Talk:The Godfather/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Godfather Effect

I'm a little uncomfortable with so much emphasis given to one book and one aspect. Many people have said a lot of insightful things about this film, and the conclusion that ethnicities in America rediscovered themselves in the aftermath of this film seems to require some empirical support. Coppola saw the film as a general indictment of American culture (as it implies) and that is more easily supported. Since America has always had strong ethnic identification among its polity, it is somewhat more difficult to make the case that, say, Irish-Americans took The Godfather to heart and realized they felt a bit of the shamrock. When did they not? So, do we strike the right balance? I am undecided. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been re-reading your posting for the second time and still not clear what you are after. When you write "...one book and one aspect" ... are you referring to all three film articles, or just The Godfather article? Explain, please. On the other hand, I would like to contribute, but not sure that this 'Brit' has the qualifications to dare venture into an American ethnicity issue like this. Can you comment please. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The section so entitled refers primarily to one book on the subject. So, just on general principles, I question that much emphasis, given the size and scope of the subject, on one book. There are many things written about this movie. That's what I am thinking about. That, and a lack of skepticism about the book's claims. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am with you now. I tend to agree with your argument. I must check out the history appertaining to this section. In my mind right now, if asked, I would say that it was born out of some of the Wrath X-187-no-edit summaries-débâcle of April 1 to April 2. I shall check that out today. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As promised, I have done the investigation. Apologies to friend Wrath X, he only altered the size of the image. No, it was someone known as Nelsondenis248, who created the section based on a small amount of existing copy within the article, on March 2 this year. Is this person known to you? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Date of the wedding

The novel may differ from the movie, so it's not really a source. You mentioned above, Gareth, that the attack on Vito is 1946, if I understand you correctly. What is the evidence in the film that the wedding is 1945? If there is none, we should date the attack on Vito and leave out the date we are not sure about. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We'll leave it as 1945 for now. I will have to replay the video to check on whether he says " It is almost 1946"... -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Just finished rewatching. Clemenza clearly says, "It is almost 1946" at the time of the failed assassination attempt on Vito. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Michael's transformation

For the second sentence.

"Vito's youngest son Michael, on leave from the service, introduces his girlfriend, Kate Adams (Diane Keaton), to his family at the sprawling reception for his sister [link to Connie Corleone / Talia Shire]. Singer Johnny Fontane... (back to the text)

Then, we bring in Carlo by name when he has the encounter with Sonny. In this way, we introduce Michael and Kate up front instead of Carlo.

I would also find it acceptable to name Connie later, too, but I don't really see the opportunity. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I like this ... 'we bring in Carlo by name when he has the encounter with Sonny.'

It's okay introducing Connie at start; she is a leading character throughout the trilogy, esp. III

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, honestly, I don't think that's a good reason. III can take care of III. This is about the first one. Connie's importance is not of the first rank for this film, but we have to include her, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Michael's transformation is up to the reader's interpretation and is not needed. The fact is the film begins with Michael as a clean guy and ending up as Don. That's it. Ring, I think the problem is you are so much of a film fanatic it had gotten in the way of contributing to the project as part of guidelines. We are after a summary, not an epic eloquent essay on the film and themes. "Connie's importance is not of the first rank for this film, but we have to include her, too." Its not about importance, its about summarising what happens on screen. Do any of you read the guidelines? The film begins with Connies wedding, so we begin with Connie's wedding. Jesus. JTBX (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• @ JTBX Please read my comment and request above in the section Clarification! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So you think it's an "epic eloquent essay" to say that Michael is at the wedding with his girlfriend? That seems like extremely poor judgement on your part, especially since you included that detail in your own draft. Well, for now we are proceeding on the basis of unanimity, so I guess we are stuck with JT's somewhat strange thinking about this. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please clarify. Are we in agreement with the sentence at the top of this section? I see nothing wrong with it. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

JT is quite clear. My understanding is that he only wants his changes accepted when no one else agrees with them. Along the way, he'll try to say something about me that isn't true. I'm not confused even a little bit. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit and sorry to see you misunderstand Ring. What I stated is that Michael's transformation can be brought out by him being clean (listed) then helping his father (listed) then becoming Don (listed). That is simply following the film's structure, as well as Connie's wedding at the beginning. We don't need superfluous language while doing so. Is Michael a war hero and educated? yes, does he save his father? yes, why did McCluskey punch him? because the police were on Sollozo's payroll. Does he become Don at the end? yes. We dont need extra things such as what Michael thought and how he transforms, just the details briefly of what happens. Otherwise, as we have, you will have an article summary of 750 words over this 700. You should also check out the edit history of the article, a user Chaheel has taken out 2 words which were unnecessary that I already had taken out in this draft. But it is rejected? Please, understand improvements and consensus. And stop driving editors in circles. --JTBX (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I understand perfectly. You were trying to insult me, but you were caught saying that your own draft doesn't belong. That's easy to see for everyone. For me, I won't argue with your assessment that I'm sophisticated and eloquent although I wouldn't necessarily choose exactly those words. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Dude, look at this sentence "his family at the sprawling reception" do you really want to include that and violate guidelines? Its totally unneccessary, again, you are making it out to be a book report or essay. I didn't contradict myself at all. I wrote that we should include the basics but not supeflous language. You are just angry. Calm it. JTBX (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

So you really don't have any criticism. You contradict yourself, and you're not a good enough stylist to choose the right word from time to time. Okay, I'm satisfied with that for now. --Ring Cinema (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please show where I have insulted him, and a ban is laughable, when we have here a user with a history of multiple blocks and edit wars. JTBX (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Re- the second sentence of the Plot. Earlier this evening, I made the edit to include it (as above) -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

... but it is Kay, not Kate -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Unanimity

My understanding was that we would make changes only when we are unanimous, for the time being. Isn't that your understanding, too, Gareth? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am now not engaging with you two any longer, since it is clear Gareth is no longer a neutral party and has sided with an edit warrior who continually is blocking any progress on Wikipedia articles to move forward. I am already taking the necessary steps to open up a sockpuppet investigation, to open up an Rfc report, a 3RR report on Ring for No Country and a report for your abuse of Twinkle, Gareth. I am no longer engaging with any of you since it appears you two would rather own the article and discuss amongst yourselves rather than actually try to involve me or notify me (I still find it strange how Gareth notified Ring before anyone else, including me, on Godfather Part II.) Nor can I find any personal attacks or insults I have issued. Consider this my last message to any of you directly. JTBX (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I find you personally unpleasant, JT, I offered to work with you on the basis of unanimity. I have kept my word and you have not. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

@ JTBX The same applies to me. Remember! Articles on Wikipedia are never finished; they are 'works in progress'. Your recent behaviour has appalled me, but if you are willing to meet us half way, that would be a start. At the moment you are acting like a spoilt child. I would actually need to know exactly your age – your User page states that you are a teenager, what does that actually mean (13 - 19?) – before writing anymore ... over to you! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I will have to include this in the report. For a few days, I have felt you favouring Ring over me and talking down to me, but that just seals it. Your ageism is disgusting. When I placed those templates it was 2007/2008. Please, I do not reveal that kind of information over the internet to strangers. And you are only appealing for a truce because you fear a sanction for reverting my Godfather Part II improvements. Shameful, since you are going to play that game, as someone much older you should know better. But it seems mentally, I am the most mature here because I am willing to put in the effort for these articles, rather than act as a protective and conservative connoisseur of films who contributes nothing but chatter on Talk, and ends up reverting and complaining on admins pages. Do you see me go around paste that nonsense on admin's pages? there is a reason RepublicanJacobite didn't want to get involved. Please, show some respect and consideration. If you want to be part of this project, let editors do their job. Simple as that. Oh and I'm only replying because this is an "appeal from you" but it doesn't change the report or that I'm officially not engaging. JTBX (talk)11:38, 1 May, 2012‎ (UTC)

Nonsense. The way was in front of JT to edit here based on unanimity. His response was to ignore EdJohnston's decision.

Dennis Brown is the admin who drew the assignment of following up on the issues with JTBX. It might be instructive to quote his words:

"If you two [RingCinema and JTBX] have agreed to not edit without the 3rd party, then whoever did should have enough honor to revert back if they want to be able to demonstrate they have acted in good faith. That was a strong hint in case it wasn't obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)"

My response was to suggest we edit based on unanimity. By contrast, JTBX edited the page without anyone's concurrence or agreement. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

@ JTBX. To put the this conversation straight ...

• ... when you and I first came into contact, earlier this Spring, I looked at your User page, as I always do when conversing with a new editor. This was when I read the UBX stating "This User is a teenager". Soon after this April marathon started, I sent you an e-mail (this is referred to on both your, and my, Talk pages) in which I advised you to remove that UBX. You subsequently followed my advice, although, strangely, denied receiving my e-mail and said you were uncomfortable with the process of e-mailing.
• RJ's reason for not wanting to get involved here is well known to me, and certainly has no connection with me, whatsoever. He has acted as my mentor (look at the first section on my talk page!) since I began seriously editing Wikipedia. I did not want his involvement – just his advice – which I received. You had never heard of him before now, acting the lurker on Wikipedia.

• RJ is not an admin.

• You ignore the friendly encouragement given here by both Ring, Ed, Dennis and me, and continue to act the injured party. It is tiresome.

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Full definition of garrotte (U.S.); garrote (British English); from the Spanish, garotte

Over the past couple of days, there has been some confusion by two editors who believe it is not required to add "kill" when writing garrotte (U.S. spelling – American article) and below is taken from a previous section on this talk page ... This is towards the end of the section headed: Michael's transformation

" ... as we have, you will have an article summary of 750 words over this 700. You should also check out the edit history of the article, a user Chaheel has taken out 2 words which were unnecessary that ... "

Chambers English Dictionary: v.t. ... suddenly to render insensible by semi-strangulation in order to rob: –

So it is required for complete understanding. In a scene in II, a garrotting in a darkened bar is taking place when a policeman walks in – the victim escapes.

• -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)_{Edit conflict}

It isn't necessary. To garrotte somoeone is to kill them via strangulation, regardless of how youi spell it. To add "killing him" or similar is just a duplication, and unnecessary - regardless of whether it's agreed to increase the plot length. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)_{Edit conflict}

If you really want to include the term "killing him" you could reword the entire sentence to "killing him with a garrotte" - going from verb to noun. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note this edit has nothing to do with my previous edit, and I object to it being labelled as a continuation of my intentions. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well done JTBX!. Now you have upset Chaheel Riens (talk) – Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• I like that Chaheel! '... you could reword the entire sentence to "killing him with a garrotte" - going from verb to noun.' Go ahead! It is your edit. We kept on bumping into each other earlier here with Edit conflicts. --Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Sorted! Thank you for that, Chaheel.  Done -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A version of the plot summary titled: Plot Draft, by --JTBX (talk)

In 1945 New York, Sicillian mafia Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) hears favours during his daughter Connie's (Talia Shire) wedding to Carlo Rizzi (Gianni Russo). Vito's youngest son Michael (Al Pacino), a returning U.S. serviceman uninvolved in the business, introduces his girlfriend Kay Adams (Diane Keaton) to his family at the sprawling reception. Vito's godson and popular singer Johnny Fontane (Al Martino), pleads to secure a coveted movie role, so Vito dispatches consigliere Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall), his adopted son, to the abrasive studio head, Jack Woltz (John Marley). Woltz is unwilling until he wakes up to the severed head of his prized horse.

^Need to get out of the way that he is Sicillian but New York based and that it is 1945, so that by the last paragraph Michael's control is complete 10 years later. We have the wedding, Tom Hagen, and Michael, the educated outsider. and of course the Jack Woltz scene which takes place in California, as Hagen takes a plane there and back. The Undertaker Bonasera's request is a major part of the opening, showing the Don's sympathetic side and he helps repay the favour later. [1] [2]

The Don's "sympathetic side"? I think you should look at that scene again, you don't understand what happened. He only helps him after he humiliates him. Also, note that here is where Vito insists on being called 'Godfather', which is not in this draft. The clumsy way this draft mentions the date and city is a bit amateurish. Check out how nicely I accomplished this. The current draft is better, although it would be nice to bring in Michael here. Definitely something I have been thinking about before JT's ridiculous personal attacks distracted. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, so now you were thinking about bringing Michael in, just like all the other things you thought of which me and Gareth happen to put forward days before. Maybe you live in a different space-time continuum. "Check out how nicely I accomplished this", all praise upon Ring and his ownership of articles. I had already improved the plot before it was protected as a test edit--see for yourself on article history.--JTBX (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So you agree with me? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Drug baron Virgil Sollozzo (Al Lettieri), backed by the Tattaglia family, offers Vito investment in return for protecting their drug trafficking with his political connections, but the Godfather disapproves of drugs and sends his enforcer Luca Brasi (Lenny Montana) to spy on them. Brasi is killed and Vito is then hospitalised after an attempted assassination by Sollozzo’s men. Vito’s eldest son Sonny (James Caan) takes command, ordering caporegime Peter Clemenza (Richard S. Castellano) to kill Vito’s traitorous driver Paulie (Johnny Martino). Meanwhile Sollozzo kidnaps Hagen, pressuring him to make Sonny accept the deal. Michael protects Vito at the hospital, whose police cover was lifted on Sollozzo’s payroll. Police Captain McCluskey (Sterling Hayden) accosts Michael and breaks his jaw.

^Well we already know about this, and Sonny ordering Paulie's death (leave the gun take the cannolis). Michael goes to the hospital but sees no protection for his father, this is important in Michael's transformation because he stays with his father and saves him by moving his bed, taking initiative. Also peopel reading first time will find it confusing why McCluskey accosts Michael, it makes no sense which is why we need the bit before (on Sollozzo's payroll).

Moving the bed is just a detail, even more the bit about the friend. This is a case, JT, where it would be smart of you to accept that, since 80% of your proposal was already accepted, you only show inflexibility by insisting on including details that others have judged are superfluous. Do you really think the film cannot be understood if we don't know that Michael moved the bed? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"since 80% of your proposal was already accepted" I didn't see Gareth way in on this, again, Mr. Article Owner. If he hasn't been falling for your lies below. "including details that others have judged are superfluous" Nobody but you JTBX (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"prized horse" Woltz specifically states he doesn't race it.--JTBX (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You are not sounding coherent here. In any event, you're not disagreeing with me on the substance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sonny has Tattaglia's son, Bruno, killed. Sonny reluctantly approves Michael's plan over Hagen's objections. Michael lures Sollozzo and McCluskey to a restaurant on the pretext of making peace, retrieves a planted handgun and murders them. The authorities clamp down as the Five Families erupt into warfare. Michael takes refuge in Sicily under Don Tommasino (Corrado Gaipa) and middle son Fredo Corleone (John Cazale) is sheltered by associate Moe Greene (Alex Rocco) in Las Vegas. Sonny attacks Carlo for abusing Connie but it happens again. He speeds for her home but, at a toll booth, assassins gun him down. In Sicily, Michael marries Apollonia Vitelli (Simonetta Stefanelli), but his new love is killed by a car bomb intended for him. Vito arranges to meet the heads of the Five Families to secure Michael's return, reluctantly agreeing to the drug trade while renouncing all vengeance. Vito deduces that the Tattaglias were pawns acting under the dominant Don Emilio Barzini (Richard Conte).

^Sonny orders Tattaglia's son's death because they are at war. Hagen argues his way for the deal throughout this with Sonny, then we have the calculating Michael propose his plan. Fredo is dim-witted which is why later, he cannot take over the business. Stating simply later that Fredo is incapable confuses the audience. Incapable why? does he have legs? was he shot? Michael is sent to Sicily to be sheltered not because he wanted to move there. While he does find a love, he returns after. The way it is written is more concise than in the article without the need for a separate 2 sentence paragraph for no reason. Michael's return is guaranteed at the meeting and personally I like this language better to describe what happens and what Vito deduces.

"Dim-witted"? Here, again, you are aware that this has met with objection. For some reason, you continue to ask us to tell you it's wrong. Okay, fine. Your reflections on Fredo lack refinement. You don't understand his weakness. You can't take his inventory. Because your thinking on this is incomplete, I suggested we leave it to the audience. I am sure you agree that he is incapable, so this is a neutral way to put it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, dimwitted or incompetent would do, not you being an obstacle. Improvements would do, not you being an obstacle. JTBX (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we edit on the basis of consensus. If you want to change something about this, I'd suggest you use your intellectual energy to find something I agree on. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

With Vito weak and Fredo incapable, Michael takes control of the family business and over a year later marries Kay, promising her to make it legitimate in five years. Michael allows New York territory to be pressured by rival families and breaks it off to capos Clemenza and Salvatore Tessio (Abe Vigoda), moving operations to Las Vegas. Upset when replaced as wartime consigliere with Vito, Hagen is made legal representative of the move and assured of long range plans. Michael meets Greene to buy out the family casinos but Greene derides the Corleones. Fredo falls under his sway, angering Michael. Later, Vito tells Michael how he had always wanted better for him, while warning that Michael will be killed when a traitor will arrange for him to meet Barzini.

^Michael specifically breaks off the territory to Clemenza and Tessio. (Tessio is later killed and Clemenza dies by Part II when Frank Pentangeli takes it over). Michael chooses Carlo as right-hand man and replaces Hagen as wartime consigliere, because Hagen is incapable of assuming the responsiblity in war. Instead Hagen is made lawyer to plan the move to Vegas, I don't think we need to include he is upset which is why I phrased it "made lawyer of the move and assured of long range plans". Fontane sing at them? well Fontane did return his favour. It is also here when Vito meets Michael in the garden ("Sonny yes, but I never wanted this for you, Senator Corleone, Governor Corleone") which I reflected in the last sentence, it is the same time Vito warns him of the Barzini meeting.

As you may have noticed, I put Vito's prediction in the next paragraph so that the last sentence is covered elsewhere. It's an elegant solution to the space problem. On the other hand, I think we should take a look at how to cover Vito's regrets about Michael the best way. I'm not satisfied with the current draft either. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You have not solved any space problem, the flow in the current summary is a mess. And it has more words. I rest my case, like 5 times now? JTBX (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be so great if you would rest your case! If we are going to make any changes, we are going to have to agree on them. Fortunately, we agree on some things. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Vito collapses and dies in 1955 while playing with Michael’s son Anthony. At the funeral, Tessio arranges Michael and Barzini’s meeting, signalling his treachery as Vito warned. While the christening of Connie and Carlo's son proceeds, to whom Michael stands as godfather, Corleone assassins execute his orders in murdering all of the New York family heads and Moe Greene. Tessio is told of his betrayal's revelation and taken to his death. Carlo is questioned by Michael on involvement in Sonny's murder and confesses Barzini contacted him, then escorted to a car under the pretence of exile and garrotted by Clemenza. Connie then confronts Michael over Carlo’s death. Kay believes Michael's denial but watches warily as Michael, having consolidated his power, receives his capos who address him as Don Corleone.

^Introducing 1955 this way completes the story. I feel wording is better here than in current summary plot.

In short, the plot is an improvement incorporating the correct details, chronologically flows, characters and is about 708 words, compared to over 750 of the current article plot. So Ring Cinema's tendentious editing and reverts are simply not understood by this editor, or his ridiculous definition of compromise (what he accepts). I have now finished most of what I had to say here, If Gareth would like to add anything please do.--JTBX (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft Update:

• Removed extra details uneeded
• Kept plot intact with film scenes and flow
• Incorporated ideas from present plot
• Now about 665 words, space for 30 more

JTBX (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Crooner

I see this was added. Two things. First, it doesn't take a comma. Second, since this character is based on Sinatra and Sinatra did not consider himself a crooner, I'm not sure it's apt. What do you think? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was my edit. I certainly do not have any axe to grind here. Thought it clarified the type, and although Sinatra would have considered himself above belonging to such a category, or any category, he was and is described as such over here.

• Crooner is an American epithet given to male singers of pop standards, mostly from the Great American Songbook, either backed by a full orchestra, a big band or by a piano. Originally it was an ironic term denoting an emphatically sentimental, often emotional singing style made possible by the use of microphones. Some performers, such as Russ Colombo, did not accept the term: in an interview Frank Sinatra said that he did not consider himself or Bing Crosby "crooners".

No matter, I shall revert my edit. Cheers, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This is my last word on this subject: See this -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The Godfather Effect

I'm a little uncomfortable with so much emphasis given to one book and one aspect. Many people have said a lot of insightful things about this film, and the conclusion that ethnicities in America rediscovered themselves in the aftermath of this film seems to require some empirical support. Coppola saw the film as a general indictment of American culture (as it implies) and that is more easily supported. Since America has always had strong ethnic identification among its polity, it is somewhat more difficult to make the case that, say, Irish-Americans took The Godfather to heart and realized they felt a bit of the shamrock. When did they not? So, do we strike the right balance? I am undecided. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been re-reading your posting for the second time and still not clear what you are after. When you write "...one book and one aspect" ... are you referring to all three film articles, or just The Godfather article? Explain, please. On the other hand, I would like to contribute, but not sure that this Welshman has the qualifications to dare venture into an American ethnicity issue like this. Can you comment please. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The section so entitled refers primarily to one book on the subject. So, just on general principles, I question that much emphasis, given the size and scope of the subject, on one book. There are many things written about this movie. That's what I am thinking about. That, and a lack of skepticism about the book's claims. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am with you now. I tend to agree with your argument. I must check out the history appertaining to this section. In my mind right now, if asked, I would say that it was born out of some of the Wrath X-187-no-edit summaries-débâcle of April 1 to April 2. I shall check that out today. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As promised, I have done the investigation. Apologies to friend Wrath X, he only altered the size of the image. No, it was someone known as Nelsondenis248, who created the section based on a small amount of existing copy within the article, on March 2 this year. Is this person known to you? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't know who it is, but I don't know many editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm ... is it worthy of retaining ... not in my opinion as a section. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This section, dealing entirely with a third-party book and its contents, appears in all three film articles, and appears to be, for lack of a better term, bookspam. Im sure there have been other books on the subject, and none of these deserve a full section treatment in these articles. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, [[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo], and this subject has already been broached before. Now, with additional support, I shall remove the section from all three articles and we can wait for a reaction.

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Godfather film credits

I am trying to correct some flaws here, but Ring Cinema is reverting. He claims "in a production of" is ordinary English usage. That would only be true for actors/cast, though I've not seen it in WP film article leads. It is certainly not true for writers or screenplays. That needs to go. It is absurd to put directed by Francis Ford Coppola from a screenplay by Mario Puzo, Coppola and an uncredited Robert Towne in a production of Albert S. Ruddy. In no way is that "ordinary English usage", and it makes the lead quite awkward at best. It should be consistent with other WP leads: directed by Francis Ford Coppola and produced by Albert S. Ruddy. Ruddy won the Oscar for Best Picture for this film, so that's more than proper.

Uncredited writers can be mentioned in the prose, but they should only be in the lead and infobox if they did substantial work, and there was some controversy when the Writers Guild of America denied them credit. That is not the case here. The source says Robert Towne contributed one scene. I've never heard anywhere that he expected on-screen credit for it. Puzo and Coppola won the Oscar for this script, and there was no controversy about Towne not being included. And why does Ring Cinema keep deleting the text I put in regarding Towne's writing contribution in the Production section? That's where it belongs. Is it because it mentions what the source says - naming the Pacino-Brando tomato garden scene he did?

Carmine Coppola had additional music composer credit on The Godfather Part II, not this film. The infobox is for the principal composer. Uncredited work Coppola did on a piece or two for the first film might be mentioned in the prose, but it does not belong in the infobox. Nino Rota deserves his sole billing in the main credits. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I don't think you've identified flaws in the cases you outline above.

I'm not really clear what your problem is with "in a production of". Since we are trying to say this production is one on which Ruddy was the producer, I don't see what could be misconstrued about saying that it is "a production of" his. It's very straightforward English that can only be misunderstood with effort. How do you think someone could get this wrong?

I think the decision to include Towne in the infobox is because he was a writer on the film. Coppola thanked him from the podium when he accepted his Oscar, so it was pretty significant. It doesn't matter if he asked for credit, it doesn't matter who got the Oscar, it doesn't matter what the screen credit says. Those are not the right standards for an encyclopedia. He was a writer on the film, and, if it matters, an important one. (By all means let's include something on exactly what Towne did. It's a great story and says a lot about Coppola's artistic objectives.)

It is untrue that only the principal composer's name goes in the infobox, so, the reason that Carmine Coppola is listed in the infobox under Music is because he wrote original music for The Godfather. At least, that is what his article says in Wikipedia (and I think this fact is widely known). Clearly, Nino Rota had a more prominent role on this film but that is not a reason to ignore Coppola's contribution.

Thanks again for your thoughts and interest and effort to improve the article. We might not agree on all this, but if you felt inspired to write something more detailed on Towne's work, it would correct a longstanding oversight. The production section in general suffers from a random excess, but the thing with Towne really gets at something important about the film's world. If not, thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• If you want my text on Towne in the Production section, why did you take it out? Unless you didn't realize you deleted it in your reverts. That is where Towne's involvement belongs. The right standards for an encyclopedia (lead or infobox), as you put it, is not someone being thanked from the podium for one scene. As I explained above, the lead or infobox should reflect the credits - and there was no controversy about Towne not being included.

• The WP page on Carmine Coppola is wrong where it makes it sound like he was a principal composer on the first film, and it should be changed. In any case you can't use a WP article as a source. Note he's not listed as a composer on the IMDb either, while he is given additional music composer credit on The Godfather Part II. If you can source some info on the uncredited work Coppola did on a piece or two for the first film - apparently he did a "Piano Sequence" - it should be mentioned in the prose.

• Isn't it obvious that "in a production of" could only be used for actors, if anything? That is not "ordinary English usage" for writers or screenplays. As I said above it should be consistent with other WP leads. Don't know why you'd want to use that awkward phrasing not found on any other film articles.

I thank you for your civility, but have to disagree on your criterion for the lead or infobox. I guess the only way to resolve this is to ask for comments from our friends at WT:FILM. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree with you about halfway. I'm not suggesting that an Oscar acceptance mention is a criterion for inclusion; rather, I'm saying that this underscores the significance of his work (the tribute is rare and fulfilled a personal promise). To be fair, perhaps it is a non sequitur in a way, inasmuch as Towne was a writer on the film and I believe that is the necessary condition for inclusion in the infobox. I feel differently about the lede, where I think it is a close call. Maybe someone else will feel differently, but I think his work on this film was more "supporting" than "lead."

(My apologies on deleting your paragraph on him. I thought it was a bit vague and sketchy. If you don't want to write more on it, well, understood.)

Carmine Coppola for me is a similar case. He wrote original music for this film and, since it's well sourced, why wouldn't we include it?

You think "in a production of" is used for actors? I'm sorry, I don't follow you. I'm sure we can solve this, though. I didn't imagine it could be a problem so I didn't give it a second thought. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Only actors, if anything. It's not a common term, and it's good you've now removed it. If my bit on Robert Towne - that he wrote that one Pacino-Brando tomato garden scene, as the source says - was a bit vague and sketchy, it's because that's the info the cited source gave. It was better than nothing, and it would be good to restore it to the article's prose. But one scene does not justify including Towne in the infobox. And speaking of cited sources, there is none backing the claim that Carmine Coppola was a composer on the first film. Not even the IMDb. As I said, apparently a "Piano Sequence" he did was used in the first film. He has no credit as score composer. So it should be pulled simply because it's unsourced. (Some people think he did more because he got additional music composer credit on The Godfather Part II. But that's a different film.) - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're even close to being correct. Actors? Who says that actors produce anything? I seriously have no idea what usage you are talking about. It's ordinary English and I'd use it again because you haven't mentioned any possible confusion. Are you trying to confuse "the film is a production of Ruddy" with "Clooney is in a production of Hamlet"? If so, well, in the English language, syntax is semantic. Compare "dog bites man" with "man bites dog". But this is so basic I am sure you are talking about something else.

As far as I know, Coppola wrote music for this film so that is verifiable. There's no confusion; he belongs in the infobox. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are you still going on about "in a production of"? I personally would never use that term in a WP article. I only meant how it might possibly be used as it was already in the article, but remember - I took it out. And now you've taken it out. So can we drop it?

There is currently no source for Carmine Coppola as composer for this film, not here or on his page. You should also note that for all this film's nominations, Best Music Score went only to Nino Rota, while on The Godfather Part II it went to both Rota and Coppola. While he did have a credit on the second and third films, Carmine has no composer credit on the first film. So I'm going to be taking it out. If someone finds a legitimate source for text on his additional music, it can be put in the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I only changed the thing on Ruddy as a favor to you, even though what you said about it made no sense. Acquisition of the principles of syntax occurs as a child.

We are both aware that Carmine Coppola wrote original music for The Godfather. You have mentioned it yourself and it's in the lede on his WP page. So I don't know what you mean when you say there is no source. You know there is a source because you know it yourself. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

All I have heard is that he did a "Piano Sequence" which was used in the "Mall Wedding Sequence". That is not composing music for the film score. I don't know why you're so intent on keeping him in the infobox, when that is for the film score composer. It's clearly unwarranted. And WP policy says you need a cited source. There is none. Someone might find something on his contribution to the background wedding music, and that can go in the prose, but only Rota should be in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It says in his article that he wrote original music for this film and you agree. That is why he's in the infobox and that is the standard. Perhaps you don't approve of this standard for some reason, but it is the standard and you have persuaded no one. I don't think it is good editing to change the article when you know that your proposal has no support, since it shows disrespect for all the editors who came before you. Personally, I disapprove of that kind of disrespect. Note that some of your proposals were accepted, including cases where your reasoning was not top notch. If you want to make a contribution here, that's great. You offered some observations. Great. Let's not waste time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The standard is info has to be sourced. Especially if it is contrary to the film's credits, as in this case. I'm often the only one on WP film articles correcting credits. I have often found long lasting mistakes that no one else realized were wrong or took upon themselves to fix. You've been around WP long enough to know better than to insist on putting unsourced info in an article. Not even the IMDb lists Carmine Coppola as a composer on this film. The composer standard for the infobox is the one who did the film's score - not composers of songs used in the film, or composers of music played by musician(s) in a wedding scene, as we seem to have here. His article does not say he composed music for the score of this film, (but he did for the two sequels). Even if it did, I already explained to you another WP article cannot be used as a source. You need to stop this.

I've taken it out. Don't put it back again claiming "this is correct and is under discussion" - it's not correct, it's contrary to the credits, and the discussion only continued because you keep repeating invalid points. You have no source. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this is over. You are using the wrong standard and no one agrees with you. Stop changing the infobox. You're wrong. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No one else has commented here, which means no one agrees with you. Do you really think just saying you are in error with nothing backing it up makes it true? What part of You have no source for your claim do you not understand? - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Coppola has been in the infobox a long time, so all the editors who came before us were fine with it. As you know, he wrote original music for the film. You said so yourself. Sorry, you're not using the standard every other editor has used here. I didn't think it was necessary to say this, but the written guidelines do not back your position. You are the only editor to propose this change. No other editor agrees it should be changed. There are no other editors who agree with you. No editor that edited here before us agrees with you. Thank you for respecting the other editors by leaving this as we decided. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You have been around here long enough to know that, per WP:LONGTIME, just because the name has been here does not mean that it stays. Especially without a source. MarnetteD | Talk 03:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Two mistakes on your part: changes require a consensus, as I said. Secondly, the source is known and Gothic is being disingenuous about it. Read above, where he agrees that Coppola's WP page correctly reflects that he wrote original music for The Godfather. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ring's "standard" includes conductors. Carlo Savina was conductor, not composer. Yet how long did he and these other editors have Savina listed as composer as well in the infobox? Until I took him out last week. If you look at most other WP film articles, you'll see only the score composer is included in the infobox. Not composers of songs used in the film, or other incidental music, like wedding music. That's the standard. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange, Gothic, that you would lie. As you know, I agreed with you about Savina. Isn't that peculiar. When someone tells a lie, as you have done, I take it that you have no argument. Now, I would suggest that you apologize for lying about what I said. If you don't, I will repeat the fact that you will lie about things repeatedly. I have no patience for liars and don't mind pointing it out if that is how low you want to go. Take care of that apology immediately. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You said Coppola has been in the infobox a long time, so all the editors who came before us were fine with it. I pointed out that Savina was in the infobox a long time as well, until I took him out. Where's the lie? It's true you didn't fight me on removing him, but I didn't say you did. As anyone can see just above, I said your "standard" includes conductors - by the standard you articulated Savina should have stayed, because neither you nor any other editor here ever took him out. How long did you and these other editors have Savina listed as a third composer in the infobox? You should not be throwing around false charges. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not what you pointed out. "Ring's 'standard' includes conductors"...? As you know, I agreed with you about the conductor. Is it hard for you to understand that applying the correct standard to different cases yields different results? Wow, I am surprised that is challenging for you, but that is what you are saying. You really don't know how that works? Interesting admission. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

First you say there is no consensus and then you say there is one but that it doesn't count because it is not a vote. This WP:WIKILAWYERING needs to stop. There is no guideline stating that everyone who wrote a song gets a mention in the infobox. If that were the case we would have to add over a dozen names to this one. You need to put in a request for input either from the filmproject of from third party comment. MarnetteD | Talk 18:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not difficult, but you need it explained more slowly. There clearly was a consensus on including Carmine Coppola for a long time. Apparently you are unaware that a new consensus is required to make a change? Okay, now you know. And you don't know that consensus is not majority rule? Okay, now you know. And apparently you can't find any support for your position in the infobox parameters? Yes, I know, because there is no support for your position there. Perhaps you don't like it, and perhaps you are impressed by GFilm's efforts to hide it (literally removing the truth of the matter from Coppola's page!) but Carmine Coppola wrote original music for The Godfather. That is a fact. Not just one song, as you erroneously state. That is why he's in the infobox for the last three years. That is okay for every editor who looked at the page in all that time with the exception of you and GFilm. Your case is weak, so leave it alone. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned before per WP:LONGTIME just because it was here is not a consensus that it should be here and no a new consensus is not needed for its removal. I did not say that he wrote one song, You can request more input but it does not belong there until you have done so. MarnetteD | Talk 15:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

LONGTIME? No one is relying on that. Sorry that you are unaware of how consensus works. Check the project page on it. There you will find this:

"In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article." --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your current wikilawyering has convinced no one as can be seen by the responses in this thread. You have options to request other input is there a reason that you refuse to do so. MarnetteD | Talk 19:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? You mean following policy, procedure, and guidelines, knowing the facts and not trying to hide the truth? Yeah, I have done all those things. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Both the AFI and BFI clarify Carmine Coppola's participation, so isn't there a middle a ground here along the lines they do it such as:

Betty Logan (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Most people looking at that would not know what it means. It does not clarify, it confuses, and it's contrary to the film's credits. But I've been saying all along that the fact Carmine contributed to the music performed in the wedding scene could be put in the body of the article, but it does not belong in the infobox. Nino Rota deserves his sole billing in the main credits. Some people want to add Carmine to the first film because they see he got additional music composer credit on The Godfather Part II. But that's a different film. Not even the IMDb lists Carmine Coppola as a composer on this film. You might also note that for all this film's nominations, Best Music Score went only to Nino Rota, while on The Godfather Part II it went to both Rota and Coppola. While he did have a credit on the second and third films, Carmine has no film score composer credit on the first film.

The composer standard for the infobox is the one who did the film's score - not composers of songs used in the film, or composers of music played by musician(s) in a wedding scene, as we have here. Or do you seriously want to start adding song composers as well? Can you imagine how that would inflate the infobox? - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That is your idea of the standard. The parameters call for the composers of the film's music and according to IMDb he contributed two pieces. I think we should be accurate about it, otherwise it seems that he didn't write music for the film when he did. It would be different if his music was not written expressly for the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

... and surely that is the crux of the matter. He did write it expressly for The Godfather. His son says so on the 25th Anniversary box set that I possess. Of course he should not be omitted. I do not agree with Gothicfilm's last posting above. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not my "idea of the standard." How many song composers do you see listed in WP film infoboxes? When they do appear someone usually takes them out - because most on WP agree only the score composer should be in the infobox. Ring either doesn't understand or doesn't care what a film score is. He keeps saying things like you are in error and sorry about your mistake but Coppola wrote music for this film. That is not the issue. Lots of songs are written expressly for the films they're put in. That's separate and apart from the score. You want to go by the IMDb? According to the IMDb, the credit reads "Original Music by Nino Rota", as you can see on their Full cast and crew for The Godfather page. Carmine isn't mentioned. That's because the IMDb credits songs and songwriters on a separate page. Carmine did not write for the score of the first film. It's hardly a surprise that he would be mentioned on a box set, as he did work on the scores for the second and third films.

I spent a good amount of time improving the Carmine Coppola page, adding a number of details, like The Black Stallion. Then Ring Cinema came in and reverted all of it, just to keep the incorrect bit in the lead claiming Carmine worked on the score for TG1. After much back and forth, he continued to revert the lead, while taking out accurate, sourced info from the article, which explains Carmine contributed music for the wedding scene. This is inexcusable, nonconstructive editing.

I have now created a new Music section for this film, crediting the roles of Nino Rota and Carmine Coppola, with a ref. It can be built up more, (as can other areas of the article), but it is accurate. As is the infobox, which I hope you will now leave as it is, listing only the film's score composer, like most every other WP film infobox. Carmine is in the body of the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your full reply. I have read the new section and consider it a welcome addition to the article.

However, I prefer the 'info box as edited by --Ring Cinema (talk) and support his action here. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

GF, the distinction you made above is salient: music written for a film is different in this context than music written for another purpose and included in a film. I have mentioned before that applying the same standard to different cases will yield different results, and this is one. Coppola's music was written for this film. (Interestingly, Rota's theme was not.) I'm sorry to see that you continue to misstate Coppola's composition on his page. As you know, he wrote two separate pieces for The Godfather and I have never found another editor who tries to keep the truth off a page. I really don't understand that even a little bit and it makes me suspicious of your other edits. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is absurd - I was clearly not talking about music written for another purpose and included in a film. As anyone can see just above, I said That is not the issue. Lots of songs are written expressly for the films they're put in. That's separate and apart from the score. Your statements here are deceptive or incompetent. You have no problem making false claims, to which you have now added I am trying to keep the truth off a page - this after your friend Gareth Griffith-Jones just acknowledged how I put Carmine's work in the article - calling it a welcome addition to the article - something you never got around to. You have a record for being disruptive on WP and have been banned more than once. Your User talk:Ring Cinema page, the Talk:No Country for Old Men (film) page and other WP film pages have lots of examples of people complaining about your behavior. But after your last block for edit warring Gareth Griffith-Jones was there supporting you. You two usually back each other up. He 's the only one who has no problem with what you do. I gave another example of more of your nonconstructive editing behavior on the Carmine Coppola page just above, where you took out all the new text I had put in the article, claiming at least some of these changes are wrong. Every one of them was accurate. As others have pointed out, you don't make real contributions to articles, you just comment, argue endlessly, and get into disputes over plot details and infoboxes.

Most people on WP agree only the score composer should be in the infobox. I called it the standard because that's how most every WP film page is done. Nino Rota deserves his sole billing in the main credits, as he was the sole score composer on the first Godfather, and the credits reflect that. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You are really not in a good position to accuse anyone of deception given your attempt to mislead readers about Carmine's compositions on his page.

Let me point out that you have made many suggestions for this page. Some have been accepted, some have not. That's normal, isn't it? Given that you are trying to change the guidelines now, you invite the conclusion is that they don't support your position.

Your attempts to slander Gareth are appalling, by the way. He has edited on this page before I started, he's an honest editor, and you would be wise to value his opinion. Apparently you think he's biased, but that must be your way of thinking. He and I have each reverted the other from time to time, so he doesn't have any excuses to make to you, I'm sure.

Do most people on WP agree the "score composer" alone should be in the infobox? I'm certain you do not know either way what most editors think about that and I don't really understand why you think an encyclopedia should not mention Coppola in this context. It's mystifying in the extreme when you know he contributed two different pieces for the film.

Does Nina Rota deserve sole credit in the infobox for his music for this film? Well, since others also wrote music for this film, it seems like he gets respect if he's mentioned first. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just run the credits for The Godfather, and it is a little ambiguous. It says "Music composed by Nino Rota", then a gap, then in small letters "Conducted by Carlo Savina", then a gap, then "Additional music", a small gap, "Mall Wedding sequence Carmine Coppola", then another gap before listing the songs. As a compromise, can't we just have "Music: Nino Rota" followed by "Carmine Coppola (additional music) or something? The AFI and BFI links that Betty provides would back this up. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I've gone ahead and changed it, as "uncredited" is simply incorrect! --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Rob Sinden (talk). I, for one am content with how that looks now. Surely no-one has cause for complaint now. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Rob. I appreciate it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you went to the actual film's credits - I'm all for that. I always want to use them as the primary source. If that's how the end credits on the first Godfather appear, then that's an important consideration. I know that only Nino Rota got credit for the score on the posters for the first two films, but Carmine got a prominent "Additional music" credit on the second film's credits. The first film's credit as you describe is less prominent, and thus less memorable for me...! Plus it's talking about wedding scene music, not the score. But if that's the credit the IMDb made a mistake in leaving it off their film credits page - they do list his "Additional music" for the second film - perhaps because on Part II he actually composed some of the film's score? One could still dispute whether such a small mention in the end credits of Part I should be in the infobox, especially if others were included there. I would say no - why include only Carmine but leave out the others?

And none of this excuses the behavior of Ring Cinema - especially his throwing around false charges. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

His role may be minor, but the prima facie evidence from the credits would suggest to me that he "scored" the whole scene. Do we have enough evidence to suggest otherwise and contradict the credits? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the matter with you Gareth Griffith-Jones? Now you want to edit war over this Talk page? Stop moving my text around and changing who I'm replying to. I have to question your competence - first you make it look like I was responding to you, then you make it look like I'm responding to Ring. And you claim that's my wish. How could anyone think that is my wish? Do I really have to take the time to explain how wrong that is? Your bit - Thank you Rob Sinden - it's obvious who it's addressed to. Mine is not. Ring Cinema frequently inserts into Talk pages, including in this very discussion, as you can see well above. Yet you never moved his text, from what I've seen. Others do this as well to reply to earlier entries on a Talk page. Move my text here and you change its meaning. Leave it alone. No harm was done to yours. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

GGJ had a point. It did look like you were replying to Ring rather than me. Possibly controversially, I've moved your reply, so that I can reply to it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No it didn't. That's how you've made it look now. You're almost as incompetent as Gareth Griffith-Jones. This is not even the order they were posted in. You've been on here long enough to know people doing inserts for replies to earlier posts is a common practice - and you just did it yourself above with a lame attempt to keep this discussion going. What difference does it make whether or not Carmine did the music for the whole wedding scene? It's hard to see this as anything from you except being antagonistic. You have again made it look like I was responding to Ring when you know damn well that was not my intent. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoah! Hold your horses! "Incompetent"? "Lame attempt"? "Antagonistic"? I've moved it to the logical place in the discussion to facilitate my response to you. Where you had replied was inbetween my post and GGJ's reply, and indented to the left of the post you were replying to - completely in the wrong place. This confused me, and clearly other editors too. However, it's your post. Put it where you like. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Posting a reply directly below the entry I'm replying to is completely in the wrong place? I don't think so. Indenting is not as important as location. I don't believe you were confused for a second. Who else could it have been meant for but the one it was directly below? I can't move it now because you added text below it after you moved it. And it looks to me like you only added that lame non-serious follow-up as an excuse to again move my text - Any chance that was also deliberate and antagonistic? - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

GGJ had also replied to my post, therefore your reply should have gone after his. Not stuck inbetween with the wrong indenting. By putting your response where you did, it not only made it look like you were replying to Ring's post, but that GGJ's and Ring's responses were to your post. And you accuse me of being "incompetent" for correcting this. Please assume good faith, and stop accusing me of being "antagonistic". We can all move on then. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bull. How could Thank you Rob Sinden possibly be a response to me? There's no assume good faith with that claim. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is possibly in the wrong place too. It depends on who Gareth meant to reply to below! But it doesn't matter as we're veering wildly off topic! And we need to stop getting so personal too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again, Rob Sinden (talk) puts a sensible resolution in front of us, and once again I am indebted to you, Rob.

Perhaps I shall take this opportunity to educate Gothicfilm (talk) on how we address two or more users in the one reply – the first sentence is meant for any reader of this section/discussion page – like this:

Perhaps we can move on to continue developing and caretaking this article.

@ Gothicfilm (talk) You should pay more attention to your indenting in order to clarify your meaning.

@ Rob Sinden (talk I feel this issue can be put to bed now. Do you agree?

@ Ring Cinema (talk) I am pleased with the outcome, and glad that you are too.

Kind regards to all. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC) -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can put this to bed for the time being. We should at least cool off. I feel a compromise has been met. The only user that wants to see Coppola removed from the infobox has resorted to insults and assumptions of bad faith. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You didn't change the indenting, you changed the location - after I made it clear twice I didn't want my text moved, especially to make it appear like I was responding to someone else - and yet you went ahead and did exactly that. Then you expect an assumption of good faith? You are trying to take advantage of WP:AGF. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed both the location and the indentation. You had completely put it in the wrong place. If you need assistance with this, see Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. But it's all beside the point. My main issue is with your insults and accusations, something the other editors seem to be experiencing too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Again with this? How could posting a reply directly below the entry I'm replying to be completely in the wrong place? That's talking about location, not indenting. You could have just fixed the indenting, but no, you wanted to move it despite my twice objecting to that. That was antagonistic. And I find your condescension above insulting. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If i'd have fixed the indentation only, then your message would have come before Gareth's, yet he replied first. Yours was later, so should have come after his. And I only moved it so that I could reply to it, as it would have really confused matters if I'd have left it where it was. I can assure you I was not being antagonistic. Calling someone "incompetent" for putting something right is antagonistic however. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You just repeat the same bull after I earlier answered it. What you did was antagonistic, after I twice made it clear don't move my text. And it looks to me like you only added that lame non-serious "reply" as an excuse to again move my text. And you yourself inserted that response above my earlier text. So you violated your own "later should come after" rule. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the help page, you'll see it's not "bull" and it's not my "rule". It's not a question of "later should come after", but what things are in direct response to. I commented on the content discussion with correct indentation, and the fact I moved your text with the correct indentation after that (and I did acknowledge that correcting the positioning of your text would be controversial, but was my only recourse without confusing the thread even more). And what right have you to call my response "lame"? What's with your attitude? You really should assume good faith - I'm not out to get you, and I promise I'm not trying to atagonise you! I think you're probably frustrated by the discussion, and I understand that.

But let's draw a line under all this. It's not helping anything or anyone. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Concur. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

John Marley / Jack Woltz

There is a little problem there because I think the implication that he is a pedophile is only in the novel. Do I have that wrong? If it's not in the film, well, you know what I think about that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! My memory is that it is implied in the film, but I shall check ... Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 17:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha! The images that I still have in my mind (obviously from reading the book years ago) are still so strong that I am wrong and you are correct. I have made the edit. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 18:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

See, Wikipedia really works. Muchas gracias, senor. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Updating the plot in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines

The current plot has a lot of problems in my view, such as going over the word limit and containg superflous language. I tried earlier this year to edit it but was continually reverted by User: Ring Cinema which led to a major dispute, so since it has been a major cooling off period and that discussion has been archived, I would just like to reach out to others and see what they think of this plot draft I put forward, which is less than 700 words and in which I have tried to follow the guidelines. Please suggest any changes, thanks. If Ring is there and willing to work with me then fine:

In 1945, New York, Sicillian mafia Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) hears favours during his daughter Connie's (Talia Shire) wedding to Carlo Rizzi (Gianni Russo). Vito's youngest son Michael (Al Pacino), a returning U.S. serviceman uninvolved in the business, introduces his girlfriend Kay Adams (Diane Keaton) to his family at the sprawling reception. Vito's godson and popular singer Johnny Fontane (Al Martino), pleads to secure a coveted movie role, so Vito dispatches consigliere Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall), his adopted son, to the abrasive studio head, Jack Woltz (John Marley). Woltz is unwilling until he wakes up to the severed head of his prized horse.

Drug baron Virgil Sollozzo (Al Lettieri), backed by the Tattaglia family, offers Vito investment in return for protecting his drug trafficking with Vito's political connections, but the Godfather disapproves of drugs and sends his enforcer Luca Brasi (Lenny Montana) to spy on them. Brasi is killed and Vito is then hospitalised after an attempted assassination by Sollozzo’s men. Vito’s eldest son Sonny (James Caan) takes command, ordering caporegime Peter Clemenza (Richard S. Castellano) to kill Vito’s traitorous driver Paulie (Johnny Martino). Meanwhile Sollozzo kidnaps Hagen, pressuring him to make Sonny accept the deal. Michael protects Vito at the hospital, whose police cover was lifted on Sollozzo’s payroll. Police Captain McCluskey (Sterling Hayden) accosts Michael and breaks his jaw.

Sonny has Tattaglia's son, Bruno, killed. Sonny reluctantly approves Michael's plan over Hagen's objections. Michael lures Sollozzo and McCluskey to a restaurant on the pretext of making peace, retrieves a planted handgun and murders them. The authorities clamp down as the Five Families erupt into warfare. Michael takes refuge in Sicily under Don Tommasino (Corrado Gaipa) and middle son Fredo Corleone (John Cazale) is sheltered by associate Moe Greene (Alex Rocco) in Las Vegas. Sonny attacks Carlo for abusing Connie but it happens again. He speeds for her home but, at a toll booth, assassins gun him down. In Sicily, Michael marries Apollonia Vitelli (Simonetta Stefanelli), but his new love is killed by a car bomb intended for him. Vito arranges to meet the heads of the Five Families to secure Michael's return, reluctantly agreeing to the drug trade while renouncing all vengeance. Vito deduces that the Tattaglias were pawns acting under the dominant Don Emilio Barzini (Richard Conte).

With Vito weak and Fredo incapable, Michael takes control of the family business and over a year later marries Kay, promising her to make it legitimate in five years. Michael allows New York territory to be pressured by rival families and breaks it off to capos Clemenza and Salvatore Tessio (Abe Vigoda), moving operations to Las Vegas. Upset when replaced as wartime consigliere with Vito, Hagen is made legal representative of the move and assured of long range plans. Michael meets Greene to buy out the family casinos but Greene derides the Corleones. Fredo falls under his sway, angering Michael. Later, Vito tells Michael how he had always wanted better for him, while warning that Michael will be killed when a traitor will arrange for him to meet Barzini.

Vito collapses and dies, in 1955, while playing with Michael’s son Anthony. At the funeral, Tessio arranges Michael and Barzini’s meeting, signalling his treachery as Vito warned. While the christening of Connie and Carlo's son proceeds, to whom Michael stands as godfather, Corleone assassins execute his orders in murdering all of the New York family heads and Moe Greene. Tessio is told of his betrayal's revelation and taken to his death. Carlo is questioned by Michael on involvement in Sonny's murder and confesses Barzini contacted him, then escorted to a car under the pretence of exile and garrotted by Clemenza. Connie then confronts Michael over Carlo’s death. Kay believes Michael's denial but watches warily as Michael, having consolidated his p ower, receives his capos who address him as Don Corleone.

--JTBX (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Response

This subject has been covered already with you and some of your suggestions were taken at that time, despite your persistently unpleasant behavior. The draft above is not an improvement or well written; the current plot summary is in good shape and is the product of a normal consensus. I notice you have convinced the editors at The Road and The Shawshank Redemption(?) that you are a nuisance, so my thought is that you have not decided to be productive. It's kind of a waste of time but that's your habit. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well theres a lot to say about unpleasantness, just glancing at the talk above this section for example, but I won't go there. But if you look at the current plot it contains details such as "fish wrapped" sent to them, which is not needed, Brasi killed is fine for a summation. There's also the structure of the language. Simply because you do not think something here is worthy of inclusion presupposes that you own the article, unless no one else weighs in I will try and add it bit by bit to show the differences. I would;nt call it a consensus, I would call it a major dispute in which I was absent and you proceeded to edit. --JTBX (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If you wouldn't call it a consensus, you don't know what a consensus is. I notice that your poor behavior has received negative feedback everywhere you go. Some people are able to learn and improve. Maybe you're not one of them. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Ring's view that the plot summary is in good shape as it currently stands and does not the need the detail that you are wishing to add. You should note that the message that you have left numerous editors is in violation of WP:CANVASS due to the wording that you used and that will not help in your endeavor. MarnetteD | Talk 02:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the opinions stated above by Ring Cinema and MarnetteD, to wit, the plot summary does not need to be rewritten. The current state is the result of a great deal of work and discussion by numerous editors. It is presumptuous, to say the least, for you to come and say you are going to completely rewrite it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The great deal of work discussion included me, but it was never finished. --JTBX (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"After Carlo is questioned by Michael on his involvement in setting up Sonny's murder and confesses he was contacted by Barzini, Clemenza kills him with a garrotte." Fromt he article plot, yet Clemenza isn't even introduced earlier, but I have done so in the above, its pretty clear who is interested in making a decent plot and who is interested in usurping control over the article. --JTBX (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Buteo

• I am dividing this, so as to not have to scroll through that which I do not wish to read again, apart from the four responses immediately above here

@ JTBX. I concur entirely with the four well-expressed responses above. My heart sank when I saw your return here yesterday evening. You have behaved like an over-indulged child returning from being locked in his room for 24 hours by another, strict-disciplinarian, older relative. When will you understand how editing Wikipedia works? It is not difficult. There are plenty of other useful tasks to be carried out here rather than be nurse-maid to your tantrums. The plot summary does not require changing one bit. It is the result of a considerable amount of diligent editing by a large number of senior editors. Only last week, when addressing the Jack Woltz subject in a different section of this excellent article, I re-read the summary searchimg for a minor 'tweak', only to realise that it is as damn near perfect as it could be. Be warned! If you touch it, I shall regard it as a vindictive act and treat you as a serial vandal. I was not nick-named "The Welsh Buzzard" where I worked for no reason – I was feared.

• -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 07:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Much of the plot is the same as to what I put forward, but I think that there are paragraph structures in the article and some unnecessities such as "fish wrapped" being sent to the Corleones, I think you can see the differences I made. They are quite minor. --JTBX (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with all of that. Nothing requires altering. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 11:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, then explain to me what someone reading the article plot first time will think when McCluskey breaks Michael's jaw? They will think "why?" It hasn't been explained. Just one of many issues. --JTBX (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

First consider the likely reason why are 'they' reading this article. Just stop and think about it! Then you should arrive at understanding that it is of no importance. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 11:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The plot is there to provide a brief overview of events while including all major points to the story, covering characters etc. I believe the improvements I have put forward are in line, I would respect some feedback on them. Thanks. --JTBX (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You are wasting everyone's time, including your own. Your reputation precedes you, JT. Everywhere you edit, you make yourself a nuisance instead of a productive editor. You mentioned above that you want to return to issues that were resolved weeks ago. No thanks! I would note that everyone sees what we have on Bragi's murder and no one is moved to change it. No one has endorsed your draft even in part. (Thanks for the link to the Chomsky video. Excellent stuff!) --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not see how the issues were resolved, I am moved to change the Brasi murder because the murder happens on screen, theres no descriptive for it int he current plot, only the fishes-which is unnecessary and implies that he is murdered, not vividly confirms it as on screen. Also, there is no introduction of Clemenza which should be included, as it makes the later paragraph strange where he garrots Carlo. Plots are not graven in stone, I have highlighted numerous issues with different plots across different articles, I am trying to be civil and resolve all film disputes in one go so as to not bother with these films again, if that seems like I am being a nuisance to above articles then it should be questioned as to what the above editors are doing on Wikipedia and what their relation to these articles is. Thanks --JTBX (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"but two fish are sent to the family wrapped in Brasi's vest, confirming he "sleeps with the fishes" That is totally unnecessary in my opinion, for example.--JTBX (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Issues are resolved by consensus. Thanks for your opinion, but there isn't agreement with you on these points. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

... and you have failed to address my last posting. You have completely missed the point of a film plot summary. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 18:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

But you cannot be serious that we should not introduce Clemenza?, taht doesnt even need consensus, thats an error.--JTBX (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not "an error". It is not required. Indeed, I have read your remark to me more recently (I have been looking for it this evening) in which you agreed that he need not be introduced. You still have not grasped why anyone would read the plot summary, have you. Just stop and put yourself in the shoes of ... I'll give you a clue, not the answer ... it is an 'either ... or' situation. Quite straightforward. You should be able to work it out for yourself. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 22:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't really seen this film and only know most of it by pop culture references so I'm fairly impartial here. I do think at least one improvement I saw is that the last sentence says " Clemenza kills him with a garrotte". I CTRL+F'd because I didn't recall him being mentioned and he isn't, neither is this Salvatore until the end, they just kind of appear and kill or be killed. If you don't want to introduce Clemenza it might be better to jsut say that Carlo is garroted to death instead. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I might agree except that Clemenza is covered in more detail elsewhere in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for concurring dark, as I knew you would actually look at the problem rather than knee-jerk rejecting what I was trying to put forward. As Ring also pointed out, there is a choice of either placing Clemenza out of the plot and covering him elsewhere, or adding him earlier as I have done above ^ - I would personally go for the latter as he plays a prominent role in the film, inherits the New york territory, mentioned in the sequel etc. What do you guys think? --JTBX (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, JT, but attacking everyone else here because they disagree with you is extremely poor form. Also, you seem to have invented something I said about Clemenza. Normally, I would think it was an honest mistake, but you are frequently dishonest. Start apologizing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood what you just wrote but I believe you stated that Clemenza is covered elsewhere in the article in more detail, so agreeing with Dark I think we should move any mention of it from the plot, or introduce him as I have put forward.--JTBX (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I regard that last post by you, JTBX, as being insolent towards Ring Cinema. Your attempt here to 'buddy-up' to Darkwarriorblake is not only pathetic, but also transparent. You have learnt nothing about negotiating a point of view with other editors. Go away and stop this absurd pretence of being serious about this project. This plot summary is not changing to resemble your contribution that opens this section on this page. Have I made myself clear? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 07:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that on a discussion for this plot it is wise to involve other disputes, especially resolved ones, lets try and stay on topic. I believe that DWB has made valued contributions to Wikipedia, and was justifiably angry in his posts towards me because like me, he explains everything he does in large texts which does consume's one time. As such I complied with basically everything he said on the talk page and came around to his views on Shawshank apart from one minor sentence, so its basically resolved. And after the blocking episode I am trying to resolve issues by following Wikipedia policies more closely and keeping civil. On the merit of his work I invited him to discuss on this page as, again, he seems to be an able enough editor to do so. I consider myself very serious for this project based on my continous engagement and opening of discussions for film plots. Ring stated above that Clemenza had enough detail elsewhere in the article, which I interpreted as an option to remove Clemenza from the plot because as DWB and I pointed out, he wasn't introduced.

I do not understand why Ring reacted the way he did, as it was most likely a misunderstanding. I did not understand your very emotional response either. Wikipedia is a collaborative project so lets try and work together. --JTBX (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Now I am insulted. There is nothing "emotional" about my remarks. I do not consider anything to do with Wikipedia worth getting "emotional" about; I have a full life in my time away from my notebook. I am certain you can expect Ring Cinema to reply to your suggestion that there is a "misunderstanding" ... hmmm. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Ring is not replying yet, perhaps because he is a bit busy trying to rewrite policy in his favour. --JTBX (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

@ JTBX, Childish behaviour as usual. It is far more evident that your comments aren't worth the effort of an acknowledgement. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 06:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I understand from this discussion that several editors don´t want any changes to the plot whatsoever, but I would like to know why, in the context of the plot, Kay Adams and Tessio isn´t wikilinked (I was reverted on this very quickly), and why Clemenza don´t get the "Peter Clemenza (Richard S. Castellano) description (didn´t even try to make the edit). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to any changes at all, and I'm pretty sure I speak for some others. JTBX has made himself a special case, but even for him suggestions are sometimes accepted. Perhaps Gareth is reacting to the recent discussion here where some said no changes were needed. I have seen him reverse himself from time to tim. On the Clemenza identification, I think you're correct, GGS. His first mention in the summary should be long form. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I´ve made that edit.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice one Grabergs, if you have seen the film I would like to know your thoughts on introducing him earlier as in the plot I put forward above? Thanks. Ring has been opposed and edit wars to all changes so I completely understand his schizophrenic switch of personality above. I mentioned to intriduce Clemenza several times and you can see clearly above how everyone reacted, for them to be acquiescent now is not even a joke. --JTBX (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding my undoing of the revision to the first mention of the Diane Keaton character:-

Kay Adams/Kay Adams-Corleone

@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) Thank you for your revisions today. Please see my edit summary of a few moments ago!

. . (Apologies to Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) & thanks to User:Ring Cinema for correcting my revision. I should have read the actual article as well as the 'diffs' page. Sorry!)

Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 17:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, first you revert Grabergs as a knee-jerk reaction without reading the article, everything which I stated you and others were doing above, but since Ring has done a U-turn as he always does in a slimey fashion to not get caught out as an obstructive edit warrior, you now support the inclusion. Ring only a few days ago stated that Clemenza is covered later and was obstructive towards any change and suddenly is supportive. So now Gareth and Ring are trying to masquerade as consensus editors, this is some type of sick joke right? where is the mention that I tried to put forward this earlier but was continuously harassed by Ring - who stated that I was putting words into his mouth even though he just agreed with Grabergs, and Mr Welsh Buzzard - remind me how old you are again Gareth? Well I hope more editors come and see this from the RFC as Grabergs has. EDIT: You are now moving talk page responses out of order, somethign which Gothicfilm above has noted. This is serious. --JTBX (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC) My recent change: Added date at beginning where it is appropriate, Michael is not on military leave which implies he will return but WW2 is finished so thats changed, Vito is a mafia Don we don't need to add hes the "head of his crime family" >> superfluos. I realise that either GGJ or Ring don't want introductions for Carlo and Connie at the beginning so I left it, an explanation here as to why would be handy. --JTBX (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Oh and it appears that Gareth has just reverted it, unsurprisingly, and accused me of vandalism.--JTBX (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

JT, this was settled a long time ago and this is just your previously rejected proposal that we covered in discussion. If you have any useful suggestions, that's fine, but this is just a waste of time and, it seems to me, simply a defiant response to your proposal's rejection in this discussion. If you are curious why your reputation is damaged, this is a good place to start. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think "head of his crime family" should stay, but isn´t JTBX right about Michael? Or is it even stated? As I recall, there is no talk of him returning to service, i.e. he was discharged. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe we have it covered by linking to 'Don', and Vito insists on being referred to as Godfather. In any event, it's been discussed before, most recently above. On the issue of Michael's service, I believe we have it right since there were returning servicemen as late as 1946 and they delay the photographer until Michael arrives. I think that's the extent of the evidence on that point. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I added "Godfather" in the second paragraph of the plot, and yes military leave (which means someone will return) is different to returning US serviceman, I didn't understand above Ring, do you want to have it at military leave or change it to US serviceman?--JTBX (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

@Ring Cinema: I´m not that familiar with the correct terms so I´ll assume you´re right. The novel states he was discharged and went to college for a while before the wedding, but that doesn´t mean it´s true in the film. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's be blunt: does it really matter? Yes, the novel is clear that he does not return to the US army. In the film it is ambiguous. Therefore the existing phraseology is accurate. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 07:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I´m not sure leave is accurate if it´s ambiguous, but that can be me not knowing the full meaning of "leave" in this context. One could simply drop "on military leave," from the plot, it´s not that important for the movie (my opinion). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur. My point in my previous post. Drop it from plot summary. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 07:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah its good to drop it, but the point of it was to show that Michael is "clean". We are still left with needing a way to make Michael uninvolved in the criminal business, we should add that he's uninvolved in it as I did above or in another way if you could do so. --JTBX (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Gareth I appreciate you adding the date at the beginning, but this is part of my criticism of you and Ring, its beginning to look like something out of a novel rather than a encyclopedia entry. If you go to other film articles they always have "In 20xx," etc. I added it in now. --JTBX (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, JT, but your style on this is just not good. It's true that other articles are clumsy with these things. Please don't inflict this poor form on the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Let us see how others react to this. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

@JTBX: About Michael being "clean", that is made fairly clear with "Vito is saddened to learn that, despite his hopes, Michael has become involved in the family business." Is it good enough? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Ring, I am sorry to hear that, but it is about a summary not necessarily style, if you think that the style of the article is ruined placing "in 1945" which is the usual thing to do, instead of "1945." as Gareth did then something is wrong here. Grabergs, see what I am dealing with? Anyway Grabergs, yes its true its covered later, good point, but it still needs a tweaks. The second paragraph is far too bloated and we can move that up perhaps.--JTBX (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Of one point I am intransigent: "1945" must be included (or "soon after WWII") early on in the summary. I preferred it relating to the assassination attempt: it was better prose.

This brings me to my second point: The quality of the writing is profoundly important. The 'style', as you put it, is what we are judged on together with the accuracy. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 15:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There's evidence it's Christmas 1945. That's what we know. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Furthermore, we see Michael in his uniform later in the film, but that does not confirm anything. It was common practice here and in the US for demobbed enlisted soldiers/sailors to continue wearing their uniforms. So we cannot be certain. In the archives, this has been threshed out extensively. I want the year attached to the assassination. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 15:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If it´s not in the movie (wedding-year), we shouldn´t assume it´s 1945 (though it probably, but not necessarily, is).Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"in his Marine Corps dress" are you kidding me?--JTBX (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"At the funeral, Salvatore Tessio (Abe Vigoda) arranges a meeting between Michael and Don Barzini, signalling his treachery as Vito had warned" the article plot doesn't even mention Vito's prior warning, instead the scene in which warns Michael and hopes better for him has been mutilated and placed next to Michael going off to Sicily, way before it happens in the film. When Vito warns him and wishes better for him, Michael is right in the midst of being the Don.--JTBX (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean you lack the literacy to understand it? I think we can just return to the last consensus then. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@ JTBX. It is sometimes required to deviate from chronological order in writing a summary in the pursuit of brevity. I would have thought you would have understood that factor. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 18:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

@Gareth I understand completely, but Vito talking to Michael just after he commits a crime and elopes is different from Vito talking to Michael as an established Don. When Vito talks to him, he's almost looking back.--JTBX (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Vito did not speak to him after Michael killed ...and then fled to Sicily ... and Michael hardly eloped: he married in the girl's village and with the blessing of her father. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Vito doesn't speak to Michael anywhere in the film after the Sicily bit? Are you serious?--JTBX (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not write that. Read it again! "Vito did not speak to him after Michael killed ..." He was too ill. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I found the confusion, theres one scene in the film where Vito is distraught in bed, and that appears to be the one in the article plot. The one I was trying to put forward was when Vito and Michael talk in the garden. Vito explains he always wanted better for Michael, then warns him about Tessio. On that note, I think Tessio and Clemenza should be introduced earlier as I did, with the mention of the "cannolis" scene in which Clemenza kills Paulie, but that is my opinion. Apologies for the misunderstandings, I had 2 hours sleep today and need to go do some work. Bye --JTBX (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got it. Apology accepted.

There is a good cast/character section and articles on these guys.

Get some good quality rest, please! Good wishes, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 21:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael's uniform

Something interesting about Michael's uniform is that he might be missing a decoration that one would expect. There is a good service ribbon that is awarded after three years if you don't get in any trouble. If he enlisted in 41 and left in 45 (per the book), he would have been eligible. Also, the Navy Cross he says he earned (see GF2), is not on his uniform, which may or may not be meaningful. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I know it does not influence the film content but I shall see if the novel throws any light on this conundrum. Thanks ... I think? ;-)

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 19:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly what is the point of opening these subheading discussions for the most minute and pointless of details, hes come back from WW2, hes an outsider, lets add that in. Stop all of this driving people in circles as you are once again doing.--JTBX (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Just add in the 1945 at the beginning and save yourself some trouble. I personally don't find the necessity of "Shortly before Christmas", it adds nothing :/ --JTBX (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well at least we are moving on, unlike you. You are not contributing anything new to the discussion -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

JT, are you saying you are not interested in getting things right? That's how it appears to me. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No I am, I think that we already covered all this, its certainly 1945 at the beginning.--JTBX (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC) And now Ring is placing Off-topic around my comments, another way to exclude me from the discussion.--JTBX (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the editors here seems to think it's better that the reader be unaware that Michael is a Marine. Seems like an obvious mistake but he deserves a chance to defend himself. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying Michael is not a Marine, what I am saying is that we don't need to include dress styles in plot unless its a major part the plot revolves around, besides, specifics are unimportant, all we need to know is that he is returning from WW2 after serving. Don't be so rude, keep civil. --JTBX (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Specifics are unimportant? Hmmm. No one who knows how to write says that. "The first rule of good writing: be specific." --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sure it is, I am sure it is when you sit down and write a novel, or sit down and write a book report. But this is a plot summary, and we aren't interested in Michael's khaki clothes. He's come from WW2 so hes different from the rest of the family, simply. --JTBX (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No, because he could have served in the war in a civilian capacity, as 1,000s of people did. He volunteered to serve in the Marines, and there is a very important scene in which he argues with his brothers about it. His service is an important element in showing that he had moved away from his family, which sets up his eventual return to the family business. It is important to say he is in uniform.

By the way, please properly indent your responses so that the conversation flows better, it makes it easier for others to follow and respond. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, JT, you were just completely wrong. Either you're trying to improve the article or you're making up excuses. The really ridiculous thing is that nothing is gained by hiding the fact that he's a Marine. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Really Jacobite? That scene is in Godfather part II, and to say he is in uniform is unecessary, what I wrote is that "a returning US serviceman" covers it adequately, we don't need a clothes description. Everything else you said, about him being different from his family is a verbatim of what I have been arguing for so long. So please do not act like you just came up with that idea, after ignoring and removing my messages.--JTBX (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And telling me of indenting my messages is a joke when Ring has titled my comments "Off-Topic" and others such as Gareth moving responses, seriously. --JTBX (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You are not in a position to call anything a joke given the multiple problems you make it your business to bring everywhere you edit. Your comments were off topic, so that was accurate, and your thoughts about Michael's uniform are not. See, we know that he's a serviceman because he's wearing the uniform. So when we can, we put in the plot summary just what is in the movie. What's in the movie? How does the viewer know he's a Marine? He's in his khakis. So, other things being equal, that's what we use in the summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

But thats the point, so many things happen in the film, we can have thousands of words. We know he's a Marine, its added, we don't need to know what clothes hes wearing. Everyone else could be wearing Marine khakis too, perhaps you would like to differentiate and add dress styles for all the characters. Now stop this ridiculous back and forth. --JTBX (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And if you really wish to get off-topic, I would say to Jacobite that his advocacy of having uniforms included is almost mirror to my advocacy of having Andy steal a suit in the Shawshank article, which showed his ingenuity and explains how he withdrew the money, etc but which you so viciously opposed then. The hypocrisy to isolate and victimise me. --JTBX (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It was a stroke of genius to include the reality of his being in uniform as an explanation that Michael is apart from the mafia world of his family.

Ring Cinema is to be applauded – not insulted. The revision stays. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 08:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

An uninformed criticism

I saw this discussion while I was patrolling WP:RPP and was about to protect the article. I think though that perhaps it might be better served at this point if I make a comment. Coming to this as an outsider to this argument, there seems to be an enormous amount of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH going on here. For example

• His service is an important element in showing that he had moved away from his family, which sets up his eventual return to the family business. It is important to say he is in uniform. and
• It was a stroke of genius to include the reality of his being in uniform as an explanation that Michael is apart from the mafia world of his family. Says who? Is there a reliable source that analyses it and reaches that conclusion (or a different one)? If there isn't, then you seem to be applying your own theory to it. It may well be right, but that's not what matters. What do the sources say.

You may be better served by seeking a third opinion, asking for the opinion of the WikiFilm project, or getting a request for comment. Thanks. GedUK  13:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Rather than come in half-cocked and totally missing the meaning of this thread, I would suggest that you read this Talk page from the top to here.

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 15:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, but there isn't an issue of OR here. Michael is in uniform. That is in the film. To leave that out -- or that he's a Marine -- is simply leaving something out that is in the movie, and for no reason. There is no dispute that Michael's changes are something we have discussed should be included. The reason JT is resisting might be his personal antipathy toward me personally for which he has previously been chastised; note that his behavior here is in keeping with his warring on a few other sites. Although he seems to go out of his way to be a problem, he still gets a hearing from us when he makes a reasonable point. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe because you are such a well established edit warrior, and that I am still trying to follow policy by cutting out uniform details in a plot and cooperating, is the key here.--JTBX (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I read every comment, so please don't presume I don't understand, and get rather aggressive. GedUK  20:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I know he's in uniform, and it's in the film. And yes, leaving it out is leaving out something that's in the movie, but we're not trying to describe every detail; that's not what Wikipedia is for, so I would say there's no reason to put it in, unless there's a reliable source that explains why it's important. I'm not going to get involved in your argument about personalities GedUK  20:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, just as I stated. I am going to remove it now.--JTBX (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

@ JTBX... and I am undoing your revert. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 21:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, we clearly don't have a consensus either way. I would suggest people stop editing the article now until we can reach some sort of agreement. GedUK  21:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

@ User:Ged UK The issue is not about the detail, minor or required, but about the need to portray the comparison between the family and Michael at the start of the saga in a succinct manner. Your coming here under the guise of an article protector but switching to commenting on a sensitive issue, seemingly uninformed, was a bit like a red rag to a bull this afternoon. If you feel you deserve an apology then I offer you one now unreservedly. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 21:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And I'll ask again; why is there that need to portray the difference? Why is it important? Fwiw, I suspect that it probably is, but that's just my view, not the view of a reliable source. Hence OR.

I came to protect the article, but thought I'd be better off helping out the discussion, which looked like it might be getting to personal and the opinions being overlooked. Apology accepted. GedUK  21:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

@ User:Ged UK The don of the Corleone mafia family had other plans for his youngest son: lawyer, politician, even senator or governor. He wanted him to pursue his education into adulthood; he fixed matters so that he would avoid conscription. At the wedding he was 'the odd one out' – and with a non-Italian girlfriend.

Circumstances before Christmas dragged Michael in. He subsequently shot two men and fled to Sicily. From then on he was 100% involved.

We have to get this across to the reader. This edit is simple, accurate and works. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 22:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything which Gareth just said I agree with, but what I am trying to say, is that listing Michael as a soldier is good enough, we don't need to describe his clothes, it looks too out of place in a plot summary. Ring doesn't seem to comprehend this, and Jacobite, much like Ged above, has jumped into the middle with a comment out of nowhere, even though what Jacobite was saying is what i was saying for so long, just don't add a clothes description, its that simple, we have a returning marine, we don't need to know he was in his uniform, and FYI, he never appears in his uniform again in any of the godfather films again ever as far as I am aware.--JTBX (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

@ JTBX ... and that is precisely why it is so vivid a description. Words alone do not always work well enough. That is why articles carry images as well as text. Please see my first posting in the section below for an understanding of what I am putting over to you here ... Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

@Gareth; I understand we have to get it across to the reader, but the critical question is what we have to get across. It's not the facts, but an opinion, but as long as it's our opinion and not a reliable source's, it shouldn't be going in because it's OR. And, additionally, I don't honestly think the vast majority of readers will pick up the subtlety of that point simply by saying he's either a soldier or is in uniform. If its said something like "Micheal, returning from the war [or in uniform], seems an odd-man-out (REF), then I'd be much happier. GedUK  22:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 11:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)