Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 90.184.155.23 - "" |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 5 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 5 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Journalism}}, {{WikiProject Women writers}}, {{WikiProject Jewish Women}}, {{WikiProject California}}. |
||
| (29 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN
|action1date=13 December 2006
|action1result=failed
Line 11 ⟶ 10:
|action2oldid=143179853
|action2link=Talk:Pauline Kael#Second GA Nomination
|action3=GAR
|action3date=22:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
|action3result=delisted
|action3oldid=559404951
|action3link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pauline Kael/1
|topic=Socsci
|currentstatus=
|otd1date=2018-09-03|otd1oldid=857771062
|otd2date=2021-09-03|otd2oldid=1042057166
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Kael, Pauline|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|musician-work-group=yes|musician-priority=}}
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Jewish Women |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject California|importance=low|sfba=yes|sfba-importance=low}}
}}
▲{{WikiProject Journalism |class=GA}}
== Armond White ==
Line 27 ⟶ 35:
== Why was "Nixon quote" removed? ==
Seems to have been excised in July 2008, with no explanation. The quote is frequently cited in the mainstream press, and IMO it is valuable for Wikipedia to provide a reference explaining the actual quote. It should be restored. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.103.64.162|24.103.64.162]] ([[User talk:24.103.64.162|talk]]) 16:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The very first thing that came to mind after reading this entry was "Where is the mention of the famous Nixon quote"? Given that this is Wikipedia, and "editors" tend to remove information that is less-than-flattering to the subjects they worship, it seems fairly obvious why any mention of the "Nixon quote" was removed.[[Special:Contributions/72.49.235.222|72.49.235.222]] ([[User talk:72.49.235.222|talk]]) 08:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The Nixon quote was removed because it is misinformation. Kael did NOT say that she couldn't understand why Nixon was elected. She DID say that she felt strange living in land that had given Nixon a landslide victory because nobody she personally knew had voted for him. Which was not a very remarkable situation in Manhattan, which had gone for McGovern. In particular it was also true of people in Harlem, which overwhelmingly voted against Nixon. [[Special:Contributions/47.20.162.46|47.20.162.46]] ([[User talk:47.20.162.46|talk]]) 22:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)captcrisis
::I added information about the attributed quote, the actual quote, and its use, all with citations, including author with their own Wikipedia articles. The attributed quotation is too often used to be left out of the article but the discussion must be neutral and have citations, and should be focused more on how the supposed quote is used rather than its accuracy or meaning.--[[User:Iloilo Wanderer|Iloilo Wanderer]] ([[User talk:Iloilo Wanderer|talk]]) 12:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
== titless comment ==
Line 134 ⟶ 145:
== GA Sweeps ==
[[Image:GA onhold.svg|25px]] This article has been reviewed as part of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force]] in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the [[WP:WIAGA|Good article criteria]]. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a [[WP:GA|Good article]]. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through [[WP:GAR]]). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at [[WP:GAN]]. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.<!-- Template:GASweepsHold --
▲[[Image:GA onhold.svg|25px]] This article has been reviewed as part of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force]] in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the [[WP:WIAGA|Good article criteria]]. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a [[WP:GA|Good article]]. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through [[WP:GAR]]). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at [[WP:GAN]]. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.<!-- Template:GASweepsHold --></div>
:'''[[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|GA]] review''' (see [[Wikipedia:What is a good article?|here]] for criteria)
Line 168 ⟶ 178:
No it isn't true! See this from ''www.yourdictionary.com'': "This proverb was stated slightly differently in 1640 (To him that will, ways are not wanting) but has been repeated in its present form since the early 1800s." It is so well known it is often shortened, as in the example of the 1936 British comedy film [[Where There's a Will (film)|Where There's a Will]] starring Will Hay.
== Mean and cruel ==
Alan Parker (Midnight Express, Harry Angel, Evita) mentioned Kael in an interview for the polish "Filmweb" website. While talking about critics he says (my translation) - "[...] for instance Pauline Kael - she was mean and cruel. What she was doing was beyond the competence of her profession [...]". It's been published today and the interview took place during Camerimage festival in Poland. Thought it might be worth mentioning. I'm writing it really quick, got no time to edit it properly myself, sorry about it. Full interview (sadly in polish) can be found here - http://www.filmweb.pl/article/PLUS+CAMERIMAGE%3A+Filmweb+rozmawia+z+Sir+Alanem+Parkerem-91079 --nonameforthistime <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.116.235.115|195.116.235.115]] ([[User talk:195.116.235.115|talk]]) 20:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== "Accusations of homophobia" misquotation ==
A line in the "accusations of homophobia" section is quoted horribly out of context. When I read the paraphrase here on Wikipedia:
:''her criticism of the 1961 British film Victim was that the film sought to treat gay people "with sympathy and respect—like Negroes and Jews.''
I thought it was a quite horrid thing to say, but then I checked out the [https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2018/02/11/victim-1961-review-by-pauline-kael/ actual review]:
:''I'm beginning to long for one of those old-fashioned movie stereotypes—the vicious, bitchy old queen who said mean, funny things. We may never again have those Franklin Pangborn roles, now that homosexuals are going to be treated seriously, with sympathy and respect, like Jews and Negroes. It's difficult to judge how far sensitivities will go: Remembrance of Things Past may soon be frowned upon like Huckleberry Finn and The Merchant of Venice. Social progress makes strange bedfellows.''
She is not criticising Victim because it is sympathetic to homosexuals. She is bemoaning the emergence of sanitised cinematic gayness. Here are two quotes where she criticises the film for making its homosexual hero celibate:
:''Time [magazine] should really be very happy with the movie, because the hero of the film is a man who has never given way to his homosexual impulses; he has fought them—that’s part of his heroism. Maybe that’s why he seems such a stuffy stock figure of a hero. Oedipus didn’t merely want to sleep with Jocasta; he slept with her.''
:''In Victim there is so much effort to make us feel sympathetic toward the homosexuals that they are never even allowed to be gay.''
She goes on to criticise other publications' (including Times') homophobic reviews of the film:
:''A number of the reviewers were uneasy about the thesis that consenting adults should be free from legal prosecution for their sex habits; they felt that if homosexuality were not a crime it would spread. (The assumption seems to be that heterosexuality couldn’t hold its own in a free market.)''
I'm not saying there's no criticisms to be made, but the way her review is represented in this article is really unfair and misleading. [[User:Maskettaman|Maskettaman]] ([[User talk:Maskettaman|talk]]) 06:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
| |||