Talk:Mormon Miracle Pageant

Structure

Per Val42's criticism of my structure of the article:
The original structure was better thought out. The "Content" is really an extension of the basic description in the intro, and the section on "Detractors" relates to (and is therefore a subset of) the "Event" itself.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 06:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the way that way that I'd restructured it read slightly better, but not enough to argue over. Val42 06:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

Per Val42's so far cryptic mention of wanting to address POV in the article:
I think I have been very fair in creating this article. If there is POV, it is perhaps that the section entitled "The Event" sounds too much like a tourism bureau advertisement (though it is original text, as is the whole thing). I'm interested in hearing your critique. I do not want the article to carry bias.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 06:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jade Knight has fixed some of the POV. The POV not yet fixed is the first sentence of "The Event"; it does read too pro-LDS Church. The "Content" section has the same problem, but not as much. Val42 06:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What the?

Why all the mormon links in this article? Why not just reference the main article on the LDS church and be done with it? I believe that article has been (and continues to be) well-vetted, with plenty of pro- and anti-mormon links.

And what's with the photo of the dissidents outside the pageant? Can't we get an actual photo FROM the pageant the article is describing? Would we place a photo of anti-war protestors at the head of an article about Bush's innauguration? Sure, the protestors deserve a mention, but putting them at the head of the article??? Am I just crazy or does anyone out there agree with me? --TrustTruth 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. Can anyone provide a better photo? The Jade Knight 03:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, two points: (1) it's the best of my photos from the pageant (it shows the temple from a good angle, people in seats and on street ... this is what the pageant looks like on approach), and (2) since the pageant occurs after dark, it's hard to get a photo of the play itself (that is any good anyway). Any "good" photo is during daytime, and therefore just shows people milling around.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should get a more appropriate picture. But   GUÐSÞEGN   has a point with the difficulty of getting a picture at night. It may also be a copyright violation. (Some performances prohibit photography for copyright reasons. Others just prohibit flash photography so that the actors are not distracted.) The current photo does show the temple, the hill side and the crowd milling about, but the seating isn't shown very well. (Not that we need all of these for a good photo.) But I say that until we get a photo that we think will serve better, we leave this one up. Then this picture can be moved down to the "Detractors" section (whatever it may be called at the time; see my comment regarding the name). Val42 23:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Links

There is no reason this article should not have links that relate to things brought up in the article. Faith-promoting history, house of Joseph links, etc. are relevant. So, I am going to restore them.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Disturbances

I can verify from my own experience (four times there in recent years, staying a week each time) and from talking to people, that I have never known of, or heard of, any disturbance or distraction from the performance itself. Does anyone have any contradictory evidence?    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to make a big deal about it, but it's not really possible to verify a statement like that. The burden of proof is on the person that wants it in the article. Plus, it depends on your definition of "disturbance or distraction". I totally see where you're coming from vis a vis the distractions (for example, you're saying no one's blasting music during the performance or running up the temple hill displaying a banner). But in my personal experience (I've gone 3 or 4 times in my adult life) the big posters of aborted fetuses are disturbing and distracting. And I really wouldn't want my son or daughter seeing that kind of thing. That's why I'm not comfortable with that statement staying in the article (in its current form at least). Convince me otherwise, please!--TrustTruth 19:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That is original research. (Not that I don't believe you) The Jade Knight 20:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. --TrustTruth 21:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the "detracting groups have not been known to disturb or distract from the performance itself" is an accurate statement. It very well may be true that the signs at the approach can be distracting or disturbing, especially for parents facing questions from their children (that's why I said performance itself). I suppose I put that sentence in because the necessary section on "detracting groups" makes it sound like someone attending may think they are going into something especially odious (when it is not). I was trying to think of different language, but really given that all the written sources are promotional material, any section on detractors is original research. Yet, the article would be an inaccurate portrayal without such a section. Perhaps it could be verified by talking to the organizers.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I don't disbelieve you, but that is unquestionably original research, and Wikipedia policy is clear on this matter. The Jade Knight 01:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the "detracting groups" section comes across NPOV and doesn't necessarily make the event seem odious. --TrustTruth 22:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed offending sentence per discussion.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 15:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Detractors

I don't think that this is the best title for this section. "Detractors" sounds like they're interfering with the performance itself. Can someone think of something better? Val42 23:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Critics"? "Protesters"? The Jade Knight 00:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Changed "detractors" to "critics" per discussion. I thought that was a good point. Thanks for bringing it up.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 16:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: edit by User:MessengerAtLWU
I reworded a replacement edit. There is no reason to name particular apologists; national figures get no greater respect in the streets; not to mention there are many others that were not mentioned, and who are just as respected by evangelical Christians.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I think both of the edits you've made recently have improved the article. The Jade Knight 06:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 08:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dissertation

As some have mentioned the need for citing sources and not performing "original research", I came across a doctoral dissertation on this pageant written by a Ph.D. candidate at Bowling Green State Univ. You can find it here: http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/view.cgi?bgsu1124572144. --TrustTruth 16:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)