Talk:The Greatest Showman

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Film: American This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2018, when it received 10,301,954 views.

We shouldn’t be putting every review on the internet in the Reception section. Wikipedia is clear about this; cited reviews should be from promenant and reliable sources, meaning they have a Wikipedia article about them or are at least featured on Metacritic, meaning they’re one of the top 50 outlets. Otherwise film articles run the risk of falling out of line with being neutral, as its easy to include blogs and smaller sites to fit a narrative. (cc CerberaOdollam) TropicAces (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]

Feel free to trim it down. JDDJS (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TropicAces: These are on Rotten Tomatoes. If Rotten Tomatoes' reviews are not reliable then how is that you mention to this website's average rating & critical consensus??? CerberaOdollam (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not every review on Rotten Tomatoes is reliable. Rotten Tomatoes includes lots of self-published bloggers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: So we shouldn't take Rotten Tomatoes' rating as a criterion, right? CerberaOdollam (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes itself is reliable, but not every review cataloged on Rotten Tomatoes is reliable. They have to be vetted individually. We have different standards than Rotten Tomatoes. We still use their rating and consensus, though, because many sources consider it to be a reliable aggregator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense. 'itself is reliable, but its reviews not'??? Rotten Tomatoes is made of these reviews. The rating & aggregate is based on these reviews. If Rotten Tomatoes rating is reliable then the reviews that made that rating is reliable too. CerberaOdollam (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. We have our own standards for

reliable sources, and not every review on Rotten Tomatoes will satisfy them. We use the aggregate scores from Rotten Tomatoes because the site itself is reliable, not because every review on it is reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

the site itself is reliable but not every review on it is reliable: Sorry but this sentence is not sensible and coherent. Your words contradict each other. CerberaOdollam (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CerberaOdollam NinjaRobotPirate you're being very passive aggressive here and it’s becoming clear that you just aren’t willing to accept the consensus here. Wikipedia is a group venture; at a point you’re going to have to realize that. I feel Ninja has been more than fair and clear with their explanation. TropicAces (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]

@TropicAces:"Aggressive"?? This is just a calm discussion. Please do not prejudge & label others. I'd never add a review here if it wasn't from a credible source. for example, CLTure is an official music, film and arts publication. Why would you say it is not valid? CerberaOdollam (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CerberaOdollam: well I said “passive aggressive” which is something very different, and CLTure doesn’t seem to have a Wikipedia page so (to me) it would seem they aren’t valid enough to be worth mentioning (as both Ninja and I have stated). TropicAces (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]

Just because it doesn’t have a Wikipedia page it means it's invalid & uncredible?? What is that mean? There are billions of contents in the world that still don't have a WP page. CerberaOdollam (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, his first wife was named Charity, and his museum burned down (twice), but aside from that, it's all bunk. The daughters never growing up is annoying as hell...Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is really a major problem with this page. This movie was so blatantly fictional and mean spirited in the way it presented the fictional relationship between Barnum and the opera singer. Someone should fix this. The reviews also seem a bit biased. It has a 53% positive score but well more than half the reviews are positive. 03:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arglebargle79 I just added an Historical Inaccuracies section under Critical Reception. I think there are more that could be added but at least it's a start. MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there tracklisting on this page even if there is a separate page for the soundtrack album of this movie? HARSH RATHOD (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a musical film and these are the musical numbers of the movie. It has nothing to do with the soundtrack album's article. CerberaOdollam (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has received generally favourable reviews.Apkflash 1 (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The page is wrong saying "mixed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.56.89.219 (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I think the current Reception section is too favorable. I just looked it up on Rotten Tomatoes and it currently has a 56% critic score. That's "mostly favorable" but only by a little, yet as of when I write this, I think about 75% or more of the reviews listed in the Reception section are highly favorable and the few negative ones have much less detail. 56% says that there should be roughly the same number of positive as negative reviews. Also, many of the negative ones were very negative talking about how the film is essentially a work of fiction and paints a man who exploited people with disabilities as some kind of hero of diversity. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve got every non-notable cast member conceivable listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:6A83:C200:D0F:E514:C1E2:9812 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should do it because I think the film has historical inaccuracies, even though there are historical accuracies in the film. First, if you did watch the film, then you can analyze thoroughly before writing the new section. Second, we should find any reliable sources to back up what we claimed in the new section. Third, I think we should mention P. T. Barnum's politics since the film didn't mention it. Finally, this video mentioned historical inaccuracies, if you don't analyze the film thoroughly. This video was made by Joseph Hall-Patton, who was distantly related to George S. Patton. I think that's it from me. You can start a new section without me, even though I will be here to start a new section. Emotioness Expression (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the main point of a post a few topics above this one and I agree, absolutely. It isn't just that there are historical inaccuracies in the film. There are in just about any film based on historical events. It's that in this case they were so egregious and violated the very values that the film espoused. And most importantly they were discussed quite a bit in the media. If no one else is going to work on this I may give it a shot. I don't have much time but I might have time to at least start something. But if someone else wants to do it, please speak up, I'm kind of busy. MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a "Historical Inaccuracies" section under "Critical Reception". I think there are more inaccuracies that could be added but at least this is a start. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How come talks of a sequel aren't mentioned on here? -

Resolved

 – As a broad stroke, ensemble characters that were sourced to a Tumblr blog have been uncited, and names ascribed to them have been removed, leaving only their names as credited in the film. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article refers to a minor character as "Oriental Man".

The term "oriental" as applied to people is offensive and pejorative in both British and American English. See Orient#Current usage. The film itself does not refer to the character as "Oriental"; the character is credited as "Ensemble Dancer #2". That is, it is the Wikipedia article that introduces the pejorative "Oriental"

The term was corrected to the nonpejorative "Asian" by an IP editor with the edit summary "Oriental is an offensive way to describe someone so i changed it".

HiLo48 reverted it with the summary "Asian is too vague. Oriental would have been tor word used at the time."

That's probably correct: but completely irrelevant. If the character was not referred to as "oriental man" in the film or its credits, Wikipedia should not be introducing the pejorative term.

Because I think the IP editor had it right, I reverted back; ("Undid good-faith revision 981718403 by HiLo48 (talk); it would have been used at the time, but Wikipedia does not have to use it; note he is credited as "Ensemble Dancer #2" not "Oriental Man"; no reason for enwiki to adopt an insensitive word when the film does not").

HiLo47 again reverted: "Reverted. Asian is unclear. It could mean a Jordanian. Please take this to the Talk page."

So, here we are. Should the a Wikipedia article introduce a pejorative term for a minority group that was not in use in the film itself? If HiLo48 truly believes a reader would think this is referring to a Jordanian, which seems unlikely to me, I'd be okay with something along the lines of "East Asian", but since they've already indicated what seems to be a pretty strong preference for the pejorative, I figure let's get the consensus and took their invitation for a talk page discussion. TJRC (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t the cast/characters names be listed as they are credited for the film? I see no mention of either “Asian man” or “Oriental man” anywhere, instead having it as “Ensemble Dancer #2”. KaitoNkmra23 talk 02:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TJRC - I didn't want to turn this into a big fight, but you are misrepresenting sources, and attributing views to me on absolutely no basis at all. This is a fraught area, and I know many people have very rigid ideas on these terms. My rigid view is that Asian is a terrible descriptor. It is appallingly inaccurate. And sloppy. It means very different things in colloquial British English and American English, and the literal meaning is obviously different again. Do you know the history of the use of "Asian" in the way the IP editor used it? East Asian is not much better. Still very sloppy, and does not really describe what is meant when it is used. The link you provided DOES NOT say "The term "oriental" as applied to people is offensive and pejorative..." It is much more qualified and nuanced than that. And I DO NOT have a strong preference for the pejorative. That is confrontational language. I would not use that language myself to describe anyone in today's society, but I believe it fits in this story. If people here really think the word is pejorative IN THIS CONTEXT, I shall bow to consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask the same thing as KaitoNkmra23. All of the cast members with references link to the same Tumblr blog, but not the exact post. As Tumblr is a blogging service I seriously doubt it can be considered a

reliable source. Even IMDb credits the actors with "names" like "Ensemble Dancer #2". I believe we should think about removing these titles that seemed to be assigned to them arbitrarily and simply say something like Alex Wong as Ensemble Dancer #2. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I will also remind editors that Wikipedia is

not censored. If that is what Wong's character is actually referred to in the show, then that would be strong support for keeping "Oriental Man" in. Otherwise, reducing the character descriptions is the ideal course of action. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I totally agree on the

WP:NOTCENSORED. If the role were listed as "Oriental Man", then that's how it should be stated. My objection is introducing the term "oriental" to describe a person into the Wikipedia article. TJRC (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:FILMCAST states that “All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source”. The source provided for Wong’s character, as Tenryuu had said before, is Tumblr, which is a website that wouldn’t classify as a reliable source. His character should be listed in the article as credited, unless a reliable source says otherwise. Keeping the cast/characters as credited is probably the best option at the moment. Same goes for every other character that may contain this misconception. KaitoNkmra23 talk 06:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Keep as "Oriental Man". The source given refers to the character as Oriental Man and should be kept as such.
2. Change it to "(East) Asian Man". The use of "Oriental" is pejorative and should not be used if possible.
3. Remove "Oriental Man" and just credit the actor with what he is referred to in the film. The source provided is not reliable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite correct. There is no indication that the film or any source referred to him as "Oriental Man"; that's pretty much the point. The term "Oriental man" as used in this article is Wikipedia's own characterization, not from a source.

The Tumblr page, for what it was once worth, is no longer available to view, but that passage, including the Tumblr reference, was added here, and reads "Alex Wong as Oriental Man, a man dressed in an oriental outfit. He was credited as 'Ensemble Dancer #2.'".

The question is, if the film credits the role as 'Ensemble Dancer #2,' should Wikipedia instead report that as "Oriental Man"?

If the role were actually credited as "Oriental Man", there would be no question that "Oriental Man" should appear in the article, per

WP:NOTCENSORED. The issue is whether Wikipedia should, on its own, introduce the characterization the role as "Oriental Man" when the film does not do so and no source (reliable or otherwise) relied upon by the article uses the term. TJRC (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

That's the point I'm making. Since I wasn't here for when the source was added, I'm assuming that was the rationale for using "Oriental Man": a source that isn't reliable per Wikipedia's standards. It is possible that the character is based off of a real person known as Oriental Man in Barnum's shows, but that remains to be seen. As there isn't a reliable source for any of those characters in the cast list, I personally believe they should be reformatted and use only the roles credited to them in the film. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I want to make clear is that even the edit that added the phrase stated that the role was credited as "Ensemble Dancer #2"; and not as "Oriental Man". There appears to be no source, reliable or otherwise, that used "Oriental Man"; that's a Wikipedia invention. TJRC (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who have taken part in this discussion (TJRC—KaitoNkmra23—HiLo48), given what we've discussed, I propose the following (not set in stone):

The cast list should only refer to actors and their roles' names, unless their description is pertinent to the plot of the film. Alternative names should not be used unless it has been mentioned within the film or in reputable sources.

I realise that this may also remove pre-existing trivia like Sam Humphrey as Charles Stratton, a dwarf performer who is also known by his stage name General Tom Thumb. In performing this role, Humphrey had to walk on his knees since he was taller than the actual Stratton. If evidence that alternative names are given is shown to exist, we can re-discuss list items on a case-by-case basis. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I withdrew from this discussion to watch how it progressed, and haven't been impressed. My earlier comments stand. I actually have more concerns now. This man got his description for some reason, and nobody seems to be able to say why. We need to know. Someone said his name was Wong. Where did that come from? It's obvious political correctness and a desire to not offend anyone is influencing some here. That's not a good basis for writing an encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for pinging you. I will respond to give my view if you are interested in checking back in.

• This man got his description for some reason, and nobody seems to be able to say why. Without digging into the article's history, it's most likely from the Tumblr source that was used. I'm suggesting that in the absence of a reliable source (or a time from the movie), that information (and the citation) should be removed.
• Someone said his name was Wong. Where did that come from? Alex Wong is the name of the actor who assumes the role in question. He appears in the external links given (e.g., IMDb full cast and AllMovie cast list).
• It's obvious political correctness and a desire to not offend anyone is influencing some here. While I won't deny that we are somewhat influenced by political correctness, TJRC said that using "Oriental" would be unnecessary [i]f the character was not referred to as "oriental man" in the film or its credits; they also said that they would amenable to the inclusion of "Oriental" [i]f the role were actually credited as "Oriental Man". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the ping was fine. And what you've said there seems better informed and less emotionally driven than a lot of comments that have been made before. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: I’m satisfied to proceed with that proposal. KaitoNkmra23 talk 03:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: Sounds good to me.

For what it's worth, I don't get the claim that this discussion is emotionally driven. Two editors, of which I was one, removed the article's characterization of a role using a term widely seen as pejorative and that had no evidence of actually being the way the role was listed in the film. One other editor twice reverted those edits, in the last edit suggesting it be taken to the talk page. I did so, describing the issue and quoting the exact words from the edit summaries. I used quotes precisely to keep it neutral and to avoid characterizing others. Do I disagree with adding the term here when it's not used in the film? Yes. Am I "emotionally driven"? No. It's not "political correctness" to avoid introducing a word widely seen as pejorative to a group of people. It would be one thing to, per

WP:NOTCENSORED, faithfully reproduce it from the film; That would be appropriate. It is quite another for Wikipedia to use the term in its own voice. That's all I'm saying here. TJRC (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

"I don't get the claim that this discussion is emotionally driven." The complaint was that a word is pejorative. It's being alleged the word is an insult. That's obviously about emotions. HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means." TJRC (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't know what that comment means. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just focus on what we came here to do: resolve the issue of extraneous details from an unreliable source. I've deleted most of the trivia from the source and wiped out said source from the cast list. I left in some descriptive stuff for the more important characters; deciding what to do with those (should it come to that) should be discussed in another section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a disconnect between citing John Debney and Joseph Trapanese in the sidebar for the music, and in the body of the article giving Pasek and Paul credit for the music. Are Debney and Trapanese responsible for symphonic scores and Pasek and Paul responsible for musical numbers? Henceforth516 (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my own post, with further research it looks like this is the case. Debney appears to have been the original composer, then Trapanese signed on later. Pasek and Paul, however, wrote the lyrical songs. The soundtrack gives Pasek and Paul credit right on the cover, but the soundtrack also only includes songs, no symphonic score or title music. IMDB credits definitely give Debney and Trapanese credit for music ^[1] but note Pasek as "production music supervisor" and Paul as "music producer, production music supervisor, vocal arrangements by, and vocal producer and coach." Debney is specifically credited as "music score coordinator" and Trapenese is listed as "music producer."

I'm going to suggest that Pasek and Paul be added to the Music sidebar credit. Henceforth516 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tianhao Ning (article contribs).