This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Francis Ford Coppola 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 Wikipedia? 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: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This   level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). California: San Francisco Bay Area Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance).

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 7, 2020.

Archives

Archive 1

'Use' is a statement of fact. 'Abuse' is a pov. Unless you can say who thought it was an abuse, let's stick to saying it was use. Guttlekraw 00:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that if you could find some kind of self-admission that he had a problem, then "abuse" would be npov. As it stands, Coppola is the only one to judge, and "use" gets the meaning across just as well. Bodhidharma 00:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Guttlekraw is on a mission to insert the term recreational drug use in place of drug abuse all across Wikipedia. In the past few days, he has changed direct quotes to medical journals to reflect his bias, as well as making changes to articles about books -- all without citing any sources of any kind. He has been asked to review the NPOV policy but doesn't appear to have done so. I have reverted his changes, as there is plenty of substantiating information regarding drug abuse in this context. It's mentioned in a BBC news article [1], in the book Francis Ford Coppola: Close Up the Making of His Movies by Ronald Bergan, and in the film Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse. -- Viriditas | Talk 20:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Erm, getting to the point, which is this article - the balance of comments on this page is that 'use' is NPOV, while 'abuse' reflects some peoples characterisation of the use. If you want to state that Ronald Bergan thought that the drug use that took place was abusive, that's one thing, but to state as a fact that it was is not NPOV. Everything that you mention above are peoples opinions about the drug use. That's fine, but it is not facts. Guttlekraw 21:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your interpreation is incorrect, plus your motivation is suspect since you are attempting to remove the term drug abuse from many articles at this time, and in most cases, you have damaged those articles leaving errors in your wake of destruction. You have provided absolutely no sources that claim that something other than drug abuse was present behind the scenes. In fact, the drug abouse was documented by ...Fax Bahr and George Hickenlooper's excellent documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse and wife Eleanor Coppola's diary Notes...[the film was] burdened by a lack of clear purpose, an abuse of drugs and alcohol, and a daily exposure to madness and violence. [2]. See also, E! online: The production of Francis Ford Coppola's Vietnam epic Apocalypse Now was plagued by hard drugs. Most of the cast and crew became addicts during the months of filming in the South Pacific. Martin Sheen nearly lost his life on the set. Costar Marlon Brando didn't fare much better. Dennis Hopper, who was legendary for drug battles as well as his Easy Rider success, continued his descent on Apocalypse Now. "Dennis became a social pariah," says director George Hickenlooper, whose powerful documentary Heart of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse goes behind the scenes of Coppola's movie. [3] -- Viriditas | Talk 00:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please pay attention. I suggested that we state that drug use took place. Do you think that the people involved thought it was abuse? No, some comentators said it was abuse. Let's say who they are. I have left the reference in, but stated who said it. That is called citing your sources. Guttlekraw 03:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is you who is not paying attention as your replies on this talk page demonstrate. Your opinion is not supported by the facts, nor have you offered any evidence for your claim that it was "recreational drug use" as opposed to drug abuse. You campaign of changing the term "drug abuse" to recreactional drug use across the Wikipedia is your attempt to insert your POV and is a violation of policy. -- Viriditas | Talk 11:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is a quote from filmsite.org that says it was 'use', not 'abuse'. After a three to four year wait for the notorious film (that brought other award-winning Vietnam war films to the forefront a year earlier - The Deer Hunter (1978) and Coming Home (1978)), the film that was budgeted at $12 million was something of an extravagant, self-indulgent epic in the making that cost almost $31 million - with much of the film shot on location in the Philippines. The highly-publicized delays and catastrophes in the grueling shoot (scheduled for about 17 weeks but ending up lasting 16 months), along with extra-marital affairs, a grandiose and suicidal director, drug use and other forms of madness, were mostly due to a rain-drenching typhoon (named Olga) and a star-debilitating, near-fatal heart attack for star Martin Sheen. Guttlekraw 03:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the link and text you cited references the film itself, and not the behind-the-scenes tell-all that was made about the film by Coppola's wife, which is essentially the source for the drug abuse claims. I suggest you stop changing the term "drug abuse" to "recreational drug use" across the Wikipedia. -- Viriditas | Talk 11:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point is that the source you are using is Coppolas wife. Reference her opinion, don't portray it as fact. Guttlekraw 15:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, the source is not only Coppola's wife, but other sources, and it is an accurate description of the circumstances. If your hands were clean, you might have some kind of point, but your contribution history demonstrates that your mission on Wikipedia is to remove the term "drug abuse" and replace it with "recreational drug use", and that is not accurate in any sense. -- Viriditas | Talk 22:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's just cite the sources, and say that it is their opinion. There is no sense in which the term 'drug abuse' can be anything but an opinion - it is a value judgement. That's fine, but let's say whose judgement it is, and not try to pass it off as a fact. And stop with the attacks. Trying to demonize me doesn't change the fact that your case has no merit. Guttlekraw 06:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Guttlekraw, I've explained the 3RR to you, so why do you keep violating it?

1. 03:02, 14 Apr 2005
2. 15:26, 13 Apr 2005
3. 23:59, 12 Apr 2005
4. 20:43, 12 Apr 2005
5. 19:21, 12 Apr 2005

-- Viriditas | Talk 11:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They're not reverts, but attempts to reach compromise. Look the word up. This is a collaborative effort - if you spent more time working on a collaborative approach and less time scrutinising whether there was some procedural rule you could complain about you would get more done. I am clearly not simply reverting, but trying to understand why you insist on inserting your pov into this article. Guttlekraw 06:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your edits are classified as reverts, so I suggest you talk to an admin. I have been working collaboratively on multiple articles while you have been waging an edit war across Wikipedia in your zeal to change every instance of "drug abuse" to "recreational drug use". Clearly, it is you who is inserting your POV into articles, and you went so far as to change direct quotes to referenced medical journals. You aren't fooling anyone. -- Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please try to stick to the point. Every time you loose an argument on the facts you pull some smoke and mirrors about something totally different. We're talking about FFC. Your argument has no merit, deal with it and move on - stop this harrassment of anyone who doesn't subscribe to your point of view. Guttlekraw 19:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The evidence has been offered, policies have been explained to you, and your campaign of removing the term "drug abuse" from the Wikipedia is clearly a POV violation on your part. You have gone so far ast to modify cited text from scientific journals, books by authors, psychiatric studies, and clinical definitions. This is not acceptable. I'm starting to think you are nothing but a troll. -- Viriditas | Talk 00:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please try to focus. We are talking about FFC. We are talking about in whose opinion the drug use that took place on the set was 'abuse'. I have not removed the term drug abuse, that is a flat out lie. I have placed a referenced comment to his biographer stating who thought that the use was abuse. What more do you want? Oh yes. You only want your point of view to be represented. You think I am a troll? ROTFL. Guttlekraw 00:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are a troll, as your edit history demonstrates. You have consistently removed the term drug abuse from the article, and the history shows that fact. This is all about your POV, not mine, and multiple sources have documented drug abuse on the set, from the BBC [4], E! Online [5], to Ronald Bergan (Francis Ford Coppola: Close Up the Making of His Movies by , to Karl French (Apocalypse Now : A Bloomsbury Movie Guide (Bloomsbury Movie Guide) to Fax Bahr, George Hickenlooper, and Eleanor Coppola (Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse). [6], -- Viriditas | Talk 13:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Veriditas's continual reverts

Veriditas has continued to revert without giving any justification or citation for the claim that 'drug abuse' took place on the set of AN. I ask yet again, please cite the source for this misleading statement. Guttlekraw 13:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Isn't a compromise possible? You both have reasonable arguments for "use" and "abuse". Can you find a way to describe what happened that is less POV than saying "abuse", yet conveys what actually happened. How about "wide spread drug use characterized by some as abuse" or something similar? -- Samuel Wantman 05:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Great idea - perhaps you can suggest something, since V and I seem to be having some difficulty! What about attributing the comment to someone who described it? That would work for me, Guttlekraw 09:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm not having any difficulty, nor is this a controversial issue in any way. Multiple sources have documented drug abuse on the set, so there is no need to attribute the statement to one claimant as this is a known fact. Sources include the BBC [7], E! Online [8], to Ronald Bergan (Francis Ford Coppola: Close Up the Making of His Movies) to Karl French (Apocalypse Now : A Bloomsbury Movie Guide) to Fax Bahr, George Hickenlooper, and Eleanor Coppola (Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse). [9]. Further, this source has always been attributed in the context of the content you keep removing, so your dispute as well as your claim is without merit. -- Viriditas | Talk 13:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Thank you for finally referencing this claim, I think it is necessary to attribute this opinion. All of the references you give are either entertainment columns or biographies. As opinions they are fine, but they reflect the views of onlookers. I think it is reasonable to assume that the participants did not view the use as abuse. I don't know why you would refuse a perfectly reasonable compromise attempt. Oh wait, yes I do. Guttlekraw 14:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Again, you are distorting the facts. This "claim" has been referenced (to Hearts of Darkness) before you started changing it, due to your campaign to remove the term drug abuse from Wikipedia. And, I've provided many other references since April 13, 2005, while you keep claiming that no references have been cited. This is a bizarre tactic you appear to use on multiple articles. -- Viriditas | Talk 08:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I would suggest that everyone involved here try to put more effort into working on a compromise. I thought that the following was a start:

The film, entitled Apocalypse Now ( 1979), was beset by numerous problems, including typhoons, drug use (characterised as drug abuse by many, including Ronald Bergan, Coppola's biographer [10] [11] [12]), nervous breakdowns, Martin Sheen's heart attack, and Marlon Brando's bloated appearance (which Coppola attempted to hide by shooting him in the shadows).

For the sake of style, I'd prefer:

The film, entitled Apocalypse Now ( 1979), was beset by numerous problems, including typhoons, drug use, nervous breakdowns, Martin Sheen's heart attack, and Marlon Brando's bloated appearance (which Coppola attempted to hide by shooting him in the shadows). The drug use by cast and crew, has been characterised as drug abuse by many, including Ronald Bergan, Coppola's biographer [13] [14] [15]

I'm requesting that Viriditas and Jayjg please explain what they find objectionable about either version? Why? If there is something objectionable, is there a way we can fix it without removing drug use? Jayjg, what is the consensus that you refer to in you edit summary? -- Samuel Wantman 07:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Guttlekraw's agenda is to remove the term drug abuse from Wikipedia. The fact is that drug abuse has been removed from the original article and replaced with drug use. Sam Bottom and Dennis Hopper's drug abuse on the set is well documented, both in books and in the documentary that the original claim was attributed to before Guttlekraw started removing the term drug abuse from Wikipedia articles. -- Viriditas | Talk 08:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

It doesn't help for both of you to revert each other based on your perceptions of each other's motivations. Please tell me what is wrong with the compromise. It has the term drug abuse. What are you objecting to? It is a compromise. It states that there was drug use. It states that the drug use has been called drug abuse. This is obviously a controversial issue. Can we state the controversy without resolving it in the article? == Samuel Wantman 08:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but you haven't been following the edit history. This issue is in fact not controversial, except to Guttlekraw, which is essentailly the problem. The source consensus adheres to the definition of drug abuse, which ironically, Guttlekraw has attempted to change for more than a month. Before Guttlekraw started pushing his revisionist POV on this and other pages, drug abuse was adequately and accurately cited in reference to the documentary, Hearts of Darkness. This is supported by many sources which are currently listed on this page, and the drug abuse on set is widely documented by the actors themselves. There is nothing controversial about stating there was drug abuse on the set. Futher, the consensus of authors and academics like Cynthia Fuchs at George Mason University, describes drug abuse: [Hearts of Darkness] is assembled from footage taken by Eleanor Coppola (FFC's wife) during Apocalypse Now's principal photography in the Philippines from 1977-78...recent interviews with the principal players (including both Coppolas, George Lucas, Sam Bottoms, Frederic Forrest, and Dennis Hopper, whose wry confession--"I was not in the greatest of shape"--is evidenced by his amazing fried-brain performance as the photographer at Kurtz's compound)...In Hearts this journey back and back seems like a regression to mythic darkness and human souls, but it's also about money and exploitation and abuse, very mundane and familiar problems after all...The saga includes...lots of drugs...Interviewed later, a grown-up Fishburne and others recall excesses of drugs... [16] -- Viriditas | Talk 09:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I understand your point, but what I don't understand is what it is you find objectionable in the compromise? Drugs were taken, it was extensive, people have called it abuse. What is wrong with that? Can you tweak it to make it acceptable, short of reverting it? I'm really trying to mediate this. I don't have a personal agenda. I'm just tired of watching BOTH of you constantly fight about this. -- Samuel Wantman 09:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The original article attributed the abuse to the documentary film. There is nothing wrong with the original wording, nor is it controversial, however much Guttlekraw would like to make it appear. -- Viriditas | Talk 09:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Thank you Sam, I am happy with either of your versions. I do not, contrary to V's claim, want to removed references to 'drug abuse', I simply want to point out that it is a judgement, and point out who made it. Guttlekraw3 09:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The edit history clearly demonstrates that for the past month, you have attemped to remove the reference to drug abuse and replace it with other terms, including drug use. Please provide a reputable citation that criticizes the use of the term drug abuse in relation to the film. -- Viriditas | Talk 09:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Please stop your ad hominem attacks and focus on the question at hand. What is wrong with Samuel's proposed version? Guttlekraw3 09:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The only ad hominems have been from you, which you have conveniently removed. Again, I ask you to please provide a reputable citation that criticizes the use of the term drug abuse in relation to the film. -- Viriditas | Talk 09:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I am unaware of any attempt at a compromise until recently. Whatever the history, I don't think it is relevant now. Please, Viriditas, tell me what is wrong with the compromise above? You can add quotes from Fishbourne and Hopper that talk about their own ABUSE of drugs. I would bet that there was quite a range of drug use, from an occasional beer to heroin addiction. Let's work together to create an accurate picture of what happened. -- Samuel Wantman 09:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The history is relevant only in the sense that Guttlekraw is denying edits that are recorded in the history. But, I agree, let's put that aside for a moment. The original article is accurate, in that it alludes to the documentary film's portrayal of drug abuse, which as far as I am aware, is not controversial. So essentially, there is no reason to change what is already accurate. Now, if we can show that there are reputable authors who disagree with calling this drug abuse, then by all means add those critics. My question for you then, is what is wrong with the current version, as you see it? Currently, the article states, The 1991 documentary film Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse, directed by Eleanor Coppola (Francis's wife)...chronicles the difficulties the crew went through making Apocalypse Now, and features behind the scenes footage filmed by Eleanor. -- Viriditas | Talk 10:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I am trying to broker a compromise so we can all move on to more productive things. If you can tell me what is wrong with the compromise we can try to fix it. I am trying not to take a position on any version. I like the compromise because it says more than the original. It has links to both drug use and drug abuse. I am trying to understand what you find objectionable in it, other than it being a change. I don't think objecting because something has changed is a reason to block consensus. The only way to solve this is to move forward and not rehash the past. -- Samuel Wantman 10:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The so-called "compromise" isn't as accurate as the original version which attributes the "difficulties" to the documentary film. Most (if not all) of the sources which describe drug abuse, primarily refer to that film. I'm not sure how you can improve upon that. Again, if this was a controversial topic, or disputed with credible sources, a compromise would be demanded. But as the edit history so clearly demonstrates, that is not the case. FYI...I'm going to be away from my desk for the next hour, so I won't be able to respond until I get back. -- Viriditas | Talk 11:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

There are several sources cited for the difficulties. The ones that I read said that virtually the entire cast and crew were taking drugs or drinking. I'd be surprised if everyone was abusing drugs. By saying drug use that seems to imply that everyone's imbibing was a problem even if some people were not abusing drugs. I frankly think it is an improvement because it has the possibility of having people compare the articles on drug use and drug abuse. I'm going to bed. Perhaps we can sleep on this. I'm hoping you can think about not objecting to the compromise so we can all move on. Consensus means that you don't have to agree with something 100%, but rather agree to not disagree. Good-night. -- Samuel Wantman 11:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Guttlekraw3, please be quiet and let me have this conversation. -- Samuel Wantman 09:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

As I said below, every reference we have either specifically mentioend "drug abuse", or described behaviour that matches the definition of "drug abuse" as found in the "drug abuse" article. Those references are not talking about diabetics taking their insulin, or people with high blood pressure taking their blood pressure medication. Use of the term "drug use" is actually potentially misleading in this case. And since the argument here is about whether the term "drug use" or "drug abuse" should be used, choosing "drug use" will not be a "compromise". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Happily, but did a conversation happen? Guttlekraw3 11:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The conversation is still on-going. -- Samuel Wantman

References

The issue here is that an opinion, however referenced, should be presented as an opinion. I have tried to re-word this to show what I mean, but consider the following examples:

1. George Bush is an idiot (Ref Michael Moore, Bill Clinton, Larry Flint)

2. According to some, including Micael Moore etc, George Bush is an idiot.

Referencing the first one with actual references is misleading. It implies that by providing references to people who said this, it becomes fact (argument by authority), whereas in fact, the term drug abuse is always a judgement, not a fact. I don't at all mind that both his biographer and his wife called the drug use which happened on the set (which was a fact agreed by all) drug abuse, and if anyone was hospitalised or prosecuted we could include the judgements of their medical staff or legal professionals, but the term 'drug abuse' can never be a fact, always a judgement. Guttlekraw 09:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

User:Jayjg: (in edit summary) (→Career: 1979 to present - it has *only* been charaterized as drug abuse, and you still have never provided any references to Ronald Bergan.)

Jayjg - first off, I know you came into this late, but I suggest you read the background. V. brought in Bergan as someone who said that the drug use was abuse. I never claimed this, merely agreed that if Bergan claimed it, we should attribute the claim. Third hand reporting by entertainment columnists is, I think, less credible than a serious biographer. If you don't like the Bergan quote, take it out, it's not me that wants it, I just want the claim of 'drug abuse' to be referenced by someone who was there or has done some serious research on it.

Secondly, it doesn't matter how many people share the opinion that the drug use was abuse. We should still report the fact (that drug use took place) and attribute the opinion (that the drug use was drug abuse). Do you seriously disagree with this approach? Thanks, Guttlekraw3 05:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

While we're at it, you're simply wrong in your claim that it has *only* been characterised as 'abuse'. Filmsite.org, moview-reviews, plaidder.com among many others refer to 'drug use' on the set. The facts speak for themselves. Guttlekraw3 05:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

All of those references match the definition of "drug abuse" as found in the "drug abuse" article. Those references are not talking about diabetics taking their insulin, or people with high blood pressure taking their blood pressure medication. Use of the term "drug use" is actually potentially misleading in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Yes, and the edit history demonstrates that you haven't been editing in good faith. You claim that refs haven't been posted, when they have and have been part of the article the entire time; you claim that drug abuse is drug use, when that is your POV; and you have attempted to redefine drug abuse to suit your POV and articles that link to drug abuse, all the while engaging in personal attacks, edit wars, misleading edit summaries, etc. -- Viriditas | Talk 08:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Stop making personal attacks and focus on the edits in question. Guttlekraw3 09:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Describing your edit history in relation to this article is not a personal attack. The irony is that you have attacked me multiple times and yet blame me for your attacks. You even removed your most recent attack where you repeatedly called me a liar. [17] -- Viriditas | Talk 09:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

You are a liar, that's a statement of fact, not an attack. Please focus on the edits at hand and stop your personal attacks. Guttlekraw3 09:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

No that's a personal attack, and you've been engaging in them against me for quite some time.-- Viriditas | Talk 09:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Another comromise attempt

O.K. Here's my latest attempt at a compromise. In reading over Jayjg's comments and Viriditas' They make the point that it is the "drug abuse" that was cited as being a problem with the film, not "drug use". Guttlekraw has cites for "drug use" as a problem. Viriditas has said,

"The so-called "compromise" isn't as accurate as the original version which attributes the "difficulties" to the documentary film. Most (if not all) of the sources which describe drug abuse, primarily refer to that film. I'm not sure how you can improve upon that."

In reading over the original and changed text the only thing that changes back and forth is "use" and "abuse". I didn't read any version that clearly attributes the difficulties to the documentary film. The citations do lead to the documentary, but the text of this article does not state that clearly. Perhaps we can improve on it working together. So here's what I suggest.

1. Make the attribution of drug abuse clear, and only connect it to people's assessment of the problems.
2. If drug use is used in the article, have it used as a statement of fact as to what happened. This could be modified with adjectives, e.g. "extensive drug and alcohol use". I don't think anyone contends that there wasn't extensive drug and alcohol use.

Here is my attempt at a new version:

Following the success of The Godfather and its sequel, Coppola set about filming an ambitious version of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, set during the Vietnam War. The film, entitled Apocalypse Now ( 1979) was delayed so often it was nicknamed Apocalypse Whenever. The 1991 documentary film Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse chronicles the difficulties the crew went through making Apocalypse Now. The documentary features behind the scenes footage of events filmed by Francis' wife Eleanor Coppola including typhoons, extensive drug and alcohol use and various health problems. Martin Sheen suffered a heart attack half way through the shoot. Marlon Brando's appearance was so bloated that Coppola attempted to hide it by filming Brando in shadows. The documentary claims that drug abuse was so rampant that "most of the cast and crew became addicts during the months of filming." [18] Apocalypse Now was equally lauded and hated by critics when it finally appeared, and the cost nearly bankrupted Coppola's nascent studio American Zoetrope.

I hope this version can be made acceptable by everyone. I think it needs a better quote about drug abuse, preferably one that is directly from the documentary.

So I'd like your responses. I don't want to hear that it is not as good as the original. That will not move us forward. What I want to hear is the MINIMAL change to what I've written that would make it acceptable. Please, limit your responses your suggested changes and your reasons for the changes. I'm requesting that Guttlekraw wait to respond until after I try to work out something with Viriditas and Jayjg. -- Samuel Wantman 01:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I've temporarily removed the reference to drugs ( drug abuse) until we can work this out. I'm currently reviewing and comparing sources in order to formulate an informed response. These sources include: Bahr and Hickenlooper's film, Hearts of Darkness; Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood; Coppola's Notes on the Making of Apocalypse Now; Cowie's The Apocalypse Now Book and Coppola; French's Apocalypse Now : A Bloomsbury Movie Guide; and Haber's online essay, Deconstructing Francis. I'm also comparing the opinions of reputable film critics, and I'll probably ask a few film experts to comment on this discussion. -- Viriditas | Talk 13:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC) reply

So after all that petty squabbling way back when, in the end ALL references to drug use/abuse ended up going by the wayside? Robbmonster ( talk) 08:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Got an argument here about how to pronounce his name; which syllable is accented - COPPola vs CopPOLa ("U.S" vs. "Italian" pronunciation of this???). Can we please find a source for this and put an audio clip in the article? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

One various DVD commentaries, Coppola himself pronounces it as COPE-oh-luh. Robbmonster ( talk) 08:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Yuck. Three dictionaries are the sources for the pronunciation given in this article, and in my long experience with dictionaries, they often get the surnames of famous people shockingly wrong. 67.83.99.134 ( talk) 18:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)corpho reply

What's your evidence that the Detroit Symphony Orchestra was Carmine Coppola's orchestra? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 16:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I assume you are addressing me. My evidence is the reliable reference I provided. But let's back up a bit. Your premise is false. If you look at the wording in the article surrounding the Henry Ford stuff, what I inserted says nothing about the DSO being Coppola's orchestra. The Henry Ford connection is with Coppola's radio orchestra (for which he was assistant director). That's what the accompanying reference I included (which replaced the dead link/reference you keep reinserting). The dead link ss no longer a relevant nor reliable reference to back up what you say is truth because it's neither true nor available to fact-check. To advance what I'm saying as true (regarding Coppola's middle name) even further, here is yet another reliable reference that says the same thing as the reference I provided originally: Carmine Coppola as asst. director for "Ford Sunday Evening Hour" orchestra. I intend to add the new reference to the other one I found as well as the name of Coppola's radio orchestra and that he was assistant director. It all seems pertinent to add since it appears to be correct (two separate reliable references say so, after all). I can't do that until it's safe to do so, considering the 3RR warnings you and I both received as a result of this silly edit war. Winkelvi ( talk) 01:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Your text leaves open the idea that it was Coppola's orchestra and mine doesn't. You leave out he was the flutist. And, as you seem aware, it is loose phrasing to say it was his program. He worked on it, and not even as the leader of the band.-- Ring Cinema ( talk) 13:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Wow. You either didn't read what I wrote above or you were unable to comprehend what I wrote. Winkelvi ( talk) 14:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

You haven't addressed my post. If you are trying to say that you were mistaken about your misleading text and the omission on Coppoloa's role with the orchestra, that is fine. If you prefer the misleading text or the missing facts, you should say so or I will assume you realize your error. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 17:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I wasn't trying to say anything other than what was written. I said what I did and I meant what I said. It's all there in black and white. Nothing hidden and certainly nothing about misleading text. There was no misleading text. There was no omission. Nice try at twisting the truth. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you keep reverting back to incorrect, non-referenced information and a dead link that doesn't exist anymore? Can't imagine why anyone would prefer that version of text in a BLP. Pretty sure Mr. "Coppoloa" would be offended by the incorrect, inaccurate version you keep trying to push. Winkelvi ( talk) 19:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Nothing twisted. You have repaired your damage. You mention that he was lead flutist, correcting your earlier mistake. You don't erroneously refer to Ford and Carmine as friends any more. Well done. And you repaired your horrible misleading sentence, too, that you borrowed from the source. That's how it should work and now the errors you introduced are apparently all gone. That's great. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 19:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

There was no damage. There was no earlier mistake. I stopped referring to them as friends several reverts ago. There was no horrible misleading sentence. I don't need/want your condescending approval or "well done". Winkelvi ( talk) 04:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Winkelvi ( talk).
I observe that whenever your revisions are challenged, your reaction is always an immediate confrontation. It need not be like this. If you try to see the other person's point of view, rather than adopt an aggressive attitude, you will discover that editing Wikipedia is a much more pleasing experience.
Sincerely,
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones  – The Welsh Buzzard – 08:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I observe that whenever I or anyone else makes revisions to the articles you guard, your reaction is always an immediate reversion. It need not be like this. If you see that others have a right to make changes to the articles you feel you and Ring Cinema and OldJacobite own, rather than adopt an aggressive attitude, you will discover editing Wikipedia is not all about you. Winkelvi ( talk) 14:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

In fact, many of your proposals have been accepted. Not all of them, but that's an unrealistic expectation. When some of your proposals are taken as is and other are rejected, perhaps one could think that each case is taken individually. As I have said already, I am in favor of improvements. Unfortunately, not everything proposed is an improvement. To me, that is reasonable. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 18:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I have protected the article and restored the state it was in on 28 February, which is the most recent version before Winkelvi and Ring Cinema came along reverting each other. If you guys can agree on a different restore point, I'm happy to restore that version, because I did see some evidence of collaboration amid the warring.

Otherwise, use the talk page to work out an agreement on content. Revert warring and arguing in edit summaries is disruptive, and unacceptable to the Wikipedia project. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 18:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I wasn't aware there was a problem currently. Winkelvi's last edit incorporated all my suggestions. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 18:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Amatulic: You protected the article? Why? Seems to be a bit of overkill to me. Do administrators often go around reverting articles to weeks back and then lock them down? As Ring cinema said, there's no longer any disagreement. More importantly, by reverting so far back, you've now done what's not supposed to be done: restored faulty and erroneous content to a BLP. Not trying to be rude, but, that seems counterproductive as well as stupid. Winkelvi ( talk) 02:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Why? Because (a) I saw a 3RR notice on Ring Cinema's talk page, (b) I saw edit warring in the article, (c) I saw ZERO discussion on this talk page since last December, and (d) when discussion was finally initiated, I saw snarky, unproductive comments bordering on personal attacks in the section immediately above. The article was reasonably stable before all this happened, so it made sense to revert back to the last stable version, offering, as I did above, to restore to a different point.

Because you agree the current version prior to protection was adequate for continuing, I will unprotect and restore to that point. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 04:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Makes sense to me. Thanks for your help. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 13:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Ditto. Winkelvi ( talk) 13:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I have updated the article with the fact that Coppola is an Italian-American. If anyone has a problem with this please discuss rather then just deleting it as it is becoming increasingly more apparent that the English speaking peoples of wikipedia are hell bent on dominating the cultural landscape of America. Datus ( talk) 21:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't see what the need for that is at all. Jordancelticsfan ( talk) 21:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply

If one is researching Italian-Americans, yes, it is important. Let's keep it! Gingermint ( talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

FFC writes about his Italian family in the IHT's weekly: Back to Bernalda by Francis Ford Coppola, T ( International Herald Tribune Style Magazine), December 8, 2012. Asteriks ( talk) 19:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply

In that case, add the fact that he's Italian-American (deleted by some trolls ever since 2007). Here some sources: The studio’s production chief, Robert Evans, approached several directors--including Sergio Leone and Costa Gavras--about The Godfather before hiring the relatively unknown Francis Ford Coppola, who was only 31 years old at the time. As an Italian American himself, Coppola strove to make the film an authentic representation of the time period and the culture http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/francis-ford-coppolas-the-godfather-opens

•Among the many Italian Americans in Hollywood is the legendary father-and-son team of Carmine and Francis Ford Coppola, who won four Oscars in 1975 for The Godfather, Part II. Carmine, who was a flautist for Arturo Toscanini, composed the soundtrack and Francis, who first won an Oscar for Patton, directed the film. http://www.niaf.org/research/contribution.asp

Other links http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+SJ155 http://www.everyculture.com/multi/Ha-La/Italian-Americans.html etc. -- Karanko ( talk) 16:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I have just done so, although I am wondering why you did not –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard|— 21:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Gareth, because it is useless. As you can see, someone deleted your changes too. Maybe the same trolls. Karanko ( talk) 14:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I think we might try to find a compromise. I am sympathetic to both positions because Coppola is first an American, as American as there is. From that perspective, he shouldn't be pigeonholed as Italian-American; in our cultural context this might seem to be an effort to diminish his work as not fully American. On the other hand, he clearly comes from a cultural milieu informed by a heritage of Italians in America, and it is good to recognize the accomplishments of this group. So, let's try a little bit to recognize without the other implication. My suggestion is that in the lede we identify him by nationality only and later take up the effect of the film as an issue of Italian culture in the United States as told by one of their own. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 18:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Coppola is Italian-American, I already cited some reliable sources (see NIAF). About nationality, I let you know that Francis Ford Coppola is honorary citizen of Bernalda (Basilicata, Italy) ever since 1989, where you can see his home, and he has Italian passport too. -- Karanko ( talk) 07:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC) reply

http://www.niaf.org/news/news_monthly/2005/october_2005.asp?print=1& http://lifestyle.tiscali.it/sposi/articoli/2011/matrimoni_celebri/sofia_coppola.html?matrimoni_celebri http://www.nunzioalfredodangieri.com/en/articoli/s-e-nunzio-alfredo-dangeri-somewhere/

No one is disputing that. He is an American and an Italian-American. So, for the reasons I mentioned, it would be good to find a compromise of some kind. Is there another compromise proposal? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 09:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC) reply

What compromise? This is a sterile debate. He has double citizenship with the U.S. and Italy, so he's Italian-American! It is clear to me. -- Karanko ( talk) 07:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure how much is gained by saying that both sides can't be understood. I understand both sides, I think, and don't agree that only one side is legitimate or accurate. Coppola's identification as an American filmmaker is well-founded, since citizenship is only one aspect of that. Checking his birth, his upbringing, residence, place of work, where he founded his business, where he raised his family, I see that all are American. His films all have American settings and themes. All of Coppola's films are foreign films to Italians. All of that is not overridden by his second passport. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 14:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Ring Cinema, movies like Black Stallion, The Godfather etc where made in Italy too (Sardinia, Rome, Sicily and so on), he has residence in Italy (Bernalda), where he spent a lot of time (also, his daughter's marriage took place there), and even his own business (Palazzo Margherita is one of the most beautiful Luxury Hotels in Italy, and he's the owner). Really, I don't want to polemize, but I want only to be costructive. I showed you the sources, if you don't believe me, contact the NIAF.org and ask them. They know Francis Ford Coppola.

-- Karanko ( talk) 08:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Before I get also described as a troll, and apparently reported to NIAF for 'discrimination' (this was a comment made on IRC)...per WP:OPENPARA, ethnicity should not be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless it is specifically relevant to notability, which in this case it is not. Coppola's ethic background is adequately addressed in the discussion of his family background in the first paragraph of the "Early life" section.

That he acquired Italian citizenship is a trivial detail, which I mentioned in the infobox. In the article body, if anywhere, it should be mentioned at the appropriate place in the "Personal life" section, or "Honors" if it was granted to him in that way (the sources just say he has had an Italian passport since about 2004). He became 'notable' as an American filmmaker, but I removed the word 'American' from the lead since it is no longer 'technically' correct (I'm not atteched to it not being there, though).

I reverted User:Karanko's edit instead of just changing things because it was, to be honest, seriously broken (7 citations, including duplicates, in a 2 sentence opening paragraph, punctuation between inline cites, etc.). For the lead of a B-class article, it was totally unacceptable.

Karanko, please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith (specifically, do not describe other editors as trolls) and do not continue to 'edit war' in the article about this issue. The discussion belongs here until (if) a consensus is established that your changes are appropriate, and, if that is established, given your admission that you have been trying to make the same changes under different (lost) usernames for years and it has repeatedly been changed back, you are not the person who should be making the change if consensus is established that it is appropriate. Revent ( talk) 09:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Revent, agree with you, I was tired and reacted badly to your/ring cinema answers, sorry for that, but you must consider that the ethnic group is fundamental, and drives you directly to the Italian-American page, and wikipedia doesn't say that you cannot write it in the lead. Also, it is not an effort to diminish Coppola's work as not fully American, nor I wrote that he became notable as an Italian-American'.

I never wrote something like that. But he is Italian-American, he has dual nationality (and the Italian passport is recognised in EU) and we must accept it. This is a free encyclopedia, and IMHO the sources, the reference materials that I added, enriched the writing. -- Karanko ( talk) 10:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Your points are fine but there are all these other considerations that also count for a lot. I would point out that Coppola is not on Wikipedia's list of Italian film directors so apparently it is well known to Italians that he's not Italian. Now, is he Italian-American? Yes, of course, he is and that belongs in the article at some point. We should be as accurate about this as we can be. To claim that he's as much Italian as he is American is a distortion, not an effort to get things right. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 00:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Where's the distortion? Are you saying that the dual nationality is a lie spread by Niaf? Thanks for your answer. -- Karanko ( talk) 13:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't think that is what he was saying at all... please read the discussion of ethnicity and nationality in biography leads at WP:OPENPARA. The lead is supposed to be a 'summary of who they are any why they became notable'...it is supposed to give basic bio details like birth and death, and a brief description of why the person is notable. Nobody (as far as I can tell) is trying to claim that any of the 'facts' you are stating are incorrect, but merely that they are not especially signifigant to the reason that he became notable, and thus don't belong in the lead. The policy for not mentioning ethnicity in the lead unless is it somehow particularly signifigant to the person's notability is actually directly intended to try to avoid 'edit wars' about a person's ethnicity, some of which have a well-known reputation as examples of "the lamest edit wars of Wikipedia" (that is not /my/ description, such wars, such as the one about whether or not Alexander the Great was Macedonian or Albanian, are widely used as examples).

The fact is all of the directing work that made Coppola famous (The Godfather, Apocaplyse Now, etc.) was done decades before he was given Italian citizenship, when he only had American nationality, and thus that is how he became known, and how he should be described in the lead. The other details of ethnicity and nationality should be mentioned in the body of the article and in the infobox, but not in the lead.

Honestly, you are really starting to verge on the 'disruptive failure to get the point' that could justify an admin banning you from editing this article at all. By your own admission, you have been trying to make this change for an extremely long time.....when multiple editors, over a long period, change it back, that is NOT 'trolling'....it is a fairly express demonstration of consensus. The 'consensus' about WP:OPENPARA is /very/ widespread....similar changes have been removed from a LOT of bios. Really, you're not going to win this. Sorry. Revent ( talk) 20:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I think it is questionable to describe his nationality as Italian. Citizenship and nationality are not the same thing. Since Coppola's culture is Italian-American, it seems a stretch to say he's Italian. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 00:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Kinda a matter of the technicality...what I pointed out somewhere about the source just saying he had an Italian passport, and not giving specific details. (in some countries, though I don't know specifically about Italy, you can have a passport without actually being a citizen) Honestly, I kinda classed the detail of him being a 'national' as just opposed to having a passport as the kind of 'trivial noncontroversial biographical detail in an infobox' that can be used until someone actually disputes it....reasonable interpretation of the source, IMO. Trying to explain that he has a passport but might not actually be a national would kinda be giving undue weight to what I think is a remote possibility, and if he is an Italian national it should be in the infobox.

Either way, more of a 'consensus of opinion' than a 'this is right and this is wrong thing'...not in the category of 'explicitly against policy' or 'defamation in a BLP' or (hopefully) 'silly edit war bait'. (opinions instead of reverts, hint hint) :P

FWIW, the 'rfc bio' was cause this is a high priority Biog, and since this has apparently a back-and-forth thing an expression of consensus here might be a goodness and prevent this from dragging on in slow motion. (It is somewhat possible that my impression of his ethnicity being irrelevant to his notability is actually against consensus, though I doubt it. I didn't actually try to 'count references' to see if his ethnicity was mentioned in the majority of the sources or not.) Revent ( talk) 04:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Being a national, a person's nationality, one's citizenship, and then ethnicity are four different things, even though obviously they overlap frequently. Citizenship is a legal matter closely related to the matter of who are a state's nationals (those who claim allegiance to it), nationality is tied to cultural identity (and often thought probably erroneously as congruent with citizenship), ethnicity is about racial characteristics (although the word is sometimes used in the same way as nationality because of the significant overlap). Coppola's citizenship is American and Italian, his nationality is at least American and maybe Italian-American, and ethnically we might be a little bit short of the facts on how to categorize him. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 10:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply

About nationality and citizenship, read carefully: US State Department Services Dual Nationality - The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Coppola has the Italian passport, and if you want an Italian passport, you must have Italian nationality (or citizenship, if you prefer). Coppola was helped by Ambassador S.E. Nunzio Alfredo D’Angieri, that writes: I also recall that I helped him with the formalities to get an Italian passport: he is very keen to remember his origins. Ethnicity is not about racial characteristics (races do not exist biologically, read Cavalli-Sforza et al., please), and when we talk about Italian-Americans, we mean the United States citizens of Italian ancestry. -- Karanko ( talk) 13:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

The first point is irrelevant to the discussion here, as it contradicts nothing anyone else has said. Maybe you are trying to say that nationality is an identity with citizenship but that is just a mistake -- there are exceptions. Similarly, it is incorrect to say that ethnicity is not related to race (even if race is ersatz), but for this discussion it doesn't matter either way. Ethnicity is separate from groupings like nationality, citizenship, race, culture, etc. No problem either way. Coppola's ethnicity is not our subject. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 04:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC) reply

It is not irrelevant. It comes from the Bureau of the Consular Affairs - US Department of State and contradicts your personal opinion about the concept of citizenship/nationality. About ethnicity, you mentioned it. Please, remember that wikipedia is not a forum, and we cannot reach any "compromise" over Coppola. We must consider the sources, not personal viewpoints. -- Karanko ( talk) 22:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Tracymacl ( talk) 04:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)I made a solely grammatical correction below to the section noted above. I append the previous and edited versions below. Because I don't fully understand the nature of all the editing links and keys in the editing process - nor if they remain intact copying and pasting them between an Open Office document and Wikipedia - I've made the edit and ignored the guidelines' suggestion that edits be discussed on the talk page first. I think it's better grammatically, but still needs work. Because of Wikipedia's warning about multiple edits burdening the server however, I have neglected to make them. reply

Original

The Conversation (1974) Main article: The Conversation Coppola's next film, The Conversation, further cemented his position as one of the most talented auteurs of Hollywood.[33] The movie was partly influenced by Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blowup (1966)[34] and generated a lot of speculation and interest when news leaked that the film utilized the very same surveillance and wire-tapping equipment that members of the Nixon administration used to spy on political opponents prior to the Watergate scandal. Although Coppola insisted that this was purely coincidental, for not only was the script for The Conversation completed in the mid-1960s (before the election of Richard Nixon), but the spying equipment used in the film was discovered through research and the use of technical advisers and not, as many believed, by revelatory newspaper stories about the Watergate break-in. However, the audience interpreted the film to be a reaction to both the Watergate scandal and its fall-out. The movie was a critical success and won Coppola his first Palme d'Or at the 1974 Cannes Film Festival. The Conversation (1974) Main article: The Conversation

Edited

Coppola's next film, The Conversation, further cemented his position as one of the most talented auteurs of Hollywood. ^[1] The movie was partly influenced by Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blowup (1966) ^[2] and generated a lot of speculation and interest when news leaked that the film utilized the very same surveillance and wire-tapping equipment that members of the Nixon administration used to spy on political opponents prior to the Watergate scandal. Coppola insisted that this was purely coincidental. The script for The Conversation, was completed in the mid-1960s (before the election of Richard Nixon); the spying equipment used in the film was developed through research and use of technical advisers. Not, as many believed ^{citation needed}, by revelatory newspaper stories about the Watergate break-in. However, the audience interpreted the film to be a reaction to both the Watergate scandal and its fall-out. The movie was a critical success and Coppola won his first Palme d'Or at the 1974 Cannes Film Festival.

Can anyone tell me what this Wikipedia instruction means? remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( Tracymacl ( talk) 04:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)). Please email me at tracymacl@yahoo.com ; especially where you're supposed to type them ; I've just copied and pasted them from the link beneath this post; not sure if that's correct. Tracymacl ( talk) 04:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Here is the diff of your edit, that is, the difference between what was there before and what you changed. The largest change is that you placed a fact tag template challenging the bit about "many" people who supposedly believe the spying equipment shown in the film was based on Watergate. That's a fair challenge. Perhaps there is a source which supports this statement; perhaps not. I bet the assertion will be removed as unsupportable.

Another point in your change is that you said the spying equipment was "developed" as opposed to "discovered". This is a debatable point: was the gear already in existence somewhere, or was it created/developed for the film? Perhaps there are pieces of gear which existed previously, and also pieces of gear which were invented for the film.

Others of your changes were not much of an improvement. For instance, the word "Not" is awkward leading off a sentence. Here is another example with the original text in green and your change in red:

• The movie was a critical success and won Coppola his first Palme d'Or at the 1974 Cannes Film Festival.
• The movie was a critical success and Coppola won his first Palme d'Or at the 1974 Cannes Film Festival.

The first version retains "the movie" as the subject, so the reading flow is smoother. The second version tacks on a second sentence with Coppola as the subject. Binksternet ( talk) 04:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

This article may need to be reasessed, as it's using the IMDb as a reliable source for quite a few claims, including IMDb trivia, which is basically the absolute worst and most unreliable aspect of the entire site. See WP:RS/IMDB for details. I'm surprised an article made it to B class with this many citations to the IMDb. I removed a few citations to astro.com, which is not a reliable source. See WP:RSN for a discussion on this site. Someone with more patience than me needs to audit the rest of these 100+ sources. As it stands, I'm sorely tempted to demote this article to C class, but I figure that I'll raise the issue here first. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 16:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Wrong. It's 9. /info/en/?search=Ken_Loach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvsh5 ( talk • contribs) 12:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I am unqualified to make changes thus I am announcing this so someone else can enact the change. You will thank me for being a man who knows his limitations, instead of mucking things up.

The very top section, regarding the first Godfather movie, contains: "a film (...) winning three Academy Awards—including his second Oscar (Best Adapted Screenplay, with Mario Puzo), Best Picture, and his first nomination for Best Director."

It's confusing/illogical. That first sounds like it won 3 awards, yet on second read, maybe it's 2 plus a nomination. Only the first of the 2 is Coppola's, so why is the second win even there, unless you list the third win (Brando)? I suspect that was the original intent of the sentence.

Furthermore, the quoted phrase is describing the film's achievements, not Coppola's. Thus it may cause a confused reader double-take; it did for me. The leadoff says the film won 3, then it looks like it is listing Coppola awards and nominations. Thus I initially thought Coppola won Best Picture (which is an even easier trap to fall into, since on the sequel, Coppola in fact did win Best Picture as its producer. He wasn't even nominated for Best Picture for the first Godfather, because he wasn't the producer).

There are numerous ways to restructure it. Here's one way, which removes "second Oscar" which I believe is redundant and hurts the flow (more on that below):

"winning three Academy Awards—Best Adapted Screenplay (Coppola, shared with Mario Puzo), Best Picture (producer Albert S. Ruddy) , and Best Actor (Marlon Brando). Coppola also earned his first nomination, for Best Director."

Changing as such also flows with preceding and succeeding text. However, keep reading.

Removing "second Oscar" has a bonus benefit, because each of Coppola's first 3 screenplay Academy Awards had different names so saying "second" could convey a repeat win in the same category. His first was an original screenplay (for Patton), his second was "Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium" (for Godfather, shared with Puzo), and his third was "Best Writing, Screenplay Adapted From Other Material" (for the sequel). The Academy retitled the "adapted" award between 1973 and 1975.

So technically, in 1973 the Academy did not give a screenplay award with the word "Adapted" so that may deserve a tweak as well. How about:

"winning three Academy Awards—a screenplay award (Coppola, shared with Mario Puzo), Best Picture (producer Albert S. Ruddy) , and Best Actor (Marlon Brando). Coppola also earned his first nomination, for Best Director." 24.27.72.99 ( talk) 09:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

In the following description, the profession of Francis Ford Coppola's father Carmine is given incorrectly as "flatulist". The word should be "flautist" or "flutist".

"Coppola was born in Detroit, Michigan, to father Carmine Coppola (1910–1991),[6] a flatulist with the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, and mother Italia Coppola (née Pennino; 1912–2004)."

FYI from Wikipedia: [A] musician who plays any instrument in the flute family can be called a flutist (pronounced "FLEW-tist", most common in the US),[8] or flautist (pronounced "FLAW-tist", most common in the UK)

[A] flatulust as a professional farter is an entertainer (sometimes considered a comedian) whose routine consists solely or primarily of passing gas in a creative, musical, or amusing manner.

2601:646:897F:D02C:8005:B3E6:1B0F:58D5 ( talk) 06:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I would say that for such a great person in the film industry a list of awards and nominations (which of course might not be too easy after such a long career) is definitely missing. -- SamWinchester000 ( talk) 02:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

There was a completely unsourced page for the lifestyle brand. That now redirects to this page.

I didn't see anything that needed to be merged, but if anyone else wants to take a look here's that page's last version.

-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 03:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply