Talk:Al Pacino/Archive 1

Vandalism in filmography?

19:56, 17 November 2006 I added complete filmography table to this article. It was removed almost immediately. Because collecting the list, formating and properly linking the movies takes me several hours, I would like to ask, why this was removed to help me better aim my effort in the future. --Loskutak 10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

pic

i have removed all the images existing in the article and i have replced them with 1 pic that i feel is classic.regarding the removed images,i felt they were out of place.however a great scent of a woman pic would be welcomed. Msreeharsha 20:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

i put back all the images because it portrays his whole career, from the 70s to 90s. i dont think they are out of place since pacino has played many different roles than the godfather and omiting them would be an oversight.

hmmm...ok...cool....but could ne one please load a scent of a woman pic...he won an oscar for that goddamn movie!!!!

written by someone

what about reviews/synopsis of movies? is that out of sync with wikipedia I like how his picture is a mugshot :) How about a real picture - maybe something of him after he became famous Could somebody replace that mugshot with a still of Al from "The Godfather"? After all, that was his big break as well as his most famous role.

"Tufano" vandalism

Note that edits inserting supposed information about "Marc Tufano" are vandalism and should be reverted on sight. This has affected multiple articles (Robert De Niro, The Beatles, etc. etc.) -- Curps 18:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Mugshot

I'm wondering if Pacino's mugshot at 21 is really appropriate for this article. If so, there should be some elaboration as to his alleged crime and past. - AWF

the reason it's being used is that it's free of copyright. Arniep 15:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Pacino is primarily known as an actor as opposed to a criminal (that is to my knowledge), I suggest that we hunt for a more suitable photo which reflects this. Shawnc 08:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The mugshot is inappropriate. Let's find a better picture.-66.254.232.219 05:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I took out the mugshot. If someone wants to put it back, then they should also add information on his arrest. It doesn't really have a place in the article otherwise. TaintedMustard 16:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There's info on his arrest hereherehere The third one provides the most info I think.

This is the page dedicated to his biography and the arrest is one event in his life and nothing to be ashamed of. It tells us more about his passion and determination for acting. I think the picture should be reinstalled, otherwise the page becomes an ordinary fan page. sergeji

The article is not a fan page, nor is it a tabloid. If this had been a life-altering event, or if he had even been charged and prosecuted, then it might, just might be justification for arbitrarily sticking in a 47 year old mugshot. But this does not tell us anything about his passion and determination for acting. It tells us he was carrying around a concealed prop for a production and the police took 3 days to sort it out. If we were to blow this up more than something dumb a guy did when he was 21, and imply by expanding on it that it had some important significance, then that would be sensationalizing an arrest - not a conviction - so he was guilty of nothing. That violates WP:BLP and gives it undue weight. We don't routinely stick in mugshots that are nearly a half century old and was not a notable event in someone's life. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No one inplies it was a dumb thing to do but you. Plus if someone commits a mistake it shows he is a human being like everybody else. A tabloid looks for the dirt, we are writing about his life plus the poor guy spent three days in prison, is that sensationalizing ? This does not tell "you" about his passion and determination for acting: ask anybody who had passion who something and ended up in funny/weird/ situations like this. If you "arbitrarily" judge that something that happened 47 years ago it is not worthy mentioning what you have it is not an article. It's called hagiography.--85.18.81.137 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)sergeji

Look, the arrest is already covered in the article briefly and possibly given undue weight as it is. Wikipedia is not in the habit of including 47 year old mugshots taken at an arrest, which resulted in no charges being filed and the incident being dropped. Including the mugshot is supercilious and would absolutely give undue weight to the event. That it might reflect "passion and determination for acting" is your interpretation of the event. Yes, I said it was a dumb thing to do, but that is neither included in the article, nor is it important. What is important is that he didn't do it again and was never taken to court over it, so it is essentially a non-event in a 50 year period that is more widely important for his acting career. He isn't a criminal, including a mugshot would imply that he is. That would be dirt. Again, the event itself is already in article, we don't publish non-notable mugshots. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is done in order to safeguard Al Pacino's name, feelings, family and reputation, (especially from anybody who enjoys defaming or looks for dirt) then I agree with you.--Sergeji (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Salvatore Pacino

Does anybody have a citation for the fact that Al's father was born in Corleone? Can't seem to find any references to this - a couple of places mention his grandparents coming from there but nothing about his father.

It's in Inside the Actor's Studio episode with Al Pacino. It was not about his father (who is natural born American) but his greatgrandfather. It's not important information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.151.115.9 (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actualy he said it was his grandfather James Gerardi.--85.18.81.137 (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"greatest"

"regarded as one of the greatest in film history" This is removed for lacking citations. Shawnc 12:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Al Pacino in Relationships

Hello,

[ SPAM ] is meant to give the visitor a wide angle view of how Al Pacino handles his relationships in essence and in practice. It also allows the visitors to examine the characteristics of their own relationships with Al Pacino.

Both content and test are based on sound astrological knowledge and research and they gained popularity among web surfers.

I believe that even though Astrology is not considered a mainstream science, these knowledge and compatibility tool should be made available to whoever wishes to study Al Pacino as broadly as possible.

I have no desire to be considered a spammer and I don't want to force [ SPAM ] on the authors of Al Pacino's article.

I ask you, authors of Al Pacino that if you have an objection to placing a link to [ SPAM] in the External Links section, please note it here. Else, I’ll place the link hoping that it would be a valid resource for Al Pacino's fans and researchers.

With appreciation, Midas touch 05:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like the kind of thing that ought to be in an enclyclopedia. (82.35.165.216 00:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

This Midas guy has spammed numerous Wiki bio articles, and his links on these talk pages are spam. I removed them from the alec baldwin article and they should be removed from every talk page he has spammed. I'm deleting them from this one now Mr Christopher 22:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Entry a little too gushy

Was this written by his agent? This entry seems to heap on the praise a little too thickly. There should be some regard to Pacino's complete late of subtlety in his more recent performances -- he's become a cartoon of himself. And it's not like he hasn't had his share of flops either. Gigli? Simone? City Hall? Cruising? There was also a huge six year gap in his career in the 80s where he only made one movie between Scarface and Sea of Love. --Navstar 12:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agnostic?

is that a joke or what? from where does that come from?

Odd edits recently ...

Dear 71.109.27.88; Why did you remove the initial synopsis? I see you merged some of its content with the following paragraph, but it no longer follows common layout guidelines for a biographical wiki. Just curious. And a couple of the new links (Citrus??) are weak, but those may have been there before you modified it.

oh sorry, citrus is a place in california, i live around there that's why. i guess i didnt check it.

Happily bottom-posted and signed,

Dondello 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hein

"Pacino suffered from a throat disorder in the mid-1980s which forced to him stop smoking cigarettes. Notice in Sea of Love, he sounded noticibly different, featuring his now-famous dark, owly eyes and hoarse, deep voice."

"Stopped a 2-pack-a-day smoking habit in 1994 to protect his voice. He now only occasionally smokes herbal cigarettes. "

so umm, last I checked, 1994 wasn't in the mid-1980s.. unless the throat disorder only made him stop in '94? Lovok 12:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Main Picture

This article needs a new main picture of Pacino, as people are too thick headded to see what movie its really from (The Godfather), and what movie its not from (Scarface).

The caption for his picture in the boxout says it is a shot from "Heat", but I'm almost completely certain this is incorrect. I've seen "Heat" at least ten times, and that isn't even how he looks in the movie. Evanturner 11:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, note that, by [{Wikipedia:Fair use#Couterexamples]] item #7, this article should use a free image, and not a screenshot as the main picture. --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Discipline"

-cleaned up misspellings and bad grammar. edited sentence structure in a few places to improve ease of readability. Added the comment on "Heat". generally tried to glisten it up a little. Stevewk 00:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

-minor touch-up. Stevewk 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

The trivia section repeats a lot of the information earlier in the piece and it states things that may be semi interesting, but more seem like padding. Any objections to weeding this section down? Pnkrockr 17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No objection at all, it takes more than one screen space and there is lots of fancruft in there. Lincher 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

- added "Me, Natalie" snippet; echo trivia cleanup...to your heart's content. Stevewk 19:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

-repositioned the "Heat" photo, it looks like, successfully. Stevewk 19:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy trivia, Batman!

Let's cut this section down to size, it's larger than most articles, and while some of it is interesting, alot of it is absolutely useless fan-cruft, and unencyclopedic Zerak-Tul 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Grobel's 2006 book

-added mention of above under "Personal Life." Stevewk 16:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dead?

There are no sources claiming he is dead. Either someone is having a little fun, or this is news. Can someone verify?

FUCK YOU! PACINO WILL NEVER DIE!--Tainted Drifter 05:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

2nd Greatest of All Time

Pacino's the 2nd best of all time. De Niro is the first. They each have so many classic movies.--Tainted Drifter 05:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Al used to date actress Jill Clayburgh

When in Boston during late 72 or 73, he was playing at the Circle Theater (I think) in either Arturo Ui or the Basic Training of Pavlo Hummel. Regardless after the play, I waited for him to exit the theatre so that I could get his autograph (which I did) and Jill was with him then. There was some written interest about their relationship during that time but it seems as though that has been completely dropped from his past as has his relationship(s) with Diane Keaton. Just wanted to point these out for those who truly want to know as much about the man as possible.

Godfather The Game

Alright so the Godfather: tHE GAME page states Al Pacino turned down the role because he objected the fact the movie was being made along with the director of TG. However this article states he turned it down because his voice changed, so which is it? --Elven6 21:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Whole thing with the godfather game is Bullcrap!!!!! I think he should have just done the stupid game! It would have been much better! Michael Corleone only has a few lines anyway!

"Inches Speech from ANY GIVEN SUNDAY"

"Inches Speech from ANY GIVEN SUNDAY" - deserves a mention, don't you think? Probably the best speech from a sports movie. Arguably one of the greatest movie speeches ever. It was that good and captured the essence of the genius that is Al Pacino !

what do u all think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.105.124.181 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Picasso?

Is there a reason he's called Picasso under the pictures and in some of the text? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deathugee (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I've tried editing some.But the more I edit,it looks like the Picasso keeps appearing.216.76.204.41 02:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Pacino Arrested in 1961

In 1961, Pacino was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, but the charges were later dropped. He told the police he was on his way to an acting job and needed the weapon for the skit. He was 21-years-old when this mug shot was taken.

link:http://crime.about.com/library/blpacinoal.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.199.253.206 (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Deletion of "The Godfather films in popular culture" under consideration

Fans of The Godfather may wish to participate in the AfD debate concerning whether the article The Godfather films in popular culture, which was spun off from this article to keep it from being too unwieldy, should be deleted. That debate can be found here. The article in question provides a place for people to note instances which illustrate the continuing influence of The Godfather and its sequels on films, TV shows and other popular culture media. Ed Fitzgerald 00:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Manhattan or Havana?

Where was he born? --Cantalamessa 22:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the article is inconsistent with the infobox in regards to whether it's Manhattan or the Bronx.--Rajah 07:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In the current edition of Entertainment Weekly (week of 04/14/08, with Tina Fey on the cover), it states that he was born in Bronx, NY. 24.189.35.249 (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Inside the Actors Studio

Has any information from his appearance on the above been added to the article? I couldn't see any reference to it. For example, during the interview he says began as a stand-up comic in The Village. - Dudesleeper · Talk 01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Exellent S1m0ne Main pic

Well done, perfection.

Fair use rationale for Image:Serpico .jpg

Image:Serpico .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 this Wikipedia article 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 04:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Replacement for main picture

The current main picture lacks a source, it merely states that it's a fan photo from the S1m0ne set, but the photographer isn't mentioned. I found this picture on Flickr which can be used for free (when properly sourced and reframed slightly). Has anybody any objections against this, or knows of a better picture, or the source of the current one? mensch • t 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont like it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Desiganmer (talk • contribs).

I'm sure you don't like it, because you're the uploader of said picture and even commented on this talk page to complement the inclusion of it... But since the S1m0ne picture is not free, doesn't have a rationale and is attributed as a fan picture – falsely I believe, because of the quality of the picture. Because there are no other objections I'm going to replace it with the Flickr one. mensch • t 11:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I object. Desiganmer (talk

I don't see how photo quality is proof that it's not a fan photo. Given that i haven't seen it elsewhere, I'm inclined to believe it is ,until proof (not suspicion) is found that it's not usable. Quite frankly, the 'fan photo' is a much nicer image. Yankee.doodle.666 00:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The current photo is unusable, because it isn't sourced, see the notice on the image page itself. The image should either be attributed correctly and get a fair use rationale, or be replaced with something else. It doesn't matter whether it's a nice picture or not, legally speaking this image can't be used in the article right now. mensch • t 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the proof you wanted. The image is a cropped image taken from iMDB, which is not a free source. Picture is here. mensch • t 00:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats AL in what, 2005/04 when that movie was made. Not 2007.

Pacino Playing Dali

Is it just me or did someone else hear that Al was going to step into legendary painter Salvador Dali's shoes in the upcoming film "Dali and I: The surreal story". the film is set for a 2007 release.

Confirmed bachelor ?

The phrase "confirmed bachelor" used to be a code for homosexual, which I don't think was meant here. Unless he has regularly stated that he does not believe in the institution of marriage (and even then, the fact he has had several long term girlfriends makes the term blurred), I am not sure that we can say anything apart from just report that he never married. -- Beardo 03:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rivaly with Dustin Hoffman

His rivalry with fellow Oscar winner Dustin Hoffman is well documented

I pulled this from his personal life, what's up? they don't get along?

Vandalism

Someone has vandalised the section under the sub-head 80s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.0.52 (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewording of Oceans 13 mention and recent box office.

"With his box office earnings relatively modest of late, Pacino looks to be gearing up with several new projects. He starred in Steven Soderbergh’s Ocean's Thirteen alongside George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, and Andy Garcia as the villain Willy Bank, a casino tycoon who is targeted out of revenge by Danny Ocean and his crew."

Given that this movie earned over $100 million in the U.S. alone, the first sentence is clearly inaccurate. If noone objects, i will edit the paragraph to be less opinionated and innacurate. (I'll wait a week for replies)125.238.124.197 05:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Total Earnings

i was wondering if anyone knows what his total lifetime earnings are from his movies? i know its high but i want to know how high —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.244.251 (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest movies

Just made a minor change to the statement saying that the movie "88 Minutes" is going to be released in 2008. This is true for the US, although it is known that it has already been released in many other areas in the year of 2007; so, I adjusted the wording to make it more accurate. --Wnb0518 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scarface Ae1q2.jpg

Image:Scarface Ae1q2.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Relationships without references

I was just wondering if anyone knew if he has had a relationship with an African American woman in the past? I wonder; is he interested in dating women of other nationalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.187.0 (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just deleted a paragraph from the "Personal Life" section where a number of Pacino's romantic relationships were mentioned. Unfortunately none of them had references of any kind, so they need to go according to policy on biographies of living people. I acknowledge that his relationships may be notable (and most of what I deleted is probably true), but without references from reliable sources misinformation or libel could sneak in. My edit removing this content is here. If you can provide references for any specific relationships, please re-add them with appropriate citations. BlckKnght (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the details of that paragraph were incorrect (for instance, he dated Clayburgh from '65-'72, not '70-'75 according to Andrew Yules Pacino biography "life on the wire", so its removal was certainly warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.182.58 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scarface Ae1q2.jpg

Image:Scarface Ae1q2.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 this Wikipedia article 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest this page is temporarily locked

Some idiot keeps putting death notices on here.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.120.136 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure he's not right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.109.104 (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Critic

On the series The Critic Al Pacino is featured constantly saying "Hoo-Ha", what movie are they referencing? Sarujo (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Scent of a Woman --85.18.81.137 (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Aressted when was 21 year old?

Ive noticed a little mistake: if he was arrested on January 7, 1961, he was 20 years old (he has birthsday in April... haha)

Serpico : salary

I saw that some sites report that he was paid only 15.000 dollars for Serpico. Impossible that he got paid less than in The Godfather. Could it be 150.000 ? Does anybody know better ? Sergeji

I'd like to know who checks the article and rewrite it deleting referenced facts _ thanks! _ sergeji --85.18.81.137 (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No one deletes referenced facts. When you started expanding this article, you were asked to provide sources for a large amount of content that you added or it would be removed. You gave general homepage links for specific facts that in no way assisted anyone in finding exactly where you got that information. The last editing that was done on the article actually combined repeated references into a combined one, which attributed them all to the same repeated source. That's standard referencing style. Some of the information was superfluous, sources considered unreliable were removed, usage of peacock words and terms were removed. Words and phrases like "considered to be one of the greatest and most influential actors of his time", "unfortunately", and content about Diane Keaton's opinion of his face were removed because of the inappropriateness of it. Anyone can edit the article and anyone can remove unsourced or poorly sourced facts and fluff. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)--Sergeji (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

general homepage links : it took me a while to put the full address/link but then i succeeded. It was not me who used peacock words and terms or put "about Diane Keaton's opinion of his face" but why 'unfortunately' is an inappropriate word ? sergeji--Sergeji (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that you in particular added those words and phrases, I only said that the last edit to the page removed those and explained why. The use of the word "unfortunately" implies a value judgment to it, which we are discouraged from using as it is considered a weasel word that conveys an opinion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But if you use it in a sentence like this: "unfortunately the play was not successful" or "unfortunately the play was panned by the critics" ? sergeji--Sergeji (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Expressly in sentences like that. It conveys an opinion regarding the success or the panning by critics. Such sentences without the use of the "unfortunately" are fine, with attribution. An article should be written as neutrally as possible and "unfortunate" isn't a neutral word. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, now i got it: only neutral referenced facts! May I ask 'you' something ? I'm new to Wikipedia and they told me there's no administrator for this article but it looks like you are checking everything and make sure that everything follows the site rules: do you work for wikipedia or you do it for hobby ? Sorry for asking: just out of curiosity. I'm trying to understand how it works. And there's a way to know how many people contribute to an article ? sergeji--Sergeji (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no adminstrators assigned to individual articles, and actually, even administrators are volunteers. You'll likely not find a paid employee generally editing articles, they are involved in the business side of the venture. Everyone here edits as a volunteer. This is one of about 275 articles on my watchlist. To add an article to your watchlist, just click on "Watch" at the top of the article. Then to see the recent changes to your watchlist, click that link. To see the list of people editing an article, you just need to click the "History" tab on the top of the article's page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Sergeji (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Unclear part about Pachino or De Niro's high school

The article reads: "His father moved to Covina, California, working as an insurance salesman and owner of his own restaurant called Pacino's Lounge, which closed down in 1992. Pacino attended a school officially named The School of Performing Arts: A Division of the Fiorello H La Guardia High School of Music and the Arts in New York City, the main school of which was attended by fellow Godfather II actor Robert De Niro.[8] But, he flunked nearly all of his classes except English and he dropped out of school at the age of seventeen".

- My question is who is the "he". Is it Deniro who dropped out or Pacino? This should be written more clearly. I suggest not beginning the sentence with the word "But". ````

I put Pacino's name to make things clear (just for the record: they both dropped out)--Sergeji (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Vanity Fair March 2009: The Godfather Wars by by Mark Seal

On the Vanity Fair March 2009 issue there is an article by Mark Seal called The Godfather Wars. It tells more or less stories that have been already reported by Harlen Lebo on his book 'The Godfather Legacy' with some interesting photos taken on the set. But more interesting are the photographs of Pacino and Lettieri. Apparently Al Lettieri (who played Virgil 'The Turk' Sollozzo in The Godfather) helped Pacino with the Italian dialogue. http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/03/godfather-family200903 --85.18.81.137 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Schatzberg : "The Panic in needle Park"

The film "The Panic in Needle Park" was screened at the Film Forum in New York City on January 30,2009. After the screening the film director Jerry Schatzberg said that the producers did not want Pacino because they considered him too old for the role. On Time Out New York magazine Issue 695 (Jan 22–28, 2009), Schatzberg recalls the casting of the film: "I read the script very fast and couldn’t get with it, turned it down. But my business manager told me that Al Pacino was interested. I’d seen Al four years earlier onstage. He was so different—so dynamic. I related to him. You know, we come from different parts of the Bronx, but there’s still Bronx in both of us. And I thought, Boy, if I ever did a film, that’s the guy. So I said, “Wait a second, I gotta read this again.” Luckily, they gave me a second chance, but the producers didn’t want Pacino. Hated him. I told them that he was the whole reason I was back. They asked me to go through the process of casting, which we did. Robert De Niro came in to read, not that I actually considered him. He was great, sure, but I had already made up my mind. De Niro could play the part; Pacino was the part." http://www.filmforum.org/films/panic.html --85.18.81.137 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of his picture from 88 Minutes

I don't think this pic should be deleted. This shows how a recent Pacino looks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.231.32.248 (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a copyright violation. We are not allowed to just pick up photos off the internet and put them up here, there are laws that prohibit that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Laughton?

the article suggests that the Charlie Laughton that taught Pacino acting was the famous actor Charles Laughton? Is that so, Charles Laughton died in 1962 in Hollywood at age 63, so was he really the man who was young Pacino's best friend? Not likelyTom Cod (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, someone stuck the wikilink to Charles Laughton in that quote. Pacino had a friend and teacher at the HB Studio named Charlie Laughton. They weren't the same person. I removed the link. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the greatest actors of all time.

With all due respect this is a very important subject that matter us most.Al Pacino is one of the greatest actors of all time and the sources say that. THE SOURCES IS NOT SAYING HE IS THE BEST BUT THEY ARE SAYING THAT HE IS ONE OF THE BEST.THANKS http://www.channel4.com/film/newsfeatures/microsites/M/moviestars/results/results_05_01.jsp http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/entertainment/1710770.stm http://www.the-top-tens.com/lists/greatest-actors.asp http://www.best100actors.com/ http://movies.toptenreviews.com/actors/list_all_time_male_actor.htm

Ok this is the sources.Please note that CHANNEL4 and BBC are world wide known media.So have faith in them.And I bring no offence in this article.So help me.Best of luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.8.2 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Matter us most? I'm not sure what you're saying. It matters to you the most? That's POV. It doesn't matter most to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. "One of the greatest actors of all time" is a subjective viewpoint and the fact is, there are at least 200 actor articles on Wikipedia that want to make that claim and at that point, it becomes a non-notable opinion. Actually, this is specious material and not encyclopedic. On the surface, Channel4 may be world wide known, but it does not mean that viewer polls conducted by them reflect world wide views. BBC is only reporting the results from a Channel4 poll, so it isn't a separate source. I removed the Premiere magazine source because one cannot access the webpage anymore to even see what it says. The other three links you give are not to any types of sources that are considered reliable. In fact, it isn't clear who operates them. They are also all online voting polls, which are not scientific. For example, you and your friends could sit there and vote for Al Pacino all day which would skew the results and not reflect true opinion. One can't even manage to spell "Joaquin Pheonix" correctly. Most importantly, three different editors have concluded this isn't proper content and you have persisted in pushing your POV against consensus. There is no need to provide sources and references for anything. This is undue weight and POV and must be removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Again folks, this is not objective, nor is it part of any summary of the article. We do know what a summary means, and the personal attacks in your edit summaries are policy violations. Please try to understand that the Premiere magazine link is dead. It cannot be verified, therefore it cannot be used. I did not say that Channel4 is not a reliable source, I said that a viewer poll conducted online from a British based site does not reflect a world view and I said that such polls are not scientific and it cannot be ascertained how many times one person and his friends could vote and influence the outcome. I also have concerns about 2 nearly new registered accounts suddenly pop up to revert the same content as the IP. I suspect that a sock puppet investigation might show that they are all the same person. Since none of you can be bothered to discuss this here and only edit war against the opinions of 3 separate editors, I will take this to WP:AN/I for investigation. Your behavior is inappropriate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Wildhartlivie. -Falcon8765 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

sold body for money

Not sure how to work this in[1] but it would seem to be a noteworthy part of this esteemed actor's life. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It depends. It's been 50 years since that happened. Was it something that helped establish him as an actor of note? It's a gossip column taking items from another gossip column. Does it say he was a prostitute? No, it says he had sex with an older woman in exchange for food and housing. Is that any different from a lot of other struggling persons at some point in their lives? Maybe not. I'm hesitant to think this is notable enough to include here and isn't something that will pass with myriad other incidents in someone's life. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Filmography spin-off

Is there sufficient justification to spin off the filmography (size 6052 bytes) that contains complete filmography, roles and awards won from an article that is only 26,260 bytes total?

An editor took it upon himself to spin off the filmography from this article to a separate one, creating a content fork that basically left the article with inadequate coverage regarding roles and awards. I reverted it, based on lack of discussion to do so, loss of article history in spinning it off, loss of valid article content and coverage and the abject lack of need as well as the new page title does not conform to WP:Naming conventions. The new "article" lacks proper introduction and support. This article was at 32,312 bytes prior to the removal, well within the proscribed article size. The article was left at 26,260 bytes, a loss of 18.7% of article content. WP:SIZERULE recommends consideration of splitting at ">40 KB: May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". In fact, WP:SPINOUT has a proscribed manner in which this should be done and recommends "Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB overall. There is no need for haste, and the readable prose size should be considered separately from references and other overhead. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage. Add one of the split tags in order to get feedback from other editors." None of this was done. Instead we're given no rationale varying to "it's quite reasonable" with no reasons given. See WP:SPLITTING. This article doesn't come near that size or need. Another editor reverted the return without giving an adequate rationale for doing so. I returned it and yet another editor removed it, saying "splitting this off is quite reasonable, actually", which was an inadequate rationale. I maintain that there is no adequate rationale for this forking or its return, which was done arbitrarily. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As usual, you are pointing to policy articles without actually reading them. From the page on link to on content forking: "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking". Your dismissive comments about an editor "taking it upon himself" to make a change makes me wonder if you truly understand the nature of a wiki. People are supposed to take it upon themselves to make changes. See WP:BOLD. They don't have to check with you first. Having a separate filmography for one of the most important and famous actors currently active is completely reasonable, and well within Wikipedia precedent.—Chowbok ☠ 14:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And as usual, I am completely uninterested in anything you have to say to try and disparage me personally. There are proscribed procedures that were not followed. And your characterization of Pacino is totally POV. Articles are spun off based on size and need, not one person's appraisal that it is reasonable. Size and procedure are proscribed. POV doesn't count. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not POV to say somebody is a famous actor, it's just a fact. You misunderstand NPOV, as you misunderstand many things here. It's not just "one editor's appraisal"; so far three editors have felt that it's a good idea to create a new article for the filmography. You're acting against consensus here.—Chowbok ☠ 15:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but if your rationale is that he is "one of the most important and famous actors currently active" is completely POV. I understand NPOV and that statement as rationale is purely POV. And I am requesting formally that you desist from mischaracterizing what you consider to be my "misunderstandings". I know precisely what WP:NPOV says and a statement from an editor claiming someone to be "one of the most important and famous actors currently active" falls completely under that classification. Stop making personal comments and address the issue, not the editor. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The text at the main Pacino article is rather insubstantial; with the filmography removed, the main article reads like a string of bullet points without the bullet icons. Also, the spreadsheet format of the filmography accentuates the considerable number of empty cells the filmography still contains. In short: splitting it into two pieces just accentuates the "not-nearly-finished" feel the two pieces have by themselves. Why not recombine them until each piece is strong enough to stand on its own? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems a perfectly reasonable split to me. A little padding, add an intro, and before you know it, it could become a featured list like this one. Lugnuts (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it split-off. The clutter that such a boxy table entails in the edit box warrants having the filmography as a separate page. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 00:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The filmography did not take up that much room to merit a whole separate page. Now readers must go to a second page to find his credits? I agree with Lugnuts, maybe if an intro and more material went along with it, it would be fine. But just a table? Also Chowbok and Wildhartlivie please see WP:BATTLEGROUND and for the love of Mary and Joseph quit using Wikipedia as one. "Resist the temptation to change Wikipedia just to prove a point." Mike Allen 03:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point, it's not necessary for the filmography to be split off. This article so far is not developed enough that including the filmography would make the page significantly larger in size. Few actors' filmographies should be split off, and the ones that I brought up to FL (Arnold Schwarzenegger and Clint Eastwood), both had articles that were so large in size that it wasn't necessary to have a long table including all of their films. However, this article here (although it would definitely benefit with a more significant expansion), currently would still work fine with the filmography included. If the article is expanded down the line, then it would be fine to split off, but at this point, I'd say go back to what it was. If there's a desire to split it off, then hopefully there's motivation to further expand and improve this article first to warrant a split. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comments made by User:Nehrams2020 and User talk:HarringtonSmith. I don't think it was "wrong" for the filmography to be split off into a new article, but I think it was unnecessary and has failed to achieve anything useful. I could understand it more if it was done as part of an effort to further develop either the article, the filmography or both, and that would be something worth aiming for. If that's the end result - great. For now it seems kind of pointless and more a question of style choice on behalf the editor who made the change. Chowbok is right in saying that the editor was behaving acceptably in making a bold edit and creating a new page for the filmography, and that Wildhartlivie saying the editor "took it upon himself" is not a suitable comment. Also right in saying that nobody has to check with Wildhartlivie before they make an edit that she may not like, but who suggested that anyway? That does not negate her right to participate, question, dispute or initiate discussion or for anyone to disagree with her viewpoint. Chowbok, you can disagree in the strongest possible terms and still avoid the type of belittling comments you've made here, which serve only to diminish the validity of any points you might make about the article and the edits. On that score User:MikeAllen says it best. Rossrs (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both Rossrs and MikeAllen wholeheartedly on ALL the points raised. The split isn't that big of a deal but it didn't actually serve a great purpose either. I suggest either expanding the filmography as is or adding it back to the main article if nothing is done with it in the coming days/weeks. On that note, these "disagreements" with the same group of editors over very petty things like filmographies of all things is becoming tiresome. If you don't like each other, stay the hell away from each other and stop stalking each other's edits (and yes, it quite apparent who is stalking whose edits so let's not act innocent shall we?). All this childish back-and-forth sniping only serves to make the snipers look childish. I doubt anyone involved really cares at this point because this all seems to be about serving your own ego and trying to get someone's goat in a vain attempt to get them banned. Yeah, the agenda is that transparent. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC RESPONSE: I think the spin off is unwarranted and is a dis-service to both the article and the reader.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Somebody please put in a guide to how his name is pronounced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.30.91 (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

might be an idea, he did mention that this was a problem for him in his early years with people getting his name wrong, while he was on inside the actors studio with lipton. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

New addition

I have just replaced the article content with what was on my sandbox. The only change is that his stage career has been gathered together into one section. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You overwrote a lot more than that; please re-apply your changes on top of the current content. Jack Merridew 07:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about that Jack, the sandbox copy is here. I am quite sure there was no major change to the article since i began the sandbox, i simply gathered info together. I still think it worked quite well. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay i have edited over the copy thats there. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I was going to take a stab at merging today, but you beat me to it. I just made a few tiny tweaks to the decade format. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats great. Just out of interest do you think it works better this way? Monkeymanman (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I just reviewed it in more detail and think it a net improvement. Getting away from a prose style that's basically a chronological recitation of facts is always good. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look and I like the way you set it up. It reads much better. Just my 2 cents, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Awards in filmography

Would some of you who have this and other actors pages watch listed help keep the non-notable awards out of them? There is an editor(s) who keeps returning them to the filmography table. Lately there have been some really minor ones added that I've never even saw or heard of. The help would be sincerely appreciated. The filmography should have the major awards added but not the minor ones esp. since most articles don't have sources for any of the awards listed. Thank you in advance to all and have a Happy & Healthy Holiday Season, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

no probs, i have repeatedly tried to do so after the major awards were all sourced. Happy holidays too. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. This has become a big problem esp. lately. Oh an by the way, I've seen you around and you do wonderful work and I mean it. Keep it up, look forward to seeing you around, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks, you do some great work too (a lot more than me). Give me a shout if you need a hand with anything. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Al Pacino/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Artoasis (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I like the prose of this article very much. The only quibble I had is with some of the word choices in the lede.

   — "He is most famed for playing mobsters"; The word "most" has a POV tone. May I suggest you remove it?  Done

   — "His love of Shakespeare caused him to direct his first film with Looking for Richard"; The word "cause" often indicates to make something bad happen. Can you replace it with "led"?  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Unreliable source: TMZ  Done replaced

   Unsourced sentences:

   — "In 1966, after many previous unsuccessful attempts, Pacino successfully auditioned at the Actors Studio."  Done

   — "The film received mainly positive reviews (?) with Janet Maslin in The New York Times writing..."  Done rewritten in line with a ref

   — "Pacino's film festival-screened Chinese Coffee earned good notices." Is there a review we can use as ref?  Done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I think the article is in very good shape for GA. But since I am very new to this review process, you will most likely need a second opinion. Best luck.

   All the issues raised during the review process have been properly addressed. I believe this article has reached the GA status. Congratulations. - Artoasis (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for a second opinion on this review, I've had a look through it. Everything seems to check out alright. I'd like to see a sentence or two under the "awards" header summing up the major award he's received, but that's the only thing and it's very minor. If I was reviewing this article, I'd have passed it, but if you'd like another opinion, that's alright. GRAPPLE X 23:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the input. I had never really thought about adding a line or two under the awards section but your definitely right it would be nice to see. I will get onto it. Cheers Monkeymanman (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I gave the article a more thorough look, and fixed some of the problems I spotted. Now there is only one notable unsourced sentence left. I'm ready to pass this article once it's fixed. Cheers. - Artoasis (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

okay rewritten it plus a ref from variety. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Al Pacino starring in a new film version ok King Lear o be released soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.208.48 (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Trivia within introduction

Although a rather small detail, I thought perhaps I could help. The last sentence within the introduction about him never marrying and having three children is seems trivial, and should probably be moved to a "Personal life" related section. It just seems out of place in the introduction. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor Correction

I noticed a small error in the first paragraph which says, "and as a lieutenant in Heat and in Scent of a Woman." I've corrected it to read: "as a police lieutenant in Heat and as an army lieutenant colonel in Scent of a Woman." This also keeps with the accuracy of the rest of the article. -Excellent article, btw! Bristus (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a better picture of him. I know he is 72 but he looks very bad in that one.Considering he is one of America's top actor.Tra3535

I second the better photo, who chose this one anyway? --Serge Zenin (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.72.125 (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

..

sonny sonny sonny long time no seee...... Santiago Santiago Santiago..:))) be cool...always... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.251.44 (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Al Pacino, paternal line come from San Fratello

Al Pacino's paternal line come from San Fratello (Sicily). Read this: OSIA National Office Administrative Assistant, Elisa Wilkinson, Italians & the Worldwide Human Web, 06/26/2012, and this Simonetta Trovato, Romina Arena, la siciliana che ha conquistato l'America, Il Giornale di Sicilia, 01/29/2012. And read this, it's an article of the most important Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera: [2]: " Quasi a metà strada tra Palermo e Messina, San Fratello ha dato i natali al nonno di Bettino Craxi e al nonno dell'attore statunitense Al Pacino. Il padre di Al Pacino più volte è tornato al paese d'origine della famiglia per vestire i panni tradizionali dei «giudei» che festeggiano la morte di Cristo". You can use Google Traslate if you don't understand Italian. Monkeymanman, why do you delete this information? --Frereau (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. The article had already explained he is of Sicilian descent. Why did I delete the information: Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

I have removed the other refs and left the Italian newspaper.Monkeymanman (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This sentence requires clarification: "When he was two, his mother moved to the South Bronx near the Bronx Zoo, to live with her parents, Kate and James Gelardi, who originated from Corleone, Sicily.[2]" Now what does this mean? That both of Pacino's maternal grandparents emigrated from Corleone, or that their ancestors emigrated from Corleone? And no one "originates from" anywhere; people come from somewhere, or are originally from somewhere. Autodidact1 (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Awards

Which Al Pacino awards should be included in this article (specifically in the awards section)? I am hoping to keep the GA status of the article however with many changes continually being made to the awards section it is not beneficial to readers. We should make a consensus on this. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Updated Stage career section reference for Glengarry Glen Ross and removed "Pacino To Earn $125,000 Per Week In 'Glengarry'". npr. October 25, 2012., which may become relevant to future updates.JourneySarah (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Religion

What's Pacino's religion? Is he a Catholic? Is he a Jew? Is he a Satanist? Put it in the article please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.245.40.162 (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And why do you assume he has a religion? –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 20:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Undue and SYNTH emphasis on Marty Bregman

I happen to agree with Gareth Griffith-Jones that the edits emphasizing the influence of Bregman are violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. I also think they may also be a violation of WP:BLP as synthetic speculation. So I reverted the second addition of this information. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Number of children?

At the top of the article it says he has 4 children but in the biography section it says 3, which is it? 173.3.138.1 (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. The infobox lists three children, but "Olivia Rose" (one person) is broken up into two lines. I'll see if there's a clearer way to write it. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh I hadn't even looked at the infobox, well assuming that is correct there was an error in the fourth paragraph which said "Although he has never married, Pacino has had several relationships with actresses and has four children." I'm changing it to 3 now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.138.1 (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please do. :) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Em dashes versus perentheses

My removal of a set of em dashes was reverted, with the explanation that parentheses 'were not encouraged' in Wikipedia. While I understand that too many parenthetical phrases can spoil readability, so can purposely avoiding their use entirely in favor of em dashes. I'd point out that the latter is (grammatically-speaking) to be used quite sparingly.
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Grandfather's last name spelled two different ways

Al Pacino's grandfather's last name is spelled two different ways in the first few paragraphs of the article. 74.12.79.211 (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Dealt with. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

adding year of films and plays

I propose the addition of years for sentences such as the following: "In addition to a career in film, he has enjoyed a successful career on stage, winning Tony Awards for Does a Tiger Wear a Necktie? (1969) and The Basic Training of Pavlo Hummel (1977)....Without the years, the reader doesn't get the sense of how these plays fit into his career.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

All are dated in the body of the article. To put them in the Lead section is clumsy and unattractive to the reader who can easily find the dates of the dramas. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

However, kindly look at Angelina Jolie, a Featured Article, and the lead always puts the year after each film. I find it particularly useful in Pacino's case, since his career runs from the 1960s to the 2010s.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 19:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but she's not in this class, is she?!
This is a well watched article. Let's wait for others to comment. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea!OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 19:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I don't really see the point in adding the year just to add the year, especially if the information is readily available elsewhere within the article, but I'm willing to be overruled. DonIago (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

One doesn't add the year just for the sake of adding the year:) Having the year for key films and plays in the lead helps you to understand how the actor's career has played out over the last few decades. The plays were in the 1960s and 1970s. His Richard III movie was in the mid-1990s. For another example of a featured article that gives the year for all films in the lead, see Brad Pitt.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 00:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add the year of his plays. It is helpful to the reader to know that his notable work in plays was in the 60s and 70s.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Do that. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Fandom

As is typical of such pages on Wikipedia, the authors here write as if composing a speech introducing the subject at the Academy Awards. It's unnecessary and adds no insight or value.

For example, the second sentence is unsupported by the source cited. I've changed it (pending "review" to reflect the content of the source, which in fact is a comparatively trivial phone-in poll by a British TV station wherein viewers "voted" that Pacino is "greatest actor of all time."

If one wanted to know who is the "greatest actor of all time" consulting such a poll would provide very little or no information. The question itself is a foolish one.

38.131.225.246 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and as a Reviewer I have clicked "Accept changes" for your edit, as your text is a better representation of the cited source. Thanks for catching this and for coming to the talk page. Note: Please add new sections to the bottom of talk pages (or just click New section in the tab above). Prhartcom (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Section Stage career needs updating and correcting

The description of the play "China Doll" is flawed to the point of being misleading. Reviews were not favorable, as the term "acclaimed" implies, but generally negative, both of the play itself and of his performance.MackyBeth (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al Pacino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://theater.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/theater/reviews/01merchant.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914233343/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/150437-2011-Tony-Nominations-Announced-Book-of-Mormon-Earns-14-Nominations to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/150437-2011-Tony-Nominations-Announced-Book-of-Mormon-Earns-14-Nominations

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al Pacino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507221442/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/174153-David-Mamets-Glengarry-Glen-Ross-Starring-Al-Pacino-Ends-Limited-Broadway-Run-Jan-20 to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/174153-David-Mamets-Glengarry-Glen-Ross-Starring-Al-Pacino-Ends-Limited-Broadway-Run-Jan-20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004223020/http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=wiarchives;view=reslist;subview=standard;didno=uw-whs-tape00339a;focusrgn=summaryinfo;cc=wiarchives;byte=50771135 to http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=wiarchives;view=reslist;subview=standard;didno=uw-whs-tape00339a;focusrgn=summaryinfo;cc=wiarchives;byte=50771135

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hypocorism "Al" obvious and unneeded

The unneeded AKA "known professionally as Al Pacino," was removed from the opening sentence, and in its place Vaselineeeeeeee instituted "Alfredo James "Al" Pacino", with the edit summary "The issue isn't/shouldn't be whether readers will infer where the nickname comes from - rather that "Al" is not a known and sourced common hypocorism for the non-English name "Alfredo" - in that "Alfredo" is not the same as the English name "Alfred" when it comes to common hypocorisms used".

I don't think this is an appropriate reading of the relevant policy at MOS:HYPOCORISM, which reads:

It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name,[d] it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses into or after their name. Example:

• Tom Hopper's lead has simply: Thomas Edward Hopper.

and note d reads:

As a guide to what is a "common" hypocorism, consider consulting the Hypocorism#English subsections "Shortening, often to the first syllable" and "Addition of a diminutive suffix ..."; consider treating names listed in the "A short form that differs significantly from the name" subsection as non-hypocoristic nicknames, depending on the particular case. A few short forms that differ significantly from the name are well known common hypocorisms, such as "Bob" for "Robert", but most are not. Assume that most non-English hypocorisms (e.g. Lupita for Guadalupe and Mischa for Mikhail) are not familiar to readers of this English Wikipedia, even if well-known in their native culture.

This, to me is clear. Despite the personal/subjective view of Vaselineeeeeeee that "Al" is not a common or obvious hypocorism for "Alfredo", it objectively falls under the "Shortening, often to the first syllable" element. Also note that neither the list of Hypocorisms itself, nor the MOS where the list is mentioned, describe the list as a completely exhaustive compendium of all the hypocorisms in the English, or any language. It's just a guide and it's only suggested that one "consider" it.

The article name space, the title, the infobox, and any instances where his common full name are used should continue to say "Al Pacino" and wherever his birth full name are needed should read "Alfredo James Pacino". There is no need to shoehorn the obvious in, and say "Alfredo James "Al" Pacino" in any place on the article. It is akin to the example in the MOS of Tom Hopper. JesseRafe (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. To me, the simple question is whether the “Al” in the opening sentence will help any of our readers. Would a reader get to the article having searched for “Alfredo Pacino” or believing that this is the actor’s common name? Even if he or she did, wouldn’t the level 1 “Al Pacino” at the top of the page (and the Al Pacino above the infobox image) clear up any doubts about his common name?

In short, even if we interpret the guidelines as calling for the Al in the opening sentence, this would be a great time to IAR unless the extra Al improves the encyclopedia. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "Shortening, often to the first syllable" for ENGLISH names - which Alfredo is not. That hypocorism tendency does not apply for non-English names. Larry Hockett, respectfully, that is conjecture and speculation - we shouldn't leave it up to the reader to assume information.

Copied from Talk:Al Capone#Hypocorism "Al" is unneeded since the parallels and ideas are pretty much the same:

I've taken another look at the quote you provided before from the MoS "If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses into or after their name." I think this should be made more clear. "Al" can be considered an English-language hypocorism, where it becomes somewhat grey is that it is used commonly for its English-language full name counterpart (Albert). It is not, however, commonly used for non-English names like Alphonse or Alfredo even though they begin with the letters "Al". Since Capone is American, it can be speculated how "Al" came to be, but it's still not a commonly known hypocorism for his name, Alphonse (Alfredo for Pacino). Therefore, it is different than the obvious case of Thomas Hopper to Tom. Either the MoS should give another example under Hopper to incorporate English hypocorisms for non-English names, or transfer "English-language" from hypocorism to given name - this way it is clear we wouldn't need hypocorisms for obviously English given names, and we also wouldn't have to speculate whether a non-English given name is common or not. (You had stated Alphonse is a common name and Stamatina (Tina Fey) is not, which may be the case in North America due to the presence of French-influenced areas of Quebec and New Orleans, but that is not the case when we look at the use of "Al" for those same people. The point is, is that it can't be said that having an English hypocorism, "Tina", for Stamatina is alright (when it also goes against the wording of the MoS), but "Al" is not for Alphonse.

The apparent origin of the nickname shouldn't be the defining factor here, it's simply that "Al" is not a common diminutive for the name, Alphonse or Alfredo (ie an actual diminutive for Alphonse/Alfredo may be even more obvious than "Al"). If someone looks at Elizabeth Stamatina Fey - the first thing that would probably come into someone's head is Liz - but if they see "Tina" in the quotes they can still see, perhaps fairly obviously, that "Tina" had come from her other name listed "Stamatina". But of course, this is speculation, the same speculation that is used to determine the 'obviousness' of "Al". We should not speculate, and that is why a rewording of the MoS may play better. Another example is Santino Corleone as Sonny Corleone. Sonny is an English diminutive (which would also go against MoS as Tina Fey does) - but when we come back to Capone the 'obviousness' factor (whatever that is, arbitrary) comes into play, right? Alphonse is a non-English name, that should be treated like non-English names that have English diminutives.

My issue with the MoS (and it should be yours too given your support for Tina) is that, in its current wording, would preclude the use of "Tina" for Tina Fey's article simply because it is an English-language hypocorism. Tina is a suffix of Stamatina, while Al is a prefix of Alphonse, both non-English names with English hypocorisms, so why is one right over the other - just because it is in the unsourced hypocorism page? Suffixes are sometimes used in English as well (Robert or Albert to Bert). It would be fantastic to not have these contradicting policies. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that we’d be leaving assumptions to the reader in either case. There’s already a level 1 “Al” in the title at the top which should remove any need for assumptions. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

From Vaselineeeeeeee's reply above, you seem to be misunderstanding the rule, which is about usage not etymology: Yes, "Shortening, often to the first syllable" for ENGLISH names - which Alfredo is not. That hypocorism tendency does not apply for non-English names.

English is a syncretic language, and regardless of the language of origin of the name (which, it actually happens to be ENGLISH), the nicknames of people are given in English. Al Pacino is American, he and his family speak English, and he goes by "Al" because "Shortening, often to the first syllable" is the common English rule. If he were an Alfredo born in Russia, his nickname might be "Fredya", or however it would come out in the Russian language hypocorism system. It's about usage, you need not be named "George" or "Richard" to have English language hypocorism rules applied, whatever your name is, when in an Anglophone environment, it's common to be able to shorten it to the first syllable. In the case of Alfredo/Alphonse, it's simple as those are common or close to common English names and "Al" is, in addition, already a common English nickname as you say, but that's not a necessary precondition. JesseRafe (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That's one way to look at it, although the notion that it is common that names in English are shortened to their first syllable is unsourced and a large over-generalization. I could also make the case that names in English are also likely to be shortened based on their suffix, just as easily as names can be shortened by their first syllable, although not included at the Hypocorism article. Names like Alfred could be Fred, or Albert be Bert, or Bernard be Nard, Eugene be Gene, or Melanie be Anie, Isabella be Bella, Rebecca be Becca, Patricia be Tricia - I could go on and on. The point is, is that the way hypocorisms are formed are things that are almost unsourcable and assuming, especially for non-English names, so we should err on the side of caution and inclusion. This could easily be Fredo, something that you would support, no?—based on your support for Tina Fey's 'Stamatina "Tina"'. I've demonstrated that we can easily formulate English hypocorisms on the back end of the name, but because it's from the back end it's suddenly so much harder to fathom where the name came from? This illustration is just to show that this type of thinking is flawed and that it shows that support for "Tina" would make no more logical sense than support for "Al" (both of which either should or shouldn't have support as they are essentially tackling the same root problem from different sides, literally). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You have my complete support on this subject. He is known as Al Pacino and the opening sentence of the Lead must acknowledge that. I have restored the long-established copy that reflects this. Thank you to all who have contributed here. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I had undone your edit this morning, as you are aware of this conversation, but still acted without consensus. What is at issue here is the meaning of the relevant portion of the MOS, not your unsourced claim that "the opening sentence of the Lead must acknowledge that" which is, to the contrary, not dictated by the MOS with common hypocorisms. JesseRafe (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Without a strong policy-based argument from anyone who supports including "Al" in the opening sentence that doesn't just boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this article should be placed on the Good article reassessment list for its MOS violations. JesseRafe (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The current wording of the MoS is ambiguous with regards to what actually constitutes as a "common English-language hypocorism" and in what context given the given name. You said that you don't think my view is an "appropriate interpretation" of the MoS, so indeed there is some clarification that can be added as there can be more than one interpretation. With regards to a GA reassessment, I think you're blowing this out of proportion as the sourcing looks good and there doesn't seem to be any inherent MoS violations. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, we could always raise an RfC on the subject if we don't think we're likely to reach a consensus on our own. My interpretation of MOS:HYPOCORISM is that it shouldn't be necessary to include "Al" because a reader can reasonably make the inference, "Oh, his full first name is Alfredo, but he shortened it to Al." Which is to say, I think it's intuitive and consequently unnecessary to spell out. DonIago (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we keep the current picture?

Although it is quite the portrait, it is a bit dated. Should we add a more recent photo of him?76.187.211.251 (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"More recent" does not mean "better picture". The new pictures suck. We're creating a quality encyclopedia here, not a fan rag tripping over its feet to be up-to-the-minute. I restored the 2004 photo. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Animalparty, Well done! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The latest profile picture doesn't "suck" in my opinion. It looks rather good actually. A current photo of what he accurately looks like. The one from 2004 looks drastically different from what he looks like today. I feel as though the 2004 photo also looks a little blurry and just poor in quality. The One I Left (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Influence

Considering Al Pacino's incredibly acclaimed career - do you think it would be appropriate to add a cited sentence in the lead saying something along the lines of "Considered one of the most influential actors of the 20th century" - like we do in the lead of Marlon Brando's article? The TIME Magazine article doesn't include Al Pacino - but sources considering Pacino to be one of the most influential and critically acclaimed actors of all time are extremely common. I feel like it is historically and culturally important for the significance of Pacino's career to be mentioned in the lead and possibly elaborated on elsewhere. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Orig 221282.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

children

it says three children in two different places, but names four? Robertbenedict (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

: From the personal life section: Pacino has three children. The eldest, Julie Marie (born 1989), is his daughter with acting coach Jan Tarrant. He has twins, son Anton James and daughter Olivia Rose (born January 25, 2001), with actress Beverly D'Angelo, with whom he had a relationship from 1997 until 2003. He has never been married. Three names. Where did you see the fourth?$chnauzer 21:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Relationships

The article in the personal life section from the Irish Independent "Irresistible allure of Pacino" includes Penelope Ann Miller among his partners so why isn't she included here considering she's a more noteworthy actor than many of the other women? There's even a personal quote from Miller about their relationship. Chronologically she's put after Lyndall Hobbs. The article also puts Clayburgh before Weld. Greenabean (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Clayburgh was before Weld. Pacino broke off a five-year relationship with Clayburgh to be with Weld in 1972. Ieonine (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

Tarrant should be removed from the infobox. Jill Clayburgh, Tuesday Weld and Marthe Keller should be added. "Partner" = living together and Pacino never cohabited with Tarrant, just fathered her kid. He did live with the others. Clayburgh from 1967-72, Weld 1972-73 and Keller 1976-78. Ieonine (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Lemonaka‎ 04:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There is plenty of sourcing for Pacino's cohabitations with Clayburgh [3], Weld [4] and Keller [5]. His fling with Tarrant was kept out of the papers. The press didn't even know he had had a daughter by her until 2 years after the fact [6]. Ieonine (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Read in Lawrence Grobel's book that Al's relationship with Kathleen Quinlan was also a live-in one. Ieonine (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2023

A suggested edit of Pacino almost starring in the 2013 animated film Despicable Me 2. 2603:7000:C53D:B386:2554:7635:117D:80C0 (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)