Talk:The Greatest Showman

Featured reviews in Critical response

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

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

@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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

@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

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)

It should be mentioned somewhere that the film is entirely fictional.

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)

Music section

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)

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)

Reception

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

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

Cast section is a joke

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)

Should we start a new section called "Historical accuracies"?

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)

Sequel?

How come talks of a sequel aren't mentioned on here? - Cineplex (talk) 11:26PM - June 7, 2020

"Oriental Man"

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)

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)