Talk:Francis Ford Coppola

message: Guttlekraw, I've explained the 3RR to you, so why do you keep violating it?
# 03:02, 14 Apr 2005
#15:26, 13 Apr 2005
#23:59, 12 Apr 2005
#20:43, 12 Apr 2005
#19:21, 12 Apr 2005
--Viriditas  | Talk 11:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 , E! Online , 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). , --Viriditas  | Talk 13:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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.   --Viriditas  | Talk 09:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: References

message: 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.
:# Make the attribution of drug abuse clear, and only connect it to people's assessment of the problems.
:# 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."    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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Another comromise attempt 

message: 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)
replies: text: One various DVD commentaries, Coppola himself pronounces it as COPE-oh-luh.Robbmonster (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Pronunciation?

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: @ 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-JonesThe WelshBuzzard08:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  DSO 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unreliable sources 

message: Wrong. It's 9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Loach  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvsh5 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:   Coppola is one of only eight filmmakers to win two Palme d'Or awards. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Illogical structure describing Academy Award wins 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Embarrassing spelling error 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Awards list 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Francis Ford Coppola Presents page now redirects here