Jump to content

Talk:South Pacific (musical)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSouth Pacific (musical) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 7, 2020.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 7, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
June 30, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 7, 2019, April 7, 2022, and April 7, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Can we delete this non-relevant paragraph?

[edit]

"At one point,[when?] American television producer Bob Mann wanted James Michener to co-create a weekly anthology series from Tales of the South Pacific, with Michener as narrator. Rogers and Hammerstein, however, owned all dramatic rights to the novel and did not give up ownership.[1] Michener did lend his name to a different television series, Adventures in Paradise, in 1959.[2]"

Firstly, it doesn't belong where it now is, in the section on the 1958 movie (Edit: OK, the header has been changed, but since the series never occurred that seems odd too). Secondly, I checked the source and it doesn't give any kind of date for the TV series proposed by Bob Mann. The only clue is that the info precedes info on Adventures in Paradise. I doubt we're going to find any mention of it elsewhere. So we need to either rewrite it in a way that circumvents this issue, or delete the paragraph entirely. I vote the latter. It has nothing to do with the musical, really. (Although it does relate to R&H and Michener.) Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hayes, John Michael. James A. Michener: A Biography, p. 158; Bobbs-Merrill 1984
  2. ^ Hayes, p. 159
I have not looked into this issue, but Adventures in Paradise seems irrelevant. As to whether it is worth mentioning the R&H prevented the development of a TV series, I usually try to WP:PRESERVE content, but in this case I tend to agree with you. I'd like to hear Jean Columbia's opinion on this, but I'm leaning towards "delete". -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A very quick thought--what Mann wanted was a TV show based on the book, not on this musical (if I read the maerial correctly), so I think it could be argued that the item belongs in the book article, not the musical article. So how about, delete from South Pacific (musical), add to Tales of the South Pacific (book). If not already in the Michener article(I don't have time to look right now) could it not be placed there as an alternative. I agree that the Adventures in Paradise does not seem to fit into the article on the musical. JeanColumbia (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Softlavender, can you do this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[left] Happy to. I still have a couple of questions/thoughts: (1) In terms of the Tales of the South Pacific article: How to get around the fact that we don't have a date? (It's obviously somewhere between 1947 and 1959, but that's all we know; though it's more likely to be late 1950s I think.) (2) In terms of the James Michener article, the very short article as it stands now doesn't readily lend itself to this information, which is more about Michener's failed television career -- the source book (which I can sadly only see in snippet view, a little at a time) goes into great detail about Michener's desire to be a TV writer but his total incapacity to do it. (Not that that did him any harm LOL.) I could mention his attempts at TV in the Michener article, and fit it in that way, also adding the Adventures info (which he apprently didn't really write, only maybe signed off on or something). Or we could just skip the Michener article. Thoughts/advice on (1) and (2)? Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no good ideas on this. This may sound a bit cynical, but I don't think the date is as crucial for a Start or C-class article as it is for a higher-quality article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I muffed it as best I could, adding it to both articles. That article on the book is really bad; didn't even have a Refs section. I learned more about the book researching this article on the musical via Amazon than from reading that Wiki article just now. Softlavender (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, literature is not Wikipedia's strong suit. Most editors here are math/science types. Video games are very well covered! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<Sigh> The article on Faulkner, arguably one of the top five authors in the English language, is atrocious. Yeah, I see lots of questionably notable bios of video-game creators. Softlavender (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the unsourced John Simon quote

[edit]

I e-mailed John Simon earlier today to see if he could verify and source that for us. I gave him the Broadway.com link also. Hopefully he will write back. I will also check and see who added it to this article and when. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Ssilvers, you added that quote on April 3, 2008, with this edit: [1]. [EDIT: SEE BELOW FOR CORRECTION] You sourced it to a link on Broadway.com that is no longer working, saying that it quoted Simon. Is there a way to view that link or article via the WayBackMachine? Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not correct. I merely copied the quote from the Lead so that it also appeared in the body of the article, per WP:LEAD, which requires that assertions in the Lead must be also in the body of the article. My edit was merely a technical edit. It was in the article earlier than that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; and thanks for the info. It was added December 5, 2006 by User:Hayford Peirce, in this edit: [2]. So we at least know that it was written before that date. Also, can we view that Broadway.com source article via the Wayback Machine? (I don't know how it works). Softlavender (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Simon replied to me and said "It sounds right to me. It must have been in the review of the revival at Lincoln Center Theater for Bloomberg News. JS". [Note: Simon began reviewing for Bloomberg in June 2005.] Considering that the quote got into Wikipedia on December 5, 2006, I think that was probably too early for the planning stages of the 2008 revival, which opened April 3, 2008 (anyone agree/disagree?). I'd say more likely it was a review or announcement of the June 9, 2005 Carnegie Hall concert, or (even more likely) the April 26, 2006 PBS airing of the latter, or the June 6, 2006 DVD release. Should I contact Simon again and let him know he couldn't have written that before December 5, 2006? That might jog his memory to the exact source. Softlavender (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is really strange, here is a link to a broadway.com article, dated July 5, 2006, on the Carnegie Hall concert, which uses the exact phrase "Many are the knowledgeable and discriminating people for whom Rodgers and Hammerstein's South Pacific, brilliantly co-written and staged by Joshua Logan, was the greatest musical of all."--but the article does not credit John Simon. I'm lost. [[3]] And, just FYI, here is an article by Simon on the recording of the 2008 revival [[4]] JeanColumbia (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks Jean, we had found that recent Broadway.com article previously, and that's what I e-mailed to Simon. There doesn't seem to be any easy way of finding the actual source, short of using the Wayback Machine, or re-emailing Simon. Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it (I managed to figure out how to use the Wayback Machine): [5]. Seems to be loading slow at the moment, but worked perfectly ten minutes ago. Click the "Impatient?" link and it goes right to it. Also, the attribution is not in a byline but in the ID tag at the top of one's browser window or tab. Anyway, I added it to the article. We're all done here. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good sleuthing! Thanks for sticking with this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


RENEWED DISCUSSION: I'm sorry to say that it's a little more complicated than the above. It's still perhaps not certain that John Simon wrote that review, which, as Jean states, appeared on June 6, 2006 (Wayback Machine only goes back as far as July 15, 2006 on the original link). It's uncertain what the ID tag "ETCETERA by John Simon on Broadway.com", which appears at the top of the browser window, actually means. If you click some of the other "Past 10" items on the left of the page, they still have the same ID tag at the top of the page, yet a tiny handful have bylines, which include, sometimes, John Simon. This one from 2005 has a byline that says Paul Wontorek, but it still has that same ID tag at the top of the page.

I tried to get some more information out of Simon just now, sending him the entire text of the review and asking if he wrote it (I forgot, however, to mention the ID tag at the top of the page!), but he didn't want to engage, and wrote back: "Please do not keep writing to me about this. I did not write unattributed articles for Broadway.com. If you want to read what I think of South Pacific -- look for the Lincoln Center review. Please leave me alone." Oh well; but like I said, the article perhaps wasn't entirely unattributed, given the ID tag above, but that's a conclusion rather than a certainty. However, the current link Jean posted makes it seem like it was written by staff.

So I don't know with 100% certainty if he wrote that or not. Which is too bad, because it's an eloquent generalization, and won't sound as good if not credited to Simon. What do you think we should do? Right now, it's used not only in the Reception section, but also as a footnote in the lead. Maybe we just need to find other quotes fom other authoritative sources, or from compilation sources. Perhaps something from a book on musical theatre, etc. Some possibilities: [6] -- Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are not certain about the attribution, and now I am not certain either, I think the material should either (1) be deleted entirely or (2) sourced to "Staff, Broadway.com" without the John Simon reference. Is there any urgency to find another quote? (Are you planning on a GA/FA, for example.) If you can wait, I'll have some free time on Friday late afternoon/early evening (April 29) and Sunday late afternoon (May 1) to look around.JeanColumbia (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jean, and Ssilvers. No, no urgency; it was just a matter of accuracy weighing on my mind. Whatever seems best over time, providing we eventually remove the attribution from the Reception section and from the footnote in the lead. Softlavender (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took out Simon's name for now. In general, I don't think we should name critics unless they are blue-linked, so I don't think we need to say that "staff" wrote something - just that a review appeared at Broadway.com. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2001 film

[edit]

The new order of this section is not typical, and doesn't really make sense. We should describe the major changes, name the director and give any other major production info first, before giving the critics' reactions. Also, I am worried that we have too much here about the critical reaction to the film, since the film has its own article (which should be expanded). -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, OK. point taken. I'll try to clean it up. I just didn't want it to start off with criticism, especially when the article quoted was actually very positive. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the negative stuff in the third paragraph now. Howzat? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the logic flows nicely now. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I agree that the article on the film should be expanded and edited, but I guess it's one of those things where it's like a poor cousin that people are less interested in. I myself never saw that 2001 film, so neither am I particularly interested in doing much on it. Softlavender (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

[edit]

I'm starting to look at reviews and books, to verify the "greatest musical" phrase. Nothing so far in the reviews for the 2001 West End production, although the summaries of those reviews were certainly very favorable.

I like this from a review of the 2008 Lincoln Center: "Something this transporting, this precise, and this beautiful can only be crafted by the most skilled of hands. Specifically, those of Richard Rodgers, Oscar Hammerstein II, and Joshua Logan, who created the enduringly exquisite musical called South Pacific, which Lincoln Center Theater is now resuscitating in a glowing revival at the Vivian Beaumont. As directed with superb reverence by Bartlett Sher and performed by an astonishing company, this production speaks and sings to your heart in a way few shows today do." from talkin' broadway April 4, 2008. Perhaps a few quotes about the 2008 (and 2001) revivals would be good, especially since some of the reviews comment on the relevance of this show in the current world.

More in the next few days (but I'm already leaning to changing the quote to something less grand!).JeanColumbia (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jean, thanks for taking the time to do that. I guess we all got distracted by other things and forgot to acknowledge you or voice an opinion. Whatever you want to do is fine, at least with me for one (including doing nothing [for now?] if you so choose). Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't forget or get distracted.  :-) I was waiting for Jean to decide what she wants to do: whatever she thinks is best is fine with me, too. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farmer Jones?

[edit]

That's the first time in 62 years that I've ever heard Emile de Becque being called a "farmer". Geez, what will the gang at Wikipedia think of next!? Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What should it be, "plantation owner"? If so, how is that different? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a good call, and very different. Think the Old South versus Green Acres or The Grapes of Wrath. I changed it to plantation owner, which is how he is described in the script and in reliable sources. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tonkinese

[edit]

I have a suggestion for a potential correction, but I don't know how to go about it. In the plot summary, the article lists the character of Bloody Mary as "Tonkinese," which is a regional group in Viet Nam. However, I saw a performance last night, and from the dialog I believe she is actually "Tongan," from the Polynesian kingdom of Tonga, which is presumably near the island on which the story takes place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.132.217 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's clear, and repeated many times in both the published play and in Michener's novel, that Bloody Mary and her daughter are Tonkinese (Vietnamese), not Tongan. I hope this sets your mind at rest, but if you have any doubts, you can look at the play or novel in snippet view on GoogleBooks, and search it for the word Tonkinese. Michener was very aware of Asian nationalities, and did not confuse them. Many Tonkinese lived in Melanesia during the time of WWII. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Softlavender. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian tour

[edit]

I have added that there is a 2012 Australian tour. See more information here - http://www.showbiz.com.au/south-pacific/. This is a professional production tour, starring Lisa McCune as Nellie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.111.52 (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has deleted the 2012 Australia tour, which I am enraged about - it is an official Lincoln Center version of the musical. I am re-adding it immediately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.96.149 (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Émile de Becque

[edit]

I'm not seeing the acute accent on the capital E as reliably sourced. I don't see it in my copy of the libretto, and I've gone through six or so of my references and I don't see anything to indicate that it should be there. I don't doubt it is proper French, though I don't speak French besides a few lines lifted from Carmen and a few Quebecois imprecations. Unless there's a source I'm missing which shows it to be proper, I think it should be removed wherever it occurs.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you're right. Wow, check this out. Just when you thought the first verse was good.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masterful is the word. What are your thoughts regarding the subsequent productions?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean, do I like the way the article treats them, or do you mean did I like the productions themselves, or something else? -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[left]It looks sensible enough, but I don't feel attached to it. If you want to try something different, go ahead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd combine the 21st century ones, I think. I'm not certain that Carnegie Hall concert is really deserving of coverage. The South Pacific Companion has a lot of details on later casts and also replacements in the New York and London runs, so I don't think we'll be scrambling as much as we did for The King and I.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cut down the 2005 info, but we can't lose it, because it was, in addition to a concert production, a broadcast and a DVD with a major cast. I moved it down to the adaptations section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do remember watching it one Pledge Night, now that I think of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First review

[edit]

I reviewed your Background section (excellent, of course) and left a couple hidden questions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've answered it. She was definitely Polynesian. At least the one that so offended Nellie.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one of the three mentions of the N-word. Frankly, I'd rather just say that Nellie overcame her racism, since we already used the N-word above, and I think it will be unnecessarily distracting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I won't add any more. That is the point that Michener was trying to make, anyway. The word is far more shocking to us today than it was in 1947, I suspect.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We (and, to be fair, Hammerstein!) are making a rather unreal distinction between Melanesian and Polynesian here. The physical appearance of people belonging to the two "races" varies a good deal and overlaps enormously. Very dark Melanesians include some of the "blackest" people on Earth - while some Polynesian people (especially when NOT deeply tanned by the sun, as people living an outdoor life in the tropics tend to be) are a reddish brown. On the other hand the overall, "normal" colour of people of both "races" (this is from a white person who lived among them for many years) is a pleasant "milk-chocolate" brown. A relatively small number of Pacific Island people are "typically Melanesian" (say, the inhabitants of the western Solomon Islands) and a few more (like the people of Tonga or Samoa) often conform to a "typical Polynesian" image, with heavily built bodies tending to obesity in middle-age, and relatively light skins. Overall, however, one is tempted to consider the whole Polynesian/Melanesian distinction as a European artifact. In relation to the strongly anti-racist point Hammerstein wanted to make all this has absolutely zilch notability - or relevance for that matter, but quibbling about whether the little de Becques are one thing or the other has even less relevance. Children, especially, of mixed European/Islander parentage vary in appearance from a "passing" colouration to quite dark, and pretty well everywhere in between. As for "Eurasian": in a colonial East Asian or Pacific setting this is very simply a blanket term for people of mixed race. Modern usage may be more specific so we probably need to avoid it here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More total irrelevancy - but for what it is worth if I were casting a production of South Pacific I'd assume that "the first Mrs. de Becque" was very dark indeed and that the children took after her in that respect. Just to make the point a little more strongly. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in The South Pacific Companion that some productions have made them African-Americans. I'll get to that. There are clearly going to be lots of side issues and I'm hoping to integrate them as we go along here. There is a lot that can be said about South Pacific. And has.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3 technical suggestions

[edit]

First, I think we should use the first names Nellie and Emile, as is normal in our musicals articles. However, I would use Billings and Cable (and last names for other officers), where these officers are normally referred to that way by the other characters in the show. Second, in writing multi-page numbers with more than two digits, I suggest that we shorten the second number to two digits if it is within the same 100 range. For example, pp. 227–34 instead of pp. 227–234; also pp. 1,227–34; but, pp. 296–304, of course. Third, I suggest leaving off the period at the end of refs (before the /ref tag), just to save one keystroke (and clutter) in each ref. But I don't feel strongly about the third, if you prefer the period at the end. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep the full page number since that's what I'm used to and naturally write that way. Don't mind omitting the period, if you will remove them and keep an eye to make sure we're being consistent. I'm OK on the Emile bit, I was puzzling over that last night. If you feel strongly about these things though, I'm willing to follow, although I may forget from time to time.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's go with that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we'll omit the period and stick to first names except for military men (Billis is how he's referred to even though he is not an officer). I was going to move "other songs" up into the pre-history section, but I think that's long enough, though we might want to put a hatnote pointing the reader who may be expecting discussion of the changes under "Casting and tryouts". I am also avoiding much discussion of the racial issues, which deserves and shall have its own section. This play must be put in the context of its times, fortunately there are an amazing number of resources. I've got four articles downloaded from JSTOR, though I have not read them all yet and will email them to you shortly. I do plan to tighten up the structure otherwise, and make it more like the other R&H articles (my, this will be the seventh of the Original Nine). I've also started saving articles I run into on Oklahoma! and The Sound of Music as I encounter them, though I don't intend to work on those immediately.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the "other songs", you might be able to skip discussion of reprises, unless they are dramatically important. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if it is a simple add and it did not replace a song, I'll cut it. JSTORs are on their way. Where do you think we can add a themes section?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Themes (and any other text analysis) could go just under the Reception section, at least for now, I think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm trying to prepare for a trip out of town, so I will not be able to read the J-stor stuff until the end of the month. Sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Your participation is always appreciated by me, and we have no deadline. I have some time to devote to writing and the coins can wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review!

[edit]

Please comment on our PR for this important musical at the PR page reached by clicking here. We are on the way to FAC -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Mad Scientist's comments, and our replies, to the PR page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Like--Amadscientist (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed FA

[edit]

Congrats to all on the passage of the article! Looking at this talk page, I'd like to archive everything which does not have a response in 2012 or 2013 and perhaps set up auto-archiving.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly also keep the "Tonkinese" section above as it may answer reader questions.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations most of all to Wehwalt, who did most of the research and writing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth much in this specialized field without your theatrical expertise and steady editing hand.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Racism"

[edit]

I think in a sentence making a statement about R&H's intent we should use contemporary language where possible. It is almost in the same category as calling G&S "comic opera" (the 19th century term for British operetta/musical comedy) - the justification is simply that we are using a contemporary term. "Racism" is of course the current term for what we mean, but it was pretty rare (and meant something rather different anyway) in the late fifties/early sixties (I was there, folks!). "Racialist" was actually more common - both opponents and supporters of South African apartheid used to call the then regime in that country a "racialist government". Calling the topic R&H were raising "the race question" certainly doesn't exclude the young in any way - in the most unlikely event that they don't get what is being talked about they can always click on the link. I know I have already been reverted on this one (and by an editor whose work on this article deserves every praise) - but reading "racism" in this sentence really grates. A very small point - but I'd love to have it properly discussed, at least. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, later in the article, in the sentence: "Part of the reason why South Pacific is considered a classic is its confrontation of racism" the word "racism" is exactly right, because we are talking about what this musical is to us, rather than what its composer and lyricist intended. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel the audience will understand it?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Soundofmusicals. Webster's dictionary says that the word "racism" has been current since the 1930s. Anti-racism#American_origins is a WP article that talks about the history of the fight against racism in earlier periods and uses the word "racism". Some early examples of use of the word:

  • 1926, "The New Italy" in The Manchester Guardian, p. 7: "The ‘Quotidien’ remarks neutrally that the two Nationalisms are in conflict, and that ‘if German racism is a danger to the world Fascism is another.’"
  • 1932, Huddleston, Sisley, "Europe Painted in Fascist Colors" in Christian Science Monitor, p.8: "It is altogether inaccurate to suggest that Europe is being indoctrinated with Fascism or Racism."
  • 1935 August, Karl Loewenstein, "Autocracy Versus Democracy in Contemporary Europe, I" in The American Political Science Review, volume 29, number 4:  "Hatred of the Western parliamentary system was the most attractive plank of its political platform, as racism was the sociological incentive for the masses."
  • 1936, Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism, New York; London: Harper, p. 135: "If, in this discussion it be assumed that one of our values should be a type of racism which excludes certain races from citizenship, then the plan of execution should provide for the annihilation, deportation, or sterilization of the excluded races."
  • 1938, Eden and Cedar Paul (tr.), Racism, Kennikat Press, translation of original by Magnus Hirschfeld.

An etymology of "racism" can be found in Singer, Marcus G. "Some Thoughts on Race and Racism" in Philosofihia 8 (1978), pp. 153-54. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Currency" is very much relative. It certainly wasn't a word on people's lips in the heyday of Rodgers or (to an even greater extent) the much older Hammerstein - even if you can find some journalistic or academic use of it as early as the 1930s. In any case this is missing the point. It is a pejorative word, and the idea of hating other people on the grounds of race being necessarily a "bad" thing was (or still is) quite a startling notion for many people. How many otherwise tolerant people are still disturbed by the idea of miscegenation (a central theme in both love stories) even now? Hence the preference for "racialism" (a more neutral word for roughly the same thing) and the "racial question" - implying there might be at least two sides to the "question". The contemporary reaction to South Pacific, especially songs like You've got to be taught (which many quite liberal people were most uncomfortable with at the time) is a case in point. As I said in my original comment - it is MOST unlikely that anyone, however young, will have difficulty with what's being talked about, and in the almost inconceivable case that they do they can always click on the link. The echo of Hitler's "final answer to the Jewish question" also adds considerable point. I just think that at this point and in this context "racial question" beats "racism" hands down. This is what R&H would have called it, because that's what is WAS, at the time. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a wonderful article now, by the way - so much better than it was. All the more reason to give the lead just a little more polish. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. "The race question" is vague, innacurate, and begs the question "What race question?" There is no question posed by the musical -- instead there is a very clear statement that racism is something that is taught, not innate. The argument that "this grates" is simply WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must use the clearest and most accurate terminology and not confuse the reader, make him guess or click an unnecessary link, or imply things (a "question" which is never posed by the musical) that don't exist. Softlavender (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


A great shame, but never mind - always thought I'd be pushing shit up hill on this one. Sad. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

[edit]

There has been some to- and froing over the "See also" section today. I see from the requisite guideline that "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes", which precludes at least one of the links from appearing for a third time on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to (and did) add in the following two links to "See also". List of Broadway shows that have held title of longest-running show and List of the longest-running Broadway shows. Someone keeps removing them. I believe they should stay. So, let's discuss. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the bit in green? - SchroCat (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the bit in green? When I read it, it says: "as a general rule ...". Which means that it applies generally, but that there are times when it does not apply. I believe this to be one of those times. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Related topics (navigational lists) states that "See also" lists ... are valuable navigational tools that assist users in finding related Wikipedia articles. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I bloody read it: I quoted it to you! Why do you think we need to repeat one of the less important links in its own special section? (And bear in mind that this is an FA, which are supposed to stick more clearly to the MoS guidelines than other articles. – SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The policy (WP:ALSO) states: "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. I think that creating a See Also section to contain links to lists of long-running musicals is a very bad idea. It is not at all helpful in this article. We have mentioned in the text that South Pacific was, at one time, the 2nd longest-running Broadway musical, so adding the section is overkill, redundant and belabors the issue in a very boring and unencyclopedic way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be mindful of WP:OWN. I see that you are the #1 or #2 contributor to this article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Woo hoo! I'm #1!! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my point exactly. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What a petulant response: someone disagrees with you, so you accuse them of ownership? That's quite juvenile! – SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read my post. It says "be mindful". Just like you politely asked me to be mindful of certain policies. Which is why I am here on this Talk Page. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not correct. You are here on this Talk page because WP:BRD requires it. Your accusation of WP:OWN, no matter how pretentiously cached, was an unjust accusation. The fact that a major contributor to an article disagrees with you does not mean that they are in danger of violating WP:OWN, but your repeated reversions of the article were clear violations of WP:BRD and WP:Edit war. It is astonishing and disappointing that an editor who has been around the project as long as you is refusing to acknowledge and follow basic guidelines, and then hides behind accusations. These are the plain facts. Facts are not uncivil. Now, as I said already, if you have any ideas for the improvement of this article, please suggest them, and then we can see if there is a consensus to implement them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I am clear. If I ask you to be mindful of policies, that is a bad thing. And by me reminding you, I am unjustly accusing you of something. If you remind me to be mindful of policies, that is a good thing. And by you reminding you, you are not unjustly accusing you of something. So, in other words, it's the exact opposite. Do I understand correctly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that an article of such significance as this has no "See also" section? There are no interesting, relevant, tangentially related topics? Not a one? That seems quite unlikely. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Are you posting just to hear yourself type? You had an idea. It is a bad idea. Please let everyone know if you have another actual idea. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being so civil. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who made unjust accusations, not me. Perhaps you really don't understand how to read WP:Edit war, WP:OWN and WP:ALSO, in which case, I apologize for assuming that you did. If not, please read WP:Edit war very carefully. Honestly, a little common sense would go a long way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what unjust accusation would that be exactly? Please point it out specifically, so that I can address your concern and reply. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from an edit warrior who has accused someone of ownership based on nothing more than an opposing view, that's quite a cheek! – SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please point out where I made an accusation. So that I can address your concerns. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose See also section for the reasons stated above. It is not needed in this article where the facts it lists are already covered in the text.Jack1956 (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. My concern is more of an aesthetic one. In my view a "See Also" in this instance mars the appearance of the article itself, which is nicely self-contained. I feel a "See Also" is distracting visually and aesthetically. And as SchroCat mentioned in an edit summary, the second article has nothing to with South Pacific. Also, since the one link that is actually relevant is already linked twice in the article, I think it's hard to argue that listing it as a See Also is necessary. Although I think there might be some minor benefit for the reader to have that article title listed as a SA, I think the minuses outweigh the pluses for me in this particular instance, on this particular article. If someone wanted to make a navbox of that list, that might possibly be a way to add the information that doesn't disrupt the visual flow of the article. Softlavender (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but you -- and the others -- miss the point entirely. I have heard many times "the second article has nothing to with South Pacific". That's the entire point. To offer tangential yet related material of interest to the reader. The second link has "nothing" to do with South Pacific. Yes. OK. That's the whole point of it. That's the reason to include it, not exclude it. And I still find it hard to believe that an article of such importance/significance has no "See also" section. That's just plain silly. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And it's quite clear there are editors here who think that they "own" this article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, people holding an opposing opinion to you is not evidence of ownership. Your accusation of ownership where there is none speaks volumes about you and your approach, however. – SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment has nothing to do with differing opinions. I have been on Wikipedia for 10 years. You think this is the first time I have run across differing opinions in 10 years? And, yes, there are people here who think they own the article. That's my opinion and I can hardly care less if you agree with it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third or fourth time you've accused others of ownership, and it has nothing to do with anything else aside from your own deeply flawed approach to this. No-one is claiming ownership: there is a disagreement over the "See also" section. No-one deserves to be accused of ownership on that basis, despite your falsehoods. If you honestly thing there is ownership, take it to ANI and see how far you get. If you won't take that stage, it's probably best you keep you ill-judged and false accusations to yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd still like to know how an article of this significance has absolutely nothing in all of Wikipedia that is tangentially related so as to merit a "see also" section. Really? Not one article out of the 80 gazillion Wikipedia articles? Wow. What are the odds of that? The answer: people think they own this article and there is no "see also" because they owners simply don't want one, regardless of whether or not one is meritorious. Why? Just "because". Wikipedia has 5 million plus articles. Not a single one is related. Yeah, ok. That's quite feasible. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: And you calling me "childish" ... and a "liar" ... and an "idiot" ...? That, however, is not a personal attack. Do I understand correctly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the diff where I call you a "liar": the use of the actual word you have quoted please. As to "edit warrior": that is exactly what you did in the article in the first place, which is why I had to ask you not to on your talk page and why I opened this thread in the first place. - SchroCat (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I notice how you totally avoid some questions altogether. As far as "liar": No, I do not know how to create a link for a "diff". Your exact quote (in the edit summary) was that your edit was "Removing the childish and baseless lies" from my previous edit. So, you used the word "lies" as coming from me. Which, I am pretty sure, is the same as calling me a "liar". Or am I mistaken about that? To say that Person X has "stated lies" is the exact same thing as calling Person X a "liar". If the word "liar" is not 100% correct, I can retract that and replace it with the word "lies". Is that what you prefer? This is the argument upon which you are hanging your hat? "Lies" versus "Liar"? OK. And, since you want to create a red herring (over the "lie" versus "liar" matter), what about the other terms? "Childish" and "idiot". My question was: When you call me those names, that does not constitute a personal attack. Correct? Do I understand correctly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you now admit that I did not call you a liar, despite the quoted speech that states I did. (And you've been here ten years, and yet you don't know how to create a diff? See Help:Diff for how to provide one in the future.) - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's your reply? I said that you claimed that I stated lies. That's the same as you calling me a liar. Or am I mistaken in that? OK. You did not call me a "liar". Did you claim that I "stated lies"? I see you avoid the issue about "child" and "idiot". Why is that? And I could care less about "diffs". If I have not had reason to use them, what difference does it make that I have been here 10 years? I am clearly not as smart as you. That's your point? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are mistaken: there is a great difference. - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There is a huge difference between "Person X is a liar" and "Person X stated lies". Huge difference. Indeed. And, I have asked abut three times. No reply on the "idiot" and "child" issue, huh? That one, you will conveniently forget to address. Yes? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you cannot see the difference between the two, although you can see the difference between "Be mindful of WP:OWN" and not accusing people of ownership. This sub-section of thread is neither constructive nor helpful: I intend to step away, as I don't think you are trying to bring this to any useful resolution at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you intend to step away. (1) You very conveniently never addressed the issue of you calling me a "child", even though I asked about 5 times. (2) You very conveniently never addressed the issue of you calling me an "idiot", even though I asked about 5 times. (3) And you want to offer some silly distinction between calling someone a "liar" versus accusing them of "lying", claiming that it is a substantial difference. Uh, yeah. Of course, you are gonna step away and not address any of that. You are trying to save face, but know that it just can't be done, with any level of crediblity. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request admin help

[edit]

I would like to request admin help. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short: An editor above (User:SchroCat) deleted my comments from this Talk Page (in the section immediately above). I reverted his edit, so that my comments would re-appear and would not be removed/deleted. Then, he accused me of deleting his comment (which in itself was the removal of my comment). And then he threatened me with an ANI report (in the edit summary). His edit summary is, quote, "Putting back in what the edit warrior reverted out. If you remove my comment again I will file an ANI report against you." Furthermore, he has called me various names ( "childish", "liar", "idiot", "edit warrior", etc.) and then accuses me of personal attacks. He has also accused me of edit wars. So, I want to be pre-emptive. And resolve this. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief: I redacted the false and baseless accusations of ownership through use of an appropriate template for such actions. You deleted an entire comment of mine that I then had to replace, with an appropriate warning about going to ANI if you delete entire comments again. See above for requests of the diff of where I called you a "liar", and why you were edit warring on the article in the first place. – SchroCat (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's worthwhile arguing any more with Mr. Spadaro. Despite being a long-term user of Wikipedia, he edit wars instead of using the WP:BRD process, and now that three people have disagreed with him on the Talk page, he is just repeating himself over and over, without contributing anything new about the article South Pacific. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly do you get "edit wars"? I placed two links in the "see also" Someone complained that "the article already mentions that this is a long-running show" (as their edit summary). I replaced it by explaining that "I was not using the link to demonstrate that this is a long-running show, but rather to show the other musicals that shared the same virtues (i.e., the others with which it shared the same company)". I edited perhaps 1 or 2 times. When I saw it was a "major issue" with other editors, I came here to the Talk Page. Someone else beat me here to the Talk Page by like 1 or 2 minutes. So, rather than start a new section, I replied to the already started Talk Page section. So, where exactly is the edit war? Yet another red herring you want to throw others off with. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I could not care less if you "don't think it's worthwhile" arguing with me about my valid issues. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been ten quiet days now and no one has edited this page, so obviously no admin help is necessary. If you have a user conduct issue, take it to WP:ANI. Katietalk 19:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Carnegie Hall concert paragraph and adding those performers to the notable performers table

[edit]

I'm not sure this should be done. They did not play in South Pacific by virtue of having been in the staged concert. It's not the same thing as the original show. It's a staged concert.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point. However, the performers I added are indeed Notable and staged Concert versions of musicals can be considered actual productions; the recent staged concert versions of PHANTOM OF THE OPERA at the Royal Albert Hall and SWEENEY TODD at Lincoln Center are cases in point.--TonyPS214 14:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted most of these changes for now. If you can get a consensus of editors who think any of the changes were an improvement, we can reinstate them. First of all, adding the new paragraph about the Carnegie Hall concert is redundant, since we already mention it under recordings. The concert was primarily a broadcast and recording event, which is why we treat it under recordings. Moreover, the the concert was a one-off performance, without set or costumes. Not a long-running production of the actual show, like all the other productions described. Adding the performers to the performers table is also not consistent with WP:BALASPS and other concepts of balanced content in WP. Finally, why break up the recordings section into lots of stubby little paragraphs. That was not helpful. BTW, Phantom is not a good quality article, partly because it includes lots of fancruft about less important productions. Sweeney is better, and if we did not already discuss the recording of this concert, we might have mentioned it elsewhere, as is done in Sweeney. Note that in Sweeney, everything is *not* discussed twice, as you did, and the cast names are not repeated again in a casting table. But in this FA article, the discussion of the concert/broadcast/recording is adequate and, IMO, given the proper weight. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cn, as of ?

[edit]

From the lead:

The production won ten Tony Awards, including Best Musical, Best Score, and Best Libretto, and it is the only musical production to win Tony Awards in all four acting categories.

On a quick skim, I was unable to locate an as of date or a citation for this text in the body of the article. I find that the 2008 production won in all four design categories, but where do I find that it is the only one, in acting categories, or as of ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sandy. In the Awards section, we note the 10 awards, including all four acting categories for the original production. Here is a ref that verifies that, as of 2016, it is still the only one. I'm adding the ref. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SS, got it ... looks good! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on South Pacific (musical). 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) 03:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on South Pacific (musical). 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) 07:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on South Pacific (musical). 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) 19:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However hard we try

[edit]

Ssilvers is desperate to have a few instances of "however" in the article, because, you know, why not? But he can't bring himself to explain why or start a conversation here. So I've helped him out by starting the conversation. There, that wasn't so hard, was it? --The Huhsz (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per BRD, the onus is on you, as the person challenging the WP:STATUS QUO, to open the thread. There, that isn't so hard to understand, is it? - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. This is a Featured article, and the use of the word "however" in the three instances was vetted by many readers as well as the principal authors of the article, one of whom, at least, has an English degree from an Ivy League university, so I... I mean *he*... is confident about his English usage and grammar. Now The Huhsz is WP:EDIT WARring to remove the word "however" and inserts gratuitous insults into his edit summary which is, I remind him, not civil. So, let's discuss each instance. First: In the "Inception" section, the article gives Logan's recollection of how the project was conceived. Then it gives Michener's conflicting account. In simpler form, it says: Logan recalled x. Michener, however, wrote y. The "however" is needed to give the reader the cue that the accounts are contradictory. Second: In the "critical reception" section, regarding the original London production, we present several mixed reviews. Then we quote reviews from two newspapers that gave the show unqualified praise. Here, the "however" serves to cue the reader into the contrast. Third: We note that the NY Times praises the 2001 TV adaptation, while the theatre writer John Kenrick "however, dislikes the adaptation". Again, the word "however" helps the reader to prepare for the contrasting material that he or she is about to read. In each case, the use of the word is not only good usage and good grammar, but sensible and helpful to the reader. The word "however" is being used in each case to introduce contrast or contradiction. That is what it is supposed to do, and it is doing it superbly well. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Mary image

[edit]

Do we need the new image of Juanita Hall as Bloody Mary? That part of the article had enough images, I think. Or maybe we can move the images around so that one of them goes into a less image-heavy part of the article? What do you think, User:Wehwalt? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the new one to replace the old photo of Bloody Mary, which was quite low resolution.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Productions in Infobox

[edit]

The musical theatre project has long advised that only "long-running, major-market" productions belong in the infobox (plus the original production, if it was elsewhere), except in unusual situations. For revivals of a Broadway show like this one, this means productions that either played on B'way or the WE, or US/UK national tours that ran for more than a year. Otherwise, the infoboxes would get hopelessly long (indeed, I think it's kind of silly to list *any* revivals in the infobox, other than the original production and first B'way or WE production). Also please note that this article is a WP:FA, so when it was promoted, lots of people reviewed the infobox and were happy with what was listed there as of 2013. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Pacific_(musical)&oldid=1227521679"