Talk:Gotti (1996 film)

message: Why is this page so horrendously worded? I've tried to fix a bit of it, but I don't have sufficient time to do so. It really needs to be fixed, though. It's such a mess. The writing just seems to float around the topic and jump to something else two seconds later without giving a care in the world about the first point of discussion. There are about three or four random points that either need to be elaborated on or edited out and replaced with actually useful information. Right now, it just reads like some random person who just started using a computer spitting out trivia about the Mafia. Editing this is pretty much mandatory. I'll help but I need someone with more time on his/her hands. Someone please get on that! :] It's much appreciated. ISAYsorry 01:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terribly written

message: I've blocked this page from persitant vandals.SpecialAgentUncleTito 15:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: :Image:Gotti DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Gotti DVD.jpg

message: Both of these reports have the name of the film as simply Gotti. --Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 02:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move news 

message: User:Vaselineeeeeeee reverted  that added Franzese's view on the authenticity (accuracy) of the film. First per "WP:YOUTUBE", then per "Franzese is not a film ciritc.". Franzese is not a film critic, but he was a caporegime in one of the five major New York City organized crime families of the Italian American Mafia. If we allow a claim by TV Guide that it's "too inaccurate for enthusiasts", surely Franzese is at least as reliable when he claims it's "about as accurate a movie as you're going to see". What the fu ck do film critics know about how (in)accurately films portray mob life? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this here. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Critical reception  This means commentators such as Franzese are not considered notable to a film's critical reception, let alone having oral sources from YouTube which are not of reliable quality. I get it, he's a former mobster who likes to review film and TV, and has inside knowledge of how the life works, but this does not mean his opinions are encyclopedic. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Professional film critics are reliable sources only when it comes to the critical reception of films. Not when they talk about rocket science, not when they talk about brain surgery, and not when they talk about mob life. A film critic is doing original research when they claim a film's portrayal of mob life would be "too inaccurate for enthusiasts". It's not their area of expertise. As I stated above, Franzese is a reputable commentator and expert—connected to the topics covered by the film. His views are particularly notable given these being at odds with the claim by a film critic who is not a sociologist with a major in mob life studies. The MOS states that print reviews would be more reliable in retrospect, but not than what, nor why; and this, again, is about the critical reception of films. Your claim that "oral sources from YouTube which are not of reliable quality" is not Wikipedia policy. There's nothing wrong with reliable, verifiable, oral sources. And there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. As for his opinions not being "encyclopedic": they don't need to be. We are looking for encyclopedic knowledge about our world, which includes un-encyclopedic opinions. Listen, how about his, I'll add two heading level three's in there, with the first being "Critical response" and the second being "Reaction from mob" (or something along those lines) with Franzese's comments. Sound good? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for offering something of a compromise. However, we should let this discussion play out for a while longer to see more opinion from the community before anything about this topic is added back. I have let the project know about this discussion as well at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Gotti and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Gotti to get a wider response. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Critical reception" section is typically reserved for commentary on the overall reception of a film from an artistic and entertainment point of view. For commentary that zeroes in on a single aspect such as accuracy, many film articles usually go with a entirely different section (e.g., Historical accuracy). In this case, if there's enough content to justify a dedicated section, maybe that will work as a compromise here. However, "Reactions from mob" or something along those lines probably wouldn't work. It would falsely indicate that one or two individuals are speaking on behalf of The Mob as a whole. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

text: The issue I have with the quotes is he praises the film saying it was "brilliantly done" and "about as accurate a movie as you're going to see on that life" but doesn't say how. He wasn't even in that family, he just says he knew a couple of those guys. I don't think WP:FILMHIST applies here because other than "being in that life" Franzese has no connection to the film, its creators, or even the Gambino family as I said. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and one opinion in a section like this would verge on WP:UNDUE. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of elements within that life – language, mannerisms, common practices, etc. – that his insight could provide value on. I don't think it's an automatic exclusion for not being directly involved with the film or failing to have a connection directly to the Gambino family. The similarities that exist throughout that culture coupled with his experience is enough to consider him qualified to some degree for providing an expert opinion. It might be that consensus ultimately decides against its inclusion in this article, but it shouldn't be a knee-jerk reaction based on qualification alone. By the way, the article is pretty short in its current state. I don't think we need to worry too much at this stage about indiscriminate, undue information running rampant. The primary question, in my opinion, is whether or not it should be moved to a different section or subsection altogether. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about the language, mannerisms and common practices aspect. But the problem is is that he doesn’t talk about that stuff in his critique, only that the film was “brilliantly done”. The other problem is that, the article is short, as you pointed out, which means that excessive detail on one man’s opinion, especially if it were in a dedicated section, will be rather slanted for an article of this size. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if he had broken it down further and focused on the lifestyle as opposed to just saying "that life" (referencing Gotti), we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. So you're right, it may be too short and vague of an excerpt to warrant inclusion for an encyclopedic article. I don't feel too strongly about it either way. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Franzese reverts