Talk:Miss Saigon

message: There's some more information about Miss Saigon at Alain Boublil — mostly statistics and such.  Much of it probably could be removed from Boublil's page and added here, if it's accurate.  Unfortunately, it appears to have been added by an anonymous contributor, so I can't vouch for its accuracy or currency.  Anyway, I thought that people who have this page on their watchlist might be interested in sorting it out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  further information 

message: Also, I think criticism of Miss Saigon ought to be explained a bit better.  I feel that the current short little bit about Actors Equity is slightly biased...it makes them sound like a crazy bunch of unreasonable people or something, which may be some people's opinion, but there is another side too.  In terms of racial issues, in the London production, Pryce (and if I'm not mistaken, also the white actor playing Thuy) had worn eye prosthesis and bronzing lotion to try to make himself look more "Asian", which is rather offensive to many.  Also, the writing does perpetuate a lot of stereotypes about Asians and has Kim saying random made up steretypical mumbo jumbo stuff steeped in mysticism, like "paper dragons in the sky" etc.  Anyways, I won't get into it.  I'm just saying that I think it is important to note criticisms of the show as well.  It doesn't have to be in a lot of detail, but it shouldn't be dismissed or omitted either in my opinion.
Drenched 03:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I think the line "Miss Saigon was part of the major European influence on Broadway in the 1980s, along with the musicals Cats, The Phantom of the Opera, and Les Misérables" is a little too "American-centric" if that makes any sense. I agree that European musicals did infiltrate Broadway, but in all fairness, Miss Saigon, the Phantom, Les Mis and the like all originally opened in Europe and were intended for a EUROPEAN audience, not an American one. Because they were such big hit, obviously they made their way across the Atlantic. They didn't set out to influence Broadway, Nroadway was just the next logical step. Maybe I am being too picky, but I think this could be re-worded. 65.94.19.87 02:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I'm open to rewording the sentence and I definitely see your point.  I personally feel that the above sentence & use of the phrase "major European influence" is acceptable since the genre of musical theatre is culturally American despite the fact that the listed musicals are European in origin.  If you have a more global & less biased rewording to offer, by all means go for it! --Drenched 06:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: American Bias

message: I'm not sure why my additions regarding the three alternate endings of Miss Saigon were removed, citing no sources.  It is a FACT that there were three different endings to the musical.  The proof is in those who have heard them.  Having seen the Toronto production, and seeing as I OWN both the London and Complete Symphonic recordings which contain different endings from each other, anyone else with an equal passion for the show KNOWS that there are three different endings.  But I feel the information was removed because I said there was a "rumor" that the material was altered for certain reasons.  This is because the articles themselves state only rumors; however the songs themselves are not.  If you would like the proper citations to be included, that's fair enough... but the existence of three different endings is NOT a rumor, and should therefore not have been removed.  Removing those FACTS limits research capabilities of those who are educating themselves about the show, and erased the hard work of people who felt they should contribute missing information for those who do not know these "little known facts".  So why was everything removed instead of removing only the line about the rumor?
Surely I don't have to prove that these three variations exist, otherwise much of the information in the article itself must be considered unverifiable.  I even went so far as so include the titles of these variations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakydisco (talk • contribs) 09:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you do have to cite sources. Our policies include No Original Research (Wikipedia does not accept 'facts' that have not been published before) and Verifiability (so that we can check it out for accuracy). We cannot take the word of anyone random user on this site. The JPStalk to me 09:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Content?? 

message: I would like to reopen the discussion on the Alternate Endings and Deleted Material that occurred some time ago -- a discussion that was quickly shelved, despite my arguments in support of the addition.  After spending quite some time adding to the article, my information was deleted and deemed inaccurate and unverifiable despite the fact that my sources are precisely what the moderators were requesting as a source.  It was in reference to three different endings, plus a deleted musical number which has recently gained some popularity.
The moderator stated that: "It's easier with films with DVD releases (any alternate ending might be included on the DVD's extra features, and would thus be verifiable). [For example:] The article on The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) mentions that the "Jitter Bug" song is mentioned in a DVD documentary. The Who Framed Roger Rabbit controversy is verifiable in the primary source. To verify the fact, one just needs to find a laserdisc. Unfortunately, live theatre does not have the same luxury: the primary source is usually lost in time and is unverifiable."
My sources for this information were described in the article as the three differing cast albums on which these endings occur: The Original London Cast Recording, The Complete Symphonic Recording, and the 1992 Japanese Cast Recording which are still in print and available for purchase; as well as Lea Salonga's concert DVD and CD on which she explains the rehearsal and subsequent deletion of the song she's about to sing.  My insistence of this was ignored, however, and the material still rejected.  If DVDs are sufficient evidence and can be used as a credible source, why is an audible CD bearing three distinctive versions of material not also considered a viable source?  The material has, contrary to the original moderator's suggestion, not been "lost in time and unverifiable."  One needs only read the libretto, play the three recordings and the DVD to verify that this information is accurate.  Given that, I still fail to see the difference in what I've provided and what the moderators are looking for.  At the very least, a better explanation would suffice.
Oddly enough, a similar edit I made to the article on Les Miserables was deleted for describing verifiable material about previous composers and deleted musical numbers -- also verifiable by listen to the soundtracks or reading the libretto.  This deletion was then reinserted by someone else and kept on, despite containing the exact same information.  Thusly, I would like to reinstate the material to educate people on the conception and development of the show and its history, but I also don't want material to be axed after spending time on it.  Furthermore, the musical numbers listed are inaccurate and in some case duplicates of the same song, bearing different titles from varying recordings.  It also contains names of deleted songs, which ironically no one has checked for authenticity or spelling.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakydisco (talk • contribs) 23:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Material 

message: The Background section states "Miss Saigon was one of the major European musicals on Broadway in the 1980s, along with Cats, The Phantom of the Opera, and Les Misérables." But the Production history section says "On April 11 1991, it opened at the Broadway Theatre in New York City". Surely one of those statements is wrong? --87.65.71.21 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  80s or 90s? 

message: I would like to see a discussion of the different versions of the lyrics, for example how the older version had the Act 2 song "It's Her or Me" now replaced with "Now That I've Seen Her".  The fact that there's two versions of the song is clearly mentioned in this article in at least two places, but I'd like to see some sort of "production notes" about when the change was made, if not why, and which recordings have it in which version.  --zandperl (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics versions? 

message: According to Schönberg in my Miss Saigon program, Miss Saigon is based on the novel Madame Chrysantehemum by Pierre Loti. Madama Butterfly is based on a short story by John Luther Long (Madame Butterfly), which in it's turn was based on Madame Chrysantehemum.
This will probably make Miss Saigon and Madama Butterfly more of parallel stories than "Miss Saigon is based on Madama Butterfly" as claimed in the article.
Source: The Miss Saigon program from the London production.
Psy96jys (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Based upon 

message: This musical must be performed in this year (2013) in VietNam - At least just once time in Saigon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khangdu (talk • contribs) 12:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orther 

message: There are differences in the end of the play, depending on which production. The original London version had a song, "The Sacred Bird", finishing out the play right before "Finale". This was absent in the Broadway version, which went from "The American Dream" to "Finale". Finally, you list "This is the House (Reprise)" as the song between "The American Dream" and "Finale" in this article. Sourcing can be found through IMDB and other similar sources listing of tracks on official soundtracks from these productions. I lack sufficient knowledge to make this edit myself, in terms of Wikipedia standards and in terms of editing, but this difference and the reasoning behind it are more crucial than much of the other information contained in this article. Additionally, it's exactly (emphasis on that) the sort of thing people come to this site in particular to learn about - it's what brought me here today. Could someone be kind enough to consider this? 24.189.7.56 (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Info 

message: Do we need to list each and every kid who plays Tam? That part of the cast table is getting a little out of hand and I would argue that it's not really that notable, also, it's virtually unverifiable because of the short term nature of the casting. Other than the 6 names listed on the 2014 recording and the show programme, neither of which are cited, there doesn't seem to be anywhere to verify this.CaptainPedge | Talk</sup>  03:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as no one has objected and I agree with the above I have removed Tam from the cast listsDragonFury (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tam casting 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Miss Saigon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150921085334/http://www.racialicious.com/2013/10/15/the-ordway-still-doesnt-get-sexism-and-racism-the-problem-with-miss-saigon/ to http://www.racialicious.com/2013/10/15/the-ordway-still-doesnt-get-sexism-and-racism-the-problem-with-miss-saigon/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Miss Saigon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420212111/http://www.playbill.com/celebritybuzz/article/75222.html to http://www.playbill.com/celebritybuzz/article/75222.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402061014/http://world-theatres.com/longruns.html to http://www.world-theatres.com/longruns.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C970956%2C00.html?iid=chix-sphere
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927201939/http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/awards/winners to http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/awards/winners
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Miss Saigon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821233314/http://www.miss-saigon.com/theshow/inspirations.htm to http://www.miss-saigon.com/theshow/inspirations.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821054252/http://www.miss-saigon.com/factsandfigures/ to http://www.miss-saigon.com/factsandfigures/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820055847/http://www.miss-saigon.com/theshow/index.htm to http://www.miss-saigon.com/theshow/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309060539/http://www.bigleague.org/highlights_saigon.htm to http://www.bigleague.org/highlights_saigon.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151003022619/http://www.tcgcircle.org/2013/10/establishing-cultural-norms-our-role-and-responsibility/ to http://www.tcgcircle.org/2013/10/establishing-cultural-norms-our-role-and-responsibility/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013092625/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/133993-The-Movie-in-My-Mind-Miss-Saigon-on-Track-for-Film-Treatment to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/133993-The-Movie-in-My-Mind-Miss-Saigon-on-Track-for-Film-Treatment
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208171756/http://musical.org.nz/miss_saigon_photo_christchurch.htm to http://www.musical.org.nz/miss_saigon_photo_christchurch.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208171753/http://musical.org.nz/saigon_christchurch_cast.htm to http://www.musical.org.nz/saigon_christchurch_cast.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Miss Saigon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724174512/http://www.bomlo-nytt.no/index.cfm?event=doLink&famId=92973 to http://www.bomlo-nytt.no/index.cfm?event=doLink&famId=92973
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307160617/http://www.miss-saigon.com/tour/ to http://www.miss-saigon.com/tour
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090714062249/http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/18/18_yellow.html to http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/18/18_yellow.html
*Added  tag to http://brightlightsfilm.com/certain-slant-brief-history-hollywood-yellowface/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Miss Saigon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120430204135/http://www.modelminority.com/article970.html to http://www.modelminority.com/article970.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I just added a section based upon the chapter on Miss Saigon from National abjection : the Asian American body on stage by Karen Shimakawa. That was just deleted under the grounds that another editor suspected it was copied in its entirety from her book. What was written was based upon her book, but it was not a copy. Her book is a RS and I very strongly feel that the material based upon her book would improve this article. Are any objections to restoring it? Thank you all for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said; I don't have access to the source material but I'll take your word for it the text isn't plagiarized. That being said, I don't think Wikipedia is the place to include a full scale analysis of the themes of any kind fictional material. Furthermore, there is a Controversy section already in the article, I'd suggest incorporating the objections raised by Shimakawa into that text. DragonFury (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you DragonFury. There are lots of other articles with books and films that analysis sections, and putting the material from Shimakawa's book into the controversy section might be a bit misleading. Thank you for your time and co-operation. Cheers! --A.S. Brown (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, DragonFury, this proprietary tone you are taking under which you graciously grant me permission to edit this article smacks very much of sounding you are claiming ownership of this article. I going to say this as politely as I can that this is not an helpful way to operate. A qualitative approach is much better than your quantitative approach. 20k bytes of good content that actually explains to the reader what the controversy is all about certainly improves an article. To be frank, I do not understand your objections to bring academic sources to an encyclopedia article, which improves an article. Since when does using proper academic sources damage an article? This is absurd. Likewise, I did not understand why you deleted the part about the media in 1990 gave almost as much coverage to this controversy as they did to the Gulf crisis, which shows it struck a nerve with the public. Making a comment in the talk section without informing me is no reason to delete a great deal of good material that improves an article. As edit warring is not allowed, I will not revert your deletions as much I disapprove. Ideally, one get a consensus here to restore my contributions, but it seems there is no-one else interested in this dispute. This is another example of how one stubborn editor can stymie improving an article by merely being stubborn. You deleted my first attempt to contribute to this article by accusing me of plagiarism without presenting any proof whatsoever, which is again not a constructive way to operate.  However, I will make a good faith attempt to resolve this dispute. I take it that you will not object if I created a sub-article for the Miss Saigion controversy, which should take care of your concerns about length. --A.S. Brown (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Karen Shimakawa

message: U.S.Marines are not considered to be an American G.I.. 89.8.137.70 (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid point, corrected.DragonFury (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Marine is not a G.I. 

message: The article indicates that the musical was first produced in London, notwithstanding that the composer, book writers, and one of the two lyricists are French. When and where was the first French-language production? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production history in France? 

message: There is no section on the response of theater critics.  This is an important part of a theater article.  Instead we had "Response" with nothing but awards info (I moved it).  I am adding one critical response and I hope others can add more.  Zaslav (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical response