Jump to content

Talk:Van Cliburn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Background on name

[edit]

As someone not particularly up on classical pianists (in spite of having been indoctrinated into the cult of Rubinstein by the film, which had somehow become part of my middle school's curriculum) I find myself wondering about how the son of Rildia Bee O'Bryan came to be "Van Cliburn". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clairvoyant/Psychic??

[edit]

Am I dreaming this, or didn't I once read an article where either someone claimed that Cliburn was clairvoyant or that he himself believed it?68.207.148.21 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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"

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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.

[edit]

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]
This is not the place for creating "Stellar, Inspirational" articles, and deleting mentions of "nasty lawsuits." Look for that kind of reporting in the fan magazines. Here on WP you get the good, the bad, and the ugly if it can be cited from some other "reliable" source. Of course, celebrity fans can create havoc in BLP entries, and often do. We try to keep a Neutral Point of View (forgive me for the plain language, my attempt to make the esoteric exoteric, and acronym free for the newbies.) JohnClarknew (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur in the notion that attempts to remove mentions of homosexual relationships are, more often than not, associated with a feeling that it's something that need not be mentioned. That's not to say that I'm trying to accuse 76.171 of editing in bad faith – rather, many such attempts I've seen have come from people thinking that references to homosexuality are in fact homophobic. Nonetheless, the idea that a homosexual relationship (or a romantic partnership not extending to marriage, in general) is something inherently "gossippy" stems from an antiquated worldview. Social views aside, the lawsuit is mentioned in his New York Times obituary, so I think you'd be hard-pressed to see it's not objectively relevant material. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, an article on Van Cliburn would not be complete in the English language Wikipedia (with 99 percent US contributors) if a trip into his sexual life had been omitted. I am a regular contributor to Wikipedia in several languages, but have totally walked away from the English one because of the "Personal life" section. As a European, I view personal (private) life as... personal AND private & am shocked at the details given on the subject of the article, be the subject a musician, scientist, historian, politician or the (wo)man on the Moon. My belief is that such sections are extensively covered by the Boulevard Press & should be left there. I also have a question: when Wikipedians tell about Van Cliburn's or anyone else's *private* (read: *sexual*) life, why do they hide behind a nickname, why don't they identify themselves? Either gossip or legal suits, these demand that the *tell all accuser* identify him/herself. Wisniewska — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:885:F600:28E6:3E98:27E2:A9B7 (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia article, not a hagiography. This information is properly cited and therefore eligible for inclusion - just as it is in the book Moscow Nights. If Cliburn had been heterosexual, and the plaintiff a female, the lawsuit would also have been included in the article - witness the many biographies of heterosexual figures that include information about divorces, affairs, etc. And I find it hard to believe you're a regular contributor if you don't know to sign your own comments using four tildes.MisterCSharp (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by what I wrote, as I find wiki.en does not respect *private life*. If the subject of the article is a musician, let's talk about his music, not about his amorous affairs. Private/sexual life has nothing to do here. Wikipedia is not boulevard press.
I did sign my name: my real name: Wisniewska
--2A01:CB00:885:F600:28E6:3E98:27E2:A9B7 (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Hotel

[edit]

A recent edit states that Cliburn owned the Halifax Hotel in Hollywood. The source is a self-published "autobiography". A quick google search only turns up items that lead back to this source. Does anyone know of a valid source for this info?THD3 (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cliburn which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Van Cliburn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Van Cliburn. 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: 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) 21:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Van Cliburn. 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: 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) 15:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Innuendo?

[edit]

The "personal life and death" section of the article strongly hints that Cliburn was gay, but never actually comes right out and says so. To the best of my knowledge Cliburn never came out publically.

This sort of innuendo seems inappropriate in an encyclopedic article. If definitive information exists regarding Cliburn's sexuality, then the section should just state his orientation in a simple straightforward manner, give the citation, and move on. If such documentation does not exist, then the section should be rewritten to avoid the sort of "wink wink, nod nod" insinuating tone it currently conveys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a surprisingly poor quality entry for Mr Cliburn!

[edit]

The "lasting impact" section that starts it seems like it was written for a middle-school report. And, in general, the whole entry is surprisingly short and shallow. The "legacy" section at the end is similarly badly composed.

Cliburn accomplished a lot (especially for an American classical musician), and he probably deserves better -- plus, the biographical information in the entry is sorely lacking (I don't care whether you do or do not include salacious details or anything about his sexual orientation -- it's simply that a fuller description of his life is warranted.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.166.12 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Van_Cliburn&oldid=1252177618"