Talk:Saturday's Warrior

Better introductory template
The current template:film infobox pertains to '89 film version and not to the original '73 stage musical production the film this was extremely faithfully based upon. But a more appropriate one for use at the article's lede, at least, would be template:Infobox Musical.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

--- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

=
====================================================== MISTAKES:

This is my 1st time making corrections (or anything else), so forgive my mistakes. A link goes to an unrelated Wiki page instead of to the referenced information.

MY ISSUE AND CORRECTION:

The following paragraph is from the 1st page on "Saturday's Warrior" (an LDS Film):

Saturday's Warrior was first performed in California in 1973 as a college project. In 1989, Bob Williams made a video version of the musical, setting it on a stage as opposed to giving the movie a more naturalistic look. It is among the first popular LDS films to not be made or sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Brigham Young University.[1] A sequel, The White Star, debuted in 2007.[citation needed]

When I clicked on the "The White Star" link in the above paragraph, I was taken to a Wiki article on an unrelated 1915 film of that name, instead of one about the 2007 sequel mentioned therein.

Please either: 1. Delete the link, or    2. Link to something related to and/or discussing the 2007 sequel "The White Star" cited above.

BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVE:

I created my Wiki Account with the user name "LDSmember" because of the opening "bias disclaimer" at the beginning of this article. We do not want anyone thinking an "LDS secret agent or spy" was surreptitiously posting biased corrections, do we?

I discovered the misdirect because I was unaware of a sequel and wanted to see what it was about and where I could watch it.

ALLEGED AND REAL BIAS:

For the record, when discussing a belief system, such as a religious belief system, the only accurate method of so doing would be from the perspective of a "true" believer. Since the article in question is NOT discussing or evaluating LDS beliefs, but rather it is discussing an LDS film based on that belief system, the ONLY accurate, proper, effective method of writing this article would be to have a "true believer" (a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in good standing) write it, from his/her LDS perspective. It would be understandable, if not REQUIRED, to have a link therein, to any site Wiki wanted, which site DID/DOES discuss, evaluate, weigh, question, etc. LDS beliefs.

Your opening "bias warning" is itself inaccurate, misleading, one sided (biased), prejudicial (to the reader(s)), and is based upon the worst kind of personal prejudice, one of the precise kinds of prejudice this country (the United States of America) was created to fight. And, if anyone has a right to say this, a one hundred percent disabled, U.S. Navy veteran, who has spent the last fifty years paying for his service to his country each and every day of said half-century (guilty as charged), believes he has, does and herein is exercising that right. My life has been, and continues to be, dedicated to preserving this right for ALL Americans.

Signed: LDSmember LDSmember (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way you can substantiate the claim that the only proper perspective on anything regarding Mormon beliefs is from a believer. A LDS film is not only viewed by Mormons, but by anyone who wishes to do so. Anyone who wishes to can also research and write a scholarly article about any subject. Wikipedia is not an opinion site, it is a place where all information should be presented, there is no excuse for the lack of criticism sections on a wide swath of Mormon related pages including this one. The worldview of an author never changes facts. Signed: angryskeptic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryskeptic (talk • contribs) 03:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I think it actually is a notable film/play. It is pretty much the most famous Latter-day Saint musical. If you are in Utah, you are likely to hear about it, especially since the remake came out recently (but I am a member of the church, so I am not 100% sure about that). There was a few Salt Lake Tribune articles about it:  the Salt Lake Tribune is not owned by the church. Deseret News is.

This article definitely has some bias and needs more information about the film's reception outside the latter-day saint community.

If you delete this article you should also delete Saturday's Voyeur, which is a parody of the Saturday's Warrior play. I wonder if the two articles should be merged? Tea and crumpets (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Correcting myself: Saturday's Voyeur does parodies of multiple latter-day saint plays and films, the name itself is a parody of Saturday's Warrior. Tea and crumpets (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Are there other articles on the Mormon cinema list that should be deleted as well? Tea and crumpets (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Tea and crumpets. There very well may be, but my intent isn't to go through the list and nominate the films. I came across this article while trying to determine if an editor of another article was doing undisclosed, paid editing.  Orville talk 00:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Google scholar and Google Books should be consulted in addition to merely Google News. Plugging Saturday's Warrior into the former and latter, we find enough scholarship and commentary to show that there exists some interest in such a piece of ethnic culture as this extending beyond merely the cinematic audience for which it was intended; and, I'd dare say that arguments to the contrary must shade into attempts at cultural ghettoization, this being the case even were what community-of-examination being involved were an even more insubstantial one, owing to the population numbers involved. (Half of the world's 15-million Latter-day Saints live domestically in the U.S., half abroad -- in similar numbers in both of the respective camp as there are adherents of Judaism.) As for Google News hits: Individuals' or other entities' coverage in the national edition of the Salt Lake City-based Deseret News, with circulation recently still in the area of about 100,000 readers, of course certainly lend notability with concern the Latter-day Saints community. (Just by way of comparison: Both the Christian Science Monitor's and the Jerusalem Post's circulations currently are in the neighborhood of about a tenth of that number.) Thus, in my opinion, with Saturday's Warrior's being covered in both the national Deseret News and as the Salt Lake Tribune, one's observing a fairly substantial news-media footprint.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)