why I have reverted JTBX's hasty return to the article as soon as the protection order was lifted. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)