User talk:Clampton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Clampton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Muchness 09:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sondheim edits

Hi. Can't really figure out how to e-mail, so I'm trying this, from the instructions. Hey, BTW, you're nearby. I'm in Silver Spring. You know, I knew what I posted ended up looking way too POV. I was hoping someone could do something to even it out, or at least use some fragment as they saw fit to edit it. But, it could be it's best just removed. There's probably no way to get near this subject, which is odd. When a philosopher like Derrida got added to Wikipedia--in an article that was initially almost thoroughly ingorant of his philosophy and laced with some kind of superstitious hatred of him--it seemed to get worked out through a process of editing and counter-editing, though some harsh words were thrown around in the discussion. I took no part, just followed the transformation. With most major figures in the arts, one finds some balance of criticism--even though I agree that can't be the main thrust of an encyclopedia article. But this Sondheim article isn't just bio; it's sometimes just one step away from a fan site. It includes references to some individual works not having been well received, but as bio, I think it's enthusiastic to the point of crossing well into point of view--especially in the sentence that announces his "renown" as a lyricist, and one known for his ambiguity, wit, etc. I know that among theater buffs, there's a hands-off Sondheim rule, just as even the most vicious hockey players honored the hands-off Gretzky rule because his records were good for the game. But a -pedia bio of any sort needs to climb out of the confines of cultish chit-chat and place a subject of this sort in broader context. In the broader context of late 20th century humanities, Sondheim's lyrics can't reasonably be seen as even a jitter on the seismograph that measures contributions to the American language. If folk and pop singers do more with language to probe life, and even use the classical rhetorical devices of language more intelligently and nimbly, a worldwide, egalitairian, anyone-can-contribute, online encyclopedia should not present the nattering of a few folk who live on Central Park as bio, and exclude the divergent as POV. My posting didn't fit, I know, but something could have been extracted or substituted in order to temper the fervor with which Sondheim's renown, wit, and ambiguity as a lyricist were advertised yet not supported. Ticket sales are all that's necessary to support his bigness, but the arguments about his lyrical craftsmanship are not at all supported; my POV counterpoints were at least accompanied by example, brief or insufficient as it was. But I fear this is a bit hopeless. He is Sondheim, after all, official exception to the Bill of Rights. If they ever repeal the Patriot Act, I'm going to run outside and scream, "'Send in the Clowns' is not ambiguous; it's muddle-headed!!!"

Just some contextual points to ponder because you appear to be an interested and active Wiki editor.

Best,

Matt lakelachrymose@hotmail.com 151.200.44.162 12:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary

{subst:uw-editsummary}} --Umalee 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)