Talk:The Godfather

CURRENT Becomes Obsolete

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

Offer He Can't Resist Citation

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014

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

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

Caporegimi

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

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

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

Hollywood's favorite film

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

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

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

Ring Cinema's recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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