Jump to content

Talk:Van Cliburn: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
removed reqphoto, article has images.
sorry, don't believe this
Line 50: Line 50:
Why on earth is this encyclopedic material? Why is this information deemed important? Wouldn't it be enough to mention that he has never been married and leave out this garbage?
Why on earth is this encyclopedic material? Why is this information deemed important? Wouldn't it be enough to mention that he has never been married and leave out this garbage?
Personally (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) I am interested in a person's achievements and philosophy, not in their dirty laundry or in who is suing them. I realize that the current "news" media has most people being led around by the nose, bombarding them with "tabloid" tid-bits about the subject's personal lives etc. Can we please rise above this trend? Thank you.[[Special:Contributions/76.171.125.202|76.171.125.202]] ([[User talk:76.171.125.202|talk]]) 00:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Personally (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) I am interested in a person's achievements and philosophy, not in their dirty laundry or in who is suing them. I realize that the current "news" media has most people being led around by the nose, bombarding them with "tabloid" tid-bits about the subject's personal lives etc. Can we please rise above this trend? Thank you.[[Special:Contributions/76.171.125.202|76.171.125.202]] ([[User talk:76.171.125.202|talk]]) 00:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
:: This sanitizing effort comes across as an attempt to remove subjects' sexual identity, and as such gives the perception of biased whitewashing by editors holding a strong anti-gay bias. I personally have only seen this done to biographies of those seen as positive role models such as Mr. Cliburn, while the sexual identity of negative role models is exaggerated and lied about. This in turn gives the perception (which I think these editors are very, very intent on creating) that homosexuality is tied to amorality and criminality. And the complaints are always stated in terms of avoiding "tabloid gossip" or some such. I suspect most editors see through this pseudo-appeal to logic covering a biased agenda. --[[User:NellieBlyMobile|NellieBlyMobile]] ([[User talk:NellieBlyMobile|talk]]) 17:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:46, 27 February 2013

Comments

Excellent article; Cliburn would have made a smash on the world classical circuit, recording contracts, etc., but chose for himself another direction. I heard him play just last month, and his fingers seemed as nimble as ever. Four standing ovations, three played encores, and a fourth requested, but he begged off. The symphony crowd would have had him stay all night, and they are discriminatory bunch! ralphc133p@cox.net

Trivia

Do we "really" need a trivia section? There are only two and one is un-sourced and the other could be inserted elsewhere. Just a suggestion. — SeadogTalk 04:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should add the information from the palimony page regarding Cliburn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.149.236.86 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Partner

The word "partner" is quite ambiguous. I didn't realize it was referring to a "life partner" until the FOLLOWING context (e.g., "HIV" and "palimony"). Should be made more clear somehow, but the best I can think of is "life partner" which seems awkward. Perhaps someone else can take a stab. Pudge (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Domestic partner is the commonly used term. I'll fix it.THD3 (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discography

The official SonyBMG Masterworks discography link for this artist is as follows

It (in most cases) contains a full listing of in-print CDs released on the SonyBMG labels within the US (for the moment), along with track listings and in some cases audio clips (which will become more robust in the new year). Ecommerce links are provided inobtrusively.

I have been informed that it creates a conflict of interest to post these links directly from my account, so please consider adding the page to the link section. Thanks. Softlord 22:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Friedheim

How could Van Cliburn have been taught by Arthur Friedheim when Van Cliburn wasn't even born until two years after Friedheim's death? --TrustTruth (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sentence more closely. Cliburn's MOTHER was Friedheim's pupil.THD3 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake. --TrustTruth (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Van Cliburn Pianist"

Van Cliburn is a very talented young man.Well,he is not young anymore he is old he is 70 or something but he is still very talented.My music teacher told our class that Cliburn's mum is very important in his life.HAHA Cliburn i don't know if you are dead or alive.LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.169.68 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is this topic primary for Cliburn?

Is this topic primary for Cliburn? If so, the article about the small village currently at Cliburn needs to be moved so that Cliburn can be a redirect to Van Cliburn; this move has been proposed here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to look at when Van Cliburn and Cliburn were created, as Van Cliburn was created in March 2004 1 while Cliburn was created in December 2009 2, so it seams as if Van Cliburn is not commomly just called Cliburn as there doesn't seem to have been a problem with people getting to Van Cliburn. But for the few people who did have a problem we have Cliburn (disambiguation). Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 13:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a Stellar, Inspirational Article, then this entry about some nasty lawsuit.

Why on earth is this encyclopedic material? Why is this information deemed important? Wouldn't it be enough to mention that he has never been married and leave out this garbage? Personally (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) I am interested in a person's achievements and philosophy, not in their dirty laundry or in who is suing them. I realize that the current "news" media has most people being led around by the nose, bombarding them with "tabloid" tid-bits about the subject's personal lives etc. Can we please rise above this trend? Thank you.76.171.125.202 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sanitizing effort comes across as an attempt to remove subjects' sexual identity, and as such gives the perception of biased whitewashing by editors holding a strong anti-gay bias. I personally have only seen this done to biographies of those seen as positive role models such as Mr. Cliburn, while the sexual identity of negative role models is exaggerated and lied about. This in turn gives the perception (which I think these editors are very, very intent on creating) that homosexuality is tied to amorality and criminality. And the complaints are always stated in terms of avoiding "tabloid gossip" or some such. I suspect most editors see through this pseudo-appeal to logic covering a biased agenda. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]