Wikipedia pages of Godfather characters

I was checking some of these out, like Sonny's and finding them pretty interesting. They used information from the movie as well as the book, including noting contradictions.

Then I clicked on Tom Hagen's and was dismayed to find that wiki considers The Godfather Returns and The Godfather's Revenge to be canon, just like the original novel and the movies. I'm not sure why this has irked me so much but it has.

Does anyone here share wiki's stance on canon and wish to discuss their reasoning? I try to pretend they never existed (as I do often with III, but that is another discussion altogether).

i dotn get too upset at the godfather returns/revenge charcaters as some people do since the movie leaves out 20 years from 59-79 so they had to fill something in. However there are characters from the original book that were not used in the film but were used in the other two books like tommy neri

It's Wikipedia. Anyone can change the entries. Only solution is to create your own user account and alter it as you see fit, i.e. take out the 'non-canon' material and place it into its own section within the entry, clearly stating its context, e.g. create a heading called 'Winegardner Sequel Novels'.

Remove it altogether & someone else will just modify the main part with the Winegardner elements as if they appeared in the original novel or films. It's not through malice or opinion, just a certain ignorance or indifference to what more hardcore GF fans consider to be authentic.
Someone might read the entry on Tom Hagen after having read 'The Godfather's Revenge' and think, "OMG! They left out the bit where he drowns in the car! Better fix that up..."

Wikipedia is pretty much 100% democratic, so you either live with it or change it in such a way that you think the information is being presented correctly. Taking a stance on 'canon' isn't the way to go, best to just present all the facts in their proper contexts.

I'm one of the admins of The Godfather wiki, although I'm not really active anymore. It also includes a lot of Winegardner stuff as there are people who do consider it to be canon. Like JJ_Gites states, it's democratic and admin or not, you have to respect that.

But if you think you can make a good case, which I'm sure you can, you can bring it up over there anytime you want.

It was in 1955 not 1950

1951, I tell you 1951!!!

What makes you so sure of that?

Manolo told me. Maybe you've heard of him.

Oh no! What have i done!