Talk:The Book of Mormon (musical)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Deletionist ed. gone wild?

I restored the phrase mentioning the setting of The Book of Mormon musical to its lede per wp:EDIT's subsection wp:PRESERVE, which indicates that editors are not to remove less-than-perfect placement of encyclopedic material unless placing it where it would go in a completed article.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit warrior seems unaware of the wp:ELYES guideline that recommends linking to:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

--(as well as some of the provisions of wp:ELMAYBE)--giving as his edit rationale that not all video interviews with the work's creators need to be included in external links--but then deleted them all(!)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Songs

I noticed that article lacks a "Musical Numbers" section found in most musical theatre articles. The IBDB listing doesn't show a song list, which could be considered unusual. Does anyone know where to find a song list? (Or perhaps the songs are so explicitly titled that they don't want to post them!) --Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The IBDB should list the songs, it is showing pre-opening information right now; hopefully songs will be posted soon. (In any case, I'll try to swing by the theatre on April 2 and see if I can get a used Playbill, which should have the song list...no promises on this.)JeanColumbia (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. Most musical theatre articles have it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B016:FE64:68CF:B3C5:B803:7E90 (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Synopsis

I cobbled together a synopsis from the reviews, but feel free to improve it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nunsense, etc.

I wonder whether there ought to be a category for musicals about religion? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea! :) --Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Should be a better title "The Book of Mormon" with (musical) looks stupid, and misleading. Should be either The Broadway show The Book of Mormon, or The Book of Mormon Broadway show , or The musical The Book Mormon , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintnick3331 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Producers

I count 11 producers (either in single name or organization). Why list only 2? And, might it not be worthy of a good discussion as to whether to list producers at all, not only for this article but in general. This raises some interesting issues, such as: notability of producers in general; is each producer notable (ie blue-link); is there something notable about any particular producer (such as the "old" days when a show was a Ziegfeld or a Merrick production, or when Prince both directed and produced). On and on, I have questions, no answers.JeanColumbia (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, both producers are also producers of South Park; that should be mentioned. --Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I generally only list producers if they are particularly famous or get a lot of press in connection with the production (I agree with B&B above that in this case, the two producers do have a special connection worth mentioning). I don't think that, in general, most readers care about them, and we give links to IBDB, etc. where you can easily see that sort of info. It's like music directors: lots of professional conductors can conduct a Broadway orchestra - unless there is some particular reason why they were unusually important to the show, I wouldn't name them. Just my 2 cents. But if you want to get a broad consensus, this discussion could be moved to the WP:MUSICALS talk page. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Syntax

removed "a nearly record setting" mbr1983 20:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbr1983 (talk • contribs)

Pictures

I have removed the photos of the creative team members. The photos do not illustrate the musical directly and it is not standard to have photos of individual members of the creative team in MT articles. The pictures are easily accessible from clicking the blue links to their individual pages.Mark E (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Profanity restored

I've converted the F***s back to their original Anglo-Saxon, per WP:PROFANE and WP:CENSORED. I don't have a copy of the program or script, but in the pamphlet accompanying the CD of the score, the lyrics and synopsis use no asterisks. Hence, at least one primary source concurs with this usage. Barte (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Template Q"

At some point in the last few edits, the article has become littered with something about "Template Q" being up for deletion. I'd have to go back seven or so edits to fix it, so hopefully someone more familiar with wikipedia can fix the code without losing more recent updates

It really needs to be fixed, though, as it makes the article difficult to read.Mwoody450 (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Parodies within the songs

Someone just removed this info: "The song "Hasa Diga Eebowai" is a parody of the song "Hakuna Matata" from The Lion King." I think that should be restored to the article, and also the fact that "I Believe" uses many direct quotes and parodies of "I Have Confidence" from The Sound of Music film should be mentioned, and so forth. I don't know where this info should go but someone else can decide that. (I haven't seen the show but I saw several numbers on the Tonys.) Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I saw this had been removed and was a bit unsure why, as It is sourced and I believe it is relevant to the article. I also agree about I believe being a slight parody of I have confidence etc but unless there is a source of the creatives saying this was their intention then it can't go into the article.Mark E (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I Have Confidence": It's not a slight parody. It's very distinct and extremely obvious. They use nearly identical tunes and slightly altered lyrics. We don't have to have a quote from the authors, only a reliable source that mentions the obvious parody. Here's a quote from GoogleNews (which mentions some of the other parodies too, like The King and I and Les Miserables):

The score also functions as both mockery and homage to Broadway. “I Believe” parodies The Sound of Music’s “I Have Confidence” perfectly. As Maria sings, “A captain with seven children/What’s so fearsome about that?” Price asks, “A warlord who shoots people in the face/What’s so scary about that?” And just as Maria wallows in self-doubt, singing, “I’ve always longed for adventure/To do the things I’ve never dared…/Then why am I so scared,” Price ruminates, “I’ve always longed to help the needy/To do the things I never dared…/So then why was I so scared?”[1]

-- Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that source is a reliable source. It is just one person (who doesn't have a connection with the show) giving his opinion. Yes, I Believe does give nod to "I have confidence", but is it more an an inside joke than a parody? I know I didn't realise the connection until I actually read about it online. It's only really a parody if its really recognizable. I would also strongly object that Man Up is a parody of One Day more from Les Mis. I see no resemblance at all... I'd personally say it's more like the Tonight Quintet from West Side. Since the creatives have said their intentions with Hasa Diga were to parody Lion King it is more than appropriate to include it. However the others would need to be sourced from something more reliable.Mark E (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The user Stan000 has been blocked for block evasion (gee, what a surprise, except that he did not pick a username relating to theatre!). Blocked users edits may be reverted, I think. So let's get on with putting back "The song "Hasa Diga Eebowai" is a parody of the song "Hakuna Matata" from The Lion King with reference. I'll leave it to you folks to decide what else to include. (And today's question: what is a parody?). JeanColumbia (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Just to stick my nose in here for a moment: Mark, it doesn't matter whether a person is "connected with the show". If a critic or other commentator says that a song quotes, imitates or resembles a famous song, then you can say so, as long as the source is a WP:RS, and as long as the information would be of encyclopedic interest to a large number of readers. In fact, I just deleted some unencyclopedic material that consisted partly of quotes by the creators. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I restored the material ("The song "Hasa Diga Eebowai" is a parody of the song "Hakuna Mat...") to the Themes section.JeanColumbia (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

To Mark: That's not "just one person (who doesn't have a connection with the show) giving his opinion". That's a reputable news site listed on GoogleNews, and you'll note the author of the play, Robert Lopez, responded to the article. It is a reliable source for the "I Have Confidence" material. It may not go into enough detail however on The King and I and Les Mis. Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, and yes I'd say go ahead and include about "I Believe" being a nod to "I have confidence", but then there is also the issue that the author of the article admits to not having seen the show and only knowing the music. I can't for the life of me think why "Man Up" would be considered a parody of Les Mis. From what I gather, anyone can submit an article to that website, and apart from the obvious I have Confidence nod it is opinion/speculation (and obv the Hakuna Matata one). I'd say You and Me (But Mostly Me) was a massive nod to Defying Gravity from wicked in the sense of content and chord scheme etc Mark E (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Instrumentation

Can we have some discussion on the instrumentation section? I noticed its been reverted and reverted back, I personally don't believe it warrants its own mini-section as an external link can very easily be followed to access the band information on IBDB. Its such a niche little subject. And also saying its bigger than his other shows on B'way, he has only had ONE other show on Broadway (Q). Avenue Q had a 6 piece band, Mormon has 9. Almost double is stretching it.Mark E (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Avenue Q had 5, and now only has 4 in it's Off Broadway version. Book of Mormon has 9 OR 10 depending on how you count the instrumentation. I guess my reason for the notice is, it won the Tony for orchestration. It's a very small band, and to win it is of some note. Also, what's the damage of having it here? At least it's sourced, eh? Tdstom (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The source [2] only loosely supports the text. Source makes no comparison to Avenue Q, no mention of a Tony award (why is it even mentioned there? There's an award section below), even the list of instruments is not covered in the way it covered in the source (Article says "Reed I: Flute/Piccolo/Saxophone/Clarinet", source says "Reeds"). Regardless of how the information is presented, it needs to be cleaned up so it is fully verifiable. Rehevkor ✉ 23:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well your source for Mormon (IBDB) has Avenue Q listed as having a 6 piece (Keyboard, Keyboard/Synth, Sax/Flute/Clarinet, Drums, Bass, Guitar). Mormon has 9.Mark E (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The instrumentation used in this show is not unusual. Rock musicals can have a band of any size, from a small combo to a regular pit orchestra size. This section is not of encyclopedic interest, IMO. The fact that it won a Tony is of interest, and the article already says so. This section has no analysis of the music, which would be of far greater interest. Indeed, listing what instruments are used does not explain at all why this musical received a Tony for "orchestration". -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not unusual? How many Rock musical have both Soprano Recorder, Sopranino Recorder and Bansuri flute (Indian)??? And one player playing 10 different reed instruments? Please tell me that's in a typical Broadway musical. Tdstom (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is The Book of Mormon actually a "rock musical"?--108.67.204.170 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Quote in Reception section

I found a quote on CNN's blog from Richard Bushman (visiting professor of Mormon Studies at Claremont University, and author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling). He says,

"'The Book of Mormon' is like looking into a fun-house mirror; the reflection is hilarious but not really you."

I think it would be helpful to integrate the quote into the section on Reception or Church Response. It's not that Bushman is an official representative for the church, but he is a pretty good one, and I think the quote concisely and tactfully speaks for the feelings of many Mormons about the musical. Would someone here be willing to work the quote in? -- Adjwilley (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon redirect

Currently The Book of Mormon redirects to this page, but surely the book itself, Book of Mormon, should be the target of that, as it is the primary topic? At the very least it should direct to Book of Mormon (disambiguation). Яehevkor ✉ 19:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have to call the redirect to be essentially vandalism. I reverted the link, which was disguised as an "undo" falsely. I'll watch the redirect too. It looks like there is an ongoing and protracted edit war going on with this redirect. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

While misguided I gotta assume the edit was in good faith, he was "undo"ing this edit, so I presume the edit summary was accurate too. Яehevkor ✉ 21:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

From 2002 to 2010, the link was a redirect to Book of Mormon. If I had to choose what was the prevailing condition and what "community consensus" was including precedent, I would have to assert this is the correct location. I think it is disingenuous to suggest it was "always" intended to point to the musical, as the musical didn't exist earlier. If you want to create a disambiguation, I suppose that makes some sense. Still, the musical is named after the book written/translated by Joseph Smith (depending on your POV), and the reason for switching the redirect is vague and certainly not made with "consensus". I certainly don't think changing it back is necessarily wrong under these circumstances. Generally I assume good faith, but in this case I don't think it is so innocent. If you flat out insist, I suppose it can go to Book of Mormon (disambiguation), but just because an article is being used, I don't think it necessarily refers just to the play. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree the 8 year status quo should remain, it was changed without an apparent explanation or consensus. My apologies if my wording above was not clear, but linking to the disambiguation page should only be a last resort. Яehevkor ✉ 23:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in The Book of Mormon

These keep being reintroduced by User:94.194.71.55. Maybe we can find consensus here? To be honest, I think the whole paragraph should be abolished, just as the musical cats doesn't have an inaccuracies section stating that cats can't talk.

I think that saying for example "It is a misconception that all Mormon prophets and leaders are "All-American" as put forward in the song "All-American Prophet"" is not properly sourced. There is a convincing source that the third leader was English, but the conclusion that the musical is wrong on this, or that the writers made a mistake is still original research. To say something like that we need at least one article saying "Nice musical, but they have their basic facts wrong". In my opinion, "All American" is not literally "each and everyone involved is an American" but a funny way to depict Mormons as selling their religion by focusing on something you'd normally use to sell cars. IMHO that's hilarious and not to be taken seriously. The song ends with "if you order now we'll also throw in a set of steak-knives". If we do need a inaccuracies section this blatant lie about Mormons giving away steak-knives needs to be addressed too. From what I read the Church nor anyone else has objected in any way to the actual contents of the musical. If (after a musical that is actually very sweet about Mormons) the Church would, Hasa Diga Eebowai. Joepnl (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I tend to agree with you that the entire paragraph should be eliminated. In its current form, it's very much original research. Unless there are reliable sources out there that have discussed the inaccuracies of how Mormonism is portrayed, I don't see much point to the section. It actually reads as if it's been inserted by Mormon apologists. Every play and other work of fiction that is based on historical events or real-life individuals or groups of individuals takes some liberties with the "true facts"; there's nothing terribly unique about this musical in that regard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with you both. As currently written (and sourced), it is original research. (A search turns up this article, however: "Is the 'Book of Mormon' musical accurate satire?, Deseret News.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Deseret News is not exactly the New York Times but this is definitely a (Mormon) source criticizing the musical. I could live with a sentence like "The musical has been criticized for not being accurate". Joepnl (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree that the section in its current form is not good. I haven't seen the musical, but there do seem to be a number of things that Mormons find offensive and sometimes wrong, and I could see having a paragraph on that. I'd like to get the IP editor in on this discussion, since he's obviously put a good deal of work into it, and I don't want him leaving Wikipedia thinking "encyclopedia that anybody can edit my FOOT!" after having been shut out by a consensus he didn't know happened. I'd be willing to put some time in editing and sourcing it, but I'll wait to see if there's any consensus on that. -- Adjwilley (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
        • The IP editor has been informed by Paul Erik. While mentioning that XXX disagrees on the facts depicted in this musical is OK with me, I really doubt there should be a full paragraph listing all "errors" as if the makers are either stupid or evil. It remains just a musical, not a peer reviewed article in Nature. IMHO the whole inaccuracy thing should be included in the Reception paragraph. It should not be a separate paragraph as we're dealing with a f**** musical, simply made to entertain people. (The creators actually like Mormons!) Joepnl (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Just a note: in the CNN link that I posted two sections above this, Bushman points out some of the inaccuracies. That could potentially be used as a source. I really liked the fun house mirror statement too. I agree a paragraph listing all the errors is certainly not what we want, let alone a section. On the other hand, the LDS Church and Mormons in general have a long history with misrepresentation, and are naturally very sensitive about it. I don't think acknowledging that would be a bad thing. -- Adjwilley (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
            • I agree we could have a brief mention of this, given that a source has been discovered. But I also agree that the exhaustive section listing all the errors is a bit too much for this article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
              • I have written a short paragraph. Sorry for the delay on this. I got distracted with other things. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
                •  Done . . . Nicely done. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's Delete this Article

Aren't we tired yet of "satirical musicals" that attack and denigrate spiritual belief. Just because America has freedom of speech doesn't mean you should abuse it. I invite opinion whether this article should be deleted as trivial and irrelevant.Jpetersen46321 (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite your disagreement with the content of the musical, the musical itself is notable having won multiple Tony awards including best musical, receiving wide coverage and reviews from the media and breaking many records when it comes to Broadway shows. You are not going to get anywhere proposition deletion of this article. BOVINEBOY2008 14:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding my own voice here, deleting this article is the wrong way to address this issue. You are welcome to start a Deletion Nomination if you really feel compelled to raise some serious issues that may have a basis in deletion policy for Wikipedia. Often challenging notability is a frequent rational for deletion. There are legitimate reasons for deleting articles, including things that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, but I think you would be hard pressed at finding any reason to justify such a deletion that would not likely happen if you made such a nomination. Yes, this musical is blasphemous and offensive to some, but that by itself isn't justification for deletion either. I invite you to review this article to perhaps raise objections where you may see some problems of neutrality or other legitimate issues that you may want to raise about this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Pardon the expression, but there's not a chance in hell. Barte (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that Wiki editors wisely chose instead to delete your editing privileges. Cheers! 72.0.15.8 (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC).

I think for these purposes, it would be better to try to stop the play from happening than deleting this article. Or you can make a whole new article/expand on what is wrong with this show and tell people that way. But this article will never be deleted because of all the success that the play has had and the controversy around it. It's too big of a topic to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.240.5 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Book of Mormon (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130102013232/http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-31/entertainment/chi-more-tickets-chicago-book-of-mormon_1_mormon-tickets-sale to http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-31/entertainment/chi-more-tickets-chicago-book-of-mormon_1_mormon-tickets-sale
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111206132857/http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com:80/2011/06/27/richard-bushman-the-book-of-mormon-is-like-looking-into-a-fun-house-mirror-the-reflection-is-hilarious-but-not-really-you/ to http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/27/richard-bushman-the-book-of-mormon-is-like-looking-into-a-fun-house-mirror-the-reflection-is-hilarious-but-not-really-you/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Way, way, way, way WAY too much information

The History section contains way too much information, as though whoever wrote that thinks that the level of detail appropriate for an encyclopedia is 100 times what it really is. For example, one paragraph reads as follows:

"Lopez pushed for the stage, and his partners concurred. Lopez prodded them to take the project a step further and "workshop" it, which baffled Parker and Stone, clueless about what he meant.[3] Developmental workshops were directed by Jason Moore, and starred Cheyenne Jackson.[14] Other actors in readings included Benjamin Walker and Daniel Reichard.[15] The crew embarked on the first of a half-dozen workshops that would take place during the next four years, ranging from 30-minute mini-performances for family and friends to much larger-scale renderings of the embryonic show. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money, still unconvinced they would take it any further.[3] In February 2008, a fully staged reading starred Walker and Josh Gad as Elders Price and Cunningham, respectively.[15] Moore was originally set to direct, but left the production in June 2010.[15] Other directors, including James Lapine, were optioned to join the creative team, but the producers recruited Casey Nicholaw.[15] A final five-week workshop took place in August 2010, when Nicholaw came on board as choreographer and co-director with Parker.[3]"

And that paragrpah is typical.

This is beyond ridiculous. Maybe this would be fitting for a specialized website all about the detailed histories of musicals, or a website solely devoted to this musical. But please — not here. I hope someone familiar with the history of this musical but with a sense of proportion will rewrite that section. It badly needs a major editing to cut it down to an appropriate level of detail.Daqu (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no Wikipedia guidelines limiting the length of the section, so that the only limitation is the collective sense of the editors participating here. Personally, I enjoyed reading the detailed account and would prefer it stay as it is. Barte (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there are no Wikipedia guidelines on length, but one could always appeal to common sense. E.g., take a look at any other respectable encyclopedia or encyclopædia to see how it is done.Daqu (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

"Respectable", i.e., traditional, encyclopedias are not much of a guide. For example, they don't typically have biographical articles on Darth Vader and Bilbo Baggins. On Wikipedia, including this entry, the "common sense" of editorial judgement is usually reflected in how editors have chosen to contribute. Barte (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There are so many activities other than editing Wikipedia where a lack of common sense is no problem. Why must an absence of common sense have to be inflicted on Wikipedia??????????12:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sentences pertaining to the relative future

The article reads "Lopez, a co-composer/co-lyricist of Avenue Q and Frozen" - however, Frozen came out in 2013, and The Book of Mormon did so in 2011. Isn't it misleading to include information that's chronologically later than the time referenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see where that could be a source of confusion. I tweaked it slightly. Barte (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversy in Reception section

Hi. Was just wondering why the subsection titled "Controversy" was labelled as such considering that the information within is largely about the positive reception and only briefly mentions a criticism and one accusation of racism? Sure this is a misleading title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.86.14 (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear to me either. I've removed the subhead. Let's see if anyone objects. Barte (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverted editing

I obviously disagree with this revert [3] since I made the original edits. I believe the edits make the article easier to read and focus the content on the topic of the article, the play itself, rather then focus on issues about those around the topic. The edits were made in four parts so that people could easily review. If anyone wants to review and comment that would be great. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I did the revert and disagree with your deletions. The background of the play, how it came to be, is not peripheral to the subject, but central to it, and is not unlike countless other Wikipedia articles on artistic works that go into great depth into their "origin stories". I'm not writing here as a contributor to that section, but as a reader: the information, all of it, added to my enjoyment of the play. In deleting content, you have, I think, diminished the article rather than sharpened it. Barte (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted again. This material is verified, from reliable sources related to the musical, does not constitute original research, and is relevant to the subject, providing background into how it came into being. You've received no support here for deleting it. The onus is on you to make the case and I don't think you've made it. Barte (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think there is or is not consensus to have this edit reverted or not; since we are the only two involved. While the prior edits that started this discussion were more extensive and some were arguably more then necessary, this current edit deals solely with article text about Parker's youthful history with musical theater. As this article is about the show, there is no need for an extended discussion of Parker's highschool involvement as a chorus member, piano player, set builder, and his 15-year-old's cassette recording. No where in my edit summaries or in this discussion have I alluded to it being from unreliable sources nor is it original research; just because something is true and verifiable, does not mean it belongs in any given article. All the information I edited out is currently in Parker's own article - where it rightly belongs. Perhaps you could explain to me how each of the following points adds to the understand of the BOM play:

1. was in the chorus of The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas
2. piano player for the chorus
3. president of the choir council
4. 15 years old, he wrote songs for and produced a cassette tape
5. helped build the set

The whole chunk of text could be summed up as "Parker was involved in musical theatre from a young age." --Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

All of it helps explains how two guys with no Broadway experience came to co-write, with Lopez, a major Broadway hit. Some of this background, including Parker's high school and college work, is also in the book The Book of Mormon: The Testament of a Broadway Musical by Steve Suskin, which as far as I can tell is the canonical book on the play. Suskin includes the material because it helps readers understand from whence the musical came. Your deleting the material does the reverse. Barte (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I must agree with Jordan 1972 here, the information he removed from the article doesn't give me any information about Mormon, and belongs in the Parker article. Unless there is another opinion in either way I'm going to go and undo this edit again - This information is already present in Trey Parker Mark E (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If that's the consensus, I accept the verdict. Barte (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This edit and this one was also part of the original larger block of edits I did and were reverted on-mass. As we are working through the edits I originally did, I thought I would bring it here as well for any discussion Mark E and Barte. The purpose of the first edit is just for readability, it does not eliminate any information. The second edit eliminates very standard information about a show needing to find space and rehearsals taking place; something every show does. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Of edit one, I would edit it to "Lopez pushed to "workshop" the project for the stage, which baffled..."

Of edit two, I would keep (and this is slightly edited) - "Parker and Stone moved from Los Angeles to New York City shortly after the completion of South Park's fourteenth season in November 2010 to continue work on the show", and remove the lines before and after ("rehearsal space" & "delving into rewrites")Mark E (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I like both of these edits by Mark E. And while I haven't reviewed Jordan 1972's reduced synopsis below (it was a long day), I agree that it currently runs too long. Shorter would be good. Thanks for taking it on. Barte (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)