Talk:James Toback

message: Who wrote this page? Toback? 
The commentary to Bugsy is hilarious, Two Girls and a Guy is hilarious. Well I havent heard the commentary but that movie wasn't hilarious and if you look at Rotten Tomatoes you'll find most people will agree. If you're going to call something hilarious then give us a source...124.190.33.151 (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hilarious

message: I had a friend tell me of the way he lies and abuses young women, because it happened to her friend, and is apparently a pattern of telling young women that he will leave his wife for her.  Is there any documentation of this?  I wouldn't put it in the article without some evidence that corroborates my friend's word, though. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: almost ten years later, the substance of your question is actually a front page article in the Los Angeles Times. It's called sexual harassment though, not womanizing.96.127.242.251 (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Womanizing

message: Who wrote this entry, Toback himself?  The article is peppered with subjective (and overwhelmingly positive) commentary.  
"The film was photographed in ravishing style by Nouvelle Vague cinematographer Henri Decae and features a magnificent original score by Nouvelle Vague composer Georges Delerue."
"Their collaboration is documented in a hilarious three-person on camera feature in the extended cut DVD of Bugsy."
"In 1997, Toback wrote and directed Two Girls and a Guy, a hilarious classic"
And so on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.159.26 (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Puff-piece article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on James Toback. 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/20150119085503/http://gawker.com/5040330/is-director-james-toback-still-a-wannabe-pick-up-artist to http://gawker.com/5040330/is-director-james-toback-still-a-wannabe-pick-up-artist
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150115051958/http://gawker.com/5506842/sleazy-film-director-james-tobacks-underage-pick-up-attempt to http://gawker.com/5506842/sleazy-film-director-james-tobacks-underage-pick-up-attempt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150429023935/http://gawker.com/5939264/james-toback-strikes-again-i-have-to-cum-at-least-seven-times-a-day to http://gawker.com/5939264/james-toback-strikes-again-i-have-to-cum-at-least-seven-times-a-day
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The bit about having no fear of recriminations from sexual harassment allegations is made up - he admits having only no fear of death.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.218.131 (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  LSD comment 

message: I realize that the subject has been in the news lately over sexual harassment allegations. I realize also that publicity concerning his sexual  transgressions goes back to the 1980s. However, considering the length of his career, I am concerned at how they now dominate the article, particularly since, to my knowledge, he has never been prosecuted or even sued over his behavior. Approximately one-third of the article is devoted to the sexual harassment allegations. This strikes me as WP:RECENTISM and a potential WP:UNDUE issue. I am usually very resistant to charges of recentism, as I view that to be over-used. But in this instance, I have serious concerns about the article Thoughts? Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article, he has worked on 21 movies, and over 300 women have come out to say that he abused him. Where should the emphasis lie, given those numbers? PaulCHebert (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

text: The section isn't overly long, but I wouldn't recommend it being added to much more unless something criminal comes to light.  As Paul noted here, there are over 300 women who've come forward.  At this point it seems the allegations have eclipsed his Hollywood career, and rightly so, considering the number of those alleging harassment far outnumber his film credits.  Such emphasis was acceptable for the Weinstein article with only allegations made, but it's not acceptable here?  Makes no sense to me.  -- ψλ ● ✉ 18:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be acceptable at Weinstein either. Also, Weinstein's downfall had far more consequence than Toback's, as the latter was an obscure indie filmmaker while Weinstein was a power in the industry. The emphasis here may be OK---I haven't edited or tagged the article, simply am asking for input as I have concerns about NPOV. Coretheapple (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if he's a serial sexual predator with a decades-long history of criminality who also happens to be an "obscure indie filmmaker," as you characterize him, then the emphasis should most definitely be on the former. PaulCHebert (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, he was found guilty in court? Or found civilly liable? Did he pay out any money in settlements? Has he even been sued? As I said, I'm just throwing out the question. If the consensus is that there is no UNDUE issue here, then fine. But I think we need to be cognizant of the fact that apart from newspaper articles, reporting accusations, there is nothing of the kind of material that we see in the other scandals, at least as of now. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine the solution is to build up the rest of the article. But I guess the kind of "Catch-22" in a situation like this is that there probably aren't any editors interested enough in the subject's film career to do so. I certainly have better things to do. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Having had a quick look, I would say that the line "In 2008 and 2015 Gawker articles described Toback as a "pick-up artist"", is pretty valueless. It's synonymous with 'womaniser' or 'sleaze-bag' and not synonymous with accusations of illegal behaviour. I'm not going to pass judgement on whether the rest of the content is UNDUE or neutrally reported here, as I haven't checked the sources. Pincrete (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I recently viewed the most recent Toback film, and it interested me sufficiently to dig a bit into what he has achieved in film and what others in film and film criticism have said and have written about his work. I believe I'm up to the task of competent researching and editing so that the 2017 allegations become part of a balanced article but are demoted from the lede. I anticipate installing a significant page edit by the end of July 2022. Canhelp (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue emphasis?

message: James Toback is not Jewish. He was asked at least twice and said no. Elirame (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that a passing reference to his being Jewish in Salon is insufficient to support that text, and also that the sentence itself seems a bit gratuitous. Coretheapple (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the category for now. --Malerooster (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Is James Toback Jewish?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on James Toback. 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/20090424060247/http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/3096 to http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/3096
*Added archive https://archive.is/20110710205705/http://everhip.com/?p=1417 to http://everhip.com/?p=1417
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Which image should the infobox contain?  Current image is choice B. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox RfC

message: File:James_Toback_Cannes_2013.jpg|Choice A (2013)
2009-0428-MSPIFF-JamesToback-portrait.jpg|Choice B (2009)
====Choice A====
====Choice B====
*Support Image is not optimal, however, there are no free images available for Toback that show his entire face.  Choice A is less optimal than the current image because his eyes are not visible.  -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Choices

message: *Support Image is not optimal, however, there are no free images available for Toback that show his entire face.  Choice A is less optimal than the current image because his eyes are not visible.  -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Choice B

message: I find it funny that the picture of Toback looking slimy is conveniently placed under the "Sexual harassment allegations" heading. Is this a neutral point of view?
–Adamilo (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Neutrality