Talk:The Godfather/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Prepositions

"Like adjectives and adverbs, prepositional phrases add meaning to the nouns and verbs in our sentences."

I'm not sure where Raven got the idea that prepositional phrases are anathema to encyclopedic style. Is that in the style manual somewhere? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not making this up, Ring. I learned it in college Technical Writing courses, and it was drilled into me. There are both weak and strong forms of prepositional phrasing. This article is/was loaded with weak forms. I recommend that anyone read up on this to improve their writing skills.

I am also clarifying in the article that Vito did NOT forewarn Michael that Tessio would betray him. That is how it was worded and it is WRONG. Vito warned Michael that whoever approached him about a meeting with Barzini was a traitor. As it turned out, it was Tessio. PNW Raven (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if you made it up, but I don't find any discussion of prepositions that delineates weak and strong forms in written English. The only "weak" usage of prepositions is at the end of the sentence they are a part of. And that rule is frequently violated to good effect. (e.g. "That's something I don't agree with.") None of the changes you made in the article addressed that kind of situation.

Passive voice creates problems in clarity, generally, and is something to avoid. Here are links about passive construction. There are many others. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not advocate using "passive voice." Action verbs and active voice are always better but that does not mean loading sentences with clunky prepositions, excessive wording, and cliched phrases. I go over my writing to look for weaknesses and eliminate them. You don't or won't. You do not want anyone except yourself to edit any of the Godfather articles.

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/5-ways-to-reduce-use-of-prepositions/

https://www2.aje.com/en/education/other-resources/articles/editing-tip-avoiding-preposition-overusePNW Raven (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you are making false statements about me. That's not okay. Many of your suggestions have been accepted, although you have reintroduced some poor formulations. I don't try to justify my changes with incorrect assertions about grammar, usage, or style. I would suggest you abandon forever any statements about your superior knowledge in matters of English style, because those who don't know when you're right will dismiss the pompous folly and those who do will be offended by the false accusation. And instead of putting yourself at odds with me, I would suggest that you focus on the several improvements made because you brought out some things that were inexact or incomplete. I value your opinion because I have seen that happen and it is good for the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I want to make this clear. I have never made any assertions about having superior knowledge in matters of English style. I utilize the skills I learned in technical writing courses, and I have explained what that is in the changes I have made, such as avoiding excessive prepositional phrasing, but that got shot down amid a hail of "prepositions are wonderful." Unfortunately, I was hampered in writing anything effectively because I had to write around the "carved in stone" prose that already existed and that everyone wants protected because the consensus was everything was perfect. I am glad you think I brought out some good things, but I shouldn't have had to go through what I did to incorporate them. By the way, your edit, "Sonny retaliates with a hit on Tattaglia's son," is spot on and exactly the style I have been trying to incorporate—minimal, dynamic wording. While you may claim that I have made false accusations about you, from my viewpoint, it is one or two individuals who feel only they control the article. Also, my understanding is that Wiki's movie synopsis are not supposed to just retell a movie's plot but should give some depth of understanding to it. That's one of the article's weaknesses.PNW Raven (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. This is a difficult process for everyone from time to time. I think your proposals were evaluated fairly, honestly, openly, and without prejudice. Although you might complain that other editors here are not open to change, that isn't consistent with the evidence. Your concerns were taken seriously, correctly identified deficiencies were acted on, and the criticisms were substantive. You were given an opportunity to make your case for your ideas. I'm not sure what to make of your praise of my sentence about Sonny's retaliation because a plot summary shouldn't be written in only that direct, spare, staccato manner; the reader likes variety. (I believe I said that pronouns are wonderful.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

>>Title role vs. top billing

Recently User:Gareth Griffith-Jones and User:Winkelvi reverted my edits to the article. My reason for excising the words "in the title role" is quite simply that it is wrong. While Marlon Brando may have come off with top billing in the film, the role that he plays is not the character that the film is about. Clearly, the story is about how Michael Corleone shifts in the space of about a decade from the family's youngest son, fresh out of the military and uninterested in the "family business", to a powerful, bloodthirsty, ruthless bastard, the number-one thug in New York, something that he hardly expected. Clearly then, the role played by Al Pacino – even if he didn't get top billing – is the central one. The story is about him, not about how Don Vito gets himself shot and wounded, and then sees his health deteriorate until he drops dead in the garden while playing with his grandson, any more than it is about how Pauly Gatto betrays the Don and winds up getting taken for a ride, as they said in the old gangster films ("Leave the gun – Take the cannoli." — Great line!). I would like to know what other users think about describing Marlon Brando's role as the "title role". Surely it isn't. Brando may have been the big star, and may have been the one to walk away with the statuette, whereas Pacino was a relative unknown at the time, but the "godfather" in the title surely refers to the character who was made into a godfather in the course of the film. I reckon the article would be right to say that Marlon Brando was given top billing, though – just not that his was the title role. So what does everyone else think? Kelisi (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Much of what you say has merit, but this is not the place to make the argument since Wikipedia relies on sources. I googled 'title role of the godfather'. Marlon Brando is mentioned several times, Al Pacino not at all. And it's also germane that the title role is not necessarily the largest, top billed, or most important. Even when Michael is referred to as the Godfather (happens in exactly one scene, right?), it is on some level a shock because we realize that he has succeeded his father. I would say it is widely understood that Marlin Brando played the Godfather and I doubt there is a reliable source to contradict it. --75.168.165.150 --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

^^^Everything RC said. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Shock?! Surely anybody following the action can see where it's leading Michael. It's the only logical outcome after all. Santino is out after the tommygun treatment at the toll plaza. Fredo is out from the beginning because he just doesn't have the mind for crime family leadership. Tom Hagen is likewise out from the beginning because he is not a blood relative and not even Sicilian. Whom does that leave? Only Michael, especially after he becomes a murderer (Sollozzo and McCluskey), then after coming back from Sicily, taking over day-to-day leadership after his father throws in the towel, and rather inevitably once he conceives the plan to assassinate all his rivals on the day of his nephew's christening, even going so far as to have a lifelong friend (Tessio) and his own brother-in-law (Carlo) killed. No, not a shock at all, because we know he will eventually be the godfather. That is what the whole story is about. Kelisi (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll just add that in the Puzo book it is crystal-clear that the titular character is Vito and not Michael. The book contains the entire look back at his career that ended up part of the second film (the De Niro sequences). Sorry but the Godfather is Vito! Mezigue (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Kelisi's hindsight is 20/20 but that's not how the story works. It may be hard to imagine the counterfactuals of such a familiar movie even though the ending "could have been" different. The characters made choices, revealed themselves, or were subject to fate. Within the diegetic domain, it was unlikely that Michael would become godfather and Kate is the barometer that makes that manifest. However, in the real world, his ascent to Godfather was certain because that's what the writer chose. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll add to Ring and Mezigue's comments that if one take all three movies into consideration, it's easy to see that while Michael had the title "godfather", he still did not measure up to the kind of leader his father was. And that is obvious by how Michael dies in GF III: old, broken, alone. He destroyed everything that was done well by his father. His father died surrounded by family, loved, and - even though physically frail - still seen as a strong, tradition-based and quintessential leader by everyone *but* Michael. His capos (Tessio and Clemenza) are leaving him because of Michael. The family stayed together because of Vito, they were destroyed because of Michael (even Sonny's death occurred because of the war that strengthened due to the death of Sollozzo and McCluskey; Michael's idea and actions). The true Godfather was Vito, even when Michael was at the head of the family. And, as Mezigue pointed out, even the second film was really about Vito at its heart - Michael was again the one who blew it all apart with his actions that were summed up by his statement in the first film: "...my father's way of doing things is over, it's finished."

Regardless and in spite of all this, our job is not to analyze article subjects. Our job is to write and improve upon content based on reliable sources. And the sources support Vito as the Godfather - at the very least - in the first film. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Brilliantly summarised, WV. Thank you. Sincerely, — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Gareth. My pleasure. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

All right, I get the point about Vito being a better godfather than his son Michael, and about Vito's (memory's?) ongoing influence even after his death, but I am not talking about character. I am talking about plot. Vito may have outstripped Michael in every way (but for ruthlessness, perhaps), but the story's action doesn't proceed from end to beginning, but beginning to end. Yes, this makes it a story about the Corleone family's descent from a heyday, if you want to call it that, to harder times under a new leader who was not quite as wise as Vito, the "great" godfather, had been. So, it is an unhappy story. Well, sometimes it happens that way even in the movies. If the film is about the Corleone family's incipient downfall (which is continued in the sequels), then I would say that that is an argument for regarding Michael as the title character, as he, being truly the "heartless bastard" that Connie calls him, is the one that causes it all. Hey, Ring Cinema, I'd like you to explain how the film keeps the viewer's interest if it seems unlikely that anything interesting will happen with Michael, such as rising to the Corleone family's leadership. I know that when I watched it the first time, it was clear to me that Michael was changing – getting drawn into the "family business" – no later than when he made the proposal to kill Sollozzo and McCluskey. What was happening with Santino was interesting, too, as he had temporarily taken over the day-to-day leadership while Vito was recovering from Sollozzo's assassination attempt. After Sollozzo and McCluskey are killed necessitating Michael's temporary exile to Sicily, the likelihood of Michael's succession to the Corleone family's leadership seems to become absolute when Santino is gunned down. This whole succession of events making it ever likelier that Michael would succeed Vito was, I think, what kept my interest. I don't remember ever thinking "what a dull film. Why am I watching this?" I think Michael kept it going (and there – now I'm talking about character). Kelisi (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much everything you've said in regard to your POV is very POV. And somewhat emotional (so it would seem). Neither have any place in how we edit an encyclopedia. NPOV; no analysis; who cares what you felt when you watched the film?; objective, not subjective; we aren't movie critics. I think that pretty much covers it all. Hopefully, you won't be taking this much further because these walls of text and demands that you be responded to are becoming a bit too high maintenance. I hope I've made myself clear, Kelisi. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are you asking me why the film is interesting even though something unlikely happens? The implication is that the best movies are full of obvious endings and boring characters who don't change. That seems inaccurate and I don't think you can source it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC

Pic of Siskel

IMO the pic of Siskel in the "critical response" section does not meet the guideline for pics that states "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter." He did not have anything to do with making the film and he was just one of 100s of critics who reviewed it. A case could be made for its use (barely) if the pic was from the films premiere or the Academy Award show when it won the Oscar, but it is from 1989. Now this is just one editors opinion and if consensus is to keep it that is okay with me. I would suggest reducing the size a bit as it is too large (again an IMO situation) for the section. MarnetteD|Talk 16:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support – removal of image entirely. Thanks to MarnetteD for pointing out this issue. I wonder how long it has been there? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones

please be a little more careful when reverting. the edit you reverted was correctly cited, the revert you made was not supported by the citation. this isn't the first time, either. I'm sure your edit was made in good faith, but please check first. thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You do not need to repeat my username. Neither should you "ping" me. If you understood the ways of Wikipedia, you would know that my Watchlist informs me.
I was NOT reverting; I was restoring the article to its stable version. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, you were restoring it to a version that was contradicted by the sources given. I assume the ping function is there for a reason, that's why I used it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, this article would be in much poorer shape without Gareth overseeing it. We have probably all mistakenly reverted sound edits in the past because we are all human and occasionally make mistakes, and it usually happens when editors don't properly explain in the edit summary why they are changing something in the first place. If I make such a mistake I will self-revert if I am made aware of my error, as I am sure Gareth would too. Telling someone to "be a little more careful" is not conducive to a collaborative atmosphere and may even come across as a little aggressive; therefore the simplest way to deal with an honest mistake is to either drop Gareth a note on his talk page to let him know he has restored an erroneous version or simply revert and provide a more thorough explanation in the edit summary. Betty Logan (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I used the word "please" twice and explained that I was sure his edit was made in good faith. I'm not being aggressive, I'm being polite. I was just a little concerned about the quality of his edits. But I'm sure he has got the message, and I'm equally sure his edits will improve, now that he is aware of his very minor error. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Betty. You always are able to put matters in perspective.
It is a pity that this new contributor is unable to leave it alone. I certainly do not require someone with only two months experience here lecture me with his sanctimonious blather.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 15:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps merely having edited Wikipedia for longer than a newcomer, does not automatically make you the superior editor. I've found in life that the people who are open to criticism, are those who learn and improve. When someone points out an error of mine, I am very thankful, because I have learned something new. Anyway, no hard feelings bro. Have an awesome day. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. As the bard put it, "All's Well That Ends Well". Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you too. I will learn to be a little more diplomatic with my interactions with people. We are all here to make wikipedia a better place, so edits are far more important than conflicts. thanks again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Idea for Cinematic Influence (Reposting this because no one replied last time)

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, something that IMDB is made for. 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."

Obviously that could be expanded but I think that would be a good start. Disc Wheel (T + C) 15:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I find the "In popular culture and legacy" section informative and is fine as it is; the film and television sections less so. I think the most noteworthy examples of the medium are probably relevant, but it has become something of a WP:LAUNDRYLIST for movie and TV references. Betty Logan (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I think a mention of one or two would be fine, but I feel that it is definitely LAUDRYLIST. Just now the debate is what are the most noteworthy examples then. Disc Wheel (T + C) 21:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

For a first pass I would lose the trivia I culled in this edit. If you are happy with that then please restore my edit and we can discuss what is left. Betty Logan (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

My opinion of "in popular culture" sections are magnets for useless trivia and need to be watched constantly that garbage isn't added making it even more of a WP:LAUNDRYLIST. I'm not a big fan of "In popular culture" in articles, personally. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That largely comes down to how you write the section. On one hand some of it is encyclopedic content, but on the other casual references can often be trivia. WP:POPCULTURE offers some good pointers, but I generally find if you write the section as self-contained prose rather than a bullet-point list it is less inviting for trivial additions. I wrote the one at Gone with the Wind (film)#In popular culture and it is no more unstable than the rest of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Bullet point list" vs. prose. Good point, Betty Logan. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

How about this for the whole section:

"Although many films about gangsters preceded The Godfather, Coppola's heavy infusion of Italian culture and stereotypes, and his portrayal of mobsters as characters of considerable psychological depth and complexity was unprecedented. Coppola took it further with The Godfather Part II, and the success of those two films, critically, artistically and financially, opened the doors for numerous other depictions of Italian Americans as mobsters, including films such as Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas and TV series such as David Chase's The Sopranos. A comprehensive study of Italian American culture on film, conducted from 1996 to 2001 by the Italic Institute of America, showed that close to 300 movies featuring Italian Americans as mobsters (mostly fictitious) have been produced since The Godfather, an average of nine per year. The success of The Godfather has spawned many imitations, mentions, and spoofs in later films and television shows including in: The Simpsons, Saturday Night Live, Rugrats in Paris, Set it Off, and more."

I really feel that having the two subsections that just list parodies and whatnot for both television and film is something that IMDb is not necessary and is overly trivial. In addition, more and more examples will be continued to be added to these sections as the years go by and more forms of media imitate the film, making it even more unnecessary. So just listing some prominent examples in the sentence that I added to the first paragraph from the cinematic influence I think would be right, based off what the people above mentioned. I will find the sources to back of their parodying of the godfather if everyone agrees that this is the right move, which I believe it is... Disc Wheel (T + C) 23:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The examples I put in the sentence were just the first that came to mind, and might not be the best option to include in the sentence. [[User talk:]]'s|Disc Wheel]] (T + C) 23:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

References

The date

Why shouldn't we state the era the story is set in in the first sentence of the plot summary? Popcornduff (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No responses to this? Popcornduff (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and, as my recent edits show, I also tried to add in the date at a couple other important events, seeing as the film's timeframe covers a full decade -- not just 1945. I tried to make other edits, like correcting inconsistencies in spelling McCluskey's first name, clarifying pronouns etc., but my edits have been reverted. Wolfdog (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If no one objects, I plan to add back in some time references. To me, having the time reference of "1945" at the very beginning of the plot summary and then nothing else means very little when the movie is set across a full decade. Wolfdog (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, do "object".
This plot summary is already quite long enough and any chronological addition is not particularly helpful. The film depicts the Godfather story, without, in any manner, attempting to feature an actual timeframe.
We must allow the viewer to draw their own understanding of the probable date, whereas the reader, who has not viewed the film, would not be offered additional understanding of the storytelling.
Please refrain from doing so. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

But the film obviously is a period story, and is obviously set in the 1940s. Why leave this information until the second paragraph of the plot summary? Popcornduff (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

First, WWII is mentioned in the opening paragraph so that gets a reader into the proper era. Then the specific year for the Xmas sequence is mentioned at the start of second paragraph. There is nothing wrong with leaving the specific date until that moment. Of course articles can always be edited but it is worth noting that the plot has been discussed in the past and much effort has been put in to get to this WP:CONSENSUS version. MarnetteD|Talk 19:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the first paragraph says that Michael was a Marine during WW2. But it doesn't mention how long ago that was, and it's an indirect and laborious way to indicate the film's timeframe. Let's keep the reader in mind here. What is the disadvantage of beginning the plot summary with: "In 1945, ..."? Popcornduff (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Since we've got the year in the second paragraph (or are we debating its presence there too?) I don't see the harm in relocating it to the first paragraph. I agree with the other editors in one sense though that the plot shouldn't be turned into a diary. Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that constantly mentioning the shifting dates is unnecessary as they're not particularly important to the plot. I did relocate the year from the second paragraph to the first, as it seems to me this is crucial premise information and should not be left to be "discovered" later on, as if it's a plot twist - but this was reverted for no reason I can fathom. Popcornduff (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The disadvantage to putting in the "In 1945..." bit is that it is inconsistent and potentially misleading to our readers to give only the starting year and then no other reference points in time, when the movie is set across ten years... not specifically and solely "in 1945." I think the best choice is either to leave out time references entirely or include multiple ones within the plot summary. It seems like we were leaning towards just leaving them out of the plot summary section. Wolfdog (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I get your point. I think it's critically important to establish, before anything else in the summary, that the story takes place in the 1940s; I'm not fussy about giving the specific year. It also seems, to me, to be reasonable to occasionally mention the continuing passage of time, since, you know, that's part of the plot too. It needn't take up more than a few words. Popcornduff (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy to put more rather than fewer dates/years (which was what my own recent edit had; specifically, I mentioned 1945, 1946, 1948, the "early 1950s", and 1955, but terms like simply "the 1940s" or "the 1950s" can also suffice as far I care). Wolfdog (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have restored a much earlier opening phrase which may cover the points raised above. It is a direct quote from the novel. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  12:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Gareth, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be difficult, but you continue to baffle me. 1) This is about the film, not the novel; nothing in the film suggests a date that specific, does it? 2) That's unnecessary detail. The year alone should suffice, surely? Popcornduff (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it ties up rather well with "Christmas " in the following paragraph. Does the film specify 1945? The only reference to a date is when Clemenza clearly says, "It is almost 1946" at the time of the failed assassination attempt on Vito. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  20:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The line "It is almost 1946" does rather indicate that the film begins in 1945, doesn't it? That should be sufficient; more detail is unnecessary. Popcornduff (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm also thrown. Can't we stick to basic years or year ranges? Is it even important for our scope which events happen specifically at Christmastime? I figured we wanted just some basic references to time.... occasionally and briefly. Wolfdog (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Clearly has not watched and appreciated the film.— Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  14:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Popcornduff (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Unproductive comments are pointless and silly. How are we planning to actually solve this? Popcornduff and I seem to be on the same page. Let's stick to basic years. Wolfdog (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I propose we change the sentence "He and Kay reunite and marry the next year" (the phrase "next year" being meaningless as only one reference to the year is given so far in the plot summary) to something like "He reunites with and marries Kay, giving birth to two children by the early 1950s." This will at least insert one more general reference to the time-period of following events. Any issues? Wolfdog (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

"To begin the summary with just "At" is at best, puerile."

Gareth, I'm going to be honest. Your various edits to this article, and others, have baffled me. The plot summary begins: "On the occasion of his daughter Connie's wedding..." This is needlessly verbose. Simpler text, with no loss of information: "At his daughter Connie's wedding..." But you reverted this. Your rationale: "The text is adult. To begin the summary with just "At" is at best, puerile. Restored." Can you explain this rationale, please? Where is it written that beginning a sentence with "on" is "adult", but "at" is "puerile"? Popcornduff (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

As the sentence now begins with "In 1945," is it now acceptable to use "at", as it does not begin the sentence? Popcornduff (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you not understand the word "Compromise"? — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  08:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't find your suggested compromise acceptable, sorry - and you haven't explained why anyone should. You haven't actually defended your position. Popcornduff (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "at," "during," "on the occasion of," or other phrases are all just a matter of stylistic preference. The longer phrase only adds (and arguably at that) a potential "elegance" to the sentence which has no real practical value for our purposes. Wolfdog (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see I came back in time to see this article becoming an edit war haven again. Gareth, "the last Saturday in August" is perhaps the most menial detail I've ever seen someone unironically attempt to keep in an article, let alone an editor with as much under their belt as yourself. The previous opening was even worse. I'm standing with Popcornduff on this one; "In 1945, at his daughter Connie's wedding" is a perfectly concise, descriptive introduction. Adding any more words risks becoming word salad. Sock (tock talk) 12:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corvoe, old friend! Now how could you not read that I am being ironic rather than being "sincere" / "unironic"?! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  15:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Genre

For the record the AFI Thrills designation is not an indication of genre. As stated at the website "Regardless of genre, the total adrenaline-inducing impact of the artistry and craft of these films create an experience that engages our bodies as well as our minds." (italics for emphasis are mine) Thus, it is simply a list of films that they considered to have have thrills in them. It is not a list of thriller films. MarnetteD|Talk 18:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree, since the AFI Catalog list it as a "Gangster Drama" under its genre categorization. It's a moot point either way since virtually every genre listing I can find for it invariably describe it as a "crime drama" or a "gangster drama". Those are essentially your two choices, and since gangster dramas are crime dramas then "crime drama" covers both bases. Betty Logan (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Linking to "Drama (film and television)"

The linking of genres in the article's lede should be as such: "crime", which leads to the page "Crime film", and "drama film", which leads to the page "Drama (film and television)". The fact that the article "Drama (film and television)" also discusses the genre in the television medium does not mean that The Godfather is a television film. If one types in "drama film" to the search bar, they'll be redirected to "Drama (film and television)". Additionally, here are some film articles which link the drama genre in the lede to "Drama (film and television)": Citizen Kane, American Beauty; not to mention the many more which redirect to "Drama (film and television)", including To Kill a Mockingbird, Rocky, Raging Bull, The Shawshank Redemption, A Beautiful Mind, Blue Is the Warmest Colour, Boyhood, and Sully, just to name a few. The words "drama film" in the lede sentence of The Godfather article should certainly link to "Drama (film and television)". –Matthew - (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Gareth Griffith-Jones and Winkelvi for response. –Matthew - (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Godfather is a crime film.
It was not made for television.
What is there to discuss?
— Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  14:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Gareth on this. Why would you want to attach at category that isn't applicable? What's more, why are you insisting on doing so after two experienced editors with more than 86k edits combined are telling you this edit isn't appropriate? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts:

• Erm, as Matthew already pointed out, the drama genre doesn't apply exclusively to television films. You both seem to have missed this.
• "We have more experience than you so don't argue" is not an argument. You're not providing anything anyone can learn from here.
• The term "crime drama" is actually redundant, since the crime genre is a category of drama. After all, the Wiki article is "crime film", not "crime drama film". If you think The Godfather actually occupies two genres, crime and drama, then you should link to both as Matthew suggests... except that as per WP:FILMLEAD we should only be listing one genre.

In short: you're all wrong. Change it to "crime film". Popcornduff (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My opening sentence above ... is a crime film. I would be content with that and drop the "drama". — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  15:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

... And yet you were happy to have it sit as "crime drama film" for who-knows-how-long. ;P Happy you agree, though. Popcornduff (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Well now hold on just a second. The Godfather is certainly a drama film as well. See the American Film Institute's entry for the film. –Matthew - (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

And I say again: "The term "crime drama" is actually redundant, since the crime genre is a category of drama. After all, the Wiki article is "crime film", not "crime drama film". If you think The Godfather actually occupies two genres, crime and drama, then you should link to both as Matthew suggests... except that as per WP:FILMLEAD we should only be listing one genre." Popcornduff (talk)

I re-added the "drama" genre to each article for the three Godfather films, along with citations to the American Film Institute where each film is listed as belonging to the drama genre, and each edit was reverted without explanation by Gareth Griffith-Jones. Care to comment, Griffith-Jones? –Matthew - (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Popcornduff: WP:FILMLEAD doesn't restrict lede sentences for film articles to include one genre only. To quote the guideline, "the opening sentence should identify ... the primary genre or sub-genre under which [the film in question] is verifiably classified". –Matthew - (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right; the policy is ambiguous, and in fact I created a discussion about this only two months ago which I completely forgot about. Whoops! Thanks for reminding me.

Regardless, I still say you're adding no information by including the drama genre. Sourcing isn't the problem. Popcornduff (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree. For example, A Clockwork Orange and Pulp Fiction are both crime films just as well, but they aren't dramas. The Godfather contains significant dramatic elements, including Michael Corleone's transition into a mob Don after assuring his girlfriend that he is unlike his criminal family; a scene of domestic violence between partners; Vito Corleone's funeral, etc. I know that's essentially original research territory, but the "drama" genre is already sourced by AFI, so I just wanted to back up my argument here. –Matthew - (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I am in favor of saying "crime film," period. The dramatic elements you mention are all secondary to the central story, which is about crime. Drama is simply unnecessary. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Nino Rota navbox

Why don't you try actually explaining your reasoning for the deletion, rather than simply posting a link? That would show actual respect for your fellow editors. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in posting a link to the guideline the edit follows rather than try to paraphrase the guideline in a limited number of characters. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please could editors stop re-adding {{Nino Rota}} to this page. Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL it does not belong here. WP:FILMNAV is also pertinent. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I followed the "link" and was none the wiser. Have some consideration! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Then why blindly revert if you don't understand the guideline? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Restoring the Status quo — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

As Nino Rota contributed to the soundtrack for the film, why wouldn't it be included? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. How can you disagree? — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  10:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

He created the soundtrack for the film, not the film itself. Therefore it is appropriate to link the soundtrack in the {{Nino Rota}} navbox and to transclude the navbox on that page, but not this one. See WP:FILMNAV. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Material deleted from "Filming" section

My name is Tony Karp

I designed and built the computer-controlled zoom lens that was used to shoot the opening scene of The Godfather. This was the first piece of computerized equipment ever used on a major motion picture. It made the opening scene possible.

For years, there was a brief mention of this, along with a citation pointing to an article with more information, in the "Filming" section of Wikipedia's Godfather article.

It appears that this information was deleted on 20 Mar 2016. Here is a link showing the Filming section edit, along with the note about why the content was removed. You can see the original content using the "Previous revision" link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Godfather&direction=next&oldid=710881880

Note that the "Filming" section has been rewritten and the reference to the opening scene has been deleted.

This is one of the dangers in allowing anyone to edit an entry. A person unfamiliar with the subject or the relevance of particular items may remove important information under the guise of "neatening up" an entry. Or they may decide that an item is "too trivial while also being unsourced" even though there is a citation pointing to an online article.

I was involved in the production of this movie and I would like to be involved in the production of the Wikipedia article as well.

I will be adding this information back to the Wikipedia article in the near future. Tkinva (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't recommend you add the information yourself, as that would be a conflict of interest.

I took a look at the edit, but I can't see the information you're talking about under the "Filming" section. It's possible I'm missing it. Where is it? Popcornduff (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The block of text I removed that you're talking about said "The opening shot is a long, slow pullback, starting with a close-up of Bonasera, who is petitioning Don Corleone, and ending with the Godfather, seen from behind, framing the picture. This move, which lasts for about three minutes, was shot with a computer-controlled zoom lens designed by Tony Karp.[82]"

I personally find this to be something that is too trivial to discuss in an article like this, especially with the part that references it was designed "by Tony Karp." Nothing in those two sentences is really that notable and should be included. Disc Wheel (T + C) 15:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, after doing a quick web search I cannot find anything to back the statement - "This was the first piece of computerized equipment ever used on a major motion picture." - as truthful. Disc Wheel (T + C) 15:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, also, the citation that you used is from a website you made, so that's certainly not rs (link). Disc Wheel (T + C) 19:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at that text, I'm inclined to agree. It sounds like unwarranted technical detail, and it's not obvious from the text why the lens or Tony Karp is notable. If we can find some notable sources explaining that, it might be worth adding in rewritten form, but I'm skeptical. Popcornduff (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

These two sentences were removed from the Wikipedia article:

"The opening shot of the film is a long, slow pullback, starting with a close-up of Bonasera, who is petitioning Don Corleone, and ending with the Godfather, seen from behind, framing the picture. This move, which lasts for about three minutes, was shot with a computer-controlled zoom lens designed by Tony Karp.[78]"

According to the Wikipedia section on Content Removal:

"When removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed. Unexplained content removal is when the reason for the removal is not obvious, and is open to being promptly reverted."

"I personally find this to be something that is too trivial to discuss in an article like this" is probably in direct violation of Wikipedia's content removal guidelines.

However, this is your page, not mine.

Some background for those who may be interested in understanding this from a filmmaking standpoint.

1. In the IMDB Top 100 movies, The Godfather is number one.

2. The opening scene is the most important scene in the movie. It defines the Godfather.

3. If you Google "The Godfather" and then click on "Images," you will see that most of the shots are of the opening scene.

4. The opening scene is the one they teach in filmmaking school and the one they analyze endlessly online.

5. If you Google "Godfather opening scene" you will find lots of material. A lot of the pieces mention the zoom lens and a few even mention my name. Here's a sample from Time Magazine: http://entertainment.time.com/2012/03/15/the-anniversary-you-cant-refuse-40-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-godfather/slide/that-opening-shot/

6. There is no mention of the opening scene in the current Wikipedia article.

7. Go back and read the two sentences that I posted at the beginning. Too trivial?

With the current crew, I do not expect my information to be added back into the article. I am only posting this for future reference in case there comes a time when this article is revised to show the true meaning of this film and its place in cinematic history.

p.s. It was incredible to be involved in the making of this movie.

Tony Karp - June 11, 2016

Tkinva (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to demean your involvement with the film at all. This is not my article, I've sought out help with improving it and am open to having people alter my work; I have high ambitions for this article to reach GA status. Lots of these points you bring up are personal opinion or just do not apply in terms of how information can be verified, sourced, and added on WikipediaDisc Wheel (T + C) 22:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

. Disc Wheel,

The two sentences that describe the opening scene of The Godfather and how it was shot were part of the Wikipedia Godfather article for years. They were only removed because someone felt the information they contained was "trivial."

The material that I posted above was for reference only. It was meant to explain just how important the opening scene of The Godfather is and why information describing the scene and how it was shot is far from trivial.

So here's the deal. You can leave the two sentences describing the opening scene of The Godfather out of the Wikipedia Godfather article or you can put them back in. The decision is yours.

I have nothing more to add.

Tony Karp - June 13, 2016 .. Tkinva (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Lots of bad stuff stays in Wikipedia articles for years, unfortunately. The amount of time something stays in an article is not a measure of its quality or notability. Popcornduff (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that Karp is probably right, if this was the first for a certain film technique or technology, it's worth mentioning it, especially given that the shot is a notable one. However, the issues, as I see them, are multiple: a) Karp can't add this info himself, b) it does need citing, and c) sadly, it may not be notable that this technology "was invented by Tony Karp." — Harry (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT

I'd just like to point out that it's amusing to a bystander that there is current argument over whether the 500-700 word rule guideline is applicable to the current plot - especially when the current plot stands at a whopping 701 words. Woah. Call out the hack & slash brigade on that bloated plot. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking essentially the same thing. The word counter I used had the plot at 748 words, but that's counting the piped links, so it's not accurate. This is a long film with a complex plot, as such, 701 words is not overly long. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I see no harm in placing a reminder to editors to keep the length down, as this is a common problem with edits to plot summaries. If it were a plot-length template visible in the plot section proper I'd object. Gareth's rationale (in his edit summary) that "great films" do not have to stick to the guidelines is bizarre - it has nothing to do with whether you think a film is "great", or even how celebrated a film is. If a consensus emerges that a particular plot length needs to go beyond 700 words, then fine, but I've never seen such a consensus emerge and I don't think it's necessary for this one. Popcornduff (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Popcornduff. AndrewOne (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, incidentally, I think that the template should be in place, but not the degree where I'm prepared to edit war over it. My reasoning for the inclusion is perversely because I agree with the above, in that it is a complicated plot and requires a lot of explanation, but that's no reason to get carried away. While we can go over the 700 words, that's no invitation to do so, especially when we already have. We'll end up with plot-creep, odd words added here and there - and before you know it it's a 900 word epic, with the rationale of "Well, I didn't know." Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've seen plot summaries go well over 1,000 words, for no reason other than an editor decided to recount every single detail of a rather simplistic plot. I've reverted a few of those in just the last month or two. And I am not opposed to putting those hidden comments in – I've done so myself – but I prefer to do it only when plot bloat has already proven to be a problem, especially in articles that are not being watched. Thus, I think it is unnecessary in an article like this one, which is closely watched by more than a dozen experienced editors. That said, if it is readded, I will not remove it, as I think it is a minor point. I do believe, though, that such additions should be discussed, which is why several of those hidden comments have been removed in the last 24-36 hours. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TOJ. I couldn't care less if it's there or not, but generally we only add these notes when plot bloat is a recurring problem. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Parallels with actual mob history?

Having recently watched the film, I'm curious to know if any of the story has parallels with the history of organised crime in New York / Las Vegas. I was hoping for a section on this in the article. Perhaps it is too contentious / dangerous, but I can ask! Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Attempts have been made in the past, both here and in other places, to draw parallels between the plot of the film and real events in mob history. Most of that, though, is conjecture, and I cannot recall any additions made to this article that was actually backed by a reliable source. For his part, Mario Puzo always said that he made it all up and knew nothing about the real Mafia, either in the US or in Sicily. That claim came as a surprise to a lot of made men, who said that Puzo's descriptions were dead-on. What is more interesting to me than the idea that the book and film were based on real events and people is the influence the book and film had on the Mafia and the way wise guys spoke, behaved, and thought of themselves. That influence actually has been documented. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Godfather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110015717/http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=10bqs%2Fbogdanovich to http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=10bqs%2Fbogdanovich
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=EE05E7DF1739E464BC4E52DFB5668389669EDE&partner=Rotten%20Tomatoes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328213749/http://wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807 to http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

genre = "crime film"?

I know it has already been dicussed here, but I find the words "crime film" are clearly misleading in this case. And as far as I can see, no one has really given a reason for this strange classifcation - except from an IP's statement that "in genre studies" this film was "universally considered" as a crime film - wow! Is this really the best we can do? --Jochim Schiller (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Godfather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130710120900/http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/the-godfather-1972 to http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/the-godfather-1972

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Godfather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716203520/http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/191909%7C191910/Sergio-Leone-Profile.html to http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article=191909%7c191910/Sergio-Leone-Profile.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111142325/http://www.hcpl.lib.tx.us/watch/entertainment-weeklys-100-greatest-movies-all-time to http://www.hcpl.lib.tx.us/watch/entertainment-weeklys-100-greatest-movies-all-time

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Godfather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024092323/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/02/the_godfather_a.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/02/the_godfather_a.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007060450/http://tags.library.upenn.edu/project/27508 to http://tags.library.upenn.edu/project/27508

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Plot Section, Third 'Graph, Third Sentence

Recommendation on third paragraph in the PLOT section of this article, third sentence to read: "Sonny attacks his brother-in-law, Carlo, on the street for abusing Connie and threatens to kill him if it happens again."

1. Adds commas to separate Carlo. 2. Replaces "his sister" with "Connie" to clarify whose sister is being abused. Reball0123 (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Schaz (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Who is Carlo?

Throughout the plot summary, as we introduce characters we explain who they are: "his daughter Connie", "His youngest son, Michael", "his girlfriend, Kay Adams", "Johnny Fontane, a famous singer and Vito's godson" and so on. Except for Carlo, who just appears without introduction. I introduced an edit to fix this, but it was reverted. Can anyone explain why? ciphergoth (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Ciphergoth<, I have just made this revision. Hope it answers your observation. Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

2017 Tribeca Film Festival Godfather panel contradicts several statements made in the wikipedia article about the production and casting of the film

The panel event is viewable on youtube. The panel included director Coppola, Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, and James Caan. I'll leave it to others with more time to correct the article to match the accounts of the cast and director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.68.19 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Don Tomassino

Surely it is an error to refer to Don Tomassino as a "rival" of the Corleone family? He is personally a close friend of Vito Corleone and shelters Michael during the mob wars. The fact that one of his employees is ultimately revealed to be a traitor does not change that, and the sequel to the film shows that Don Tomassino performed an important service for Don Corleone and suffered as a result. If nobody objects I will make this change.Partnerfrance (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon Partnerfrance,
Corleone has no friends; only business associates, rivals and enemies.
As the present layout keeps the three together, I say either leave it as or move all three up. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Cast Organization

Could someone please re-organize the cast of the film based on the relationships of the characters? I saw that this article one had lists with the 5 families, along with others. I think it would really improve this article, and would clear up any confusion for people reading the article. Thanks. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Epic Genre

Is it alright to add the genre "Epic" to the opening sentence of the article? "The Godfather is a 1972 American crime film directed by Francis Ford Coppola and produced by Albert S. Ruddy, based on Mario Puzo's best-selling novel of the same name." I ask so because the term "epic" means over a long period of time, and movies like Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, Giant, The Last Temptation of Christ, The Greatest Story Ever Told, and Boyhood fall under this umbrella. I also feel something similar should be done to The Godfather Part II. Thanks. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Godfather 2 is an epic because it expands the narrative to a multi-generational examination of the Italian-American experience. The Godfather 1 is just a very well made gangster film that spans a relatively short period, and therefore is not an epic. Betty Logan (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Moe Greene

Anyone have/find sources as to why Alex Rocco as Moe Greene was not credited in the end credits of the film? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Godfather/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 10:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a very noteworthy film, hopefully the Wikipedia article can live up to that! I'll take some time to give this a full review and come back with some thoughts in the coming days. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe that this article is really great and meets all the criteria for GA, it's well sourced and written, broad in coverage, and neutral. I am happy to promote it, but I did have a couple minor quibbles that might as well be discussed before I close the review.

• The "Video game" subsection seems out-of-place in the "Release" section since it isn't really to do with the release of the film and in my opinion should not be given the amount of weight that having it there is giving it. I think it would make sense to move this subsection into the "Representation in other media" section.
  •  Done. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• There are two bulleted lists below the accolades table but only one of them has a subheading explaining what is being listed. I think it would help for the other one to have its own subheading as well.
  •  Done. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Once you have responded to those we can move along with the review. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast work responding above. To reiterate, I have had a thorough read of this article and it clearly meets the GA criteria. I am happy to pass this review. Congratulations! - adamstom97 (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

John Cazale

John Cazale is not credited with the role of Fredo Corleone on this page

He is if you read The Godfather#Cast. MarnetteD|Talk 01:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambig

Gareth Griffith-Jones and Some Dude From North Carolina you're both being disruptive and need to hash it out here. Stop reverting to your preferred version. TAXIDICAE💰 18:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote

The current hatnote (This article is about the 1972 film. For the original novel on which the film is based, see The Godfather (novel). For the male godparent in many Christian traditions, see Godfather.), has an issue in the last part. Godfather sends a reader to a disambiguation page, and so the hatnote should say just that (... for other uses, see Godfather.) However, even after User:Praxidicae agreed that the small correction was helpful, User:Gareth Griffith-Jones began reverting my edits by calling me "boring" and saying that the current version had been there for a long time. After Praxidicae reverted Gareth for being "silly", Gareth continued to revert everyone's edits. Now, the question is, which hatnote works better? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Point of clarification, I did not call Gareth silly. I said the note was silly, further, you both edit warred. TAXIDICAE💰 18:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That was my mistake. I thought they were going to start the discussion but they just started reverting. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Lee strasberg

Played whom? 2601:642:4001:EFA0:EC7F:B1CC:24EB:4BC3 (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong genre

The genre is listed in this article as crime film, but in the reference is listed as a gangster one 83.52.78.180 (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobslayer

The genre is listed in this article as crime film, but in the reference is listed as a gangster one Nobslayer1 (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Train Ride to Hollywood

Bruce the Terrible has repeatedly added Train Ride to Hollywood to the "Representation in other media" section. I have removed it several times on the grounds that it is not appropriately sourced. An editor noting similarities or references to other media is WP:Original research. I can't really expand much further than I do in my edit summary, where I refer to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Popular_culture, which states that such observations "should be supported by third-party sources that place the reference into context". A third party source is one that explicitly notes the representation itself. The Godfather has been riffed and referenced in hundreds of media; not all of them are important or worth noting, so should not be added to the article unless they are the subject of sourced commentary. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Betty: Well, then, how do I source it? I'm sorry that I can't find a specific reference to the use of two of Marlon Brando's characters in Bloodstone's movie, and I am sorry that Train Ride to Hollywood isn't as well-known as other pop-music movies - or that Bloodstone themselves aren't as well-remembered as other 1970s soul bands. All I have is the movie itself, which clearly shows the Godfather / Wild One references. What, then, would you suggest? - Bruce Bruce the Terrible (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

If no sources discuss it then it obviously doesn't belong in the article. As I note above, not every representation needs to be added to the article; if we noted every single example of media that had riffed the film then the section would be longer than the rest of the article put together. Betty Logan (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Vito's second son

Fredo is older than Michael and it was him that was sheltered by Moe Greene in Las Vegas,so Fredo is not the second son. 2A04:4A43:8BBF:FEF8:BC81:63C6:D577:1EC (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Sonny is older than Fredo. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

"It's not personal. It's strictly business." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect It's not personal. It's strictly business. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 12 § It's not personal. It's strictly business. until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)