Talk:Lea Salonga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.


Musical Theatre Portal
Lea Salonga is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start Class
WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks:


This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Article rated B Class

As of last assessment on February 5, 2008.Aldreen (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Aldreen (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Someone add a reference to her song with Julio iglesias

hey dudus, somebody should add that to the page, haven't you been keeping up with the news lately?

[edit] It's a GIRL!!

Congrats to the new parents!

It's a girl? It's just now that knew that! (Girlvader21 10:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Whistle register

When does she sing in the whistle register? Myke 05:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC) She sings in the whistle register on her albums but if want to know a song she sings in it see the song from the Mulan II soundtrack. User:Ajblakeney

I´d like to build the world are home and fruinish it with love Grow apple trees and honey bees and snow white turtle doves

I´d like to see the world for once......

[edit] Re: citations

I think we can remove the notation now. Aside from the fact that most of the information here is very common and public knowledge in the musical theater industry and to everyone in her native country, the article now has way more than enough citations, with practically every sentence referenced. :)Aldreen 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lakandula Award

i think we also need to add Lea Salonga's Lakandula Award.

here's some references

http://www.gov.ph/news/?i=17170 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsxQMgzFg6k http://www.streetrat.net/2007/02/08/lea-salonga-gets-philippine-honor-of-lakandula http://uw.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=65973

Magasin 20:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Added. Thanks for the info.128.97.222.131 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous

Salonga's homecoming for Miss Saigon, Manila was in late September 2000, not 2001.

Regine Velasquez's page is a shrine as it is; there is no need for any further mention of her in another artist's article, even if she did perform at the Carnegie Hall.69.237.149.212 20:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So special!

and TALENTED blah blah blah only Asian to ever... blah blah blah... filipino pride... too positive. not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.222.138 (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Huh? What entries are so controversial that people should have to take sides and make sure that nothing is perceived as "positive" and be exclusively "neutral"? (By the way, there really is no such thing, honey; if it's stated that she has won an award, that's a "positive," no matter how "neutral" you want to fake it.) Salonga is a multi-awarded performer (she's talented and whether you like it or not, that's a given and not an unsubstantiated claim by some die-hard fanatic) who is widely respected both for the way she carries herself on and off-stage. If she does something bad, be assured that it will be mentioned here, since there are so many people anyway who exhibit "crab mentality" and are just dying to see her make a fool of herself at some point, so they can put her down. In the meantime, why complain about people mentioning her "positive" accomplishments in a "positive" way? Do you want people to write "Unfortunately, she won the Tony Award, and having beaten veteran actors who were also nominated, her winning practically insulted them, and therefore she should not be a source of pride to her native country and to aspiring professionals who look up to her" so that it doesn't sound "positive"? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? The items here, in this very short article about Salonga, in fact, aren't nearly half as "positive" as those of other celebrities' on Wikipedia.24.205.6.42 07:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)24.205.6.42 20:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)24.205.6.42 20:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Guys, Wikipedia is not a messageboard/forum/chatboard, so please refrain from discussing these matters on this Talk page or even on the article itself. This Talk page is for suggesting changes and improvements to the article. Thanks. --- Tito Pao 19:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the reminder, but isn't the Discussion Section essentially the place to discuss matters, including disagreements, pertaining to how information is posted on the article? Anyway, having said that, I think that adding pictures (which are SORELY lacking in the article) and including more information about Ms. Salonga's activities (the article has A LOT of MISSING information such as song festivals joined, concerts in the Philippines, and other awards received) would have been a more productive way of moving forward with the article rather than user 75.45.222.138's complaint about how "positive" the entries seem to be. And I totally agree with user 24.205.6.42 that there is nothing so "controversial" about Ms. Salonga that should make people so vigilant about posters taking sides. In fact, one criticism levelled at Ms. Salonga is that her career and life are so "straight and simple" that she borders on the "boring" side. She is not a celebrity like Britney Spears whose articles have to be monitored closely for "neutrality" because she generates either so much love or hatred that so many people take extreme sides with her. In Ms. Salonga's case, users should focus more on updating and making the existing short article as comprehensive as possible, rather than whining about how there doesn't seem to be enough negatives about Ms. Salonga to balance the positives. This is so ridiculous indeed!128.97.222.131 21:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)128.97.222.131 21:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)128.97.222.131 21:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


we're not using it as a fucking chatboard. i am obviously complaining about the neutrality of the article. as for your argument, 128.97.222.131, most of that has nothing to do with what i said. i never said "Unfortunately, she won the Tony Award, and having beaten veteran actors who were also nominated, her winning practically insulted them, and therefore she should not be a source of pride to her native country and to aspiring professionals who look up to her" where the fuck did that come from? "The items here...aren't nearly half as "positive" as those of other celebrities' on Wikipedia." not true. find me these articles, and filipinos don't count. filipinos have a habit of promoting their idols in wikipedia articles (Regine is one example) (don't get me wrong, i love filipino culture. but they can be too proud in inappropriate situations). even if your statement was true, it's a null point. it does not mean this article shouldn't be neutral. neutrality isn't the same as "balancing out the positives with negatives". neutrality is leaving facts alone: free of analysis. when i wrote my previous comment (Oct. 12), among the more subtle bias, some of these more obviously inappropriate excerpts could be found:
-no other Filipino has achieved the same international recognition as Salonga.
-The members of the panel were "bowled over" by Salonga's rendition of the songs.
-Her poignant portrayal of Agnes...
this does not belong in a wikipedia article, as they are unverified opinions.
in addition to that, there are too many unimportant details, such as:
-Salonga chose to sing Boublil and Schönberg's "On My Own" from Les Misérables, and was later asked to sing "Sun and Moon" to test her voice quality's compatibility with the songs in the music
-Salonga competed with childhood friend and fellow Repertory Philippines performer Monique Wilson as they were tested with songs from the musical.[19] One of the songs was "Too Much for One Heart", a number replaced by the notable duet "Please" right before the musical opened.[20] Salonga was offered the lead role, with Wilson as the alternate (who was also assigned the role of bar girl Mimi).
-Maricel Soriano, who won for her performance as a troubled battered wife in Dahas.
-This was after the reinvented musical had a very successful run at the Ahmanson Theatre in Los Angeles in 2001,
-The show was given a brand new libretto which presented Asian-Americans with more dignity than the original, but it also played with the stereotypes. It was considered one of the 10 best plays on Broadway in 2002 by Time Magazine. The musical, which started as a hit on Broadway, later encountered financial difficulties due to a lack of sponsorhips, and had to close after a short run.[62] It did garner Tony Award nominations for Best Book, Best Costume Designer, and Best Choreographer,[63] and earned nominations from the Outer Critics Circle,[64] the Drama League,[65] the Astaire Awards,[66] Broadway.com's Audience Awards, and Broadwayworld.com's Fans' Choice Awards as well.[67] The well-received Broadway revival cast album was also a top contender at the 2003 Grammy Awards for Best Musical Show Album.[68]
-with a 26-piece ensemble to a sold-out crowd of 2,804
-The award is given to Filipino performers who have received international acclaim and prestige for their work
-serenaded Filipino audiences with her rendition of "As If We Never Said Goodbye" from the musical Sunset Boulevard.
-the closing ceremony concluded with a song "Triumph of The One" sung by Salonga at the Khalifa Stadium before an audience of 50,000 people.
-On September 27, 2007, Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who was in New York, proceeded to Broadway's Broadhurst Theater (235 West 44th Street) to watch Salonga in her new role in the musical. The cast for that night included Filipino-Americans Adam Jacobs as Marius and Ali Ewoldt as Cosette.
-a number of performances, including a guest stint at the US Military Academy Band's forthcoming concert at West Point where she performed 4 songs -- On My Own from Les Miserables, I Enjoy Being A Girl from Flower Drum Song, Nothing from A Chorus Line, and Reflection from Mulan -- and an encore of One Voice from her new album,
-She was named after Lea Salonga's late mother-in-law, Beverly Chien.
the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide an overview of a specific topic, presumably to people who know nothing of that topic. this article doesn't need to be any more comprehensive, believe me. in fact, it needs a lot of surgery. we do not need to know whom her daughter is named after, how many ppl were in the audience down to the last-fucking-individual, how many instruments she was accompanied by, in-depth descriptions of her audition processes, biographies of who she lost to, bios of who she's sung with, note of every single performance and where and for whom, or which specific songs she sang. a brief biography and discography along with a more concise description of her career and more notable achievements would suffice. i'll get to work on it if i have time. btw, i AM a fan of Lea Salonga. so don't start no shit about me saying things i haven't said. i just don't think she deserves a shit article like this. her achievements and awards should speak for themselves. the article doesn't need to tell the reader what to think. like you said, an award is a positive, whether one likes it or not. btw, i think whoever's been editing this article should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid75.45.184.228 (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


Not to prolong this petty argument, (1) but the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide COMPREHENSIVE information about a topic. If it were to just provide a brief overview, no entry would be more than a sentence; in fact, it wouldn’t even have to be a sentence, just a listing. Any person who has ACTUALLY READ an encyclopedia should know this. Thus, your fallacy and argument to remove detailed information about Salonga's upcoming stints, the FAMAS Awards, and other information YOU don’t personally care about don’t hold up. Don’t speak for the rest of us readers. (2) There is nothing wrong with the posted statements in the article. They’re very informative and are well-documented & verifiable and are not personal opinions of the posters. For instance, the line about Miss Saigon producers being “bowled over” during her auditions was mentioned several times in newspaper and magazine reports in London and in the Philippines that came out two decades ago; that fact could be seen in the documentary about Miss Saigon, and Cameron Mackintosh said such in interviews that came out during that time. Maybe you should interview Cameron yourself if you're not satisfied? The only revision I would probably suggest to posters is to add the qualifier “in the field of theater” in the line “no other Filipino has…” so that it is not misconstrued as a fact that applies to all Filipinos in all fields. (3) LIE as you may want, it is obvious that you have a bone to pick with Filipinos. So please don’t involve the rest of us readers in your personal dislike of Filipinos and please don’t insult our intelligence by claiming that you “love Filipino culture,” that you’re “a fan” of Lea Salonga, etc., veiling your intention in the guise of "neutrality." (4) Watch your language. Filling your essay with loads of "shit" and "fuck" does not a credible and decent poster make and will make your readers only short of thinking that you're just a VANDAL.24.205.39.3 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)24.205.39.3 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


i am a filipino. stop assuming things. whether i say "shit" or "fuck" is not a reason to dismiss my perfectly legitimate points. i am a fan of Lea Salonga and you have no basis to refute that. i have not "vandalized" anything. i haven't touched anything on that page as of yet, except tag it for neutrality. i haven't vandalized anything on this page. look at all the evidence of bias i have provided. you have dropped many of my points, from which i can conclude that my points ARE valid, and that the article does have neutrality issues. i apologize for my mistake, you are right that an article should be comprehensive, but much of the information is way too in-depth. u need to draw the line somewhere. the article is about SALONGA, not the musical she's played in or how many awards that play has won or, like i said before, whom her daughter was named after. "the line about Miss Saigon producers being “bowled over” during her auditions was mentioned several times in newspaper and magazine reports in London and in the Philippines that came out two decades ago; that fact could be seen in the documentary about Miss Saigon, and Cameron Mackintosh said such in interviews that came out during that time." if there is no citation, then it does not belong in the article. also, "poignant" is not a neutral adjective. btw, this dispute HASN'T REACHED A CONCLUSION so stop removing that neutrality tag until it has. read the fucking wikipedia guidelines. your point (3) is full of assumptions, and has zero proof, and therefore is not valid. provide me with proof of anything you say and i'll believe it. until then, stop fucking removing that neutrality tag. and read the fucking guidelines. you're pissing me off with all these assumptions about me because (a) even if i truly was the way you assume me to be, that doesn't get us anymore closer to fixing the article, (b) belittling me and insulting me does not mean that nothing i suggest is worth consideration. the article has been rated Start-Class, and not by me. so it obviously needs improvement. "veiling your intention in the guise of "neutrality."" WHAT THE HELL IS MY "TRUE" INTENTION, THEN? HUH? because i HAVE provided substantial proof of my claims. it'd be nice if you didn't assume shit about me and use those assumptions as reasons to ignore me. actually, here's a better idea: quit talking about me and start discussing the article! 75.45.184.228 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


To the racist vandal who keeps playing with the neutrality tag (75.45...) – here’s a lesson for you: Comments are only as good and credible as the one making them. Your claim is flawed and is as empty as your credibility. Your condescending tone and your racist words speak for themselves, despite your lofty claims to the contrary. If you hate Filipinos that much that you have to make such a sweeping generalization that Filipinos tend to be too proud and have a habit of promoting their celebrities, and even have to drag the innocent Regine Valsquez into the picture, why bother reading articles about Filipino celebrities? Get a life and don’t involve other people in your misery, as we don’t love your company.Carasubie (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


i'm really flattered by your little crush on me but i don't respond to insults. notice the big sign up at the top of this discussion page that says this is a START CLASS article? that means this article needs improvement, and i am trying to help. please stop talking about me and assuming that i hate filipinos, that i do not have a life, and that i am miserable. i am not a vandal. the only thing i have done to the article is tag it for neutrality, and until this dispute has reached a consensus, you are not supposed to remove it. i have given reasons as to why i thing the article is not neutral, yet you dismiss it because of your baseless assumptions about ME. "Comments are only as good and credible as the one making them." not true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem. just because you have a beef with me does not mean this article is perfect. until it is up to standard, i will be adamant about tagging it for neutrality, and in addition, actively seek help in improving the article, and hopefully involve a 3rd person, because i can't stand refuting your condescending tone against ME. in fact, let's end this: i concede. i'm racist, bigoted, miserable, unemployed, uneducated bitch. happy? now please, help me improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.184.228 (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Oh, puh-leez! Playing the “victim” does not befit you. You are such a drama queen. And you can’t hide under that fallacy link you’ve provided, as your presentation lacks both substance and form. Your entire basis for playing with the neutrality tag is predicated on your claim of unverified opinions (wrong) and detailed information (as according to you, encyclopedias are supposed to be only overviews - clearly wrong), made worse by your unnecessary racist and persistent condescending remarks clothed in foul language. You’re nothing but a racist troll trying to play with this Wikipedia article on the pretense of concern. Get a life and don’t involve others in your misery.Carasubie (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


This article, like any other article on Wikipedia, could always use improvements. As it stands, however, I find nothing inherently wrong with it, as it provides a lot of reportage and not personal opinions, plus it is very well documented -- in fact, this is an excellent example of an article that makes extensive use of citations. Information such as Salonga's parents or daughter are biographical in nature and it is Wikipedia's intention to make biographical information as comprehensive and as detailed as possible.Mod575 (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


I agree. ANY article, even GA or A-class ones, could ALWAYS benefit from improvements. This article is no exception, and contributors and editors have been engaged in continuing improvements of this article for many months. And they have been doing that without anyone having to preach to them that they have to edit, why they have to edit, blah, blah, blah. So to have some troll insinuate that they're just a bunch of idiots who don't even know what a start-class article is and that the article needs improvement (isn't that exactly why there have been on-going edits for months? Duh!) and for all these contributors to be summarily dismissed as a group of proud people promoting their idols, etc. etc., with Filipinos being singled out, is simply way out of line. These posters have their own lives, and slow in coming the changes might be, they do come. They're not like some vandal who has nothing else to do but read articles about Filipinos s/he hates to begin with and then decides to lash out at everyone on the pretext of being a "fan" wanting to "help" (what a joke!) With "fans" like that, who needs enemies?128.97.222.131 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)128.97.222.131 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks to all posters who have provided information and to the editors for the fixes and clean-ups (kudos to Arch23 and Aldreen for the grammatical edits and the many citations). Everyone's continuing efforts since this article was created are appreciated.24.205.39.3 16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)24.205.39.3 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


I'M SO TIRED OF YOUR SPECIAL FUCKING IDOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.121.115 (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


JUST WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE REMOVING PRACTICALLY THE ENTIRE ARTICLE THAT MANY CONTRIBUTORS HAVE WORKED SO HARD ON!?! As has already been said, if you don't like Filipinos and Filipino celebrities, don't read Filipino-related articles on Wikipedia, racist troll! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.39.3 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 24.205.39.3 (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


that wasn't me- check the IP address, i'm not an idiot, and you're not listening to what i have to say. i have provided concrete examples of things i consider biased, and whether i hate Lea or not, you as an editor are obligated to consider and address them individually. how am i a troll? i have not deleted any of the article at all. that is complete bullshit- again, check the IP address. all i did was tag the article for neutrality. stop bashing me and start critiquing the article.
"And you can’t hide under that fallacy link you’ve provided." yes i can, and i'm not hiding.
"as your presentation lacks both substance and form." form, yes. substance, no. i've given proof. you, however, have not provided any proof that i hate Lea, that i'm a troll, or anything of the sort, and you have still not given reason as to why you have the right to dismiss my evidence by saying that i am a troll.
"Your entire basis for playing with the neutrality tag is predicated on your claim of unverified opinions (wrong)" that doesn't mean you can delete the neutrality tag. how is it wrong, anyway?
and detailed information (as according to you, encyclopedias are supposed to be only overviews - clearly wrong)" i already admitted i was wrong.
"made worse by your unnecessary racist and persistent condescending remarks clothed in foul language." you are more condescending than i am. i've only refuted your continuous attacks against me. even if i was racist and "condescending", that's still no reason to dismiss my remarks. look it up.
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.187.68 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

you are so pissing me off —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinoysrbad (talk • contribs) 02:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

YOU NEED TO GET A LIFE, you racist idiot! (I reverted the edit made on yours, Arch.)24.205.39.3 (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] VANDAL ALERTS:

122.57.119.71 Changes made on info box.Arch23 17:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 193.188.105.230 and 75.45.184.228.24.205.39.3 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)24.205.39.3 (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 64.83.121.11524.205.39.3 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Pinoysrbad 24.205.39.3 (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


COULD SOMEONE PLEASE FIX THE MESS THAT ONE/SOME OF THE MOST RECENT POSTERS MADE? The first line under "International career" should NOT be boxed, plus the pictures are missing! Thanks! KarenSB (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)KarenSB (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Uterine lockdown

I added this 2 years uterine block, due to Cinderella and other appointments: Lea Salonga revealed to ABS-CBN her uterine lockdown due to various commitments, including, inter alia, the musical "Cinderella" where she contracted to plays the lead role until 2009. It is a CCP production of Rodgers and Hammersteins’ Cinderella.manilatimes.net/national, Cinderella and the OFW phenomenon She will perform for "Lea: My Life Onstage" a special concert / a nostalgic trip / memoir through time, from 1978 to the present, on May 23 and 24, 2008 at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC).Abs-Cbn Interactive, Lea Salonga's contract: No baby for the next 2 years --Florentino floro (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)