Talk:The Godfather/Archive 1

Deletion of "The Godfather films in popular culture" under consideration
Fans of The Godfather may wish to participate in the AfD debate concerning whether the article The Godfather films in popular culture, which was spun off from this article to keep it from being too unwieldy, should be deleted. That debate can be found here. The article in question provides a place for people to note instances which illustrate the continuing influence of The Godfather and its sequels on films, TV shows and other popular culture media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Fitzgerald (talk • contribs) 00:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC).


 * My mistake, and my apology Ed Fitzgerald 00:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism
There is a whole huge addition of characters I have never heard of, and some guy named Frank Falcone (who is a real minor actor, not a Godfather character.) I highly doubt these characters were in this movie or have any affiliation to it.


 * Where are you seeing them? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 09:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

They were at the bottom of the page where the characters and films table was yesterday. There were most likely fan-made names such as Rico Tattaglia, Carlo Tramonti, John Villone, Don Altobello, etc --Uzzo2 02:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Forked Article
The content of this article was forked from another article, The Godfather (novel). Please see that article's page history for contributor information for parts of this article.

Trivia
I just re-watched this movie, and although Vito Corleone takes the name of his town Corleone, his father's name was Alberto Antonini. At least I think. If someone wants to check that one out.


 * His father's name was Antonio Andolini.
 * ("My fathers name was Antonio Andolini... and this is for you!") 72.200.136.66 18:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake by the guy at Ellis Island. "Vito Andolini from Corleone". And the other guy says, writing down in the book, "Vito Coreleone." Sorry it's late. Not a very good explanation. TommyBoy76 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76
 * This was a very common occurence in those days, and I'm glad the writer made mention of this. Many surnames were changed due to clerical error in those days, or even simplified to something easier to spell or pronounce. And these clerical errors resulted in new names that carried on for further generations in the U.S. --Fightingirish 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cast List
I'm thinking that the See Also section ought to be used for the more notable among the cast, e.g. Al Pacino, Francis Ford Coppola and of course Marlon Brando. Perhaps a selective cast list could go under the Casting section, to avoid clogging up the bottom of the article? Rob Church Talk 10:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly sounds reasonable. Perhaps a seperate cast section should be added instead of listed under See Also ? MadMax 20:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll get onto this later today. Rob Church Talk 02:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Rob Church Talk 12:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirection
It is ridiculous for The Godfather to redirect here. Either The Godfather should be a disambiguation page, or this page should be at The Godfather. I think either is defensible, but it is not defensible to have the main title redirecting to a disambiguated title. What on earth is the point of the disambiguated title in this case? john k 21:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There, happy? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite. john k 06:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Differences from the novel?
Would it be a good idea to add (either here or on the entry for the novel) a run down of the differences between the film and book? 83.70.42.212 21:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC) RossN

This might be overly complex, as a bunch of material that wasn't in the film made it into Part II. There are also several subplots which can be found in one of the special edits, such as the Saga, but which aren't in the theatrical version. I'm thinking about Genco's death and another scene involving a young girl and Jack Woltz.

Claude 07:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The section that was created in response to this discussion was deleted by an editor, citing it as "original research", but I believe this to be an invalid argument (see below) and have restored the section with some edits and additions. Ed Fitzgerald 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Soundtrack
I feel the soundtrack is an incredibly important part of the film also, it is equally deeply beautiful, haunting, moving and forboding. Does anyone else think it should have greater acknowledgement in the main The Godfather article ? Dirk Diggler Jnr 06:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The soundtrack is incredibly iconic of the feel of the film, i feel it;s worthy of mention, did it recieve an Oscar for the best soundtrack?

The soundtrack section
Should probably be nuked. Who cares who wrote the lyrics for each song? savidan(talk) (e@) 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the "Who cares?" part, but it doesn't have to be nuked. I think it is fine where it is. Why SHOULDNT it be in the article? It doesn't hurt anything...

IMDb 'rating'
I changed the statement: It has repeatedly been voted as the greatest movie ever made by users at the Internet Movie Database. There are a number of problems with this statement. Firstly, all films on IMDb are voted for only by users who choose to vote for the film, which is convenience sampling. It is misleading to claim it is voted 'by the users at the IMDb': it is voted by a subset, and quite likely a very selective one. Secondly, the 'rating' method on IMDb of a single 1-10 vote is simplistic and does not meet the most basic of psychometric criteria, so any claim about how any group has 'rated' this film based on such a method is dubious: the claim cannot be verified according to any accepted criteria. It is giving a lot of credence to a poorly conducted poll to mention it at all. Holon 07:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be fair to say it is the highest ranked film on IMDB, if that is in fact true. john k 01:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, which is basically what I have changed it to. My issue was that the previous version was prone to misinterpretation. I agree with you, just wanted to be clear about the reason I've altered the statement. Cheers. Holon 08:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Related to IMDB, but not to misleading statements, I recently changed the statements of The Godfather's superiority to The Shawshank Redepmtion in the article because it is no longer number one on the website. The Shawshank Redemption has a 9.2 rating, even though the Top 250 list continues to pair them at 9.1 apiece. Thank you -Fdssdf


 * I've reverted your edit. If you look at the Top 250 list you will see that only the votes of regular voters are counted. The Filmaker 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right, the Top 250 list doesn't work the same way as the main page of the film. In the Top 250 both have 9.1 points. It is discussed frequently in Imdb forums, not only with these films but with many others. However the article still says The Shawshank Redemption is number one, should I edit it out? -- McAbucha 21 January 2007)

The Godfather article claims that IMDB rated it "the greatest" of all time. But this isn't true, and it was I who put in the quip that the Shawshank Redemption out-ranked it because it is false to say that The Godfather is "the greatest" according to that list. It's not true. I believe that the administrators at IMDB.com are a little upset that a movie has finally out-ranked The Godfather, even though it has been a long time coming if you kept up with The Shawshank Redemption's progress. I will continue to put this up, and revert any changes to it. Contact me if you have question or post your complaints here please. Fdssdf 01:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At the top of the IMDB Top 250 list you will see this disclaimer "For this top 250, only votes from regular voters are considered." this is why The Godfather does in fact outrank The Shawshank Redemption, in terms of IMDB's rating system. This disclaimer has been there for years, much longer than Shawshank's supposed trumping of Godfather. The Filmaker 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As a rebuttal to that claim, why doesn't this "disclaimer" appear on the "bottom 100" list? Why is it only for the TOP movies?  And why should only regular voters be credited?  I speculate that IMDB anticipated The Shawshank Redemption's rise of popularity on their website, so they just rigged up some phony loophole system so that The Godfather could stay on top, even though technically they are both number 1. Fdssdf 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, your position is purely speculative. You have no evidence to support your claim. You merely theorize that IMDB for some reason has something against The Shawshank Redemption becoming number 1 on the Top 250. It's original research. Wikipedia is not a place for your theories on the inner workings of IMDB. The Filmaker 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the IMDB Top 250 list, I cannot figure out what factor they use in determining how to list films that have the same listed rating, but there must be something, and it's not alphabetical order. (There are currently three films with 8.8 ratings, and they're not listed alphabetically.) Given that, and the fact that there's are several perfectly reasonable ways of listing ties in such a list, I have to conclude that The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption aren't actually "tied" on the list simply because both have the same rating, and that The Godfather is currently the top film on the list. Because of this I have changed the wording in the introductory paragraph. Ed Fitzgerald 21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What irks me, though, the most, is that The Godfather is 9.1 on the list and 9.1 on its own movie profile, like everyone who has voted for it is this "regular voter". I understand that there is nothing to do except wait and see if The Shawshank Redemption overtakes it (it probably will).  I think that IMDB is unfairly treating Shawshank because I doubt every voter for The Godfather is "regular".  I just wanted to point that out. Fdssdf 06:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Impact
The Godfather trilogy had a huge impact on The Simpsons. Other wikipedia movie entries document the episodes with references. Maybe a link should be inserted to: http://www.duffzone.co.uk/content.php?title=refgf

Who cares? Do we have to have a Simpsons reference on every single article? Sheesh! --Fightingirish 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Production: reference to "traitor" elements in the crew
I have removed the following sentence from the "Production" section, because it does not make any sense as written:


 * Elements of the film's crew were also against Coppola, mid-way through shooting several key members of the production team including the Assistant Director who Coppola accused of being 'traitors'.

There clearly something missing from this statement to flesh it out. I suspect that it might mean something like


 * Mid-way through the shooting, elements of the film's crew were also [reported to be] against Coppola, including the Assistant Director and key members of the production team, whom Cappola [had]accused of being 'traitors'.

But I have no independent knowlegdge of this being true.

Is Copolla referring to all the dissenting production team members are "traitors", or only the Assistant Director"? What's the significant of "mid-way through shooting?" -- does something happen then?

I just don't understand the reference, and I wish that someone with knowledge of what occured wouls correct it and reinsert it. unfutz 08:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation
I think that films of this magnitude and importance should have some discussion of their meaning and/or interpretation(s).

Is there a way to begin this without starting a long chain of competing reviews?
 * Greatest movie ever made. That's my review. TommyBoy76 02:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76


 * Mine, too. Mcflytrap 21:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA
I failed the GA nominations for the following reasons


 * Few refs
 * Images need a fair use rationale
 * Needs a strong copyedit
 * Remove the trivia section

Jaranda wat's sup 19:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Contrary statements: lighting/budget
In the Production section of the article it claims that realistic lighting was forced on Coppola because of budget constraints.

In the Trivia section, it says the exact opposite: "The film was shot with regular lighting, not because of budget reasons and a tight schedule, but Coppola wanted a more realistic tone to the film."

I'd fix it if I knew which was correct...

72.192.247.146 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot Review
I have just recently finished the complete editing of the Plot section of the three films, The Godfather, and Part II and Part III.

I considered that such an influential trilogy required a more delicate and extensive treatment. If you think that the Plot section is too long, you should consider that each film is almost three hours in length, which is larger than most commercial movies. However, I think that it is long enough just to cover two complete screens. That is, in a monitor with a display resolution of 1280x1024 you should be able to read it while scrolling the screen only twice. A smaller, or not as complicated, movie could very well fit in just one screen.

You could post your comments here once you have heavily edited the Plot again, and the reasons for it. If you edit something small, correct the orthography, fix the markup or the links, or rephrase a paragraph while maintaining the same ideas and length, then there would be no need to post.

Just remember, this is NOT a forum.15:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not liking how bloated this article is getting. The older vers were adequate enough, this one contains way too many clichés that have been overused in describing the film thruout its history. UGH. Just because the film is 3 hrs doesn't mean we need this overly intricate detail in the synopsis. I've always believed in W-pedia that less is better. Tommyt 21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've just spent the last week or so trimming the synopsis down. So you should have seen it before I went at it. However, the film's plot is somewhat complicated, in addition to the length of screen time. So I believe that the synopsis will end up being longer than most articles. But yes, as short as possible. The Filmaker 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis on names
Is it me or are there just way too many bold-faced links here? Just about every name of a Corleone family member is boldened every time it's mentioned. Seems like overkill. Tommyt 17:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to put on bold face the first time an important name is mentioned, so as to introduce the character. Afterwards, they should be normal face. I guess the bold size looks good with the plain Arial font but it may seem too heavy with other fonts.
 * I also tried to distribute the links all over the section, so as to not go back searching for a particular link. 01:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oranges
That section on oranges is pretty much pure speculation, and it doesn't seem like it belongs in an encyclopedic entry. I'd like a little feedback before I act, but my instinct is to remove it. Woodstein52, 05.54, 17 November 2006
 * The subject of the oranges is a well-known fact among film enthusiasts. I believe that Coppola himself mentions it in commentaries for Godfather II and III. Right now it could be easily construed as speculative, so the best act would be too find citations. The Filmaker 06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion/Exclusion of Michael's first marriage
On 11/29/2006 Closer69 added the following line to the plot synopsis: "While there, he marries a local girl who is subsequently murdered during an attempt on Michael's life." The Filmmaker removed the line as not being essential to the plot. I restored it, as being essential to the development of Michael's character. Filmaker removed it again, saying "it may be a strong event in the character, but it is not essential to the plot, this is a plot synopsis not a character synopsis".

A plot synopsis consists of important events which occur during the unfolding of the film's story. They can be important because they advance the storyline, or they can be important because they advance the development of the character -- neither type of information should be excluded, because they are both significant. Indeed, some films have virtually no plot points at all, everything that occurs is intended to show something about the development of the characters. That's certainly not the case with "The Godfather", which has plenty of plot, but it's shortsighted to remove important information simply because it seems (to that editor) not to advance the storyline.

The marriage of Michael when he's in exile in Sicily, and the death of his wife in a botched assassination attempt is a major event in the film. Even with everything that's happened to him, and that he's done, Michael when he goes to Sicily still has some softness and innocence about him. Falling in love and having his wife murdered, an innocent bystander to the life he's taken on himself, hardens himm and changes his outlook tremendously. When he returns, his attitude and stance is so hard and insular that he is virtually unrecognizable as the same guy we met at the beginning of the film. Virtually everything that occurs from then on -- all the other elements of the "plot" -- only happen because of this transformation of Michael. It began with the shooting of his father, progressed through his own choice to take retribution, and is capped by the death of his beloved beautiful young wife, which completes this transformation -- which is the underlying theme of the film.

Not to include this incident because it's not important to the "plot" is ridiculous. It should remain in. unfutz 21:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mystery Girl in the Movie
In scene 20 "I never wanted this for you". While youre watching the funeral of the Godfather Vito Corleone, Tessio comes up to Micheal to arrange a meeting. From the moment Mike gets up to talk to him, to the moment he sits down, you can see a girl's face on the bottom right side of the screen. Is this just in the Box dvd collection? or can you see the girl on any copies of the Godfather movie? And WTF is up with that?!!?!?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.189.192 (talk) 09:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I *think*, but do not know for certain, that what you're seeing is an optical reflection either in the lens or off some other part of the camera caused by the angle of the light and the dark background -- or something like that. (Someone with expertise in this area should look at the scene and report back.)  I'll have to look at the scene again, but it's not just one face, it's a number of them, and they may be people who are behind the camera or to the side of the scene.  In any case it's certainly not just on the DVD since I've only seen broadcast or cable versions. unfutz 20:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That is Mama Corleone's face reflecting off the lens. FFC said that they were in sort of a rush to finish the movie and something must have happened with the camera's viewpoint to botch up that shot. __Uzzo2 18:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? Oh man, I'm watching it right now and it scared the crap outta me.

the "other" video game
Though it's hardly as glamorous as the more recent, flashier adaptation, anyone interested in taking on mention of the earlier 1991 Godfather game? Pseudo Intellectual 10:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening scene
The opening line "I love America" spoken by the funeral home owner and the diaglogue between himself and Don Corleone should be included in the plot, along with the name of the actor who played the funeral director.

I recall in the book that he receives justice in the form of a couple of thugs beating up the men who assaulted his daughter, but this not appearing in the film. However, the "service" the Don asks him to perform is a part of the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.86.236.146 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
 * The caretaker is not essential to understanding the plot of the film, to add the scene and the character would be unnecessary expansion. The Filmaker 06:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. He is scared that he his "service" would be to get revenge on the killers of Sonny. He is relieved to learn that his "service" is to merely make Sonny's body look presentable. The Don states that he wants Sonny to look good for his mother--which advances the plot by emphasizing the noninvolvement, and perhaps even ignorance, of the wives of organized crime members in their husbands' activities. The Don's granting a favor also shows his respect for tradition (a Sicilian can't refuse a request for a favor on his daughter's wedding day) and that while he expects friendship, that's all that he expects.
 * It implies an outlook that can be taken a number of different ways, it does not advance the plot in any way. It is also an outlook that can be construed a number of different ways, i.e. original research. The Filmaker 15:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been editing your post with a number of different ways, that certain actions in the film imply certain concepts, all of which is original research and does not implicitly advance the plot in any way. The Filmaker 19:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal and restoration of the "references" section
The Filmaker feels that I should not restore his wholesale removal of the "References" section without discussing it on this page, but in actuality, the opposite is true. Many editors have contributed to the references section, and felt that the information was pertinent and interesting. For The Filmaker to remove the section without first discussing it here is peremptory and a breech of Wikipedia etiquette; it dismisses the contributions of those many people at a single stroke, without good cause having been give, or community consensus arrived at. It is incumbent upon The Filmaker to have a full discussion of the worth of the section before it is removed, and so I will restore it and ask that he have that discussion here before he removes it again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 07:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is not to say that the information in the section couldn't be edited or pared down, according to some generally agreed upon standard of relevance, but to remove it all in a wholesale manner, without prior discussion, with the entire contents being dismissed as "not notable" is hardly in the communal and cooperative spirit of Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 07:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is not going to be a discussion of whether I breeched Wikipedia etiquette or work within the communal laws of Wikipedia. Do not begin to write paragraphs on why my removal of the section was premature before I have a chance to even explain why it was not.
 * The "References" section is a trivia section. Plain and simple. It may not be titled as such but in concept it is. According to WP:TRIVIA, Trivia is defined as information that is interesting but not important. In other words, a collection of facts that are not notable enough to be considered encyclopedic. According to WP:AVTRIV, Trivia sections should be avoided. And that is why I deleted section, yes, in one single stroke. Now, what most users point out when it comes to WP:AVTRIV is that it states that trivia section should not just be deleted, but should have their non-notable information deleted and the rest merged into the other sections of the article. However, this issue here and with many articles on Wikipedia, none of the information is relevant or notable. It is not "pertinent" as you stated. The reason why many editors added content was because they saw a section that was filled out, yet was not complete. They did not consider the policy pages that state what Wikipedia is working towards. You will notice that most of the editors who made contributions to the section were either new editors or were not even registered with Wikipedia. It is a common mistake among new and unregistered users to believe that Trivia sections should be included, it is usually born out of the Trivia sections from IMDB.
 * Finally, we come back to the subject of the fact the article is a trivia section. I've written six featured articles and I can tell you that Trivia sections are the most common breech of Wikipedia policy, especially among film articles. Articles with trivia sections do not gain feature status, and have a tough time getting good article status as well. The Filmaker 16:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference between a trivia section and a cultural references must be based on an evaluation of the legitimacy and quality of the material, and that evaluation should be done with regard for the specific content of the information and consideration for the work of others, and not with arrogance. By deleting the entire section at a stroke, you indicate not thoughtful consideration of the merits of all the material it contained based on the standards you quote, but wholesale (yes!) disregard for the contents. No matter what the policies are to be upheld, that must be done with humility and concern for the specific content, and your actions don't seem to indicate that at all.

It can hardly be argued that "The Godfather" is without significant cultural influence, and each of those entries which you attempted to delete was a data point which showed the extent of it. Individually, they might perhaps be "interesting but not informative", but together they paint a picture of the extensive and continuing influence of the film. It might be the case that an editor, no matter how many feature articles he or she has written, might decide instead of deleting it without proper regard, to approach the material respectfully with an eye towards integrating it together and using it to more explicitly describe the cultural impact of the film. That would certainly be a better choice than eliminating it entirely, in my opinion.

In other words, if you don't like, fix it, don't destroy it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that I simply delete bits and pieces of it in order to show "humility and concern" for the previous editors content? Why? I'm not calling the entries idiotic, or finding their talk pages and calling them names. I'm stating that "This information is not encyclopedic and it should be deleted." Since I'm standing there, I deleted it myself.
 * Fix it? There is nothing to fix. The section holds no value to the article. Your description of the section being individually "interesting but not informative" however "painting a picture of extensive and continuing influence" goes against Wikipedia's comprehensive policy. It is not about "painting a picture" or being particularly artful in the approach of the articles, it is about stating the facts in the most elegant and comprehensive way possible. If you would like information on the cultural impact of the film, this is a job for an "Impact" section, which happens to already be present within the article. The Filmaker 05:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am saying two things: (1) That your dismissal of the entire section as worthless and your wholesale deletion at a stroke, as well as your continuing attempt to justify that action (without in fact providing a scintilla of evidence to support it) are all indications of a lack of proper judgment, and that your evaluation and action are unwarranted; and (2) That given this, I do not particularly trust you to edit the section as it probably needs to be edited. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 07:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are simply going to refuse to discuss the value (or lack thereof) this section simply because I may have hurt some other users feelings? You've admitted that the section needs to be edited. In what way? How could you possibly edit the section in order to make it of some worth to the article? The Filmaker 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also provided evidence through policy pages such as WP:TRIVIA and WP:AVTRIV. I could also provide more policy pages to back up other claims of mine. That is evidence supporting and justifying my actions. You on the other hand (and now that you mention it) have not provided any evidence yourself supporting your claims that I am in breech of Wikipedia etiquette. The Filmaker 15:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion. I'm not the one proposing to make a significant change to the article without discussion, I'm just saying editing should be done thoughtfully and not with a meat cleaver. As such, I don't need to provide "evidence" of anything, the onus is on The Filmmaker to show that the large valume of material that's attempting to be axed is worthless. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 07:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I have, yet you don't seem to acknowledge it. The Filmaker 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you have proffered the opinion that all the material in the section is worthless, that's hardly the same thing. Since your intent seems to be to get rid of what you deem to be "trivia" sections, it seems to me that once you typed the section as "trivia", you found the entire section "worthless" without actually evaluating the material it contained -- in other words you prejudged the material based on your preconception that "trivia" is worthless.


 * I can't, obviously, see inside your head, I can only judge from your actions, how they appear to me, and the implications they raise. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Trivia=trivial. It is not notable enough to be considered encyclopedic. It is not necessarily worthless, however it is uncomprehensive. How am I too judge otherwise? How is the material of enough value to stay? The Filmaker 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for illustrating my point quite nicely. You decided a priori that the material was trivia, therefore you deemed in in toto to be completely worthless without bothering to evaluate it and judge its relevance and weight on a case-by-case basis.  There may well be stuff in there that should go, perhaps even the majority of it, and then the rest can be integrated into the body of the article, but given your consistent prejudice against the material, I don't think you are an appropriate evaluator of its worth. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I find your accusation that I would simply delete a section that I felt to be worthless without even bothering to read the section, offensive and unfounded. I stated above, citing WP:AVTRIV saying that trivia sections should not simply be deleted. However in this case, none of the information in the section should be merged into the rest of the article as it is not encyclopedic. The Filmaker 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not say that you didn't read the material, I said that your expressed belief, before the fact, that all "trivia" (by your standards) is worthless doesn't give me any confidence that your perusal of the material was a thoughtful evaluation of its individual worth, nor am I in any way satisfied that your opinion that the material is unencyclopedic is the result of careful analysis, as opposed to a superficial gloss based on preconception. Your continued unwillingness to provide anything specific to which others, including myself, can agree or disagree with is, or even to back up your contentions with evidence when repeatedly called upon to do so is disturbing, and raised serious questions in my mind. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 07:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Enough of this debate. Although trivia sections might be fun and interesting, very few (if any) film featured articles have references/trivia sections in them, except for a couple paragraphs on "in popular culture". The Filmaker and Dmoon1 have worked on a good portion of the film featured articles. The Filmaker is only interested in improving this article to featured status, which is why he is attempting to be bold. So while I can understand Ed's disagreement, please look at the other featured articles and see why this has to be done. Ed, I recommend going with the flow and working with The Filmaker, since it seems you are interested in the article. But for now, I think the best situation is for The Filmmker to work on the FA-pushing version of the article in a sandbox, and then integrating the changes into the actual article. It has been proven to be the most effective way to quell issues, because when people see the completed version, they will understand better. &mdash; Deckiller 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for stepping in -- it's good to have another point of view, and someone to break the circularity of the discussion.


 * I do wonder, however, what "work" there can be for The Filmaker to do in the sandbox, as you suggest, relative to the section under discussion, when it's obviously his clear opinion, stated a number of times, that absolutely nothing of the material currently in the section is worthy of inclusion in the article. From that rather severe point of view, which is what I've been objecting too all along, the issue is totally black or white, on or off, the section is either deleted or it's not.  If those are the only choices, than I still prefer for it to remain in.


 * If, however, you're saying that The Filmaker is going to take up my suggestion that he take the material and shape it, edit out the stuff that's truly uninteresting and use the remaining as data points to illustrate the widespread influence of the film on various aspects of contemporary media, well that's a different matter entirely, and I'd be glad to work with The Filmaker as you suggest so that another point of view is available.


 * I've never been opposed to a significant reshaping of articles in general. The Filmaker may recall my recent suggestion that the plot synopsis for Godfather 2 is in need of a drastic stylistic overhaul, as long as it remains a retelling of the story in short -- which is what a synopsis is, after all -- and not a brief description of the story. The first is valuable information, the second is a throwaway.  I'm also not opposed to work being done on this specific article, as long as it's done with care and thoughtfulness and not with a bloody knife.


 * Once again, thanks for bringing in your "two cents", as you slugged it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain that The Filmaker plans to revamp that section be converting it to prose and including the most notable with citations. Plus, it's necessary to have some sort of "influence/reception/references" section for an article to reach featured status, because of the comprehensiveness criterion. My guess is that, since it somehow has to be included, it'll be in the form of an expanded Star Wars Episode IV: A_New_Hope, but with a general "influence" heading. However, most of the cultural impact information may belong on a general article about the trilogy, like with Star Wars. &mdash; Deckiller 06:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, in all honesty, no I don't plan on revamping the section. All of the notable information on the "references/reception/influence" side of the film is already present in the "Impact" section (which is already akin to the "Cinematic influence" section from A New Hope article). Which is why I deleted the "References" section outright. Because it does not benefit the article at all. Ed has repeatedly claimed that my editing is butcher-like. Yet he does not seem to have a better method for me to go about it. The "References" section needed to go. So I got rid of it. That may be POV, but he has also yet to provide a suitable reasoning as too why I am incorrect. The Filmaker 06:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objection whatsoever to coverting the section to prose, tightening it up, eliminating stuff that is extremely trivial or repetitive, all the things that good editors do. I do object to the material in the section being eliminated wholesale, and I think it's obvious that, given his attitude toward the material, The Filmaker is really not the person who should tackle that project. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "all the things that good editors do" Are you trying to insinuate something there? I would we perfectly fine with converting the section to prose and eliminating the trivial, repetitive items (I have done this many times before, and probably will do so again). I would be fine with it, that is if anything in the section wasn't trivial and/or repetitive. Which is what the issue boils down too. I don't believe any of the items in the section are useful. You do. Can you explain to me exactly which items would be useful within the article and why? The Filmaker 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, if I had the time to do it, and wasn't involved in this silly squabble, I'd do it myself, but I'm not interested in going entry by entry to show someone who sees no value in any of it what the worth of it is, that would be a useless gesture. If you don't see it, and aren't willing to look again, you're not the person for the job.  I'd really wish, rather than attempt it, you just leave it alone.  Perhaps someone else can come along who sees the value in it and can give it a good going over.


 * For the moment, since we've gotten precisely nowhere with this extended discussion, I'm going to drop the subject, but not my objection to your action of deleting the section altogether. I do think it would be best if you didn't take it upon yourself to axe the section again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't think your comments about me are in particularly good faith. Second, I have run over the list more than once, attempting to find any reasonable items that could be included. I have found none. I wasn't asking you to run down the list entry by entry. I was merely asking you to give an example of at least one item that should be cleared. Finally, I will not be dropping the subject as you are. I already have one admin who agrees with me (to an extent) and I'm sure other users will. If you do not wish to discuss any further than I will be removing the section. Which is why I hope that you will either allow me to remove the section or participate in the discussion, as I am not interested in an edit war. The Filmaker 02:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You have the last word, my friend (well, not literally, but substantively), but if you delete the section, I will restore it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A question
There are scenes missing from the box set and TV versions...Michael killing the man who killed his first wife, when Tom H comes back to the house after being held by solozo etc. do you know where I can get a full version?

Thanks

Dave Wolf davew75@hotmail.com


 * I know that the scene where Michael gets revenge for his first wife was not included in the theatrical version of the movie. If you have the DVD, I do believe it is on the last disc of extras as a deleted scene.  Most likely the same with the other one. Mcflytrap 15:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many additional scenes included on the Bonus Features disc in the DVD Trilogy set. Several of them pertain to the finding and murder of Fabrizzio. The Hagan scene is also there, as are many, many others. It's worth getting if you're a Godfather fan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fightingirish (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Reaction section
It doesn't all fit so well. I did some edits, nothing major. I don't think the Ratings table is very necessary, and I'm not sure if it's encyclopedic. In any case, I don't think it would belong in the Reaction section. Millancad 22:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Synopsis
Concerning The Filmmaker's reversion of my edits to the synopsis: I had the decency to do through the rewrite that was posted and make a number of specific and considered changes. If the new rewrite was better than the old version, I left things alone, but if the old version was better written, or covered events of significant importance to the film, I included them. What I did not do was simply cut and paste the old version in. I took the time to actually read what was there and react on that basis.

The Filmmaker, on the other hand, simply reverted all my changes. It is practically impossible that every change I made was worse that what's there now, so I have to conclude that The Filmmaker did not take that time and show the respect to another editor that's consistent with Wikipedia's highest standard.

I therefore request that The Filmmaker not simply revert every change, but judge them on their merits. If there are things to discuss, they should be discussed here, as between adults, and not simply axed in toto. I have reverted the edits back again, but I'm glad to discuss my reasoning for every single one of them -- one by one if necessary -- and have the community judge which is better. What I'm not willing to do is to allow one editor to force his opinions on everyone else without discussion or comment. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you something. How many actual changes did you make? From what I understand, when I read the new synopsis (something I apparently don't do), you've made the synopsis into a series of small prose paragraphs while also expanding upon the synopsis with discussion of a events such as Jack Woltz and other little tidbits such as Michael being considered a "civilian" in the conflict. You even included this stellar piece of writing "That night, in one of the movie's most famous scenes, Woltz wakes up to" this information does not belong in the synopsis, it's subject is the plot not the reaction. We have a different section for that. You also included 3, maybe 4 actual rewrites to the synopsis which were not as stellar as you make them out to be. So much in fact, I didn't care if these changes were kept, as they did not heighten nor enlighten the synopsis. However it was simply easier to revert the revision. The synopsis loss nothing.


 * I also do not appreciate your constant assumptions of what I do, how I think, and how I work on Wikipedia. I did read your synopsis, I found it to be of inferior design especially in comparison to featured articles, including the featured articles that I have significantly contributed to. The Filmaker 13:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't get inside your head, my friend, all I can do is to judge by the evidence of your actions. You did not revert some changes and keep others, you reverted the whole darn thing en masse, just the way you deleted the entire so-called "trivia" section without giving it due consideration.


 * I can't quite figure out why you need me to tell you what changes I made -- if you had actually 'read the revamped synopsis, it would be clear enough, I assure you -- but when I have some more time later on today I will outline for the the changes I made, and why I made them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a somewhat rhetorical question. From what I can see, you made 3, maybe 4 actual changes to the prose of the article. I did not carelessly revert your edits. I reverted them because they were unhelpful and even inferior. The Filmaker 19:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the changes I made, the first overall change was to shorten the length of the paragraphs. It's generally accepted that shorter paragraphs are better for online reading, since they hold the reader's attention better and are more easily comprehensible. This is especially the case when the paragraphs consist essentially of a litany of events missing most of the connective tissue which binds them together in the film. In discursive and argumentative writing, the logic of the argument or the flow of the storyline help keep the reader on track, but with a long paragraph full of event after event, lacking flow or logic, it's easy for the reader to get lost. For this reason, I broke up the synopsis into smaller paragraphs, each one basically consisting of a single unit of information.

There can, of course, be discussion about where the breaks occur, or what is included in any particular paragraph, but it's undeniable that the current version is easier to read than the previous one. It should be remembered that combining short paragraphs into longer ones is not "tightening up" an article, that can come about only by specific editing, which requires paying close attention to the information that is being presented, what is being left out, and the goal which one hopes to achieve.

I'll continue with more explication concerning the changes I made shortly. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While perhaps your synopsis is slightly easier to read, it comes at the expense of it looking horribly long and ham-handedly put together. It would never pass an FAC. The Filmaker 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You keep saying things like that, but you don't really present much evidence or argument to back up your opinions. My concern in editing the synopsis is with having an accurate rundown of the events of the film, presented in such a way that people can read and understand it easily.  I'm not sure how the "look" of it enters into that.  Certainly, a clean and tidy article is better than a messy one, but also certainly (and more importantly) one that people can use easily must be the paramount concern. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The next significant change I made was to deal with Johnny Fontanne and the horse's head incident. This entire episode was dealt with in the previous synopsis with these three sentences:


 * Tom Hagen is sent to Hollywood to attempt to persuade a business deal upon film producer Jack Woltz. After refusing, Woltz awakens in the morning to discover his prize stud horse's severed head laying beside him. Woltz immediately agrees to the Corleone's deal.

To bgin with, the final sentence is, in fact, not represented by any scene in the movie that I'm aware of. Once Woltz wakes up to find the horse's head in his bed, there is no further mention of him. The clear implication is that Johnny gets the part, but we do not see it, so the old synopsis is misleading in that respect.

More importantly than that, the incident with Johnny and Woltz is tremendously important to the film, and deserves more attention in the synopsis. After all, the entire incident takes up about 22 and a half minutes of screen time, a significant portion (12.5%) of the film's 175 minute running time -- but more than that the incident tells us a great deal about Vito Corleone:
 * It shows us how he interacts with members of his extended family, those he has taken under his wing, and the extent he will go to protect them and further their desires. While Michael tells us this with his story to Kaye about how his father got Johnny out from under his band contract, the Woltz incident vividly shows it to us, and does so with one of the most famous and arresting images in the entire film.
 * It also shows us the Don's methods -- he presents a case, and if it is rejected, he doesn't argue or protest, he goes immediately for direct coercive action -- in this case killing the producer's prize horse and putting its bloody head in his bed.
 * Further, it shows the extent of the Godfather's reach -- Tom threatens Woltz with labor action in Los Angeles, and shows knowledge of and implies the ability to influence other incidents that take place in Hollywood. The fact of the killing of the horse was done at the behest of a Mafia family head 3000 miles away indicates that Don Corleone is not a local hood, he's a mobster with national reach.
 * As will become important later, when they move into Las Vegas and use Johnny as a conduit to sign up major stars to casino contracts, it also shows that the Corleone family is becoming increasingly important in the entertainment industry.

These show the vital importance of the Woltz/Fontanne scene, which should be viscerally apparent to anyone watching the film with clear and open eyes. It should also be apparent that the passing mention of the incident in the old synopsis hardly does it justice. Even my replacement:


 * Among the guests at the celebration is famous singer Johnny Fontane, a godson of Corleone's, who has come from Hollywood to ask the Godfather's help in landing a movie role that will revitalize his flagging career. Jack Woltz, the head of the studio, refuses to give Fontane the part, and Hagen is sent to California to fix the problem. Woltz wines and dines Hagen, and then angrily explains that he will never cast Fontane in the role, which would be perfect for him, because he "ruined" a starlet that Woltz was sleeping with and grooming for stardom. That night, in one of the movie's most famous scenes, Woltz wakes up to find the bloody severed head of his prize stud horse in the bed with him.

could probably be extended without putting too much emphasis on that section of the film.

I'll continue with more on the changes I made later. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To bgin with, the final sentence is, in fact, not represented by any scene in the movie that I'm aware of. Once Woltz wakes up to find the horse's head in his bed, there is no further mention of him.  The clear implication is that Johnny gets the part, but we do not see it, so the old synopsis is misleading in that respect.
 * If this is true than you are correct in that it is misleading and the final sentence should be removed.
 * More importantly than that, the incident with Johnny and Woltz is tremendously important to the film, and deserves more attention in the synopsis. After all, the entire incident takes up about 22 and a half minutes of screen time, a significant portion (12.5%) of the film's 175 minute running time
 * But is it essential to the plot? No. The featured article on Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith condenses the entire subplot of Obi-Wan Kenobi hunting General Grievous into one sentence: "Obi-Wan is sent to Utapau, where he engages and kills General Grievous." This subplot takes up close to 20 minutes of the film as well. However it is not essential to understanding the plot and therefore does not extend beyond that sentence. The amount of screen time does not equal importance in the plot. The Filmaker 22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  -- but more than that the incident tells us a great deal about Vito Corleone:
 * This is not the Vito Corleone article. The reader does not need to understand Vito Corleone's methods to understand the overall story arc. The new synopsis is overly detailed. The Filmaker 22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you are wholly and entirely wrong. There is no particular purpose in synopsizing a film unless you are committed to telling the story that the film is telling.  Saying that this vital information about Vito Corleone is unimportant, in a film about power, family relations, and the tortured journey of Michael Coreleone from "civilian" to Don, shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the film.  There has always been some ambiguity about who "The Godfather" of the title is, Vito or Michael, but even if it's the latter (which I believe is the case for the film, if not necessarily for the novel), how Vito operates is very important even to Michael's story.  Why on earth do you think Coppoll took a full 1/8 of his film to show it?


 * I'm dumbfounded that you can make this kind of remark and expect to be taken seriously as an editor of this article. It would be like my saying that Darth Vader's embrace of the Dark Side of the Force is irrelevant to the original Star Wars trilogy because it's not his story, it's Luke's. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no particular purpose in synopsizing a film unless you are committed to telling the story that the film is telling.
 * That is a personal opinion of yours. The point of the synopsis is to summarize. To summarize the plot to be more specific. You intend to delve into every single nook-and-cranny that makes up the entire philosophy behind The Godfather film itself. This is not the intention for a "Synopsis", "Plot Synopsis", "Plot", "Plot Overview", "Story", or whatever you want to call the section. The title says it all, it's a synopsis of the plot. Not the philosophy. The Filmaker 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, this is now bordering on the absurd.


 * In a 175 minute film, there are hundreds of scenes and thousands of shots, all of which could, potentially, be included in a summary of the events of the film. How do you know which ones to include and which to exclude?  I would say that the most significant factor has to be their importance in telling the story -- after all, that's what the director and the writer and the actors and the cinematographer and so on are all there for, to tell a story using this fantastically powerful medium.  Certainly there are other factors that can be considered -- notoriety, visceral impact, visual composition, but, ultimately, if the film doesn't tell a story, it will not be successful as a work of art, or a work of communication.


 * That is why my criteria for inclusion or exclusion in a synopsis is almost always: How important is this to the story?. I'm not at all certain what criteria The Filmmaker uses, it's more and more of a mystery to me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We are attempting understand the story of the film at it's most fundamental, yet comprehensive level. Not to write a novelization of the film, which you so obviously desire. The purpose of the synopsis is to summarize the events of the film. You insist upon adding information upon the motivation of the characters because you feel that is essential to understanding the film. However, when we are only trying to summarize the events (and not the characters) we only need to add such information when it is not implicitly obvious or is abnormal. However, if a son is killed, the father would want revenge for the obvious reasons. There is no need to explain what he is going through, because it is implicitly obvious. The Filmaker 00:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Before I edited it, the synopsis was 4897 characters, or 965 words. Afterwards, it was 5592 characters, or 1120 words.  That means I added 695 characters or 155 words.  Either that is the shortest "novelization" in history, or else your rhetorical style tends somewhat towards exaggeration.


 * But you are correct, I am flawed by the conception that a synopsis shouldn't just be a pro forma collection of events, but should be informed by the story that's being told and the director's and writer's intentions, and should indeed include incidents vital to understanding the motivations and feelings of the characters. I believe that the purpose of the synopsis is to enhance the reader's understanding of the film, not through interpretation and explanation, which belong elsewhere, but through inclusion of the material of the film which can form the basis for those interpretations and explanations.  Any synopsis which leaves out such material is doing a disservice to the Wikipedia reader.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the other changes I made were relatively minor, but since The Filmaker has repeatedly dwelt on the poor quality of my work -- calling it "tedious" "clunky" "ham-handed" and so on -- I'd like to go through them one at a time:


 * Old: "...the Don himself suffers an assassination attempt"
 * New: "the Don himself is badly wounded during an assassination attempt"
 * Reason: No one "suffers from" an assassination attempt, one suffers from wounds, from a broken heart, from a bad marriage, from deficiencies in personality, anything that, unlike an assassination attempt, is ongoing


 * I reinserted the important fact that Michael is recognized by the other families as a civilian. This is significant because it increases the impact of Michael being struck and injured by McCluskey.  It also explains why Sollozzo and McCluskey agree to meet with Michael, who is both inside the family as the Don's son, but outside of the conflict.


 * Michael is sent to Sicily "under the protection of a local Mafia Don". The story of Vito Corleone's background will be part of the next film, so this is the only real indication in this film of the ongoing connection between the American Mafia and the Sicilan mob.

More later. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, going through the changes I made like this is pretty laborious and tedious, and I'm not going to continue to do so in the face of abundant evidence that what I'm saying is not being taken seriously. Nevertheless, I'm willing to justify and explain any change that I've made to any other interested party -- please just add a note here or let me know in some other way and I'll be more than happy to engage in a conversation. I'm willing to concede that some of the changes I made can be improved upon, but I will not adopt The Filmmaker's contention that they're collectively bad and harmful to the article -- I've done far too much writing in my day to be unable to recognize quality, even in my own work.

So I look forward to hearing from other parties, but as far as I'm concerned this particular fruitless dialogue is over, and the adjustments I made to the synopsis will remain. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've only seen the movie once, but I'll give the synopsis a copy-edit (one of these days). &mdash; Deckiller 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The overarching goal of Wikipedia, as I understand it in the year I have participated, is that we are here to create the best encyclopedia the world has ever known. And to do that, we must make the best articles, and the current definition we have is the Featured Article. Now, The Filmmaker, who I have worked with several times to help get articles featured, is very experienced in summarizing unnecessarily long or detailed plot sections; he has many Featured Article credits to his name. Now I am not using credentials as a weapon, but only to ask that he be given some credence on a topic he knows intimately. Judgesurreal777 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, the Appeal to Authority is a well-known logical fallacy, so let's not go there, please. I know that The Filmmaker mentions his Featured Articles often, but I haven't looked carefully at them, and therefore have not judged their quality for myself.  What I have judged is his behavior here in editing this article, and, frankly, I find it wanting in a number of respects that I've already mentioned. Be that as it may, when I make an edit to an article, it's because I find the material in need of editing, not for personal reasons.  And when I make an edit, I'm fully able to back it up with good reasons -- and to back off if I find that I'm wrong. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I have to say that in the interests of transparency, you might have mentioned that you came here to weigh in on this discussion at the specific request of The Filmmaker. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that I asked him to weigh in his opinion was not meant to be a secret, or "circling the wagons" as you put it. If I wanted to do that, I could have simply e-mailed him. However I do trust him, Deckiller and Erikster. As do many other editors. Also, contrary to what you insinuated about my behavior. I do not believe that I am wrong and have no reason to "back off". The Filmaker 03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee, it may come as a shock to you, but I don't think I'm wrong, either. Huh, whoddathunkit?


 * But look, you're involved in an intense argument/discussion with someone you've butted heads with before, it's going back and forth, neither party seems to be convincing the other, and then out of the blue three people show up and add their opinions -- what is the random member of the Wikipedia community meant to think about that? On the surface, it looks like "Oh, here's the community, adding their opinion to the mix," and I think that would carry a lot of weight, a neutral party weighing in.


 * Only it turns out that they're not precisely neutral parties, they've been specifically invited to come here by you. I presume you did so because you think they will support your opinion -- I'm not saying that they're necessarily biased (I don't know them from Adam), but you would be rather foolish to invite an editor who always disagrees with you to add their opinion, right?  So I have to assume that you think the chances are good that they'll agree with you, and that'll put a stop to all this nonsense, right?


 * You do see what I'm talking about, right? Ceasar's wife may be pure, but she also has to appear to be pure, and I think in this situation we have a clear case of potential prejudice, don't you think?


 * But, please, continue as you see fit. You have all the weapons, all the resources.  I don't know anyone on Wikipedia, I'm not a community-driven person, in general.  I just come to Wikipedia and do my part by crossing T's and dotting i's and re-writing the occasionally poorly written article -- so you needn't worry about people popping up from the woodwork and supporting me, 'cause I don't know anyone to ask to do that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee, it may come as a shock to you, but I don't think I'm wrong, either. Huh, whoddathunkit?
 * With that I'm going to ask you to cool it. You're edging into incivility and hostility. I don't see personal attacks far behind that comment.
 * First, Deckiller is an administrator for Wikipedia. He has forgone his friendship with me before when it comes to debates on articles. He has even gone against me before. Second, yes, there is a possibility of there being some prejudice because my affiliation with these other users. However, I have gone against these users before as well. They are responsible people and will state their opinion. I guess it is easy for me to simply say "You'll have to take my word for it." However, having their opinion is better then no opinion. Even if it is possibly, though unlikely, biased. I'd like you to give me an example of an alternative to where we proceed from here. The Filmaker 04:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are going to ask me to cool it? Let's review, who wrote these things about my edits?:
 * "tedious paragraphs"
 * "inferior design"
 * "unhelpful and inferior"
 * "look[s] horribly long and ham-handedly put together"
 * "overly detailed"
 * "delves[s] into every single nook-and-cranny"
 * "a novelization of the film"
 * And yet, somehow, you claim to be the aggrieved party?


 * I'd also like to know how at one moment you can claim that I only made 3 or 4 substantive changes to the synopsis, and therefore there was nothing untoward about your reverting it, and on the other hand you also claim that my synopsis is "overly detailed", "horribly long", and "delves into every nook and cranny."? Those two claims seem somewhat antithetical to me, since if I only added a few things, the core of the synopsis is what was there already.


 * In point of fact, I did only add a few very important events to the synopsis, and I've explained at great length why I thought they were justified.


 * In seems to me that the nub of your ire is the length of the paragraphs -- if not, why your emphasis on the "look" of the section? And yet I've cited references, and logical argument, for why short paragraphs are preferable in this circumstance.  Deleting paragraph breaks saves a couple of characters, and I guess for some reason it "looks" better to you, but at the expense of readability, which I think is more important.


 * As to how we proceed -- well, I'm a bit stumped. Is there some neutral arbitration procedure in place that could be used?  (Not that I'm impugning the impartiality of the people you've asked here, it's just that the fact that you asked them without, for instance, posting here that you were going to do so, makes me a little uncomfortable.)  If that seems unwarranted to you, perhaps we might think about collaborating a bit to see if there's any other parts of the synopsis (aside from the areas we've already butted heads over) which could be trimmed a bit or excess verbiage that can be eliminated by consensus?  I'm not at all adverse to using one word where three now exist, as long as that one word is le mot juste. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 06:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked you to cool it because I called your edits "horrible" and of "inferior design". Your comment that I quoted was obviously an insolent attack upon me. I attacked your edits not your character. I also never said that you only made 3 or 4 substantive changes and none others. I said you made 3 or 4 actual changes to the article and also added unneeded information and broke up the paragraphs. Only 3 or 4 of your edits were actual changes to the prose of the article in an apparent attempt to make it better. Your adding information and breaking up the paragraphs was what made it longer. I'm upset about the look because I'm aware that others will find the look to be unprofessional. I first began to edit this article because I intend to bring it up to FA status and I am aware that they will not pass a synopsis with the information you've added and the paragraphs you split it up into. The Filmaker 13:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Putting aside for a moment any information that I added to the section, I've been trying unsuccessfully for you to understand that breaking up long and unwieldy paragraphs into shorter and more readable ones doesn't make the article any longer, since the information is precisely the same. It may take up a little more space on the page, but I have a difficult time believing that the standards for "FA status" would value appearances over content, and wouldn't highly value readability, which, aside from the accuracy of the information, should really be one of the most important factors -- after all, what matter if the article looks good if no one reads it?


 * For what it's worth, and I have no expectations that you will believe this, I sent the text of both versions to three friends of mine (who are not Wiki editors), without identifying which was which. The all three preferred the version I edited.  The comment of one was typical: "I like the second one better as it more clearly tells the plot, especially if this is a Wiki post that will be seen by the average reader who has never seen the film."


 * I fully understand that such testimonials are almost meaningless, since you can't verify them, and don't know the people involved, but I cite them to show why I think I'm on fairly solid ground here.


 * I am quite willing to follow Erik's advice (below) and work together with you, collaboratively and colleagially, on the content of the section, to discuss specifics and ways that it could possibly be trimmed. What do you say? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I given it some thought and I've decided to decline. I am going to remove the article from my watchlist and forget about it for now. It is not because I believe you are right and it is not because I am giving up. However, because of recent developments (especially in the last few days) in real life, I don't have the time nor the energy to argue or patiently and maturely discuss how the article should be formatted. At this point, I'd prefer to simply finish Return of the Jedi. I may come back to this article one day. However, it won't be one day soon. In other words, do what you want. I understand that your edits are in good faith, however misconceived they may be. The Filmaker 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand, and I hope that whatever's happening with you resolves happily. If you do decide to return to editing this article, I hope that we can work together on it harmoniously. Good luck with Return of the Jedi. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Erikster's $0.02
First of all, the "Differences from novel" subsection is original research, which is not in line with Wikipedia's policies. If a compare and contrast of the film and its source material is to be made, then reliable sources should be used instead of editors' own perspectives (which I'm assuming due to the lack of citation). This helps limit the scope of such a section to what similarities and differences have been noticed by authoritative sources.

In regards to the synopsis of the film, style guidelines indicate that plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and only exceed 900 words if there is strong reasoning for its complexity. It is important to note that Wikipedia is not supposed to serve as a substitute for watching the film. An encyclopedic entry about a film should not be so comprehensive about the storyline. Attention should be paid to the production, reception, themes, and so forth as well. It's been a while since I've seen the film, so I'm afraid I can't really comment on the actual details of the Synopsis section itself. I think, though, that the section could be further compressed to be more of an overview. Additionally, since Edfitz is likely to point this out, I was asked by Filmaker to contribute my opinion. However, I am not taking sides -- I am sharing my opinion based on my work with film articles and my observations of film articles of FA and GA statuses. Both of you seem fairly capable of dialogue with each other, so I suggest a slow approach in the editing process. This isn't an upcoming film, so there's no hurry to shape the article into proper form. Also, Edfitz, I would recommend, due to the conflict at hand, that you fill out your edit summaries when making your edits. Please use the Preview button as well to limit the frequency of your edits as to reduce any possible edit conflicts (in the technical sense, of course). Hope you both can work this out in a civil manner. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input here, I appreciate it.


 * Obviously, every film fan thinks that the films he or she likes the best are worthy of particular attention, but I do think it's justifiable in the case of "The Godfather" and "The Godfather II" (less so with the third film). Perhaps because I came to them late, having avoided them for decades, I am struck by the value and quality of these films, as an example of contemporary filmmaking and as story telling.  I find them extraordinary -- but, clearly, my opinion shouldn't rule the day (nor that of any particular Wikipedia editor), so let me point out that the film is three hours long, longer than most films by half, and features a plot which is sometimes fairly Byzantine in its complexity.  If a normal film can be adaquately synopsized in 400 to 700 words, it doesn't seem to me that 1100 is particularly unjustified for such a film.


 * (As an aside, despite The Filmaker's snide comments about my desire to produce a "novelization" of the film, as I look at the synopsis right now, I don't see anything particularly lacking. What I mean is I don't plan on adding any more, just tweaking the language, and certainly I'm not out to grow the section via a process of accretion.)


 * I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that the synopsis shouldn't be a replacement for watching the film, I think the goal should be that the section serves as an authoritative reference for the most important events of the films and to act as a aide de memoire. I think the section as now constituted does a pretty good job of that.


 * Thank you for your recommendation to fill out the edit summary. I did that religiously when I first started editing on Wikipedia, but have been rather slack on it lately.  I'll make an effort to return to my original practices.  As for the use of "Preview" -- astonishingly, I do that, but no matter how often I preview, something always seems to slip through the cracks, requiring a follow-up edit.  Further, I admit, having the edits you've worked diligently at reverted at a stroke, with apparently little thought or consideration, has made me a little gunshy about doing a large number of changes in any one edit.  I know that's probably contrary to Wikipedia's wishes, but I think it's understandable as a matter of human psychology. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 06:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wish I could impart more advice about the film's synopsis. It's actually been a good while since I saw the film; might dust off my DVD case and put it in.  As for working with Filmaker, I suggest that you both try to start over again in terms of working together.  Be more amicable; I think both of you are capable of doing that.  Just don't let the differences under your skin.  I'm sure both of you want the best for the article, so just try to find some common ground and work out the differences that exist without any nasty wording. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reordering of article
I've reordered the sections in a way that I believe serves the subject somewhat better. After the introductory paragraph, the article now describes the film with a synopsis and related material. Following this, it begins to tell the story of how the film was made: production and casting information. Next, the response to the film.

Obviously, other orders can also be justified. The cast, for instance, could go before the synopsis instead of after it, but since the section has a lot of information about casting choices, as opposed to a cast list, it seems better to have it close together with production information. An alternative would be to break off the cast list, put it before the synopsis, and then integrated the casting information into the "production" section. For the moment the current sequence seems adequate.

I've also demoted some sections into sub-sections. The "oranges" section has interesting information, but it bugged me sitting out there all by itself, in no particular relationship to the rest of the article. Also, the video game is not important enough in relation to the film (which this article is about) to rate a separate section -- I've integrated it into the article earlier. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the massive revert but I think you should have waited for some responses first! Your version wasn't really in-line with most film articles. I mean why a section called 'The Film'? Isn't this article about it already, including the plot? WikiNew 20:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your objection. I reverted your revert not because I'm not willing to go back to the old structure, but because I did a lot of internal tinkering with the sections which I think are worthwhile whichever way the article is structured, and they got lost in your revert.  Let's talk a bit about the structure, and if we agree that the old version was better (or some other way of putting it together), let me shift the pieces around so we don't lose the material in each -- OK? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, is there a specific film article you want to point to as an exemplar of what you think a good film article should look like? The ones I've worked on had pretty varying structures to them, depending on what elements (besides the standard ones) were important to that film, or what subjects were of most interest to the people editing it.  I'd love to look at something you think is a good article.


 * Also, concerning "The Film" as a section title -- sure, it's a bit redundant, but it groups things together which are about the actual movie itself -- performers, content commentary, etc. -- as opposed to things external to the film -- awards, responses, sequels etc.. Is there some other word or description that can be used to keep the grouping but seems less kludgy to you? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest reviewing film articles that have Featured Article status; you can see them at WP:FA. I would also recommend looking at film articles that have Good Article status at WP:GA -- look in Media under Social sciences and society.  Additionally, check out WikiProject Films' style guidelines.  Hope these are of some use.  I would strongly suggest that you revise the "The Film" section due to its broad nature; the whole article is devoted to the film.  Synopsis sections, as far as I can tell, have generally stood alone.  The same goes for Cast sections, which some FA-class film articles actually don't have.  I'd also like to reiterate that the "Differences from the novel" subsection is original research and ought to be removed; editors themselves cannot be judges in pointing out differences.  The second paragraph in that subsection even starts out by saying, "Quite notably" -- according to whom?  Lastly, the subsection about the oranges is fine as a subsection, but it should be relocated elsewhere.  Not sure if it quite belongs in Production or Reaction, since the observations are made by a third party and not the people involved with the project. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will indeed look at the articles you suggested, but in the meantime I'll break up the "super-section" into component parts.  I think there's an argument to be made for it -- for instance, an article about a person will frequently have a section called "Biography", even though the entire article is a biography; it's the difference between information which is internal to the subject and that which is external to it.


 * As for the "differences from the novel section" -- well, it didn't originate with me, so I'm not strongly attached to it, but it is valuable information that it would be a shame to lose. I *guess* I understand how it can be considered "original research", but isn't there a case to be made for it being purely observation?  In other words, 5-3=2 isn't original research, it's just math.  Similarly the book has plot 1 and plot 2 and plot 2, while the movie had plot 1 and plot 3, therefore the difference is that the movie doesn't have plot 2.  That's not original research, it, too, is just (metaphorically) math.  (I agree that "Quite notably" is POV.)


 * The "Oranges" subsection doesn't really fit into any of the other sections. If there was something like an "interpretations and critical response" section, it could go there, but, in fact, I'd prefer to lose it entirely rather than have it exist as an independent subsection, where it has much too much weight. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Simple comparisons do fall under original research. The issue is the lack of verifiability; in making your own comparison between two subjects, you are essentially citing yourself.  This is often commonplace with Trivia sections of film articles; a lot of what ends up in that section are personal observations.  The allowance of simple comparisons creates an extremely broad scope of what can be included.  In addition, adaptations will usually stray from the source material in some sense.  It's a matter of finding authoritative sources that recognize the similarities and differences between two mediums; that way, the scope is narrowed to what has been recognized as notable in the public sphere.  I would suggest moving that section to the talk page, and make a request from other editors to find citations that compare the book and film.  I've done the "Differences between the film and novel" deal to a degree at Fight Club (film), and the comparisons are more of a thematic nature, which is probably more relevant than mentioning what minor Godfather characters did not appear in the adaptation. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Erik wrote: I've done the "Differences between the film and novel" deal to a degree at Fight Club (film)#Adaptation, and the comparisons are more of a thematic nature, which is probably more relevant than mentioning what minor Godfather characters did not appear in the adaptation.


 * I'd say that this gets things almost precisely backwards. A thematic comparison is a higher order comparison than a simple examination of the differences in plot, and therefore much more on the order of original research.  Not only does it have the potential for greater subjectivity, but it require analysis which cannot be directly derived from the primary artifact and must be arrived at by the editor himself. Ed Fitzgerald 06:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing; it should be recognized that the synopses for films and books are sort of the end of the line for personal writing for these types of articles. The line is crossed when you make a connection between the article's subject and another article's subject.  I just think it's more assertive to have a New York Times citation that observes that subplots were removed than another editor presenting that observation on his or her own. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm going to have to disagree with your characterization of synopsizing as "personal writing", because it really isn't, especially when it goes through the group editing process to arrive at a final version. "Personal writing" is writing about things that happen to oneself, or one's own feelings, reactions or responses to something. That's not at all what a synopsis is about.  It's about making an accurate, short (as short as necessary for the particular subject), representation of the story and events of a film or book, not about one's reaction to it.  Yes, of course, some elements of personal choice and taste enter into the decision as to what to include and what to exclude, but that is the case with every edit in Wikipedia which rises about the mechanistic level of a copyedit.  As for citation, the media artifact that's being synopsized -- the film or book or whatever -- is the primary source, to which the reader may refer if he or she wishes to ascertain whether the synopsis is accurate, no other citation is required.  (See the argument I made below for further on this subject.) Ed Fitzgerald 06:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Differences between novel and film
Many subplots had to be trimmed. These include: singer Johnny Fontane's misfortunes with women and his voice; Sonny's paramour Lucy Mancini's new-found love in Dr. Segal (a character missing from the film), and her subsequent vaginal surgery; Kay Adams's home life; Luca Brasi's demonic past; Don Corleone's ingenious plan used to take Michael out of exile in Sicily; and the detailed attack on the two men who assaulted Bonasera's daughter, which was led by Paulie Gatto and was only alluded to in the film. Characters with smaller roles in the film than in the novel include Johnny Fontane, Lucy Mancini, Rocco Lampone, and Al Neri (the latter two are reduced to non-speaking roles). Characters dropped in adaptation include Genco Abbandando (only spoken of; appears in The Godfather II in the Vito Corleone flashback, since he dies in the book just after Connie's wedding), Nino Valenti (Johnny Fontane's "nice guy" friend, dying from alcoholism), Dr. Jules Segal (Lucy's lover) and Dr. Taza (from Sicily).

Quite notably, the film skips the major flashback of Don Corleone's ascent in the mafia, including his arrival in America, marriage and fatherhood, Don Fanucci's murder, and his rise in the mafia, all of which were later utilizeded in The Godfather Part II. The novel and film also differ on the fates of Michael's bodyguards in Sicily, Fabrizio and Calo. The film has them both surviving (Calo, in fact, appears in the third installment). In the book, Calo dies along with Apollonia in the car explosion, and Fabrizio dies at the end as one more victim in the famous "baptism scene", shot in his restaurant in America after he's traced and found (he is killed in a scene in The Godfather Saga, which was deleted from The Godfather: Part II).

The ending of the book differs drastically from the end of the movie: whereas in the film Kay suddenly realizes that Michael has become "like his family," the drama is toned down in the book, where Tom Hagen lets her in on secrets for which, according to him, he would be killed should Michael find out. During the film's baptism scene, the heads of the remaining four of five families are assassinated. In the novel, only Barzini and Tattaglia, previously at war with the Corleones, are killed.

'''Above is a section that has been removed due to original research. If citation can be found for the differences between the novel and film, then that information can be restored. In the meantime, personal observations making comparisons between two subjects do not qualify as verifiable content.''' —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to re-examine this assertion, because I do not believe it is reasonable to consider this as being original research. It is, in fact, observation, and observation is observation, not research.  Further, this material does not require any secondary source citation, because in a comparison between two primary sources, i.e. the book and the film in question, the artifacts themselves are the only required citations, since anyone wanting to verify the material here has only to examine those artifacts.


 * To begin with, I'd like to contrast what I believe to be a valid (meaning allowable by Wikipedia guidelines) way of researching an article with what has been proposed to be to be an invalid way -- making a personal observation of a media artifact.


 * Suppose that I've just read an authoritative book on Croatian tetherball (a unique sport practiced by millions of people in Croatia), and I want to write an article for Wikipedia about it. Although I have an authoritative source at hand, I cannot simply post chunks of the book.  Not only would that be a copyright violation, but it would be very unlikely to make a good article.  Instead, I have to evaluate the information in the book for what is the most important, boil down each idea to its essential core, put them all together in a synopsis, and then write it out in my own words, taking care not to distort the information or the conclusions and opinions of the authority.  If done well enough, that should provide a reasonable article, but each stage in the process of transforming the book into an article -- evaluation, condensing, synopsizing and re-writing -- is a nexus into which can slip subjectivity, bias, prejudice and point of view, which means this quite ordinary process is fraught with all sorts of potential for distortion.


 * Consider, then, what happens when there is more than a single authoritative source, and each must undergo this process, and then be compared and contrasted and somehow integrated smoothly into the article. The potential for distortion, subjectivity, point of view, etc. is more than simply doubled because of the possibility of disagreement between the authorities.  Now, think of an article which has gone through this process numerous times as new editors add and delete information -- the total potential for straying from accuracy and factuality becomes quite great.  A major factor which helps to bring such potential for distortion under control is to require citations, which allow the reader to follow back the presented information to the source and examine it to see if it's been misused or misrepresented.


 * Now, as opposed to this normal process, think of what happens when one writes about a media artifact such as a fiction book, a film, a CD, a TV show or so on. If one watches a movie, and wishes to add some information from it to a Wikipedia article about the film, one merely has to try to write down what has been observed without distorting it. Essentially, what in the normal process is four or five steps is reduced to two: observe and write.


 * Even if the task is to synopsize the entirety of the media artifact, that process is no more or less fraught with the danger of distortion or subjectivity than is any article produced by the normal process. There are the same steps -- evaluation, condensing, synopsising and re-writing -- and if the reader wants to check up to see if the result is a distortion, the citation is to the primary source, the media artifact itself.  The middle man, the secondary source, is not required, and the editor is not, by any means, doing anything that can be considered "original research", and more than an editor who contributes to any article is doing "original research" by reading an authoritative book and reducing it for presentation in an article.  One creates precisely the same amount of "originality" as the other, and what research is done cannot be consider "original" because nothing of primary originality is created, simply a derivative work.


 * If the observational process is "original research" then every plot synopsis of every movie and book in Wikipedia is also "original research, because there are a direct result of the editors' personal observation of the movie or book under scrutiny.


 * As for the present instance, the comparison of the plots of Mario Puzo's The Godfather novel and Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather film, I don't believe there is any more originality there than there is in any observation of the type I've been discussing.


 * Consider that it is logically possible to create a perfect synopsis of any book or movie, in which every major and minor component of the story is boiled down to its essence and listed. Since that's the case, let's assume we have such a synopsis for both the novel and the film -- a perfect outline representation of the plots and subplots included in each.  Clearly, then, finding out what the difference is between one and the other is simply a matter of subtraction.  The novel has Plot A, Subplots A1 and A2, Plot B and Plot C, while the movie has only Plot A, Subplot A2 and Plot C.  Simple subtraction tells you that the difference between them is that the movies doesn't have Subplot A1 and Plot B, and all the editor has to do is adequately describe them for the article.


 * If this is "original research", then deducing that a man who was born in 1854 and died in 1906 was 52 years old when he died is also original research.


 * Given the prevalence of synopses or plot summaries in every Wikipedia movie article (and most book articles as well) that I've seen, I find that the proscription against presenting an editor's direct observations of a primary media artifact is nonsensical, and, at the very least, honored more in the breach than in the following. And given the simple nature of the deductions made in the "Differences between the novel and the film" section are equivalent to "deducing" that 5-3=2, my inclination is to restore the section as not being reasonably considered "original research", with editing to remove certain passages which present more point of view than is ideal.


 * (Incidentally, perhaps it's just my aversion to dogmatic thinking, but I generally find counter-arguments which deal with the axioms and logic of my argument much more pursuasive than flag-waving and Bible-thumping -- I speak metaphorically, of course. It's quite interesting to know that the Pope declared the capybara to be a fish for the purposes of meatless Fridays, but it really doesn't adequately address a logical argument for why it's actually a mammal.) Ed Fitzgerald 05:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, original research isn't the sole argument against a differences section. In case you haven't noticed, there tends to be a lot of editing activity in regard to plot summaries, as there are people who want this much detail or people who want this much summarization.  Unfortunately, though, we're compelled to create plot summaries to at least give an idea of the fictional subject so that the real-world context that revolves around it will make sense.  However, the adaptation of source materials will nearly always involve differences for creative and conventional reasons.  Instead of the protagonist ordering a coke and rum at the bar, he could've ordered a Sherry Temple.  Basically, a list of differences would become indiscriminate, and it adds an unnecessary argument (based on our personal opinions) on the notability of each difference.  That's why I prefer compelling prose backed by observations by sources that are not Wikipedia editors.  Basically, if the director says he changed the protagonist's background to appeal to American audiences more, that would be an encyclopedic difference to include, and probably could be part of a Writing subsection under the Production section.  A "Differences between novel and film" section is essentially a trivia section, and should not be created on the same grounds.  For example, the criss-cross of actors and directors in various films brings up trivial items such as "Bob worked with John on this film, and John worked with Chris on this film, then Bob worked with Chris on this film."  I mean, where's the encyclopedic value in that? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But Erik, as I'm sure you recognize, your general argument doesn't speak for or against thre existence of "differences" sections, it's an argument for keeping them under control, for not letting them expand unnecessarily -- but that's generally true of every popular article on Wikipedia. As for them being "trivial", I entirely and emphatically disagree, as I think you might on a moment's reflection.  The content of a film is an inherent part of its being, frequently (but not always) the most important part, and its relationship to the original source material is intrinsically important not only to the specific character of the film, but on a more general cultural level as well.  The relationship between sources and adaptations, how books are adapted into films or other media artifacts, and the choices that are forced on adaptors by the nature of different media &mdash; that's hardly "trivia", that's really important stuff. If trivial material gets in there, then it can be deleted, but the examples you give aren't in any way relevant to a "differences" section. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My argument is that the adaptation process is as widespread as it is to using a camera to make a film. I don't disagree that notable differences should be kept, but they should be interwoven into the content about production.  It doesn't need to be a stand-alone section on the same grounds that WP:AVTRIV discourages trivia sections.  I agree with you that it needs to be controlled, and by creating a separate section, especially in list form, is a loss of that control.  If you feel that the section is important, then I'm fine with the prose in which it's been written.  That sort of summary is better than a list of differences that was provided in Casino Royale.  I just think that the adaptation process always results in differences, so it seems most encyclopedic to cite statements from those involved with the project explaining why this decision was made, like Spider-Man having organic web-shooters in the film or whatever.  I don't have an issue with the way that it's put together, but I have an issue with the concept.  If anything, I would recommend citing the original book for your differences section on this film article to show that you used information outside of the article's subject to make connections. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct that *any* adaptation from one medium to another requires changes, but because the number of possible ways the adaptation could go is tremendously large, what's interesting and significant is what, exactly, the changes made were in this particular instance. Having seen many adaptations, sometimes multiple ones from the same source, and been personally involved in the evolution of a few, I know that you can get quality products that differ radically even though they start at the same place.  Not giving the Wikipedia-reading audience an idea of how this particular version of that source material differs from the original (as opposed to how that other one does) is important, interesting, relevant and significant. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Film analysis
Here's the diff for the symbolic usage of oranges, so if a larger section for film analysis can be developed, the information about oranges can be re-included. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The puppeteer logo
Who came up with it? Vitriol 23:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Country icons in release date material
The release date material (as well as the rating matierial) is hardly essential to this article, but I've got no particular objection to it being in there as long as it doesn't detract from or distract from the surrounding information. The colorful flag icons originally included with the release date, which I deleted, are terribly distracting, as is all the bolding in the formatting, and that is the reason I deleted them. The article is not about Japan or Germany, it's not about international events in which countries feature prominently, it's about a motion picture, and the focus should stay on what's important about that film. In a piece that's probably just long enough, additional and not terribly essential information shouldn't go out of its way to pull focus (as we call it in the theatre). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 06:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Rotten Tomatoes rating
As of today 21.04.2007. The godfather is currently #1 of The Best of the Best Pictures. peetig 23:32, 21 April 2007 (CET)
 * can you post a link to what you're looking at? Because at this, it's still #7. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 01:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here it is. peetig 03:35 25 May 2007 (CET)
 * Interesting - that list seems to be the "Best Reviewed of the "Best Picture Winners", which doesn't seem to be the same thing as the Best of Rotten Tomotoes. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 04:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the position of the cast list
The presentation of information in any article, including this one, should follow some sort of logical progression, usually based on some sense of chronology. A biographical article will usually, after the lede, follow the life of the subject in a sequential way, followed by other issues. An event in history will likewise be dealt with in chronological sequence: background, the history of what happened, aftereffects, etc. The placement is not determined by importance but by chronological or otherwise logical sequence.

The same thing should generally be true with an article about a film. We start with the lede, a short intro to generally present the film. If there is background material, it should come next, then we plunge into presenting the film itself (as opposed to facts and events surrounding the film.) First, like most movies themselves do, we present the main cast, just as an audience sitting down in a theatre to see a stage play will read their playbill to find out who's in the play and what characters they're playing, and then the synopsis of the plot -- our version of showing the film or performing the play. After the film is over, we then have the libertL; L;' L; 'L;'y to talk about things about the film: how it was made, how the casting came about, when it was released, what kind of business it did, what was the critical reaction, the sequeals, spin-offs and associated paraphenalia, and finally any interesting and relevant facts about the film that didn't easily fit into other sections of the article.

In this view of the proper format of the article, the cast list should come before the synopsis, not because it's more important, but because it's the place where that information is helpful to the reader who is about to plunge into the story of the film. Sure, many times we remind the reader in the synopsis who played who, but that information is going to be easier to assimilate having seen the cast list first.

As I said before, the cast list should also come first in analogy with films themselves, the large majority of which show cast lists before the film begins -- and even those that put the full cast list at the end, put the major players at the top. It's very few movies indeed that do not present some sort of cast information before the beginning of the film proper, or over the start of the story. Since our cast list is a truncated one, not a full cast list (which I don't advocate it to be) and since we have to choose whether to put the list before or after the movie, before is the right choice, the logical choice.

Think of the article as storytelling, and it's easier to see the point I'm trying to make. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 07:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is before the right choice? the logical choice? Films never start by introducing all characters and telling us who they are and what they do. It starts with the story. It allows us to figure out who the characters are as we continue watching how the story unfolds. I would be really disinterested in a film that told me, at the begining, what the characters do. I believe the plot section should come first because it unfolds the story. Take reading a book, for example. The book never introduces all characters at the beginning. It just tells the story.


 * We should remind the reader in the synopsis who played who. Why is it hard to assimilate? As soon as the reader reads about Vito, is he going to wonder who played Vito's sons? OR is he just going to continue reading the synopsis to see first whether Vito has a son or not? I think we always need to assume that the reader has never seen the film before.-- Crzycheetah 08:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid some of what you said is not correct. Many films do indeed show the main cast (which is all we have in our cast list -- it's not meant to be an entire cast list -- people can go to IMDB for that) before the film.  And, again, it's on the analogy of the playbill in the theatre that people look at while waiting for the play to start.  (Only in that case it shows all the actors. The cast of a film is one of its major assets -- in the case of some films (not the Godfather, of course), the stars are the only assets.  Why not put that assest right up front?  It's certainly an important part of the information about the film, as attested by the fact that IMDB puts the cast list immediately after their headers (which has the director and the writers and the tag lines).  People come to an encyclopedia article to find out stuff, and one of the major things they might want to find out about a film is who was in it?  Why bury that information farther down the page, nearer to the more esteric information about production and releases?  I could see it if the cast list was meant to be exhaustive, like IMDB's, but it's not, it's just the major players. No, I think that before the synopsis is really the best place for the cast list. 14:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You said it right! There are films where the stars are the only assets, but not for the Godfather. If the Godfather's story was crap, I wouldn't care who starred in it. I feel that thinking that the major asset of this film is the cast section is just disrespectful to this great piece of work. The story is the major asset of this film and should be the first section. Story >>> Cast any day. It's not like we are talking about The Postman (film) here.-- Crzycheetah 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's disrespectful, it's simply a matter of presenting information in a coherent order, and in a way that presents what people might be referencing the article for higher up in the structure. I certainly agree that The Godfather is not one of those films in which the cast is the only assest, and that the story is very good -- but then so is the direction and the music and the photography, they are all excellent, and valuable assets.  But still, any cast list which features Brando and Pacino and Duvall and the rest of this cast... well, it just can't be considered an insult to present actors of such quality before the synopsis. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 23:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm aware that pointing to precedence is a logical fallacy, but many other articles about films have their cast section after their plot section. Here are some examples which are featured articles: Mulholland Drive, Dog Day Afternoon, Sunset Boulevard, Blade Runner. I would even go on to say that most film articles have their cast section after their plot section. I'm sure there is good reason for such. I don't believe that it's disrespectful to the film to structure the article one way or another, but I believe that it makes for a better article if the reader (who is assumed to have not seen the film) learns about the characters from the events in the film. Detailed descriptions of the cast and characters can then follow. Moment Deuterium (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the cast section should be modified in two ways: the cast names should be inserted into the plot (I've already made this change) and the cast section should be converted into a prose section focusing on the characters and should follow the plot. The cast section is already about the characters instead of about the cast, so making these changes won't be very difficult. I'm working on a replacement at User:Moment Deuterium/The Godfather/Cast Rewrite where anybody can help me form a prose description of characters . I don't want to rip apart the cast list on the article trying to write good prose (not my forte) so I'll develop a replacement separately and then bring it in when I'm happy with it (and everybody else is as well). Moment Deuterium (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It was I who made the argument that the cast list should, as a matter of logical presentation of information, proceed the plot. I've reconsidered now, based on precedent, and have moved the cast list to follow the plot (it's another reasonable presentation of facts that I can live with).  I had reverted Moment Deuterium's addition of cast info to the plot, on the basis that with the cast section coming before the plot, it wasn't necessary, but have self-reverted: with the cast section coming after, cast info in the plot is needed. However, I do not think a rewrite of the cast section as prose is a good idea.  There are too many in the cast, and it would be too hard for people to pick out the information they wish to find when all the names are embedded in prose instead of laid out in list form.  (In fact, the current section is really a cross between a straight-forward list and a prose section, with each character getting some amount of description based on their importance.  A straight-out prose re-write will not improve the article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're adamant that the cast section is fine as it is, I'm happy with it. Moment Deuterium (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think "adamant" is overstating my position -- there are a number of different ways that the cast section could be formatted that I think would be appropriate, but I don't think a prose section is one of them. (It's possible that it might be for another, less complicated, film.)  Nor do I think that the writing in the section couldn't be improved - so feel free to work on it, I won't object on principle.  Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment concerning Michael's military service
UM, Michael was part of the US ARMY, he's even waring a brown US ARMY dress Uniform, not the Deep dark Blue of a US Marine. and he Was if I'm not mistaken said to be part of the 82 Airborne, which is a US ARMY UNIT. Just a thought Therubicon 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've eliminated the specific reference to the branch of the military Michael served in, which is, in any case, irrelevant to the storyline. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with Therubicon: in the very last segment of The Godfather, Part II, there is a reminiscence of a birthday party for Don Vito Corleone, before which his sons are having a discussion about the war. During this discussion, Michael announces that he has enlisted in the Marines, to which Sonny and Tom take umbrage, due to the Don's plans and arrangements for Michael to put to use his legal education in a law firm.  So, yes, he is in the Marines.  Besides, when watching the scene in The Godfather during which Michael is explaining some of the family's doings to Kay at Connie's wedding, you can see the bronze Marine's button on his uniform lapel. Eganio 17:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In the novel, it is noted that Vito pulled strings to make sure Michael made it to Officer Candidate School, and was given a combat posting in the Pacific (to avoid family conflicts). This was part of Vito's overall plan for Michael to eventually enter politics, rather than the 'family business'. --Klantry01 (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Trivia, not sure where this would go...
From what I understand of Italian, it's very much like Spanish, that you use "Don" with the first name, not the last name. Thus, you would say "Don Vito" or "Don Michael", not "Don Corleone". I believe Mario Puzo was the one who ****ed it up (did not research Italian grammar) and came up with "Don Corleone", and Francis Ford Coppola actually criticized Puzo for this mistake, but it's so "ingrained" that he didn't correct it with the film version. Later real Mafia adopted the movie tradition and started using "Don" with surname instead. --?? Kschang77 10:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I'm Italian, and I can tell you that "Don" is used differently in Italian than it is in Spanish. In Italy Roman Catholic priests are usually referred to as "don" (usually written lowercase), either by their first or last name (don Mario or don Rossi). The Spanish acception to use it as a respect from (much like "Sir") is virtually dismissed in Italian, though it wasn't in the past (in I promessi sposi you can easily see both uses, with don Abbondio and don Rodrigo). In Italy the term still survives only with regard to Mafia bosses, especially because most mafia-like organizations have their roots in Southern Italy, which has been Hispanic and Bourbonic for centuries.


 * I don't think Mario Puzo hasn't "researched Italian grammar", since that kind of information was promptly available to him. While professional and honorary titles are ruled by the Italian law to appear before the first name (so that, for example, "On. Silvio Berlusconi" and "Berlusconi On. Silvio" are both correct, but "Silvio On. Berlusconi" or "On. Berlusconi Silvio" are not, despite their spread diffusion), there is no grammatical rule that specifies how "don" should be used, at least not that I know of. To this extent, "don" is the same as "dear" or "respectable". --Sk84 (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone wasn't paying attention
The section about the Godfather Part II stated that the flashbacks detail Vito's arrival in America, rise to power, and "the births of his daughter Jessica Leigh". I don't know who put that in there, but I highly doubt they were paying attention to what they were writing at the time, because *none* of the Corleone kids were named Jessica, and unless there is something in the books, Vito didn't have any children that didn't survive to adulthood. I have corrected the sentence to read "the births of his children", as I don't remember how many of the kids they showed during the flashbacks before they got to the surprise party scene when they were all adults. LadyEternal 23:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It was likely a case of vandalism, rather than someone believing this was an actual character name.PNW Raven (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Error in Synopsis?
"The Don's oldest son, hotheaded Sonny, breaks ranks during the meeting and expresses disbelief at some of Sollozzo's promises." Isn't the issue that Sonny expresses interest in the deal with Sollozzo, not disbelief in his promises? As I recall, after Vito declines Sollozzo, Sonny says something to the effect of "You're telling me the Tattaglias will guarantee our investment..." -- arguing that the Corleones should make the deal, knowing their money would be secure. This is what prompts Sollozzo to make the attempt on Vito's life, putting Sonny in charge in hopes that he would make the deal. I'll go ahead and change this cause I'm pretty sure, but others may disagree.75.139.35.32 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what he said, but I was under the impression that Sonny was being sarcastic. --75.3.69.70 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see someone edited this to "indirectly expresses interest", which is a good way to put it. My understanding is when Sonny says, "You're telling me the Tattaglias will guarantee our investment...", the end of that thought would be something like, "... so why should we be afraid to make this deal if we can't lose our money?" Vito, on the other hand, is considering the risk of losing not money, but prestige and political protection.75.139.35.32 10:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * May I attempt to clear this up? Sonny initially expresses interest in dealing with Sollozzo (as does Tom) due to the propensity for the family to make money off the narcotics trade (heroin, specifically) in which Sollozzo is involved.  This occurs during a meeting between just the Don, Tom, and Sonny, immediately after Tom returns from Hollywood.  Later, during the actual meeting with Sollozzo (at which all high-ranking members of the family are present, namely the Don, Tom, Sonny, Fredo, Clemenza, and Tessio), the Don refuses Sollozzo's request for capital and political/legal protection due to his fears that his political allies would not take kindly to his involvement in narcotics.  This is the point at which Sonny expresses disbelief at Sollozzo's promise that the Tattaglia Family would guarantee the Corleone Family's investment, after which the Don chastises him for speaking his mind in front of a non-Family member.  Does that help? Eganio 18:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Made several edits to the synopsis. Please review and re-edit as necessary. Eganio 01:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Carlo's only son, or second son?
"Sofia Coppola as Michael Francis Rizzi — the only son of Carlo Rizzi."
 * "...baptism of Connie's and Carlo's second son, for whom he will be godfather."

I'm not too familiar with the story, so could somebody fix this? 69.220.2.188 23:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion/lack of note references
Though there is references to notes littered throughout the article, there is no corresponding note section (much less actual links) for each of these references, and as such the numbered links lead nowhere, and most of the claims are unsupported. If there was a note section at some point (which there must have been for the references to be present) I don't know why it would have been deleted, and it ought to be returned, or else the claims made in the article should be referenced to new links in a new note section, or at the very least, the references should be deleted and replaced with indications that citations are needed, as not to fool readers into thinking that the article has supported claims. Lego dude88 22:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as a throw in the the orange legend. An Orange is offered to Michael at the beginning of the sequel and he refuses, he doesn't die in the ensuing assasination attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.108.120 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about?! No one offers Michael an orange in The Godfather. In The Godfather Part II, Johnny Ola gives Michael an orange from Miami when visiting him in Lake Tahoe, but Michael does not refuse it.  To what "orange legend" are you referring? Eganio 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this referring to the claim that in every scene where someone is killed oranges (the fruit) are visible?PNW Raven (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)