Talk:Oklahoma!/Archive 1

Comments[edit]

I think this is a stub. As such, I expect it to be deleted. Not that I'd really want that, but that's how the talk on the mailing list has been going in late Aug. 2002. I like stubs, though, because I think they stimulate contributors to lengthen them. --Ed Poor

i really like this piece of music i am having to perform it and it is really good -- ashley perritt

Oklahoma! songs and copyright, deletion[edit]

Copyrights are renewable in the US and Canada, so yes they are still in effect and I agree they should be taken care of as a group. -Jeffrey- 03:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People have made many Oklahoma! songs into articles, usually with just the lyrics posted. One of these articles is marked as a copyright violation. Are the others covered by copyright? If so, I suggest they be taken care of as a group. -- Kjkolb 06:44, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I looked up the age of the music its under 75 years, short by 12 years if I remember, which is the automatic minimum (and i believe music isnt renewable) for anything copywrightable in the united states and it was written here so i suppose even if its out of copyright in other places it has to be here unless they intetionaly put it on public domain which i highly doubt. --Shimonnyman 10:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The US Government Office of Trademarks, Patents and Copyrights, says the copyright is the life of the author(s) plus 50 years. The R&H Estates keep up copyrights for the works of the duo. -Jeffrey- 06:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stage Revival Section[edit]

The Stage Revival Section is pretty stubbly. I could not even tell if the one described is the same one that I saw on PBS recently, starring Hugh Jackman. I thought it was a pretty excellent production. I actually came to look at this article because I was trying to remember a character from the production I'm speaking of; I don't know if this character was in the original or not (but it's not in the description of the original production), and I think he probably was not for the following reason: the character is an apparently immigrant or perhaps 2nd generation person of what appears to be Middle-Eastern or Indian descent; and is a love interest for one of the (anglo) women. The guy is a travelling peddler, a guy who sells elixirs and asundry items. He's got a wagon with all kinds of stuff in it including, I think, "perfumed soap" and "silk stockings" etc. etc. Anyway you get the picture, not exactly the kind of love story that would have been on Broadway in the 40's, right? Well, anyway, I think that it's a pretty high-profile production, especially since PBS seems to be showing it in regular rotation during pledge drives, I think a lot of people are likely to become familiar with that version. Ok, I guess that will do it. -- -Tzf 06:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guy you are talking about is Ali Hakim played by Peter Polycarpou . And yes the 1998 film production is easily the best film version out there at the moment. -- Unsigned reply from 2006.

I guess it WAS the kind of love story that would have been on Broadway in the '40s, because it was in the original production of OKLAHOMA!, from its out of town tryouts (I think only in New Haven), through the Broadway opening, and ever after, including the 1955 movie version, where Ali was played by Eddie Albert. It's a character that has caused some concern at times, with its potential to be seen as offensively stereotyped; I think it's all in how he's played; there's nothing particularly offensive about the character as written. I take it the character is also in the play on which OKLAHOMA! was based, GREEN GROW THE LILACS, as it has a character named "Peddler," which was played in the OBC by the famed Lee Strasberg, in 1931. I'm not too much of a fan of the Royal Natl. Theatre production (the one PBS broadcasts), though I do love Hugh Jackman in it. True, there aren't any perfect screen versions of the show, though the 1955 movie has much to like (and some to dislike).Toscaskiss32 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and expansion[edit]

It seems like the section about how Oklahoma! used new narrative techniques is interpretation that crosses the line into original research. Aside from that, I think it's factually questionable--much of what it calls new could certainly be said of Show Boat, which came out years before. I'm inclined to cut the whole sentence--maybe something more sourced could replace it? Nareek 00:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The original production info needs to be expanded and put into the "productions" section, with shorter "overview" type info left in the lead, per WP:LEAD. The new synopsis info is a step forward, although I think that it still needs to be expanded a little bit to give a better flavor of the story and the Will Parker plot. Also, we need to add info regarding the 1951 revival. Finally, can someone do anything about the teeny-weeny photo in the info box? But this is certainly better than it was yesterday. -- Ssilvers 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The teeny tiny image is very resistant to my trying to enlarge it! I'm stuck. Added information about 1951 revival. Changed plot a bit, some of my sequences were off--especially marriage and the ballet.JeanColumbia 23:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better and better. We still need to flesh out some of the production info, and obviously, a lot more can be said about the background, critical reception and subsequent history of this show, but this is a mile better than it was yesterday. Question: right now, both the first and second paragraph indicate that Laurey agrees to go to the dance with Jud. Is it still somewhat out of sequence? -- Ssilvers 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about 27,000 native americans live in the state of oklahoma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.228.240 (talk) 00:01, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right place to report a small change I made, but here it is: Changed the sentence "A fifteen-minute "dream ballet" reflects Laurey's struggle to choose between two men" to "A fifteen-minute "dream ballet" reflects Laurey's struggle with her feelings about two men, Curley and Jud." Made this change because at no time in the show is Laurey seriously considering "choosing" Jud; she feels wary and even fearful of him, but accepts his invitation on the spur of the moment, in reaction to Curly's teasing, and almost immediately regrets doing so. Her feelings and motivations are complex; she can be played as having some kind of sexual stirrings relating to Jud, even as she fears and dislikes him (and probably even has some guilt about that). Meanwhile, she's experiencing emerging attraction to and affection for Curly, but that is also tinged with some trepidation to do with sexual feelings there, with which she's still uncomfortable. All this, roiling around her mind, is the basis for her joyful and frightening dream.Toscaskiss32 (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Edits[edit]

I have made extensive edits (editorial corrections and improvements) in this article without altering the substance, except to remove occasional ambiguity and "say what you mean" errors. Before this editing, the article's substance was excellent and comprehensive, but the writing would rate a C+ or B- at best in a freshman English class. The errors and infelicities included verbosity (wordy phrasing); overuse of passive voice, "stuffed sentences" ( overly long sentences with too many ideas in one sentence), and compound sentences; midsentence and midparagraph switches in tense; not-the-best choices of words; a "squinting modifier"(was "furiously" supposed to modify Jud or Julie?); and numerous errors of grammar, syntax, style, usage, and punctuation. -- Saul Tillich 14:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, and thanks! I don't think you need to "grade" and comment negatively on other editors' contributions. Wikipedia is written partly by busy people at work, putting in an edit here and there between work tasks, and many other editors are young people who have not yet taken freshman English! So, it is nice when a good copy editor like you comes along and reads an article cold, which is the best way to add consistency throughout an entry. I disagree with some of your punctuation changes. For example, commas should only precede conjunctions when there is an independent clause afterwards (or a parenthetical clause beforehand). It is very important on Wikipedia to be very polite and kind to other editors, because we cannot see your friendly face and can only read your comments, which may be taken to be harsh. See WP:CIVIL. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice about grading is well taken: I shouldn't have been so harsh. But I disagree with "commas should only precede conjunctions when there is an independent clause afterwards." That is the GENERAL rule, but there are exceptions. The exceptions occur when a second comma after "and" would immediately follow the clause-separating comma before the "and" in a compound sentence. The second comma is the first of a pair enclosing an introductory phrase or subordinate clause within the second independent clause. Example: "He was captain of the team, and, for this reason, all the girls admired him." The comma before "and," when combined with the comma after "and," creates choppiness without contributing to clarity. The reader gets the false impression that the writer, for some strange reason, is attempting to enclose "and" with a pair of commas. Here, although the comma before "and" is not incorrect, it is best omitted: "He was captain of the team and, for this reason, all the girls admired him." As Bernstein states in The Careful Writer, "The tendency these days is to use a minimum of commas." And as Harry Shaw writes in Punctuate it Right!, "Do not use a comma in any situation unless it adds to clarity and understanding."

Some commas are indeed mandatory, but many are discretionary and depend on the writer's personal style.

Saul Tillich 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Oklahoma! (London Stage Revival) .jpeg[edit]

Image:Oklahoma! (London Stage Revival) .jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a more specific fair use summary. -- Ssilvers 02:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voice parts[edit]

I disagree with Stage Agent in several respects. Ado Annie is certainly a mezzo, and Will Parker is a baritone. Judd Fry is generally considered a bass-baritone. Aunt Eller? Might be a contralto. I have other quibbles. In any case, music directors of musicals freely change keys from production to production, so, as we discussed at WP:MUSICALS, it does not make sense to have voice parts in most musicals articles. Your table looks nice, but I think the information contains errors, is subjective and changeable and so does not help the article. Sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Everthin's up to date in Wikipeedya...." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

things people want to know about oklahoma peoples dont know that woody guthrie was bord in oklahoma and a lot to do with its history so please try to learn about oklahoma anf famous peoples from oklahoma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.208.108 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be my very favorite comment ever. — Music Maker 5376 17:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the Discoveryland production?[edit]

There is an annual performance of Oklahoma at Discoveryland, outside of Sapulpa, OK that runs from June to August. The production is outdoors on a dirt stage, with a 1500+ seat amphitheater, live horses, wagons, etc. It has been designated by the Rodgers and Hammerstein children as the "official home" of the musical. I'd start integrating this, but I'm not sure where it would fit in, and I need to dig up some additional, secondary sources. The primary source is the Discoveryland website. scot (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a fully professional production? If so, it would seem to be appropriate if you can find some press and other independent sources describing it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a professional production: actors from all 50 states wouldn't go to Oklahoma to be in Oklahoma! for free.... Definitely an interesting tidbit of knowledge.... — Music Maker 5376 17:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a number of newspaper articles mentioning it, mostly regional (like Dallas); it's also listed in a couple of Route 66 books, since Route 66 went/goes through Sapulpa. It is a professional production; not a high budget one, but both times I've been (several years apart) it was well done, the seats were pretty full, and people were there from all over the country to watch (and in fact all over the world in one case--my wife taught English as a Second Language at Oklahoma State, and we were there with a group of ESL students). My question then is, where to put it? All the other productions are listed by start date, and I have not yet been able to find out when the Discoveryland production got started (well over 10 years ago, I first saw it in 1995 or 6), and it's presumably going to continue on for the foreseeable future. Maybe a new "Ongoing production(s)" section, or an "Other productions" section, and use stats from here, which lists an average of 600 licensed productions a year. scot (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom of the Prods section would probably be appropriate. If there's enough information, it could conceivably warrant its own section. — Music Maker 5376 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article advancement[edit]

Now that the background section is in better shape, the article obviously needs a critical/box office reception section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Development of title "Oklahoma!"[edit]

"Oklahoma!" was, as noted, originally titled "Away We Go" during its pre-Broadway run in New Haven but then was titled "Oklahoma" in Boston, and when it opened in New York the exclamation point (!) was added. I remember reading this in a theatre book but can't recall what book. Can anybody out there clarify/elaborate on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.143.173 (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what book you are referring to, but it is here: [[1]], the RNH site.JeanColumbia (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very quick search of google.books gave this: [2] p. 22, "The sound of their music: the story of Rodgers & Hammerstein", by Frederick W. Nolan, published by Hal Leonard Corporation, 2002. (there are probably many more books that contain the reference, sorry that I don't have time right now to do the reserch.)JeanColumbia (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References[edit]

I have removed some of the references I think are non-notable, and I added the following statement to the beginning of the section:

Oklahoma! has been mentioned, quoted, or parodied in a number of media, including television, films and popular music. The following list includes some of the more notable references.

The criteria for what constitutes a notable reference is very subjective, so I'll explain the reasoning I used. I removed references to cartoons that have little cultural value/impact; if the programs are not recognizable to most people, they aren't really part of popular culture. To that end, the only children's programs that appear on the list are The Muppet Show and Sesame Street because they truly have achieved a worldwide cultural impact among all age groups. The only cartoons that appear on the list are South Park and The Simpsons, which are, again, are widely recognized and, furthermore, are well-written satires. The TV shows and movies on the list are all fairly significant. Some of them only include verbal references to Oklahoma! (instead of the performance of a song), but these shows include Friends, The Office, and Will & Grace, which are such popular shows that I think any reference to Oklahoma! in them is notable. If anybody has any thoughts about what they think this section should (or shouldn't) contain, I welcome your comments.MarianKroy (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good first pass, and I basically agree with your approach. I would tend to delete references that are a mere mention of the name of the show or something from the show. I think that, for the reference to be significant, there should be a thematic connection, or a substantial quote or parody of text or melody from the show. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment - 2010[edit]

I looked over the article to see if I thought it should move up from C to B class at this time. My feeling is that it is not quite ready. First, the background section does not give any historical context for the show. The Lead gives a sentence that should be repeated in the body of the article, and we could probably steal another paragraph from the musical theatre article to describe where Oklahoma! fits into the R&H partnership and the development of musical theatre; and its effect on the musicals that followed. More importantly, there is almost no analysis of the music or text of the show. Books have been written about this musical, so an analysis section is definitely missing (describe themes, musical styles and motifs, dramatics, etc). The recordings section is incomplete. The current productions section does not give much sense as to the enormous popularity it has had and the extent of its international, regional and amateur productions over the decades - a general statement at the beginning of the section should give an overview of this. Plus, most of the productions section is unreferenced. Obviously, there should be at least one reference for each production subsection. The references section is a very incomplete bibliography. We should list the most important books about the show here. I suggest looking at Hair (musical) for an idea. Perhaps also H.M.S. Pinafore, Wicked or any of the FA or GA musicals in the project. Of course, if ALL of these things that I suggest above were done, the show would be ready for a GA review, but even before promoting to B-class, I would like to see a start made at some of them. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Great work by MarianKroy and JeanColumbia. The background section is much better, although it still needs a couple more refs. The article is still missing an "Analysis" section discussing the score and script and the relevant themes, musical styles and motifs, dramatics, etc. I imagine, though I could be wrong, that the recordings section is still incomplete. The productions section is looking better, especially the discussion of the original production, although some refs are still needed. The article needs a better general discussion of the influence the show had on later musicals and the extent of the show's enormous international, regional and amateur popularity over the decades. The references section is better, but I suspect that there are still some important books about the musical not listed. Despite these reservations about the article's comprehensiveness, I have promoted this to B-class, just barely. For ideas on how to expand the article, as noted above, see Hair (musical), H.M.S. Pinafore, or any of the FA or GA musicals in the project. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O. K! JeanColumbia (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Yow! A yippee-yo-ai-ehhhh!" I'm only sayin' "You're doin' fine, Oklahoma!" -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Chichester production[edit]

Three stars out of five: http://www.musicalcriticism.com/opera/oklahoma-0709.shtml
Three stars out of five: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/theatre/article6577412.ece ("This is a very stylised, overdrilled production, no friend of intimate moments or quiet depth of emotion. ... Oh what a so-so evening".)
Also 3 stars out of five: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/110005

Modified rapture at best. I don't think that one newpaper's "average reader rating" can be taken as a reliable indicator of audience reaction in general. It's a very small sample. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements about Integration[edit]

Opera and European operetta and especially Gilbert and Sullivan were all integrated in that the music drove the story forward, and movement was used to help unfold the story. From the 1890s to at least 1920, most musicals were revue-like, with lots of topical comic songs and totally gratuitous dances that often had nothing to do with the story line (if there was much of a story line!) and a heavy focus on pretty girls and chorus lines. All of a sudden someone would come in and sing Ta-ra-ra Boom-de-ay! The Princess Theatre musicals and Show Boat began to bring musicals back towards integration, followed by Oklahoma!. See, e.g., the bio article on Kern for more info. If we are going to make statements about integration, we need some serious research and references here. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. The corn is as high as one of these: -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Motifs?[edit]

The lead of this article includes the following declaration, which I find somewhat questionable: "In addition, Oklahoma! features musical themes, or motifs, that recur throughout the work to connect the music and story more closely than any musical ever had before." It does cite a book on the history of the musical Oklahoma!, but even though it's sourced, I'm not sure it's true. I think Showboat (in 1927) used motifs much more fully than Oklahoma (the "River" theme in the overture, "Cotton Blossom/Old Man River [the two melodies are inversions of each other], Magnolia's piano motif [which is related to "Where's the Mate for Me"], "Misry's Comin' Around" and the underscoring for the miscegenation scene [in productions that retain that number])--actually, aside from the dream ballet music, I can't recall anything in Oklahoma! I'd consider "motivic." I'm not arguing that the songs and story in Oklahoma! aren't integrated; they are, but not in a motivic sense. MarianKroy (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the source says it, it says it. See WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." So unless there is another source that contradicts the cited source, or we think the source has been used incorrectly, the statement should stand. Nevertheless, I've softened the statement to remove the comparative element (which is, as you say, too obviously erroneous to stand). I don't have that source, but we should assume that whoever cited it summarized the author's statement accurately, unless we find out differently. I added a tag asking for the page number in the book. Is it in Googlebooks? Are you really certain that themes are not repeated in the connecting music between numbers or in underscoring during dialogue (in the stage musical, not the film)? There are reprises, which are, in a broad sense, motivic.... I am reluctant to substitute our judgement for the published source's.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Softening the statement was really what I wanted, so I'm content with that. 129.244.132.57 (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm claiming the above post. I forgot to sign in. MarianKroy (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original Broadway vs. Touring Productions[edit]

I broke this info. into separate sections, creating a new "... Touring" section in the process: their common provenance and financing aside, the touring productions had different casts and were subject to different critical reviews than the original Broadway performances. Other than its organization I left the article text virtually unchanged.

For example, John Raitt was first noticed critically in the Curly role in the national touring company's Chicago production - it pretty much launched his subsequent career on Broadway but there's no mention of him herein: http://www.johnraitt.com/career/broadway (he's the primary reason I consulted this article in the first place; unfortunately I don't really see a spot in the article to note his particular performance without slighting other performers whom I don't know anything about, so I've left out mention of him).BLZebubba (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's happened to the footnote reference I supplied - I used the Wikipedia template.BLZebubba (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If you can cite a source that lists the principal cast of any of these national tours, feel free to list the blue-linked persons and say what role they played. Also, if the director is different from the Broadway director, you can name him or her. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1998 London revival[edit]

I consider this production to be significant in the fact that the lead actors Hugh Jackman (Curly) and Josefina Gabrielle (Laurey) also danced the ballet parts of "Dream Curly" and "Dream Laurey" in the production — especially as the roles of "Dream Curly" and "Dream Laurey" are traditionally danced by performers other than the members of the cast appearing as Curly and Laurey. Figaro (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the fact that they danced the "dream" roles themselves is at all significant. Do you have a source that says that the critics thought it was significant? Obviously, if it was of historical interest, the critics would have mentioned it in their reviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helene Hanff[edit]

In her memoirs, Helene "84 Charing Cross Road" Hanff writes of her years working for the Theater Guild, and the reactions of all the staff to the advent of 'Oklahoma'. Everyone except Theresa Helburn thought the show would be a disaster. 'It began with a farm-girl churning milk, and from there it got cleaner,' writes Hanff, who points out that most recent Broadway successes had been smutty. She adds that the show had at first been titled 'Oklahoma' but at the last minute, the exclamation mark had been added, and that she and her coworkers stayed up all night adding it to thousands of posters and flyers. Hanff attributes the 'No legs' critique to Walter Winchell's gofer, Rose. Helene Hanff, "Underfoot in Show Business" Harper and Rowe, 1962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.127.206 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oklahoma!. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20101031182337/http://www.playbill.com:80/news/article/144213-Arena-Stage-Opens-Its-Doors-to-the-World-at-Oct-23-Homecoming-With-Alumni-Stars to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/144213-Arena-Stage-Opens-Its-Doors-to-the-World-at-Oct-23-Homecoming-With-Alumni-Stars

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 18:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

I deleted the "In popular culture" section last night because, despite being referenced or otherwise citeable, every single one of them fails WP:IPCEXAMPLES. There is no meaningful information for why any of these references is significant, and none adds any valuable information to the article as a whole. If, for example, I were researching cultural references within Tiny Toon Adventures, it might be worth mentioning the satirical piece "Ducklahoma!" in a TTA-specific article because that contributes to the overall understanding of TTA. However, knowing that various elements of Oklahoma! are referenced or satirized in so many other works, all of them brief and serving no purpose beyond their mere presence, adds no value to Oklahoma! itself. It may be pervasive, but it does not warrant a section that is longer than half of the other sections in the article. I'd welcome references if they mentioned why they were used in other works, but including, for example, Polly singing "I Cain't Say No" in Fawlty Towers (when she could have sung literally anything else) is not helpful. HalJor (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IPC is merely an essay, not a guideline or policy. The examples used here appear, in each case, to be of songs from the musical being sung (or similar "in-depth treatments", *not* brief or passing mentions) in a work of major and lasting cultural significance (all notable). I think it might be possible to trim the list, after specific discussion of each example, or to re-format it as narrative paragraphs, but I think that, in general, it assists the reader's understanding of the subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Oklahoma!. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 00:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned about phrasing[edit]

Back in September 2020 I read this entry about Oklahoma. I was concerned by the phrasing in this passage: 2Most asserts that the musical was written at a time when America presented Jews with an opportunity to gain privileged status by assimilating into mainstream American culture and passing as white Americans. Most claims that although there were rarely any identifiably Jewish characters in plays of this time period, characters such as Ali and Jud allowed for subtle Jewish representation, Ali embodying an accepted and friendly ideal for Jewish-Americans and Jud embodying Jewish-Americans' fear of becoming a marginalized minority like black Americans. He also feels that the play contained subtle odes to Zionism as well"

I've read Andrea Most's book Making Americans: Jews and the Broadway Musical. It's true that Most explores how American Jews identified with themes in musicals such as becoming American, and Ali and Jud in Oklahoma seem to express concerns about being outsiders and wanting to become "real" Americans and be accepted as Americans.

I was worried about the use of the word "privileged" in this passage because I was concerned about the anti Semitic trope of "Jewish privilege" and somebody assuming Most suggests Jewish privledged status. For this reason I'd like to change the wording to "mainstream status".

I have no issues with Most's observation that many American musicals of the era- many written by Jews like Richard Rodgers and Irving Berlin- had themes about becoming Americans and assimilating to mainstream American culture. It just worried me seeing it expressed as "gaining privileged status". I feel uneasy with "white Americans" too. But fair enough as Most discusses the roles of African Americans in the musicals such as Show Boat and racism in South Pacific and the King and I.

I was puzzled by the reference to Zionism. Moreover, the person who wrote it apparently thought Most is male. I went back and checked Making AmericansThere is this short passage on P. 107: "Rodgers & Hammerstein seem to have been influenced by the potent Zionist imagery of the 1940s, which promoted a utopian socialist vision of a homeland where Jews could return to the soil, become farmers, and claim the land as their own. The show's poignant and nostalgic rendering of the Oklahoman land mirrored a long awaited Jewish dream of homecoming. The story represented not just a sentimental rewriting of a time in American history where everyone "behaved like brothers" but also a plea for greater inclusiveness in the present.By creating a mythic time when nobody "was better than anybody else" when the health of the nation depended on the people's acceptance of one another, Rodgers & Hammerstein constructed a new idea of what America should be - an idea that entailed openness to ethnic outsiders".

I've been a Rodgers & Hart fan and Rodgers & Hammerstein fan all my life. I agree with Most completely about how Oklahoma presents an idealised view of American history and America. It premiered when the US was fighting WWII and was widely seen as a patriotic musical celebrating Americanness. I remember when the show was revived in the 1970s- I actually saw the revival as a teenager in Miami- and I remember much discussion of the its view of Americanness and how America saw itself in the decades after WWII. I remember when I was reading the book that this passage about Rodgers & Hammerstein- or anyone else in the production- becoming influenced by Zionist imagery of the 1940s was unconvincing. Rodgers was not involved with Zionism, Nor was Hammerstein. The musical is based on Lynn Riggs' 1931 play, Green Grow the Lilacs. Nothing to do with Zionism. In the footnote on P. 227 Most argues "By 1943, Zionist ideas were familiar in American Jewish culture, even among the most assimilated American Jews." Oklahoma was written for a general audience, not specifically for American Jewish audiences. I've seen no indication that anyone involved in the production was influenced by "Zionist imagery". . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.66.49 (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Jewish, and I don't see anything concerning about the phrasing regarding privilege, which pretty clearly means white privilege. With respect to the last sentence, I agree that it is tangential to Most's argument and is not that noteworthy, so I'll restore your deletion of it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.I was just concerned about avoiding misunderstandings. I agree with you that the Zionism is tangential to Most's discussion of Oklahoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.66.49 (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]