Talk:The Godfather

chronological video

i have here a video set for the 1901-1980 trilogy. it's copyrighted 1997, spans only 4 cassettes in total and has a run time of over 10 hours. could this be the legendary full chronological movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.10.217 (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Candidate for anniversary collaboration

Hello, the film The Godfather is one of the candidates for WikiProject Film's anniversary collaboration. Please see the discussion about the collaboration here. Feel free to support this candidate, the other candidates, or even nominate other films as candidates for the anniversary collaboration. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Differences from the novel"

Re recent reverts of this section, I must point out this guideline from WP:MOSFILM: "Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged". Unless real-world context from secondary sources can be found that talk about differences between a film and its source material, the section as it is should be removed. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I removed it earlier. I will not delete it again, but it is clearly original research, with one, sub-par, reference. It should go. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree. The book's plot is sourced by the book, the film's plot is sourced by the film -- this is the reason we have (apparently unsourced) plot sections in our articles. To describe what is in one and not in the other is no different than saying "Mr. A says X" (sourced by P) "but Mr B says Y" (sourced by Q). This is not original research, any more than adding two numbers together is, it's simple observation. As long as the "differences" section does not stray into saying why the changes were made, without sourcing the analysis -- which would be OR -- there's no problem. As with popcult entries, straightforward description sourced by the media item itself (book, film, TV show, CD, whatever) are valid and acceptable. MOSFILM needs to be brought up to speed with reality, sections such as this are a service to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

BMK - I have to disagree on two points. First, plot summaries are a special case in WP as plots are primary sources used to make the summary only. But there is no such allowance for any other sections, including "Differences from...", so when you start comparing two different plots, you are entering into OR by making yourself the "secondary source" that is doing the comparing, even if you limit yourself to bare descriptions. Your analogy "Mr. A says X" (sourced by P) "but Mr B says Y" (sourced by Q)" doesn't work because in this instance, an editor, not a RS, is taking the two primary sources and synthesizing the comparison. This would be just as improper as comparing the plots of two completely different films without using a RS to verify what you're telling the reader. Second, "In popular culture" sections should, imo, only include popcult references pointed out by reliable sources that cover those subjects, as is recommended in this essay. Otherwise, there would be nothing to stop the buildup of cruft in a good article. I'd also point out that I've never seen an unsourced "Differences from the (X)" section in any G or FA article. Any such section left in this one would surely be removed in the GAN and FAC process anyway on the basis of the WP:MOSFILM guideline I quoted. A much better approach would be to put facts from secondary sources about such things as why the changes took place, how they affected production, etc., in the appropriate sections of the article body. Shirtwaist ☎ 02:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Very well said, Shirtwaist. That is essentially what I was thinking and could not quite express. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

As this discussion seems to have no more arguments being made, I suggest the "Differences from the novel" section be deleted. Any objections or further opinions? Shirtwaist ☎ 22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My editing time has been limited, but I do plan to respond. I would suggestion that this section, which has been in the article for a very long time, remain in the article for a while longer. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with its removal. It can be restored if a consensus is reached for its inclusion. The amount of time it has been in the article seems irrelevant. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The primary argument here is that a "difference" section is WP:OR, however even WP:MOSFILM agrees that this is not the case. Original research is not allowed, by policy, however MOSFILM says "Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." (Emphasis added.) If a "difference" section was OR, it would not need to be "discouraged", it would be just plain not allowed, outright. One can only discourage what is allowed but not preferred. Since this is the case, the arguements presented here that "difference" sections are OR are not valid.

As I have been arguing throughout, these sections are no different from any other material which is supported by a primary source, which are allowed as long as what's presented is straightforward description, with no interpretation or analysis. I could, if forced to, take every statement in a "difference" section and source every single statement in it from the book and the film, but just like a "plot" section, this is not necessary or required. There is no legitimate policy-based argument for deleting a "difference" section which is properly written and does not stray into analysis or interpretation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Per your first point - I believe this type of section violates WP:NOR because the act of simply adding a significant (to the editor) difference constitutes an assertion by the editor, derived from studying both sources, that that particular difference is "important" enough to mention, while others are not.

It's true that unsourced Differences from... sections with no real-world context are not strictly prohibited(yet), but even if I agreed with your opinion that WP:OR doesn't apply (I don't as explained above), what justification could there be to go against MOSFILM's consensus-based admonishment against unsourced lists of differences with no real-world context? Just because we can create a sub-standard article that includes an unsourced Differences from... section (that would in all likelihood prevent that article from ever becoming a GA and FA) doesn't mean we should. This is not to say a proper Differences from... section cannot be written. Apt Pupil and Golden Compass are two such examples of how they should be written. I have no doubt that notable material from a RS relating to novel and film differences in this article can either be integrated into appropriate sections like "Production", "Criticism", etc., or put into a well-written well-sourced Differences from... section. But a simple list such as now exists is neither very meaningful for the reader, nor beneficial to the overall quality of the article and WP as a project, as I believe allowing this type of list to stand would only encourage more piling on of crufty trivial material into it. How would you, for example, use your "It's not OR" argument to prevent someone from adding a comparison of (in your view) irrelevant minutiae like differing addresses, or minor character name, or a thousand other things that could be named as a "difference from the (X)"? The things you think are worth mentioning might not be so to anyone else, and vice-versa. That's why we should leave such comparisons to secondary sources to decide which is worth mentioning, and which is not.

But there are several other policies in play here besides OR -specifically WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:RS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA and WP:IN-U, all of which can be used against a basic list-type section. But let's say there is no, as you say, "legitimate policy-based argument for deleting a "difference" section which is properly written and does not stray into analysis or interpretation". That would mean that the issue was more a matter of consensus than policy, wouldn't it? In that case, I would point out that a solid consensus against unsourced, non-contextual Differences from... sections in film articles has apparently been reached at this WikiProject Film discussion and this WikiProject Film RfC. Shirtwaist ☎ 05:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding "consensus", can you point me to the consensus-producing discussion which resulted in the admonishing in MOSFILM?

As to why one would want to go against consensus: the ultimate reason is that it's a service to our readers, who really don't care about our internecine disputes and discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and just want information -- and one of the things they want to know is "How is this movie different from the book it is based on?" If we can provide that information without violating basic Wikipedia policy – and we most certainly can – then the admonition against it in MOSFILM does not serve the encyclopedia well, because it does not serve our readers well, no matter how many editors agreed to it. (My observation is that many Wikipedia editors get lost in a maze, and tend to forget why it is we are here, and who it is we are serving.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you know that all WP policies and guidelines, including MOS and MOSFILM, are the result of community consensus. Is it your contention that the presence of this section in MOSFILM does not reflect community consensus? I'm afraid ignoring consensus in this or any other issue in WP "no matter how many editors agreed to it", as opposed to attempting to build a new consensus you think is appropriate, is not a constructive approach to editing. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many way of building consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove the section based on MOSFILM and established consensus, but I agree with RepublicanJacobite that it can be restored if consensus is reached to do so. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Italian-American, adjective hyphenated

I corrected the term in the lead section here back in August and again yesterday. I think at least two editors are under the mistaken impression that it is being used as a noun in the lead, or else they don't make the distinction. Please see the article Italian American (noun) and see how it is hyphenated when used as an adjective, as it is here in the lead. -A98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again, there is no discussion of the adjectival form at that article. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say the form was discussed there. It is properly hyphenated there and in many other articles. Also see WP's English_compound#Hyphenated_compound_adjectives. Do you have a source for the un-hyphenated form? -A98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking closely at the edit history, I see that RJ removed the hyphenated link after it stood for over 2 months (i mistakenly said 6 weeks in my edit summary just now), on Oct. 23, with no justification. The burden is also on him to engage in this discussion beyond (paraphrasing) "that article doesn't mention adjectival." El duderino (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the hyphenated term Italian-American appears (at least) four times in the body text. Italian American (unhyphenated) does not. El duderino (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should keep the hyphenated form since some of the characters come from Italy. Any opinions or objections? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the hyphenated form "Italian-American" should be used throughout the article where it's an adjective. Deryck C. 00:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason, it seems, for the inconsistency with the hyphenated and unhyphenated Italian American (as well as other articles about "Hyphenated Americans"), is that the article was moved from the hyphenated to the unhyphenated name in '05 and not all uses of the term were change within the bodies of articles. That said, the adjectival use should be hyphenated, but we must be clear about this so that, in future, well-meaning editors are not changing it back and forth, something I can quite easily imagine happening. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, this has not occured during the past three months, either with The Sopranos or here.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Better Reception

Updated and broadened the critical reception which this film received.Xela Zeugirdor (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)