Talk:James Toback

Hilarious

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)AG McKinty

I've never seen Tobachio listed as his last name. It would seem to suggest he's Italian. Everything I had read suggested Jewish. Anyone?

Womanizing

Hatting per WP:NOTAFORUM This page is for discussion of improving the article, not general chitchat about the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) 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) Should someone create a page for Toback's behavior, similar to the page on Harvey Weinstein? Those interested in this dimension of Toback (or, truly, in multiple dimensions of Toback) can learn from viewing Nicholas Jarecki's 2005 documentary film The Outsider, subtitled "a film about James Toback." Interviewed in the film, Jim Brown (the current first paragraph of the Career section of WP's Toback article gives context for Brown's relevance...) says of Toback, "He was a womanizer and he was brilliant in his execution. He got women that nobody would ever think you could get. And it was an intellectual seduction, based upon the way he understood the minds of certain females. And he was so bold..... Does he know how to bullshit? Of course, he knows how to bullshit. I mean, that has nothing to do with dishonesty." Canhelp (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Puff-piece article

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)

It does seem very subjective and un-encyclopedia like, and should be revised, with more sources. Like use of the word, "hilarious" for example. --Jim Raynor (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

LSD comment

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)

Undue emphasis?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

While I do agree it is significant and should remain a subsection in the article, having the allegations take up the entire lede is a bit much. Chimino (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Is James Toback Jewish?

James Toback is not Jewish. He was asked at least twice and said no. Elirame (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

I removed the category for now. --Malerooster (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to maintain Choice B. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Choices

• 
  Choice A (2013)
• 
  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)
• Support as above, especially as choice B is the only one to show the whole face unobscured and looks that bit more professional too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• B Agree with above.(Summoned by bot) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support -- Innisfree987 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support (Summoned by bot) A photo of the subject wearing sunglasses is not acceptable. Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support image B (Summoned by bot) It just looks better. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Picture Neutrality

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)

Article's emphasis

This topic arose on this talk page in late 2017. The James Toback article challenges editors to strike the right balance in writing about a celebrated filmmaker who also is a publicly accused abuser of women. Given that over a 40-year film career, Toback's work has been praised by influential and respected institutions and individuals in the film industry, it was Toback the filmmaker that the article lede heavily emphasized prior to major article edits February 9 and 10, 2023. February's editor elected to rewrite the lede, giving equal or perhaps slightly greater attention to allegations of sexual misconduct. Of course, neither I nor any other editor has the "final say," but I intend over the next several days to try to restore what I think was a more defensible relative weighting of material. I note that in our articles about other alleged abusers prominent in the film industry (e.g. Kevin Spacey, Brett Ratner), we feature their career achievements while not ignoring their alleged misdeeds. Canhelp (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The previous version of the article was incredibly, laughably fawning over someone who is, at best, a c-level director and the language was done in such a way as to minimize the allegations, or imply that they only existed because of someone or something else. We will not be returning to that version of the article. If you feel something needs better weight, bring it up here and we will discuss it before you begin a white-washing campaign.

Bringing up Spacey and Ratner isn't useful. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; this is not their article; this is a different article.--Jorm (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm pleased to use the Talk Page to attempt consensus on emphasis. I accept that the ball's in my court to make the case for Toback's filmmaking as what today — and, especially, going forward into the future — gives Toback the notability that merits a Toback article in Wikipedia. I anticipate posting here again no later than Sunday, 26 Feb. Canhelp (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Toback hasn't written or directed a film since the first LA Times article came out in late 2017. Given Toback's age, we may now have his complete lifework in film, and from the evidence I see, it stands as a significant achievement. The article's mention of Fingers notes praise for Toback from Pauline Kael. (In one of the February 9/10 edits — edits where you expertly removed much puffery — you deleted the descriptor "influential New Yorker" for film critic Kael. In my opinion, that descriptor isn't puffery. You and I may know Kael's singular importance without being told, but others don't.) And there's more praise for Fingers from a second film critic who I believe can justifiably be described as "influential:" David Thomson. Thomson and Toback became friends — a relationship now apparently strained — but prior to their becoming friends, Thomson had described Fingers as "the best first film by an American director since Badlands."

Toback's recognition within his industry ranks him as a high achiever. For his 1991 Bugsy original screenplay, he received the LA Film Critics Association "best" award as well as "best" nominations from the Academy Awards and Golden Globe Awards. In 2009, when the San Francisco Film Society selected Toback for its annual screenwriting award, the two other honorees that night were Francis Ford Coppola (directing) and Robert Redford (acting).

Toback's selection for a retrospective by the Oldenburg International Film Festival came three years after the Festival's retrospectives for Ken Russell and two years after Jerry Schatzberg.

The Cannes Film Festival in 2008 selected five films, including Toback's Tyson, as winners in the Festival's Un Certain Regard category.. Although nominated for "best documentary" in many second-tier U.S. festivals, Tyson is hard to categorize, a problem for awards competitions. Thomson wrote, "Tyson was a remarkable film, far better than most features of its year — yet not really adequately described as a documentary."

Just two days ago, Wikipedia editor "Speakfor" restored to the Toback article the note regarding December's lawsuit in New York, where temporary suspension of the statute of limitations will be giving Toback's accusers (and Toback) their day in court. That process will play out. I hope that with reflection you can agree that at the current moment Wikipedia's James Toback article should not commit a major part of its content or its lede to the personal misconduct allegations.

Finally, in your reply to my initial post in this section, you questioned my mention of Wikipedia's treatments of other film figures with problems similar to Toback's. I find some support for my mentioning those. Here, I'm quoting from Wikipedia: "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."Canhelp (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

We're not writing press releases or resumes. Adding "influential" before a critic's name is priming the pump. Yes, Toback has a couple achievements... which are completely overshadowed by his behaviors. His filmography is a total of eleven lines which does not in any way put him in the realm of "prolific" or "influential" and certainly not with the volume or name recognition of Ratner or Spacey - in fact, the previous version didn't indicate that he had influenced anyone, and, in fact, spent aggressive amounts of time talking about who influenced him, or the achievements of others.

If you want to improve the emphasis of his corpus, find articles - actual second hand sources - that discuss how they are important. Otherwise, we're stuck with the extreme number of the sources that are only about his sexual misconduct. If we were to go by the weight of viable sources, the lede should really go "Toback is a sex pest who sometimes worked in the film industry" - so yes, such a thing should absolutely be in the lede, and it will remain there. Jorm (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

References