Talk:MJ the Musical/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about MJ the Musical. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Whitewashing of negative reviews
Attempts have been made by User talk:Alessiorom13 to remove any and all negative reviews from major publications such as The New York Times, Vulture, Variety and The New York Post and instead highlight favorable reviews from less established sources. The majority of critics disliked the show according to "Did They Like it". The show has its admirers but they are not the majority nor are they part of an established theatrical consensus. I hope this has been made in error but please refrain from continuing to remove any sourced material that may or may not be unfavorable to the production. Respectfully The One I Left (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's a clear biased view coming from you when you are highlighting the negative parts of the reviews and putting those parts on a microscope. That's not how Wikipedia works. As you can see from for example on:(https://www.show-score.com/broadway-shows/mj) It has a majority positive average review of 84 out of 100. Give a clear reason why those small portion should be highlighted like that. Alessiorom13 (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's a clear bias in how you've reverted negative reviews and the specific wording of your additional edits. The show score is based on 253 AUDIENCE reviews not reviews from critics. The show has been praised by technical aspects however the show has received negative reviews from established theatre critics. If you see:(https://didtheylikeit.com/shows/mj-the-musical/) the critical consensus is overwhelmingly mixed to negative. You can say the audience has praised the show but the established critics have not. Please stop edit warring, as you are a new user, you are highlighting overly positive reviews from unestablished sources. The One I Left (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion needed before making such a drastic change. I am open to other peoples opinion, so im lookin forward to more people coming in this talk page. As I stated the majority of the reviews as proven are positive. You are focusing on the negative parts of positive reviews or just negative reviews in general. Discuss first in the talk page. Are you new to Wikipedia? Alessiorom13 (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to be new to editing Wikipedia based on your edits and you're clear bias towards sanitizing this page. Looks like you've only contributed to a few articles in 2021. So a fresh editor I see...Yes, Audience reviews have been positive, but the critical reviews have not. You have to make that distinction. Did you even look at the link (https://didtheylikeit.com/shows/mj-the-musical/). You cannot talk about Michael Jackson or the show without talking about Jackson's sexual abuse allegations. Jesse Green, theatre critic for The New York Times and other prominent critics have written many reviews and pieces about this subject. There is pure bias in your edits, "Majority of the negative reviews for MJ: The Musical are regarding concerns that the allegations are not being addressed" This is factually untrue. Nearly every professional critic has in fact mentioned them but also criticized other aspects of the show. The One I Left (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- The critical reviews have also been highly positive as you can tell from the source I just posted which has a 84/100 positive rating among critics. Even on the "didtheylikeit" link you mentioned(which only has a few reviews to begin with) only has around 30% that are negative. That's not a majority. Far from it. Alessiorom13 (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- TheWikiholic what do you think? Am I wrong. I'm seeing a 84 out of 100 rating of positive reviews. I don't see how his version is fair and unbiased. Considering the extremely high positive reviews on for example:(https://www.show-score.com/broadway-shows/mj) and so on. Alessiorom13 (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Show score, looks like its based again, off of AUDIENCE reviews and not Professional Critics! Thats why there are 253 reviewers. Did they like it is based of professional critics with 5 giving it a mixed review, and 6 giving it a negative review. The minority is in the positive review among professional critics.The One I Left (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I will be offline for a bit. But I'm seeing mostly positive reviews from both critics and the general public. Also how come for example the new york times gets special treatment, but not other socres Alessiorom13 (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- In New York Theatre, The New York Times is king, it's the most important. But also I did in fact source other lead critics but you reverted them trying to sanitize the page. I added Vulture, Variety, The New York Post and others. Again, not argument that audience is favorable, but professional theatre critics aren't. The One I Left (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I will be offline for a bit. But I'm seeing mostly positive reviews from both critics and the general public. Also how come for example the new york times gets special treatment, but not other socres Alessiorom13 (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Show score, looks like its based again, off of AUDIENCE reviews and not Professional Critics! Thats why there are 253 reviewers. Did they like it is based of professional critics with 5 giving it a mixed review, and 6 giving it a negative review. The minority is in the positive review among professional critics.The One I Left (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to be new to editing Wikipedia based on your edits and you're clear bias towards sanitizing this page. Looks like you've only contributed to a few articles in 2021. So a fresh editor I see...Yes, Audience reviews have been positive, but the critical reviews have not. You have to make that distinction. Did you even look at the link (https://didtheylikeit.com/shows/mj-the-musical/). You cannot talk about Michael Jackson or the show without talking about Jackson's sexual abuse allegations. Jesse Green, theatre critic for The New York Times and other prominent critics have written many reviews and pieces about this subject. There is pure bias in your edits, "Majority of the negative reviews for MJ: The Musical are regarding concerns that the allegations are not being addressed" This is factually untrue. Nearly every professional critic has in fact mentioned them but also criticized other aspects of the show. The One I Left (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion needed before making such a drastic change. I am open to other peoples opinion, so im lookin forward to more people coming in this talk page. As I stated the majority of the reviews as proven are positive. You are focusing on the negative parts of positive reviews or just negative reviews in general. Discuss first in the talk page. Are you new to Wikipedia? Alessiorom13 (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's a clear bias in how you've reverted negative reviews and the specific wording of your additional edits. The show score is based on 253 AUDIENCE reviews not reviews from critics. The show has been praised by technical aspects however the show has received negative reviews from established theatre critics. If you see:(https://didtheylikeit.com/shows/mj-the-musical/) the critical consensus is overwhelmingly mixed to negative. You can say the audience has praised the show but the established critics have not. Please stop edit warring, as you are a new user, you are highlighting overly positive reviews from unestablished sources. The One I Left (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- The negative parts of those reviews are not about the show itself but rather their personal views of Jackson based on the allegations. Should we only include reviews which actually focus on the show not the author's personal feelings about Jackson? The reviews you mentions basically say: the show does not call Jackson a pedophile therefore the show is bad. I am not sure what value these reviews add to the page about the show itself, it's like if someone had written about not liking Jackson's face and call that a review of the musical. There is no wiki rule that dictates that the New York Times's opinion is more important than other publications'. It's also not true that "You cannot talk about Michael Jackson or the show without talking about Jackson's sexual abuse allegations." You most certainly can and the show is not about the allegations. castorbailey (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Those aren’t reviews about the content of the show itself and should not and will not be added to the page. I oppose adding anything that’s not a real review.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. Pure Jackson bashing by publications which demonstrated heavy bias against Jackson are not legitimate reviews of the musical castorbailey (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I've read the reviews from the four publications above. None of them actually did a review about the show, only brought up the sexual abuse allegation raised against Jackson after one year of the set period of the shows. The first abuse allegation levied against Jackson took place in 1993. How is it possible to include allegations against Jackson when the show is set in 1992 with flashbacks of previous years from that point? I support the exclusion and removal of said sentiments that are not real show reviews.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're reading, but here are the official reviews that I'm talking about:
- Jesse Green, The New York Times review (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/01/theater/mj-musical-review.html)
- Naveen Kuma, Variety review (https://variety.com/2022/legit/reviews/mj-review-michael-jackson-broadway-musical-1235168798/)
- Robert Hefler, The Wrap review (https://www.thewrap.com/mj-broadway-review-michael-jackson/)
- Helen Shaw, Vulture review (https://www.vulture.com/2022/02/theater-review-mj-michael-jackson-bio-musical-broadway-nyc.html)
- Johnny Oleksinki, The New York Post review (https://nypost.com/2022/02/01/mj-review-michael-jackson-broadway-show-sanitizes-his-life/)
So in theatre critics above, they all gave either mixed or a negative review. Part of the negative review hinges on the production sanitizing Michael Jackson's life since the show starts in 1992, when the following year the abuse allegations come out. Green arguably the most important theatre critic since he writes for The New York Times declared: "Jackson was such a magnet for strange stories that they nearly obliterated his gift. Yet in defensively brushing off the ones that don't matter while pointedly ignoring the ones that does [MJ: The Musical] may be the strangest Michael Jackson story yet". He added "This defensiveness, constantly asserting his genius as if it were in question, eventually becomes dulling...it becomes a grind of obfuscation, a case of willfully not looking at the man in the mirror". I'm confused as to what you regard as a "real review". These are all legitimate professional critics writing for professional publications.The One I Left (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- The show ends in 1992 before any allegations was made and no reasonable person could believe that even everything that happened up to that point in his life could be covered in just 2 hours. So why don't these writers complain about the many other things in Jackson's life that is not mentioned? They don't because the purpose of their pieces is not to review the show but to perpetuate theirs and their publication's agenda against Jackson, that is to convince the reader that Jackson was guilty. That is not a review that is propaganda. It's as if these writers said: because this show does not portray Jackson the way our publications portrayed him it's bad. There is no wiki rule which deems Green most important or more important any anyone else. His personal opinion of what stories matter and what don't is not a review of the show either. Calling them professional as if that would automatically make their propaganda actual reviews is appeal to authority fallacy. Just because they are making a living writing for those papers won't make what their "reviews" of this particular musical legitimate reviews. They are not. castorbailey (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- You unfortunately are using your own bias against the professional critics and it's clouding your judgements. I'm not saying whether I agree with them or not. I'm just adding that they said it, and enough of them highlight that in their reviews. You can't ignore the reviews you don't agree with just because you view you see it as propaganda, which doesn't make it so. Thoughts User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, User talk:Cbl62 The One I Left (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- They aren’t reviews. They’re off topic complaints. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's hardly bias when it's a fact. Each of those articles are focusing on convincing the reader that Jackson was a pedophile and thus they are negative because the show does not promote that view. That is a clear and undeniable objective of those articles, thus they are not actual reviews of the show. These publications simply used this show as another opportunity to promote their own negative agenda against Jackson, they were never interested in reviewing the show itself. And as I said, professional, that is that they are being paid to write, won't make their articles objectively a review of the show. castorbailey (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- You unfortunately are using your own bias against the professional critics and it's clouding your judgements. I'm not saying whether I agree with them or not. I'm just adding that they said it, and enough of them highlight that in their reviews. You can't ignore the reviews you don't agree with just because you view you see it as propaganda, which doesn't make it so. Thoughts User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, User talk:Cbl62 The One I Left (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The show takes audiences behind the scenes as Michael prepares for the 1992 Dangerous Tour, providing an in-depth look at his process. As Michael and his collaborators rehearse their setlist, we are transported to pivotal creative moments from his career during that point of his time. It means the show ends in 1992 before any allegations were made against Jackson. I would have supported adding the four above reviews (except the one from New York Post, which is generally a non-reliable source) if the show was set around in 1996 during the history world tour instead of the dangerous world tour. Adding these reviews based on how reputable these publications are will only give a false balance to the article.TheWikiholic (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
It sounds as if you two are highly biased against these professional critics personally. "These critics were never interested in reviewing the show itself". How do you know that? Just because of their professional opinion on the show itself? Several professional critics believe that centering the show the year before the abuse allegations is clumsy. I think actually removing any and all negative reviews from the show from prominent publications gives a false balance to the article. People won't be able to get a clear sense of what actual critics thought of the production or how it was fully received. They'd get a sanitized, glowing reviews from minor publications.The One I Left (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- These writers knew that the show focuses in 1992 long before they wrote their articles so their complaints were most certainly not the result of reviewing the show. Them being professional only means that they are being paid to write what the publications wanted to publish it won't make their opinion more important than others' opinion. Each of those publications have had a history of one-sided and hostile reporting regarding Jackson, in fact Variety's reporter went to opening night specifically to ask the cast about the allegations and was kicked off the red carpet. The reason why they pick on the year is precisely because their agenda is to convince people that Jackson was guilty. Again: complaining that a show is not focusing on a period these publications would want people to focus on is not a review of the show. People will get a sense what critics who actually focused on the shows' qualities thought not scribes who were paid to condemn Jackson himself wrote. That is off-topic. castorbailey (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- When weighing "Critical reception" on wiki, it means the professional critics from legitimate cites. No blogs or Michael Jackson stans. Again we should not be picking apart reviews whether we agree with them or not but rather what they say. Adding it isn't an endorsement. Yes I'm glad you mentioned the Variety reporter who was censored and removed for asking a legitimate question about the show. There was much controversy and widespread reporting on that incident. That should be noted in the article. I get the sense that you want only positive reviews to be in the article from non professional writers? This one sidedness is a clear example of false balance.The One I Left (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- He was not asking legitimate questions about the show the only thing he was interested in is getting comments from cast members he could use to support Variety's agenda which is to convince the viewer that Jackson was guilty. Again, the show is not about the allegations and it doesn't have to be. I don't want only positive reviews but I want reviews which actually review the show's qualities not talk about how the allegations against Jackson should be believed. That is not a review. Imagine if they complained about Jackson having a zoo or complain about him misusing the Beatles songs or dangling Blanket over the balcony and calling it a review of the show. The "reviews" you mentioned are not reviews of the show which has nothing to do with the allegations and the Variety's reporter's antics are not relevant to this article as it says nothing about the show either. I didn't see any blog or Jackson stan being cited in the article. castorbailey (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would say citing low circulated Amsterdam News, and blogs like Theatre Life and Front Row Center over The New York Times, Variety, Vulture etc are examples of using minor publications with positive reviews over mainstream, important publications with critics who matter in the industry, who just happened to write negative reviews. The producers of the show and people in the industry read the latter not the former. It's what drives marketing, ticket sales, news coverage etc. To ignore what the official review of the New York Times says because you happen to disagree is an example of bias. Thoughts User:NathanielTheBold? The One I Left (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the difference is what you consider “low circulated” are actually reviews. The others aren’t. Until publications like New York Times decide to actually properly review the Broadway Musical, which they may once it wins a Tony, then we the proper reviews can be added. TruthGuardians (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's not what i consider "low circulated" but factually it doesn't have a high circulation. Also sure it might get a Best Choreography nomination or a Lead Actor nomination, but Jesse Green, I believe the only theatre critic for The New York Times is not known for re-reviewing shows he saw weeks ago. Again just because you disagree with with his opinion doesn't mean it's not a review. It's there is black in white in the history books. It seems you consider a "proper" review, simply a positive review.The One I Left (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I will wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. TruthGuardians (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would say citing low circulated Amsterdam News, and blogs like Theatre Life and Front Row Center over The New York Times, Variety, Vulture etc are examples of using minor publications with positive reviews over mainstream, important publications with critics who matter in the industry, who just happened to write negative reviews. The producers of the show and people in the industry read the latter not the former. It's what drives marketing, ticket sales, news coverage etc. To ignore what the official review of the New York Times says because you happen to disagree is an example of bias. Thoughts User:NathanielTheBold? The One I Left (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- He was not asking legitimate questions about the show the only thing he was interested in is getting comments from cast members he could use to support Variety's agenda which is to convince the viewer that Jackson was guilty. Again, the show is not about the allegations and it doesn't have to be. I don't want only positive reviews but I want reviews which actually review the show's qualities not talk about how the allegations against Jackson should be believed. That is not a review. Imagine if they complained about Jackson having a zoo or complain about him misusing the Beatles songs or dangling Blanket over the balcony and calling it a review of the show. The "reviews" you mentioned are not reviews of the show which has nothing to do with the allegations and the Variety's reporter's antics are not relevant to this article as it says nothing about the show either. I didn't see any blog or Jackson stan being cited in the article. castorbailey (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- When weighing "Critical reception" on wiki, it means the professional critics from legitimate cites. No blogs or Michael Jackson stans. Again we should not be picking apart reviews whether we agree with them or not but rather what they say. Adding it isn't an endorsement. Yes I'm glad you mentioned the Variety reporter who was censored and removed for asking a legitimate question about the show. There was much controversy and widespread reporting on that incident. That should be noted in the article. I get the sense that you want only positive reviews to be in the article from non professional writers? This one sidedness is a clear example of false balance.The One I Left (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The NYT’s comments on the musical are irrelevant. All that article tells us is that it was written by somebody who went specifically to find flaws and obsess over the allegations. It adds nothing of value to the conversation about the musical, it’s actors, or production, nor it’s good or bad qualities. There is nothing of quality within that article whatsoever, which is a disappointment coming from that publication.Factlibrary1 (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some of you keep repeating the same line which is totally unfounded, basically that the "critics specifically target and obsess over the allegations". Source? That is major speculation without evidence that they are personally attacking him when simply they are just critics reviewing a show. There seems to be a strong bias when editing this page. The fact is you cannot censor or sanitize this or any page on wiki. Major critics from prominent publications, The New York Times, Variety, and Vulture among others have written negative reviews from the show. You don't personally agree with them so there seems to be a want to remove them and only include positive reviews from the show. Blogs should not be highlighted over these prominent theatre critics. User:NathanielTheBold's edits were reverted simply when adding negative reviews with quotes that didn't mention the abuse allegations. All the arguments agains the negative reviews seem in bad faith.The One I Left (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- They were reverted for the same reason why your edits were reverted. They are not reviews of the show but critics of Jackson personally. Also there is no rules why one author is automatically more important than the other. Just because you think their opinion is more important won't make it so. You can't refute the fact that the publications you mentioned had a history of promoting allegations against Jackson and used this show to continue to do that. You can't seriously say that they wrote what they wrote because they watched the show and realized that it focuses on 1992. They already knew that long before opening night. All arguments in favor of including those article are in bad faith and center on promoting the allegations against Jackson, not talking about the show itself. Why do you think abuse allegations should be even mentioned here? The show is not about them. castorbailey (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- You attempted to ping other users more than once that have nothing to do with this page or anything related to this page. That’s called canvassing and that behavior is prohibited. There’s appears to be a majority rule thing here and a consensus is being reached with the majority of users that have commented here. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The attempt to completely sanitize this page from legitimate reviews instead favoring blogs is completely out of line and an example of Undue Weight. Again cite examples of this mass conspiracy of theatre critics who have personal agendas against Jackson? To not source professional critics from “The New York Times”, “Variety”, & “Vulture” is absurd. If you dont want to put it in the critical reception, then there should be a section titled “Controversy” and there should be noted the mass coverage of the issues with the show including the censoring of publications from asking questions about Jacksons legacy. The abuse allegations should be here not because of my opinion but because of the notoriety of that of the various reviews. One cannot talk about Jackson or celebrate him without talking about a huge aspect of his legacy according to various critics. The bias from which you are editing is completely unwarranted. The show was received mixed to negative reviews and the way you would want it to be is basically a fan site where it has glowing reviews from blogs.The One I Left (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Articles about Jackson's legacy are not about the show. Articles about the allegations are not about the show. This page is about the show. By the same token you should include articles mocking Jackson for his plastic surgeries or having elephants or spending millions when he was in debt etc. The point is: it was not the show itself that got those negative reviews, it was Jackson himself and those publications with a history of negative reporting against Jackson simply used the show as an opportunity to once again bring attention to their negative views of Jackson castorbailey (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm happy to weigh in here--some negative reviews should absolutely be represented in the article, given that per Did They Like It? the reviews are mixed and this is standard-issue Wikipedia "Reception" protocol. As noted above I used quotes that pertain to the staging and writing, since I do not have strong opinions on whether the allegations should be mentioned here, divorced from my personal feelings on the subject. Consider that, for example, the Deadline review that is currently quoted in the article takes time to discuss the show's posture in respect to the allegations, the only difference being that it does so on the way to giving the show a positive review. We have not disqualified that particular article for simply mentioning the allegations given that they are not the sole focus of the review, and the same approach should be taken for the negative critical appraisal as well. NathanielTheBold (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some of you keep repeating the same line which is totally unfounded, basically that the "critics specifically target and obsess over the allegations". Source? That is major speculation without evidence that they are personally attacking him when simply they are just critics reviewing a show. There seems to be a strong bias when editing this page. The fact is you cannot censor or sanitize this or any page on wiki. Major critics from prominent publications, The New York Times, Variety, and Vulture among others have written negative reviews from the show. You don't personally agree with them so there seems to be a want to remove them and only include positive reviews from the show. Blogs should not be highlighted over these prominent theatre critics. User:NathanielTheBold's edits were reverted simply when adding negative reviews with quotes that didn't mention the abuse allegations. All the arguments agains the negative reviews seem in bad faith.The One I Left (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Problem in this case, is that the papers in question had a separate agenda that had nothing to do with the show, which is not the case with other shows featured on Did They Like It? Here supposed reviews ended up being about why they think Jackson is guilty instead of about the qualities of the musical. I don't think those should be featured as they are hardly what we see on other reviews for other shows featured in Did They Like It? PinkSlippers (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with User talk:Alessiorom13 castorbailey and TruthGuardians. Those are not legitimate reviews of the musical but pure attempts to further sully Jackson's name, which those outlets have systematically done. Complaining that a show they fully knew was about the rehearsal for the Dangerous tour did not go into details about the allegations, putting aside the absurdity of the idea that a musical should or could do that, only proves that they didn't care to focus on the shows' qualities they wanted to be negative due to their own negative views of Jackson himself. The cited reviews were also written by professionals, if that's your criteria. Except they actually paid attention to the show not to Jackson's alleged personal life. PinkSlippers (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Allow me to make my stance a little clearer. I am not against adding an actual negative review about the show. However, adding a complaint about what the show did not cover or a complaint about someone’s personal life unrelated to the show is not a review. I’ve not seen a negative complaint about the show itself.TruthGuardians (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I feel the same way. If a review is negative and it covers different (artistic, technical...) aspects of the show itself, then I would agree to include it. But in this case, they're mentioning aspects of Michael Jackson's private life, referring to the allegations, pointing out something that is not even addressed in the show in any way, so those negative 'reviews' are not about the show itself and they have no place in this article. Vacamiera (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's hard to review the show without mentioning the allegations because of the way Lynn Nottage wrote the book and how the play itself is structured according to the critics. When critics look at a play or musical, they critique everything, score, performances, sets, and yes structure of the plot. The show seems to tackle the allegations or at least address them. The critics are responding to what the show is saying. The fact that it's not a single critic but a lot of professional critics is something you at least have to mention. I'm honestly working in good faith. What these critics are saying isn't necessarily what I believe, I'm just trying to set the record straight on what the full range of the critical reception is. Below are some examples:
- "Is it possible to make a show about a man whose memory dwells under deep shadow? Of course it is. But you do then have to make a good show...The “plot,” so much as it exists, involves the documentarians overhearing troubling conversations about Michael’s dependence on painkillers and their decision to use this information. Oh? It’s important to include the dark sides of a man’s character when you tell his story? The irony is so ripe here it has rotted." - Helen Shaw, theatre critic for Vulture
- "Songs that are actually linked to the story convey a clear message from an artist who feels both defensive and misunderstood. “Just because you read it in a magazine/ Or see it on a TV screen, don’t make it factual,” Jackson replies to the doc crew, lamenting “The Price of Fame.” Later, at a press conference filled with what the script calls “aggressive reporters,” Jackson defiantly sings “They Don’t Really Care About Us,” drowning out personal questions with broad calls for social justice." - Naveen Kumar theatre critic for Variety
- "There’s a difference between enjoying an opera by Richard Wagner, even though he was an anti-Semite, or enjoying a novel by Norman Mailer, even though he was a sexist homophobe. A lot of very morally compromised people have created great art. It’s often a messy business. The difference with “MJ” is that it celebrates a suspected pedophile’s life and not only ignores his crimes but whitewashes them." - Robert Hofler, theatre critic for The Wrap
- "The musical's cast was hobbled by an indecisive script — the documentary plot and backstory are clumsily combined, and the cartoonish characters are straight outta Scooby-Doo — and low-energy, unattractive staging." - Johnny Oleksinski theatre critic for the New York Post
I agree that the notion that the *The New York Times’* review should be included simply because it is a review from the *NYT* makes no sense. The *New York Times* is of course a very well-established outlet, but, as already stated, this doesn’t change the fact that the individual review isn’t very legitimate, with its main criticism being that the show doesn’t address the pedophilia allegations. Additionally, it seems unnecessary to call the general sentiment among critics “mixed to negative” seeing that *Did They Like It?*’s collection of reviews features 5 positive, 5 mixed, and 6 negative reviews, with many of those negative reviews using the no-allegations argument. Simply “mixed” is sufficient. RyanAl6 (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I’ll add that it might be worth something to briefly mention that many negative reviews are specifically criticizing the show’s failure to address the allegations. RyanAl6 (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is intended to be a summary of published knowledge. We present that knowledge in balance with the significance of the published sources. A piece in The New York Times usually has more readers and thus carries more weight—such a piece is automatically assumed to be an important part of the literature because so many people have seen it. The fact that the critics chose to focus on something lacking in the show is not a reason to dismiss the source. The show is lacking any kind of acknowledgement of MJ's very controversial history, which is a valid criticism. Someone who watches the show with this viewpoint will not care much for staging, costumes, dancing, etc. They would not be able to forget the Big Glaring Problem.
- At Did They Like It I see 6 negative reviews, 5 mixed, and 5 positive. That's 11 reviews that are not positive—a majority. I see it as mixed leaning negative, also known as "mixed to negative". Binksternet (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Inappropriate canvassing
The One I Left Please review WP:canvassing. By pinging three different users who never had an edit history on this page, you are trying to influence the outcome of a discussion in a particular way that is considered inappropriate and disruptive. If you continue doing this way, I will take this to the admin's notice board.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thats laughable to accuse me of such. I pinned two people who are well regarded on this issue and questions with “thoughts?”. They couldve easily disagreed with me. The second time i literally mentioned a person whose edits on the edit were reversed and questioned as to why. This whole debate is inappropriate since youre using inappropriate sources to back youre claim. WP:reliable sources The One I Left (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- “in general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.” The One I Left (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- You’ve not contributed to the topic, and edits cannot happen during an on going discussion. You can ping users with a know history on the topic, not random editors just because others disagree with you. This is an example of canvassing, edit warring, and disruptive editing. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- what do you mean i have no contributed to the topic? I started the topic. its seems you arent reading what im saying. I just opened the floor early in the discussion to people knowledgeable about the subject who couldve disagreed with me. Im All open to different opinions and I was trying to get a conversation going but Im shocked by this level of sanitizing and hostility against others with opinions who differ.The One I Left (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Correction, “if you have not contributed” referring to the people pinged above. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- as someone who notices theatre you will see what sources are known as reliable sources and which ones are used. Blogs are not known as reliable sources.The One I Left (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any doubt that those who wrote those reviews actually saw the show and discussed its qualities? Because the reviews you want to include certainly didn't do that. castorbailey (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Jesse Green is a highly regarded and respected critic. Hes lead a distinguished career as a theatre critic, I have full confidence he went into the show with the best of intentions. Thats why he writes for the New York Times. professional Critics jobs are to go into shows with an unbiased view before and he did. It’s understandable to disagree with his opinion but to remove it altogether its whitewashing.The One I Left (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any doubt that those who wrote those reviews actually saw the show and discussed its qualities? Because the reviews you want to include certainly didn't do that. castorbailey (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- what do you mean i have no contributed to the topic? I started the topic. its seems you arent reading what im saying. I just opened the floor early in the discussion to people knowledgeable about the subject who couldve disagreed with me. Im All open to different opinions and I was trying to get a conversation going but Im shocked by this level of sanitizing and hostility against others with opinions who differ.The One I Left (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- You’ve not contributed to the topic, and edits cannot happen during an on going discussion. You can ping users with a know history on the topic, not random editors just because others disagree with you. This is an example of canvassing, edit warring, and disruptive editing. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- ..."User:The One I Left is" yet again being disruptive with his edits. You have been warned multiple times. Alessiorom13 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing I did was disruptive! Literally cite specifically what I did that was "disruptive".The One I Left (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- You did the exact thing people constantly warned you not to do on this very talk page. Highlighting the negative parts of some reviews and putting those said parts on a microscope. I sense a clear biased in you. This is not how Wikipedia works. Alessiorom13 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- We've been over this before, the majority of legimate theatre critics have written negative reviews for the show. You can't white wash reviews you don't agree with. You put the negative reviews on a microscope. Literally look at the critical reviews: (https://didtheylikeit.com/shows/mj-the-musical/). Eleven critics gave negative or mixed reviews. Only five critics gave it positive reviews. I have no bias towards the show just reflecting the majority of critical consensus. As it is written now it's purely biased in favor of the show which isn't accurate. This is not how Wikipedia works. Also there are a bunch of blogs used in the critical reception which goes against Blogs as Sources. Another example of bias. The One I Left (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are yet again repeating yourself. You brought up the same things before(See above in the talk page) and you where dismissed for having an obvious agenda. Again this was previously discussed and you lost the talk page consensus. You are welcomed to go back and read all the answers people gave you. Alessiorom13 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Absurd. You personally might've dismissed based on your own personal bias but it seems to be split some favor you, others favor my points. There has been no consensus. Also there are a bunch of blogs used in the critical reception which goes against Blogs as Sources, no one has yet to address that. The One I Left (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- You literally linked a page called "didtheylikeit".. what even is that? is that your personal page? Also over 5-6 people don't favor your extreme biased views in this talk page as they have made it clear during this long disscusions above. While no other user has agreed with your points that you are forcfully trying to make. Alessiorom13 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I linked a theatre aggregate for critics, similar to Rotten Tomatoes. Thats hilarious you think I have the capability to create it though. I see you aren't familiar with anything theatre related but a lot of people in the theatre industry look at that page to see what the top critics think. People have agreed with me though I'm afraid to name them since you randomly accused me of canvassing. Again, I have no extreme views or strong personal bias for or against the MJ show. I'm just looking at what the critics say. The overwhelming majority of the professional theatre critics didn't like the show. Again, there are a bunch of blogs used in the critical reception to prop up the show (friends of yours?) which goes against Blogs as Sources, no one has yet to address that.The One I Left (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you are serious or not. No blogs are even used in the "Critical response" section. The only so called "blog" related source I see is that "didtheylikeit" page. Which is apparently "so well regarded" in the theatre industry as you said, yet it doesn't even have a Wikipedia page, unlike Rotten Tomatoes. Also most reviews as I can see are extremely positive as it is very clearly shown on Show-Score. Alessiorom13 (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Theatre Life and Front Row Center are considered blogs. I also wouldn't consider Amsterdam News to be a legitimate source for theatre criticism due to its poor circulation and reputation. Show-Score is for users, so it's basically like IMDB. It's not based on critics reviews. You shouldn't compare that to Rotten Tomatoes or Did They Like It (which is relatively new!) see the American Theatre's write up (https://www.americantheatre.org/2021/10/01/ny-theatre-review-site-didtheylikeit-com-unveils-roster-of-5-critics/) When considering what sources to use for "Critical response" use well regarded critics from established publications. These include: The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Post, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Vulture, Entertainment Weekly, Deadline Hollywood etc. These are legitimate papers with a full time theatre critic staff. Stay away from blogs, fan sites, user sites and publications with low readership. Examples include Amsterdam News, Theatre Life, Front Row Center and Show Score.The One I Left (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Amsterdam News is one of the most historical and oldest surviving newspapers in modern history and it's one of the first black-owned newspaper. I find your comment against Amsterdam News to be highly offensive and possible slightly racially motivated. The highly recognized and culturally significant newspaper also has a large tie to Broadway and the city of New York. Alessiorom13 (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Laughable that you find that comment racially motivated. Amsterdam News is while historical, does not have a high circulation and has little to no impact on the theatre industry at large. It publishes 15,000 copies weekly? That was from 2015, Its most likely much lower now. It is a small local paper that is not of the prominence of the national publications I mentioned. Again you have not directly answered my questions, instead accusing me or wild accusations without evidence. Again, Theatre Life, and Front Row Center are both blogs. There are two lengthy quotes from blogs rather than the most significant publications like, The New York Times, Variety, Vulture, Entertainment Weekly, Deadline Hollywood. You are propping up the show with reviews from blogs rather than legitimate critics. The One I Left (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- As a bunch of people have already stated before in this very talk page over and over again to you. some of the so called "reviews" you actually mentioned are not actual reviews of the show. But opinion pieces on allegations, they are of topic opinion pieces about something that has nothing to do with the musical. It has no place in a Wikipedia, which is a place where we try to be fair and balanced. This page is about the show. Not allegations, or plastic surgery or how many snakes, tigers or elephants he owned. Stay on topic. I will not entertain you anymore with this pointless debate you are desperately forcing, which you btw already lost the talk page consensus months ago when not a single user agreed with you. Alessiorom13 (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reviews...are opinions! You just happen to disagree with their opinions on the show. People did agree with me and their has been no official consensus. Again you have been unable to address any of the legitimate points I brought up. You shouldn't censor chief theatre critics from established papers (The New York Times, Variety, Vulture etc.) because of your personal bias. Blogs should also not override the critical reception portion much less be included. The One I Left (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- As a bunch of people have already stated before in this very talk page over and over again to you. some of the so called "reviews" you actually mentioned are not actual reviews of the show. But opinion pieces on allegations, they are of topic opinion pieces about something that has nothing to do with the musical. It has no place in a Wikipedia, which is a place where we try to be fair and balanced. This page is about the show. Not allegations, or plastic surgery or how many snakes, tigers or elephants he owned. Stay on topic. I will not entertain you anymore with this pointless debate you are desperately forcing, which you btw already lost the talk page consensus months ago when not a single user agreed with you. Alessiorom13 (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Laughable that you find that comment racially motivated. Amsterdam News is while historical, does not have a high circulation and has little to no impact on the theatre industry at large. It publishes 15,000 copies weekly? That was from 2015, Its most likely much lower now. It is a small local paper that is not of the prominence of the national publications I mentioned. Again you have not directly answered my questions, instead accusing me or wild accusations without evidence. Again, Theatre Life, and Front Row Center are both blogs. There are two lengthy quotes from blogs rather than the most significant publications like, The New York Times, Variety, Vulture, Entertainment Weekly, Deadline Hollywood. You are propping up the show with reviews from blogs rather than legitimate critics. The One I Left (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Amsterdam News is one of the most historical and oldest surviving newspapers in modern history and it's one of the first black-owned newspaper. I find your comment against Amsterdam News to be highly offensive and possible slightly racially motivated. The highly recognized and culturally significant newspaper also has a large tie to Broadway and the city of New York. Alessiorom13 (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Theatre Life and Front Row Center are considered blogs. I also wouldn't consider Amsterdam News to be a legitimate source for theatre criticism due to its poor circulation and reputation. Show-Score is for users, so it's basically like IMDB. It's not based on critics reviews. You shouldn't compare that to Rotten Tomatoes or Did They Like It (which is relatively new!) see the American Theatre's write up (https://www.americantheatre.org/2021/10/01/ny-theatre-review-site-didtheylikeit-com-unveils-roster-of-5-critics/) When considering what sources to use for "Critical response" use well regarded critics from established publications. These include: The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Post, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Vulture, Entertainment Weekly, Deadline Hollywood etc. These are legitimate papers with a full time theatre critic staff. Stay away from blogs, fan sites, user sites and publications with low readership. Examples include Amsterdam News, Theatre Life, Front Row Center and Show Score.The One I Left (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you are serious or not. No blogs are even used in the "Critical response" section. The only so called "blog" related source I see is that "didtheylikeit" page. Which is apparently "so well regarded" in the theatre industry as you said, yet it doesn't even have a Wikipedia page, unlike Rotten Tomatoes. Also most reviews as I can see are extremely positive as it is very clearly shown on Show-Score. Alessiorom13 (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I linked a theatre aggregate for critics, similar to Rotten Tomatoes. Thats hilarious you think I have the capability to create it though. I see you aren't familiar with anything theatre related but a lot of people in the theatre industry look at that page to see what the top critics think. People have agreed with me though I'm afraid to name them since you randomly accused me of canvassing. Again, I have no extreme views or strong personal bias for or against the MJ show. I'm just looking at what the critics say. The overwhelming majority of the professional theatre critics didn't like the show. Again, there are a bunch of blogs used in the critical reception to prop up the show (friends of yours?) which goes against Blogs as Sources, no one has yet to address that.The One I Left (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- You literally linked a page called "didtheylikeit".. what even is that? is that your personal page? Also over 5-6 people don't favor your extreme biased views in this talk page as they have made it clear during this long disscusions above. While no other user has agreed with your points that you are forcfully trying to make. Alessiorom13 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- We've been over this before, the majority of legimate theatre critics have written negative reviews for the show. You can't white wash reviews you don't agree with. You put the negative reviews on a microscope. Literally look at the critical reviews: (https://didtheylikeit.com/shows/mj-the-musical/). Eleven critics gave negative or mixed reviews. Only five critics gave it positive reviews. I have no bias towards the show just reflecting the majority of critical consensus. As it is written now it's purely biased in favor of the show which isn't accurate. This is not how Wikipedia works. Also there are a bunch of blogs used in the critical reception which goes against Blogs as Sources. Another example of bias. The One I Left (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- You did the exact thing people constantly warned you not to do on this very talk page. Highlighting the negative parts of some reviews and putting those said parts on a microscope. I sense a clear biased in you. This is not how Wikipedia works. Alessiorom13 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing I did was disruptive! Literally cite specifically what I did that was "disruptive".The One I Left (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Poor sourcing for positive audience response
Alessiorom13, you must stop using show-score.com for audience response metrics. The website fails WP:USERG because readers can log in and change the page. The same type of problem has been addressed repeatedly with audience scores displayed at rottentomatoes.com, which we don't consider reliable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Only the film critic scores can be used from RT.
Also stop citing user reviews at https://www.newyorkcitytheatre.com/theaters/neilsimontheater/mj-the-musical-customer-reviews.php?r=a&page=all. Once again, this kind of source fails WP:USERG—Wikipedia does not allow user comments to be cited.
To me, it looks like more of the same non-neutral editing described above as white-washing. You are removing negative reviews while adding poorly sourced positives. Such a campaign to slant the article is a violation of WP:NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Stop edit warring. You went against the talk page consensus by making those drastic changes without even discussing it in the talk page. Don't be biased. Alessiorom13 (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- A violation such as fails WP:USERG don't need to get a consensus because WP:SNOWBALL. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Incorrect. The website is a review aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes, and just like Rotten Tomatoes can be used as a reliable source. If a consensus was reached, which it was, you are edit warring. To prevent edit warring you can start an RFC to go against the consensus reached. Generally I would agree with the WP:USERG sentiments, but that doesn’t apply here to a well known Broadway aggregator. Show Score is to Broadway, what Rotten Tomatoes is to Movies. However, just like Rotten Tomatoes, you can’t use normal user comments. You can mention user score, instead you would have to use critic comments and can also mention a critic score. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- The restriction against using user comments includes any score derived from users. The only reliable part is from professional critics. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Rotten_Tomatoes for the analogous case. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Incorrect. The website is a review aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes, and just like Rotten Tomatoes can be used as a reliable source. If a consensus was reached, which it was, you are edit warring. To prevent edit warring you can start an RFC to go against the consensus reached. Generally I would agree with the WP:USERG sentiments, but that doesn’t apply here to a well known Broadway aggregator. Show Score is to Broadway, what Rotten Tomatoes is to Movies. However, just like Rotten Tomatoes, you can’t use normal user comments. You can mention user score, instead you would have to use critic comments and can also mention a critic score. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- A violation such as fails WP:USERG don't need to get a consensus because WP:SNOWBALL. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned references in MJ the Musical
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of MJ the Musical's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Grammy":
- From Dangerous (Michael Jackson album): "Grammy for Bruce Swedien & Teddy Riley". National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. Archived from the original on October 2, 2009. Retrieved February 25, 2009.
- From Stevie Wonder: "Stevie Wonder - Artist Profile". Grammy.com. Retrieved January 13, 2020.
- From List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson: "Past Winners Search: Michael Jackson". The Recording Academy. Retrieved January 29, 2014.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)