Jump to content

Talk:MJ the Musical

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

Casting

[edit]

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSICALS, casting boards should only be updated when the production in question officially begins performances. Things can change between now and then. It could be cancelled, or recast. Only when the show begins performances is when the casting should be set on the cast boards. Until then, casting should be placed in the productions section. Smitty1999 (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

US tour

[edit]

It doesn't need to be anything like as large - it's a large chunk of the article! There is zero need for every single date in every single theatre to be mentioned. Something the length of the UK production opening will be fine. If anyone wants to know when and where it is on, the links are there for them to find out. Lovingboth (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of celebrity worship

[edit]

Just to explain that Wikipedia is not the place to list all the people who have been given tickets to see a show. That's why this section will always be removed. 88.111.215.174 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an Encyclopedia, NOT A FAN PAGE!

[edit]

This page NEEDS MAJOR REVISIONS as it is looking more like a fan page and not an encyclopedia page. Smitty1999 (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian review

[edit]

I have twice added the Guardian's review of MJ the Musical to this page.

It has twice been removed, as, quote, "This was not a review of the play. It was an opinion of the man and does not belong here."[1] and "this is not a review of the musical rather the author's personal feelings about Jackson". [2]

The Guardian is a reliable secondary source for cultural commentary on Wikipedia. We don't get to disregard reliable sources because we personally dislike the review. That's an obvious WP:POV problem. The review should be restored. Popcornfud (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support this. Completely invalid removal rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how "and was troubled by the sexual abuse allegations against Jackson." is a review of the musical? There is absolutely nothing about the allegations in the musical. That quote is nothing but her personal opinion about the allegations, not in any way a critical response to the musical, or cultural commentary for that matter. Under WP:ONUS and WP:UNDUEit's perfectly reasonable to exclude the personal opinion of an author about a different subject. castorbailey (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. The things that happen in actor/musicians personal life affects perception of their art. There's simply no way around that one. We are not part of Jackson's PR team cleaning up negative publicity. That might work on fansites and social media, but not on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly a way around it of course, one does not have to believe those things happened in his personal life and thus would not affect perception of his art. In other cases, people are perfectly capable of perceiving the art regardless of what happened in the person's life. But neither of those change the fact that there is nothing about the allegations in the musical so how can any feeling about the allegations be a review of this musical? Think about all the things in Jakcson's life that is not mentioned in this show. Would a "review" complaining about any of them be a review of the musical? castorbailey (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In this context, there is no difference between review and opinion. The whole point of a critical reception section is to summarize the published opinions from professional writers. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of critical response to the musical should be to include reviews of the musical itself not any and all opportunity some anti-Jackson writer at any paper used to express their opinion about the allegations. Which again, have nothing to do with the musical. By this token you could add every part of every article where someone complained about Jackson himself over the allegations and also talked about the musical. It's not WP:POV, it's that the part popcorn chose was specifically about Jackson personally and the author's personal feelings about Jackson personally. That does not have a place on this page which is supposed to be about the musical only. castorbailey (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. The musical is about Michael Jackson, so of course a prominent point in his life is inextricably tied to the musical, for a reviewer watching in 2024. You don't get to simply invalidate a reliable source because you disagree with the author. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard the first point, I see you removed your comment. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two replies hardly qualify as bludgeoning I deleted a third one as I saw it better to make a direct reply. Your position is that any article that says anything related to Jackson and the musical should be included here as a "critical response" to the musical? There is no wiki rule that everything ever published by a reliable source must be included in any page. Check WP:ONUS. castorbailey (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question about the reliability of the source. However, the show set it prior to the Dangerous World tour (June 1992). How in the hell does this sterilize the sexual allegations leveled against him in 1993? The “review” is not about the show, the acting, the story, the production, nothing! It’s about her personal mental issues she has over the man himself. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and it doesn’t stop applying here because you want it to.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty said in the review which is clearly about the play itself; in fact, the parts about it ignoring the allegations are far less than this would imply. It's perfectly valid to include. I don't want to assume bias on the part of the editor here, but TruthGuardians does have an extensive history of editing Michael Jackson-related articles, including at least one abuse report, and I am aware that Michael Jackson fans often get very defensive regarding the allegations against the man, so I can't help but see what looks like bias getting in the way of good editing. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the editor(s) adding the review were including the part about the allegations, then perhaps that should be left out. Consider at least whether there's undue weight in mentioning that; if just one review is bringing it up then just how relevant is it to this article? But that it's mentioned briefly in the review is no reason to invalidate the entire article, especially not from a source as reputable as The Guardian. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The musical, objectively, is not about everything Michael Jackson but only about certain elements of his life. The allegations are not inextricably tied to this show any more than his death or marriages or kids or dealings with David Geffen or the sale of half of ATV and innumerable events in his life you would never consider including here just because they were published in The Guardian.

Imagine that as a critical response to the musical we would include "and she was troubled by Michelle Flower's rape allegations against Jackson," or "and she was troubled by how he went about having his children," or "and she was troubled by how Jackson obtained the ATV catalogue"? Israell (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the "critical response" section is to provide encylopedic coverage of the response to MJ the Musical from professional critics. That means we cover what they wrote, regardless of what they wrote.
By excluding this review, you are applying your own standards about what reviews should be, or how critics should form opinions. That's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not the role of a Wikipedia editor. It is not your role to critique the scope of Guardian writers. Go work for Guardian if you wish to do that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't oppose the inclusion if the musical revolved around Jackson's History World Tour (1996) instead of his Dangerous World Tour (1992). That's because there weren't any sexual abuse allegations against Jackson while he was preparing for his Dangerous tour. So it's obviously the personal opinion or ill research of the reviewer that the show paved the way to such a future event (sexual abuse allegations). Israell (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what any arts review is: a personal opinion. Popcornfud (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But not all opinions are reviews of a work of art, in this case the musical. If this author had said in that article that she doesn't like Jackson's nose or she is thinks Off the Wall is better than Thriller, it should not be included here either, just because it's her opinion about something related to Jackson. How is her opinion about the allegations a review of art? castorbailey (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

Should a summary of this Guardian review of MJ the Musical be included in the "Critical response" section of this article? Popcornfud (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No - the segment proposed for inclusion is not a review of the musical but the author's personal opinion about the allegations. That the author is troubled by the allegations have nothing to do with the musical. The sole purpose to include that part with link to the allegations is to use this article as yet another place to promote the allegations against Jackson. castorbailey (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The review says Jackson's music had "an otherworldly magic", but found the show "sterilized" and was troubled by the allegations of sexual abuse against Jackson. The show revolves around Jackson's preparations for his Dangerous World Tour in 1992. So how an exclusion of an event happened in the future sterilizes the show? Perhaps there’s other part of this “review” that can be used, but this can’t. The reliability of a source depends on context. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS regardless of the source is “reliable.” Facts always take precedence over opinions and when facts are incoherent or wrong, so is an opinion.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - When a review is merely the author's opinion about Michael Jackson, a biased one that doesn't even have anything to do with the musical, I dont see how it can be added. MraClean (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I fail to see where and how the musical is reviewed here. Sure, the Guardian is a reliable source, but the opinion piece is not in line with the facts and appears to be more of an opinion about the man than a review about the play. After reading the opinion you finish still not knowing much about the Musical. Very odd. NE0mAn7o! (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No- the issue is not whether anything from the Guardian should be included but whether that particular unrelated statement by the author should be included as it is evidently not a critical response to the musical but to Jackson himself personally . I think this review will be more suitable as it reviews the performances aswell its themes in the musical rather than a authors personal feelings . With other musicals like Tina turner musical, as it explores her personal life the reviewer doesn't focus on ike Turner and Tina's relationship and focus on the show itself .
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2024/mar/31/the-week-in-theatre-opening-night-ivo-van-hove-rufus-wainwright-sheridan-smith-gielgud-theatre-west-end-review-mj-the-musical-prince-edward-theatre-broadway-west-end-christopher-wheeldon-lynn-nottage Mr Boar1 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting. Most (all?) of the editors of the "No" comments above pretty much only edit articles about Michael Jackson. And some of them haven't made any edits at all before this RfC for months, or years, only to spontaneously arrive here. Curious. Popcornfud (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I edited last in June and July of this year and looking at the edit histories most editors here have recent edits and they don't only edit Michael Jackson. However, you started an RFC to include more bias on a Jackson related page, so there is nothing curious about editors who care about those articles and check if such RFCs would show up. What is curious is that your recent edits reveal an effort to promote the allegations against Jackson in questionable ways, which is why you want that specific part of that Guardian article included. If you were just dedicated to include something from the Guardian because it's a reliable source you could have chosen a part which is about the musical instead of the allegations. MraClean (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The critic gave the musical a negative review because of its handling (or lack thereof) of the abuse allegations. (This, of course, is why members of the MJ fan brigade are stamping their feet trying to disqualify it.) That is the entire premise of the criticism — it's in the title of the article, FFS ("sterilised moonwalk through the King of Pop’s life"). To omit that from the Wikipedia article would not be a fair summary of the source. Popcornfud (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words you admit that you do want to include that line because you want to include the allegations in this page. Her being troubled by the allegations is not and cannot be a review of the musical, but that was not even the point of my comment. You invented that most editors here did not edit for months of years and invented that they only edit Jackson pages to invalidate their vote which is against your effort not to include an actual review of the musical but a line that gives you the opportunity to link the allegations here too. You could have chosen other parts of that review or other parts of another Guardian review, but you didn't because your goal is to include the allegations on this page, that makes your argument about reliable sources transparent. MraClean (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you just said means it's a review of the musical because it's about something that is not even in the musical. If she had been troubled by the lack of mention of Jermaine's attack on Michael, or the death of his giraffe, or his debt, wouldn't that disqualify her "review" too? Or it's only the allegations with a special privilege that if not brought up, complaints about it automatically qualify as reviews of the musical? Mr Boar1 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We would include the review no matter the critic's rationale. If the critic said they liked the musical because it was a Tuesday then we would include it. We don't cherry-pick. Popcornfud (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly would not include that neither would we due to WP: RELEVANCE. You certainly cherrypicked a "review" in line with your objective to give more visibility to the allegations on wiki and you most certainly would not cherrypick a "review" where the critic complains about the musical not talking about Michael's giraffe. Mr Boar1 (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh heavens. Here we go again. From the looks of your years long history here on the platform, you’ve spent more time on Jackson pages than these editors combined. If this review criticized the production quality, subpar customer experience, poor scriptwriting, lackluster acting, or overall dullness, it would be understandable. Fine, add it. However, this critique does not concern any of these aspects. The reviewer is disgruntled because the show did not address certain allegations, which do not align with the script's timeline. It is perplexing to write a negative review solely because a Broadway show does not center around allegations of sexual abuse. Imagine suggesting a date to a friend by saying, “Let’s go watch the most successful jukebox musical of all time about sexual abuse allegations.” It is illogical. It’s agenda writing, not a review of an award winning musical. TruthGuardians (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the reviewer give the musical a negative review for that reason when the musical is not about the allegations? The reviewer admits that the story takes place a year before those accusations. Israell (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. If the review does not directly pertain to the specific production, play, or relevant topic discussed in the Wikipedia article, it may be deemed irrelevant, as per WP:RELEVANCE. While The Guardian is a reputable source, this review should be rejected based on relevance, context, neutrality, accuracy, verification, and balance. Israell (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Media always exists in the context of everything that surrounds it. It is impossible to evaluate art in a vacuum. For example, would we discount a review of an album if the artist died shortly after, and the article discusses it? No, of course not! If an author writing for a reliable publication made those connections, Wikipedia should provide a summary of this opinion. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article was used as a review of piece of art and that art would include nothing at all about his death but the author would start to talk about how disturbed he is by how he died, then yes it should be excluded. His death would not be a context for that piece of art at all. The allegations are not context for the musical either. castorbailey (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No WP:INDISCRIMINATE wiki does not have any and all material in reliable sources as they often publish highly biased and pattently false things too. Here the Guardian wanted to make people think about the allegations and used the musical as an excuse. But objectively the article is not a review of the musical which has nothing to do with those allegations.Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The proposed edit is not a review. It sounds more like ‘oh by the way, I think Michael Jackson was a molester.’ The article is strikingly agenda-driven and wiki is not here to mirror media propaganda. WP:ADVOCACY WP:BIAS : bias can be explicit when an article's content or sources are biased. 2BOARNOT2B (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but summarized in a sentence like most other positive and negative reviews in that section. They are inherently going to be opinions. This would be similar to the one from the New York Times, which says "the opacity of Michael Jackson and his life of traumas and controversies make it difficult to find material compelling and cohesive enough to tell a story onstage." Senorangel (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (invited via Feedback Request Service) Yes. While I'm not a fan of reviews like The Independent review of Kanye West's Donda (where the reviewer gave it 0/5 and went on a rant about Kanye and Marilyn Manson, who was featured on the album), we, editors, are not supposed to cherry-pick reviews, as long as they are from reliable sources. The aforementioned review is in the album's article, by the way. The MJ review isn't much worse, and it's also from a reputable newspaper. I believe it should be included. Summarize it, say that the reviewer mostly focused on MJ and the allegations against him. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 14:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Reviews are opinion pieces as per WP:NEWSOPED reliablity in this case only means that we can be certain the author wrote this, not that her palpably biased view are correct and worthy to be showcased on wiki. To the idea that we can't cherrypick, if we did not cherrypick all reviews published in all reliable sources would be here. Of course we have to cherrypick based on other factors like whether the review is even about the the show, and this one is not. This one is just an expression of the author's dislike of Michael Jackson personally and her belief in the allegations. PinkSlippers (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeframe

[edit]

How long will the actual show last? 2:00 PM show 8/31 at the National in DC. Thanks 2601:147:4780:1910:487:69F1:4B1C:C235 (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:MJ_the_Musical&oldid=1243340619"