Talk:The King and I/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about The King and I. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I may have missed it, here. Also, how is it we are citing to two unspecified programs from the 1981 tour? Can we get rid of or expand the ref?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I found out that Piel did not open the 1981 tour; she was hired in May 1983. So at first I had put in a hidden question for you about the opening cast of the tour. But I deleted the hidden question (I probably forgot to fix the edit summary) when I finally found the following: First, two newspaper articles clarify that Kate Hunter Brown played Anna for more than 18 months beginning in 1981. But she was the understudy at the start of the tour. Further, I found two a program that taken together, shows that Marand, Kermoyan, Welch and West began the tour, based on the information given on e-bay (although we cannot cite e-bay). Since the programs are published reliable sources, we can cite them, although I agree that the vague dates are suboptimal, to say the least. I suspect that Capua gives the opening cast of the tour on the inaccessible page 152 of his book. If you can find another source for the opening cast of the tour, that would be great. I've got to go to bed now, but I hope to get back to this tomorrow. I am now finished with my read-thru, down to the end of the "Brynner reprises the role" section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That's good. I've found some good stuff on eBay. We can cite the programs if you get the rest of the info, I mean location and date really, that should nail it down sufficiently. I had a copy of Capua, but I don't know what's become of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

See if you can find the opening cast info for the tour in any of your references. Unfortunately, these souvenir programs seem to have been printed for the tour each time there were cast changes but do not say in what specific location(s) or month(s) they were distributed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I already looked. Hischak doesn't talk about the cast on the tour, other than the obvious, and he's the best source for that sort of thing (obviously the bios don't cover it although Rodgers was still alive). However, I will do some more internet diving.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This program e-bay listing says Manchester, New Hampshire, and the program is dated 1980 - I guess it was printed in advance. It shows the names of the opening cast, including Marand, Kermoyan, Welch, and West, and also notes that West reproduced the Robbins choreography. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am just amazed there was so little press coverage of the opening of the tour. This is surprisingly difficult. Undoubtedly there were ads in the LA times, but their archives doesn't give page images.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I just cleaned up Marand's article, and everything mentions that she starred opposite Brynner, but nothing gives exact dates. You can hear her and Brynner singing at a rehearsal in several links here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

[Copied from PR page]: ...we basically run through the production history once to tell the readers about who was in them, and once to tell the reader of the reviews. That's only going to be more blatant with the three remaining R&H (not counting the movies later adapted into play), each has very long production histories. I guess the question is, do we combine them? <snip> --Wehwalt (talk) 8:08 am, Today (UTC−5)

My suggestion is that the Production section and Reception section divide up the reviews as follows:

• For the initial production all the reviews should be summarized in one or two brief sentences in the Production section (something like: "Initial reviews were very favorable, with most reviewers giving high praise to Lawrence, Brynner and ________, as well as the costumes. Reviews later in the run confirmed this assessment."), and the full reviews/quotes/analysis should be laid out in the Reception section.
• For subsequent productions, all the reviews about performers and the production (set, costume, direction, etc.) should be in the production section, while the Reception section should contain only reviews about the musical itself ("25 years after it opened, the show is still vital and meaningful today" - Clive Barnes OR, "with the passing of the years, the show has become to corny/racist and should be retired" - Crabby Reporter). If the review contains both, see which aspect is given the most weight/ink/interesting comments, and decide whether it goes with Production or Reception of the musical.

My recollection is that we have mostly done it this way already, and I think this is the strategy employed in most of the more complete and thoughtful musical theatre articles, but the Reception section here is the last one that I have not reviewed yet, and I probably can't get to it today. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've got to get out of here but I'll look over what you said tonight and the relevant articles, which are for our purposes, this, Flower Drum Song, and Carousel.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yours seems like the best solution, though in doubtful cases, I suggest we not be doctrinaire and consider things like which one is longer and where it could better be used.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to take a shot at this? You are more sensitive to things like credits and reviews and so forth than me.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

[Left] I was planning to review the Critical reception section in the next few days (it's the only part of the body of the article that I have not recently reviewed), and at the same time, I will check it against the Productions section and see if I think that any of the critics' reviews need to be moved around, if there is any repetition that can be eliminated, or if I can see any text that can be streamlined. [ <--- Done] Also, because the article has been sitting for a couple of years since we did the bulk of the research, we will need to go through all the links in the References section to see what has gone dead. I'll try to work on that next week. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Per the above, I went through the Critical reception section, and where the reviews were only discussing the production, and not the musical's merits, I moved the content up into the Productions section. See if you like it better. This also allowed me to *delete* a small amount of redundancy. I deleted the quote from the Los Angeles Times about a tour performance, because it was much the same as other things said about the same production, and it was by a non-notable reviewer. However, it would be nice if we could *add* something about the critical reception of the 1960s revivals, as there is no reception information for them at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate the bolding. I will look on google news archives and the NY Times and see what I can find.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The NY Times, a quick search shows, has some articles on the 1960 and 1963 City Center revivals and the 1964 and 1968 NY State Theatre productions. I'll add something but it may not be until Sunday. Interestingly, there's an article on an amateur production in colonial Kenya in 1961.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks. No rush. Reviews of these limited engagements might offer us an idea of whether the early Non-Brynner productions followed the original production very closely or contained innovations, and how Cook and other stars were regarded in these roles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should make it clear that Brynnermania was a product of the final decade of his life and he was not as strongly associated with the role until 1976, if we can find an adequate source. Obviously there was an association because of the original run, and the movie, but he didn't "own" it in the way he did by 1985.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely a problem with the R&H site. Probably all the content is still there, and I'll see if I can hunt it down. I'll run through as many of the links and check them as I can. When you are done with the text, I'll take a detailed run through. If there's no issues remaining to be dealt with, we can start discussing FAC.I'll deal with Tim's query when I'm home a week from Saturday, it wouldn't hold things up. Odd how the pages you need are ALWAYS missing from Google books preview.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I hope the R&H site comes back up. It was fine a month ago. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

They changed all their links a while back, I recall posting a note about it somewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I added three reviews of the 60s and 70s productions, which should fill any gaps nicely.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a 1972 TV adaptation, starring Brynner, that was cancelled after 13 episodes. I added the info. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection of watching at least some of it. I don't think I was very impressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A couple thoughts on a few of your new changes prompted by BrianBoulton, just for your consideration:

• "in the hope that Avis would be educated as a lady, as her mother aspired to be". Several things bother me about this phrase. First, I liked the "pretended" that was there before, because it helps the reader to keep in mind that the real Anna Leonowens was falsifying her background. Also, the word "aspire", I think, is not right, as I don't think she further social aspirations at this time. Also, it appears that she wanted Avis to have an English education, so that Avis would be accepted as "English", not as a "lady", as that meant something different to the English than to Americans. So, how about "to give Avis the social advantage of a prestigious education"?
• I don't think we need the details about Tuptim and Lun Tha in the Creation section - we say it again twice below. Also, the theatrical convention stuff is longer, but not clearer. The problem was not that it was extramarital - the problem is that it was supposed to be an interracial (R&H and everyone else assumed that Anna was white, not mixed) relationship with a king that could exist, but would not be a good subject for extended love scenes and love songs. I think that either we should say "interracial" and be clear, or go back to a shorter, more efficient formulation. I tried to clarify why the Sharaff quote is there. See if you like it.
• I added a hidden question about Brynner's audition. But you may decide that it is ok as is, on the theory that shorter is better than adding more about this one point. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There's naturally a tendency in peer review to question yourself. If you feel it better, go ahead and make the changes, but please also comment at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• William Morris talent agent: Do we care which agency? Why not just say "talent agent"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I now see that you were responding to Brian. I will comment there, and made some changes. Please review and make any further changes you like. Also please check out the hidden question. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I read it. I think that if Brynner told inconsistent stories (I am not surprised, he did build a personal mythology) we should say so.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

See this TV interview he gave during the 1977 Broadway run (at 16:00). If you watch the whole interview, you'll see that he was a difficult person to interview. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I haven't had much luck on the touring cast, although I have bought Capua as an ebook and confirmed there's nothing of interest on that page which is not part of the preview. Is there a trade publication this might be in? I will be in New York at the end of the month and LA at the start of March and don't mind hitting a library or archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The performing arts library at Lincoln center might have a collection of theatre programs for the show, or their reference librarians might be able to look for local newspapers that would have reviewed the tour in the towns where it played. Either the tour started in Manchester, New Hampshire, or it was one of the first stops. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the Manchester program that is currently cited, together with the newspaper article cited, are sufficent, and now the program citation has enough detail, don't you think? (currently footnotes 99 and 100). -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looks OK. Good.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Like the book's latest film adaptation, the musical was banned in Thailand in 1956.[1] (Though why a ban was deemed necessary I'm not quite sure; surely Western musicals didn't routinely tour Thailand back then?) May or may not be worth mentioning. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A good thought. The movie was very popular and I am sure it came to their attention promptly in 1956. Apparently, the Thai people find the musical's depiction of the King, a highly fictionalized character, disrespectful towards him. The article you cite gives a pretty good explanation. See this. It says that, as of 2000, the film was still banned in Thailand, but it doesn't say if the musical continued to be banned. Apparently so. This book says that the novel was never banned. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If we can nail it down, with current status, and we're sure it's the musical, not the film, then I say add it. If there's doubt at all or the source is dodgy, better not to. God only knows what such bans mean in the age of YouTube anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul's reference above specifically says that the musical was banned, at least initially, so we are sure of that. It is Chronicle of Thailand: 1946-2009, published by Editions Didier Millet, 2010, so that appears to be a reliable source. None of the other sources discuss the musical (as distinguished from the film). I think it's fair to simply say that the musical "was banned in Thailand" for the reasons given in Chronicle of Thailand. Where should we say it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

After further consideration, I added to the Adaptations section: "Thai officials judged the film offensive to the Thai monarchy and banned both the film and musical in 1956", citing the Chronicle of Thailand" source given at the top of this section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

We still have to doublecheck the links, esp to the R&H site, I'm to check Tim's question on the Hammerstein ref when I'm home on Saturday, and give everything a check and read through. Anything else you see?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just two tiny things: There's still the "Banned in Thailand" discussion above (I think the 1956 link given is worth mentioning, as it is pretty clear that the musical was banned at the same time as the film); and secondly the hidden question in the article about Brynner's audition (see, for example, this TV interview), although you might decide that it's fine as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

All right, I'll look into those during the course of the week, plus the other things, and if we've had time to look it over and not seen new issues, we can look at nominating Sunday or Monday, perhaps.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Hammerstein ref, it checks out fine. I don't see any issue. And Hischak confirms a Decca release for the album (p. 343). On the hidden comment, I'd say let it go as it is now, Rodgers wasn't always consistent either, I've seen variations on that story. All we can do in such a long article is let the reader know there's two conflicting versions here. On the Banned in Bangkok thing, perhaps put it in the film adaptation section on the hook that it was the release of the film that caused the government to act?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I liked "recalled" better than stated, since we use "stated" at least 7 times in the text, but "recall" or "recalled" only twice. I removed the hidden comment and added to the film section "Thai officials judged the film offensive to the Thai monarchy and banned both the film and musical in 1956." citing the Chronicle of Thailand" source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I was afraid "recalled" carried implicit belief.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I know what you mean, but I don't think Brynner is lying, I just think that the situation was like this: He was worried about returning to the stage, but when he saw the script he wanted the part; and ALSO, at his audition, he sat on the stage and played one of his Gypsy songs with his guitar (he apparently did this a lot), and they offered him the role. I think what he was calling "totally inaccurate" was the idea that "he hit his guitar one whack and gave out with this unearthly yell and sang some heathenish sort of thing" – he probably thought that his guitar playing and gypsy songs were wonderfully atmospheric rather than heathenish. Also, all of the guitarists that I know would object to anyone saying that they gave their guitar a "whack". They love their guitars. So, it think it was his recollection, but that the two stories are not entirely irreconcilable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know some guitarists, their guitars occupy the chairs and you stand or sit on the floor ... I've inserted "recalled".--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've read it through, it looks OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there some kinda tool that can tell us which links are dead or suspect? I remember seeing a chart generated by such a tool, but I have no idea where it is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Here. It's at the top of the peer review page, in the toolbox.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a problem with that rho page. It seems to be gone. I can't find Chapin's essay elsewhere on the site.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Nor can I. Solutions? BTW, I added some things about Jerome Robbins' Broadway, which contained "Shall We Dance" and the "Small House of Uncle Thomas" ballet. See if it looks ok, modify it if it needs modification, or move it to the talk page if you don't think it should be included. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Never hurts to have something from the dance perspective. I would say, regarding the Chapin piece, find it elsewhere (Wayback Machine?), re-source to elsewhere, or do without.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked it over. We could salvage the long blockquote from here but that doesn't cover the others. I don't see anything indispensible. I'd cut all the text that depends on Chapin's essay, including the blockquote. The point about Brynner having become the star is adequately made by the Washington Post quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I did it, except that I kept the point about Brynner so dominating the role that his Anna was nominated merely as "featured" actress, which is obvious from the designation of the Tony Award itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Anything else we need? Have you given it a run-through?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

[Left]. Give me another day or two. Here's the Marquee. Hey, this is apparently Brynner's sister Vera, who turns out to have been an opera singer, who also sang gypsy songs with Yul in Paris: Vera Brynner on YouTube. She starred on Broadway in Menotti's opera The Consul, at the Metropolitan Opera as Prince Orlofsky in Die Fledermaus, and in the title role of a TV production of Carmen, among other things. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Orlofsky AND Carmen? Well, they're both temperamental sorts.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, they're both mezzos, although Magda Sorel in The Consul is considered a soprano. It seems like she was a pretty versatile singer. Yul and Vera each put out albums of gypsy songs: Yul; Vera. See also This.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I've updated all the dead links now, so full speed ahead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated. Can you add the title of fn 138, the NY Times reference on the Robbins play?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I substituted the IBDB cite, which gives the actual closing date and has more information about the personnel, and I also shortened the somewhat repetitive Frank Rich quote about the 1985 run. I think the changes we have made over the past month, and in response to the PR, have improved the article in every way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Can that quote be moved a bit later or else the direct mention of Brynner be removed? As it is it anticipates the introduction of Brynner. And I like the way we do that now I don't want to change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed Brynner's name. Looks good? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Gray just died at age 55. He replaced Lou Diamond Phillips as the King in the 1996 B'way production. He has no article, but he is notable. I don't have time to writ him up, but if anyone else does, this will get you started. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Since this already is a featured article, I hesitate to make a major addition to it, but I can't help wondering if one is needed. As it stands, the "Historical background" section doesn't explain when or why Leonowens left Mongkut's service. Since that moment is among the events fictionalized in the musical, perhaps a paragraph or two should be added (perhaps adapted from the explanation here?) to clarify what happened in real life. Again, though, since the WP community didn't see a reason for it when this page was promoted to Featured, I'm not sure whether to be bold and throw it in.--Lemuellio (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free, as long as it is reliably sourced and not too long.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt and note that this link does not give reliable sources that explain when and why she left Mongkut's service. Also, I would think that one or perhaps two sentences should do it here, although you might also want to improve, expand and correctly source the explanation here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

After consideration, it looks to me as if the best way to source this material reliably is to use Susan Morgan's book Bombay Anna, already cited on the page. I currently don't have access to that volume, so if somebody else does, please feel free to look the event in question up and add a line or two in.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A copy has been found!--Lemuellio (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, but I trimmed the clause about "no possibility" because it was vague. Does Morgan say anything more specific as to why she did not return? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Morgan's hypothesis is that Leonowens was not eager to return because Siam was caught in a diplomatic war with the French, who were pressing for more territory and political control (p.155). In December 1866, Leonowens's son witnessed the French consul M. Aubaret accost King Mongkut without permission, "dictating to him in public, complete with threats, as to who his appointed officials should be"; when the news publisher Dan Beach Bradley reported the incident (apparently accurately), Aubaret sued him for libel (p.157). Leonowens seems to have been anxious to take a prolonged rest cure from this situation, and "even before [Mongkut's] death, she had been toying with other possibilities" for her future (p.173). Nevertheless, she did ask Mongkut for an advance during her time abroad (p.163), and the decision not to return "evolved rather than suddenly being made" (p.162). The death of Mongkut was the final nail in the coffin, so to speak.--Lemuellio (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Based on this, I think that what we say now in the article is about right - I think that going into more detail about these speculations would not add much to the reader's understanding of the musical. As to Leonowens's own article, I leave it to you as to whether or not you wish to elaborate there. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's about right. We're trying to tell the story of the musical, and there's a limit to how far we should talk about other things. Suggest also Anna Leonowens' article or perhaps on one of the earlier adaptations if you want to tell more.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

An editor made this edit, which I reverted, with respect to Ho Yi, who played the Kralahome in a 2001 London production. The edits states that Ho Yi's performance was: proclaimed by Sheridan Morley as "the male star of the night". [references:] Bitish Teletext May 4, 2000 by Sheridan Morley; Spectator May 6, 2000 by Sheridan Morley.

I see the following problems with this edit:

• The edit deletes a good reference that is accessible online;
• "Proclaimed" is a WP:PEACOCK term;
• It is trivial that an actor had one outstanding night in a long-running production. A more encyclopedic claim would be that the actor was nominated for an Olivier Award, which he was not. Other actors in this cast were nominated, but not Ho Yi. In addition, the Kralahome is a relatively minor role in this show. Of much more interest was that it was Josie Lawrence's West End debut, but I think even that is not important enough to mention here;
• The two references given are vague. As to the first, how should Bitish (sp) Teletext be correctly cited so that one could find the information? As to the second, what page in the The Spectator contains this info? Are either of these reviews online?

We have already noted that Ho Yi played the role, and, given that he was one of the actors who was *not* nominated for an Olivier in this production, I don't think that this quote about his performance adds anything to the article. I also think that in Ho Yi's article, the references should be corrected and clarified. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. While we're looking at that paragraph, can the line "The show was nominated for an Olivier Award for outstanding musical, as were Thomson, Kirk and Yi Kim" be improved? The three individuals weren't nominated for the same Olivier as the show itself, although I know what the sentence is trying to say... Perhaps "The show was nominated for an Olivier Award, as were Thomson, Kirk and Yi Kim"? Bencherlite^Talk 17:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarified now. Thanks, Bencherlite. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This musical has had numerous productions all over the world for over 50 years, so I have my doubts as to whether this one production is notable, especially because it apparently ran for only a couple of weeks. Nevertheless, it was at a notable house, had notable stars and received reviews in national newspapers in at least three countries, so I guess we can leave it in. But it is not unusual or important that some of the principal players were "opera singers". Historically, I would guess that most people playing Lady Thiang, and often Tuptim and/or Lun Tha have been opera singers. There is noting more inherently impressive about an opera singer than a musical theatre specialist; it just means that the person's training and experience have focused more on classical singing technique and less, probably, on acting and dancing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That was more or less my thought on the matter. I also felt there was a certain level of puffing going on and that given the brief tenure of the production and the fact that it wasn't Broadway or West End that too much space was being devoted to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that it is fine to show the New Haven list because it is informative. The point of wikipedia is to share information and history. This is an interesting part of musical theatre - cut songs. I know many people who like to know the songs that were cut from shows, but many times they are not listed on the wiki page. If it is problem for you to have them listed on the regular musical numbers page, then we can start a list for the Pre-Broadway productions. It is a harmless thing. If it such a big problem for some, then I would like to figure out middle ground because I think this is a very informative part of the musical theatre world. Thanks! Mattmarkowksi99 (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Matt. Wikipedia contains only encyclopedic information, not *all* informative information. Therefore, as contributors, we use our editorial judgment to decide what is the most important information to include for general encyclopedia readers and to exclude trivial information and information that is more appropriate for fansites or other completist sites. Our guideline WP:NOT states: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion...." Also, "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of ... excessive lists [that] can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia". This article on The King and I is a WP:Featured Article, which means that a large number of editors reviewed it and agreed that it is a very good example of the kinds of information that should go in such an article. A high-quality musical theatre article will focus most on the original Broadway or West End production, and other long-running productions. Lists and tables about less important productions, such as out-of-town tryouts, are not helpful, as they would distract readers from the more important information.

In this article, under the heading "Casting and auditions", we already discuss the most important cuts and changes made during the tryouts. Songs that were cut before the Broadway premiere (or after) can be summarized briefly in a note or footnote at the bottom of the (Broadway) list of musical numbers, especially if they are significant by being later added to the show or to other shows. For some shows that have a particularly interesting "version" history, there can be a narrative section on pre- or post-Broadway versions that may discuss song and scene cuts and additions, but usually it can be handled in footnotes. For some guidelines on what editors have felt most useful in musicals articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Assessment. I hope this helps. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. There's lots of room for individuality in articles on musical theatre, but there are general guidelines and standards both by the WikiProject and by the processes the article passes through to become featured. The New Haven list is interesting to me, but then I like picky details. It is not as useful to the readers, who are probably not looking for so specialized a table. And we do cover many of the changes, including changes in the scenes. I would have no objection to a footnote. I don't want to discourage you or make you feel you're hitting some stone wall. Welcome to Wikipedia, I should add.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have no objection at all to concise notes or footnotes describing the most important changes in musical numbers from the tryout to the Broadway production (and in subsequent major productions), which can either go under the Broadway songlist or be added as footnotes to the particular songs affected. That is a good idea, and we do note song changes that way in many of the musical theatre articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has also done a wonderful work on William Chapman (under his name - and all the credits with opera and as an actor). However in this particular article in the area of other male performers playing The King, my husband, William Chapman, has been known to do about as many performances of the role as Yul Brenner all over the country. I would love to see his name added to that group, if possible. Most appreciatively, Irene Chapman ((Redacted)@gmail.com) (A well informed patron of theatre brought it to my attention and asked me to make this request). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CD89:92F0:B835:9421:3275:2CFB (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Chapman's 1966 tour isn't sufficiently notable to be included in this article; consequently, none of its cast is mentioned. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing it. Are there sources that indicate how big/significant this was at the time? Did this production break new ground in significant ways? Was Rodgers involved (Hammerstein was dead) in any major way? I'm not unwilling to be convinced, but sources are needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Chapman played the role in 1966 in Houston briefly, but it does not seem to have been a major production. I see that Chapman played the King in more than one regional production over the years, but I cannot see any references to him playing the role in any major productions. Unless we can find a reliable published source that shows that Chapman played the king in a really major production in the ways mentioned by Wehwalt, then I don't think we are warranted in discussing him in this article. Of course, it is appropriate for the role to be mentioned in *his* article, together with, perhaps, a quote from a reviewer(s) about his performance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If any of the programs (almost certainly non-copyright) from then have an image of him as King, that could be scanned and placed in his article as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The King and I. 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/20110122042616/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame

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) 03:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor added the following:

...it has been argued that cultural institutions such as musicals are systems whereby the process of exclusion and domination come to the fore particularly in the King and I Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). and 'marvelous' by Jesse Green^[1]. Green, in full, saying: 'And we look to the young crown prince, played even more deeply now by the marvelous Jon Viktor Corpuz, to see how close [Anna's disruption] is coming to success'. These are the two chief theatre critics at The New York Times; some actors mentioned in the table did not receive such superlatives. From all artists eligible who worked during Lincoln Center's 2015-16 theatrical season (including Off-Broadway and on) Corpuz was chosen for the 2016 Lincoln Center Emerging Artist Award for his role^[2], by Andre Bishop, Artistic Director at Lincoln Center; the award was presented at the ceremony by Kelli O'Hara^[3]. Erick Neher of The Hudson Review had this to say of Corpuz's performance: 'I'm not the only observer to say that one of the unexpected strengths of this production was the marvelous performance by young Jon Viktor Corpuz in this pivotal role ... As Anna and the children sang “Getting to Know You,” Corpuz skulked around the edges of the stage, wary of committing to the love fest between teacher and students, partly out of adolescent diffidence and partly out of a sense that his stakes were higher. But as Anna’s message of international cooperation began to work its magic, Corpuz’s Chulalongkorn found himself irresistibly drawn to her optimism and ultimately took her hand for a few dance steps, a concession that O’Hara’s Anna movingly acknowledged as a major breakthrough.' This sentiment is echoed in virtually every review of the production. Corpuz has maintained a steady career in TV, film, and theatre since The King & I and is currently playing John Laurens/Philip Hamilton in Hamilton's 1st National Tour^[4]. He has a Wikipedia mention as being a part of the Broadway performance at the 2016 Democratic National Convention^[5]. What is notable if not the aforementioned? What gives you two, specifically, the authority to gatekeep what is 'notable' and 'not notable', especially when every other principal cast member from that production is listed? --Osnapitzjv (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Are there articles about him, not merely mentioning him, per WP:GNG?==Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Wehwalt and Ssilvers: Yes there are: ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11] --Osnapitzjv (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a very simple issue. He is not a notable, blue-linked person. He does not go in the table. Period. Read the instructions to the table; they are clear as to the criteria for inclusion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this, I'm uncertain how helpful this is for the reader. Much of it seems a repetition of what is already said, that Rodgers borrowed some elements of Eastern music without using actual Eastern music, but it's said in a very judgmental way and inserted at the most prominent position in the section. Some of it is unsourced. I'm not saying it should be deleted, but it should not be that prominent, must be sourced, and it would be better if it said who is calling it cultural appropriation inline. Note that I'm a bit reluctant to describe it as such when the term and the opprobrium attached to it date from well after Rodgers' death. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Wehwalt, as you note, part of the new material is unreferenced, and the tone of the new material seems non-neutral. It is not clear whether Said actually referred to The King and I, or whether the editor's reference to it is OR. I'd suggest reverting the change for now until the new editor can fully reference the material, show that the cultural appropriation material follows WP:BALASP and is not WP:UNDUE (and is neutrally written), and can show that Said referred specifically to The King and I. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The book on R&H's Asian depictions seems worth a look-at. I'll have to see if I can get ahold of it, if need be through interlibrary loan. Doubtless there is useful information on Flower Drum Song in there, and likely South Pacific as Bloody Mary is Tonkinese. No doubt it is not a friendly treatment, or why write it?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. The reference is false, it does not mention the play, and it doesn't fairly represent what Said says on the page, which is little or nothing. Ssilvers, sending you a copy. Neither R nor H nor the play are mentioned in the index.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Your source is wrong. The children's entrance was staged by director John Van Druten, not Jerome Robbins as is usually reported.

What source(s) has the correct information? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on The King and I. 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/20110629145655/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/59555-Getting-to-Know-You-Better-King-I-Reunion-at-Museum to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/59555-Getting-to-Know-You-Better-King-I-Reunion-at-Museum
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916113451/http://www.rnh.com/show/42/G2K-THE-KING-AND-I to http://www.rnh.com/show/42/G2K-The-King-and-I
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629154639/http://www.playbill.com/features/article/131945-ON-THE-RECORD-Rodgers-Hammersteins-The-King-and-I-and-Flower-Drum-Song/all to http://www.playbill.com/features/article/131945-ON-THE-RECORD-Rodgers-Hammersteins-The-King-and-I-and-Flower-Drum-Song/all
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707184320/http://www.atthemusicals.com/shows/K/kingandi/details.html to http://www.atthemusicals.com/shows/K/kingandi/details.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://archive.wmlnj.org/var/www/TheWestfieldLeader/1982/1982-08-05/pg_0013.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019152939/http://www.playbill.com/features/article/64313-How-Christopher-Renshaw-Crowned-a-New-King to http://www.playbill.com/features/article/64313-How-Christopher-Renshaw-Crowned-a-New-King
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726193545/http://www.maureenmcgovern.com/chictrib.htm to http://www.maureenmcgovern.com/chictrib.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100917135431/http://albemarle-london.com/Archive/ArchiveShow.php?Show_Name=King%20and%20I to http://www.albemarle-london.com/Archive/ArchiveShow.php?Show_Name=King%20and%20I
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629151750/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/86788-Martin-Vidnovic-and-Sandy-Duncan-Are-The-King-and-I-in-New-National-Tour-Beginning-June-15 to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/86788-Martin-Vidnovic-and-Sandy-Duncan-Are-The-King-and-I-in-New-National-Tour-Beginning-June-15
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140415203505/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/189939-Tony-Winning-The-King-and-I-Revival-Returns-to-Australia-With-Lisa-McCune-and-Teddy-Tahu-Rhodes-April-13 to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/189939-Tony-Winning-The-King-and-I-Revival-Returns-to-Australia-With-Lisa-McCune-and-Teddy-Tahu-Rhodes-April-13
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112231752/http://dailyreview.crikey.com.au/the-king-and-i-review-princess-theatre-melbourne to http://dailyreview.crikey.com.au/the-king-and-i-review-princess-theatre-melbourne
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160218154046/http://www.onbeing.org/blog/mohammed-fairouz-pedestals-dont-excuse-backwards-politics/8413 to http://www.onbeing.org/blog/mohammed-fairouz-pedestals-dont-excuse-backwards-politics/8413

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) 17:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)