Talk:Oklahoma! Information & Talk:Oklahoma! Links at HealthHaven.com

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

(Rated C-Class)

Musical Theatre portal

Oklahoma! is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

WikiProject Oklahoma

Oklahoma portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Comments

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

[edit] Oklahoma! songs and copyright, deletion

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Stage Revival Section

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)

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.

[edit] Lead and expansion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] New Edits

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

[edit] Voice parts

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)

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

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)

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

[edit] No mention of the Discoveryland production?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Article advancement

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)

[edit] Development of title "Oklahoma!"

"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)

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)

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)

Contents