Talk:Jonathan Glatzer

Hang on!

This article's subject is clearly notable, he's directed a film! --— Hugh 08:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy, this page clearly does not meet WP:CSD#A7. Sorry for the bother - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

But self declared as failing WP:CREATIVE, unless reliable sources show otherwise. WP:PROVEIT. Proded. --Triwbe (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

I understand the decision to put in the negative reviews in order to be true to the aggregate critical response.  But by removing all reviews or mentions of them, the page now conforms to all the other comparable biographical pages I could find.   I looked up 10 other American directors' pages with only 1 theatrically released feature film to their name and there was not any mention of Rotten Tomato scores or quotes from individual reviews.  For that reason, we should remove the subject from the biographical page and let the film's page take care of that discussion - which it does in detail.   

And therein lies the peace.

Thanks,

Sheldonsheldrake (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Why censor the material? It is referenced and factual, and notable in that the reviews are unusually low. Furthermore, why are your only edits to date involving the removal of this information? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that, per your own admission here, you represent Mr. Glatzer. As such, you have a direct conflict of interest and cannot edit material related to your client. Furthermore, please note that these pages are not intended to be promotional pages for an individual, but instead an encyclopaedic presentation. The material has been rewritten and rearranged to better suit this, but please keep in mind that the film's reception is directly relevant to its producer/director. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Then you should put the RT scores in for every writer or director of movies that unusually low or high for that matter. Why are you only applying this standard in this one case? And I am not censoring it, there is a full and fair discussion of the film's reviews on the film's page which is linking from Mr. Glatzer's page. That is not censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomkruze (talk • contribs) 06:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Sheldonsheldrake (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

From me...

Hey Mr. Katz, This is Jonathan Glatzer. My publicity rep informed of the back and forth antics you and he engaged in about a month ago. I told him not to worry about it and to drop it. But today, I had reason to look up the page and couldn't believe you would insist on 6 references to the statement, "the film received mostly negative reviews." Frankly, it seemed punitive. Perhaps my PR guy got under your skin and you wanted to let him know he didn't hold the keys to his client's wiki page. Fine. Point made. But now, I am asking you directly, personally to not take out your ire on me. There should be one reference for a simple statement such as that. Make it Rotten Tomatoes if you want - that ought to do it. But please don't pile on. For work purposes, I have looked up lots of fellow directors with similar resumes to mine and none contain this sort of finger in the eye type of thing - let alone a reference to any reviews good or bad. It would be my preference to not even reference the critics since I think the film shouldn't be defined by them but by audience response which has been decidedly positive - moreover, since it is a page about me, not the film, I would not want the critics to define me either. (Also, the critical response is discussed on the film's page.) I have no quarrel with you at this time. However, if you ignore this request for fairness or engage in a similar back and forth with me, I will be compelled to take further action as this page, for better or worse, has a direct relationship on my career and my ability to earn a living for my family. Please, make it one reference or remove the sentence entirely. Lastly, I was never on the Men's Olympic Fencing Team. It's hysterical - and illustrative - that this petulant argument over reviews was occurring a half inch away from a complete falsehood dealing with a major international event. I have no idea how that info came to be on my bio. Thank you, Jonathan Glatzer Jkyleg (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Glatzer. 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/20090425182854/http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/catalog/catalogDetail_DVD043396297722.html to http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/catalog/catalogDetail_DVD043396297722.html

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) 21:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)