Talk:Lloyd Kaufman

POV Issues

There seems to be something of a problem with Wikipedia articles written about artists by fans. It's important to avoid writing your own opinion of the subject into the article, especially because this kind of bias is embedded and difficult to remove. In this article, there seem to be some subtle endorsements and criticisms of Mr. Kaufman by the author(s), which should either be cited as the opinions of experts and presented as such, or else removed.

Examples:

• This particular work laid out the groundwork for his iconoclastic style of filmmaking
• and then produced trashy low-budget films
• mainly due to a lousy marketing campaign

I don't know much about Lloyd Kaufman, and so I don't feel especially qualified to make the changes myself, but the POV issues seem evident from even a cursory reading. --jermor 6:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is that much of Lloyd's own autobiographical writings seem intended more for amusement value than factual content: so I'm not sure they can be regarded as reliable sources. Mark Grant 11:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Any time a man mentions his penis in an autobiography the factual nature of those comments should be regarded as dubious, and doing so rather throws the whole nature of the text into doubt. As Mark Grant notes, many such pieces are written for entertainment value (unless one believes Chuck Barris was actually a CIA killer) so we should be very reluctant to include such material. What's more, in this particular case, they are also irrelevant, so I don't see the point in including it in this (already poorly written) article. Geeman 02:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is definite POV issues here. As well as the points you mentioned I think the following needs editing:

• "extreme violence and base, vile subject matter used primarily to offend people."
• "distributing trite sex comedies"
• "dangerously obsessive fixation on the female anatomy" (maybe)

Desdinova 22:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a few changes, attmepting to get rid of the statements we both found unacceptable. It still needs work, but I think it is better than it was. Desdinova 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Troma Entertainment

Most of this article seems to be lifted straight from Troma Entertainment. Merge/Delete? ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 09:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think his biography needs a complete rewrite. There's lots of important events that aren't mentioned and several factual errors. Skibz777 17:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm definitely going to rewrite everything...everything is horribly, horribly incorrect. Troma was always an independent company, 'Toxie' was NOT Troma's first hit, 'Troma's War' was NOT a financial "ruin", 'Tromeo and Juliet' was NOT a straight-to-video film (it was in theatres for over a year), Troma's doing well financially, and he DIDN'T direct three of the films that appear under his director's filmography. Who WROTE this?! It's almost an insult to Troma; it makes them appear like some sort of dirt-poor failure of a film company. Skibz777 17:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE/OBJECTION

<<<This is NOT a Troma Fan Page, follow Wiki Policy please (below)>>>

If you need a reminder about policy here, then please refresh yourself on the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles

This page in a nutshell: If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOVD#What_is_NPOV.3F

This page in a nutshell: Neutral Point Of View. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that has been written without showing a stand on the issue at hand (i.e. admitting you are Troma fan whose interest is promoting Troma is not unbiased). This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, in which very often there is an abundance of differing views and criticisms on the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V

This page in a nutshell: Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or any quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be subject to removal. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP.

(i.e. Lloyd Kaufman's autobiography, his books, his blogs, and the Troma website ARE NOT veriable sources since they are biased and unsourced. And clearly Wiki policy does NOT allow this AT ALL.

As the other editor pointed out on your talk page, your agenda presents a conflict of interest. You should NOT be editing these pages in your manner in the first place:

"This is Skibz777's own personal...page...thingy. Or something. On WikiPedia, I like to call myself The Troma Guy. I am currently creating pages for EVERY SINGLE FILM made and distributed by Troma Entertainment, as well as elaborate on the pages for the films already on WikiPedia. This is all done not only because I'm a total loser with a lot of time on his hands, but as a pledge of allegiance to the greatest film studio the world has ever known."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

[[1]]

This page in a nutshell: Avoid making controversial edits to articles where your close connection to the subject may cause a conflict between your agenda and Wikipedia's goal of producing a neutral encyclopedia. Please contact us if you are concerned about the content of such an article.

Your close connection:"I pledge of allegiance to the greatest film studio the world has ever known, Troma."..."I'm the Troma guy."

You are in no place to objectively weigh disputes about Troma edits since you "pledge allegiance" to them. You're clearly biased in Troma's favor. That violates the spirit of Wiki.

Hey, that's great! Uh...I'm not entirely sure what it has to do with the many factual errors on Mr. Kaufman's page, but still: Good for you! Skibz777 20:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Since the WikiPedia administrators seem to disapprove of me touching this article, could someone please touch up the following inaccuracies?

• Can we have hard evidence that Lloyd was "FRIENDS" with George W. Bush?

Agreed. Let's change this to "classmates."

• Fix the date for 'Battle of Love's Return' and 'Big Gus' (unless Lloyd Kaufman, IMDb, and the actual WP articles for the films are off by a year)

Agreed. Please change dates.

• Troma's string of sex comedies lasted from 1979-1983, NOT "the mid-70s".

Agreed. Please change dates.

• 'Toxic Avenger' was not Troma's first hit; 'Squeeze Play!' was the first film to get good reviews, a large release, and make a profit.

Disagree. I could not find verifiable sources to back up your claim. The only source I could find was the Toxic Avenger was the first notable Troma film to make a cultural impact, both as a hit and iconic piece of B-movie history.

• Is there proof that 'The Toxic Avenger' released over *200* "educational" children's products?

Agreed. I have no problem with this deletion.

• What exactly is the "financial demise" of Troma? They've always self-produced their own films for considerably cheap, and what they don't make from theatres they get from home video.

Disagree. Many veriable sources say that the film "Troma's War" spelt financial doom for the company. The company's own stock before and after the film dropped drastically according to financial records, as did revenue going into the company according to public financial records. The company also downsized itself following the box office bomb of "Troma's War." They were not always independent. They were a middle-class mainstream movie company that folded like many of its kind during the 80s. But it is true that they survived in the form of an independent film studio.

• 'Class of Nuke 'Em High' was not as successful as 'Toxie'. It did somewhat okay in theatres, but found it's audience on home video instead.

Neutral. If you want to change that, then knock yourself out. I'm indifferent. The sources say two things on this.

• The "fall" of Troma? They never had a fall, though...they had a couple of money-making hits which were followed by a couple of films that didn't do quite as well, but they were never in "financial ruin" or teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

Disagree. Again, many veriable sources say that the film "Troma's War" spelt financial doom for the company. The company's own stock before and after the film dropped drastically according to financial records, as did revenue going into the company according to public financial records. The company also downsized itself following the box office bomb of "Troma's War." They were not always independent. They were a middle-class mainstream movie company that folded like many of its kind during the 80s. But it is true that they survived in the form of an independent film studio.

• The plot of 'Troma's War': " a group of freaks who crash-land...". Unless 'freaks' means normal human beings, then that needs to be changed.

Neutral. If you want to change that, then knock yourself out. I'm indifferent.

• "jettisoning the company from Hollywood mainstream"? When was Troma in the mainstream? I believe for a while 'The Toxic Avenger' was affiliated with Warner Brothers, but Troma always remained a small independent company. Most of their films never even saw a wide release after the introduction of the VHS. Troma has always remained fully independent and non-union.

Disagree. Again, many veriable sources say that the film "Troma's War" spelt financial doom for the company. The company's own stock before and after the film dropped drastically according to financial records, as did revenue going into the company according to public financial records. The company also downsized itself following the box office bomb of "Troma's War." They were not always independent. They were a middle-class mainstream movie company that folded like many of its kind during the 80s. But it is true that they survived in the form of an independent film studio.

• 'Tromeo', 'Terror Firmer', and 'Toxie IV' were NOT straight-to-video. Tromeo had a successful run in art house theatres and the others had limited runs in major cities. Not to mention all of Lloyd's films debut/play at Cannes.

Disagree. These films were release long after the Grindhouse tradition faded. Yes, they had token showing in a few theaters, mostly arthouse theaters. But they did play at the major theater chains.

• From what I've heard about the India Allen lawsuit, Troma originally sued first, and she counter-sued. I'm not entirely sure, though. However, the paragraph once again makes it seem that 'Tales from the Crapper' was a disaster for Troma...it didn't make a lot of money, but it didn't ruin them.

Disagree. Your hero Lloyd seems to disagree on this. Interviews he's given in veriably sourced articles suggest that his decision to recut India Allen's films was the result of a production deal gone bad. He admits to wanting to "disown" the film. Also the revenue of the film, according to financials, makes "Tales From the Crapper" one of Troma's least profitable films.

• Where are the references that Troma might be folding as a company? I can not find any proof of this.

Disagree. Fangoria recently did a piece on this when covering "Poultrygeist". In it, the reporters discovered that this may be the last Troma film before Lloyd folds the company.

• Under 'Selected Filmography (as director)', don't you think it should ONLY include films HE'S directed? Why are 'William Sloan Coffin and the Yale Class of 1968', 'Hellbilly 58', and 'Invasion of the Not Quite Dead' on there when it's rather obvious he didn't direct them?

Agreed. This should be simplified.

• Do we really need a pronounciation key for 'Kaufman'?

Agreed. This IS redundant. Please remove that redundancy. And I guess that's all. Thank you. Skibz777 22:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Your welcome.

Yes... I don't understand your disagreement to 'Tromeo' and the such not being straight-to-video. You admit yourself that the films played in both art houses and major theatre chains, and thus were NOT straight-to-video.
Also, the Fangoria article comes into question because unless there's a reference citing that it exists, then it's useless. Has anyone actually seen the alleged article in question?
I also can't find any legitimate source (or any source, for that matter) that claims 'Troma's War' was "financial doom" for the company. And where are these financial records you seem to know so well? I also can't find any sources that say that the company WAS downsized...unless you can come up with any credible information saying otherwise.
Provided, I haven't really seen that many Troma films and most if not all of my information comes from the internet, but I still feel that maybe the page maybe should, oh, I don't know, INCLUDE ANY REFERENCES AT ALL BACKING UP IT'S CLAIMS?! Or do the original article's claims automatically become true because *I*, the apparent WikiPedia terrorist, say they're not?Skibz777 08:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Fangoria article was actually copied and featured as PDF file on your beloved Troma website. Or you could simply go to your local bookstore and read it in Fangoria, which I did weeks ago.

"Beloved"? Do I LOOK like the kind of person who would visit those sorts of sites? What's with the condescension? Second, the issue is never specified. How the hell am I going to figure out where it's from? And if your concern doesn't lie with Troma OR that Lloyd guy, then howcumzit you've actually READ this article?
As far as my other sources being veriable, I can certainly provide you with the dozen or so links I browsed when examining your claim. If I did not yesterday, then it's because this article is not a priority for me. And I didn't feel the need to spend the additional hour creating wikilinks, especially after I have already spent so much time on this case anyhow. My first priority isn't this article, or any Troma article.
Additional hour? You know, only one would have done...it's simple copy and paste...
My priority was to reign in your reckless page-ownership behavior,
You wouldn't be the first person to try and curb my reckless behavior. -_- Well, actually you're the first on WikiPedia. I've been doing rather well with other articles until this thing came around.
stop your insults against other editors by reporting them,
InsulT, my friend...no plural. And in defense, it's only because WikiPedia editors have almost always been total d***s towards me, even in the rare instances where I understand what I'm doing and follow rules. There's a fine difference between childish, often nonsensical insults and complete d*****bagism from people who spend way too much time studying the laws of Johnny Cyberspace. I, of course, mean that in only the most professional of ways.
and remind you of policy since you were unilaterally and careless ditching other people's contributions by page-blanking and erasing the work of other editors.
I wasn't "ditching" anything, everything that was mentioned in previous articles were mentioned in mine and then elborated on to a sickening extent.
Please use good faith when dealing with other editors. And if you hadn't noticed, I agreed with most of your suggested change. IN the word of Wiki, compromise is everything. The fact that you flip out because I didn't give you EVERYTHING that you wanted suggests that you are not making an effort to reign in your bias.
That's because the only thing you DIDN'T provide was proof for my biggest gripe with the article. Just ONE link, attainable by only the simplest action of the copy and paste of a URL site (without even having to use the little "[[" things, if you wished!), would be more than enough proof. However, "because I saw it myself" doesn't really work. I believe it was the popular show "Star Trek" who said "Trust No One"...
I get it that when it comes to Troma you "pledge allegiance to the greatest studio in the world." Now I would like to see objectivity and desire on your part to make Wiki a better place for all. After all, that the goal of this Wiki project.
Well, I only said that to give me a bit of credibility before I started making changes. It's easier to elaborate on an article when you're unfamiliar with the subject at hand...I guess. Huh?
That said, if I find time today, then I will try to create those Wikilinks with those sources as a 'courtesy' to you.
Even *one* of them will have done? This never occurred (occured?) to you? I mean, it's just a *link*, it's not a whole mess of programming. But I guess I understand you're busy, what with....editing your....internet encyclopedia, and all. Wouldn't want anybody to be deprived of information on bed sheets or trivia on the career of Carrot Top. *thinks* Well, actually...
Beyond that, if I were you, I would accept the compromise, make the proposed changes we agreed upon, and move on. Thanx.
Ahhh, forget it. Now I'm bored with this project. I wonder what's happening on Samuel Z. Arkoff's article...?71.177.187.117 17:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Eh! That was me doing all the bold talking. I didn't know I wasn't signed on. And believe it or not, I'm actually going to be reprimanded for that. Skibz777 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I finally found the 'Fangoria' article, which was actually from several months ago: it states that it's a possibility the company might close, but since there has been so many donations and contributions from fans and the like, it's not definite. It depends on how well 'Poultrygeist' does and what the next script they recieve is. It's also not "entirely" funded out-of-pocket by the alleged "Lloyd", but was mostly built upon fan donations.Skibz777 18:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the bulk of your comments until you learn to calm down. Getting emotional over 'this' is simply silly. Again, my only concern here is that you respect other editors. Calling editor's sockweeds simply because they pointed out (accurately) that you were vandalizing a page (whether it was intention or not) is a form of bullying. I have a zero-tolerance for that. So rather than paint yourself the victim here, why not ask yourself how others may have felt on the receiving end of YOUR comments. Even a joke can be hurtful.

You address two issues here, however, that I will respond to because, unfortunately, you are trying to drag my reputation as editor into this. That's unfair since I have done nothing to you personally that warrants that kind of suspicion. My history as an editor speaks for itself. I follow the rules around here and I'm very cordual to fellow editor. But if I was rude to you, it was because you were name-calling and I try to defend the feelings of others from such behavior. As far as your concerns. Firstly, I am in fact a horror film fan even if I'm not a diehard Troma loyalist. That's why I was browsing this page, since horror pages are on my beat. So I read Fangoria ALL the time trying to keep up with what's new in the world of horror. And the reason I was surprised by that article (and distinctly remember it) is because "Poultrygeist" is the first film Mr.Kaufman funded out of pocket. And secondly, If you follow up the sources of that article, it turns out that a Patricia Kaufman (Lloyd's wife?) is the New York Film commissioner or something like that. Her personal savings were largely used to fund that film. According to Michael Gingold, a managing editor at "Fangoria", Lloyd confessed off-the-record that if things don't turn around quickly then Troma may fold. Mr. Kaufman said he recognized "Poultrygeist's" funding dilemmas may be proof that Troma may not be around for much longer. As for the claim that fans funded this movie, I looked into that. I emailed the Troma office. According to a Kiel, or a PA on his behalf, the funding for Poultrygeist was mostly from Lloyd and his family's savings. Only a very small, insignificant amount came from fans. Less than 5%. While notable, that hardly backs up the claim that fans funded this film.

Again,later tonight, when I'm at my own computer, I will try to temember to wiki source those links from my Firefox browser history. If I don't get around to it, then rather than freakout you should please use this experience to learn patience and restraint, both of which is paramount to a pleasant wiki experience.

Thanks again for your time. And, no, your sockpuppetry won't land you in hotwater. Only edits to 'articles' (not talkepages) by multiple accounts accrue warnings. Take care.

Yikes, if you thought I wasn't calm while I was writing that, you'd hate to see me when I'm riled up...that's just me being *normal*. Snarky as though I may be, however, I'm not angry or annoyed over anything. I just want to sort this whole thing out and put it behind me.
As far as my claims that 'Poultrygiest' was mainly fan-funded, I just went by what the Fangoria article told me, which only mentioned in one line the money Kaufman himself put up, which was followed by several paragraphs detailing fan contributions. The article leaned very heavily towards the notion that Troma was being saved by it's own fans. I never went as far as to actually e-mail the company or find these "off the record" comments. Was it foolish of me to actually trust the printed word of the media?
...wait a minute. Yes. Yes, it was actually. I apologize.
I also didn't know about any of your own personal connections to horror films (how could I?); how was I to know that a guy who admits that he doesn't concern himself with Troma would read 'Fangoria' constantly and remember such an article?
Another thing that hasn't changed is that the article remains unsourced. If such webpages do exist showing these facts, then why aren't they brought up in the article to begin with? If they were, this whole tussle betweenst us would have never come to be. I mean, aren't there people who run around putting up those little "citation needed" things everywhere? When an article makes claims that an unheard of director was friends with the president and his long-running film company is coming to a close, doesn't that warrant a need for citations?
And I'm still confused about 'sock puppetism' (I always thought it was 'sock monkey')...simply because I made minor edits to a few articles without knowing I wasn't logged in I'm automatically put on some sort of internet watchlist? A bit extreme, innit? Eh.
(Skibz777)Skibz777 21:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And another thing, actually, why is all this stuff about the financial problems of Troma on Kaufman's page and not the company's itself?Skibz777 22:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sooo...these links are coming sooner or later, then?Skibz777 06:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So, it's going to be "later" rather than "sooner"?Skibz777 05:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so I guess I'll put my money on "later"...Skibz777 11:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Skibz777 12:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to alarm you, but you're getting a little bit late with those links...Skibz777 (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You've gotten SO late with those links, in fact, that I have since gotten a JOB at Troma's offices in New York and have learned that everything you're saying is complete bunk, if not 'hogwash'. Troma is and has been doing very well; they consistently make money and are still producing and distributing TONS of new flicks. In fact, some of the staff are rather pissed at the fact that either you or someone else are editing WikiPedia articles to state that Troma's in trouble. What's your beef, dude? Try bringing down Warner Bros. They deserve it. ...sockweed.Skibz777 (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Those links I speak of? I haven't forgotten them! Cough up, jack. Skibz777 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We passed our *second* anniversary and you didn't even get me a present. I don't expect flowers or anything...those links would do just fine. :) Skibz777 (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't forgotten about this, ya know. Well, okay, I did, but now I remember. For someone who was so adamant about proving the impending financial ruin of Troma almost 4 years ago, it's interesting how the company is still around and working on new movies. I don't expect the references anymore, just an apology for your haughtiness and blatant dishonesty. I'm a modest guy. Skibz777 (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Squeeze Play/Nuke 'Em High

Both Squeeze Play and Nuke 'Em High are addressed in Kaufman's book All I Need To Know About Filmmaking I Learned From The Toxic Avenger. In it, he states that without a doubt, Squeeze Play was Troma's first real financial success, and that the revenue generated from the film enabled the company to move into the Troma Building.

Kaufman also writes several pages on the video success of Nuke 'Em High, and says that for a while, it was Troma's best-selling video title.

Hope that clears up any confusion.

75.68.18.66 (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC) A Troma fan