Talk:The Godfather/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

the khakis

JT added the bit about Michael being a Marine. It's not a compromise because it's on the merits, but anyway he did it. The other issue is whether or not we should mention Michael's uniform, which is legitimate. Since it's visual and sets him apart from the family, I think it's probably a good idea. This is the visual choice made by the filmmakers and, other things being equal, we should include it. On the other hand, the contrast is not the main thing for the lead paragraph so we're not going to get a lot. We could mention that everyone is in black tie, perhaps. Michael's uniform doesn't really pay off until the end of GF2, but it is a pretty good payoff just the same. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I remember how vividly the first time, and each time since, that I watched the film, how the image of Michael in uniform contrasts so positively with all the other guests. My attention was certainly raised. Surely just what the film-makers expected. I don't agree that "Michael's uniform doesn't really pay off until the end of GF2" – for me it is a superb payoff. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 22:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I see where you are both coming from, and I agree, but we shouldn't describe his clothes, why is it so hard to accept my (and a standard) proposal that he served in the Marines, without listing his uniform. We don't need a visual descriptive like this, I've stated before, this is Wikipedia.--JTBX (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, something like this would work well in a themes or development section, wouldn't you agree. I don't think its coming across that this is a plot summary. Please try and understand, and please read the guidelines. --JTBX (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not know how to respond politely to this. So I shall take a politician's view, "No comment". -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense to me. If we're going to persist with having the uniform in there, then we should explain in a separate section, what the reliable sources say about it. Otherwise it's just a redundant description for the majority of readers who might not pick up that inference. And again, it's our inference, and us explaining why we thought it was important, not what reliable sources think are important. GedUK  13:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

@ User:Ged UK Have you noticed my reply to you in the strand above this one? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 14:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not coming across that it's a plot summary? Well, it is just a simple fact that he is wearing the uniform and that's how we know he's in the service. Unless there's some limitation of space or clarity, a plot summary gives the evidence for the conclusions, not the conclusions. This is very basic and that's the best way to avoid POV or OR problems. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's coming across as a plot summary, but what we haven't identified beyond our own opinions is why it's so important that it's worth mentioning. Mention the uniform, or that he's returning from combat in the plot section, and then explain in a fuller section why that's important. Otherwise I just don't see why it matters. GedUK  11:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And yes, I noticed your reply above, and replied to it, unless I'm missing something. GedUK  11:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Where? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 12:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The one dated 21:56, 31 October 2012. Two lines. GedUK  12:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Not that one. This one. It starts with, "The don of ..." -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 12:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, don't know how I missed that! Have replied, though I think I'm repeating myself in several sections now. GedUK  22:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Up-dating the previous three threads

Facts from the novel

• Quoting: "But Michael was 21 and nothing could be done against his own willfulness. He enlisted ... a Captain .. won medals ... in 1944 his picture was printed in Life magazine with a photo layout of his deeds (fighting in the Pacific) ... discharged early in 1945 to recover from a disabling wound, he had no idea that his father had arranged his release. He stayed home for a few weeks, then, without consulting anyone, entered Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, and so left his father's house. To return for the wedding of his sister and to show his own future wife to them, the washed-out rag of an American girl."

• There is no mention in the book of his being in uniform at the wedding or at any other time.

Conclusions

• It is a film-making error not to show decorations on his uniform.
• It is a conscious decision by the film-makers to dress Michael in uniform [long after his discharge (in the novel)] – surely this is proof positive that the present version of the plot summary mirrors most effectively the images portrayed in the film.

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 17:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

About your conclusions. I don´t think you can state "error" for sure, maybe movie-Michael forgot to pack his medals. Or didn´t win any. He could be newly arrived from a masquerade. I´m not arguing for any change here, the plot seems fine, I just can´t keep my mouth shut.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we assume an error by the filmmakers without a good source. However, there are decorations on his uniform -- at least, I have read others' descriptions of them. Why is Michael in uniform at the wedding? Well, it stretches our brief to suppose too much. But suffice it to say that he is in uniform, so from that we know he is a Marine. Without that, his credibility at the Senate hearing would be undermined. It's Coppola's shorthand and it works for us, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I do see decorations. http://alpacino.info/my-father-made-him-an-offer-he-couldnt-refuse-qoute.html Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Imdb have a description of Michaels medals. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/trivia Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång A big thank you for those two hyperlinks, especially the first which is new to me. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 11:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to raise again the issue that we mustn't draw any of our own conclusions, that's not what we should be about. What do the reliable sources say about the uniform and medals?

Clearly it's a conscious decision to dress Michael as they do, but we can't be sure what that decision was or why they made it. That's where we have to find reliable sources. GedUK  13:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

@ User:Ged UK All we are telling the reader is the fact that his first appearance is in uniform. How can you argue with that? There is no need for "reliable sources" to back that up. Lead me to the words that you complain about in the plot summary! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 15:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ged, you're a little bit off on this point. The film is the source for the summary; we don't need a source to tell us what is in the movie because the movie is the reliable source. As good editors, we are allowed to think about what belongs in the plot summary and what does not. It's not true that every time we think, we have to find confirmation for the thought in another source. By that logic, we could only use quotations from other sources in the entire article. Michael is in his uniform; the question is, should it be in the plot summary? Apparently it should be, since it is instrumental to fully understanding the story of the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Gambino

I am wondering, "Is this of value?"

• "The Godfather" is said to be one of Carlo Gambino's nicknames. This may be the origin of the title of Mario Puzo's 1969 novel The Godfather, as well as the idea of a Mafia don serving as an actual godfather." -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Who says? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Coppola and Paramount

My memory of Coppola's DVD commentary does not exactly square with the text we have in this section. Does anyone have a transcript we can consult? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I shall play my analog recording videotape-based cassette today. Is there a particular issue to watch listen out for? –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 08:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it this? — In the interview in 1997 which accompanies the 25th Anniversary Edition box set Coppola comments that,
"They wanted to make it at a very inexpensive budget, which was probably why I was hired. I was young; I had two children and a baby on the way. I didn't have any money really. So, I was swept along (pause)
by the studio basically wanting to make this film."
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard13:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific the first time. Regarding his possible ouster, Coppola tells this charming story about how he suspected that he would be removed on a certain Monday, so he fired his assistant director and maybe a couple other turncoats on Sunday so that there was no one there to carry on. Something like that. Also, I don't recall him saying that another director had been approached; that may be a case where it is true but not sourced correctly...? Anyway, that is what I'm talking about. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles are for editing, not enshrining

Wikipedia articles are meant to be edited and changed and expanded, not enshrined and preserved as in a museum or cathedral. Tell me which edits are problematic and we can discuss. General reverts such as the last two to all of my several edits smack of article ownership. I'm smelling that along with tag-team reverting. I expect another editor who is a friend of Jacobite and Gareth to take part in this wheel warring caper at any moment. I'd love to be proven wrong and have my faith restored in collegial, good faith editing at Wikipedia, though. Winkelvi (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As you have been told already, if you are reverted, you lack consensus. The onus is on you to develop it here. Please feel free. Improvements to the article are welcome. Extensive changes are not needed, and you have a tendency to get things wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that you introduced many changes, so it's difficult to get specific in an edit summary. Two of the problems that struck me—and no doubt played a role in the reverts—were the plot bloat (the plot length already lies outside the recommended length at WP:FILMPLOT so shouldn't really be expanded) and the addition of a citation tag to a claim in the lede (uncontroversial claims that are already sourced in the prose not not generally require a citation in the lede). If your edits are meeting resistance it may help your cause if you adopted a more incremental approach (i.e. don't bundle changes to the lede with changes to the plot etc) which allows editors to be more selective in what they revert and the explanations they provide. Betty Logan (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Finally, something solid to go on. Ring Cinema, you were already warned today about edit warring and article ownership by an administrator. That same administrator told you that because you are an experienced editor you can do better on the talk page and to come up with solutions rather than continue your back and forth games. I see you've chosen the same behavior at this article. I can't help but wonder why you've chosen to ignore that administrator's advice. Betty Logan, thank you for your explanations and suggestions. I will take them to heart in my editing of this article and others in the future. You have been truly helpful. Winkelvi (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Khakis? Nope.

Michael Corleone is not wearing khakis at the wedding. Those of us who have actually worn the uniform of the United States know the difference. He is wearing a USMC WWII Dress Green uniform. (Michael Corleone in USMC officer's dress uniform) And just in case you still don't believe me, look at the following website. It gives some great examples of WWII USMC uniforms. (Examples of WWII USMC uniforms) Quod erat demonstrandum. (and just for the record, see Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" for the long accepted and widely agreed-upon correct and incorrect use of "however" at the beginning of a sentence) Winkelvi (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what type of uniform he was wearing; I've removed which one it is so the text now reads that he attends "in a Marine Corps uniform". - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it does matter. Look above at a discussion previously held. Seems there was "consensus" that the uniform and type be included. The three editors here who guard this article so closely (I'm not one of them) felt it was of great import, and it seems to be of great import now (hence Ring Cinema insisting it still be there as of his reversion before my last change to "green dress"). You're arguing with "consensus". How dare you? (there is sarcasm in that, in case you hadn't noticed SchroCat). Winkelvi (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm always happy to improve the article. Thanks for your attention, Winkelvi. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Reasoning?

I'm interested in why my latest change was reverted. This is starting to be a pattern. Reversions of perfectly good edits. And now personal attacks in the edit summary. Response or crickets, Gareth? Winkelvi (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think changing "brother" to "Sonny" represents an improvement: it is already established that Sonny and Michael are brothers, and Sonny is mentioned a couple of times in the preceding sentences. There is no confusion over which "brother" we are referring to from the context of that paragraph, and it helps break up the repetition of his name. On the other hand, Fredo is mentioned for the first time in the third paragraph and his relationship to the Corleones is not explained, so it would be an improvement if someone addressed that aspect of the summary. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I did that, Betty. And it was removed as "not beneficial to the article". Just more status quo, in my opinion. Still, if Gareth wants to appear collegial and helpful as well as possibly restoring his reputation with the Kindness Campaign folks (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gareth_Griffith-Jones&diff=543936039&oldid=543935817), then he will take the time to make some useful comments here. Winkelvi (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are reverted, the better practice is to come to discussion and give your reason why the change should be supported. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't tell me, tell your friend Gareth. While you're at it, tell yourself (you were warned about edit warring very recently, remember?) -- I don't have a lengthy block log (and hope to never have one). Discussion is valuable, stonewalling and stalling and pretending to discuss, a waste of time and bandwidth. Winkelvi (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It bears mentioning that two editors didn't support your change in this case. Surely you are aware that you lack a consensus at that point. The edit summaries are really not the place to give your reasoning; that is a summary of your edit, not its defense. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it bears mentioning that the three of you will likely always back each other's play no matter what. Winkelvi (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Gareth hasn't offered any recent edits that weren't accepted. In the past, when his changes have been reverted, he discusses them or drops it. It's a very common process on WP. I haven't seen you offer much in the way of reasoning for your proposals, so what do you mean by stonewalling, etc.? That doesn't seem to match anything that happened in discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Is it just me who thinks the priorities on this article are a bit whacked? In all honesty I don't think changing a few words here and there in the plot summary really does that much for the article's prospects: Charles Dickens could write the plot summary and it wouldn't really represent a significant improvement. The real gains to be made are in finding citations for the unsourced content, and then it would have a decent shot at article promotion, so that's where the focus on improvement needs to be. Maybe we should have a "swear box" on this article—if you want to make an edit to the plot then find a reference for something unsourced in the article! Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Is anger fueled or is it exacerbated?

Sorry Betty, but I posted here after saving my revision today, not having read the thread above ... it must not be regarded as being in defiance of your excellent point immediately above this, with which I concur! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 12:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have always been uneasy with "Michael's anger is fueled when Fredo falls under Greene's sway."
Made a change today to, "Michael's anger is exacerbated when Fredo falls under Greene's sway."
What do you think? –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 11:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it Gareth, I was just making a slightly facetious observation about the amount of energy expended on this article over the last 24 hours or so. Betty Logan (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Betty, Many thanks –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 13:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Locations

Aldez has removed a few sentences that were fact tagged in the Locations section, saying that these items are fact tagged a long time and are trivia. Therefore, two issues: (1) If those few sentences are trivia, it seems the entire section is trivia. (Not sure about the bit about the cake.) I don't agree with that but it is something to discuss. (2) The fact tags, I believe, apply to the paragraphs in their entirety, not just the last sentence of each, and, while this material isn't sourced, the standard is "verifiable"; I don't think anyone has cast doubt on the accuracy of the information there. Assuming the good faith of the original editors, it seems the fact tags alert readers to the extent they need to be alerted. Do others have a different opinion? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the tags are general, not specific. One might as well delete them and put a banner at the start. Nothing there *hurts* the article, so let's leave it in situ and, as Betty advises above, concentrate on finding the reliable sources. Any article without such succedent inclusions makes for dull reading –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 08:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Post script Agree about the wedding cake though GG-J - 08:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think filming locations are a legitimate inclusion, although things like the locale for the bakery that made the wedding cake is probably trivia: movie props are sourced from all over the world and as a rule we don't document all of that. Betty Logan (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This editor was brought up to appreciate the beauty of the English language

What is meant by, "way over the top for an" encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedia "wording" here?
I fail to understand how changing "shattered" which has been in situ now for many months, and my latest revision, so that it reads as, "His euphoria is shattered when a car bomb intended for him takes the life of his new wife." is improved when changed to "His happiness is short-lived when a car bomb intended for him takes the life of his new wife."
I was brought up to appreciate the beauty of the English language – my mother was an English Language teacher – and, after all is said and done, we are not editing this Wikipedia project
What do other editors conclude?
Sincerely,
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 09:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of the edit summaries are clear. Pacino didn't portray Michael's mood after marrying Appolonia as "euphoric". As the script indicates, he was obviously "struck by the lightening bolt" when first seeing her. But "euphoria"? Really? An encyclopedia is an encyclopedia, not a novel. Flowery language is fine if you're writing a book or POV film review, not an encyclopedia that should be understandable for the average 6th grader and working-class adult. Wikipedia isn't about those editing, it's about those reading it. So, in summary, euphoria is not only over the top, it's not accurate. "Shattered" after the bombing is not something we ever see from Michael in the film, either. He was happy at the wedding (that's obvious) and that happiness was short-lived because of Appolonia's death. It all seems like a no-brainer to me. Winkelvi (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with 'shattered'. It seems to me that 'happiness', while certainly adequate, doesn't quite capture it. (I have to say that "His happiness was short-lived when..." lacks sense.) Euphoria, "a state of intense happiness or well-being", seems to do better justice to the lightning bolt. My mind is open to alternatives, but the original objection was that it is not proper language for our use. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

References in other media

How come there are only a few references listed to this movie in other media? I added one reference from Two and a Half Men and this user just reverted it, claiming it's trivia when in fact it's not. She also says there are over 100s of references to this movie yet no one bothered to make a proper list. I just wanted to make one addition. But what I really think is that she just doesn't like it. Raykyogrou0 (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually the item was removed by two [1] other [2] editors before I removed it. Links have been provided to the relevant policies for Raykyogrou0 including WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTABILITY so it is disingenuous at the very least to claim IDL. Here is one more link WP:DISCRIMINATE to explain what is going on. Whether it gets read anymore than the other policies is entirely up to the OP. MarnetteD | Talk 18:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's worth reading WP:POPCULTURE, which gives guidance on documenting pop culture references. Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be punctilious about it, notability is a standard for which topics should have an article. Material for articles is a different standard, naturally. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

For several year now, and in order to avoid long lists of very time a film is referred to in other media, the standard applied has been that there be some mention in secondary sources of the pop culture reference. A good example of this is 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). I do not know whether this ever was codified into a MoS but I have seen it applied over a range of articles. That along with the fact that the item had already been moved by others indicates a consensus about the situation at this time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That's good. Thanks for mentioning that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Epic film

Epic film = ??? what, in your definition, Ring Cinema and MarnetteD? Let's discuss and bring evidence before an edit war ensues, eh? Winkelvi (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be basis for calling it epic. See this. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

At this point, there is no support in the article for the claim. How different editors define an "epic film" is irrelevant. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You miss the point, OJ. The link included above isn't from "different editors". It's a legitimate reference -- I've seen pages from Google books used over and over as reliable references in Wikipedia. Winkelvi (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a good basis for not calling it an epic, and Winkelvi habitually gets things wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to mention a few of the many sources that don't call it an epic: Rotten Tomatoes, Netflix, the New York Times, and IMDb. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Ring, IMDb isn't considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. Regardless of what you and your friends think, there is good basis for calling this film "epic". Here are a few examples found 'round the internet: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] (for more on this reviewer, see "Rotten Tomatoes" here: [9]. There are many more out there. Do you need more proof that I'm not the only person on the planet who believes "epic" aptly and correctly describes this film? And -- please keep the personal comments out of both this discussion and edit summaries. The discussion is about the article, not editors; edit summaries aren't for personal comments, but comments about editing articles. Winkelvi (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The case for calling The Godfather an epic is inadequate; sources differ. Reviews from the first run in the Times and Variety call it a gangster film and a drama, respectively. Great as it is, no contemporary mistook this poorly budgeted family drama for an epic. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why the critics of the day had to refer to the film as an epic for it to actually be one. Few considered "Birth of a Nation" to be racist when it was made, but now it is widely regarded as such. Few saw "It's a Wonderful Life" as a potential film classic when it was released, but today, few would disagree that it is. Definitions of films (as with many things in life) evolve over time. With all of the examples of sources I provided above in addition to Erik's original source, surely RC and TOJ can allow this appropriate edit. As Erik has said, "Think outside the box". Winkelvi (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I dislike these discussions that focus on the lead sentence because genre classification is subjective. I just got through a discussion at Talk:R.I.P.D. about that. I think it is easy for a film to be labeled in different ways. In addition to this film, The Departed and City of God have also been called epics in reliable sources even though the Wikipedia articles do not open that way. I think the current version of the lead sentence is acceptably straightforward, but I would not oppose discussion elsewhere about how this film can be considered epic. We should not overlook a book about epic films mentioning The Godfather. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

My thinking is that this film is "epic" when considered in tandem with GFII but not by itself. That's borne out by the descriptions of the film when there was no II. So, maybe there is a way to mention that in the context of the sequel. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That is "spot-on" ("Ring"). The most sensible remark I have read on this ever-rumbling debate. You have my thanks for providing the solution –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 19:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is a reasonable compromise. Interesting how only until Erik stepped in and said, "Not so fast..." was something even considered that wasn't inside the status-quo box. Winkelvi (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary translated from another language?

I'm reading the plot summary as a native English speaker, but I have to stop every few words and read it back. My grammar is appalling despite my mother being and English teacher but even I can see that there are commas that just seem to be strewn randomly through the text. The plot is so badly written I cannot follow it. There are parts that just don't make sense. Has it been vandalized?

Here's an example: The funeral owner gives money to Don Vito to kill them, but he is reluctant to accept, taking the action as disrespectful, claims that he and his group are not hired murderers and reminds him of times when they were friends, and when he began to bond with illegal affairs, Bonasera evaded his touch, although the wife of Don Vito was the godmother of her daughter. Finally, requests his friendship and Bonasera kisses the hand of Don Vito, who called Godfather.

74.130.138.71 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Yes someone deleted the section and then restored the unreadable version that you noticed. Thanks for bringing it to out attention. MarnetteD | Talk 02:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sentence alteration

The sentence "Shortly before Christmas 1945, drug baron Virgil "The Turk" Sollozzo, backed by the Corleones' rivals, the Tattaglias, asks Vito for investment in the emerging drug trade and protection through his political connections." I think it could changed to "Shortly before Christmas 1945, drug baron Virgil "The Turk" Sollozzo, backed by the rival Tattaglia family, asks Vito for investment in the emerging drug trade and protection through his political connections." This would be getting rid of a comma and make the sentence less complicated...

Unfortunately, in your version the antecedent of "rival" is Sollozzo, whereas what we want to say is that the Tattaglias are rival to the Corleone family. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Kubrick quotation

I'm torn about the recently added quote from Kubrick. Is it colorful and lively or lacking the proper tone? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I almost removed it earlier today because the tone is questionable and it simply seemed unnecessary. It's clear from what is already quoted that Kubrick liked the film and the cast, I don't think we need to say more. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

For some strange reason Kubrick seems to be doing a Jimmy Stewart impression in that interview. I agree we can do without the quote. Betty Logan (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Tom is out -- from the transcript

I believe this is an accurate transcription of the critical scene. There has been some confusion because one editor did not realize, apparently, that Michael made Vito his consigliere. The way I read this scene, Tom accepts the situation for reasons we don't know precisely, so we probably should have the plot be more to the letter. I'm going to take a try at that.

HAGEN Mike, why are you cutting me out of the action?

MICHAEL Tom, we're going to be legitimate all the way, and you're the legal man. What could be more important than that.

HAGEN I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about Rocco Lampone building a secret regime. Why does Neri report directly to you, rather than through me or a caporegime?

DON CORLEONE I told you that it wouldn't escape his eye.

MICHAEL How did you find out?

HAGEN Bookkeepers know everything. Rocco's men are all a little too good for the jobs they're supposed to be doing. They get a little more money than the job's worth. (pause) Lampone's a good man; he's operating perfectly.

MICHAEL Not so perfectly if you noticed.

HAGEN Mike, why am I out?

MICHAEL You're not a wartime Consigliere. Things may get tough with the move we're trying.

HAGEN OK, but then I agree with Tessio. You're going about it all wrong; you're making the move out of weakness... Barzini's a wolf, and if he tears you apart, the other families won't come running to help the Corleones...

DON CORLEONE Tom, I never thought you were a bad Consigliere, I thought Santino a bad Don, rest in peace. He had a good heart but he wasn't the right man to head the family when I had my misfortune. Michael has all my confidence, as you do. For reasons which you can't know, you must have no part in what will happen.

HAGEN Maybe I can help.

MICHAEL (coldly) You're out, Tom.

TOM pauses, thinks...and then he nods in acquiescence. TOM leaves.

Thanks 'Ring' ... good work.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Rockefeller reference

The article says, "This insight is bluntly stated by Michael Corleone, who recommends that Italian-Americans 'must learn from the philanthropists like the Rockefellers – first you rob everybody, then you give to the poor.'" This is sourced to the Sanpietro book, but not to The Godfather itself. Do we know where it can be found and, if not, should it be removed?Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have always thought it does not belong in the film article. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Importance?

I'm not trying to force anyone to change anything, but I'm very surprised to see that this film is of apparent 'low' importance to American film/cinema. Seems like Wiki groups don't know what they're talking about. Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kaleidoscopic God: The low importance is under WikiProject United States, which probably considers broader topics to be of high or top importance. Under WikiProject Film, we do not use an importance scale, but we have it on the "core list" as seen at WP:FILMCORE. In a nutshell, its importance is relative to the WikiProject. So it's definitely a core film under WikiProject Film. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, sorry. I was not aware of this, I guess I was a bit of a fool then haha. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries, glad to clarify. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

CURRENT Becomes Obsolete

The term "current" really is not of very long standing usefulness in any article because as soon as it is included it can become obsolete should some new information by a new list, a new survey, a new award. All these make the use of "current" stuck in some unknown time unless you read the source date which may not be indicative of how old is that information. It is one thing to state a date of a broadcast or premier or release but at least that is of a time that never changes. "Current" is fleeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014

Under external links at the bottom of this page, please add the link to the official page on the American Film Institute catalog entry for this film: http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=&Movie=54023 12.216.166.61 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Steve Pepdjonovic

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 01:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Offer He Can't Resist Citation

With the article edit protected will someone look over the following as potential replacement of that portion of the last sentence in the article about the originals of the saying but also including citation. Thanks.

Balzec, wrote of Vautrin telling Eugene: "In that case I will make you an offer that no one would decline." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

References

This selection is ambiguous on the issue. It's not the same line but a similar idea, altough not such an unusual idea either. Even the title of this section has it wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is worthy of inclusion, compared with the other claims in these sections, especially as a sound reference has been provided. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 14:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A writer would not be a writer unless something acted as an inspiration for rather than lifted from the work(s) of others so ambiguous would be the normal state of things identifying the inspiration and iconic phrase. The problem with so much of comment in the past is that everyone is willing to say Balzac/inspiration but no one identifies the place within that source from which to come to a conclusion. If each day of one's life had to start out with determining just what was meant by, "In the beginning there was light......" then we would probably not get much past the scratches and dots in the dirt to represent ones thoughts. The Big Bang only has to happen once; then we can move on. As for "title and "wrong", if that is a commentary on some "source" saying that it is to be found in Chapt. A and the translation says Chapt. A.B then just maybe the format in one language can be different in the other or possibly by what a particular publisher's style may decide.76.170.88.72 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

My interpretation of the comment, "Even the title of this section has it wrong", is that it is aimed at your Talk Page Section Heading, not your revision/reference. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Things could be worse, such as if morning brought cold stillness and one's inability to carry themselves away.76.170.88.72 (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Caporegimi

What is the reasoning behind including that Tessio and Clemenza are Caporegimes? Does it make the summary clearer? --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not in my opinion, which is why I have made this revision.
Never agreed with the inclusion when added many months ago in one of our tussles with an editor with only four cap. letters. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 08:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good.76.170.88.72 (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hollywood's favorite film

Don't know if you aware of of this, but The Hollywood Reporter carried out an industry-wide poll and The Godfather was voted the top film. Normally I like to stay clear of polls (except for prestigious ones such as Sight & Sound, AFI) because they are usually lazy journalism/tabloid filler but I think a poll of the industry is interesting; it lets us see how Hollywood regard their own work. It's no surprise to see The Godfather, Citizen Kane and Casablanca in the top 10, but since The Godfather came top it may be worth mentioning since this poll is effectively a form of peer review. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree; it should have a mention. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should be mentioned, although perhaps it would be wise to monitor how highly regarded this particular poll becomes. The respondents are industry professionals, which is intrinsically interesting, but since participation was voluntary and the focus was Hollywood (apparently) there is cause for a decent skepticism. I haven't happened across outsiders citing this poll yet. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have recently expanded the page a great deal. then Ring Cinema came in and restored a significant portion of the article - which I had rewritten and expanded on, and sourced - in favor of what was there to begin with, unsourced and choppy bits of prose. His reasons were :my edits being poorly written, trivial, bloating, and his versions being better. He then insulted me on his talk page. Any thoughts on the content revisions: my final edit before he started (here) and his most recent (here). I did do a rewrite of the restoration section too after he started (here). I went to the incident board and was told to ask here before seeking dispute resolution. I have no problem with people editing the writing I submit on here, I just feel a large amount of his deletion was unwarranted. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's inaccurate. Some things you took out I thought should stay. Most of the material you added I incorporated. That's normal editing. It's unfortunate that you included material that was inaccurate or trivial, but I'm not accusing you of bad faith. Improving the article is a process. So it goes. I want the article to be well written and accurate, within the somewhat difficult restrictions for length that we try to follow. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I took another look and I'm not finding any significant facts about the film that I removed. Mostly, I edited and organized what you wrote. It's true, I criticized you for making a mistake on the facts, but if you are not sure about the facts, why would you make a change to the article? I consider it an important error to bring in something untrue. You took it upon yourself to make many changes to an article that was not in need of a major rewrite. If you are going to do that, you should bring in something important about the film, not something incorrect. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, since the WP:DRN hasn't been opened yet, I'll comment here. I had nothing to do with any of this dispute, but I noticed that Ring Cinema added a piece of unsourced content. So, I removed it saying that "Unsourced content does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia", a statement I stand by. Particularly in this case, Ring Cinema added information without a source, and when I reverted him/her, he/she restored it with a {{fact}} template and left a sarcastic message on my talk page, which I decided to delete and ignore. I have no idea what policy is being referred to when Ring Cinema says that adding unsourced information is fine as long as you tag it, but especially on an article as high-profile as this, I find that to be ridiculous. I've been reverted again since initially typing this, as I figured I would be. But now I see this is happening, and I feel like I should step in. I was involved with the overlong argument about The Godfather Part II's gross, an argument that also included Ring Cinema in which he/she frequently edit-warred with other users who removed his/her claims. Frankly, I'm getting deja vu. I want to believe that Ring Cinema is acting in good faith, but every time I interact with him/her, that gets harder and harder to convince myself of. Personally, I think both parties involved in this dispute should cease editing this article until the dispute is resolved. I will happily cease editing as well. Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 20:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and sever the Gordian Knot with some Googling. I found this which I have referenced in the article. We can adjust the wording to fit that citation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is one that details "Speak Softly Love" a little more. It is labeled a popular song post-release (with addition of lyrics), but not sure about reuse. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I would've done it, but work blocks pretty much everything, unfortunately. Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 20:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ring wasn't adding new content, he was restoring content that had been excised. WP:BURDEN is the applicable policy here and it explicitly supports the removal of unsourced content, so the onus is squarely on the editor restoring unsourced content to provide a source. That's the current position of Wikipedia policy. That said I don't think removing something solely because it is unsourced is generally a good idea, if it has been a long-standing feature of the article; links can die, claims can become separated from attribution etc. If a genuine search for sources reveals nothing then it's legitimate to pull it IMO, otherwise it's best to simply tag it. If it is tagged then readers are clearly forewarned the information may not be accurate. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

According to policy, a fact tag goes on new unsourced content if it's questioned (as I did, but Corvoe should have done it). Of course, it is also policy to request a source on dubious content. (That's why most facts in Wikipedia are unsourced.) As Corvoe said, he was satisfied the material was true, so that does raise a question. It also states in the policy that the objector should try to provide a citation themselves instead of removing it. I am pretty sure he didn't do that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, I had work. I think what you call trivial, poorly written, and bloating is extremely subjective. I started working on this article because I'm a huge fan of the movie and wanted to improve an article that was largely unsourced, not in good shape, and contained just choppy paragraphs especially in the production section. I felt my additions greatly enhanced the article and brought it closer to being able to be nommed for GA. I might've over elaborated in some instances but you literally removed 90%o of what I did in favor of what was there before, which to me is a sign of WP:OWN. I will not edit the page further until this issue is resolved, and I hope Ring will do the same.

I think someone needs to review what you eliminated as trivial because I find most of it to be valuable to the article. And I agree with what Corvoe said, you've been replacing sourced material with unsourced which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. In addition he felt that my contributions were very helpful to the page, so I don't think you declaring the what I've added as trivial and poorly written and removing it by yourself is acceptable. So I'd say to have other people decide what is worthy of adding cause clearly we are both polar opposites in what should be placed in the article. Also I don't believe there is anything against an article being too long, as long as it is well done. I've placed what I believe the page should look like in my sandbox for those that wish to view my edits in their entirety. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 00:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, I feel like your attitude towards me is getting progressively more negative; can we both agree to stop and be civil with each other? I apologize for my initially negative attitude (I got caught up in a moment where I was extremely frustrated, and should not have posted until I had cooled down). I've given my revert some thought, and I also apologize for removing the content when I was not in a position to find a source for it instead. However, I stand by the note that if you were to restore the content, why not do so with a source? It took Erik about two minutes to Google the information and get it sourced, right? I feel like rather than being rude to me right off the bat for an (admittedly stupid) error, you could've just done what he did. Then, the dispute with me would've been quickly resolved, I never would've needed to comment on this talk page, I wouldn't have reverted you again, etc. I don't mean to come across as placing all of the blame on you, as the blame is shared between us, and I shouldn't have reverted you a second time. But it feels like you're criticizing me for not doing your job for you, and that does not sit well with me. I made a mistake, I admit, but it wasn't a detrimental one, and certainly not one worthy of the response I got. That said, I must reiterate, I apologize for my ill-thought revert, and I will do my utmost to make sure I try to find a source for unsourced content in the future, rather than removing it. Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 03:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I accept your apology and will offer one of my own. I am more than willing to cooperate with you and will do my best to avoid similar problems in the future. Thank you for your positive attitude. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones support for my edits (here). So since other editors approve of my edits, to just blatantly remove information from the article without discussing it on the talk page is not acceptable (per WP:REMOVAL), even if you think it is just too lengthy (per Wikipedia:Article_size#Content_removal). Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 12:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disc Wheel, the requirement for consensus to make changes is the same whether adding or deleting, yet I believe your approach was to make a lot of changes in a short period of time. For an article that has been relatively stable and edited by a lot of editors, that approach might lead to some issues or questions. If it appeared that you had a few interesting facts or incidents to add, that would be one thing, but you also removed some good material -- or at least it had been judged relevant enough to include. Also, I didn't remove material merely to reduce length, but because of misstatements, insignificance, prolixity, and my preference for the existing consensus, all of which I documented fairly well in my edit summaries. In the end, I don't think anything important is missing, although clearly not everything possible can be included. Is there something specific that I've overlooked or misjudged? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):"my preference for the existing consensus" Your "preference" falls under "I don't like it". That isn't a valid reason to revert good edits. What "existing consensus" are you referring to? As you are typically wont to do when you resist others editing articles you park yourself at, you claim that the edits of said editor go against consensus. I see no consensus on this talk page in regard to the edits Disc Wheel is making. It's been pointed out to you numerous times (and as recently as the time period of your last editing block in discussion at your talk page and at least one noticeboard) that consensus changes and you can't claim "existing consensus" when that consensus isn't apparent and/or is a very old consensus. Your tendency toward article ownership is showing again, Ring. And you might want to remind yourself that there are likely a good number of people watching this talk page discussion as well as all the reverts and edits you are making right now. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

What revert? You are just making things up again based on nothing. And your comments about consensus are incorrect. Change requires consensus. That is simple to remember, so you should learn it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

His original statement of the message above was "Sorry Winkelvi, you don't understand how it works. Change requires consensus. I'll say that again: change requires consensus. So, it is perfectly correct to return to the last previous consensus. If you think about it, that's the only sensible way to do it anyway. Of course, I recognize that your comments about me are always rife with ad hominem bias anyway. Not to worry, everyone else gets that, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)" but reverted it ([10]). Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No, not all change requires consensus. Not even most change. It's funny - at the articles where you feel you have ownership, you so frequently claim that change requires consensus. I've never had this misconception used at any of the articles I've edited in Wikipedia. Only at the ones where you camp out. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all change requires consensus. Sorry you don't understand that but it's in the policy. Anyway, your comments are all ad hominem and no substance. Noted. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to direct us all to the policy that states "all change requires consensus". -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You have read the policy on consensus so you've already seen it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please point us to where policy states "all change requires consensus" as you have stated it does. You say that policy in that wording exists, so where is it? A link would be fine. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't even know where to find the policy on consensus? So you are just making it up again? That's interesting, because the reason you make these ad hominem attacks on me is because I corrected you repeatedly when you tried to put stuff you made up into the article on Coppola. And now it turns out you're still doing it? Wow. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Disc Wheel, including that message wasn't appropriate, necessary, or helpful to this debate; it's just going to fan the flames. Ring Cinema decided to reword his comment, what he said before is not what he said now. I've done this plenty of times myself, where I've worded something too harshly and I change it before someone replies. Also, did either you or Ring Cinema read my suggestion? I think this is the best course of action, but I'm open to other suggestions. Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 18:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Disc Wheel: @Ring Cinema: I have a suggestion. Why doesn't one of you start a user subpage for your changes that both of you can collaborate on? That way, rather than worrying about how accurate or well-written something is to the public, you can do a bunch of look-overs and clean-ups as you see fit, then add the information in when you feel it's ready. It's clear that both of you are trying to make this article the best it can be, you just seem to have slightly different versions of what that is. So, what do you say? Give it a shot? Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 17:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Although I haven't commented on it, I wanted to thank you for this suggestion. I am interested in improving the article. Disc Wheel seems focused on defending something kind of amorphous right now. Honestly, I don't know what he thinks is missing. Mostly, he added sources, and I didn't do anything with that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not just add sources, if you look at the difference between my last contribution before your edits and the edit before I started, you can see that I did not just add sources (here's the link for that: [11]). Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Prolixity means tedious length, so you still reverted because you felt it was "too long." I don't believe there was a consensus for anything but the plot and the cast section, so everything else is fair game to be toyed around with, and I felt my edits helped out significantly. I can only think of two things that I removed completely, and that was the Coppola quote and accompanying paragraph in the production section. Everything else - besides the stuff I actually found myself and put in the article - I merely rewrote, expanded upon to make things clearer, and ultimately sourced. All in all, the sections that I worked on were either poorly sourced or sourced by not reliable sources. I made sure to look for the info that was already in the article when searching for reliable sources and if I couldn't find it, I would disregard it, which is an acceptable policy considering the material should not have been added without a source anyways. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, you misunderstand. Your writing style is prolix. And your understanding about sourcing is wrong, too. Most material in Wikipedia is not sourced. Why? Because those who edit the articles know what most of the facts are. For example, no one is going to challenge that The Godfather is directed by Coppola because we all know that. So, just because something isn't sourced, that doesn't mean it must be removed immediately. If something is not obvious or indubitable, it should be sourced or at least tagged. Now, I'll ask you again: is there something in particular that you think is missing from the article? Or are you actually complaining that I edited your prolix prose? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that you knowing everything about the Godfather? That's a falsehood. Most stuff is unsourced because that's information that has been there since the early days of Wikipedia before there were policies set up. Sure people know that Coppola is the director but a source is still necessary to back that up. Its wikipedia policy to cite any additions that you make to an article, even if it is common sense. My main issue is that you completely removed large portions of prose that I had written because you find it "poorly written" (i.e. the critical response section) or trivial and bloating (i.e. casting and production). I just think you had no right to call things and remove them just cause you find them trivial. That to me is a sign of article ownership. Now I have no problem with some copyediting taking place with my work, which I would believe to be necessary with any piece of work, but to constantly remove stuff in favor of what was there before is arbitrary. And just to reiterate sentences and sections do not have to be as short as possible just to be short and save space like you have mentioned, many times the extra text better explains things like in the WP policies I mentioned earlier.

As for what was removed and I have issues with: I think my paragraph that I had before the section I created about directing should definitely be in the article since it deals with the acquisition of the movie rights by paramount, which I believe is necessary when talking about the film and I think anyone would find that relevant to the film; several parts of the casting section I feel should be in there because they are integral to why the person was chosen for the part or the situation that led to them to the role; the critical response paragraph I added that you straight up took out I believe was actually well done and does not need much attention; and you basically stripped all the captions that I added to photos (photo captions don't have to just describe what's going on in the photo like you stated in a revert). I do agree listing a bunch of people who auditioned for the roles probably could go and I was going to ask someone to look over once I was finished with enhancing the article. However, I think it is necessary to list some of the actors who turned down roles in the film too. I think you did a good job of working the Brando part. I personally think we should just work from the version that I have on my sandbox and work together to trim down the text cause I have several issues with what you've removed and I'm not trying to list them all here. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, DW, you and I already discussed this and I told you that I agreed something about the rights acquisition should be included, but the part about Puzo's personal financial position didn't seem so relevant. My question at that time was which section it should go in. Since then, you haven't made a suggestion. You dropped it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I would welcome some further development on this article, especially in regards to the sourcing. I suggest a more incremental approach, which is more in keeping with how articles develop on Wikipedia. Perhaps Rin Cinema and Disc Wheel could attempt to work together on just a single section for a week and see where it gets them? If you can agree on a version, then fine; if not then post a request at the Film project and we might be able to make some recommendations about what is relevant, what needs to be sourced etc. I am willing to offer third opinions on each section as we go through and I am sure other editors will too. The problem so far with the mass changes that Disc Wheel has initiated is that while we obviously welcome the addition of sourced content some of Ring's criticisms are not without merit so as a neutral I feel a bit betwixt and between in that each version has its good points and its flaws. If a more methodical approach is adopted then impartial editors can offer opinions on each change on its individual merit rather than having to weigh them collectively. Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good for me. If you'd just monitor the page where the work takes place and chime in about things you see and with your opinions would be fine, along with some other folks from the cinema project too, that would be superb. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 21:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Trying to communicate opinions through the edit summaries is not enough and obviously did not work for this. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 22:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not for communicating with people - it's for advising what your edit was about. I am still awaiting Ring Cinema's participation on the ANI thread that Disc Wheel rightly began about behaviour - I'm getting a worse and worse taste in my mouth as I see more and more behavioural issues the panda ₯’ 22:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I hadn't really had any issues with edit summaries in the past, so I guess you just gotta learn through experience. But for clarification purposes for myself, issues with me or Ring? Or both? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 22:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do you have a bad taste in your mouth, Panda, when my edits have been improving the article? I get a bad taste in my mouth about you instructing us to take this content dispute to this talk page and then not keeping your word. As you can see, I've asked repeatedly for something specific about what is missing from the article. Finally, DW tells us just today, and it's something we already had discussed and agreed on. So what else am I supposed to do? Yeah, I have a really bad taste in my mouth about you harassing me. This is a good time for you to stop it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

We only discussed the part about the acquisition of the movie rights and you agreed it should be there, but you continued to revert my edit, but you claimed it to be in the wrong section even though that is where it is located in other featured articles that I have peered at as a basis for how I shaped the article. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 00:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

How about both of you disengage and walk away for one week. For Wikipedia's sake just stop and go smell some flowers or drink a cup of tea.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mark. There are plenty of more productive things you can do on Wikipedia and take a break from stressing out over a minor dispute such as this. Chambr (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, DangerousPanda, this is what we're dealing with. DW restores an earlier edit today without bringing the change to discussion. He erroneously states in his summary that we agreed on this, when in fact I already gave my objections to it twice. Disc Wheel, I'd like you to fix that on your own to show you want to work by mutual agreement, as the policy on consensus would dictate. Thanks for taking care of that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I added it back because you said that it deserves a place in the article but said it wasn't in the right section; however, the only place that it fits is in production because it deals with the rights to produce the film. I've been advocating working together the whole time but you have done nothing with that. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 14:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't accept your explanation even a little bit. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Puzo and the acquisitions of rights

DW, we agree something should be in the article about the acquisition of rights from Puzo. I thought the writing section might work for it but I'm not sure. I don't accept at face value the story in the Vanity Fair article because Evans is not a reliable narrator and it doesn't really make sense, given the temptation to self-aggrandize after the fact. What do you think? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

My paragraph on that reads: "The film was based on Mario Puzo's novel The Godfather, which was a well received novel that remained on the New York Times Best Seller list for 67 weeks and sold over 9 million copies in two years.[4][5][6] The novel became the best selling published work in history for several years.[7] Paramount Pictures originally found out about Puzo's novel in 1967 when a literary scout for the company contacted then Paramount Vice President of Production Peter Bart about Puzo's sixty-page unfinished manuscript.[5] Bart believed the work was "much beyond a Mafia story" and offered Puzo a $12,500 option for the work, with an option for $80,000 if the finished work were made into a film.[5][8] Despite Puzo's agent telling him to turn down the offer, Puzo was desperate for money and accepted the deal.[5][8] In March 1967, Paramount announced that they backed Puzo's upcoming work and planned to make a feature-length film out of it.[5] In 1969, Paramount confirmed their intentions to make a film out of the novel for the price of $80,000,[N 1][8][9][10][11] with aims to have the film released on Christmas Day in 1971.[12]"

None of the sources come from the vanity fair article when citing that paragraph I wrote above, so I think that the paragraph is fine. I can see why you'd think the Vanity Fair article may be a little biased, but I usually found other supplementary sources that had the same fact that I was citing and put those in the article as well. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 19:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Disc Wheel that the paragraph and sourcing he posted above is fine for now. It should be incorporated into the article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

But Winkelvi all your opinions are ad hominem when I'm concerned. The paragraph he wants to add is really poorly written. Until he can bring it up to the standard of the rest of the article, it would be negative to add it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't give a shit what you think about me or my opinions, RC. Your word isn't law here or anywhere within the encyclopedia. I'm a member of this community, therefore, I have a right to voice my opinion. I say put the paragraph in and it can be edited later. Wikipedia is about adding content and editing. Consensus is to put it in. I say do it now and edit later if you find things you'd like to see changed or fixed. Isn't that what collegial and cooperative editing is? We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia. Inserting this new content in on that path. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There's not a consensus to put it in, actually, except for the part about the acquisition of rights. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

DW, I agree that something about the acquisition of rights belongs in the article. Instead of repeating your previous tries, may I suggest that you pare your selection down to that for which there is agreement? In other words, forget about the extraneous material. Stick to the facts of the acquisition of rights. What would you propose then? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I put it back in and trimmed it down to what is more pertinent to the film related matter. I still believe Coppola's financial situation needs mentioning since the $80k ($12.5k up front) for the movie rights was outrageously low according to modern day sources looking back on it that I used. As for my writing being poor that's just false. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 13:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ring but please put back the version of what I added. We didn't agree to make those radical changes to the text. You removed things saying they're inconsistent with the Vanity Fair article, which you said you questioned its reliability. There was no consensus to change what I had added and remove the information that you did. You also claimed that Daily Gazette had many errors, please tell what's wrong with their work. In addition you also say that it was written way after its release as a reason to remove, so I think I need to remove almost all the sources in the article if that's the case. You said the part about the 12,500 option was inaccurate when its been in several sources. Please revert your edits or I will and we need to work together here to find a version that fits. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 17:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment As I said I would do last week, here is my view on this edit which seems to be a source of contention:

1. In the first sentence the film "is based" not "was based" since it still exists.
2. The $12,500 paid to Puzo is not an "option", it is what he was paid for the option. He would still be paid that fee regardless. I would word that simply as "offered Puzo $12,500 for an $80,000 option on the film rights".
3. Describing Puzo as "desperate" for money is unencyclopedic and tangential to the topic; say he accepted the offer against the advice of his agent and leave it at that.
4. You don't need to say Paramount "confirmed their intentions"; they weren't throwing an engagement party. All that needs to be said here is that they exercised their option, so the previous wording was more succinct on this point.
5. I don't think the Christmas 1971 release date is relevant here. It didn't transpire and this should really be covered in the release section.

There are some offer aspects of the writing that could be tightened up but I would rather concentrate on the content first. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I made adjustments to the text based off what you said. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I will try to tighten up some of the prose now. Any changes I make that you—or Ring—don't agree with feel free to revert, since I have no intention of turning this dispute into a Mexican stand-off. Hopefully we can get the article to a version that even if you don't agree on you can progress from. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

And Ring has replaced it with his version again. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 16:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ring reverted changes to other parts of the article, not the section we co-edited the previous evening. He is still unhappy with some aspects of that section as you can see below, but with some tweaking I think we can get around his main concerns. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Errors in the production section

Some errors have been reappearing in the production section. I think we should try to be accurate about the facts.

1. Paramount Pictures was in an bad period? False. Because of Love Story, they were in a strong position. Read the sources. 2. Peter Bart made a deal with Puzo? Hard to say. Sources differ. 3. Puzo's deal was made in 1967? Hard to say, since sources differ. 4. The original plan was to open Christmas 1971? The source for that has many other things wrong and it's not so interesting anyway. 5. Puzo's option was worth $80,000? Not true, since there were "elevators" included in the deal.

I would suggest checking the sources before editing this section, as I have done. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Responses: * 1. [12] source that says they were in a tough financial situation after going over budget on recent films. While most other sources do say that had gone over budget with their recent films. But what source says Paramount was doing extremely well cause of love story and that love story "transformed" them?

*2 What source differs?

*3 They bought the film rights in 1967, but in 1969 they announced that they were for sure going to produce a film. Read the sources.

*4 What else is wrong the source, please tell me? And it is worth noting since it shows that it was finished three months later. I don't think being interesting matters.

*5 No he was paid $80,000 for the rights to the film, but when he was hired to write the screenplay he was paid $100,000 and given elevators in the deal. So it's right as is. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Disc Wheel on every point. Read the sources, please. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

They weren't in a tough financial position. They were flush with cash from the success of Love Story in 1970. Read the sources. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ring seems to have some concerns regarding the accuracy of some of the claims. I don't have access to the cited sources, but I do have a book called "Blockbusting" written by Hollywood Reporter journalist Alex Block, and the section on The Godfather (p. 553) lends credence to Ring's concerns:

1. Robert Evans optioned the rights (not Peter Bart)
2. The rights were optioned in the spring of 1968 (Ring should note however that the section doesn't actually say when the rights were optioned, just when Paramount first became interested in the manuscript)
3. The manuscript was optioned for $12,500, which would increase to $75,000 if the novel were published (we directly contradict that saying the film rights were sold for $80,000).

I don't think we should commit to specifics unless we know for sure they are correct, and there is no way of knowing which source is correct on these points. I am going to remove the inconsistent names (we can just say Paramount optioned the rights since the name of the executive is not all that important) and figures and add in the 1968 date. If possible, I would like to know exactly what the current sources say about the option verbatim, to make sure there isn't any misinterpretation. Betty Logan (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the Vanity Fair article (2009), Evans was first to meet with Puzo (a favor to a friend) in 1968. Although the story is somewhat suspect, that is what they printed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The 1968 date is verifiable, therefore, it should stay. I appreciate User:Betty Logan adding it in. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

1967 is verifiable, too. That's the point. Should we say it happened both years, since both are "verifiable"? Maybe the smart thing would to see if we can find better evidence. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If there are sources for both dates then we shouldn't commit to either date really. The actual date isn't that important; what is important is the sequence of events: it was optioned as a manuscript and then the option was invoked presumably after the novel was published and became a bestseller. Betty Logan (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Would saying "...between the years of 1967 and 1969..." work? Or is that too vague? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Love Story

Following the success of Love Story, Paramount Pictures new executives wanted to make another film based on a novel by an author they had backed. The studio had hesitated to produce another gangster picture after the poor returns on the 1968 Mafia film The Brotherhood.

This is my proposal, which I'd like to support briefly. The facts seem to be -- mostly based on Jones -- that Paramount was a weak studio in 1969. New executives came in. Love Story was a smash success in 1970. Evans thought it might be possible to replicate its success, which consisted of supporting the author of a novel (in this case Erich Segal, I believe) that the studio wants to turn into a film. The Godfather and Puzo fit the model. Then, other studios began to show interest in making it into a movie, and because of that Paramount exercised their option. So, what I'd like to avoid is the implication that Paramount didn't want to make the movie because they were too poor. Yes, they were burned by The Brotherhood and it made them wary, but Love Story was a game changer. By the time the decision was made on The Godfather, they were riding high. At least, I believe that is accurate, based on reports from many years after the fact. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

References

I don't think there is that much of a link between Love Story and The Godfather. Love Story was released in December 1970 and by that stage The Godfather had been greenlit, Coppola had been signed etc. You are right though that Paramount's woes were pretty much over by the time they started filming, mainly thanks to Love Story. Betty Logan (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Interestingly, Jones makes the connection explicit. Since she is also the source for the story that Bart was the executive who, in 1967, made the deal with Puzo, it lends credence to Vanity Fair's story that it was '68 and Evans. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Honest question: how is coming to these conclusions based and this source and that source and then putting it all together to get to point D not synthesis? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would it be synthesis to figure out which sources are reliable, especially when they clearly conflict? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

But then what about the Bart quote, that also comes from her in an interview she did with Bart? That also lacks credibility. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Al Lettieri

Al Lettieri is listed in the starring credits in the final film credit scroll. Why is he not listed in the starring list in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.245.195 (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines call for the use of the billing block from the poster. I would say this is an interesting case to bring up in trying to change the guidelines. Film credits deserve some attention when they differ from the billing block. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually everyone in the film is listed in the final film credit scroll. One reason we limit it to the names on the poster is to eliminate infobox bloat. But, as RC notes you are free to raise the question at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. MarnetteD|Talk 02:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to be for the stars, so I do question whether we really need anyone besides Brando and Pacino: Brando is top-billed, while Pacino is second-billed and carries the film. Maybe James Caan at a pinch since he his third-billed and his character is integral to the plot. Everyone else is essentially a supporting player. Betty Logan (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

While I would be inclined to agree I think this is another reason we chose to default to the film poster. By that I mean once individual editors started discussing whose names they think belong in the infobox the conversation rarely came to a resolution. The discussion about this was years (and years) ago and my memory could be faulty so my apologies if this is incorrect. MarnetteD|Talk 03:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I recall the guideline never compelled us to include everyone in the billing block. There are numerous instances where we don't do this. The guideline was brought in to effectively impose a limit (and an order) on the number of names added to the infobox so we didn't end up with entire casts in there ordered to an editor's liking. If there are only a handful of names in the billing block then you may as well stick them all in, but when it's getting on for ten I think we have to draw the line at something sensible. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the convention is that the billing block list constitutes more of a limit than a mandate. The stars named in the lede are most limited -- only major roles -- and the infobox is slightly more permissive. But we have chosen one convention over another here: the billing block actors compared to those with film credits above the title. So, right, we don't want an endless discussion of which actors belong in the infobox since, for one thing, the infobox is less signal and more noise when the criteria is more arbitrary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Barzini

Barzini was behind the plot to sell drugs from the very beginning. Sollozzo was just a frontman following his orders. Unfortunately Don Corleone did not realise this until the meeting with the Heads of the Five Families in 1947, after Sonny's death. (ShawnLFlynn (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC))

Lighting

In film school, we were told the rumor that the lighting in many indoor scenes, especially those with Brando in them, was so dark because the camera assistant forgot to open up the aperture properly so that by technical standards, the footage was underexposed. Paramount was pretty pissed at it, but when the film became a hit, it turned into a widely copied style. If this is true and can be sourced somehow, it should go in the article. --84.180.255.151 (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

... could it be cited? Unlikely, I imagine, so will remain anecdotal. You were at the film school, so who better to make the effort? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was more than 10 years ago, told by an instructor I don't even remember the name of. I do remember the guy told us he'd recently read about it in a book written by a member of the crew that was involved with The Godfather. --84.180.255.151 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In my personal experience, the longer I have thought about some event in my past, the more I have remembered. Keep searching the grey matter! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure it was more than 10 years ago? I found a book that might match your description, but I'm not sure, and it's 10 years old exactly. Here's the Google Books link. Sock (tock talk) 14:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In Popular Culture section, Disposable?

So I was looking over the article and I feel that the "in popular culture," "in film," and "in television" sections under "Cinematic Influence" are completely unnecessary. The sections merely list parts of films and television where the godfather is referenced and I know for sure there are several hundreds, if not thousands, of references that have not mentioned in the page. Each references explains in depth how it is imitating the film, which I don't think is really necessary on a Wikipedia article. If we were to list each time that The Godfather is referenced in another work this page would be way too long. In addition, the references that are listed already are predominately not sourced. Would it not be easier to scrap those sections and then just add a sentence or two mentioning how many tv shows and films have taken things from it?

My version of the section, the "Cinematic Influence" as a whole would be:

"Although many films about gangsters preceded The Godfather, Coppola's nuanced treatment of the Corleone family and their associates, and his portrayal of mobsters as characters of considerable psychological depth and complexity was an innovation.[150] He took it further with The Godfather Part II, and the success of those two films, critically, artistically and financially, opened the doors for more and varied depictions of mobster life. Since the creation of The Godfather, both the film and its sequels, have been mirrored, emulated, and parodied on countless television shows and films."

Anyone agree? Thoughts? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 02:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Corleone really against drugs?

I’ve seen it anecdotally elsewhere, and it is in the article here, that Vito Corleone does not finance the drugs deal because he is against them; however, try as I may, I can’t find where in the film it is ever said that that is the reason he turns down the request. He talks over the options before they leave, and asks Tom for advice - and they appear to agree that drugs is something they have to get into because if they don’t, someone else will. It’s not drugs he rejects - in fact he clearly says (as clearly as a mumbling actor with a mouthful of Kleenex can!) that to him drugs and gambling are indistinguishable, so he isn’t judging them morally - but a small share of a deal in which he will appear to be second fiddle to another family. Can anyone clear this up for me, or is this a case of an urban legend, which isn’t in fact the case? I see it as being there are at least two clear statements saying that drugs are the way for the Corleone organization to go, and no dialogue which states that this is a show and that he is in fact against them. Jock123 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The Godfather Locations

http://www.scoutingny.com/the-godfather-the-new-york-city-filming-locations-then-and-now/ In this link we can see the complete informations about the locations in the film. I've put the information of location about "The Death of Paulie" but the users have removed my valid contribute , with the official source. 4:12 pm , 13 April 2015‎ . User: 87.15.145.211— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.145.211 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Doesn't look like a wp:reliable source to me. What do other contributors think? - DVdm (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Is a page about New York and the famous films locations. Do you think it is not valid? please. contribs) 16:22, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Due to the fact that it has a "Submit a location" function the info is WP:USERGENERATED and there is no way to know if there is any fact checking done before an item is added to the website. It should also be noted that this article is not here to list every single location used in the film. The section could use some pruning but that is just a suggestion and I am not insisting on that. MarnetteD|Talk 14:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MarnetteD. Alex2006 (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok , non avete capito un cazzo! lol contribs) 16:22, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Hagen kidnapping

I tried a rewrite of those two or three sentences. Maybe it helps to put it in terms of Solozzo's activities. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Good rewrite. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly does clarify it better -- now . . . :-0 PNW Raven (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits

I will be editing The Godfather article to improve the quality. The current text is not well written, has overly wordy phrases, uses clumsy prepositional phrases, and some facts and the timeline are incorrect. As there is a message in the Talk Page box inviting editors to improve this article, I will be doing so. PNW Raven (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

PNW Raven: Since you've been reverted by more than one editor over your changes and you're possibly looking at an edit warring block to boot (see this for more [13]), it really would be best for you to discuss specifically here the edits you want to make and why. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I have discussed what I will be editing: wordy, passive, cliched, and poorly constructed sentence structure throughout the entire article that are too numerous to mention; weak introductory subordinate phrases in many sentences; an in-universe style; abundant weak prepositional phrasing (rule of writing: avoid prepositions whenever possible), incorrect timeline and facts. Phrasing throughout such as, "Michael comes up with a plan to hit Sollozzo and McClusky . . ." is weak, amateurish, and passive in tone. The opening sentence is particularly convoluted and messy and basically is a long, run-on sentence. Introducing Michael Corleone, the key character in the novel by saying he is wearing a Marine Corp uniform is beyond ridiculous. PNW Raven (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

PNW Raven: Stating that Michael wearing his USMC officer's uniform is a key, striking image and the first thing you notice about the character. It indicates a number of things: it's WWII, a Corleone broke family tradition, Michael is a rebel. Not ridiculous at all.

What incorrect timeline content are you referring to?

What incorrect facts are you referring to?

I don't agree that the sentence you quotes is weak, amateurish, and passive in tone.

The lead sentence reads fine to me.

Please be a little more specific and possibly give examples of how you would change these things you see as incorrect. Also, please don't edit war again. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you not incite an edit war again, either, or revert another editor's work because you are protecting a page. Based on your actions, I'm suspecting you or someone you know wrote or revised this article at some point and you now refuse to allow any changes. That is against Wiki policy. Why else would you oppose any improvement (which it very much needs). Your argument that simply saying Michael is wearing a uniform conveys all that information about him is meaninglessand not supported whatsoever. It states nothing more than he is wearing a uniform and implies nothing to anyone who has not read the book or seen the movie. One example of a timeline error is that Brasi's vest is not sent until AFTER Vito was shot. Also, Sonny first beat Carlo early on in the story. Much later, Carlo stages another incident to get Sonny killed. The way it is worded is muddled. Fredo was sent to Las Vegas because he was traumatized by the assassination attempt on his father, not because the gang war broke out. I'm not going to endlessly debate details because you are only defending everything that is there, no matter how badly written it is, and attempting to block any change whatsoever.PNW Raven (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't incite anything. You were reverted by more than one editor. Nonetheless, I thought you came here to discuss edits, not editors. Am I wrong? If you think there is something untoward happening here, feel free to take your case to AN/I. In any case, your unfounded accusations are a violation of WP:NPA. Please stop and start using WP:AGF.

My information regarding Michael and the uniform is not meaningless as it gives background. I wasn't suggesting that background be put into the article. YOU brought up the uniform and called reference to it "ridiculous". As I pointed out, there is significance to it. You have yet to give evidence of it being ridiculous and why it needs to be removed.

You are correct about the timing of Brasi's vest. That should be changed.

You are not correct about the timing of Sonny beating Carlo. The street scene beating is the only depicted instance in the film.

The implication of why Fredo was sent to Las Vegas is because he failed to protect his father from the shooting and is not cut out for tough, fast decisions under fire. The article says he's being "sheltered" by Moe Green. I don't agree that gives the correct picture, however, I also don't think it would be correct to mention the implication, either (that would be using WP:SYNTH, which is against guidelines).

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What I am pointing out is, comments like Michael is "wearing a Marine uniform" without giving any context or analysis about what that symbolizes about the character and the story renders it meaningless. All it does is say, out of the blue, Michael is wearing a uniform. Well, so what? It comes across especially weak when that is juxtaposed next to the statement that Vito Corleone is the head of a powerful crime family. Then, oh by the way, Michael is wearing a Marine uniform. The plot synopsis is suppose to give analysis of the story and the characters, not just regurgitate events that happened or describe what someone is wearing. It is also insufficient to merely say Fredo is "weak." Actually, your phrase, " Fredo was sent to Las Vegas because he failed to protect his father from the shooting and is not cut out for tough, fast decisions under fire," would actually be excellent info in the article because it explains more about his character and how he differs from Michael, who differs from hot-headed Sonny. Also: "Michael wearing his USMC officer's uniform is a key, striking image and the first thing you notice about the character. It indicates a number of things: it's WWII, a Corleone broke family tradition, Michael is a rebel." That is exactly the type of valuable and reveling character information a reader unfamiliar with the story would benefit from knowing. That is what drives much of the story and I would like to incorporate that in it. PNW Raven (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What is going on here? I pasted in changes from my computer desktop page that I use for editing. Now I see there's a slew of previous versions by an editor with a history of edit warring who gradually changed all the text back to what you had before. Someone just happens to come along and reverts it back to your earlier version, paragraph by paragraph? Really? And I noticed on his Talk Page someone welcoming him back after an absence and no editing work until The Godfather edits. That seems very coincidental. I suspect multiple editors are working together to edit war. This is "tag-team" edit warring. I've looked over the edit history on The Godfather page, and there is a pattern of mostly three editors, you included, who immediately revert any other person's edits. Now this other editor shows up. Hmmm . . . how strange. I will be reporting this.PNW Raven (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There were problems with some of your edits on the plot section, which has been reworked by many editors over a long period of time. I'm sure everyone working on the article is trying to improve it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I can take a moment to comment on a couple things. I'm not consonant with the idea that Michael's uniform requires explanation; I believe it is best to handle it as the film handles it. He is wearing a uniform and that speaks for itself, whatever we want to make of it. Does it make him a rebel? Seems that the message is quite a bit richer than that insofar as his father didn't want him to join the family business. It would be perceived by different people in a different way, whether we consider the audience or the characters. Can he be a rebel by doing what his father prefers? It's not for us to decide. 2. Brasi's vest. It's not a strict requirement that the summary order conforms to the film order. It's preferable, but it's better to dispose of Brasi in one sentence and move on, since there is no causal connection that needs to be clarified, i.e. Brasi's murder obviously doesn't cause Vito's assassination. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments are weak and have little merit. The article as it originally was, and is now, is poorly written and amateurish for reasons I have already mentioned. Your comments here, and your edits, parallel Winklevi's and that shows collaboration between editors. I'll be reporting a suspected case of page protecting and tag-team edit warring.PNW Raven (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

PNW Raven, your accusations couldn't be more unfounded. There has never been any love lost between Ring Cinema and myself - in fact, I was surprised to see him start editing again just recently, as he has been gone from Wikipedia for several months. There's no tag team edit warring plot here, and if you look closely, you'll see that his views on the Brasi vest and mine differ. We are not colluding. Please, just accept that your edits are simply not in line with consensus and let it go. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

And you need to accept that the writing quality on this article is sub-standard and below Wiki quality. You can't block other editors from working on this article by claiming there is a "consensus."PNW Raven (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, consensus is how decisions are made on Wikipedia. However, I find some of your ideas to my liking so I don't see why we can't find things to agree on. Like everyone who edits here, Raven, some of your ideas will be accepted and others will not. Everyone is edited here, including you. Thanks for the improvements you have offered, even though their number is less than you might have expected. I sincerely appreciate the attention you have given the article. I hope you will keep an open mind, as I have. Your broad criticisms of the article don't put your views in the best light, but on some issues I find merit in your thinking. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

How nice there is some merit to my edits and that they are appreciated. I've always been aware that everyone is edited. The main issue was Wink refusing to allow ANY changes and reverting all revisions claiming the article was perfect the way it was when clearly it was not. There are still problems with the article's prose. Some rules in writing: use as few words as possible in sentences and avoid prepositional phrases that weaken sentence structure. Much text is leaden and clunky. While that may sound broad, it is an issue throughout the entire plot synopsis. The opening sentence is weak when it should be dynamic. The sentence, "ON the day OF his only daughter Connie's wedding, Vito Corleone hears requests IN his role as the Godfather, the Don OF a New York crime family," is a string of prepositions bloating the sentence structure and making it difficult to understand. It is also a run-on sentence. To improve it, first identify who the character is and what he does, then add on incidentals. It needs to be broken into two sentences. Does the movie specify that it his role as the Godfather that dictates he must hear peoples' requests? I don't recall that. It is actually Sicilian tradition that ANY father must listen to peoples' requests on his daughter's wedding day. The movie does not say that either, but how it is written now is vague. The article also continually lapses into an in-universe style and uses tired, cliched phrasing, like "takes the reins" or "in the twilight of his career." All writing should sound new and fresh, and if there is even a hint of familiarity, then dump it.PNW Raven (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Raven, you've got a bad habit of going into passive voice. Much worse than prepositions. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That last comment actually made me laugh. Thanks, Ring!!PNW Raven (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been considering Raven's thoughts on the first paragraph. As you say, Raven, the film doesn't really detail why Vito is hearing requests. As it stands, we finesse the point because Vito is assuming the role of godfather so that is literally accurate even if maybe something is implied there beyond our brief. My own interpretation originally, for what it's worth, was that the Don pro forma had to receive his guests, so this was a rare chance to talk to him, and etiquette demanded that requests be heard. Another interpretation, though, is that he's taken away from the reception by his job. Which is it? More importantly, though, we're not really "getting there" in terms of saying how the reception is big, bright, loud, and complex qua social microcosm. Perhaps that is simply beyond the scope of a plot summary though. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is what the opening sentence should read like: "Vito Corleone is the don of a powerful New York crime family. As the "Godfather," he is obliged to hear peoples' requests on his daughter Connie's wedding day." This quickly introduces a main character and in more dynamic style. It then establishes he is also the Godfather who people seek help from. PNW Raven (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)