Talk:Elia Kazan/Archive 1

Pronunciation
Do we really need (pronounced rEEly nEEd) 'pronounced EEL-ya ka-ZAHN' at the beginning of this article? In precisely that fashion? Ask yourself if EB (pronounced EE-BEE) would ever do that. You know they wouldn't.

Hungarian
On the Sept. 28 page Kazan is listed as beeing hungarian-born. In this article he is considered a greek borh in Istanbul(Turkey). What about that?

He was definitely a Greek born in Istanbul, although at the time it was still called Constantinople. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.174.119 (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He was born in Kayseri, not in Istanbul. And the last time Istanbul officially called Constantinople was 1829. You are just drooling. --85.101.169.14 (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone familiar with the full list of people who stood up and those who sat for Kazan's Lifetime Achievement Oscar?

So far this is what I know:

Actors/Actresses that gave standing ovation: Warren Beatty Goldie Hawn Helen Hunt Lynn Redgrave Kurt Russell Meryl Streep

Actors/Actresses who sat and clapped: Jim Carrey Steven Speilberg

Actors/Actresses who sat and did not clap: Ed Harris Nick Nolte Mare Winningham Amy Madigan

-

I don't know a lot about the man, but just because some one sits during an award ceremony doesn't necessarly mean they are making some sort of statement. There are a lot of times that I don't clap in a room ful of people who are clapping because "What the point" My two cents anywaySmith03 22:55, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is too precious for words. You admit you don't know a lot about the man. That should immediately disqualify you from commenting here and you know it. You can't type too good either. That's another minus. But in this case to not know anything about him is to not know either how much people hated him and hated what he had done. I consider your remarks arrogant, misleading, dangerous, stupid, and inappropriate for this discussion. Do some research and come back with a little more modesty. Your comment is amongst the dumbest I've ever seen here and that's really saying something.

Well, typically at the Oscars people give standing ovations for Lifetime Achievement Awards, and people definately were making a statement by not standing and clapping.

And you're definately making severa statements with 'definately'.

>>They sat for a reason. He named names. His actions had repercussions. His actions ruined careers and lives.

[Comment removed as vandalism and dangerously inappropriate.]

The reference to John Steinbeck seems either out of place or wrong, as "The Grapes of Wrath" was written well before the Red Scare. Should this be some other book?

Nonsense. You drool. Do the research. Check the Elinor Roosevelt connection. Do the research.

Removed reference to John Wayne and Ronald Reagan, they testified in the first round of hearings where 'friendly' witnesses were called, and did not name names.

That's a whitewash if I ever saw one. Whose side are you on anyway?

Pronunciation
This has recently been changed to something that does not agree with either the "Mickey Mouse" phonetics previously given, or the Greek orthography. In other words the pronunciation has been changed rather than just converted to IPA. I don't know for a fact how Kazan (or most people) pronounced his name, but we urgently need some kind of confirmation that his name was indeed pronounced (eschewing IPA for the non-linguists) "EEL-ee-a" rather than "el-EE-ya". Otherwise it would seem safest to to remove the edit. Flapdragon 18:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew the man and he pronounced it EE-LEE-ah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.174.119 (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Inadequate Citation
The citation of a right wing blog quoting a reuters article is not adequate as a reliable source for information. There needs to be a link to the original reuters article in this entry, or the passage about a kazan critic wishing that he be shot onstage should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tsg946 (talk • contribs).

Need to improve the references on this article
Kazan is one of the top American film directors of the 20th Century, and aside from his substantial artistic contributions he is noteworthy for the controversy of his ‘naming names’ and refusing to apologize for it. The Wikipedia article on Kazan, however, leaves much to be desired and I tagged it with refimprove. The article now has only four footnotes, of which one seems to be a science-fiction site in Finland and another is the right-wing organization Media Research Center (which bills itself as "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias"). I realize it's a lot of work to cite everything to one or another of the biographies written about him, but at least let's start with the obituaries of Kazan that were published in mainstream newspapers and serious film journals. There are some other articles listed at the end of this blog entry by Orrin Judd (though of course the blog entry itself is not a good source). Currently the section of the article on his HUAC testimony is not entirely balanced: it has been written to cast Kazan in the best possible light. For example I don't understand why that section of the article needs a list of “some others who named names”. But aside from that controversy, the article is very sparse on Kazan's contributions to American film; it names some of his films and mentions that he ’elicited remarkable performances’ but doesn’t explain how Kazan’s films led an overarching change in the style of American film acting in pictures released by major studios. For example, the style of acting in 1970s films like Taxi Driver, Dog Day Afternoon, and Saturday Night Fever is completely unlike the theatrical acting style in most American films up to the 1950s, but those 1970s films are direct descendants of Kazan movies like On the Waterfront and A Face in the Crowd. --Cinematical 08:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased
This is highly biased towards Kazan. He certainly ruined a lot of careers and lives. Justifying his actions, he made "On the Waterfron" which I belive did not merit so many Oscars. To talk about the dangers or communism or fascism, I would just like to point out that Maccarthyism was no less dangerous.Shovon 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * McCarthyism, unlike Stalinism, had no gulags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.174.119 (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree- the degree of pro-Kazan bias in this article makes it laughable to try to call it biographical; it's a P.R. profile at best, although honestly it's barely suited for "Brady's Bits" in Parade Magazine. It's repugnant, this article is grossly inaccurate, and Kazan was a coward, a traitor and worst of all a liar.66.167.50.127 (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Get off your soapboxes, you two. You call the article biased and yet clearly YOU are the ones who are biased. Pot, kettle, black. Bowdlerized (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

the Polish massacres of World War II
What does this sentence mean? Is this referring to Soviet/German massacres in Poland or Massacres carried out by Poles? Could this be reworded and/or include an example to make it clear? - Jniech —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jniech (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything I have read on the web supports these were massacres in Poland rather than Polish massacres. However the only clear statement supporting this is properly not a relievable source “Besides, Kazan felt his testimony in front of HUAC was entirely consistent with his liberal beliefs. He had become disillusioned with Communism, and was aware of the Soviet Union's record during Stalin's Purges, as well as the massacres in Poland during World War II. He also had first-hand experience of the Party's methods during his Theatre Group days.


 * Unless someone objects I plan to change it to 'the massacres in Poland during World War II'Jniech (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

THAT was ridiculous. And ill conceived.
Daniel, your bias is showing. R.E.: (cur) (last) 06:12, 12 October 2008 Daniel (Talk | contribs) (19,591 bytes) (Undid revision 244607250 by 66.167.50.127 (talk) This is WP:OR and a WP:BLP violation to boot.)

If a sentence describing those who did not acknowledge Kazan is WP:OR and thus you deleted it, how can a sentence listing those who supposedly did acknowledge Kazan be acceptable and thus left in place by you to be frozen in place? I grant WP:OR status and agree with it, but this entire article is a mish-mash of un-cited statements and WP:OR!

Given that I stipulate WP:OR it should be moot to bring this up (since the entire subject should be going away), but I know nothing in that puff piece is going to change so: RED FLAG: There are factual errors in the (supposed) list of Kazan's supporters; people listed in this article as supporting Kazan are in fact on the record denying it.

Yes, I'm saying it: You have reverted edits and frozen an article citing WP:OR and WP:BLP and in the process have endorsed and perpetuated instances of WP:OR and WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.60.245 (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

HUAC Section needs cites
Because this section deals with a sensitive area of American history, along with the film industry, it is critical that allegations about people's involvement be supported with accurate sources. Whoever wrote this should have listed their sources. A Google search for Kazan points to this article first, with this section taking up the bulk of it. IMO, because he was among our greatest American directors, he deserves our best efforts to present a fair, truthful, and balanced biography.

If no one can provide any, I might move this section to this discussion area pending citations. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved here pending sources.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

HUAC controversy
Kazan's later career was marked by his testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) during the postwar "Red Scare", in which he "named names."

Kazan had briefly been a member of the Communist Party in his youth, when working as part of a theater troupe, the Group Theater, in the 1930s. At the time, the Group Theater included several theater professionals who had Communist or other left-wing sympathies. A committed Socialist, Kazan felt betrayed by Stalin's atrocities and the ideological rigidity of Communists in general. He was personally offended when Party functionaries tried to intervene in the artistic decisions of his theater group.

At first, although Kazan agreed to testify before HUAC, and readily admitted his former membership in the Communist Party, he refused to name others who had been members. But Kazan felt increasing pressure from Hollywood studio management to cooperate with the Committee and provided the names of former Party members or those connected with Party activities, in order to preserve his career.

He knew that the names were already known to the Committee, since HUAC had already obtained copies of Communist Party membership archives, and that his testimony would be used primarily to increase media attention. After a delay, during which he asked for and received permission to release the names of former members of the Party, he was recalled to testify, and at the second examination Kazan provided testimony to the Committee.

The 'naming of names' by some in Hollywood was used as a tactic by HUAC to validate the Committee's actions and galvanize reaction against those who were merely friends or relations of the accused. One of those named as being a Party member was the wife of noted actor John Garfield, with whom Kazan had worked in the Group Theatre troupe, and who was being investigated by HUAC. HUAC failed to uncover any evidence of Communist Party membership by Garfield himself, but Garfield was nonetheless subpoenaed.

As Kazan later explained, he felt that it was in the best interest of the country and his own liberal beliefs to cooperate with HUAC's anti-communist efforts in order to counter Communists in Hollywood who were co-opting the liberal agenda. Kazan felt no allegiance to Communism, and had been disillusioned by the Soviet Union's brutal record of murder and repression during Stalin's Purges, and massacres in Poland during World War II. He still resented the Party's attempt to force their agenda on him during his theatre group days. American playwrights Lillian Hellman and Arthur Miller publicly and bitterly disagreed with Kazan's reasoning. Though Kazan testified to HUAC under threat of ostracism and blacklisting by the Hollywood studios, he was in turn shunned and ostracized by many of his former friends. Always a confirmed liberal and progressive, even socialist in his political outlook, Kazan now found himself hated by the left, yet mistrusted by many on the right.

Some have perceived elements of Kazan's own reaction to his critics in the film On the Waterfront, in which the protagonist courageously agrees to testify against his former mentor, a corrupt dockland union boss. Miller in his turn responded with the play A View from the Bridge, also set among dock-workers, in which his main character informs on two illegal immigrants based on ignoble, self-serving motivations.

Protection should be expired, but isn't
The edit log for this says the protection "expires 06:12, 12 January 2009", but it's the 14th and the article is still semiprotected. 87.113.118.98 (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I must have been looking at a cached version of the page. 87.113.118.98 (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved: The life of a Greek-American
The section was moved here pending sources due to its controversial nature. If reinserted with sources, I think it should be balanced with other detailed book backgrounds which would need to be added with it so it isn't the only book with this kind of detailed description. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The life of a Greek-American
 * In 1967, Kazan published The Arrangement, a novel about Evangelos Arness, an emotionally-battered middle-aged Greek-American living a double life in California as both an advertising executive, under the name 'Eddie Andreson', and a serious, muckraking magazine writer under the name 'Evans Arness'. The character's 'arrangement' of his life takes a huge toll on him, eventually leading him to a suicide attempt and a nervous breakdown. Critics saw parallels to Kazan's own life, including that the character had briefly been a member of the Communist Party prior to World War II, the character's Anatolian Greek background and the anglicisation of his birth name. Kazan disclaimed any autobiographical elements and stated that the novel was a work of fiction, nothing more or less. It served as the basis for his 1969 film of the same name.

House testimony needs balance in article
It's obviously relevant to his bio that his testimony be included. However, it looks silly to have almost twice the amount of text devoted to this topic, which took up a few hours of his "private" life, as opposed to his directing career to which he devoted forty years. I suggest we either develop his career section a lot more or abbreviate his HUAC testimony in order to keep the article balanced. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article now, there is very little (to no mention) of Elia Kazan's testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee. The Wikipedia page quotes Elia Kazan as defending his testimony. But the Wikipedia page does not detail why it was so controversial and the backlash it ensued. This is from a New York Times article: "Mr. Kazan's decision to inform on his friends from his days in the Communist Party in the mid-1930's came at a tense, heated time when Hollywood studios demanded that their directors and actors cooperate with the House panel or be blacklisted. Certainly his testimony damaged if not shattered the careers of his former colleagues, Morris Carnovsky and Art Smith, both actors, and the playwright Clifford Odets....there was a firestorm of criticism against him at the time, as he was described as an opportunist selling out his friends for a lucrative movie career." Can we please edit Kazan's Wikipedia page to reflect more objectively on his HUAC testimony? 209.2.233.115 (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lead
I usually go with xxx-born American whatever, but he was born in Turkey or the Ottaman empire? His ethnicy seems to be covered in full below.--Tom 15:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Istanbul / Kayseri
All other site is writing Istanbul ([ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001415/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001415/]), the reference only says born in "Istanbul (according to some sources Kayseri)" ... Enough strong is it to support the article's statement? Thanks --Beyond silence 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony Awards
I believe the Tony Awards are incorrect as stated. See: http://www.broadwayworld.com/tonyawardssearch.cfm

I'm a bit computer-challenged here with the link. You may have to type in "Elia Kazan" in the search box to get his awards. Sorry.

Marc Riddell -- Michael David (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kayseri again
Some new user just changed the birthplace ol Elia Kazan (again - see entry "3 May 2009") from Istanbul to Kayseri, at least in the esperanto, german and english wikipedias. In the spanish text, from september 9-th this "new" birthplace is mentioned - written by an anonymous user of the net connetion "212.174.145.126". Outside wikipedia all sources I found state the birthplace Istanbul=Constantinople, only his father seems to have family roots in Kayseri. Maybe all external sources are wrong, but then it would be necessary to prove the statement that the birthplace Kayseri is right.

Translated from Esperanto: ''Iu novulo ĵus ŝanĝis la naskiĝlokon de Elia Kazan de Istanbulo al Kayseri, almenaŭ en la esperanta, germana kaj angla vikipedioj. En la hispana jam ekde la 7-a de septembro estas tiu "nova" naskiĝloko - enskribita fare de anonimulo de la retkonekto "212.174.145.126". Ekster vikipedio ĉiuj de mi konsultitaj fontoj indikas la naskiĝlokon Istanbulo=Konstantinopolo, nur la patro ŝajne origine devenis el Kayseri. Eble ĉiuj eksteraj fontoj eraras, sed tiam necesus pruvi ke la aserto pri naskiĝo en Kayseri ĝustas.''

I'll revert the change.

ThomasPusch 19:42, 29. Apr 2010 (UTC)

Expanded material
I added some more details about his career, so feel free to check for any errors or general problems. I expect there are many. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Family vs. ancestors
Webster's dictionary defines "ancestor" as "one from whom a person is descended and who is usually more remote in the line of descent than a grandparent."

Some material relating to his father, his father's family, and Kazan's grandmother, was removed as being about his "ancestors." In a biography, discussing one's family seems relevant, especially as it became a source for his and his family's emigration, along with being the source material for his favorite film. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete - The Man Was a Best-Selling Author and It's Barely Mentioned!
He said he got more satisfaction out of writing his novels. This is woefully incomplete if it ignores that aspect of his life, giving his work as novelist one sentence. The Arragement spent 42 weeks on the NY Times best-seller list Top 10, 25 weeks at #1.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Shirtless?!
OK, dumb question -- why is the DIRECTOR in that "Splendor" photo shirtless when all his actors are (well) dressed?! What POSSIBLE scenario triggered that?! 66.105.218.19 (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory info about friendship with Arthur Miller
In one section, the article says that Kazan's testimony with the HUAC cost him his friendship with Arthur Miller. But later on, there is a quote from Miller saying, basically, that he understands that Kazan has to do what he has to do and he holds no ill will against him. So, which is accurate? Did these HUAC testimony cause him to lose Miller's friendship or did Miller support him? 63.143.213.245 (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know his relationship with Miller was soured because of the testimony. I don't have any references to support it though. I believe there Miller refers to this in Timebends but I'm not completely sure, I read a lot about all this ten years ago so everything's a bit vague.

Non-free images
All of the non-free images, used to support the commentary, were removed with the rationale that they were removing "excessive non-free" images. However, none of the remaining images are non-free, therefore the claim of removing "excess" is without basis. I will restore the images, removed en masse, and request discussion of specific images rather than netting and deleting them all. The article body is nearly 9,000 words long, and certainly some non-free supporting images should be allowed. --Light show (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats not how non-free media usage works. Why do you think that the other files are non-free (they are marked as free) Werieth (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. Simply saying that's not how things work, doesn't help much, since it explains nothing and is not any kind of required and requested rationale. The images were used to support the commentary, were uploaded and selected for that purpose, and carefully edited to the article. All of that takes time. It would be be more fitting to not allow any editor to stop by and willy-nilly delete supporting images without explaining or discussing. The articles are supposed to be a collaboration effort, and undoing others' edits with a button-click without making an effort to explain is not a collaboration, IMO. --Light show (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Images must meet WP:NFCC. Given the large number of freely licensed images there isnt a need for the non-free images. See #1 of NFCC. Werieth (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a personal opinion, not supported by NFCC #1 guidelines on the use of non-free images. None of the "free" images directly support the critical commentary, as the deleted non-free images do, and would not replace those specific images. The free images may relate to other aspects of the article, but the non-free images directly supported the text where used and improved their encyclopedic purpose of the article.


 * For instance, his collaboration with notable writers is a key aspect of his career and the bio. His work with Arthur Miller is mentioned six times and with Tennessee Williams, nine times. A photo showing them together in a pose of friendship fits well for sections relating to that, where none of others would. They may be "free," but that's all, as they do not relate to the commentary. One of the negative results of such deletions, IMO, is that we have countless biographies of actors, ie. Robert De Niro, whose career goes back to the 1960s, but all we have (with one new exception) are tabloid-like recent public event candids, which merely fill space and do not support any of the text. This is totally backwards, IMO, and more care should be taken before deleting supporting images. Hope you can agree. --Light show (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at the photo of them together is completely replaceable with text. There is nothing beyond "that they where friends" being displayed in the pic. This qualifies as replaceable with text under NFCC. Yes your images make things look pretty but fail WP:NFCC 1,3 & 8. If you disagree WP:NFCR is the third door on your left. Werieth (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would your personal opinion be more valid than anyone else's? You are the only editor removing the images and assuming an authority that seems unwarranted, other than a skill in using bots. While your opinion is that the images merely make things look pretty, I have explained that they are valid and useful supporting images. If you are not an admin, on what basis are you exerting such authoritarian power over the article, disregarding the opinions of active local editors? --Light show (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not my personal opinion, its policy. Adminship doesnt matter in regards to this, and local editors cannot override policy. useful isnt a valid reason for using non-free media, the bar for inclusion is far higher than that. We have free images of both Kazan and Miller, having a picture of both of them together with zero critical commentary of the image (just two of them sitting together) doesnt meet policy. Can you please explain what is in File:Kazan-Miller-Life archive.jpg that cant be replaced with text and not having it is detrimental to understanding Kazan? Right now I see your argument as WP:ILIKEIT and not based on any policy. NFCC#1,3,8 are fairly clear about where the bar for inclusion of non-free media is. In this case you are about 100km from meeting it. Werieth (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

NFCC #8 "fairly clear," LOL. NFCC #8 is the fallback rationale when there is no logical reason left to remove an image that someone simply doesn't like. As everyone knows, it's totally subjective, relying on words such as "significantly," and "detrimental," which by definition means something different to everyone, and therefore means almost nothing. Actually, simply saying "I don't like it" would at least be more honest in not passing the buck to an obscure requirement that is essentially impossible to meet. --Light show (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * #8 is fairly easy to meet Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, Virgin Killer, ...Baby_One_More_Time and I can list another hundred or so fairly easily. In this case because you cant meet it, and your argument for inclusion has no merit. Werieth (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Should some or all of the article's non-free images (see above) be restored? --Light show (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Take it to WP:NFCR RfC's are not for this. Werieth (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * See Non-free_content_review Werieth (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting it. However, writing that my only complaint was essentially WP:ILIKEIT, without my giving any arguments based on policy, is actually the reverse of what I said above. I never implied that rationale, and have on the contrary noted several policy-related arguments. For instance, I said that "his collaboration with notable writers is a key aspect of his career and the bio. His work with Arthur Miller is mentioned six times and with Tennessee Williams, nine times. A photo showing them together" is directly relevant, and not replaceable by any of the "free" photos. Your response expected me to prove that "not having it is detrimental to understanding Kazan," which of course is not remotely possible.


 * You also deleted the only two images of him directing. Since his notability is for being a director, those images are also fundamentally relevant and supported. You deleted an image of him directing  Marlon Brando, one of the actors he first introduced into movies, discussed in a section devoted to him. You deleted the image with Eli Wallach and Carroll Baker in Baby Doll, where this very exact image was discussed and cited, including his exact words and feelings during that scene. So no, it's not that "I like it," but that the bio needs it. But I also don't expect an editor who does hundreds of bot edits over hours to be able to take the time to see all the supporting commentary.--Light show (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Baby Doll shot
I have provided policy-based reasons to restore the Baby Doll screenshot. Do you have any policy-based reason to remove it, other than WP:NFCC#8? (Which is already being discussed at Non-free content review) Diego (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * - found substitute. --Light show (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that Elia Kazan was Jewish?
I know that this article states that Kazan was born into Greek Orthodox family, and that he described himself as "agnostic", BUT with a given name like Elias (after his grandfather) and brothers (according to the article) named Isaak and Avraam, PLUS his interest in the subject of anti-Semitism (particularly his controversial film, "A Gentleman's Agreement", I've got a sneaky feeling that he was Jewish. Can't find ANYTHING to verify this, but it's an interesting thought, no? If anyone would like to do a little more research on this, feel free!Barmispain (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Elias, Avram and Isaak are all common Greek names. It's not unusual at all in the Greek Orthodox tradition to name children after Biblical figures, just as it's common among gentiles in English-speaking countries to call children Joseph, Isaac or Adam. And of course many people with an interest in anti-Semitism are not Jewish. Sadiemonster (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Huac Testimony
2.230.3.79 (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC) This whole article is too biased in favour of the director. His HUAC testimony was extremely controversial and is still remembered today, as much as his movies. People not standing and clapping when he was given the Oscar made relevant and symbolic statement. This is much downplayed in the article. In general, reading it, little of the controversy emerges and only the greatness of the director is emphasized.

Huac Testimony Redux
Perhaps the article has been altered to be less 'biased in favour of the director', but what this means is, that we should condemn Elia Kazan for his HUAC testimony, is that it? I'm not sure this is the place to pass judgment. I note that your mileage may vary on this very controversial political issue. The history is fascinating, no doubt. I don't incline to sweep this part of Elia Kazan's career under the rug at all -- certainly let the controversy emerge, but there are two sides to the issue. Note this statement then:

'His testimony helped end the careers of former acting colleagues Morris Carnovsky and Art Smith, along with ending the work of playwright Clifford Odets.'

Well, is that factually correct? It sounds like Elia Kazan is harming people. He didn't, first of all, have the legal option not to cooperate with HUAC. Not that I'm trying to be an expert on the legalities, let us say that the question occurs to me, what legal advice did he receive? There were people who went to prison for not cooperating with HUAC. And sure, that doesn't make it right to cooperate with HUAC. But if his testimony 'helped end the careers of' such as Clifford Odets, then what about the point that his testimony here was that he was in a communist cell with Clifford Odets? Should he have lied? Is this a code of silence kind of thing? The committee was ostensibly investigating corruption and conspiracy. I wonder what happens when you get subpoenaed by congress. Do you cooperate? Heck, if a police officer in the street asks me for my car, I'll do whatever I am told, it's beyond my pay grade, I think, to decide that I can't agree to cooperate with a congressional investigation. Feel free to disagree, I just think in terms of providing some context, here. The facts came out when Elia Kazan testified, is that it? And also, he didn't end the career of Clifford Odets. I know there is some reference provided for this, but who doesn't know that Clifford Odets also testified for HUAC, for pete's sake? And again, dude was a communist, I'm just saying. If you are going to disapprove of somebody cooperating with HUAC, we could start with your innocent victim here, who was much more of a known radical leftist, after all, and yet he himself testified. Actually, prior to Kazan's final testimony in April 1952, they agreed to name each other. Odets thereby avoided blacklisting. And so no, his career didn't end, that's silly. Look, I'm not trying to make somebody into Ronald Reagan, I'm not trying to change opinions here, I just feel misled about the facts. Clifford Odets directed The Story on Page One (1959), for which he also wrote the screenplay, and also wrote Sweet Smell of Success (1957) and Wild in the Country (1961). He died in 1963. Indeed, I am quoting wiki for this:

'Odets's productivity markedly improved after his 1952 testimony: he had written nothing for the screen in the six years prior to 1952, but in the decade after 1952, over 20 of his scripts reached either the large or small screen.'

Fine, but again, I don't mean to be impatient about this I know it's an emotional issue, let's just try to get the story straight.

It's true, then, that yes, Elia Kazan named Carnovsky as a member of the Communist Party cell he had belonged to in the Group Theatre. But if it seems relevant, it's also true that Kazan had quit the cell in the mid-1930s, he said, when it was ordered by the Party to undermine Harold Clurman and Lee Strasberg. And also, by the way, the blacklist did not exist on Broadway, and Carnovsky acted in many Broadway productions throughout the 1950s and into the '60s. As to his screen career, in 1950, Carnovsky was hailed before HUAC, where he refused to "name names." So, sure, his screen career abruptly ended. And this was during the 1950s. And it was when he was blacklisted. But I do not insist on somehow blaming Elia Kazan for these events, which anyways, had already happened by the time Kazan testified. And not to quibble, but Carnovsky also later made two more motion pictures, A View from the Bridge (1962) and The Gambler (1974). It's not a case of 'end the careers'. I say this not because I dislike Morris Carnovsky, I am willing to suppose that he was a great guy. It's true, that professional colleagues told the House Un-American Activities Committee that Carnovsky had been a Communist Party member. And also, it's true. And yes, he was blacklisted and worked less frequently for a few years. But then re-established his acting career.

What about Art Smith. Smith's career took a severe downturn, sure, but did Elia Kazan even name Art Smith? No, and note that elsewhere in this same article is given the correct list of names named by Kazan:

'Kazan initially refused to provide names, but eventually named eight former Group Theatre members who he said had been Communists: Clifford Odets, J. Edward Bromberg, Lewis Leverett, Morris Carnovsky, Phoebe Brand, Tony Kraber, Ted Wellman, and Paula Miller, who later married Lee Strasberg.'

Now I have provided no references, and references would be good. For now, let's just say that I've emphasized some sort of dispute about some of these claims in the article.. don't take my word for this stuff, but also, we have a problem, it seems, with knowing which references to trust. This is going to take some work to sort out..DanLanglois (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

== Why did the US governement pay for Elia Kazan's Travel to his birthplace( if it did) ?82.234.174.118 (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC) ==

"Refering to this statement on Wikipedia : In 1978, the U.S. government paid for Kazan and his family to travel to Kazan's birthplace where many of his films were to be shown" I have found absolutely no info explianing why the US governement would finance Elia Kazan and his family" trip to his birthplace in Turkey. Why would the US governement have done that ? And Couldn't Elia Kazan afford to pay for his travel ? This is odd.

Rape allegations?
Why is there no reference to the posthumous allegations of sexual assault by actress Carol Drinkwater? Sadiemonster (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources meeting WP:V that refer to that, please cite them, as it may be worth adding to the article. Not every allegation of that kind belongs in articles, but it may. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)