Talk:Show Boat

Comment

There have been many contreversies about this movie and it's depiction of blacks etc. that I think deserve to be mentioned, but I really don't know too much about. If anyone knows more about this, can they add it?

I added a little; it isn't definitive but I'm sure other will add more.

I have tried to add extensive information about the controversy with the 1993 Toronto production (and therefore the general black reaction to the work), adding to what was originally written by Alisar. I obviously have a strong opinion in the matter (that the show is not racist), but I have tried to keep the section NPOV by providing three quotes from each side to balance each other out. Still, if anyone has any comments on the additions or think it is too POV feel free to say so. Yid613 - 20:24 (UTC) Dec. 14, 2005

The section has been expanded thoroughly with about seven defending sources, about seven critical sources, and evthree neutrally informative sources. The section has also been divided into categories. Yid613 07:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There's one piece of information I think is worth adding, but I'm not sure where so I'll just note it here and allow those more familiar with this article and the controversies to place it where it fits best. Lena Horne, considered very much a role-model for African-Americans because of her work in the mostly white-only MGM musicals, not only took part in the condensed performance of Show Boat in Till the Clouds Roll By, she also lobbied for and was considered for a role in the 1951 version until the studio got cold feet and cast Ava Gardner instead. I've never seen any comments from Horne one way or the other regarding the play's content, but the very fact she willingly took part in the condensed version and tried to get into the 1951 version could be considered a positive response to the play from a reputable performer. Just thought I'd toss that out there for consideration. 23skidoo 01:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi 23skidoo. Thanks for bringing up that piece of information, it is very valuable. Since you brought it up, it figures that you should be able to add the section, if you want to. So in regards to your question about where would be appropriate, I think that the best place would be to add another section titled "1951 film version" in between what is now Revisions and Cancellations and 1994 Revival. Somewhere in the text you might want to include a wikilink to Show Boat (film)#1951 Version. Thanks. Yid613 02:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'Integration' page is a disaster. It stinks of self-serving undergrads (pray let it not be p-gs!). Someone really better fucking change it.

NPOV Issues

The sections "1993 Revival" and "Analysis" are not neutral--it's clear that the author has a strong point of view, and is expressing it here. The first badly needs reworking; the "Analysis" section isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. nmw 20:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Book" and the first sentence

The first sentence of the article was edited by someone who apparently felt that the "book" of the musical should be credited to the author of the novel on which it was based (!) - logical enough if you don't know what the "book" of a musical is. I have re-written the first sentence to be totally clear - although I fear it is now cumbersome and ugly. Better ideas welcome! Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 concert

I don't know whether it's notable enough for the article, but there's a concert version due to be staged at Carnegie Hall in June '08. Article here: http://www.playbill.com/news/article/117502.html Some notable musical actors are in this. Annie D (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Although Ferber used tha name "Kim" when it may been uncommon, she did not coin it. Kipling's novel "Kim" was published in 1900. The Kentucky-Illinois-Missouri derivation is a rather clever backronym. Barnaby the Scrivener (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Kim is a short form of "Kimberly", or "Kimball" - English names that were around for a good while before 1900!! As a girl's name it may largely derive its modern popularity from Ferber, however. I've amended the article accordingly, for what it's worth!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This musical is a concerted and very powerful attack on racism

Ideas that they had to "soft pedal" the criticism of racism a bit because after all it was 1927 are ridiculous - it is STILL a show to make racists, whether they are black or white, SQUIRM. This is as POV as all hell, of course, and we couldn't say this in the article itself - but I think it is a shame to have to include (for the sake of alleged balance) the people accusing it of racism, because it doesn't ignore racial issues, or pretend that they aren't there. Significantly - it is WHITE racists who are made uncomfortable about the use of the word "nigger" - this is so obviously a dig at white people for their whole racist mindset. Making Cap'n Andy black or Joe white would destroy the whole point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Robeson saw fit to perform in this musical - that should refute any specious accusation of racism.Barnaby the Scrivener (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The 1993/1994 Toronto/Broadway production took off the "soft pedal" & restored original lyrics, notably "Niggers all work ...." in Ol' Man River. Anyone who heard this performance could be left in no doubt that the song was a protest song, with a lot of anger behind it. As a personal note, this was one of my grandfather's "signature" songs, and his sheet music which I have uses the "N--" word; I always perform it that way myself. Let's not rewrite history, or historical dramatic productions that represent the attitudes of the day.D A Patriarche (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-Kern songs

This sentence in the opening is misleading:

Two other songs not by Kern and Hammerstein — "Goodbye, My Lady Love" by Joseph Howard and "After the Ball" by Charles K. Harris — are always interpolated into American stage productions of the show.

It suggests that these songs were later interpolations into the show, when in fact, I believe, they were included by Kern and Hammerstein to capture the period flavor and were always an integral part of the show. Isn't this right? Markhh (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Latest major rewrite!!

This article is in the process of an apparently good faith but sweeping and in some cases unreferenced and/or POV rewrite - without any discussion at all - should we just revert all recent edits - and get the editor to justify the totality of changes (or at least some of the more controversial) - or has someone the time to go through the changes carefully and sort the gold (if any there be) from the dross? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous editor response

I am the person who began this most recent edit. I am a mild fan of musicals, not an expert in them, but I have an undergraduate degree in History and Science from Harvard and a PhD from Princeton (in Computer Science) and I know how to write a scholarly article. I started out to make a minor edit to an invalid reference, then became interested in rewriting the article because it is clunky, repetitive, and commits the cardinal sin of pretending to be authoritative when it is more like a parody of proper scholarship. Let me point to several examples:

First, from the introduction:

Show Boat is by far the most frequently revived American musical of its era, not only because of its songs, but also because its libretto, though clearly dated in comparison to those of more recent musicals, is considered to be exceptionally good for a musical of that era.[2]

It's hard to understand what the original author meant by "clearly dated". If he or she just meant that the libretto is old, this statement is pointless. Otherwise, it is a pejorative statement, implying that the musical is ridden with language, references, and assumptions so specific to the time it was written that you'll spend more time sniggering and rolling your eyes at the silly ideas people used to have, than being moved by its emotional thrust. This is not "clear" -- many, many people seem to enjoy the musical at face value -- and to back up the argument, the author must either make the case directly, which he or she doesn't, or point to a secondary, scholarly reference that does. If you read the sentence, you see a citation, so you assume "okay, I don't get that but apparently some serious people do, so I should believe it." The citation also seems to back up two factual claims: that "Show Boat" is the most frequently revived musical of its era, and that it is considered exceptionally good for a musical of that era.

Reference [2], however, points at a single primary source -- the original New York Times review by Brooks Atkinson. It's extremely unlikely that a reviewer in 1927 would say that a show written in 1927 feels dated, and Atkinson doesn't. Nor does he have much to say about the frequency of revival of "Show Boat" some 80 years later, or its future position in the musical canon. Reference [2] is dishonest and invalid, and the whole sentence should be rewritten or discarded.

Second, from the section "Language and Stereotypes:"

However, even many of those who denounce the stereotyping of blacks and black language admit that the intentions of Hammerstein were noble, since "'Ol' Man River' was the song in which he first found his lyrical voice, compressing the suffering, resignation, and anger of an entire race into 24 taut lines and doing it so naturally that it's no wonder folks assume the song's a Negro spiritual."[16]

That "many of those who denounce the stereotyping of blacks and black language admit that the intentions of Hammerstein were noble," is an unproven assertion. Who are these "many people"? The citation on this sentence points to a book review in Slate by Mark Steyn. But Steyn's article is not about racial stereotyping, it is about the evolution of American musical theater. Along the way, he mocks a professor of Ebonics for thinking that "Ol Man River" is an authentic folk spiritual, not written by Hammerstein, because it uses words like "dese" and "dose". The reference is misleading.

The example is an attempt to disguise an opinion as fact. The honest phrasing should be:

Even if "Show Boat" stereotypes blacks, Hammerstein should be forgiven, because he also wrote "Ol' Man River", which, as Mark Steyn wrote, "was the song in which he first found his lyrical voice, compressing the suffering, resignation, and anger of an entire race into 24 taut lines and doing it so naturally that it's no wonder folks assume the song's a Negro spiritual".[16]

As opinion, however, the sentence should not be in the article at all, unless is it identified by something like "One contributor to this article felt that..."

Third, from the section "Revisions and cancellations":

As attitudes toward race relations have changed, producers and directors have altered some content in an attempt to make the musical more 'politically correct': "...Show Boat, more than many musicals, was subject to cuts and revisions within a handful of years after its first performance, all of which altered the dramatic balance of the play..." [12]

By implication, the quoted blog supports the claim that the musical has been altered to make it more politically correct. This is not true -- the blog never uses the term "politically correct." The quote is taken from a paragraph discussing how hard it is to decide on what the true libretto should be.

I don't denigrate the contributors to this article, I applaud them. We all work together to make something great. Nevertheless, parts of this article are sophomoric, high school sophomoric. The rule of scholarship is simple -- if you make a factual claim, it should either be so generally accepted by other experts that a proof is superfluous, or you should prove it, by pointing to primary sources (your own research, newspaper articles, government records, etc.) or secondary references (books and so forth) that have themselves been validated by the community. If you state opinion, fine, but be honest, and don't try to dress it up with bogus citations. I worry about inexperienced high school students who read this entry and think they should trust it.

In the old-fashioned world of academia, one submits an article to a journal, and the editor sends it off to expert reviewers to check that it meets scholarly standards. Wikipedia proposes a different model: that if enough people in the world have a chance to work on an article, eventually people with passion and knowledge will step in, and it will get to be good. For whatever reason, I became interested in rewriting this article. My first edits contained some sarcastic and snarky comments. I was trying to tone everything down when some super-user stepped in and tossed it all. This is discouraging. The tab says "Edit This Page", not "Ask for Permission to Edit this Page" or "Discuss Endlessly Your Plans for This Page". You need to figure out your philosophy. It would be fun to rewrite the article, but not if faceless wiki-wardens will step in any time and arbitrarily delete a lot of hard work.

Jeff W., 2-1-2010

Please visit these links:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

They will answer many of the general points you raise here, and others.

There is a lot in what you have to say - and in fact I am interested in your efforts to improve this important (and currently rather poor) article. It probably NEEDS a good rewrite.

On the other hand:

• Your work is not sacred, and will be edited by others - even deleted if it is unsuitable. The people editing your work will vary from people who know less than nothing to people who know much more than you (and not just about the subject of the article, either!). There are no "super-editors" or "wiki-wardens" in the sense you seem to think - administrators are more concerned with breeches of courtesy and keeping out the rank vandals. Fortunately - earlier versions of every article are kept under the "history" tab so the restoration of hard work is always possible.

• You are admitted to "the company of Wiki editors" as an equal - not because of any particular qualifications or knowledge you possess. Certainly not because you're much smarter than anyone here (even in the most unlikely event this is true).

• You will often be challenged - if someone doesn't like agree with something you have said. You may on occasion have to justify yourself. Don't make sweeping changes without at least mentioning the fact in discussion, and where appropriate deigning to explain why text (especially when referenced) has been deleted or replaced with something that says something different.

• Yes, I know there are a lot of questionable references in articles here - I admire you persistence in chasing some of these down!

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jeff, I agree with Soundofmusicals that your input contained some good points. The sources cited here should be Reliable sources and should be used correctly. It is also true that this article is not consistently written and betrays its history as a patchwork of many different contributors. It can certainly be much improved, although this would take some work and discussion among editors. Note that, while you have criticized some sources used here, you have not suggested any better sources, and you have subsituted your own Point of View for the information that you are criticizing. You need to add sources. Also, the article should not refer to itself: it must be written encyclopedically. For example addressing high school students or other readers directly is not encyclopedic - write about the topic, not the reader. Wikipedia works by WP:Consensus. I think you could easily convince me and the other editors interested in this article of the merits of what you say if you break it down into smaller chunks, and we discuss it on this page. In the meantime, I have taken an hour to try to make a few changes in the article that respond to your edits. Let's keep making improvements. We are listening, if you wish to help. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

First production and Rio Rita

I haven't read the book by Bloom, etc, but in the notes for the 1980s EMI recording Miles Krueger states that Show Boat was never intended open the Ziegfeld Theatre and the delays in opening Show Boat had everything to do with the difficulties of writing and producing the show. Show Boat was originally intended to open at the Lyric Theatre and only moved to the Ziegfeld when that theatre's stage was deemed too small. This is why Rio Rita was moved out of the Ziegfeld. I think the references here to Rio Rita's success causing the opening of Show Boat to be delayed are all incorrect and should be revised. Articles in the New York Times bear this out. Anyone else care to weigh in before making any changes? Best wishes, Markhh (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Potential for FA status?

This article has certainly had its issues, but thanks to improvements by several editors it has gone from pretty good to very good, I think, with the potential of being an excellent article indeed. Issues remain, including POV issues in the important controversy section. I think with some careful editing this could be a featured article. It would be helpful if a very experienced WP editor could review the article and make recommendations for the improvements that would be needed to qualify for an A rating and possibly FA status. Any thoughts? Markhh (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Parthy Ann"

Not unreasonable to introduce her by both given names in the first instance - silly (not to mention gratuitously irritating) to add the middle name whenever Parthy is mentioned in the rest of the synopsis. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Markhh (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Wikipedia requires reliable, published third-party sources, recommending that editors use material published in peer-reviewed journals, etc. Footnote #27 and related cites is taken from a blog by Richard Keeling. Considering how much attention "Show Boat" has gotten over the years, I am sure there are adequate sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria without using a blogger's work. This source should be removed.Parkwells (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

True/truly

Show Boat appeared on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 27. While there, a British user remarked that calling Show Boat the "first true American musical" implies that it's a non-fiction story, and that grammatically speaking, when you attach a modifier to an adjective, you need to use an adverb (thus, "truly"). Since you reverted my edit, perhaps you can rewrite that bit so that it expresses your intended meaning without engendering confusion amongst our non-American readers. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 00:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please - this very obviously belongs here rather than on my talk page!!! One can call something "truly an American musical" or "a true American musical" - there is however a subtle difference in meaning. I am a speaker of "British" (well, rather old fashioned "Australian") English myself - and I do not believe there is in fact a significant dialectal difference here myself. "The "first true English opera" (for instance) does not mean the same as "The first truly English opera". The context here of course is that Show Boat is the first example of a genre that we might class as an "American musical play" - perhaps something between an "American musical comedy" and an "American opera". The theme, or "play" is that of a serious opera rather than the light hearted fluff typical of an operetta or musical comedy. Putting "truly" rather than "true" in this sentence changes the meaning by putting a new emphasis on American- implying that there is a genre called (say) "British musical play" or perhaps even "Australian music play" with which Show Boat is being contrasted. With all due respect to the user who commented on the main page I don't think that "true" in this context means "non-fictional" - the word "true" has a number of other meanings, one of which is very clearly implied here. I'd go as far as to say that if Show Boat were non-fictional we would not in fact attempt to convey the fact by simply using the word "true" - we would either say "non-fictional", or "based on a true story", or some such construction. "True on its own simply does not bear this meaning in a conext like this. Nor, as far as I am concerned, is there such a thing as a gramatical RULE that implies that when you attach a modifier to an adjective, you NEED to use an adverb - although it may very often be more elegant (and, in a different context from this one, less ambiguous) to do so. I reverted your edit NOT because I doubted its good faith, but because I considered, and still consider, after giving it a good deal of thought, that it is mistaken. We all make mistakes (says he who ought to know!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a U.S. speaker of English and I agree with Soundofmusicals. "The first true American musical" means the first work that was truly a musical. "The first truly American musical" means "the first musical that was truly American." To express the idea that something is strictly factual in content, it seems to me that I'd use the term "nonfiction," not the term "true." Truman Capote called In Cold Blood a "nonfiction novel," not a "true novel." I would have to say that it seems to me that a misinterpretation of "true musical" to mean "nonfiction musical" is unlikely anyway, as I can't quite imagine what a nonfiction musical would be--even when the topic is biographical ("Annie, Get Your Gun,") the requirements of a musical pretty much dictate that a lot of dramatic license be taken--and in real life most people do not break into song and dance numbers, unless of course they are performing in a musical. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

But In Cold Blood can also be called "true crime". Regardless, can we rework this bit to be absolutely clear? howcheng {chat} 02:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

But it is already perfectly clear. "True" in this context simply does not mean "non-fictional". "True crime" is another matter altogether, being a (rather illiterate) designation for a genre of crime fiction that contains (more or less factual) elements of actual events. Nobody ever called (nor, one trusts, ever will call) a musical based on a true story a "true musical". This is just inventing a difficulty that doesn't exist. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Having said all that (!) I've actually re-read the original text and had a shot at making the prose a little more "spare" - the word "true" isn't really necessary here anyway, nor is "American" when the context is so very plain that this is an American subject. Is this more pleasing? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Racial depictions controversy

This article has been much improved since I last looked in, but I can't help feeling the last section is still too long and overbalances the whole. In particular it gives a lot of weight to a cancelled production by an obscure English amateur company, and controversies surrounding a Canadian production which occurred almost twenty years ago. I'm not suggesting this issue should not be covered, but at the moment readers may go away from this article with the impression that one of the most successful and influential of American musicals is only of significance for the controversies it has provoked and the people it has offended.Wilus (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know whether it's "too long" really - but it is a bit repetitive. What it seems to say is:

• Show Boat is racist
• No it isn't
• Yes it is too
• No it isn't

(and so on - the overall effect is just plain unedifying)

Would the section be improved by its replacement by a fair (but succinct) summary of the the arguments of the SBIR mob - followed by a resounding refutation? That would have the side benefit of shortening it too, a least a little.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not the job of WP to either support or refute. A succinct well-cited summary of the arguments on both sides and some history of the conflict should suffice. Markhh (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

POV that would be quite innapropriate in an article may possibly be forgiven here! You know what I mean. anyway.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the different points can be presented fairly and any sensible reader can decide for themselves. This section arrived at its present state after a long period of contentious editing and I think no one has wanted to reignite that fire. Maybe the time is right for some judicious editing, but any attempt to slant it or to "prove" one side wrong will just start the whole mess all over again. I understand your feelings, but the article has to be neutral in tone. Because the feelings on both sides are equally strong. I do think that if POV is avoided that the section successfully can be shortened, clarified, updated perhaps, and repetitions removed, so that its prominence will be more in balance with the rest of the article. Markhh (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree of course. Feel free. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The 1993/94 Toronto/Broadway production was a milestone in restoring both the original lyrics and the anti-racism slant (or if you like the accurate depiction of attitudes of the time) of Edna Ferber's book. It deserves its own Wiki article IMHO, but I do not have enough info to write it. Somebody more knowledgeable please help! D A Patriarche (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a fair bit on this production in this article already - although it is a bit scattered. Really not sure what a specific Wiki article would accomplish, to be honest. Most of the points worth making are at least equally important here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Movie Plot

Someone wiped the account of the (changed) plot of the movie - stating (and I can see their point) that this is irrelevant to THIS article, which is after all about the stage show. I would really like to keep this - provided it stays a very brief summary and doesn't blow out into excessive detail. The fact is that for every person who has had the chance of seeing the stage show there are many who will have seen the movie - if not in a cinema then on television or on a video recording. In particular, a brief summary like this, pointing out the important plot differences, makes sense of the some things (like the strong anti-racist satire of the uncut stage version) that might otherwise not be at all clear, because the film version, important document in its own right as it is, is so heavily Bowdlerised and politically "toned down" and meddled with. In a way it is like the Modest Proposal with the cannibalism removed! This is really best illustrated by a summary of the movie plot such as this one. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I still think this is better served in the article for the film, but I adjusted the heading to make it clearly a subset of the Synopsis section where it seems more integral to the article than as a section of its own where it seemed out of place. Markhh (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Show Boat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 01:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I can do this GA review. Can the nominator please confirm they are still interested in working on this? --Noleander (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This article was nominated for GA by User:PianoDan. Customarily, the nominating editor should work on the article a bit before nominating. I don't see many edits by PianoDan in the article's history. PianoDan: Can you work on the article for a few days, and then we can start the GA process afterwards? --Noleander (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the a nominator had to have worked on the article. I nominated the article because it seemed to me to be an excellent choice for GA status, but not through any efforts of mine. PianoDan (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That said, if a reviewer decides that further changes would be needed to reach GA status, I am willing and consider myself qualified to make those changes. As it stands now, however, the article looks to me to be in excellent shape. PianoDan (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments from reviewer

Cool, glad to hear you're available to work on the article. I'll be happy to do a GA review.

• Can you start by making sure all non-trivial paragraphs have a footnote? For instance, the 1st two pagaraphs of "American revivals and 1936 film" section; or the paragraph that ends with "This was meant to illustrate how white performers "appropriated" the music and dancing styles of African Americans. Earlier productions of Show Boat, even the 1927 stage original and the 1936 film version, did not go this far in social commentary." Trivial paragraphs that just summarize the plot don't require footnotes. And a footnote is not required for every single sentence ... but each paragraph should end with a footnote, so readers can jump down to the References and see where to go to to get more information about that paragraph's topic.

Does each paragraph really need to END with a footnote, as long as there are appropriate footnotes in logical places in the paragraph? Often it appears that the best place for a footnote in a given paragraph is earlier. That said, I've gone through and added a bunch more.PianoDan (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no hard-and-fast rule. But putting the footnote in the middle of a paragr gives the impression that that source only justifies the preceding material; leaving the reader thinking that the following text (latter half of paragr) has no source at all. If the entire paragr comes from one source, the footnote should be at the end. If various parts of the paragr come from multiple sources, then multiple footnotes are best.

• Second, the article is very skimpy on illustrations. Can you check to see if more are available?

Added two, one from each major film version. PianoDan (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Movie plot: The movie plot is mentioned in the following text: "Note: The 1951 MGM film completely changed the final scenes ...". The format of that text is not standard (italic; indented). It should be a dedicated subsection, with a title like "1951 movie plot" or similar. No italic; no indent.

Done - PianoDan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Picture rationales: The 2 new pics are great! They are copyrighted, which means that special work has to be done: in the image file itself you must add a "fair use rationale" into each image, explaining why the image is critical to help readers understand this article. Those images already contain 1 rationale (each) for the article they were originally used it; but a separate rationale is required for each article the image is used in (WP has strict rules on this). You can start by duplicating the old/existing rationale: but you must tailor the new rationale for this article.

Um.. I uploaded the one from the 1936 film myself - it's only ever been used in this article. I'll add one for the MGM image soon.PianoDan (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Done - PianoDan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• This sentence needs clarification: "Note: There is no definitive version of the libretto of Show Boat, although the basic plot has always remained the same; minor revisions have been made by the creators, and subsequent producers and directors over the years." - Maybe there are dozens of librettos that have been used; but if one were to purchase the libretto today from the copyright owner, I daresay that there are only 2 or 3 librettos for sale. Maybe it is more accurate to say that "The libretto has been altered/tailored by nearly every director that has staged a production" or similar.

Done PianoDan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Slang: "...did not really use the entire score..." - Word "really" can be omitted.

Done PianoDan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Grammar: "... but its cast album broke ground..." - Word "but" is wrong: it is not contradicting the prior phrase.

Reworded PianoDan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Be precise: "...has been adapted for film several times,..." - May as well specify the quantity.\

Fixed PianoDan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Cite needed: "The soundtrack of the 1936 film version has appeared on a so-called "bootleg" CD label called Xeno." - May be true, but some readers may think it is a hoax or joke. Fine a cite or remove.

Cited - PianoDan (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Cite needed: Entire paragraph "In subsequent productions, "niggers" has been changed to "colored folk," ..." contains critical historical information and readers need to know what source to go to to get more information.

Added - PianoDan (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Clarify wording: "The 1993 Hal Prince revival, originating in Toronto, brought racial matters into focus. Throughout the production, African Americans constantly cleaned up the mess, moved the sets (even when hydraulics actually moved them), with their presence constantly commenting on the racial disparities." - Could you improve that wording? It took me a couple of reads to understand what is intended. Maybe something like "the production was staged in a way to force the audience to contemplate racial disparities: Af-Am actors performed most menial work on stage during the show, including ..."

Reworded PianoDan (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Dead external Links: If you click on the blue "External links" link in the upper right corner of this page, you'll see four red ext links: those are defunct & need to be fixed.

Fixed PianoDan (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Section title: "Racial depictions controversy" -> should probably be "Racial issues". The word "controversy" is a bit POV/non-neutral; and the "depictions" is unnecessary.

Done PianoDan (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• That's about all I can find. If you fix the few remaining items, I think we are good-to-go for GA status. Nice work!

OK, I think that's everything. Back to studying for finals now! PianoDan (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Show Boat/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This could have been rated "stub" as the Novel element is very low. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 06:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Show Boat. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120117002400/http://www.olivierawards.com/about/previous-winners/view/item98534/Olivier-Winners-1999/ to http://www.olivierawards.com/about/previous-winners/view/item98534/olivier-winners-1999/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726152905/http://oldtimeradio-in-tx.homedns.org/otr/cavalcade%20of%20america4/ to http://oldtimeradio-in-tx.homedns.org/otr/cavalcade%20of%20america4/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ia700504.us.archive.org/13/items/Lux05/Lux_40-06-24_Showboat.mp3

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

New Cast Table

The newly added table of cast members in multiple productions is a fine addition to the article. However, its width is twice that of the margins of the rest of the article. This throws the display of the article out of line - reduced to a small column on the left of the screen. Is there a way to fix this? Possibly splitting the table into two parts or adding the ability to collapse it? Thanks, Markhh (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that the redundant cast table is helpful in the article. The cast members are (or should be) already named in the production section with appropriate sourcing. If people decide that it is necessary to repeat information in tabular form, I suggest using the much more concise format used in these WP:Featured Articles: The King and I#Principal roles and notable performers and Carousel (musical)#Principal roles and notable performers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above post by Ssilvers. Somambulant1 (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with the view of Ssilvers regarding the cast table. Jack1956 (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I like it. It offers at a glance the artists who played each role over the years and also the cast of each important revival. However, as it currently stands, it doesn't fit within he page margins. As I said above it could be made to collapse. and only opened if the reader wanted to see it. Or it could also be cut down to only the most important productions. But I I think it's worth keeping, and maybe removing the repetitions elsewhere. Markhh (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I disagree with deleting the table before there was an opportunity for discussion. How can other editors fairly evaluate it if they can't see it? I suggest restoring the table until discussion is complete (or, alternately, posting it under this heading on the talk page). Thanks! Markhh (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that some information in the Production history section is unreferenced. If you want to improve the article, a very helpful task would be to add references to the productions section, and to make sure that all of the notable (blue-linked) cast members are mentioned with respect to each such production. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Show Boat. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20130602021406/http://www.olivierawards.com/about/previous-winners/view/item98525/olivier-winners-1991/ to http://www.olivierawards.com/about/previous-winners/view/item98525/olivier-winners-1991/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Actors in cast table

There is a gaggle of artists in the last column of the cast table with no sense of what production each was in. It's been that way since it was added here.

I suggest at least limiting it to stage actors (the other media ones are listed elsewhere in the article), and adding in parenthesis after each name the date - if american production - and location and date if elsewhere (like the London stage production, for example). or better, columns like seen at Company_(musical)#Principal_casts. - jc37 07:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this layout is better than what we have in Company and other similar articles. Generally the original cast is the most notable as originating the roles and then we can list notable other people who have also been in the role. When we list the full cast of every major production, we end up including individuals who are otherwise not notable and have no context as to who they are. BOVINEBOY2008 15:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to add in the cast table which production the person was in, because that information is given in the Productions section. Let's keep the cast table as concise as possible; blue-linked people who have starred in long-running notable productions listed in the Productions section. This layout is used in some of the Rogers and Hammerstein Featured Articles, such as The King and I. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Principal roles

The article does not distinguish the five principal singing roles, a clear deficiency. Two methods I have tried, asterisks and footnote, have been reversed. There is no obvious place to go for a citation. Nor is this a matter of "original research" in that nobody would dispute which of the 12 or 13 solo roles we are talking about. So how do we overcome the deficiency? B C R M (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You need to a) find a WP:reliable source that supports that; and b) find something that makes it clear that it is important enough for inclusion. SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat is correct. See these key Wikipedia policies and guidelines for more information. WP:OR and WP:V. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, Ssilvers and SchroCat, first of all, I am myself a reliable source because I know the score. Second, I have contributed to Wikipedia for going on 20 years adding all sorts of information *without* support, and I am certain that the vast majority of material added to the encyclopedia is in fact unsupported, uncited. You will know this too of course. Wikipedia would not be what it is today if contributors were forced to support everything they added. Third, about whether identifying the principal singing roles "is important enough for inclusion," most readers would say it is. I got the impression from one of you that you are part of an oversight body concerned with musicals. If so, you must agree. Your actions are a disservice. B C R M (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is a good example of the disservice. Stageagent.com lists the "leads" and "supporting" roles for Show Boat. It would be easy for me to cite this to overcome your objection. But Stageagent is a bad source. Mrs Hawks is not a principal singing role whereas Queenie is. I know this; Stageagent does not, being a mindless database. B C R M (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

1. Adding information without a source is damaging. Please don’t continue to do it.
2. You are not a source. What you think may or may not be right is classed as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and it should not be on WP.
3. The fact that one source disagrees with your interpretation should be a red flag for you, that what you think you may know may not be correct, or at least open to interpretation by others.
4. Please don’t class anyone’s actions as a “disservice”, particularly when both of us have pointed you in the direction of the site’s guidelines and policies for doing things the right way. - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

   As to No. 4, yes, SchroCat, it is a disservice when the article is less than it could be. You have subtracted what I contributed despite the quality of the contribution, and you haven't addressed the Stageagent example I gave. B C R M (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I can address it. The Stageageant example proves that different people (in Stageagent's case, a professional editor) disagree about which roles are the most important ones. You have not presented sources that authoritatively show which roles are "principal" ones, and your assertion that you are the best arbiter of this are directly contrary to Wikipedia's policies, and so your contribution was not helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

No, the Stageagent listing includes non-singing roles. That's the difference. B C R M (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That's no answer. B C R M (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

What other edits have you made to Wikipedia over the past 20 years without citing sources? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thousands. Perhaps one edit in 50 or 60 of mine has been with a citation. And "adding information without a source" is not damaging, as SchroCat suggests, unless the information is wrong. Naturally things are better sourced, I agree. But you can't expect volunteers to go to the trouble every time. B C R M (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Please point them out to me so that I can help you source them or remove the information that violates WP:V. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course it’s damaging. Aside from the fact people lose confidence if information is unsourced, without citations we end up with people adding trivia (like who are a “principals” in a show), and worse, they get it wrong, disagreeing with better sources than their own opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

If you think that identifying the principal singing roles is "trivia," you really should not be involved at all in articles devoted to musical theatre! B C R M (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

What is trivia is your *identification* of the roles that you think are "principal" ones. The important characters can be identified by the plot summary and list of musical numbers as those who are important to the story and sing in the songs. Also, if you do not wish to follow WP:V, you should not contribute to Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

See my reply to SchroCat below. B C R M (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

As a little test, SchroCat, you might want to ask a few people to name the principal roles in Tosca. You won't get a single variance. It is not a matter of opinion. Granted, Tosca is not a musical, but in Show Boat the only variance might be whether to include Queenie; there would be no variance in naming the other four. B C R M (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

BCRM, you have not shown the utility of *naming* the "principal" roles, when we have already *demonstrated* which roles are the most important ones in the plot summary and list of musical numbers. BTW, our article on Tosca is a WP:Featured Article. It does not specify which roles are "principal" ones, showing that none of the dozens or hundreds of people who worked on this article believe that this is a useful thing to do in Wikipedia articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

LOL - I don’t need to do any tests thanks, but as a little test for you: why don’t you find a source to add the principals to this article? The roles you think should be there doesn’t matter one iota: it’s what the sources say. That is all that counts. - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The "utility" would be in helping any reader new to the subject. Obviously. The line distinguishing the principals is indisputable in the case of Tosca, hence the suggested test, and nearly indisputable in the case of Show Boat. The question is whether you want to help people new to the subject. B C R M (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope. The question is what the sources say. How much importance do they put on the point. If little or none then it’s not worth stressing over - “principal” means different things to different sources and that’s why we follow the sources, not the opinion of a single editor. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The result of your stupidity is that Pete is equal to Ravenal. Do the damn test! B C R M (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don’t insult people. WP:CIVIL is another policy you should read. Unless you are prepared to take on board some of the policies and guidelines you’ve been shown, I think we’re done here. Go find a source. The position of the website is how I outlined it in the first post: You need to a) find a WP:reliable source that supports that; and b) find something that makes it clear that it is important enough for inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

We list 13 roles, undifferentiated. This does not much help the reader. The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization (not a great source) lists 10 “main characters” and 2 “supporting characters.” StageAgent (ditto) lists 16 “characters” classified as 5 “leads,” 7 “supporting” and 4 “featured.” In fact there are 5 principal singing roles (not aligned with StageAgent’s “leads”). These are clearly identifiable from the score, which is of course the only source that matters, and they should accordingly be identified in our article. I propose the addition to the list of the 3 missing characters and the following line at the start of the “Roles” section: Note: Julie, Magnolia, Queenie, Ravenal and Joe are the principal singing roles. Or asterisks by these in the list followed by an explanation. I suggest that editors involved in musical theatre obtain for themselves an education in the “utility” (Ssilvers’ word) for readers, especially readers new to a subject, of identified principal singing roles. It matters. It is, as illustration, the first breakdown at the above two source sites. Moreover, nobody wants to be confronted by a tag-team armed with wp:original research, wp:reliable source, wp:v, wp:civil, when they are trying to contribute, and this type of tool use runs counter to the recent messages I have received as a new account holder. B C R M (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Follow the sources, not your personal interpretation of them. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The source is the score. B C R M (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No it’s not. Not unless it actually says “principal” or “leading” next to the character name. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The score "says" that through its allocation. You don't know, do you? B C R M (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I do know, yes. But I also know—and follow—the site guidelines and policies. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You are a slave to them. You don't think. Earlier you wrote: "adding information without a source is damaging." This is also nonsense. Are you a person or a robot? B C R M (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

So you are a robot! B C R M (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the further incivility. We’re done here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This needs to be its own topic because the whole point is that a "principal" role such as Mrs Hawks is not necessarily a singing one. B C R M (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)