Talk:Allegiance (musical)

Plot section
I wrote the current too-brief summary based on what I could find in reviews and what the official website says. A more comprehensive plot summary is needed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the plot of the original production in San Diego while the song list is from the Broadway Production.

Many changes were made between the Sand Deigo and Broadway version of the plot and the songs(though as I mention the song listing is the most current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.176.199 (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Reception section
The references in this section need to be filled out. I filled out some of the refs. Can someone else please fill out the others? With so many reviews from the major papers and online sources, we should not be citing minor local papers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now filled out all the refs in the section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[The following was moved here from a user's Talk page:] 1. We should not give EVERY review, just the most important ones. There were dozens of reviews, and if anything, we are citing too many. 2. First we present the more negative ones. Then the more positive ones. We could do it in the other order. [Now I've reversed the order]. Are you not a native English speaker? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You should not remove reliable sources from the article, you should not add untrue content that is your opinion and unsupported. If you want to add content -- find a reference. Wikipedia articles are dependent on reliable sources -- if people like yourself ignore the tenets of Wikipedia then why should anyone follow the rules?  You are vandalizing this article.  Please, confine your comments to this talk page.   DagTruffle (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We are citing numerous national reviews in the reception section. Additional local reviews are not helpful. We divide the reviews into the positive and negative ones.  That is not our opinion, it is the reviewers' opinions, and it is typical of Reception sections in Wikipedia because it is a logical organizing technique where there are numerous reviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that using reviews from minor sources isn't overly helpful (unless they make a particularly interesting observation that isn't picked up anywhere else) or we just become a collection of random clips from the various minor newsdesks of Nowheresville. Rationalising the reviews into some organised form is the usual practice, either by themes, or by positive and negative, etc: I don't see any great reason to change frm the current form, but if there are valid reasons for an alternative arrangement, I'd prefer to see it discussd on the talk page before it swings into the aticle... - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I object to the disparaging comment that I “seem illiterate”, the disparagement was made on my talk page, and then was repeated in the edit history of this article. Article talk pages should be used by editors to improve the article, and not for personal attacks.  It is not uncommon that Wikipedia editors use bullying tactics in order to get their way and overcome objections or alternate ideas by other editors.  But just because something is common doesn’t make it right.


 * I believe this article has a point-of-view problem. I read the NYTimes review, and it is not simply negative, as this article is claiming.  I consider that to be a false representation of the review.  In fact, since there is not a reliable source in the article that will agree that the review is “negative” this article is the only source for the idea, an idea that was invented by an anonymous Wikipedia editor.  A quotation was “cherry picked” from the review to support the editor’s point-of-view, but another person could just as easily cherry pick positive quotes to make the opposite point.  Also, when an editor invents unsupported comments and characterizations to suggest the thoughts of a group of editors, it is considered a ploy known as using “weasel words”.  As a practice it is discouraged.  See WP:WEASELWORDS.  It is better to allow the sources to speak for themselves and not make editorial characterizations.  (The reference to Variety is a similar misuse of a source.)


 * There are also instances of twisting direct quotations to make the sources seem to be saying something they did not actually say: In the quotation that begins: "the creatives have …” it appears in this article that quote is referring to the “story”, but it isn’t; in fact the quote is referring to “historic material”. Elsewhere the article claims that the number of songs is a “problem” — according to another source.  That also appears to be invented.  The editors on this article are not being strictly accurate, and the style at times seems to be too novelistic.  DagTruffle (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DagTruffle, the only specifics you mention concern the NY Times review. Here are ALL the judgments that review makes about the show:
 * Allegiance ... could be said to suffer from a problem of divided loyalties.... The show wants to illuminate a dark passage in American history with complexity and honesty, but the first requirement of any Broadway musical is to entertain. While well-intentioned and polished, “Allegiance” struggles to balance both ambitions, and doesn’t always find an equilibrium.
 * ...the score, by Jay Kuo. With its soaring lyricism, it’s redolent of the more bombastic moments from the heyday of the poperetta. Much of the score of “Allegiance” has a similar feel, as if Mr. Kuo has long kept “Les Misérables” and “Miss Saigon” on permanent rotation on his iPod.
 * There are some exceptions, of course, when the musical takes a lighter turn as a couple of romances begin to blossom.... Sammy meets the sympathetic nurse.... While this doesn’t exactly qualify as a meet-cute, they exchange friendly banter. He: “You know, I tried to enlist.” She: “Ya did, huh?” “Got rejected.” “Flat feet?” “Yellow face.”
 * Sammy leads the rousing “Get in the Game,”.... As Kei and Sammy sing: “We’re stuck/Who knows how long?/And sure, it’s wrong/Alone it’s really hard/But as a team we’re strong.” (Those lyrics exemplify Mr. Kuo’s tendency toward the obvious.)
 * Mike Masaoka (played with nice ambiguity by Greg Watanabe)
 * emotional epilogue.
 * Mr. Takei is warmly touching as Ojii-chan, gently nurturing the romance between Kei and Frankie before decorously (sniff) dying. Naturally, Ms. Salonga takes the vocal lead on what seems to be every other number. I’m not complaining: Her voice retains its plush beauty, and her culminating first act solo, “Higher,” while doing nothing much to move the story forward, is perhaps the show’s musical highlight. Mr. Leung and Ms. Clarke are also fine singing actors, and make the most of their several songs.
 * Directed in workmanlike fashion by Stafford Arima, “Allegiance” has a complicated story to unfold and to humanize. It does a reasonable job of providing a nuanced view of events, the occasional swerve into melodrama notwithstanding.
 * If anything, the authors, feeling the responsibility of illuminating this shameful chapter in American history, pack the show with so much incident and information that “Allegiance” often feels more like a history lesson than a musical.

So, there is some praise for the actors, but consistently negative comment on the show itself, namely that it focuses too much on history instead of entertainment, and the score is "bombastic" with "obvious" lyrics. This is not a "mixed" review, it is clearly a negative one, and the quote used does not seem to me to be "cherry picked", but rather a balanced representation of the review. That is what we do as editors in reception sections -- we try to find quotes that illuminate the reviews. I did not select most of these quotes, and if you think that there is another quote that would better illuminate *any* of these reviews, please suggest it. I have written or read the Reception sections in hundreds of Wikipedia articles since 2006, including *all* of our WP:Featured Articles relating to musical theatre, and it is not only routine but *necessary* for us to characterize reviews as positive, mixed, neutral or negative. This just helps the reader to understand the section. Also, this is why I originally used the word "more" positive and "more" negative, to indicate that there may be some praise in a negative review, or some criticism in a positive review, but I thought you were objecting to that. But clearly we need to organize the section so that it is not just a jumble of quotes, and the way we normally do that in Wikipedia articles is by separating them into groupings of the positive, middling and negative ones. By all means, if you have any specific suggestions for improvements, please make them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ssilvers, when you claim that a review is a “negative” review — that is your opinion, I read the review also, and I have a different opinion. If you think it is so important to claim that it is a negative review — then you need to find a reliable source that supports your idea.  Your editorial opinion (and whatever mine is) do not belong in this article.  For one thing, it violates Wikipedia’s guideline on using original research, see: No original research, where it clearly states “Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.”  You should stop inserting your own opinions into this article and the justifications you offer are not supported by Wikipedia guidelines or policies.  You also mischaracterize my own comments on this talk page,  when you say that the only specifics I mention concern the NY Times review.  As I mentioned before there are quotes from the sources that are used in this article (one of them from VARIETY) that twist the words so that they mean something that is not at all what the Variety author intended.  That is dishonest misuse of quotations.  (as I mentioned above, and as I described specifically.)  That should be corrected.  Please read No original research.  If you think it’s okay for you to violate the guidelines and insert your own unsupported opinions, you are mistaken.  You say it is important for you to do so?  I disagree, the best writing in Wikipedia is where editors follow the guidelines, accurately present quotations, and do not insert their own opinions.    DagTruffle (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, so you mentioned Variety. Sorry I missed that. The Variety review says that: I added to the text that there was praise for performances and designs, and I've deleted the characterizations as positive and negative that offend you so. It is not OR to merely organize these reviews into positive and negative paragraphs and to say so. Once again, my intention in choosing quotes for a Reception section is always to represent the reviewer's overall opinion. If you object to any of the quotes chosen, suggest better ones. By the way, I chose not to include the AM New York review, which is negative, but I didn't consider AMNY to be a major reviewer: http://www.amny.com/entertainment/allegiance-review-george-takei-musical-sunk-by-score-plot-staging-1.11074867 It is very tiresome to read your rants above, when you have not contributed anything useful to this article and apparently have no experience in writing reception sections for articles on musicals in Wikipedia. Before you throw around accusations, like "dishonest" (again, I didn't choose most of the quotes) and "vandalism", which you did in an edit summary, you should know what you're talking about. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * the musical's book ... is no more than serviceable.
 * the score is "bland" with "banal lyrics ... authentic moments are few and fleeting"
 * In their sincere efforts to “humanize” their complex historical material, the creatives have oversimplified and reduced it to generic themes
 * ...for all their good intentions, the true believers behind this labor of love might have been better served had they entrusted the story to a dramatist to develop as a play.
 * Ssilvers, whose contributions to musical theatre articles are countless and of the highest quality, has followed the normal practice for the reception section. I must say that Dagtruffle's accusations of dishonesty and POV are not worthy of serious consideration. As to sources, unless there are particular reasons to the contrary (e.g. the San Diego paper, given the local premiere), it is usual, and preferable, to rely on major media sources. With the greatest possible respect to the Westchester Guardian, it is hard to see its revew as carrying the same weight for readers of this article worldwide as those in, e.g., Variety and the New York Times. At eight hundred words or so the reception section is substantial, and it is admirably balanced.  Tim riley  talk    08:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the section is beginning to sound more objective and accurate. I think trimming the section might be a good idea. I would not be afraid to include a reference to John Simon. He is a critic who wrote for New York Magazine for decades — a large part of the 20th century, and who has published many books and articles, and has reviewed for the New York Times and others. It would lend some gravitas to an article that, as it stands now, depends too much on blogs and trade papers, which seems tacky. Of course “show folk” are in thrall to the “trades”, and perhaps don’t notice the taint of commerce, and daily newspaper reviews in New York are getting scarce. Simon could be used to support the synopsis, which has no reference yet. Regarding what I referred to as “dishonest” quotes: When a quotation is twisted in such a way that might cause the person who wrote the original quote to say:  “That’s not true, that’s not what I said.”  I think it can be said that the quote itself is dishonest, without offending the quote, or making the quote feel bad. The quote is not a human being. But anyway, the offending quote seems to have packed up its bags and run off. Wherever it went, I hope it is okay and not whimpering at some bus stop in the rain somewhere. However, it seems more than hollow for an anonymous editor to begin by accusing another of illiteracy, and then to suddenly become so thinned skinned. I think the section has improved, especially with this last rewrite. DagTruffle (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

editing the synopsis
I am attempting to follow the suggestion made by the tag requesting that the synopsis be expanded, and also the suggestion for expansion that was made on this page by editor Sslivers. So I am in the process of making a few edits. Editor SchroCat is reverting my edits and suggests that I cannot make these edits unless I discuss them on this talk page. I am willing to discuss the edits. I consider the edits to be not controversial, they are based on what is in the script of the play. Perhaps SchroCat will express his objections more specifically, he says that I am introducing POV, and I don't know what the reference is. Everything I've added exists in the script. If there is a particular POV that SchroCat has in mind, perhaps it can be considered or deleted. I think it might be better to allow a few edits, even if you have objections, and then when a series of edits is completed, any editor is free to evaluate them and alter or delete them. But if each little edit needs to be discussed, that would certainly bog down the editing process, and potentially waste a lot of time over what is intended to be a minor improvement to the article. DagTruffle (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for working on this. I reviewed your changes and agreed with many of them. I deleted the "meta information" that you added -- words like "prologue", and counting the relationships -- Plot synopses should just summarize the story from the point of view of the audience.  I also deleted some repetition -- we already said who Masaoka was.  Since the synopsis section summarizes the script, we don't need to cite particular refs in the section (numerous reviews were consulted to assemble this summary, but when someone can get a copy of the script, it will need a rewrite).  See, for example, The King and I or South Pacific for excellent examples of plot synopses.  In our musical theatre articles, we do embed the names of major musical numbers into the story as we go (see our guidelines), so if you know exactly when the major songs appear, you can add titles into the text.  See the two examples above to see what I mean.  Here is one plot point that none of the reviews mentioned:  When does Sam find out that Kei died?  Does he find out in the prologue, the epilogue, or at the end of Act II?  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In the first scene, the prologue, one of the first things that the audience and Sammy learn is that his sister has died from natural causes or old age. The envelope is a bequest from Sammy’s sister, and it includes a life magazine article that tells about Sammy’s heroics during the war.  It is delivered by a woman that is revealed to be Ojii-san’s granddaughter. DagTruffle (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Do you mean that the woman who delivers the envelope is the daughter of Kei and Frankie?  When does she reveal her identity to Sam -- in the prologue or epilogue?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the woman who delivers the envelope to "old Sammy" (played by George Takei) is the daughter of Kei and Frankie, (so she's also Sammy's niece). Old Sammy learns this off-stage and reveals it in direct address to the audience during a dance in the epilogue, the last scene.  DagTruffle (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

‎Should plot summaries be sourced to secondary sources, or just to the primary source (the script)?
Ssilvers, verifiable content, supported by reliable sources is essential to Wikipedia, because, as it says on Citing sources, “By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. You also help users find additional information on the subject; and you avoid plagiarising the source of your words or ideas by giving attribution.”. Wikipedia guidelines encourage reliable sources, when they say: “All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles … must be verifiable.” (See:  Verifiability) And also when the guidelines say “Articles should cite sources.”  (See: List of policies & Citing Sources.  Wikipedia isn’t perfect and it is possible to add content that isn’t true, and isn’t supported.  So, Ssilvers, when you say that plot summaries “do not need to be sourced”, I don’t believe that’s true, and it seems to go against what editors are encouraged to do.  There are in fact plenty of plot summaries on Wikipedia that are properly sourced.  You have removed reliable sources from the article, I don’t agree with that.  So let’s discuss. DagTruffle (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, plot summaries do not need to carry sources as the works themselves act as a primary source. – SchroCat (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is some virtue in citing, e.g., page numbers of printed texts for plot summaries, and personally I like to do so (for readers' convenience rather than for WP:V) but by far the majority of WP articles on stage works don't. The norm, I should say, is not to do so. It isn't as though the matter is contentious. Hamlet kills Polonius, John Worthing was found in a handbag, and Godot never shows up, and it is not really necessary to cite page numbers to that effect.  Tim riley  talk    13:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: I have just looked at three Featured Articles on stage works: Carmen, Carousel and Romeo and Juliet. They have all passed the rigours of FAC without references for the plot details. I think we can safely conclude that plot summaries are regarded as fine without citations. –  Tim riley  talk    13:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, as I noted above, since the synopsis section summarizes the script, we don't need to cite particular refs to secondary sources in the section (numerous reviews were consulted to assemble this summary, but when someone can get a copy of the script, it will need a rewrite). Only the script gives the basis for a full plot summary. See, for example, The King and I or South Pacific for excellent examples of plot synopses in Featured Articles. Also, note that in our musical theatre articles, we embed the names of major musical numbers into the synopsis (see our guidelines), so if you know exactly when the major songs appear, you can do something useful by adding the titles into the text.  See the two examples above to see what I mean. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To respond to the above comments by Tim riley, SchroCat, and Ssilvers. I feel as I’m a “stickler” for the rules who just walked into a kind of “outlaw” version of Wikipedia. I should confess that I myself have become a source for this article.  Not in a big way (see above), and I was glad to help out, and I will not let it go to my head, or let it influence me.  My original comment is that we should try to follow the guidelines that Wikipedia offers, where it is stated in various places that content should be sourced.  And I quoted some of the pages where those guidelines can be found.  My concern is that the summaries should try to be “verifiable”.  But you all seem to disagree.  It is as if you don’t feel that the rules should be followed, except one rule:  “It’s okay to remove reliable sources and citations from plot summaries.”  But where can such a rule be found?  Even WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure links to Verifiability, where it says “All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.”  But you guys don’t care about all that.  If I’m mistaken in any of this, please let me know.  My challenge to you is:  Can you quote any Wikipedia guideline that will support removing reliable sources and thus rendering an article less verifiable?  DagTruffle (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To respond to Tim riley’s comment, I agree with a lot of what you say, Tim. However your example, that “Hamlet kills Polonius” is only true depending on which version of the play you’re referring to.  If you are referring to the first version of Hamlet (published in 1603) with Shakespeare’s name on the title page, then in fact Prince Hamlet does not kill Polonius — he kills “Corambis”, which I think suggests that references might be helpful, especially when referring to one of the many variations.  References are also important to help keep Wikipedia free from mistakes.  If an editor sees something that looks like it may be an error, with a reference you can look it up, without it, the editor might need to do a lot of research and plow through all the textual variations.  Editors may not bother going to such trouble, and mistakes might sit there uncorrected.  [In fact, since you mentioned Hamlet, I read the synopsis found there, and I did find what may be a mistake:  The  synopsis claims that Prince Hamlet forces Horatio and the Sentries “to swear to keep his plans for revenge secret”.  That doesn’t occur in my copy of the play (he asks them to swear to something else).  So, is that indeed a mistake or is it a variation based on one of the early 17th century editions?  If there were a reference it would be easy to check.]  And you seem to be mistaken regarding the WP article on Romeo & Juliet, it does indeed have references in the summary — references to the “Arden Shakespeare second edition (Gibbons, 1980) based on the Q2 text of 1599, with elements from Q1 of 1597”.  When you say that that plot summaries are “fine without citations” — I might agree, in the sense that WP isn’t perfect, and I’m fine with a certain amount of imperfection even in featured articles.  But when we have perfectly good reliable sources, and we know what they are, why keep them from the reader?  Or why keep them from any editor who might want to fact-check or verify?  Should an editor removed references as they have been removed from this article.  DagTruffle (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As above, plots need no sources. – SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, the source for the plot is the script itself, either as published (preferred) or as performed onstage. The plot is verifiable by reading the script. Here is the guideline from the film project regarding sourcing of plot summaries. It does not add anything to cite two-sentence blurbs in PlaybillVault, or incomplete summaries in reviews that are written as illustrations of the critics' points about the show (which try to avoid spoilers, whereas Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize the whole plot, spoilers and all. See WP:SPOILER. If the article were nominated as a Featured Article, the nominators should actually have a copy of the published script upon which the synopsis is based. There are articles about thousands of plays and musicals, and tens of thousands of films in Wikipedia (include Featured Articles), where this convention is followed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So far we’re not able to find any guidelines that say that summaries should not cite reliable sources. Ssilvers, you were looking on a film guidelines page, but of course Allegiance is theatre, not film, and the two forms, as you know, are quite different.  I have looked on some theatre pages, and I couldn’t find anything either.  If no one can find anything, then it appears that the guideline found in Verifiability that says “all content should be sourced” will apply, as well as Five pillars, that says that “All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy.”   And why not?  It is good for summaries to be verifiable.  After all, there have been different productions of Allegiance with differing plots.  So in order to be able to verify the synopsis, it is good to cite a source.  DagTruffle (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

[Left]. You're wrong. I previously referred you to WP:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure, which is the guideline for musicals. The "Synopsis" section there refers to WP:PLOTSUM, which clearly states under the heading "Citations": "Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source—the work of fiction itself." This is consistent with what the Film project guidelines say. So musicals' plot synopses, like film plot synopses, are based on the script or screenplay and do not need citations to secondary sources. Can you not look at the other musical theatre articles cited above and see that this is so? I see that you previously edited the Hamlet plot summary without starting a stubborn campaign against the WP:consensus of experienced editors such as you are waging here. Also, please do not modify the heading here to be misleading. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * DagTruffle, you are arguing against three highly experienced editors here, all of whom have taken several articles to various high Wikipedia standards, including GA, FA and FL. We know how Wiki works, and we know what works best for the articles. The plots of films, novels and plays are not sourced in Wikipedia articles. Please take that on board. There are bigger, more pressing matters for everybody to be getting on with, rather than arguing an accepted point of practice beyond all practical or constructive limits. We would all rather get on and develop articles rather than waste time explaining the same basic point. Time for you to accept this and start doing constructive article development again. – SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ssilvers, you’ve removed citations that refer to reliable sources from the article, and you explain in the revision history that “Sources are not needed in plot summaries”. I objected to the removal and I point out that explanation for removing citations is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines.  Now in your above comment you link to a page that describes how a summary may be sourced (with a citation).  That page (WP:PLOTSUM) suggests that citations are indeed appropriate in a summary.  Regarding the altering of the title of this section:  No one should alter a title, as you have done, especially after others have contributed to it, as they have here.  Editors have already made comments on this talk page, with the understanding that this section is titled:  “Should all content be sourced?”  You seem to want to change the title for your own rhetorical purposes.  Regarding your examples of plot summaries:  It is easy to find summaries that have inline citations or references, (Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, Dom Juan, etc.), and examples that don’t.  The real question is:  Should an editor remove good and accurate citations, citations that are references to reliable sources, especially when there is no support from any guideline.  And please keep in mind that you suggested that we discuss this issue on this page, so we are both ether being “stubborn” (to use your word) or we are both participating in a discussion.  DagTruffle (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * DagTruffle, you are showing all the signs of WP:IDHT, which is begining to be disruptive. the title was alstered for good reason - one of the changes was by me: titles are supposed to be neutral and the previous one wasn't. As before, you are begining to be disruptive in continuing this point. You have had this point explained by three editors, all of whom are highly experienced: time for you to stop this thread and be constructive in other ways. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Coda
I greatly enjoyed (and learned from) the disquisition, above, on Hamlet, but, yes, it's time to move on. I should like to add, though, that I am full of admiration for both the protagonists for their commitment and courtesy. I've seen too many less civilised disagreements. –  Tim riley  talk    13:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

San Diego information
Now that the show has opened on Broadway, there should *not* be a separate "musical numbers" list for the San Diego production. The Background section could contain a well-sourced paragraph about the major changes in the show from San Diego to Broadway, but the article should not contain a detailed song list from the San Diego production. There also is no need for a tabular presentation of the local San Diego awards and nominations. The narrative sentences currently in the article are more than adequate. Soon the Broadway awards season will be here, and information about the Tonys and Drama Desk awards should be reported then. Please be patient. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's good advice. The listings of numbers in WP articles on music theatre always refer to the finalised score, as far as I can recall. Numbers dropped during previews are mentioned elsewhere in the article rather than in the list of numbers. This gives readers the best overview of a score, I think.  Tim riley  talk    19:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the two editors above. Also, let's wait and see what happens with the Tonys and Drama Desk Awards before adding this information. Jack1956 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, the prose version is much better, in my opinion, which gives a better overview. - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Historical Fiction or even Science Fiction
Takei, who was only 5 years old, distorts and misleads so badly with his agenda that this production has no relation to real history and should be clearly labelled in this Wiki article as historical fiction or even science fiction. Readers should be directed in this article to the real history of what happened, such as in the excellent book by the actual director of the WRA, Uprooted Americans,* by Dillon S. Myer, and the actual final report (government document) issued by the WRA itself in 1946. *[Incidentally, they were not all American citizens. Of the initial 112,000 who lived in the declared coastal combat zone, over 40,000 were enemy aliens, NOT U.S. citizens. Takei and those with his agenda will never mention this fact.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhistory22 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Referring to the LA production as a revival is erroneous (and incorrect)
"Revival" is a term almost exclusively invoked when a musical is produced again in a market it previously had a major production in. Not only was Allegiance never staged in LA prior to the East West Players production, and as you can see in articles related to the production, it was advertised and reported on as the "LA premiere". Even if "revival" technically does not denote region-specific productions, referring to it as something it was not advertised or even reported on as is absurd. Muppet321 (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * A revival is any subsequent production. Your first sentence is nonsense. Premiere is an overused media word.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  See 1b. in Merriam-Webster's dictionary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The definition provided by Merriam-Webster, or indeed even on Wiktionary, is insufficient: there is no basis, in the industry or even here on Wikipedia, for referring to every production of a singular theater piece as a "revival." Looking at articles you have contributed to recently, such as Fun Home, you will notice that new productions of the show in different markets are not referred to as "revivals", because the musical has not previously been produced in that market, and said-productions have not transferred to markets the show was previously produced in. Indeed, the first non-Sam Gold directed production of Fun Home (i.e. the version that went to Broadway) is referred to on that page as a "regional production." That is what the East West Players production was, a regional production. --Muppet321 (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I will also point out that infoboxes for musicals denote when something is a revival versus when it is not. For example, In the Heights refers to the West End production as just that, a production: it's not a revival because it was never previously done there. Again, the terms are not interchangeable. If something's actually a revival, i.e. it's being produced again in the same market it was originally done, it's called that, such as with Spamalot. --Muppet321 (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The infobox is the tail, and the article is the dog. You are trying to have the tail wag the dog, and in any case, Wikipedia is not a WP:RS.  "Premiere" is marketing-speak that the press picks up from press releases and other marketing materials.  You have not presented any WP:RSs that state that every production in a new place is a "premiere".  dictionary definitions of "premiere" and "revival" are WP:RSs.  WP:OR, WP:PROMO and WP:PEACOCK are not acceptable sources. Do not WP:EDIT WAR.  If other editors agree with you, they can weigh in here.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I do not care about the term "premiere", I care about the term "revival". If we're making the conclusion you have from Merriam-Webster's definition, i.e. any production that is not the original, first production is a revival, then we would be calling school or community theater productions of every show a "revival". In fact, by that definition you could also call several shows currently or soon to open on Broadway "revivals" because they're a new production after the original one closed, including Suffs, Kimberly Akimbo, Hadestown, Water for Elephants, and Hell's Kitchen: they all had major, completed productions either Off-Broadway or regionally. But of course, no one's calling them revivals, because "revival" carries that connotation of "they're doing it again in the same place it was before". Indeed, that's even indicated in that Merriam-Webster article: the use in a sentence for "revival" is "Broadway revival". Because it's a context-specific term invoked when it is referring to a particular market where the show has previously been done. --Muppet321 (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BLUDGEON. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)