From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miss Saigon article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Musical Theatre Portal Miss Saigon is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class
WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks: Help out with one of the WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks below. You may add your name to the Participants list to the right. edit this Open Tasks template Collaborate and work on the Collaboration of the Month Articles needing a content fork Mainly, these are articles on films and either their source or subsequent musicals. There are a couple where the musical needs to be "forked" from the source material. Feel free to add or remove as necessary. Important: If you split an article, please make sure that you move all the relevant links from the first article to the new one. To find which links to move, click on "What links here" at the old article and look through the list to see which links should be pointed to the film related link (for example, articles on actors in the film). Then, click on those links and update them to point to the film article. Thanks! Don't Play Us Cheap Roberta How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying I Married an Angel Lady in the Dark The Band Wagon - musical adaptation will to be forked after it opens in April.

--203.167.26.70 20:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)wapak

Contents 1 further information 2 Added Song 3 Criticism 4 "Popularity" 5 American Bias 5.1 Removed Content?? 5.2 Futhermore... 5.3 Sources 5.3.1 Seriously... 5.3.2 A Final Word?

[edit] further information

There's some more information about Miss Saigon at Alain Boublil — mostly statistics and such. Much of it probably could be removed from Boublil's page and added here, if it's accurate. Unfortunately, it appears to have been added by an anonymous contributor, so I can't vouch for its accuracy or currency. Anyway, I thought that people who have this page on their watchlist might be interested in sorting it out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added Song

I thought it was a real oversight not to include "The Heat Is On In Saigon" as a memorable song...it was used in ad campaigns for the show all the time and was the first MS song I knew before I went to see the show. Many take it as the "theme song" to the show even though it's the black sheep of the soundtrack...someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[edit] Criticism

Also, I think criticism of Miss Saigon ought to be explained a bit better. I feel that the current short little bit about Actors Equity is slightly biased...it makes them sound like a crazy bunch of unreasonable people or something, which may be some people's opinion, but there is another side too. In terms of racial issues, in the London production, Pryce (and if I'm not mistaken, also the white actor playing Thuy) had worn eye prosthesis and bronzing lotion to try to make himself look more "Asian", which is rather offensive to many. Also, the writing does perpetuate a lot of stereotypes about Asians and has Kim saying random made up steretypical mumbo jumbo stuff steeped in mysticism, like "paper dragons in the sky" etc. Anyways, I won't get into it. I'm just saying that I think it is important to note criticisms of the show as well. It doesn't have to be in a lot of detail, but it shouldn't be dismissed or omitted either in my opinion.

Drenched 03:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Drenched

[edit] "Popularity"

Personally, I think that the whole last paragraph under the header "Popularity" should be seriously edited, from: "Notability Miss Saigon was brought back in 2006 with the world High school Premiere at St. Joseph Regional in Montvale New Jersey..." to ..."University High School of Irvine, California will become the third high school to perform Miss Saigon, and has already received outstanding reviews." The VERY FIRST high school version of the show might be notable, but the whole ending about other high schools and their "outstanding reviews" is ridiculous.

If I don't hear any objections over the next few days, I'm going to edit that out and fix that paragraph big time. LBoogey 00:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)LBoogey

I completely agree...I think that whole section can be cut minus the very first HS show.

Actually, I think that the current "Popularity" section should be retitled "Production History," which sounds more objective and descriptive of the contents. All the redundant narrative about the Tony awards can be relocated to the "Awards" section for better organization. The sentence: "Ironically, Will Rogers Follies closed after only 900 performances (a little over two years) whereas Miss Saigon went on to become one of the longest running musicals, running over 10 years on Broadway." isn't encyclopedic and just sounds like someone is bitter, and I think it should be removed. --Drenched 01:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree--great suggestions, Drenched. I'm going to use them later on today when I have a little more time, and fix all those areas. Thanks! LBoogey 14:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)LBoogey

Since I had the time, I went ahead and made some of the edits mentioned. I left the high school stuff for you though. Also, I didn't substantially edit the content of the text which probably needs substantial cleanup, so please edit away =) --Drenched 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! LOL...we were editing at the same time, and that has never happened to me before. I panicked for a minute. I really like what you did with the beginning of the article--putting the photograph inspiration info right up top like that, and moving the awards info. Nice changes. I did a big cleanup of the text for typos and grammar and flow, but it still seems looooooooong. LBoogey 01:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)LBoogey

Haha I just realized that right this second too. It feels good to clean up so much of the article, nice work! I'm just going to expand the intro a little, and maybe some of the plot summary. I agree though, still way too long (especially the in-depth synopsis)! Oh well, one step at a time. --Drenched 01:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Bias

I think the line "Miss Saigon was part of the major European influence on Broadway in the 1980s, along with the musicals Cats, The Phantom of the Opera, and Les Misérables" is a little too "American-centric" if that makes any sense. I agree that European musicals did infiltrate Broadway, but in all fairness, Miss Saigon, the Phantom, Les Mis and the like all originally opened in Europe and were intended for a EUROPEAN audience, not an American one. Because they were such big hit, obviously they made their way across the Atlantic. They didn't set out to influence Broadway, Nroadway was just the next logical step. Maybe I am being too picky, but I think this could be re-worded. 65.94.19.87 02:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm open to rewording the sentence and I definitely see your point. I personally feel that the above sentence & use of the phrase "major European influence" is acceptable since the genre of musical theatre is culturally American despite the fact that the listed musicals are European in origin. If you have a more global & less biased rewording to offer, by all means go for it! --Drenched 06:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Content??

I'm not sure why my additions regarding the three alternate endings of Miss Saigon were removed, citing no sources. It is a FACT that there were three different endings to the musical. The proof is in those who have heard them. Having seen the Toronto production, and seeing as I OWN both the London and Complete Symphonic recordings which contain different endings from each other, anyone else with an equal passion for the show KNOWS that there are three different endings. But I feel the information was removed because I said there was a "rumor" that the material was altered for certain reasons. This is because the articles themselves state only rumors; however the songs themselves are not. If you would like the proper citations to be included, that's fair enough... but the existence of three different endings is NOT a rumor, and should therefore not have been removed. Removing those FACTS limits research capabilities of those who are educating themselves about the show, and erased the hard work of people who felt they should contribute missing information for those who do not know these "little known facts". So why was everything removed instead of removing only the line about the rumor?

Surely I don't have to prove that these three variations exist, otherwise much of the information in the article itself must be considered unverifiable. I even went so far as so include the titles of these variations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakydisco (talk • contribs) 09:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you do have to cite sources. Our policies include No Original Research (Wikipedia does not accept 'facts' that have not been published before) and Verifiability (so that we can check it out for accuracy). We cannot take the word of anyone random user on this site. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Futhermore...

Sure, I can remove the bit about "rumors", but how does one prove that there are multiple versions of the ending? Need I cite Amazon which has track listings? Or lyrics pages? How is that information any less credible than the following (which were taken directly off the existing page):

"Miss Saigon was part of the major European influence on Broadway in the 1980s, along with the musicals Cats, The Phantom of the Opera, and Les Misérables." No citation.

"Since its opening in London in 1989, Miss Saigon was successfully produced in many cities around the world including Stuttgart and Toronto, where new theatres were designed specifically to house the show. In December 1994 the London production became the Theatre Royal's (Drury Lane) longest running musical, eclipsing the record set by My Fair Lady." No citation.

I would assume that whoever is moderating this page has sufficient knowledge enough to post accurate information, and thus possesses more than the Average Joe's share of information about the production. But as it stands, this site addresses musical numbers for only one recording. I'm not just any old Joe who comes on with information... I'm a person who has known about these changes as any Miss Saigon fan does, and happened to look for the reasons behind these changes. I came to Wikipedia, and noticed that your site didn't even acknowledge this basic information about the show. I was inclined to look elsewhere... and then I realized that I could contribute. There is no specific article about these three endings... it's just a known fact among audiences. Can you not describe an alternate ending of a movie without having to find that someone corroborates your story somewhere? Can an audience not find out for themselves by seeing it with their own eyes? Someone has to be the first to include this information when all others lack it. Otherwise, you all end up being incomplete centers for information, and your readers go elsewhere.

Furthermore, can a rumor not be included when it's a part of something's folklore? After all, sometimes rumors (when stated as such, so they are not taken as gospel truth) are a part of the phenomenon. "Miss Saigon fans believe..." etc. It's a part of the show's history, like the supposed hanged Munchkin in the background of "The Jitter Bug" deleted scene in The Wizard of Oz. Are we to exclude this bit of folklore from research simply because it's a rumor, even though it is a part of the show's history? Meanwhile, your site has articles on alien abduction phenomenon, stating that:

'Some abduction reports are quite detailed. An entire subculture has developed around the subject, with support groups and a detailed mythos explaining the reasons for abductions: The various aliens (Greys, Reptilians, "Nordics" and so on) are said to have specific roles, origins, and motivations. Abduction claimants do not always attempt to explain the phenomenon, but some take independent research interest in it themselves, and explain the lack of greater awareness of Alien Abduction as the result of either extraterrestrial or governmental interest in cover-up.'

No citation, even though the term "are said to have" is the same as saying "rumored to have". It seems that certain cases allow for rumor when they are a part of the culture, and musical theatre culture should not be excluded from that. What's worse, NOTHING about alien abduction can be substantiated enough for it to be proven a fact. The entire article can thus be classified a rumor. So, would it be more acceptable in my case to say "rumored among fans..."? Can it not be a part of pop-culture mythology to ever talk about the rumors of Jessica Rabbit's exposed vagina in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"? Or that the animator was fired for creating a sex scene? Everyone knows the story.. but has it ever been proved to be more than rumor. Yet, it remains a part of the movie's history nonetheless.

My addition about the deleted song "Too Much For One Heart" was also removed, despite the admiration of fans everywhere who love the song and think it should have remained. Lea Salonga even sings it on her album and explains that it was rehearsed to death, then cut. You can watch it on YouTube, read about it in small tidbits in various places. But has it ever been discussed at length an in proper reference? Not until now. These rumors do not impact an individual or suggest opinions. I was merely contributing to an article which COULD HAVE been the first to contain missing information; information that a proper editor and moderator would realize is missing. So exactly what kind of citation is required for the FACT that there are 3 Miss Saigon endings, or that musical theatre buffs discuss why these changes were made? What would be satisfying outside of confirmation from the composers themselves? Can this not be the first place to publish such information? Is Wikipedia a center for second-hand information gathered from outside sources, or does it strive to be a center of thorough, detailed information? Your readers should have access to this information. It's all verifiable, just not necessarily through a single link. If your moderators actually spend the time, it can be proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakydisco (talk • contribs) 10:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Can you not describe an alternate ending of a movie without having to find that someone corroborates your story somewhere?" No! It's easier with films with DVD releases (any alternate ending might be included on the DVD's extra features, and would thus be verifiable). If reliable sources discussed film rumours, then we could include the examples you mention. The article on The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) mentions that the "Jitter Bug" song is mentioned in a DVD documentary. The Who Framed Roger Rabbit controversy is verifiable in the primary source. To verify the fact, one just needs to find a laserdisc. Unfortunately, live theatre does not have the same luxury: the primary source is usually lost in time and is unverifiable.

I agree that the article is not as good as it could be. If there is any material that you find is unreferenced, add {{fact}} next to it. We also have another guideline, though: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It means that we don't condone breaches of style/original research/verifiability just because there are other instances of it. You ask "Is Wikipedia a center for second-hand information gathered from outside sources, or does it strive to be a center of thorough, detailed information?" The former is true. In fact, we are one level down: as an encyclopedia, we are a tertiary source. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This is quickly becoming a hypocrisy. Yes, audiences can buy the DVDs, just as audiences can SEE or HEAR the endings and administrators on this site can verify the information by simply searching for them or purchasing these CDs: the London version contains "The Sacred Bird" finale, while the "Complete Recording" contains the more widely known finale, and the Japanese recording contains "Little God of My Heart". To further my point, here are the sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HmusCD4-tY (This link contains the variation between the complete and London recordings)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5avKuNGQ_NE

http://www.hamienet.com/midi26829_Little-God-of-My-Heart.html http://www.lyricsondemand.com/soundtracks/m/misssaigonlyrics/thesacredbirdlyrics.html http://www.allmusicals.com/lyrics/misssaigon/finale.htm http://www.nodanw.com/shows_m/miss_saigon.htm http://www.01-mp3search.com/top53-miss-saigon.html http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/missaigon-rev.htm

and here, where another viewer also acknowledges the endings: http://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.cfm?thread=946127&dt=11

Getting there! Out of those, though, britishtheatreguide.info is the only one you could cite in the article for various reasons (copyright violations, and message boards are unreliable sources). If the information is verifiable on the CDs, then yes, that's fine. But use the ref tags to say where this information comes from. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously...

I realize they can't be cited for the most part, and that's the point. That's why I didn't reference them to begin with. You can't cite every line of every article. At some point, you have to accept that a lot is generated by a writer or administrator based on known fact, as I demonstrated with selection quotations. You're assuming that your administrators are the end-all of knowledge, but I've just demonstrated that fact about this production have been overlook and then dismissed. So, who is determining what is "factual" about a topic? Are you educated in musical theater or proficient in performances of Miss Saigon? (It's an honest question. I'm not trying to be snide.) If I was quoting a person who some material that might lead to legal problems or "misleading information" that forms an opinion in the reader, I'd understand the argument.

Just because it can't be legally cited doesn't mean it's not true. It may be up to more than just the initial writer to research the sources if they can't be cited up to your standards. "I" may not be able to cite them, but you can see for yourself by click on at least the video of Lea Salonga SINGING the song, and explaining it, that it DOES exist. That concert exists on DVD and on CD in addition to being on YouTube. It was also on YouTube several months ago when someone posted the entire staged production of Miss Saigon. You could see all three versions - live, during their original runs. But if you're telling me that Wikipedia would outright dismiss these simply because of of the legal ramifications, then it's time to reevaluate your procedures. You may not be able to cite them, but you can certainly use them as evidence that the statement is not false. It's a shame that you can't become a higher tier source of info, because everyone I know spends all day on Wikipedia filling up with "random knowledge". You have the potential to put every other "pedia" out of business, but more and more people are becoming disgruntled by the way information is handled. I gather it's a tricky thing to moderate when so many people can upload... but again... that's why actually "looking into it" instead of deleting what people took hours to write is more advantageous. Your people deleted credible material that other Miss Saigon researchers should know.

Long story short: despite the fact that I DID mention these recordings in the original posting, the info was pulled. We've come full circle, only now it's allowed when it wasn't before. I think Wikipedia has lost track of what kind of material should be referenced and what is just generic information. Otherwise, ever single word of every line should be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakydisco (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I only came to this discussion about 90 mins ago so I admit I'm unaware of the wording. I wasn't prepared to sift through the article's history to read every bit of guff that anonymous users added.

Is the DVD commercially available?

It doesn't matter whether or not something exists. It must be verifiable.

We are not allowed to cite YouTube because of copyright problems. However, you would be able cite the source of that clip if you knew the accurate information (e.f. a specific promotional interview on specific programme...). Unfortunately YouTube users are quite careless in not respecting the copyright holders and not even bothering to credit their sources.

I am happy for you to add information that the CDs verify. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Final Word?

If you mean that citing YouTube videos would be to say, for example: "Blah blah blah, deleted song, included on Lea Salonga's Concert DVD", then that makes sense.

And to answer your question, yes, the DVD I spoke of is "Lea Salonga: The Broadway Concert" and it is commercially available. It's also on CD and, more ironically, discussed on Wikipedia, along with a similar comment about the song. So, you see... my comment was rejected, while someone else's was approved. That's where my determination is stemming from, here. Inconsistency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lea_Salonga

In regards to the comment that live theater cannot be verified because of the passage of time, why are the very audiences who saw it not verifiable? If you asked, I'm sure you could get the sheet music. Are witness accounts of any discussed crime, assassination, war, holocaust, accident, and so on inadmissible from any reference if they come to you directly? If a survivor of the Titanic tried to edit info, but had no reference except his experience, is he disregarded? His or her testimony is ALL the verification that will ever exist, whether by word or on paper.

One only need ask differing Miss Saigon fans about their experiences, or talk to the actors, or creators. Being unverifiable is only limited to things that no longer exist, and whose creators and everyone involved are dead. Miss Saigon is still an active show, and everyone is still alive. Why must it be through text that verifications are achievable? You have whole articles on the Titanic that have no citation next to facts, but we are to take them as such simply out of trust. Clearly, I'm not trying to argue with you specifically, but Wikipedia's standard of deciding what is "verifiable" based on how popular or common-knowledge the fact is. Based on what we learn in fourth grade, this type of material doesn't warrant citation. It warrants verifying, yes, but if no one trusted my additions, they could have taken the 30 seconds it took ME to locate evidence and prove my case. From there, it can be accepted without citation as being a simple fact about the show. You have a list of productions, none of which are cited, but I assume someone looked them up to see if they were legitimate.

Finally, in response to the idea that the dead Munchkin can be proven, when it cannot, I still feel it's a legitimate part of the movie's folklore despite it being a "rumor". But perhaps it's a bad example. Let's use the lunar landing. Someone looking up the lunar landing should have access to the "rumor" that it was faked. Would it be unethical for Wikipedia, then, to have a section at the bottom discussing conspiracy theories that it was false? To say "some believe, yadda yadda yadda..." That it was staged to make the Russians believe we got there first, and the cold war silently continues. A great deal of people BELIEVE that theory, but it is a legitimate rumor worth including in a knowledge base about the subject. Why does that fact, above all else, have to be cited? As a matter of fact, you site DOES discuss the rumors without citation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_landing

I think the issue here is that "verifiable" has come to mean "instantly corroborated on Google". Clearly, the person who rejected my initial post didn't take the time to verify what I'd said. A quick search was done, nothing came up, and it was assumed that it was not verifiable when in fact it was. And asking if something is commercially available isn't ethical, either. Things may be not be available in North America. Cher released a non-commercial CD which cannot be found by commercial means, but that doesn't mean it's not verifiable -- it means you won't find it by limiting yourself to Amazon. Just because something is not verifiable by the moderator in question, doesn't mean it should be removed. I did my part, but he or she may have had limited resources. It should be "subject to further verification" and maintained until its proven to be anything but.

Well, I appreciate your time on this. I feel it's viable information that involves production of the show, and should not be ignored just because someone else overlooked its accuracy. Freakydisco 12:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing, Freakydisco -- Wikipedia uses secondary sources. The DVD, the recording, the show itself, etc., are all primary sources. A primary source is the thing that happened, a secondary source is something that covered the thing that happened. I didn't read your entire posts here, as they are EXCEPTIONALLY long, but I think that might be where the confusion stems from.

Secondly, please don't expect WP to overhaul the way things are done in order to add three sentences to the Miss Saigon article. The policy on verifiability is there for a very good reason. We can't have people posting things like "Clay Aiken is gay because I slept with him." That might be true, but it's hardly verifiable. That's why the policy is in place, and it should -- and does -- extend beyond biographical articles.

Now, you seem to be looking at other articles to back up why you should be allowed to post what you want. It's true that there are some unsubstantiated claims throughout WP. In the earlier days, citing claims wasn't as strenuously enforced as it is now. There are entire articles that are unsourced, this is true. However, there is a concerted effort to get them sourced. There are Wikipedians who do nothing else but try to find sources for unsourced content. Instead of making their job more difficult, nowadays, we ask that everything be sourced.

So, find a source on the three endings. It looks like you've been trying to do that. I'm sure there are some out there. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; it's not trying to be a secondary source. Find the source, cite your contribution, and no one will have a problem with it. —  MusicMaker5376 12:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's about no original research. Comments from Holocaust/Titanic etc survivors, or rumours about the Lunar Landings, would not be appropriate if they were inputted directly into Wikipedia. They would be acceptable if they were first published in a reliable source such as a book/newspaper article/documentary. :Let me put it this way: Wikipedia reflects knowledge, not create it.

If the sheet music were published (I own one of the early 1990s books), the you could cite it. You (or me) possessing the non-published sheet music is not acceptable. An e-mail sent from the producers to one of us is unacceptable. Wikipedia needs verifiability: that is why it says so just below the box into which you type. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

'Auckland 2008'? Any proof of this? Denala (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)