Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:10, 19 April 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Godfather article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	The Godfather is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 16, 2005 Peer review Reviewed September 3, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 23, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed March 13, 2007 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: Core / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is on the project's core list. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sicily Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sicily, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sicily on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SicilyWikipedia:WikiProject SicilyTemplate:WikiProject SicilySicily Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 15, 2010 and March 15, 2011.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

"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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 four months, either with The Sopranos or here.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Better Reception

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

Editing The Godfather without an explanation

• Take a look at revision history! A new editor has made 187 uninterrupted revisions within the period, 10:42 hrs. (GMT) April 1 – 17:13 hrs. (GMT) April 2, without an explanation.

• I have just posted this on the user's talk page:

Thank you for your recent contributions to Misplaced Pages. Before saving your edit to any article, please provide an edit summary. So far you have not done so, for example, during your editing The Godfather (film). You made 187 uninterrupted revisions within the period, 10:42 hrs. (GMT) April 1 – 17:13 hrs. (GMT) April 2, without an explanation of the reasons for your changes.

Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit, and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism.

It is also helpful to other users reading the edit history of the page.

With kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:33 hrs. (GMT) April 2, 2012

• Surely this is unacceptable behaviour. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my recent edits and their lack of explanations. I had just watched the films (The Godfather I and II) recently and after looking at their Misplaced Pages articles I felt like I needed to update the pages. The 187 uninterrupted revisions were due to me wanting to save the edits little by little as I could have messed up if I had just done one or two big edits. As for the lack of edit explanations, my head was filled with plenty of ideas that I didn't want to forget and thus I forgot to type the edit summaries. As mentioned earlier, I apologize for my edits. Next time, when I edit a page I will be careful to leave summaries so the everyone understands the intention of my edit. Wrath X (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My intentions were not vandalism. I just felt that the article of the film The Godfather needed to be updated as it is a very influential film. I hope that my behavior has not offended or confused too many users. Wrath X (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrath X, thank you for responding. Having examined many of your revisions, I had never imagined that your editing was anything other than well-intended. Well done! Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pleased to find agreement with my proposal, but we don't decide by majority. Moreover, I don't feel like this section can't be improved. A film with this much prominence deserves careful consideration. For example, there is not a section on its release and there should be; that can include its distribution to television as well. I also feel that its connection to the sequel might be overlooked, since many treat the two as one work. Is enough attention given to post-production? In this case, my understanding is that a lot of shaping happened at that time. These things matter more to me than the payroll details, which I would not include in the first place. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have your involvement. Your comments above all meet with my approval – you have already implemented many of your proposals – but I agree that there is more to be done.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sonny's death

I don't remember the facts on one aspect and thought you might. My memory was that the phone call to Sonny that lured him to the toll booth was not about a real attack on Connie, but was just a device to play on his Achilles' heel. Am I wrong? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

I have the three films, so although I suspect I can answer your question accurately, I shall watch it this afternoon after my lunch (which is on the table!) and get back to you later today. It is 14:36 hrs. British Summer Time in the old UK, and I have just come in late from walking with my dog...

Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That was great! Will now rewatch "II" & "III" for the countless time.

Okay, the sequence of events:

• Heavily pregnant Connie answers the phone to a female who says, "Tell Carlo, I can't see him tonight."
• She tells him that his dinner is ready. He says that he doesn't want it.
• Fearsome row ensues ... Connie smashes crockery ... he gives her a dreadful beating.
• Carlo leaves. Connie telephones. Sonny, wild with temper, races off alone ...

• Must be a setup: Ambush waiting at the toll booth.

Oh, and it is 1946 (not '45) mentioned at the time of the attack on Vito. I have made that edit now.

All the best,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, but I'm not clear on one thing: how do you know it's a setup? I thought that they were trying to lure him out to the toll booth, but what was the actual plan? Did Carlo beat her for the purpose of getting him to come to her aid? That seems like a dubious plan. Thanks. (And feel free to answer here -- I monitor your talk page changes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Only reason I think that it was pre-planned, is how else would they be expecting Sonny to drive through the toll booth at that particular time. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree it was extreme. I suppose the phone call was the setup and the fight was worse than Carlo anticipated, but achieved the required result.

Since posting the 1946 edit, some anon has added an exec. prod., Robert Evans to the info' box. I shall delete it. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

How else would they have known? Okay, that is evidence they were listening in on a phone call. Or were told by Carlo that Connie called him (if he knew). So yes that is the key question. Or, what did Carlo do that betrayed Sonny? Same question in a different form. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I also have the novel here, but a long time since I read it. See if that helps. Shall do that this morning. I agree with your analysis, and, in my opinion, was probably explained in the filming, but left on the editor's floor. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the book is no help at all: Carlo does not leave their home. Is very drunk and sleeps. Then, after a few hours, Connie phones her parent's home intending to speak to Hagan or her mother, not wanting to speak to Santino. Her mother answers, but Sonny takes the phone from her.

So, the "only possible explanation" of how Barzini's men were already waiting at the toll booth – that he awoke and heard his wife's telephone call, is null and void. They did not have enough time to arrange the ambush. Furthermore, the war of the Five Families is regarded to be over at this point, so Sonny and Hagan were not anticipating a setup. Yet at the end of the novel, Michael tricks Carlo into telling him that he did inform Barzini ... over to you ... Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Is this "narrative art"? Notice they separate the revelation that Carlo betrayed Sonny from the events. So at the moment I write it off to a little plot hole that they couldn't figure out how to close. Still, I'm thinking about it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Only with your approval of course, I am considering copying this to Talk:The Godfather. What do you think? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it's fine. Thanks for asking. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The Plot Word Count

Okay so seeing how films like Mulholland Drive and Inception (please see their respective talk pages on which I have commented) are allowed to have a larger plot count than 700, I think we can reach a consensus since this a major, well-known film and is 3 hours long. Upon recently re-watching it I saw many details left out. I therefore have edited it, yes it is much longer, but you can see for yourself if this is an improvement. For starters, the film begins 1945, but ends in 1955. I think it is Clemenza who at one point says "its nearly 1946" at the point of Vito's assassination attempt when it is Christmas and snowing. So you have these details, plus all these other characters introduced late in the previous plot like Clemenza himself who is mentioned in at the time of killing Carlo, which is way too late in my opinion. He has a much larger role throughout. This and other details I have added so what is it we do? vote ? I vote support to allow an exception. Sorry if there are spelling mistakes and so on I'm tired now. Okay well here are some changes:

Sollozzo is not Turkish but from Turkey, Vito never told Sonny to take command he assumes it himself, previous plot didn't include the death of Paulie (leave the gun, take the canolis), the hospital bit where Michael moves the bed, can't think of others now, oh yeah, the fact the guy requesting a favour at the beginning returns it by sorting out Sonny's body. --JTBX (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• But two months ago you were busy trimming the plot summary, in order to reduce its size? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)

Draft (Improved as of 20/4/2012)

On the occasion of his only daughter's 1946 wedding, Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) hears requests in his role as the Godfather, the Don of his crime family. While Connie (Talia Shire) and Carlo Rizzi (Gianni Russo) celebrate their marriage, Singer Johnny Fontane (Al Martino) pleads for help securing a movie role. Vito soon dispatches his consigliere Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) to meet the studio head Jack Woltz (John Marley), who only agrees to cast Fontane after waking up in bed with the severed head of his prized racehorse.

Drug baron Virgil Sollozzo (Al Lettieri) offers a deal to the Don to protect the rival Tattaglia family's drug trafficking, but the Don disapproves of that business. Instead, he sends enforcer Luca Brasi (Lenny Montana) to spy on Sollozzo and the Tattaglias. The Corleones receive a fish wrapped in Brasi's vest confirming that he "sleeps with the fishes." Sollozzo's attempted assassination of Corleone leaves the Don heavily wounded; Sonny then takes command. Hagen is kidnapped and persuaded to offer Sonny the original deal. Vito's youngest son Michael (Al Pacino) thwarts a second assassination attempt on his father at the hospital, but is accosted by corrupt police Captain McCluskey (Sterling Hayden), who breaks his jaw. Sonny retaliates by having Tattaglia's son, Bruno, killed.

Michael comes up with a plan to personally hit Sollozzo and McCluskey that Sonny reluctantly approves. On the pretext of settling the dispute, Michael lures the pair to a restaurant where he retrieves a planted handgun and murders them. Despite a clamp down from the authorities, the Five Families erupt in open warfare and the brothers fear for their safety. Michael takes refuge in Sicily and Fredo (John Cazale), is sheltered by associate Moe Greene (Alex Rocco) in Las Vegas. Sonny attacks Carlo on the street for abusing his sister. When it happens again, Sonny speeds for her home but assassins ambush him at a highway toll booth and riddle him with machine gun fire.

Vito learns to his distress that Michael has become involved in the family business; for him he had hoped for something better. However, his son has fallen in love with Apollonia Vitelli (Simonetta Stefanelli) and married her in Sicily. Michael's peace is shattered when a car bomb intended for him takes the life of his new wife.

To end the feuds, Vito meets with the heads of the Five Families, withdrawing his opposition to the Tattaglias' heroin business and swearing to forego revenge for Sonny's murder. He deduces that the Tattaglias were under orders of the now dominant Don Emilio Barzini (Richard Conte). With safety now guaranteed, Michael returns home and over a year later marries his girlfriend, Kay Adams (Diane Keaton). Seeing his father at the end of his career and his brother too weak, Michael takes the reins of the family business and promises his wife to make it legitimate within five years.

Biding his time, Michael allows rival families to pressure Corleone enterprises and plans to move family operations to Nevada, while spinning off New York operations to members who stay behind. Michael also replaces Hagen with his father as his consigliere; Vito explains to an upset Hagen that they have long range plans for him and the family. Later, Michael travels to Las Vegas, intending to buy out Greene's stake in the family's casinos. Instead, Greene derides the Corleones as a fading power, and Michael's anger is fueled when Fredo falls under Greene's sway. Back home, Vito warns Michael that a traitor will reveal himself by dealing with Barzini.

Vito collapses and dies in his garden while playing with Michael’s son Anthony. At the funeral, Tessio arranges a meeting between Michael and Don Barzini, signalling his treachery as Vito warned. The meeting is set for the same day as the christening of Connie and Carlo's son, to whom Michael will stand as godfather. As the christening proceeds, on Michael's orders, Corleone assassins murder the other New York dons and Moe Greene. Tessio is told that Michael is aware of his betrayal and taken off to his death. After Carlo is questioned by Michael on his involvement in setting up Sonny's murder and confesses he was contacted by Barzini, he is escorted to a car and garrotted to death by Clemenza. Michael is confronted by Connie, who accuses him of having her husband killed. He denies killing Carlo when questioned by Kay, an answer she accepts. As Kay watches warily, Michael receives his capos, who address him as the new Don Corleone.

By the way, the dates are also mentioned specifically in Godfather Part II, --JTBX (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

also, is the image really necessary? JTBX (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is clumsy and long, although some ideas are good. We should definitely correct any errors, though. Let's start with that. The image contributes little, that is for sure, but it's not a problem. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The plot summary should focus on the events that happen in the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Its hardly clumsy, by introducing the characters at the beginning as they are in the film I get the bulk of text and confusion out of the way, then comes incorrect details such as "1946" when it is certainly 1945 as I have mentioned already (read the intro to the article, read the novel). Again, the 700 words are a guideline, not the rule. It is still very summarised, what I did is include the significant details missing. JTBX (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the character summaries. That's not the action of the film. That material can be covered in Cast. I think we agree on most of it though and I thank you for your interest. 45 or 46 is something I think we need more opinion on, because another editor was pretty sure the film is 46. I hope we have corrected any errors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

All still relevant today

I thought that this, from last year, might be worth revisiting

This suffers from the common Wiki Synopsis flaws. It is written like a poor book report. A synopsis has a purpose and it is not the place for details that do not contribute to the motivation of the storyline. In this case, I had to laugh that someone wrote that Luca Brazi is "stabbed in the hand" and garroted. One could argue that being stabbed in the hand had a symbolic meaning to the story, but I suspect this is not being asserted; even if it were, it would not be part of synopsis but an analysis of symbolism. Things like this smack of elementary school writing and thought. Whether he was stabbed in the hand before being killed, drinking a vodka tonic, whether Sonny made a goofy face before being shot, whether Don Corleone got shot buying apples or oranges detracts from synopsis and it should be rewritten with this in mind. ( See the Youtube video "Star Wars according to a 3 year old." for how not to write a synopsis.) --APDEF (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I Agree, the plot bloat in this PS is out of control and should be fixed. Also, why are there refs in the first sentence about when the wedding takes place? Per WP:FILMPLOT, "simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article". There is nothing in the film that says when the wedding occurs. Secondary sources commenting on this is irrelevant to the plot summary, and should appear elsewhere in the article. Shirtwaist ☎ 03:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the reference in the first sentence: this was placed by an editor sometime back to prove that the wedding takes place in July. The fact is, the month the wedding takes place is irrelevant, and, as far as I am aware, the month is never stated in the film, nor is there any significance to it. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 20:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• This will go on and on... Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Plot Draft

I incorporated some nice improvements from this draft, so I don't see the need to edit here. I don't want to substitute this draft for the plot summary we have. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a few edits to this draft earlier this evening. I had thought we could move on. It just keeps growing. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Just edited my draft again. Current plot on wikipedia: 780 words, my draft: 739. Hilarity ensues. JTBX (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You were up early ... or is it still up late?

...made a few more edits ... such fun! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I sleep during the day and wake at night, currently unemployed, going to University this year, so yes a lot of spare time. Also you added more words in your edit to the draft, but it is an improvement. I guess that matters more than word count, good show. JTBX (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad you approve. I am not counting ... quality copy is what we are after here ... coming together well in my opinion.

Um..? You are obviously awake NOW. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we already have a good plot summary. The draft here had so much unnecessary detail and other problems that are already solved in the article. Please edit the article if you have ideas for changes, as I have done. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I edited the article, you reversed all my changes and said bring to the talk page. I bring things to the talk page to help improve it to a quality copy with Gareth, even making it shorter than the article and yet including more detail, but now your telling me to add the changed to the article? JTBX (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class core film articles
• WikiProject Film core articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• Core film articles supported by the American cinema task force
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class New York (state) articles
• Low-importance New York (state) articles
• C-Class Sicily articles
• Mid-importance Sicily articles
• WikiProject Sicily articles
• Selected anniversaries (March 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2011)