Talk:Brigid Bazlen

Why Is This Rated A GA?

Commendations to the primary author/editor, but this is in no way a GA. How could it be?

a) not a single source is cited ANYwhere in the article.

b) This becomes doubly important when the article strays into blatant POV, most especially the article's ventures into film criticism in its highly idiosyncratic evaluation of Bazlen's films and performances.

There is no serious critical re-evaluation out there of King of Kings (which is on TV as I write), Hunter's performance - or Bazlen's. Ditto How The West Was Won. Both are merely overwrought Hollywood "epics" that do not - emphasize not - bear comparison to the genuinely finer films of the same genres (Western and biblical epic) of the era.

The only-re-evaluation one is likely to find for King of Kings would be among biblical literalists - and you're not going to find any critic seriously regarded enough for encyclopedia citation in that cohort.

I agree that Bazlen demonstrated stunning potential early on, a potential that was never fully realized (and I grew up in Chicago entranced by the Blue Fairy). But such a statement in Wiki should not come from me or the author of this article but rather from the kind of sources that Wiki demands.

That's why I cannot figure the GA status. This needs to be Wikified at the very least before it merits GA. Sensei48 (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like an anon added the GA class rating, and the article never went through a review at WP:GAN. Since it does not meet the GA criteria, I reassessed it to B. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

An anon editor submitted this article for reassessment at WP:BIOG/A. This is the incorrect location for submission if seeking a Good article nomination. If anything, the lack of sources to support some parts of the article is placing it on the threshold of being knocked back to C class. KimChee (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My initial comment on this topic is now nearly three years old. I've had some dialogue below with another editor, one who seems not to understand the Wikipedia process and requirements well. I've placed citation needed tags following the most egregious and currently unsupported POV statements:

• "the film itself is now highly regarded"
• "Hunter's performance as Jesus, especially in the Sermon on the Mount scene, winning much acclaim"
• "as have the performances of Robert Ryan as John the Baptist["
• "Bazlen’s performance has likewise been re-evaluated down the years as being superb (her voluptuous seduction of a drunken lascivious Herod winning her especially rave reviews"

The editor identified below as wheresthatpenguin has blanked his/her user and discussion pages and may be a sockpuppet. S/he has threatened below to "remove" the article if it is "tampered with" though this comment is now MIA. A preferable course of action might be to scrap the entire unreferenced and "film criticism" sections of this article and return it to stub status with the bare supportable birth, death, and filmography facts with sources until a more responsible editor familiar with the topic can do a proper and supported encyclopedia article that does not resort to sweeping, unsupported POV generalizations. Sensei48 (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How dare you speak about me in that way. You are evidently determined to impose your views - referring to anybody elses contributions as 'sweeping unsupported POV generalisations' or a 'sockpuppet'. As for my talkpage - its my talkpage and if I choose to remove old comments then I will. I have been contributing to wikipedia for 3 years and the only person I have had an issue with is you. However, that is enough for me. Once I have finished with this comment, I shall be removing my account and will contribute no more. As for this article - I shall leave you to do whatever you want with it. Its all yours wheresthatpenguin (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2010 (GMT)

Image copyright problem with Image:Honeymoon Machine 1961.jpg

The image Image:Honeymoon Machine 1961.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Bazlen, KofK, and Critics

The editors who keep trying to insert unsourced commentary about Bazlen and King of Kings need to look at WP:RS immediately. Rotten Tomatoes itself does not qualify here, though the published reactions of professional critics do. At RT, the actual WP:RS critics are here: [1] - and this hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement of the quality of the film or BB's performance. "Kathy Heinrichs" is a blogger and volunteer reviewer on Amazon - again, not WP:RS. Roger Ebert, Bosley Crowther, Pauline Kael, Leonard Maltin, Charles Champlin, Gene Shalit, Sheila Benson - these are among the long term, professional, and frequently cited critics who would constitute a WP:RS.Find positive re-evaluations of BB and KofK from these writers and their peers and then you have a reliable, usable source. Blogs, polls like RT, and special interest groups do not qualify. Sensei48 (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"I created this article in the first place after considerable research. If you do this again, I will take it down in its entirety and move it to a site where it cannot be tampered with..."

Then you should probably do so, though it would be a shame, because BB was a young actress of great promise. I grew up watching her on Chicago TV as the Blue Fairy.

But your edit summary clearly indicates that you have little idea of what Wikipedia is or how it works. None of us who contribute here owns any of the articles that we write. Any editor can come in and make any changes that he/she wants to - as long as they are defensibly sourced from WP:RS. You have not done that for the assertions you made about critical re-evaluation that I have reverted/removed. Both my edit summaries and the section I posted on the BB Talk page are very clear about what must be done to keep these assertions in the article.

Because you self-evidently do not understand what sourcing on Wikipedia means, I'll leave your unsupported points alone for a few days to give you a chance to find reliable sources as required by Wiki policy. After that - they go out of the article unless you can support them.

Now, if you do not want your article "tampered" with, then you are absolutely correct that it belongs on a blog site and not in an online encyclopedia with user-generated content.

But I hope you won't do so, because BB certainly IMHO deserves an article here - but a good one, one that an objective and unbiased reader can come to and learn about her in an objective and unbiased way.

A final thought. I've spent several hours over the last few months combing the internet and print publications for any evidence whatsoever that there has been a major critical re-evaluation of the film that differs from the mediocre reviews it garnered in its 1961 release. I haven't found any. My suspicion is that the film may have been treated more kindly in recent years in the Christian press and media, which did not exist as a major entity in 1961 but certainly does now. If there are sources there that postulate a positive re-evaluation of the film and BB, then they could be used here as long as they were identified in the article's text as coming from modern Christian media. That's simply a matter of truth in content. You have to be prepared on Wikipedia, though, to have some other editor pop in with a negative evaluation from, say, an atheist publication (if there are any).

I'm hopeful that you can find sources because I think you've done a generally good job so far. BTW - you might take a look at the article The Last Temptation of Christ (film) - not a great article or film, maybe, but much of the critical commentary there is sourced, and maybe it will help you to understand what I'm saying about providing support for analytical statements. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

With great respect, who is to say that Kimberly Heinrichs view is any less valid than any other critic. The point being made in the article is that there are hugely contrasting views about King of Kings and Bazlen's work. Whereas contemporary critics tend to denigrate them, modern day critics are much more positive. Heinrichs view is an example of the latter. Who is right? Who knows and it is not the intention of the article to take sides. Everybody will have a different view. The article merely states that King of King's and Bazlen's work have been re-evaluated down the years with modern day critics taking a more positive view than contemporary critics. I have a lot more content to add in the coming months to this and will add further critical comment and references when I get around to it. I have no objections to amendments per se. However, it is my view having created this article and having done considerable research that reference to the re-evaluation of King of Kings and Bazlens work and the contrasting views of contemporary and modern day critics should be retained. As stated, it is not the job of the article to take sides and decide who is right. All that is being said is that modern day critics tend to be more positive than Bazlen's contemporaries. I would also point out that blogs are now a recognised modern day forum for film reviews. So long as its a serious and established blog, then just because somebody writes for it, it doesn't make their views any less valid than those of somebody who writes for a large newspaper or television show. I am aware of the need to source on Wikipedia and this article has plenty of them. Nevertheless, I respect your view on the need to add further references (which I already have, but which are buried under a whole load of other paperwork) and as and when I find further time, I shall certainly do so. I would also that they not from the "Christian Press" which I never read wheresthatpenguin (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2010 (GMT).

I would also add that Kimberly Heinrichs review is the one that has been selected by Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes rating and reviews are so highly regarded these days that they are referred to in almost every film review in terms of modern releases since the 1990's on this website. To dismiss modern critics from the internet, the blogs, the DVD reviews, and confine it to the older newspaper/magazine critics such as Roger Ebert, Bosley Crowther, Pauline Kael, Leonard Maltin, Charles Champlin, Gene Shalit, Sheila Benson, etc, misses the point in relation to KOK and Bazlen. This is because it was the older critics who dismissed both KOK and Bazlen in the first place. It has been the modern critics in the blogs, on the net, and in places such as DVD reviews who have re-evaluated both and that is the point that is being made. Moreover, blogs and the net are the modern day forums for film reviews and people are entitled to look at films and the work of actors again with a fresh 21st century perspective. Time move on. Kael afterall died nearly 10 years ago, whilst Crowther has been deceased for almost 30 years! Remember, when these people reviewed KOK and Bazlens work, it was at the time of the films release and came from a very 1950's, early 1960's attitude and perspective. It has been said that Bazlen's work was ahead of its time and suits a much more modern day audience. That is why reviews from the last 10-15 years are far more favourable. Take a look at Bosley Crowthers review of KOK's in the New York Times at this link: http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9D03E6D8113DE733A25751C1A9669D946091D6CF, for example, and compare it with Heinrich's review and that in Film Fanatic which are referred to in the article. One has to say that Crowther's review comes across today, at least in my opinion, as being old fashioned, out of touch, and almost laced with high brow snobbery. Other contemporary critic took an equally snooty high handed view by dismissing the film as "I was a teenaged Jesus" - that says everything about the attitude they went in with before they had even seen the film. These days, in the blogs and on the net, modern audiences in the main disagree (that's not to say that you will still find some people today who will agree with Crowther). wheresthatpenguin (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2010 (GMT)