The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When is Sarah Charles Lewis' Broadway debut date? March 31, 2016, the first day of Tuck Everlasting's previews? Or April 26, 2016, when Tuck Everlasting officially opened? Cunard (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• March 31, 2016, the first day of the previews per the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article.

  The lead originally said that Sarah Charles' Broadway debut was on March 31, 2016. X4n6 (talk · contribs) changed the lead to say April 26, 2016. I reverted, noting a source explicitly saying that Sarah Charles Lewis' Broadway debut was on March 31, 2016, and X4n6 reverted me. I reworded the lead to say she debuted in 2016 to avoid the dispute. However, X4n6 reverted again. Here are the two sources X4n6 is citing to support the April 26, 2016, debut date:

  1. Tuck Everlasting Opens on Broadway Tonight Robert Viagas. Playbill. April 26, 2016. Retrieved April 26, 2016

     The source notes:

     Tuck Everlasting, the new musical about a love that could live literally forever, opens on Broadway tonight at the Broadhurst Theatre. Previews began March 31.

  2. Sarah Charles Lewis. Performer Internet Broadway Database. The Broadway League. 2001- 2016. Retrieved April 30, 2016

     The source notes:

     Tuck Everlasting

     [Musical, Original]

     Starring: Sarah Charles Lewis [Winnie Foster]

     Date of Productions: Apr 26, 2016 - Present

     I noted that the Tuck Everlasting musical page at https://www.ibdb.com/Production/View/501949 says "First Preview: Mar 31, 2016" and "Opening Date: Apr 26, 2016". It makes no ruling on which date is Lewis' Broadway debut.
  Here are the sources I am using to support the March 31, 2016, debut date:
  1. Pirani, Fiza (2016-03-03). "Atlanta tween takes her talents to Broadway". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2016-04-19. Retrieved 2016-04-19.

     The article notes:

     Lewis will make her Broadway debut March 31 at the Broadhurst Theatre in New York City. For more details about the show and how to purchase tickets, visit the website.

  2. http://www.broadway.com/buzz/183770/exclusive-listen-to-sarah-charles-lewis-sing-a-number-from-broadways-tuck-everlasting/ notes: "You can catch Lewis—alongside Andrew Keenan-Bolger, Carolee Carmello and more—at the Broadhurst Theatre beginning March 31."
  3. http://www.theatermania.com/broadway/news/spend-a-day-with-sarah-charles-lewis_76375.html notes: "Eleven-year-old Sarah Charles Lewis is getting ready to make her Broadway debut as Winnie Foster in the new musical Tuck Everlasting, beginning performances at the Broadhurst Theatre on March 31."
  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article explicitly says that Lewis made her Broadway debut March 31, 2016. None of the sources X4n6 has provided explicitly say her Broadway debut was April 26, 2016.

  Cunard (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As I have repeatedly tried to explain to Cunard: Broadway previews are not counted toward a show's official run in any capacity. But this user apparently fails to understand that basic tenet of Broadway theatre - or live theatre in general - the simple fact that a play doesn't not "open" until "Opening Night." But this user clearly believes, for example, that local reporters for regional newspapers can unilaterally and definitively declare when someone makes their Broadway debut. But the fact is, official Broadway openings are determined solely by a show's Producers' announcement of Opening Night. That official announcement is then reported in the press and is available for reference in the official Broadway League website of record, the Internet Broadway Database.

In the case of Sarah Charles Lewis' appearing on Broadway's "Tuck Everlasting":

1) The official Opening Night was April 26, 2016. That is not in question. But that appears to be irrelevant to Cunard. So I'll document it a few times:

• Playbill - Tuck Everlasting Opens on Broadway Tonight
• Entertainment Weekly - Tuck Everlasting: EW Stage review
• Broadway.com Meet the Tucks! Andrew Keenan-Bolger, Carolee Carmello & More Set for Tuck Everlasting Musical on Broadway

There are many, many more. But how many more are needed?

2) But here's the real proof:

The Internet Broadway Database lists her "Broadway debut" in "Tuck Everlasting" here. Along with the Broadway debut of other performers in the show. And as with those performers, it also lists the "Date of Productions" for the show as: "Apr 26, 2016 - Present" here. That is Opening Night - not the first preview. In fact, the dates of her preview performances aren't even listed on her IBDB page.

That's all you need. X4n6 (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not dispute that Broadway previews are not part of a show's official run. Nevertheless, Sarah Charles Lewis debuted on Broadway in Tuck Everlasting's first preview on March 31, 2016, because she performed in the Broadway theater Broadhurst Theatre in a show open to the general public. No source explicitly says "Sarah Charles made her Broadway debut April 26". A source does say "Lewis will make her Broadway debut March 31 at the Broadhurst Theatre in New York City."

  That source is supported by a Broadway.com source saying:

  Sarah Charles Lewis is a 11-year-old performer who will make her Broadway debut this spring in Tuck Everlasting, and from the sound of it, she’s poised to remain a musical theater star forever and ever (and ever and ever and…).

  ...

  Catch 'Tuck Everlasting' on Broadway beginning March 31.

  Cunard (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You cannot say that you "don't dispute that Broadway previews are not part of a show's official run," but yet still try to count those previews in an "official" capacity - namely, as her "official debut". You simply cannot have it both ways. As I've tried to explain, it doesn't work that way - and it never has. And neither you, nor some local, regional reporters who clearly have no understanding, or authority to decide how Broadway works, will change that. Was her "unofficial" debut at the Broadhurst in previews? Absolutely. But her "official debut" occurred on opening night and there's no two ways about that. So that's what this project needs to report. As I've shown, that is also what the official IMDB record already shows. You cannot "officially" debut before you've ever even "officially" opened. It's as simple as that. X4n6 (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article says her "Broadway debut", not her "official Broadway debut".

  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article is not the only source that says her Broadway debut is March 31. So does TheaterMania, which notes: "Eleven-year-old Sarah Charles Lewis is getting ready to make her Broadway debut as Winnie Foster in the new musical Tuck Everlasting, beginning performances at the Broadhurst Theatre on March 31." Cunard (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support April 26th. Previews aren't considered a part of a show's run. There are a plethora of sources that generally support that opening night is the "debut" of the show on Broadway. While none of the reviews specifically noted that Lewis hadn't been on Broadway previously, it's impossible for her to "debut" before the show debuts. ~ Rob^Talk 15:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 (talk · contribs), if Sarah Charles Lewis only performed on the first day of previews and never performed afterwards, the article would say her first and only performance on Broadway was March 31. That would mean she debuted on Broadway on March 31. The article would not say she never performed on Broadway.

When a reliable source explicitly says it is one date and you personally believe the reliable source is wrong and it should be another date, we should follow with the reliable source until and unless (1) that reliable source issues a correction or (2) another reliable source supports your position. How is it not original research to do otherwise? Cunard (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a plethora of sources stating that previews don't count as performances on Broadway. Those are also reliable. ~ Rob^Talk 17:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No sources have been presented here saying that "previews don't count as performances on Broadway". I am very doubtful any sources say this. A preview is a Broadway performance even if it's not an "official" performance.

And how would it not be synthesis to take one source that says a preview isn't an "official" Broadway performance and take another source about when Tuck Everlasting's official opened. And then say Sarah Charles Lewis didn't debut until the "official" Broadway performance? From WP:SYNTH, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Cunard (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No sources have been presented here because it's a well known fact, but I'm happy to provide a litany of sources. [1] [2] [3] [4]. Honestly, this is one of those situations where you could give me any positive integer and I could find that many sources supporting debuts being opening night given sufficient time, so I hadn't thought it necessary to actually post sources. As for sources about Lewis, I did some searching, and here you go. These all refer to opening night as the debut of Tuck Everlasting, most of them specifically referencing Lewis' debut as well: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ~ Rob^Talk 19:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are synthesizing sources to support your assertions, which is prohibited by Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

No sources have been presented here because it's a well known fact, but I'm happy to provide a litany of sources. [12] [13] [14] [15]. – if it is a well known that fact that "previews don't count as performances on Broadway", then why don't any of your sources explicitly say this? None of the sources mention previews. None of those sources explicitly support your assertion that "previews don't count as performances on Broadway". Please provide a source that explicitly says "previews don't count as performances on Broadway" rather than sources that discuss shows' opening nights.

As for sources about Lewis, I did some searching, and here you go. These all refer to opening night as the debut of Tuck Everlasting, most of them specifically referencing Lewis' debut as well: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] – none of those sources explicitly say which date Lewis' debut was on.

I'd prefer to list Sarah Charles Lewis' Broadway debut as 2016 since which particular day she debuted on is unimportant in an encyclopedia article. I reworded the lead to say she debuted in 2016 to avoid the dispute, but X4n6 reverted me. Do you support or oppose the compromise position of changing the debut to 2016?

Cunard (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose that because we have more specific information available. In order of the sources:

• Article written on April 26th and headline reads "Sarah Charles Lewis on Her ‘Tuck Everlasting’ B’way Debut"
• States "Sarah Charles Lewis officially makes her Broadway debut as Winnie Foster." as a caption under a photo of her at the curtain call of opening night. It is clearly not a coincidence that "officially makes her Broadway debut" is paired with a photo of opening night.
• States "Tuck Everlasting, the new musical based on the fantasy novel by Natalie Babbitt about a young girl who befriends an immortal family, opens tonight at the Broadhurst Theatre. ... Eleven-year-old Sarah Charles Lewis makes her Broadway debut as Winnie."
• In a review on opening night, they state "a strong-voiced Sarah Charles Lewis, making an impressive debut". Note that making is present tense, meaning the debut was made in the present - April 26th.
• Opening night review states "11-year-old Sarah Charles Lewis, making an auspicious Broadway debut". Similar to the above.
• Opening night review states "Lewis makes an assured, professional debut, capturing Winnie’s eagerness and vulnerability." Makes is also present tense.
• [23] This one was a misfire; you're right that there wasn't information about Lewis' debut here, although it does say the show debuted on April 26th.

None of those represent any sort of synthesis, nor do the other sources represent synthesis when answering the question "Does an actor/actress debut on Broadway on the first previous or opening night?" ~ Rob^Talk 21:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added "official" to "official Broadway debut". "Official Broadway debut is used by many sources. For example, https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/10/26/home/anne-review.html says, "Although Miss Strasberg once appeared at the Theatre de Lys, this is her official Broadway debut, and it is worth particular notice." Likewise, Lewis has appeared earlier on Broadway at Tuck Everlasting previews but April 26, 2016, is her official Broadway debut. Cunard (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can get behind that compromise. I'd also support something to the effect of "After beginning previews on March whatever, she made her official debut on April 26th." ~ Rob^Talk 22:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded. Thank you for the suggestion. Cunard (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I object to that "compromise" as too wordy and confusing. At this point, it has just become crystal clear that you simply suffer from a failure to get the point, per WP:LISTEN. You have successfully made a mountain out of a molehill after editors have patiently - and repeatedly - told you the same things over and over and over again. At this point, this entire RfC may have to be listed at WP:LAME, because there is simply no "there" here. Previews may be counted as "unofficial" debuts, but are never counted in the official run of the show. Therefore any "official debut" would date from the opening night. Why that is so hard for you - and why it even matters so much to you, is beyond me, as you've never bothered to explain it. Perhaps you should. Unless it's just about some urge you have to always be "right." Or some ownership issue you have because you created the article. Or some COI you have because you have some connection to the subject. If so, you need to divulge that.

Put one way, previews are simply "open rehearsals." As the NYT has reported, oftentimes the show is changed dramatically from previews to open. Songs are replaced, actors are replaced. Even directors are replaced. Are you saying a director or actor replaced in previews should count being fired before opening as their official debuts? Because that would be incredibly stupid. It also defeats the entire purpose of opening the damn show in the first place. And what about a show that closes in previews, never opening? How do you think that is counted? I'll tell you. It isn't.

We're not reinventing the wheel here. This happens. Look at what happened to Mary Tyler Moore in the musical version of "Breakfast At Tiffany's." The show closed after 4 previews. IBDB lists "Total performances: 0" Same with "Bobbi Boland," in previews it starred Farrah Fawcett and closed before opening: "Total performances: 0". None of the actors in those shows, many who had never been on Broadway, before or since, got to call those shows their "debuts" - unofficial or otherwise, per IBDB. By contrast, even a show that only ran for one official performance - opening and closing on opening night - like "Glory Days" lists several "Broadway debuts." So this really could not be more clear. If a basketball player makes a shot after the game buzzer goes off, the shot doesn't count, even though it went in the basket. It ain't official. But this has gone on long enough. This subject's debut, like that of every other performer, should clearly be listed on this project as the exact date on which the show opens, not some generic and nebulous year as like you suggested. Nor some tortured, well although previews started here, she opened here. Per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to be as clutter-free as possible. So I support leaving it exactly as it was, per policy and will revert it to conform to that policy. But I'll welcome discussion based on policy. X4n6 (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you badly need to stop edit-warring. Wait until the RfC concludes. The incivility in the above comment in completely unnecessary as well. It takes too sides to argue, and if you think this RfC is lame, then you're half the reason. Anyway ... I do agree with the WP:LEAD issues. I hadn't realized the text being proposed for change was in the lead, and we really don't need two dates there. I did move the same text down into the body to shorten up some lengthy and cumbersome prose. It also avoids repeating the "After a month of previews" prose in the lead and body, which didn't make for pleasant reading. I think the current state is appropriate. ~ Rob^Talk 23:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait a second. You're accusing me of incivility, because after several rounds of you and I saying the exact same thing to the editor, I pointed to WP:LISTEN? You also didn't help by agreeing to a compromise while not even realizing - apparently until now - that the very issue you were talking about was the lead? Then it's really pretty clear that my edit wasn't edit-warring at all, nor was it uncivil. It was simply based on a policy which you are aware of and agree with it, but missed. Then it was left to me. So let's try not to ratchet up this discussion anymore by making unfounded and unnecessary accusations. Fair enough? But yes, we agree the lead is fine now as it stands. Your addition in the body for clarification is also fine. X4n6 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was the casting aspersions about COI that I take issue with. Cunard is an established editor that edits across many subject areas. While I disagree with him here, it's entirely unfair to conflate him with SPAs and those with undisclosed conflicts of interest. ~ Rob^Talk 23:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such conflation regarding SPAs. I never even mentioned SPAs. You did. I simply asked a reasonable series of questions to understand the reasons for the editor's clearly entrenched positions, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I just asked why. There are many long-term editors on this project who have COI issues. But you inferred more from the asking of the question than I intended when I asked it.

As for the article itself, I will offer one additional edit to the lead. Since it currently does not explain why her "official Broadway debut" was on April 26 in particular, "following a month of previews," it should simply include: "on opening night..." I'll make that correction, but if either of you objects, you're free to revert it. There will be no additional objection about that on my part. X4n6 (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no COI with the subject of the article, other people affiliated with the musical, or the musical itself. I'm fine with the current version of the article so will disengage from discussion in this section. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. And agreed. So I presume that means you can withdraw the RfC? X4n6 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the RfC is withdrawn. Cunard (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. X4n6 (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.