Talk:Music (2021 film)

Criticism by some members of the Autistic community

I've requested page protection since an IP editor keeps trying to update the page despite multiple reverts. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Soon after the film's trailer was released, some commenters on social media criticized the fact that the film stars a non-autistic actress, and Sia responded to a few of these commenters; some media sources have reported on the criticism and Sia's responses. The article mentions the criticism briefly, and I think this is adequate for now. See also WP:RECENT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but like, now we know she had to FORCE Music's actress to do the film because she wasn't comfortable playing an autistic woman. We also know Sia envisioned it as "Rain Man: The Musical, but with girls" and that the autistic friend she claimed made the movie in conjunction with her doesn't exist. I also take issue with describing Sia's meltdown as "responding to criticism." Is there any way we can at least add why autistic people are so upset, or the aggressive responses Sia gave in exchange? It feels like you're only telling half of the story.--Yuefairchild (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Sia said that she needed to reassure Ziegler. People are just speculating about aspects of the film based on a short trailer. This is barely of encyclopedic interest. After the movie is released, we will add to the article a description of the actual reviews and responses to the movie. See WP:BALASP and WP:RECENT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the extended "controversy" section is more detailed than is appropriate at this point. The longer version also contained errors and seemed to be pushing the POV of the critics. We can improve this section once the film has been released. In the meantime, I agree that Ssilvers' shorter version is preferable, and that the less provocative heading "criticism" is more suitable. Somambulant1 (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The current quote is not acceptable alone. The added reference tag is not sufficient compromise as the article still presents a biased view. One autistic in support of Sia’s Movie has been named, validated by her career, and then quoted in such a manner that invalidates and seeks to demonise the opposition views. You need to include a quote of someone equally reputable that states the opposition views. Can you please suggest a compromise here so we can agree on a more balanced summary of the situation. OurVoicesShouldMatter (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest we remove the criticism section as premature until the film is released. Very obviously, any critiques of the film prior to its release are biased and seek only to promote the critics' points of view that is really not related to the film itself. This article is about the film, not about autism in general, how autistic actors don't get cast enough, or how some people feel art has treated the autistic community. Particularly self-serving were the critiques by the adult actors who felt they should have been given the title role of a 14-year old girl. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing the entire section is not required. We just have to agree on content that does not present bias. There are multiple ways to do this; 1. Remove the quote and paraphrase the support of the film in the same way that the opposition has been paraphrased. 2. Include a quote representing the opposition from an equally valid source. The current quote is from an autistic so I sought out a quote from someone else autistic who was not in conflict. Cian Binchy is a man and therefore would never have been considered for the role. Granted, I could have picked only one of the three quotes provided. 3. Remove the quote entirely and expand on Sia’s response.

One of these three removes both selection and framing bias. If you could decide which you would prefer and I will happily carry it out. OurVoicesShouldMatter (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Your first suggestion is acceptable (although it makes it harder to find the quote if one were looking for it in the article), and I've made the change. If this is not satisfactory, we should remove the criticism section. As I said, "any critiques of the film prior to its release are biased and seek only to promote the critics' points of view that is really not related to the film itself", and are based on speculations, many of which are demonstrably untrue. In addition, the section is trivial, as it is related only to a trailer. We could then wait for the responses to the actual film once it has been released. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the content of the movie and its release, the material included currently in the criticism section should remain. Sia chose to hire a neurotypical actress for the title role and made public comments that were perceived as bullying. Kdbeall (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for trying to communicate to other users in areas that were not here, as I forgot that the talk section existed on every Wikipedia page. I am in support of the criticism section remaining, however it is biased in the state it is getting reverted to (one proponent of the issue with an extremely vague allusion to arguments on Twitter). I have attempted to publish a revision that outlines some of the arguments made against not just the trailer of the movie, but also interviews that Sia and Ziegler have been part of and expanded slightly on the Twitter discourse so it is not as vague. Despite the film not yet being released, it is important to note that promotions for it (both in the form of creator statements on social media and participating members of the film being interviewed) are also publicly accessible official sources that have received a significant amount of backlash by both very well known organizations and many individuals and should not be ignored. However, seeing as this section of the page seems to have a history of only including proponent views and/or being extremely vague, I suggest that if we cannot come to a conclusion that is neutral and accurately shows both sides that the criticism section should be removed in its entirety. Luxquine (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Your edit should not have been reverted as it clearly explains the issue without being inflammatory. If it keeps getting deleted I will just remove the criticism section altogether. Jimmadseni (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not an article about autism and the arts. It is an article about this film, and the film has not even been released yet. This discussion of the Twitter criticism of the trailer is overwritten and violates our guidelines on WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. The mention of the criticism of the trailer should be kept concise, and once the film is released, we can then put in a proportional discussion, per WP:BALASP, of the film's reception.

if this is the case, I am going to remove the criticism section in its entirety. If there is not enough evidence for opposition, there is not enough evidence for support as well. Luxquine (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have no clue how to use the talk pages... but I have been a big editor recently on Sia articles! I think removing it is fair, since nobody has actually seen the film! Thanks Peterpie123rww (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Autistic here. I'd like the criticism to be readded to the page. I have some sources that I can cite, such as Twitter threads from Autistic people and also a blog post by an Autistic person - https://mebeingopinionated.blogspot.com/2020/11/sias-film-is-ableist.html - and I think it is ableist for this to have been removed from the page. I understand that unfortunately most major media sites have not done extensive reports on this (and that Twitter threads cannot always be cited). The ableism within the film is very relevant to the article and should be discussed, because it so directly affects the autistic community. Those "acting" in the film have also been ableist, including the actress playing Music, because the film is ableist and at least one has also interacted with ableist content as "research". LocalPunk (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom of the section, not the top. The Tweets and blogs would not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's standards of WP:V. The film has received many reviews, some of which have referred to the issue. Those can be cited and summarized in the Reaction section, but should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

While I do believe that it would be important to add in the future, at this time I cannot find articles written by autistic people who have watched the movie to warrant inclusion of this viewpoint. Until published articles become available, blog and social media posts unfortunately don’t meet Wikipedia’s guidelines. That isn’t to say a significant majority of disabled people are against this movie, it just doesn’t yet have enough reliable sources to meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for inclusion.50.126.125.209 (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for putting my comment at the top, my mistake. I understand that it would be difficult to cite but as it has been reported by some major news sources it should be in the article under some sort of "Controversy" section. It is ableist and entirely inappropriate to remove all mentions of rightful criticism from most of the Autistic community about this film. LocalPunk (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning that Sia admitted in a news interview with an Australian news outlet that it was ableist but she didn't care as well as also making various ableist statements in the news. The criticism is DEFINITELY citable even when excluding Twitter and blog posts. LocalPunk (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Controversy" sections are generally discouraged in Wikipedia articles. See WP:CRITS. Also, I don't think that the numerous inconsistent statements that Sia has made about the film are especially illuminating from an encyclopedic point of view. Remember that we are writing an encyclopedia article and should focus on a balanced presentation of the reception and responses to the film as reflected in the most important reliable sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

to reiterate, I could not find enough articles of autistic people who has SEEN the film and are giving a review of the film itself. Criticism about the behaviour surrounding the film would better go in Sia’s personal Wikipedia page, not on the film’s page. Again, once more people have seen the film we will have more articles on the subject, but at this time we don’t have enough relevant sources from the autistic community for it to be included. This is coming from an autistic person myself who is against the portrayal of autism in this film. Yes, she has repeatedly been ableist and spread information that is, quite frankly, extremely harmful to all autistic people. However, we don’t have reliable sources backing this up yet. I have looked before replying to your original comment, but couldn’t find anything from autistic people who have read the film. If you think we’re missing something, feel free to show some articles that you feel are worthy of including. 50.126.125.209 (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There have been discussions over clips of the film that show dangerous methods of restraint during meltdowns, for example. And again, I understand that it is difficult to source since not many news sources deigned to cover it. However, it was sourced and on the page previously, but has since been removed. I'm quite stressed right now so I cannot look for resources at just this moment, especially since I find all of the ableism incredibly triggering. LocalPunk (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have taken the subsection out of "Critical Response" as it doesn't seem appropriate to leave it there. That section is focused more on a filmographic standpoint, whereas the current controversy is about the ableism involved in both the film and development. Additionally while I appreciate the point that we must be unbiased and encyclopediac here, that goes both ways and so reducing a now relatively notable controversy (multiple news sources have reported on it, and it hasn't even been released) to a level-2 subheading which doesn't appear in the quick navigation could most definitely be called erasure of that issue, and it is an issue that pertains to both the film and Sia (though I think the film page is currently more suitable for it). It definitely is good to keep it in the "Reception" section, however. Dismissing the controversy is as biased as treating the viewpoints of people calling it out as fact. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot of vandalism by Sia fans on this page that is erasing documentation of well-sourced reviewer responses to the film with regards to it's depiction of autism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:24A:10E0:B9CC:C068:1446:9D72 (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of other editors rather than calling their actions vandalism. The issue with your edit is that it gives undue weight to the section and violates wikipedia's guidelines on WP:BALASP. I agree that the reception from some in the autistic community should be included in the article but this should be in a balanced way and proportional to the size of the article. I directed you to the talk page as this has already been extensively discussed between numerous editors. Please try and work to form a consensus going forward. MarsToutatis ^talk 00:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Once the film is released in the U.S., our assessment of the film's reception will expand. I agree with all that MarsToutatis said. In addition, any discussion of criticism regarding the casting of a non-autistic actress or other aspects of the film's portrayal of autism should refer to articles published about the film itself, and not the trailer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

As above. After all, the film is only out in two regions (one before yesterday). Cheers Peterpie123rww (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I've restored it to a level-2 subheading (though I disagree that making it a level-1 subheading gives it "undue weight"). I strongly disagree on blanking out the criticism though. The trailer uses scenes from the film, and additionally there are scenes which have been either released or leaked. The criticism is not speculatory but is based off of what is actually shown so far of the film, and how it has been launched. As said before, bias can go both ways, and simply blanking out the criticism is an excessive bias the other way. As things unfold we can better put them into perspective, yes, but see WP:RECENT and "recentism as a positive", and if we are trying to criticize the inclusion of this controversy which is making up a large degree of the discussion about the film off of "recentism", we could surely criticize the existence of a dedicated page to the film too off the same regard. There are also actual proper film reviews by a number of professional newspapers which have reiterated the issues in their reviews of the film, suggesting that the criticism from the autistic community is not unfounded.

Rather than blanking the section, let's work towards improving it if you see issues with it then Peterpie123rww, MarsToutatis & Ssilvers. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I also want to add in, why is the tone of the section seen as "biased", how would you reword it? A reception & controversy section is undoubtedly going to undoubtedly contain biased views (it is a section on opinions realistically). The section as stands makes clear these are some views from specific people or groups. If there are sourceable quality reviews explicitly disputing those points, they could well be included as well, but the present absence of those is not a reason for blanking? - Rain Man#In popular culture is an obvious example, although it doesn't categorize it under a dedicated heading (then again, that aspect of it was less immediately controversial in that case), it does present a very 'biased' viewpoint, it doesn't say that some might disagree with the idea it presents a poor portrayal of autism. You three want to push "lets reach a consensus" or "lets improve it and make it less biased" but are consistently blanking it which isn't ultimately contributing towards improving the section. The controversy is a verifiable relevant fact, and is making up a notable degree of the current publicity, so how is blanking out that aspect helping us reach a consensus or improve it? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Something simple, maybe, like "Sia has received criticism for casting Maddie Ziegler as an autistic girl. (refs) XXX of XXX noted "xxxxxx".? Peterpie123rww (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason editors have been removing the section is because a prior consensus was reached to do so. There is also the issue that most of the "controversy" regarding the movie occurred before anyone actually had seen it. A balance perspective in my view would be to state that Sia received criticism after the release of the trailer due to the casting of a (non-autistic) actor portraying a non-verbal autistic girl, and then include a statement from the other point of view such as from this article that after the trailers release the Twittermob seized on every incriminating detail to blow this controversy wildly out of proportion. Or this telegraph article on how the identity-politics crowd tried to cancel the film before anyone had seen it. . I would limit it to just a brief overview of each view point of the casting decision, as this is not an article on ableism in film and we already have a critical response section. MarsToutatis ^talk 21:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Also, Ziegler's casting was announced in 2015. Why did it take the twitter posters 6 years to comment on it, and why are we discussing the trailer instead of the film? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the section and as such gaslighting, e.g., Barstow from The Guardian is reviewing the actual film. There is evidence of bias towards the artist above by those trying to remove this section see the comment about, 'Any critiques of the film prior to its release are biased and seek only to promote the critics' points of view'. A comment that shows a complete lack of knowledge with regards to film criticism. Most people agree here that it should be included and it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:24A:10E0:59B5:9A7A:76D:5D12 (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above explanation given by MarsToutatis. I have reverted the IP's edit. Somambulant1 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The controversy section quotes reputable newspapers, not twitter as is being said above. It's also using quotes from film reviewers who've watched the film. Not those who've watched the trailer. Edit in good faith, stop gaslighting, stop the strawmaning, and desist from deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:24A:10E0:E8FD:C0A1:3220:ED74 (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

3 of the 4 sources you've cited in the section (forbes, vulture and los angeles times) are all from November 2020 which was before the film was released and hence not film reviewers who've watched the film like you claim. Those articles were after the trailer was released and in response mainly to critical reactions on twitter at the time. The only source you've cited from someone who has actually watched the film was the guardian article. We have a critical response section in the article already, including critical responses from the guardian and from other critics with the point of view that the casting of Ziegler in an autistic role is problematic. A number of editors have now proposed compromises on the talk page in an effort to reach a consensus. MarsToutatis ^talk 22:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to raise the point User:MarsToutatis that the film trailer uses scenes from the film firstly, so shouldn't be wholly dismissed, also some scenes, while admittedly leaked scenes, are scenes from the film. Wikipedia doesn't have an obligation to be spoiler-free, so I don't really see where your hesitation to include sources referencing them comes from. notably I think a VITAL thing to include is the concern raised, even on reputable newspapers, about the prone restraint. This is not just for the reason that it is a valid and verifiable part of the controversy, but also WP:HARM. Wikipedia has an opportunity to help reduce the harm caused by this release without violating its own rules, and by converse the inaction to do so could cause harm directly. People watching the film may well search the Wikipedia page about it. (This actually extends to the rest of the points of controversy, but to a lesser degree). - Also, the criticism is not solely that a non-autistic person is portraying an autistic character, but a whole array of issues around it's representation (there are even issues some are taking with it's representation of some things such as race or drugs), and also the portrayal of outright dangerous practices, or outright insulting false portrayals of issues around autism. It's not just who was cast, and if anything that is a fairly minor part of the controversy, and reducing this to just that one issue and the "twitter-mob" going crazy is somewhat rudely dismissive of what is for a whole group of people quite a bit issue.

The trailer, and any leaked scenes, ARE part of the subject of the film overall. I would accept if the film is found later to explicitly not include some of those bits on release, an adjustment to the article may be necessary, and that is fine, but it's pretty fair to say it seems most likely those scenes will be in the released film given the knowledge we have at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.86.46 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The actual film has been released, so it is not of much encyclopedic interest to discuss ephemeral comments that were made about the film's trailer, when you can discuss the published sources regarding the film itself written by people who have seen the film in its full context. We already state in the critical response section that some critics objected to a non-autistic person playing the title character. If there is anything else of encyclopedic interest to discuss about the film's treatment of autism, please do so using such sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

After taking a break from this page and then looking through edits going back a number of months, I am starting to see a pattern of the target of what is acceptable being moved. Criticism of the trailer before the film itself was released was the only information to go on, and was removed because it wasn’t the film itself (despite other criticisms remaining based on the trailer that were unrelated to autism). There are now sources that have viewed the film, including the Guardian article by Clem Bastow, that have been included in previous edits that were later reverted. At this point, I am beginning to get frustrated with the consistent removal of fair criticism (of which the section exists for). There is a significant number of people that are upset with this movie, and it does not meet the criteria of undue weight or bias. Bringing up the topic and limiting it to a short paragraph or two is not derailing the article to talk about ableism in film or representation of autism in the general sense, but is directly related to the movie and is important to mention. Luxquine (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the critical response section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I wholly agree with Luxquine. Commentary based on the trailer has been left up if it is positive, and even commentary ON THE FILM ITSELF (notably a review from The Sydney Morning Herald as another example) has been removed if it is not particularly flattering. Furthermore I want to point out that a commentary on the trailer or scenes leaked before release in some countries doesn't invalidate there relevance or validity. The trailer and leaked scenes are still part of the film. If you want to explicitly put in to the wording that the source uses the trailer or leaked scenes, fine, but don't simply go blanking out sources you don't personally like.

The page is about everything related and relevant to the film which does not have/justify it's own page. The release of the film, and public commentaries about it made by it's writers, directors, actors etc., the trailer, leaked scenes, and the full film itself, are ALL relevant to it, just like the production of it is relevant.

If sources viewing the full film are explicitly contradicting factually (and not simply in opinion) a source based on the trailer, then sure we have a more difficult situation and I would be happy to say the one based off the full film takes precedence, although even then it should be considered if a way of including both sources is valid, for example it may be the trailer contains a deleted scene (a highly unlikely situation), if that is the case then that itself could be noteworthy, and only able to be revealed if we are generous in our inclusion of sources.

Ultimately though this shows a grossly biased pattern of editting from Ssilvers & Peterpie123rww. This may well be unintentional, but you two have been without consistency blanking out sources of all types without an actual proper justification, and in many cases not actually contributing to a critical analysis and improvement of such sections. SIGNED 188.220.86.46 (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That review from The Sydney Morning Herald has been there since I created the Critical Response section, I removed it so as to not duplicate information. A correct decision. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah my apologies, it didn't show up when I ctrl+F'd the page and because the current writing narrative seemed to place more reviews more critical of it's portrayal of autism predominantly to the latter part of that section, I didn't see the review. I would raise that we should choose to have reviews being more critical of the film either all being at the start, or all being at the end, to provide a slightly more flowing reading of the article. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

As you have started doing, feel free to rearrange the section as you see fit. The way this is done should do for now, and I hope everyone is okay with it - Peterpie123rww (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I now understand why the controversy was removed, I believe it now warrants to be added after the announcement of the plant to remove the restraint seen and add a msg to the beginning of the movie as this directly links to the film itself. As before whilst there are now articles written by Autistic people on the controversy that have seen the movie, there are not any in the opposition that are not social media posts from Autistics as far as I'm aware.Suisaber (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a pretty notable development. Going to see how to work that source in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.86.46 (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Peterpie123rww can we keep edit descriptions topical and use talk page for discussion? As for "beware of your wording please, don't get too comfortable and don't drift into the biased 'Sia is ableist' agenda tone." - It's a critical commentary doubles up to both act as a counter to the "Ziegler's performance was amazing" that we have in a number of sources, and also as a "some perceive the film as reductionist in it's portrayal of autism", it's done in a single verbatim quote that summarises it while also presenting it as some people's viewpoints as opposed to fact on the matter. I would remind you that denying the film as ableist itself can be very biased too. Furthermore Sia's apparent recognition of ableist elements, and the growing reviews from the actual film which echo this sentiment, back up the inclusion of some of those more divisive lines. Anyway though, it wasn't the best way to summarise your edit given you simple corrected some grammar! 188.220.86.46 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring, page protection

I've submitted a request for page protection because all the back and forth is maddening. Surely editors can come to a consensus here on the talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the two IPs are sockpuppets. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not a good faith interpretation as per wikipedia's guidelines, nor is it accurate. You're not engaging with the content of the criticism and you're using strawman representations of it in order to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:24A:10E0:99BA:D157:B63B:BF59 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You will not persuade anyone by edit warring. That's what socks do. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to raise while 2 IP's are from me (one which has a single entry from my desktop, the rest from my laptop), I never made any attempt to pretend to be separate people, the several other IP's actively editing this page are not me, and presuming us to be sock-puppets is a violation of wikipedia good faith policy. - I would also like to state that I would say Peterpie123rww I would say is as 'guilty' of this edit-warring. He might not be an IP but he is hampering a proper consensus being reached by just blanking the section and not contributing anything further really.

Hmmm... - Peterpie123rww (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

At least Peterpie signs his talk page comments so that one can tell who is commenting. Hey, IP editor(s), why don't you start by not violating that policy? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologise, it was late at night, and I was trying to break up my comments in the separate sections in separate edits and made a mistake. That said it doesn't invalidate my points raised. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Peterpie and Believer: This crap cannot be tolerated: "She was also criticised for her partnership with the controversial charity Autism Speaks." According to Autism Speaks, there never was any such partnership. The source cited does not show that there was, and this article is not the place to debate whether Autism Speaks is a "controversial charity" or not. This sentence should always be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This is false User:Ssilvers - Please see this forbes article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/allisonnorlian/2020/11/24/sias-trailer-for-music-struck-a-nerve-with-the-disabled-community-her-tweets-only-made-things-worse/?sh=1b4898705ad9

Rather Sia DID have a partnership with autism speaks, but that partnership was not for that organization to contribute to the casting or production of the film.

Also while a discussion about the nuance of controversy of the organization shouldn't be included in the page for this film, noting the charity as controversial is relevant, as it is the fact of being partnered with a charity seen as controversial which is provided that element of controversy, and as such is relevant to note but not explore. That said I am not sure the overall point is hugely worth including. It's another mistake by Sia, but there are far more pertinent elements of the controversy. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the Forbes article just sloppily repeats a comment that Sia at one point made, but Sia's account was in error, as other sources pointed out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to make a claim that Forbes and a number of other sources are incorrect, then do please provide a source to substantiate such a statement 188.220.86.46 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Poster

Should we make the poster in the infobox the US theatrical poster? It was posted by @musicthefilm on Twitter and by Kate Hudson on her Instagram stories. It was added by someone but then removed, I'm not sure why. I would also put the teaser poster elsewhere in the article since it's been used quite a lot in promotional graphics. cc: User:Ssilvers - Peterpie123rww (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that there is no rush. Also, why do we need more than the Australian and the US poster. Once the film is released, aren't the teaser posters superseded? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

06/02/2021 reversion explanation.

Firstly, your edit itself was a reversion really, and would've been good to note as such User:Peterpie123rww.

• 1 - "is [self-evidently problematic" in the 2020s.] - The [in the 2020s] is unnecessary unless we are to include the full quote [That might have passed muster 3½ years ago, when the film was reportedly shot, but in the enlightened 2020s, it’s self-evidently problematic], as the clarification within the quote is to do with the comparison between when it was shot and today, simply including [in the 2020s] however would make more sense if say, we were talking about a film RELEASED in the 80s. As such I'd either suggest not having that extra bit, or including the full quote.

• 2 - As for the SoPerth bit, we have a bunch of sources all commending Ziegler's performance in largely similar manners. While I appreciate a desire to include multiple sources distinctly to show that multiple people are giving this praise, I don't think we need long quotes from every single one which effectively state the same thing. It's just hugely repetitive. Note that in the second paragraph, Croot's comparison to Cats while included is not quoted, to provide similar condensing and improved readability.

• 3 - I haven't re-removed the ["Thank You for Representing a Girl with Severe Autism"], but I would challenge it's inclusion at the moment. The reason for this is because while I can find multiple sources suggesting the existence of the letter, I cannot find the actual original publishing of the letter in the National Council on Severe Autism, or even an internal referencing from that organization to the existence of the letter. It is possible one newspaper reported on such a letter, and the other's copied it without verifying it. Whatever the circumstance, I'd like to be able to see the content of the letter to see what it actually says before it is included. I welcome your thoughts on that though. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about not reverting - I kept a couple of minor changes which you made.

1 - Fair enough, that's okay.

2 - The quote I included is how - uniquely might I add - the reviewer described the film, so I don't see why it shouldn't be included? If you are removing it because you'd like the negative reviews to outweigh the positives I'd say that's pretty unreasonable.

3 - It's mentioned in various articles and therefore is included.

Thanks - Peterpie123rww (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

1 - Glad we could reach an agreement there.

2 - WP:FAITH please. But no it's not that. As mentioned where there are repeat points in the negative paragraph, those have been condensed (Again, see Croot's comparison to Cats and how that isn't quoted). If we are being truly balanced then either both should be repetitive or neither should be, rather than just the positive paragraph repeating points and as such extending the length given to each unique point. I would personally say we should be avoiding unnecessary repetition to make a more readable and concise article that still gets the points across. I'm not stating for the removal of the acknowledgment of those points, but the quotes are quite lengthy and not every single one saying "Yeah Ziegler did good" is necessary.

3 - I agree it is mentioned in various articles, but the articles only mention it, they do not particularly discuss the actual content of the letter, and the original letter I cannot find. It seems silly to include the letter without us knowing what it actually said, that said once the letter is found I am all for its inclusion as it could well provide a good counterpoint. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I would object to removing mention of the letter, as it is certainly mentioned in major reliable sources and adds necessary balance to a very one-sided paragraph. However, once the film opens in the US and elsewhere, I'd be happy to replace it with something similar from a new review. Speaking of which, there will be lots of new reviews, and the section is already quite long, so we will need to choose the most important new ones, and remove some of the less important old ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There is positive commentary on the film in the article too, rather a stylistic choice of making positive then negative paragraphs has largely been chosen to make the article more readable, hence each paragraph IS one-sided. That said as I have said, I am absolutely for you adding in other well verified pieces of information. Referencing a letter without actually knowing the contents of it prevents us critically evaluating what it actually says, to determine how it should be presented in the page. I have attempted to locate the letter, unsuccessfully (which could well mean it was redacted, which if is the case should make us significantly question the inclusion of a reference to the letter). My objection is not against positive commentary on the film, but is against poorly verified commentary. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense; this is a third paragraph. The letter is extremely well verified by multiple reliable sources, and, again, the paragraph is one-sided without the mention. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A quick flipping Google search and I found the letter. Unbelievable. Clear bias from the IP editor. Is there any way we can sort this out and put an end to the mess they're causing? - Peterpie123rww (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you've tired of trying to satisfy this IP editor's demands, you could report them for edit warring. They have been edit warring for an extended period of time on several issues in the article, and their disruptive behavior really ought to be reported. Or you could make a general WP:ANI complaint about them. If you decide to go ahead and report them, let me know, and I'll gladly support banning them. If you report them, you'll need to link some of the diffs where they have been edit warring, even while an item was under discussion, and failing to follow the WP:BRD process in other cases. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You guys seem to only like WP:FAITH when it suits you. Me being unable to locate a source isn't a violation of any wikipedia rules! Also Ssilvers you have by far been as guilty of edit warring and just slapping around changes without any good reasoning. It genuinely did not come up when I searched for it (rather the results were drowned out with some references to it being prioritized over the actual letter, perhaps regional google varying it's search priorities). I am however thankful you actually put in the source, this is the exact reason Wikipedia articles should be and are sourced thoroughly, to avoid these articles proving elusive.

Honestly though, I do not appreciate being accused of violating wikipedia process here. You two are biased yourselves on this matter, but you two have been highly protectionist of any negative changes to the article while being rather more lax on any positive light, and the AUS vs. US spelling issue shows your failings here Ssilvers as I've provided proper justification from MOS which you simply overlooked.188.220.86.46 (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You have it exactly backwards: You like to cite Wikipedia policies, but you constantly violate key policies, like WP:EDIT WAR. You keep using excuses, like you were tired, or the google search did not work for you. Then you call other editors names. You are disruptive and do not edit in good faith. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Damn, honestly I have been working towards getting an unbiased coverage of this topic in a logical way. If you've actually followed along you'll have seen that. No. You clearly have a vested interest here and have contributed some facts on Sia and the film, but you've been happily slinging about insults to IP editors, myself included. Furthermore if I am guilty of edit warring here, then you most certainly are too, you've been reverting anything you don't like without actually discussing how to improve the article, you've been incredibly protectionist over any possible negativity. That's the truth really. I'm not going to call you as a bad faith actor, like you so eagerly presume others to be, but you are most certainly a very biased editor here. A point of note though is I don't believe I have ever exceeded 3 reverts in a 24h period on any single section, so your accusation of WP:EDIT WAR is at the very least not WP:3RR. I have been trying to get us to some sort of acceptable outcome, hence my active involvement in the talk page (such as discussing with Peter a few points), and ensuring all my notable edits have proper descriptions, and referencing wikipedia policy where necessary. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ssilvers can you please see WP:REVONLY. Your latest huge reversion stripped out genuine quality sources that were relevant without justification, there is NO way that falls under "edit warring" as they are entirely new editions. I disagree with all the reversion except the error in cast list really, but the removal of those additional elements (a large part of the reversion) is a violation of policy most definitely. This is frankly getting silly. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You're the one getting silly, IP editor. -- Peterpie123rww (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I also ask why you are continuously editing the background sections, and making it worse? You just changed one of the sentences into a complete grammatical mess. Also, since it's clear you know nothing about the film except the controversy, how about don't bother making edits to the release section? Because you're wrong.

You appear to have had some issues with your signature there.

With regards to my grammatical edits: "The transformation into a musical saw increased the film's budget from $4 million to $16 million." should not have had "saw" in. I was rephrasing it into a better past tense more inline with how Wikipedia covers topics in an encyclopediac fashion. I apologize for missing that bit.

With regards of "she cast Hudson and changed the sex of the role." - How is this a grammatical mess? Using "Hudson" over "her" helps avoid having multiple different people referred to by the same pronouns, allowing for better clarity.

With regards to the "Australia and New Zealand" - The source literally says that.

I'm honestly getting tired of you just flinging around attacks. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Spelling: American or Australian?

The IP keeps edit warring to change the spelling of the word Neighbor in the Plot (premise) section, instead of following the WP:BRD procedure. I think it was User:Another Believer who said that the article ought to use American spelling since it was made in the US with a US cast. I agree. If you still believe this, would you please do the revert this time? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's an American film, so American. I agree. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, @Ssilvers:, I agree with the idea of having a "Response" section which includes critical response + Sia's response to criticism. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Good. Then please go ahead and make the edit. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Done! - Peterpie123rww (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Firstly while it has an American cast, the film is directed by an Australian, and was released first in Australia. It is also shown worldwide. There is NOT a MOS:TIES. However, all the main varieties of English except the US English use the spelling "Neighbour" (that is, at the very least Canadian, Australian, and British English), which is grounds for MOS:COMMONALITY to justify usage of that spelling. WP:BRD is not mandatory and I should say that many of you editors have also not followed it, I did however give a link to for use of the "Neighbour" spelling. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

And I strongly object to all your disruptive edits. Stop edit warring. See WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDIT WAR, WP:CIVIL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Just calling my edits "disruptive" and accusing me of "edit warring" doesn't:

(A) Make that true.

(B) Justify your actions.

You are going wild reverting, and have been rather uncivil yourself. There are only a few editors on this article at the moment, and one of them (me) disagrees, I've presented the reasons for my disagreement. You have failed to address them. Please, actually stop throwing around insults and being demeaning to me, and address the points I have raised. I would greatly appreciate that. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC about the neutrality/balance of this article, and which type of English to use.?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Firstly, on the language point, specifically, one word is proving a sticking point, "neighbor" (US only) or "neighbour" (AUS/CAN/GB). Secondly, is the balance of the article (specifically its portrayal of the ongoing controversy with it) OK? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a source for the US-only connection? I see a lot of Australian connections. It looks like Sia's project more than a studio's project, so I can see support for reflecting Australian ties. As for autism, I think "Criticism" is too vague and one-sided. It could be its own section and called something like "Portrayal of autism". And is there any kind of back-and-forth or discourse about the portrayal? Per WP:STRUCTURE, a debate about the portrayal can be folded together in such a section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm going to hold back from doing such a restructuring for now (Peter and Ssilvers aren't exactly fond of me, so it'd probably get reverted whatever I do). I do like the idea of such a section though. I appreciate the input on both points. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Erik, please review the discussions above on these points. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ssilvers, the discussion does not show any reliable sources naming only the United States as the country for this film. What are the sources? If there are not any, is it a matter of coming up with a consensus? Like I said, the Australian ties seem prominent enough to be considered. And regarding the "Criticism" section, I remembered some information about writing such sections. Check out WP:CSECTION. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah thanks for offering WP:CSECTION, User:Erik - I wasn't familiar with that specific bit. So I guess on that point we need to sort through which sources/statements are more about the cinematography (i.e. "this film has great visuals"), and which are thematically about autism as a first step? We can leave all the cinematographic ones in a critical reception subsection, and then maybe create a "Portrayal of Autism" subsection within reception that contains the discussion on that? Does that sound like a good structure in your opinion?

As for Ssilvers point about review discussion, perhaps for all of our sakes would you like to raise what point(s) specifically you think Erik is yet to address and needs to review over? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the critical reception, I think that section can still cover what critics said about autism in the film, at least in passing. The idea of a "Portrayal of autism" section is to mainly include commentary from non-film critics, but if a critic focused a lot more on the portrayal, they could also be quoted or paraphrased in the portrayal section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there a problem with how it is done now? - Peterpie123rww (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I recommend avoiding just calling the autism section "Criticism". It can be "Portrayal of autism". I also think we do not need to have subsections under "Release", especially this section, because the commentary about the portrayal actually started before the film's actual release. So it should be distinct, like "Historical accuracy" or "Political commentary" sections tend to stand apart. The other sections don't necessarily have to be clumped under "Release". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As for the autism section's actual content, it seems fine in general. Are there specific issues with certain passages in it? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Surely it makes more sense to have Critical Reception and Criticism (or Portrayal of Autism) under a general Reception heading? And why not have Accolades and Box Office under Reception? - Peterpie123rww (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out the best way to word why... basically, the subtopics that could go under "Release" or "Reception" are self-evidently post-release. Like we don't put "Production" and "Marketing" under a "Pre-release" heading. I've seen articles that put "Critical reception" and "Accolades" under "Release" and those that don't. I think it is unnecessary, and anything written about a film, like "Academic analysis", could technically be argued to fall under "Release" or "Reception". I think it's a vague pseudo-heading that isn't needed in most cases. You're welcome to disagree. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I like that approach. It solves the 'issue' of how to include relevant commentary from before the release of the film. It makes a fair bit of sense too.

I've put back in the commentary from the NAS and ASAN. I don't understand why Ssilvers & Peterpie123rww disapprove of them because some statements (not all of them it should be noted) were made via official Twitter pages. I appreciate the AAPD could be seen as a more 'minor' charity (I honestly can't comment significantly on how important they are), but in relevance to autism the NAS and ASAN are the top organizations/charities for importance really. The ASAN statement itself was not a twitter one but an official full press release joint with two other charities.

Hopefully, the fact they were made before the release of the film and your qualms over that though should be alleviated with the new sectioning.

I will pose a question though, should the "Portayal of Autism" section be organized at least moderately chronologically (i.e. pre-release, release, post-release) with its contents, or should it be organized by supportive/critical? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The way I organised the headings like that was based on other film articles - I thought it made sense, to me it does. Critical reception, portrayal of autism, box office and accolades are surely all part of the "Reception" of the film..? - Peterpie123rww (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Peterpie. This is the way film articles are generally done. User:Peterpie123rww, if you look at this, I think you will find support for what you have done. Also, a key guideline going forward is WP:BALASP, which is to say that the article needs to be balanced and should not be bogged down by endless content about the details of what Sia and her critics said, unless it is important to an understanding of the actual film that is the subject of this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we should change it back. All the film articles I am looking at have "Box Office", "Critical Response" and "Accolades" under a "Reception" heading. And we would put "Criticism" (or "Portrayal of Autism") under there too. (A Star Is Born; The Greatest Showman; Tenet) --- Peterpie123rww (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not against this, but I think you have to look at films which are controversial. None of those films caused my controversy, so I'm not sure looking to them is the best way to solve this? We definitely need to be able to accept criticism before the full release though as well as after, however we format it.

Ssilvers hasn't yet clarified what point if any they think wasn't addressed about the justification for AUS-compliant language? Should this be taken as acceptance now of this stance? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No, IP SPA, it means that I know you're an edit warrior and disruptive editor. You should be blocked from Wikipedia for constant edit warring. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

SPA?

And also, would you like to actually provide your clarification. I've been patiently waiting, opened up a discussion for it, but you haven't offered your explanation or a response to the points yet. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

As a point of note for me to expand: We obviously both had editting and reverting happening. I've ceased though and tried to discuss it, I've then escalated it to a request for comment. I've been presenting justifications for my reasoning. You have just been ignoring all of that and dismissing whatever I suggest because I'm a "disruptive IP editor", and I can only presume you see my contributions as having no worth at all, which truly is a shame.

I've contributed a fair bit to this page that has stuck about and helped improve several aspects for it and come to a number of compromises. You seem frankly though, completely unwilling to engage in a good-faith discussion.

I'll ask again though for your justification for American spelling. It really doesn't seem to meet MOS:TIES for that, and MOS:COMMONALITY would explicitly suggest to go for the more common spelling, and one could argue a tenuous (as strong as the American) tie to Australia for the article. What is your response to that point? You want us to do a WP:BRD, then discuss it with me! 188.220.86.46 (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like this RfC has proven terrifically helpful so far, I'll let it run it's 30 days course (so I don't break anything trying to close it early, and to give the benefit of the doubt and provide extended time for a response in the hope something fruitful comes of this).

If it doesn't seem to progress anywhere though, I'm going to bring this up via the WP:DRN. I'm not going to let you start up another edit war on this (I shouldn't have let you dragged me into it in the first place, shame on me!)

The points though still stand for language about MOS:TIES and MOS:COMMONALITY, and it seems User:Erik agrees with me here, also Peterpie123rww seems to agree with you. I am still very open to hearing a justification as to why you think the US-only spelling is the way to go.

I also am not 100% sure we have reached a good WP:BALANCE yet. Right now we've headed towards 50% for, 50% against coverage, but on closer inspection of policy it seems we should be giving proportionate weighting to viewpoints, and right now RottenTomatoes and IMDB would indicate a more negative than positive reception. An outside editor User:Sock did come in and remove some more obscure positive reviews, a change Peter reverted. Personally, I would rather take the additive approach (adding more negative ratings, than removing positive ones) to achieve that change in balance. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, there is no defined order of the sections per MOS:FILM (see lead section). I've already explained why "Reception" is as useful as a "Pre-release" is for "Production" and "Marketing" (if that section did exist). However, "Portrayal of autism" should be outside "Reception" because discussion of its portrayal started before the film was received by anyone. (This should be reflected in the section, though.) I have not dived deeply into the coverage about autism, so let me know if there are specific points worth discussing.

I've also removed "United States" from the film infobox because it is not evident that it is the only country. We need to verify that it is, or whatever else it is.

Lastly, it may be worth redoing the WT:FILM notification with a better explanation of what is needed here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Might I ask for you to help me with formulating that better explanation on WT:FILM? I know RfC's are meant to be unbiased and I wanted to avoid any bias as such in raising the issue. (Plus, this is my first time doing an RfC!)

I do really appreciate your comments on this. You've really taken some time to describe your reasoning and it does make sense. Also, the removal from the film infobox is fair. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

Rotten Tomatoes Phrasing

User:Nyxaros seems to passionately be fighting for the phrasing "On the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, 19% of 17 critic reviews are positive for Music"

It's right now in a rather slow back-and-forth, others have reverted away from that editing towards "On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes the film holds an approval rating of 18% based on 17 reviews, with an average rating of 4/10."

I would raise two things with regards to this: Firstly what would be the problem with the approval rating way of phrasing?

Secondly are there any other articles that use User:Nyxaros's phrasing?

Some examples of the approval-rating phrasing Interstellar (film), Tenet (film), The Greatest Showman, A Star Is Born (2018 film).

188.220.86.46 (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes itself doesn't use "approval rating", even MOS:FILM doesn't suggest it. Stop edit warring. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. nyxærös 19:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Nyxaros, whose version is more concise and employs better prose. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can or cannot be a valid explanation, it is not automatically invalid.

I am hesitant to say every article uses the same wording, but it definitely seems at the very least the overwhelming majority of articles on wikipedia use that wording for RottenTomatoes reviews, which would suggest some sort of large community consensus on the wording? And anyway, the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS justification would be maintaining that significant consistency. Neither version is more concise, they are practically identical in length. I understand the point that RottenTomatoes itself may not use approval rating, but then why did that come to be common practice throughout wikipedia?

I'm simply asking for some explanation and elaboration, the big ol' **D** in WP:BRD that User:Ssilvers loves to quote.

As a point of note, Might I ask we stop so frivorously throwing around accusations of edit warring? After all, your rewording Nyxaros is the change from status quo. I'm not outright opposed to it, although it seems clunkier, but give me some set of reasons, or precedents of other articles which use such phrasing. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Did some reading, and done a WP:BOLD change as an alternative. It avoids using "approval rating" while flowing better and avoids implying reviews are either 100% good or 100% bad. Hopefully this looks alright User:Nyxaros? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I've just noticed you went to the links of other films I provided and rapidly editted them all to comply with your wording Nyxaros. So I'm going to more strongly challenge you on you reasoning/mandate for going on a crusade against that wording. I'd like a number of examples of the wording being used in articles not written by you ideally. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You are simply an edit warrior. That's *all* you are. You cannot accuse anyone of anything until you stop edit warring. If anyone did a serious analysis of the editing of this article since you showed up, you would be community banned. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Right... it's upsetting and annoying for those who actually want to contribute respectfully and constructively like myself. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You love to throw around accusations of an edit warrior User:Ssilvers. I'm still waiting for you to actually input on the D stage of your precious BRD though. You are being protectionist over this article, but are unwilling to actually discuss reasons for your protectionism or reach compromises. If you want to engage in WP:BRD you have to be willing to work on all those stages, which means discussing. Furthermore, believe it or not WP:IPHUMAN but you've routinely accused everything I've done as being vandalism and edit warring, effectively just throwing largely ad hominems and occasionally a contradiction.

Frankly, I am tired of you. I am still open to actually having you address my points, rather than attack my character, or at the very least address points which others have raised here. The RfC is still open, as are the other sections in this talk page. If you choose that you do not wish to actually contribute, they as I said previously I shall escalate this to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. In such a case, i'll address the DRN with the 3 issues of US-only or AUS/CAN/GB spelling, the level of balance, and I'll add in this Rotten Tomatoes wording.

I should apologize for being slightly zealous in my reverting earlier, that said you have been as zealous. I should have taken it to a RfC quicker and that was a mistake on my part.

I would recommend you yourself read WP:DBN 188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

To expand on the specific issue, it would appear, unless Nyxaros has discussed this elsewhere and received community support for the change, that Nyxaros is trying to single-handedly distort the facts by adjusting linked articles to support his viewpoint. I cannot find where the phrase "approval rating" which is so pervasive in Wikipedia originates, although another article which shows the phrasing, and a large chunk whose linked articles also show the phrasing it would seem, is List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (some preferring in these cases phrasing like "perfect 100% rating" for these films). Even the page for Rotten Tomatoes uses the phrase approval rating! 188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Critic Consensus

My apologies User:YoungForever - My interpretation of it was that the derived overall critic consensus wasn't OK but specifically quoting critics was. Thanks for clarifying and providing examples though! 188.220.86.46 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Spam edits from IP editors, NEEDS TO BE STOPPED

The IP editors are now removing positive parts of the Critical Response???? Out of clear bias?? This needs to be stopped, editing privileges are being abused and the page's accuracy and quality suffering as a result... Also it's so so clear that some people editing haven't a clue about the film and yet try and "help" by contributing terribly to it? - Peterpie123rww (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I've requested temporary page protection. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Surely requesting a block on said IP editor is more appropriate? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The edits are from one IP editor unassociated with me. I was in the process of doing some changes to the article and had already eliminated some bits of the bias, although you got there before me.

I did however remove Jill Escher's statement, yes, and I provided a reason. It is rambling and incoherent, and you and ssilvers have rejected a number of better sources than that before and is only tangentially relevant in its contents (it almost wholly addresses the response to the film, as opposed to the film). 188.220.86.46 (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I will add I removed Ebo's surname and Music's Surname. The former of these changes definitely seems correct. I have since found a few places citing Music's surname as Gamble, so I'm willing to concede that could be the case, although a source may be preferable, if possible. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

So you haven't seen the film, have you? - Peterpie123rww (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't yet seen the full film. Correct. As I'm from the UK, much like yourself, where it is yet to be released.

That doesn't mean I've not seen the trailer or teaser clips, or read various reviews.

It looked like the addition of the surname was an error, I apologize if it is in fact stated within the full film.

(I will bring up WP:CRED, as your statement does appear to be toeing that line, even if that was not intended.) 188.220.86.46 (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Feb 2021 Protection Period - Points to Discuss

Full protection gives us a nice period to discuss things going forward. Hopefully we can work out how to resolve these issues through discussion while it is protected. Simply creating this section to centralize the scattered discussion and points, if creating a new 'topic' within this please add a bonus subheading!

Language

Australian, Canadian, and British English all use "Neighbour" - Only US English uses "Neighbor". Given Sia is an Australian, the film was released in Australia first, and the production companies are scattered around the globe, I would not say there is a strong topical tie to the USA to justify the use of US language, however the manual of style offers the alternative justification of using the more 'universally accepted' (common) terms which would suggest using the AUS/CAN/GB one? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to go forward with whichever, as long as it stays consistent. Though, I think @Ssilvers:' reasoning was that the film was filmed and produced in America, with an American cast. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I get the likelihood of that, but I hadn't found a source making it clear-cut US-only. It seems like it could also be US and Australia. I checked the Golden Globes page for the movie but didn't see a country parameter. Same for the Box Office Mojo page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Just popping in to say that this is definitely an American film. Film companies and the lot refer to it as so. What this does to the language I don't know, but it's an American film. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if we are to say it's an American film, it doesn't come close to having the level of specific geographic ties as the examples given in MOS:TIES. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed for the claim that it is exclusively an American film. There are Australian connections, and the non-US distributor StudioCanal released it in Australia, before the film was released in the US. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The film was released early in Australia for no other reason than COVID-19. The German film company, Russian film company and the French film company all list it as a "USA" film – I could find more if necessary. Surely this warrants American English to be used? I don't know. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, these help. I'm fine with calling it an "American film" and having "United States" in the infobox, then. Thanks for finding these. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Phrasing

User:Nyxaros is a strong opponent of using the phrasing "approval rating" (and has been hopping across pages to change the phrasing), but on the whole Wikipedia almost always seems to use that phrasing? Has this discussion been held before? If so what was the outcome? If not, then should approval rating stay as phrasing and be restored here, or should it begin to be replaced on Wikipedia? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Balance & What sources are we accepting here?

There's a 17% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The article definitely needs to mention positive reviews, but how, and how much positive reviews vs. the negative ones. Clearly a negative more criticizing reception of the film is the predominant viewpoint.

Furthermore I myself still stand opposed to the inclusion of Jill Escher's statement. It's rambling and honestly itself more of a coatrack I feel. It's a rambling moaning about cancel culture and neurodiversity which is only very vaguely about the film. I appreciate the possible inclusion of the "Thank You for Representing a Girl with Severe Autism", I think given the title that we should clarify that its author is male. That said I could also see a justification for the entire removal of this chunk as the National Council on Severe Autism is a very small, not particularly noticeable, more fringe/controversial source. Thoughts? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much time today to weigh in about this, but I think Metacritic helps indicate the kind of balance of reviews we should have. Rotten Tomatoes only assesses a review as positive or negative with no in-between. Metacritic shows for this film that there are 14 reviews at this time, nine being negative and five being mixed. So I think we should follow that rule of thumb. Regarding Escher's statement, it did get mentioned here, so it did not go unnoticed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, her statement has been mentioned in multiple places and I'm pretty sure I referenced them previously, though they were removed. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, given it's been mentioned about, I'll accept it's inclusion. I do think we need to look at how the reference is worded. Firstly the obvious notification the letter-writer is male in the former case. And for Escher, I'm not sure, but it doesn't sit right how we are portraying that source atm? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 188.220.86.46 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Portrayal of Autism section

Are we now happy about this? User:Erik proposed this structure and I support it, although some seemed to still have qualms about this. If people don't support this structuring, what points do you have against it? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Quantity of References / Citation Overkill

We seem to have a bit of a |citation overkill in places... We should probably try to either (a) get rid of some or (b) merge some into footnotes

• 4 whole single-use cites in the lead! I think lead statements are meant to be free of citation ideally anyway!
• "Beto Calvillo as Felix" - Both ref's only used here, either merge or ditch 1.
• Running Time 107 minutes - Two refs is unnecessary, one is only used here, one is used in a second location.
• Citation [27][28] - Both support the same statement and are single use, merge?
• Citation [29][30] - Both support the same statement and are single use, merge?
• Citation [32][33] - Both support the same statement and are single use, merge?
• Citation [40][41] - Both support the same statement and are single use, merge?
• Citation [48][49][50][51] - All four support the same statement and are single use in the article! The statement for them is only the teaser trailer release date confirmation! We only need one of these!
• Citation [82][83] - Both support the same statement and are single use, merge?

That summarises the 'obvious' ones. There are a couple of others that might be able to be tidied up, but are more complex mixes of multiple use ones. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

All these listed citations are now addressed as stated. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

"Overwhelmly"

"Overwhelmly" should be corrected to "overwhelmingly". FreeEncyclopediaMusic (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it should be corrected to "generally", which is what Metacritic says. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We need sources, such as this one, that show negative response from the critics. Review aggregators are not sufficient to generalize the overall critical response of a film. We can, however, write "The film received generally unfavorable reviews on Metacritic, but was nominated..." nyxærös 13:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead sentence per MOS:LEADCITE is perhaps more advisable to not have citations in this case, as it's pretty simple? I see no issue with saying "Overwhelmingly negative" or "Largely negative" if we want to be a bit gentler. It then gets expanded on and cited in the response section. My 2c there. Good catch though FreeEncyclopediaMusic, I hadn't noticed that typo! 188.220.86.46 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Jensen's petition to rescind the Globe noms

There's been a petition to rescind the film's Golden Globe nominations, with signatures now approaching 100,000, started by Danish actress and activist Nina Skov Jensen (herself autistic). I think it should be mentioned in the article Tomer 070 (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I would agree. Change.org from my understanding is not an acceptable ref on wikipedia (that is to say, software flat out does not permit edits using those ref's to be published).

I do get that generally including petitions isn't the most desirable, but when we've hit quite so many signatures I really do think it's worth inclusion. It has also been covered by news sites which could act as acceptable refs.

• www . change . org /p/the-golden-globes-the-golden-globes-must-rescind-the-nomination-for-sia-s-ableist-movie-music -------- The petition itself.
• NME story on petition
• LA Times story on the petition
• Musikexpress story on the petition (German)
• New York Post story on the petition
• news.com.au story on the petition
• Sunshine Coast Daily story on the petition

188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I have inserted a sentence about the petition in "Portrayal of Autism", I have cited the NME (British), LA Times (American), Musikexpress (German), and news.com.au (Australian) story in a bundled citation, it helps show worldwide notability of the petition. The German and British (Musikexpress and NME) sources, in particular, have their own value, having a more up to date total signature count (65,000) - This is far behind the current count (98,600), however wikipedia doesn't permit direct citation of the change.org domain, as such it may be necessary to, at present, update our sources for this as newer stories with more updated totals come out. This also means we should maintain the date that any stories present for their total (either via the date of the story, an in-story reference to the date, or the date of a correction). 188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This film article doesn't even have a plot summary. Can we please focus on important matters instead of petitions from Denmark by actors who are annoyed that an autistic actor wasn't cast? I recently read a long post by someone called Eden who wants everyone to read her critique of the film. At the end of the post she begged for money from strangers on the internet to support her college education. "This film is bad. Give me money." Searching for money, and one's 15 seconds of fame on the internet does not seem like an altruistic expression of protest. This Danish actors' petition is a good move for their careers, but it is not encyclopedic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Well of course a petition isn't encyclopedic. Wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedic.

And even the personal motivations of the person who made the petition are...moderately irrelevant. Unless of course you are suggesting 80,000 people are "in on it" and colluding to help one person's career.

The fact of the matter is, someone made a petition asking for the rescinding of golden globe nominations after there was already outcry and questions about why such a film was nominated. At least 80,000 people agree with the spirit of that petition. This helps provide context to the situation around those nominations.

The petition doesn't deserve a whole section, or even a whole paragraph, but a short sourced sentence mentioning the existence and size of such a petition provides useful encyclopedic context to the situation around those nominations and the film.

As for "this film article doesn't even have a plot summary", then add one? The absence or presence or quality of a plot summary has no bearing on other parts of the article. If your issue is with the plot summary, then act to improve it. That isn't a reason to blockade other changes though?

As for your statement of "At the end of the post she begged for money from strangers on the internet to support her college education.", no? I've read through it twice to make sure I did not miss anything, but nowhere does she ask for money, or even mention a college education. This appears to be an outright lie from you, although I'll welcome you providing a source to back up that accusation. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No, IP, you are wrong again. Everyone can see her statement at the end of, for example, this article: https://nypost.com/2021/02/17/more-than-55000-critics-cancel-sias-music-amid-backlash/ -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The petition should be included because it has been covered in reliable sources like Los Angeles Times. It belongs as part of the overall coverage about the film's portrayal of autism. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Do plot summaries have to be supported by sources? And, are petitions really relevant? - Peterpie123rww (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Plot summaries do not need secondary sourcing per WP:FILMPLOT, though the description should be kept basic. If there are unclear details, then secondary sources should be used. As for petitions, I think it is relevant but does not need to be more than a sentence. It fits in the context of what is going on with the film's portrayal. I've seen some petitions that are more out of left-field and would not fit anywhere in a film's article, in which case it would make more sense to drop it. There's one example I can't seem to recall right now... Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there was a petition last November as seen here, and it is mentioned again ("Another campaign... wrote petition writer Hannah Marshall") in this about the newer one. I think it can all tie together. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree on keeping it brief, it definitely creates a nice way to show the scale and focus of the public reaction, and especially when covered by major sources. I'm definitely for inclusion of Nina's petition. The earlier ones I am neither for nor against the inclusion, I guess if it makes sense within the events being told to reference it, there isn't a reason not to. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

No Ssilvers, you are wrong again. The @autisticats is an account with no seeming direct connection to the petition, and is rather simply an autistic advocacy account. If you actually looked at the petition, by

Nina Skov Jensen, you will see she lists @__ninstagram__ as her instagram account, and nowhere on there asks for money, or mentions college.

I recommend before trying to discount such a source with quite so bold claims about a living person, at least check your facts. (That said, even if you were right, that isn't grounds for exclusion of the petition). 188.220.86.46 (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I posted my reply late at night but re-reading it (in thinking about how to add the story to the page) shows at least that you did not read the rather short story even remotely properly, I will try to keep giving you the benefit of the doubt but I am beginning to even doubt the faith of some of your input here. As I state about, autisticats is an advocacy account with no relation to Nina Skov Jensen or Rosanna Kataja (the authors of the petition), and in fact the post you cite is signed off "~Eden🐢". Furthermore a disabled person asking for money to help them get through college while they (presumably) spend a large amount of time maintaining an advocacy account that does rather critical dissections of current issues, is far from some evidence of a cheap money grab, it is rather reasonable. Additionally, Eden uses they/them pronouns, not she/her, as the account makes clear. The NY post simply includes the instagram post as some context around the apparent ongoing lack of warning, contrary to Sia's announcement seemingly.

I am truly struggling to see how you could genuinely see this as a reason to not include the petition, even if you somehow managed to mix up the rather different named authors, how you can take this as evidence to not include it? Does this mean newspapers which support themselves at least partially off a donation basis (i.e. The Guardian) are suddenly invalid sources? No.

I have to be frank, but the combination of your actions on this page either looks like you have a strong bias against IP/red username user contributions to wikipedia, or you have an exceptionally strong bias on this subject. I encourage you to stop and have a think about this. That said, you could just be passionately shepherding this article, if so I'd simply remind you that wikipedia is open to contributions, and no matter how seasoned a user you are, you should strive to adhere to policies. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Highlighting the word Eden with a passive-aggressive edit summary doesn't hugely help. You conflated Eden's post which is honestly entirely unrelated to the petition, with the petition (which was what we were actually discussing). There is no reason to do that. Furthermore, there is the point of accusing Eden of cheap money grabs, and Nina of cheap fame grabs, which honestly are quite unfounded and entire wild conjecture on your part. Especially when these are real people, with Nina acting under presumably their full real name, I dare say you are running on to making libelous accusations, which are VERY SERIOUS.

This whole situation seems very reminiscent of the earlier AUS vs. US english debate though, where you made some statement without any explanation, reasoning, or expansion upon it, and then simply expect all other editors to give way for you, as opposed to actually discussing and rigorously examining the situation. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing the petition directly

I have inserted a request for whitelisting the petition link at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2021/02#change.org so we can cite updates to the signature count more easily given it is a source about itself in that regard. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

For reasons detailed on that page, the request was denied, although we have since got a couple of more up-to-date stories which have closed the (previously rather large) gap between the signature count and the count given on this page. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Article states that 17% of 23 critics liked the film, source states that 10% of 40 critics liked it. versacespacetalk to me 04:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Portrayal of autism section

• The section currently says: "...as well as having made several comments in interviews leading up to the film's release which objectified autistic people.[82][83]." It's someone's opinion that Sia's comments objectified autistic people. Cut it, or say whose opinion it was.
• In the third paragraph: "... and CommunicationFIRST, all made a joint press release". "all" is redundant. They "made a joint press release" means that they all did it.
• Also, "declaring the film to be dangerous after the movie team [failed] to address recommendations to protect autistic people". Actually, the press release just says that "physical restraint" is dangerous, not the whole movie. The press release's headline is misleading, and we should reflect the content of the release instead. Also, we should note that they did not see the film.
• The section also says: "Jane Harris, speaking for the National Autistic Society." It should be noted that this is a British society.
• We should remove this clause, as it arises from a misunderstanding: "were concerned by the suggestion that an autistic person wouldn’t be able to cope in the role of the autistic lead character". Sia wrote the film with Ziegler in mind. The people who complained about the casting did not explain who in the community they thought could have been found to play the role of a 14-year-old who could have performed Heffington's complex choreography.

-- Ssilvers (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• First point, fair. Agreed.
• Second point, also agreed.
• Yeah, you are right there. I'd written that because of the title of the statement, but yours is more accurate.
• It is irrelevant to note this. The page for the charity is wikilinked if someone wanted to find that out.
• This is explicitly said in the article, and furthermore, statements from Sia have suggested otherwise (her claims that she tried to cast an autistic actor), while we can make guesses at the truth, it would be silly to act like we are absolutely certain Sia's intent was for Ziegler to always play the role. The two are definitely close collaborators, but that doesn't confirm it. As such it's kinda silly to remove the quote as it makes a distinct point to the charity's statement.

188.220.86.46 (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Sia announced Ziegler's casting in 2015. See this. I know that Sia said that, but the idea that she ever tried to cast an autistic actor is simply not credible. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we discuss the positioning of this "Portrayal of Autism" section? To me, it makes more sense that it is either put as a sub-heading under "Reception" (it is part of how the film is being received...) or as its own section after the "Reception" section. Where it is currently seems to make no sense! - Peterpie123rww (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, my thinking with placing it before "Release" is that with the alternative being at the very end of the article, it seems delivered as an afterthought, where it's actually the main subtopic of this film. Do you see what I mean by that?

Honestly, I can tell that this article follows the same cookie-cutter structure that has been enforced by select editors, and it doesn't need to be. For example, the "Box office" subsection should be merged with "Release" if it's going to be limited content, otherwise it violates MOS:OVERSECTION in being a very short (and disconnected) section. I've never understood why these editors think that theatrical run details and box office details should be forced apart. The sections and subsections should be based on the content. I would even argue that "Accolades" is potentially unnecessary because it's only the Golden Globes at this point. For example, Death of a Nation (2018 film) got only Golden Raspberry Awards, and the section focuses on that and is prose-based. Don't just copy whatever you've seen before as if it's the gold standard -- use the available content for this topic and build the structure accordingly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's good to keep accolades as a subsection. It just...wouldn't really fit to be merged anywhere else as far as I can see. I could actually agree though that Box Office fits better in release than reception, regardless of if it loses or retains its ability to be a distinct section, it honestly doesn't make sense particularly as part of reception. In this case I really don't see the need for it being a distinct section though. Could it not simply instead be a 1 sentence paragraph fully merged under the release element?

As for positioning the "Portrayal of Autism", I really am torn. Putting it after release does indeed suggest it's some sort of afterthought, especially putting it after the accolades subsection, but it also feels odd preceding the reception section.

Honestly, I'll defer to you other editors judgements here because I haven't a clue the best way to go. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The Portrayal of Autism section should go near the end or at the end of the Reception section. I'm happy to go with whichever Peterpie prefers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

While I am abstaining as to where to put it, there are other editors involved in this page aside from just Peter and you, Ssilvers. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It should be put under "Reception", it shows the reader about the reaction/response to the portrayal. It should definitely not be under "Accolades". Some editors are edit warring for it, even though this is just common sense. nyxærös 15:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Under the portrayal of autism section, there is a mention of Sia claiming she will either remove the scenes depicting restraint or adding a disclaimer to the movie regarding said scenes. However, having had seen the movie and hearing others talk about the movie, neither has happened at least in the US. I can’t find any reputable sources mentioning the fact that it hasn’t been added, and don’t think I can cite the movie itself in Wikipedia. Hopefully someone will have more luck than me with finding articles mentioning this? 50.126.125.209 (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

She said that it would be removed from future printings of the film. And she said that days before it was released, and distributed. So the scenes aren't removed because it would've been impossible for them to do that. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

At what point will they be considered future printings? I’m by no means a film editor, but it seems like it would be fairly easy to include a disclaimer in the on demand versions of the movie, at least. 50.126.125.209 (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There are a ton of different distributors of the film based around the world. Future printings most likely means future new releases of it, or with full theatrical releases post-COVID. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for explaining. 50.126.125.209 (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"Sia and Dallas wrong the screenplay"

@Peterpie123rww: - Would you mind offering a source for BOTH Sia and Dallas writing the screenplay? I don't particularly doubt you, but it'd be nice to get a source when Metacritic is saying that the screenplay was by Dallas only. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There has never been any doubt that both of them wrote the screenplay. We knew from the get-go, nearly six years ago.... but since you insist, I have tried to find some sources:

*www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34185890

*deadline.com/2020/10/sias-directorial-debut-music-with-kate-hudson-leslie-odom-jr-maddie-ziegler-launches-sales-with-hanway-1234595660/

*variety.com/2020/film/global/sia-music-kate-hudson-hanway-1234801228/

*www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/autism-inspirational-porn-sias-music-become-reviled-film-since/

*www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/news/a30344/sia-movie-with-maddie-ziegler/

She has also said so in nearly all interviews throughout 2020 promoting "Together", the film and so. ---Peterpie123rww (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah I just wanted to double check it was a source. It seemed like something that could've gotten mixed up easily, or which could've changed from what was planned in production, so wanted to double-check. The variety and deadline articles are both definitely post-production though so looks all good. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, may I ask how you know so much about Wikipedia policies and such, considering your first edit was made on 23 January 2021, 5 days before you started warring edits on this page? Thanks, just curious - Peterpie123rww (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Is that relevant anymore, as you all seem to be behaving better now? Move on per WP:FOC. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have contributed to wikipedia before (though back then I was under a different IP address. Different flat.) I am a newer editor though. That is rather irrelevant though.

Honestly, I'd rather not have "edit war edit war" flinged back at me whenever I do a discussion. It's not as if every other editor here has been continually perfect by any means, and asking to discuss a reversion is a surprise surprise the D in BRD.

I just asked for one source, just to double check a fact. That's all, nothing big by any means. As Erik says though, why don't we keep it focused on content? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's relevant because we could be looking at a WP:SOCK (see, I can have some fun citing Wikipedia guidelines too!) - Peterpie123rww (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, that definitely sounds like you ain't exactly presuming good faith, and frankly the constant throwing of this accusation is becoming rather tiring, if you really do passionately believe I'm a sockpuppet, then start a formal investigation, as wikipedia has routes to investigate this and don't just use it to launch personal attacks to try and justify any disagreements you have with me. Furthermore, remember more generally that you aren't meant to bite the newcomer and WP:HUMAN.

I've made a number of rather productive contributions, and when we had concerns over sockpuppetry I rather promptly disclosed that one edit of mine was from a different IP (with the reason given).

If you or ssilvers oh so confidently believes I'm a sockpuppet, then please please do go and raise it at WP:SPI, I'm sure they'll make swift work of me if your accusations are based on any truth.

Until then though, please, let us keep it focused on content? And perhaps you could try listening to views from the other editors popping on here. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Blackface accusation

I STRONGLY object to the inclusion of the ridiculous blackface accusations, started by Twitter trolls and based on no grounds at all. The scene is set in a room lit with the colour orange, resulting in the slight darker look on Ziegler's skin. See a behind the scenes photo posted by makeup artist Tonya Brewer, clearly showing Ziegler's white skin on set. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing available results, I am not seeing any coverage from reliable sources about this, so it should not be included at this time. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The telegraph have covered it (in combination with the autism controversy) here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/autism-inspirational-porn-sias-music-become-reviled-film-since/

I agree with Peter that it doesn't personally look like blackface, but it isn't our call to make as to if it is or isn't blackface, rather our only judgment on this is if it is notable or not. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll help you–it's not notable! - Peterpie123rww (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The discourse I have seen on social media seems to categorise it more as "blackfishing" rather than blackface. However, I do believe if the article talks about controversy, it would not make sense to omit the criticism over this scene. Here are some more links to articles discussing the controversy. [1] [2]Tailskin2021 (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Those articles are basing their words on fake information from fake woke "activists" on Twitter. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The Telegraph and others are reliable sources, we don't get to delete well-sourced material simple because we personally disagree with it. Feoffer (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that Peter proclaims himself as a "Music fan" on his User page and the majority of pages he created or expanded he credits are Sia-related. Keep in that mind during this discussion. Tailskin2021 (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

More articles discussing the controversy. [3] [4] Tailskin2021 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see your point, User:Tailskin2021? Why should what I edit elsewhere be kept in mind? When I say music fan, I don't mean this film, I mean music in general. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for misinterpreting "Music fan". However, your conclusion that it's "fake information from fake woke "activists" on Twitter" highlights a personal bias. You say that these accusations were formed by Twitter trolls, yet the articles cite a real discussion going on about these allegations and why it could be considered blackface. If there are articles referring to these discussions relating to a film already met with controversy regarding its depiction of autism, then I don't see the logic in omitting this particular controversy. Tailskin2021 (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

But they all cite said tweets? I see them basing it off of that only, and these people on Twitter have their own personal bias against Sia and this film. I'm certainly happy to include information on criticism on the film, because there has been a lot. But not when it gets ridiculous. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

But why is this particular criticism "ridiculous"? The criticism is coming from audiences who have watched the film and took issue with it. Critical reception section does not have to be restricted to just film critics, it can mention the audience's response to it as well which can be seen in the articles highlighting some of the responses. Tailskin2021 (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

While you did misinterpret "music fan", It should be noted that Peter does seem rather focused on Sia articles, I don't think it's a leap to say that they are a fan of Sia and are not addressing their own biases on the matter.

(For note, of course we are all biased, I am a fan of Sia's music, but autistic and rather against ableism).

As to addressing peter claiming "I'll help you–it's not notable!", you are not the sole authority on this article peter. There are multiple, independent, reliable, and verifiable sources on this.

Furthermore, it is not our place to decide "the truth". I appreciate tailskin's adding of information about "Blackfishing" (I did not know about this term before!), and I support using phrasing like allegedly as I agree that it doesn't look like obvious blackface to me either (and some sources are using that phrasing). We do not decide the truth though. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with using terminology such as "allegedly" and "accused of" rather than blatantly confirm or deny as such. It's not about deciding here the truth of whether or not it is, but rather presenting the discussion and controversy surrounding the scene. And it's shown through the sources I linked that that discussion is currently happening. I also brought up the term "blackfishing" because both that term and "blackface" were being used interchangably to describe the scene. So if we are to include in the article, it might be important to include both terms. I don't think this controversy needs to be given its own entire section, but simply a sentence or two explaining the backlash from viewers regarding the scene. Tailskin2021 (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally I would say this controversy isn't shouldn't have its own section, however, it doesn't really appear particularly obvious to me a good way to fit it into the article without doing that.

If you want to revert and include the section again though, I am all for that. It might be nice if we can find a source that uses "blackfishing" as a term too? Helps just back up that discussion of it. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I will restore the section for now and refrain from using the term 'blackfishing' unless I find a source that uses it. Tailskin2021 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The blackface accusation is more unencyclopedic bloat to this article. It should not be included. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree - I am against its inclusion. It hasn't had anywhere near as much coverage as the casting/restraint/petition controversy and isn't really based on any legitimate grounds. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the claims, only that reliable sources are seriously reporting on it, this is why we shouldn't say "Ziegler was in blackface" or likewise exclude this information, but rather say that it has been alleged by some that she was in blackface. The existence and scope of these allegations is indisputably factual, even if we belief/disbelieve the allegations themselves.

As I said before, the merit of inclusion (or conversely, exclusion) is not truth, but fact. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I am for the inclusion in the Wikipedia article, provided it’s kept to a sentence or two as it isn’t as widely covered as the whole autism debate. Including the terminology blackfishing would be useful to note, however should be linked to the Wikipedia article on the topic and not explained further so that it’s kept brief. When compared to the inaccurate portrayal of autism, it should be noted that while it has been covered significantly less by media outlets, that is because it’s been known about for a significantly less amount of time. As multiple sources are reporting on it and it is currently gaining momentum in the general community (in other words, those that aren’t invested in the chatter around the film), this should warrant mentioning. Luxquine (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to add another possible critique made about the film that could be added to the film, which is critics' opinions on Leslie Odom, Jr.'s character, Ebo being considered a "magical negro" stereotype. There are some articles, [5], [6] that point it out, but I thought its could be added to the section surrounding the film's controversy or critical reception. Tailskin2021 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Firstly I should preface this comment and disclose I am the editor formerly 188.220.86.46 (internet cable maintenance has caused an IP change it seems).

I saw mention of racially insensitive portrayals being brought up in a couple of critics reviews. It definitely could be included, perhaps changing the "Blackface" section to "Racial Stereotyping", then covering briefly the blackface issue as is done, and then covering the magical negro caricature that Ebo is said to be? 94.13.35.21 (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favor of including this and I'm happy with the way it is currently presented. My one question is whether we should capitalize the N; the Magical Negro article does, but the sources do not for the most part. Looking on the talk page for that article, it seems there was a discussion about ten years ago resulting in the current consensus, but it's quite possible that convention has changed since then. I'm not sure that we need to get into this debate here and now necessarily, but I wanted to bring it up. Aerin17 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced content

Since the IP editor wants to accuse me of edit warring + attempt to get me blocked from editing: in the Portrayal of Autism section, I would love to know what, exactly, the "several controversial comments about autistic people" made by Sia were, and they MUST be sourced clearly. @ IP editor... - Peterpie123rww (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Here are some articles addressing the controversy surrounding her retaliation to the reaction against her film. The articles highlight that her comments received criticism for her use of terminology. [7] [8]. This was Sia's statement later [9]. Tailskin2021 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

When I gave you a warning for violating WP:3RR on your talk page you asked me this, I have already answered it there. I recommend you reread that. Furthermore, the content is sourced clearly. If you believe we are misrepresenting the source, that is a very distinct issue. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I am not even presently "attemp[ing] to get [you] blocked from editting", I explicitly said I don't intend to follow up on simply your violation of the 3-revert rule at present, it was a polite (albeit firm) warning. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sia's comments were certainly ill-advised, but they were not necessarily "about autistic people." For example, she rudely suggested that a Twitter commentator might be a bad actor. Of course that might be true. But it wasn't necessarily "about autistic people", just a rude response to the actor who was criticizing Sia (and who was not apparently the right age for the partj, not a dancer, and had not auditioned for it). -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Precisely - Peterpie123rww (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You are intentionally ignoring the context of this. You need to bear in mind what Sia said, and what she was replying to. The tweet she was replying to was not simply that specific actor saying they'd have played the part, but that they and a very large number of autistic actors would've been able to say yes to the part at short notice, pointing out that Sia's claim that she attempted to cast an autistic actor was either a very frankly pathetic attempt, or an entire falsehood. She then resorts to an attack to dismiss that. Ditto for a similar thing with the "f***ity f***" tweet, she is being dismissive of ableist issues.

She also used the phrasing of "special abilities"/"special needs" instead of "disabled", which is widely considered now rather dated and offensive. - QUOTE: “I’ve never referred to (the primary character) as disabled. Special abilities is what I’ve always said.” from the Variety article tailskin kindly provided.

Her suggestion that casting any non-verbal autistic actor (or in fact, any autistic actor at all) would've been cruel and unkind is likewise offensive, dismissing the abilities of autistic people as a whole of being able to do anything.

Also, although her autism speaks connection seems rather false, the fact she tried to use that to justify her actions likewise is controversial.

Sadly with Sia deleting her account I can't as easily plaster a whole array of all the other various statements for you at as short demand.

Honestly, they were VERY MUCH about autistic people, some intrinsically and the rest in their context. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What's offensive and what is not offensive is a matter of opinion. Sia even said in interviews that the autistic people she worked with had different preferences on how they wanted her to refer to them than others on social media. The opinions within the community are differing. Either way, that is not the point. It is misleading to say that she made "several controversial comments about autistic people leading up to the film's release", because she didn't... - Peterpie123rww (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, what is "offensive" and not is a matter of opinion, just like if a film is good or not is a matter of opinion. Opinions can be presented as such, as long as it is clear they are opinions.

The sentence says "as well as having made several controversial comments about autistic people leading up to the film's release."

What is the definition of controversial? - "causing disagreement or discussion" or if we take Google's definition, "giving rise or likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreement."

Effectively, controversial means something likely to cause controversy, and controversy is a lot of disagreement or argument about something, usually because it affects or is important to many people

Sia's statements fit that, perfectly. Saying "offensive statements", perhaps you could have some (very shaky) ground to argue your point from Peter, but the current wording, "controversial" statements, is absolutely fitting.

Furthermore, saying "about autistic people" has a dual fittingness in that it encapsulates how her statements can be offensive to autistic people/disabled people as a whole, and how her statements have been offensive on more personal levels to autistic individuals. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

"Controversial comments about autistic people" is well supported by reliable sources: "Many accused Sia of making assumptions about people with autism, and not searching for actors. Estelle Olivia tweeted, “I’m a neurodivergent actor and writer with an MFA from a prestigious program. I know myself and plenty of other autistic actors and writers (many of whom are in this thread) would kill for a lead role in a star studded film.” @HelenAngel added, “Several autistic actors, myself included, responded to these tweets. We all said we could have acted in it on short notice. These excuses are just that – excuses.” Sia responded, “Fucking bullshit. You have no fucking idea because you weren’t there and haven’t seen the movie.” She then added, “Maybe you’re just a bad actor.” Feoffer (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

None of those comments were about autistic people. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a perhaps better example: "Sia claims that casting an autistic performer at Music’s “level of functioning” would be cruel. Putting aside the fact that functioning labels are outmoded and offensive (indeed, “functioning” is rarely static), being nonverbal doesn’t necessarily mean lacking in agency." [10] (See also this Twitter thread) Also, I distinctly remember hearing about an interview in which the interviewer compared non-speaking autistic people to inanimate objects and Sia agreed with her, but I can't find this anywhere. Can anyone else? Aerin17 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the link: [11]. It happens at the 25:29 mark. The interviewer says "...There's this person who can't speak, she might as well be an inanimate object like a wig...", which Sia nods her head in agreement to. This is incredibly offensive to an autistic person because it is dehumanizing and was considered to be hypocritical because she claims to have spent years doing research on autism prior to its release. Tailskin2021 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I have an explanation about how this movie panders to autistic people? Starman2377 (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Explanation

Now i have not seen this film and am not planning to. But i would like some explanation on how this film panders to the autistic community. As i, myself, am autistic. Starman2377 (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starman2377 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sia "admitted" to being ableist?

In the Portrayal of Autism section, an IP editor (a different one, not 188 who's been discussing on this talk page) added the sentences: "Sia is ableist and has admitted that herself. She also admitted to nepotism in choosing Maddie over an actually autistic actor." Cantgetusername reverted this (rightfully) for being original research. I was going to add it back in with a source, but I thought I should come here first.

What Sia specifically said was: "I realized it wasn't ableism, I mean it is ableism I guess as well, but it's actually nepotism because I can't do a project without her. I don't want to. I wouldn't make art if it didn't include her." [12]

First of all, should we include this, and second of all, is this phrasing reasonable or does it need to be changed? It does seems rather slanted to me, but I'm unsure. (I should note that I've read through most of the discussion on this page but not all, so it's possible this has already been discussed, in which case I apologize.) Aerin17 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's okay to re-add it in some form, I just removed it because the phrasing was awful and didn't include a source, nor have I heard of Sia's statement before seeing the article you posted. The quote is strangely back and forth "it wasn't ableism, I mean it is ableism" and is contradictory and confusing. If there is some clear and concise manner to include it, I don't see why not. However, translating this to say "Sia admitted to being albeist" seems to be synthesis. It is clear that she's stating nepotism has been a factor in casting Maddie Ziegler, but nothing further, as the quote/article is strictly in response to a question of her casting. Cantgetusername (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

Nyxaros seems to be passionately protecting the lead to avoid any mention of controversy and to protect the use of "generally unfavorable reviews" (I presume with the justification that this is how the metascore is described).

I think it's worth noting with regards to the metascore, the film is towards the lower end of that category, but also that the Rotten Tomatoes score, and reviews themselves, are not irrelevant either. Cats (2019 film) I list as one example, it's metascore is 32, significantly higher than the 23 that music gets. It's RT score is also 20%, nearly double the 11% that Music gets. It also mentions specific criticism of the CGI effects briefly.

While indepth exploration of why the reviews are largely negative, or quoting reviews, is silly to do in the lead, mentioning briefly that yes this film has been controversial, and that the reviews are largely negative, is quite sensible and an accurate representation.

• Dirty Grandpa is another film one could compare, having very similar scoring as Music has, and in fact its lead goes on to say not just that it received negative reception, but also that it was called by several "the worst film they had ever seen."

• The Last Airbender has a worse RT score (5%) but a far better metascore (33), and "The film was universally panned by critics, audiences, and fans of the original animated series upon its release, and is widely considered to be one of the worst films ever made. Many reviewers criticized the screenplay, acting, direction, casting, plot holes, unfaithfulness to the source material, visual effects, editing, characters, and 3D conversion."

• The Mummy (2017 film) is described as "generally negative reviews from critics" with 16% on RT and a metascore of 34.

• Transformers: The Last Knight has an RT of 15% and a metascore of 27, yet is described "The film was universally panned by critics and is the worst-reviewed film of the Transformers series. Criticism focused on its length, story, direction, narrative, characters, script, cinematography, and frequent format changes throughout. At the 38th Golden Raspberry Awards, it was nominated for ten awards, including Worst Picture, Worst Director, and Worst Actor for Wahlberg."

• Mortal Engines (film) has an RT of 26% and a metascore of 44 (indicating "mixed or average reviews"!!!), yet is also described as "The film received negative reviews from critics"

• The Great Wall (film) has an RT of 35% and a metascore of 42 (indicating "mixed or average reviews"!!!), yet is also described as "The film received negative reviews from critics"

94.13.35.21 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, stop targeting me. I am not the only one who prefers "generally unfavorable", and don't show examples that don't make any sense. These examples do not have any source to justify the wording of "universally panned", "overwhelming", "negative" etc. If you don't randomly find articles and search for especially the good and the featured, you will see that their criticial reception is more than just aggregators and filled with reliable sources. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't say anything at all: "Rotten" and "Fresh" Tomatometer are not equal to positive and negative reviews. Metacritic also shouldn't be the reference to generalize the critical reception, but I proposed a source above that can be used instead. nyxærös 14:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not targetting you for some attack, rather I'm making clear that you have been the editor putting most work into preserving that wording to provide context without requiring everyone check each and every diff.

As for the above mention - Looking at it User:FreeEncyclopediaMusic raised the fact that leads should not necessarily be cited, you haven't responded to this point (that said, if you really believe it should be sourced, and HAVE a suitable source, why haven't you added the source rather than perpetually reverted?). The lead statement here is a generalized summary which is expanded upon in the extensively sourced "Reception" and "Portrayal of Autism" sections.

As for my selection of films, I selected a handful I knew received lower reviews overall, as those would be most comparable examples, if you so desire only referencing featured articles though, then have a look at:

• Battlefield Earth (film) - Although the claim "frequently described as one of the worst films of all time" IS sourced (after all, saying it is described as one of the worst of ALL time is a far bigger claim than just overwhelmingly negative or negative reception). This whole statement "Reviewers criticized virtually every aspect of the film, including the acting, cinematography, script, special effects, musical score, character development and art direction. Audiences were reported to have ridiculed early screenings and stayed away from the film after its opening weekend. It received eight Golden Raspberry Awards, which until 2012 was the most Razzie Awards given to a single film, and won Worst Picture of the Decade in 2010." is unsourced. A mention of a legal suit is sourced. "coupled with its poor reception, ended Travolta's plans for a sequel." is unsourced.
• The Beautician and the Beast - "The Beautician and the Beast was released on February 7, 1997, to generally negative reviews. Critics panned the story as more appropriate for a sitcom rather than a feature film, and called it a poor example of the romantic comedy genre. Drescher and Dalton received mixed reviews for their performances; Drescher was nominated for the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress. The Beautician and the Beast was a box-office bomb, grossing roughly $11.5 million against a production budget of $16 million." Entirely unsourced.
• Lord of the Universe - is likewise unsourced, even for its relatively specific mentions of reviews.
• Resident Evil: Apocalypse (edit: last version before Nyxaros began instituting changes there after I made this comment) - "received mostly negative reviews from critics who complained about the plot; however, the film garnered praise for its action sequences. It is the lowest-rated of the six films in the Resident Evil series on Rotten Tomatoes, with an approval rating of 20%.", unsourced.

More generally speaking, ones with mixed reviews such as The FP and a lot of others from the featured list if you wish to check through them, do not source the lead.

----

Hopefully this expanded array of examples helps back up my point further, the current convention, which is moderately in line with WP:LEADCITE, is to try and avoid placing references in the lead unless it's a really controversial or out there claim, and a film having "negative" or even "overwhelmingly negative" reviews doesn't hit that mark quite.

94.13.35.21 (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Your examples are incorrect. Except for Resident Evil: Apocalypse, which I removed, all of them are sourced. Also, we are talking about "overwhelmingly negative" and "generally negative", not the awards and the response to some aspects of the film. Irrelevant sentences... nyxærös 16:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems you are trying to throw a no true Scotsman, the point is that the lead sentence often presents points expanded further in the article which aren't sourced in the lead.

That said, look at The Beautician and the Beast which I mentioned above.

And again, the various other articles which while not featured, are still very much articles. I am questioning your approach slightly though, you seem to ask for someone to present you with examples, and then edit those examples to conform to your view, rather than discussing the precedents. (Ditto for when Rotten Tomatoes phrasing was brought up).

94.13.35.21 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You still don't make any sense. The point is actually to introduce the film and provide a summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body which should have reliable references. The Beautician and the Beast has multiple references that show "generally negative reviews", along with others, and I haven't asked for any examples. We should not be here to discuss other film articles, and you failed to provide a source that shows the film's critical response as "universally panned" or "overwhelmingly negative". Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and MOS:FILM. Done here.

Beautician and the Beast does not cite it in the lead, as you stated. Also you challenged the presentation of non-featured articles based on their non-featured status, which suggests you'd rather featured article examples.

WP:FILMLEAD covered the lead but does not comment on the need to cite/not cite in the lead. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is something you might benefit from reading, "Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology.", something that could be shown....through examples perhaps? Almost like I just did above! Shocker!

As for you saying "you failed to provide a source that shows the film's critical response as universally panned or overwhelmingly negative" - I preferred the wording "negative", although "overwhelmingly negative" is acceptable too. Rotten Tomatoes AND Metacritic both show rather low scores for the film, and per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS films with that low a score can very much be described as "overwhelmingly negative". I don't like the phrase "universally panned" as it somewhat suggests nobody liked it at all. I've never professed we should use this phrase.

Furthermore, you yourself provided a source which you viewed as acceptable for this point, yet you still went reverting it to "generally unfavourable". That said, the collation of RT, Metacritic, AND quite an array of significant reviews directly in the latter sections of the article really do show the point enough. 94.13.35.21 (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The claim that the film was "universally panned" or received "overwhelmingly negative" can be backed up by the articles referring to the critical reception of the film here: [13], [14], and [15]. There is even an article that points to the film's lower RT, IMDB, and Metacritic scores than Cats [16]. The term "generally unfavorable" doesn't seem fitting, given that it sounds like a direct quote from Metacritic and does not encapsulate the reception's favour towards negativity. I would also suggest the sentence could include "and audiences", given that sites like IMDB, RT, and Letterboxd, all have very low ratings from viewers of the film. Tailskin2021 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice point on "and audiences" - Added in.

Folks seem to be happy with simply "negative" as phrasing at the moment. While I agree with you, the current phrasing seems to be a compromise that's being accepted and definitely far more suitable than quoting metacritic. 94.13.35.21 (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Confusion re: language

I'm confused and it seems others are too — are we using American or Australian English? Definitive decision/consensus would be great. Thanks - Peterpie123rww (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead section and infobox classifies it as an American production, thus the article should be using American English. However, I have seen the article use Australian English at times, presumably on the basis that the film's director and producer, Sia, is Australian. Given that the film is set in the US, and was produced and filmed by American studios, the article should use American English. Tailskin2021 (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

With previous discussion, the MOS:TIES is just for subjects with a very strong national connection, and while it's perhaps not wrong to say it's an "American film" or "Hollywood film", the fact is that it's a rather weaker tie. Sia is Australian, Hanway films is a British production company, and the other companies involved are dotted about the globe, and rather importantly the film was first released in Australia, (and it's being released in many other countries around the globe).

However, the reason for Australia English is although it's ties are also somewhat weak, Australian English is very similar to Canadian and British English (neighbour = AUS/CAN/GB, whereas neighbor only = US) so per MOS:COMMONALITY, if we write in Australian English we can provide a far greater degree of conformity to other types of English too (American English often diverges far from the rest).

94.13.35.21 (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

But surely the fact that it is an American film–regardless of anything else–should warrant the use of American English? And, to note, it was only released so early in Australia because of COVID. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Sia has lived in Los Angeles for over a decade, and it is where she has adopted sons. Only the early part of her career were spent in Australia. She is an ex-pat Australian. The argument that we should use Australian English because it is similar to other kinds of non-American English would support the use of Australian English for ALL articles in English Wikipedia, which is not an argument that has ever been accepted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

A large part of the argument for Australian English is it is near identical to British English, and very similar (bar a few things like s <-> z) to Canadian English, and I imagine it is rather similar to many other types of English.

There is no strong national ties for this article which could alone justify any language use. If you look at MOS:TIES it provides some example topics, and those topics are indisputably not 'international' and very tied to a specific nation.

The bigger factor here is MOS:COMMONALITY which says "using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable". American English often diverges far further from the other types of English (though Canadian English as mentioned contains some American influences). So this is a good justification for using an English other than American English, and out of the remaining ones, Australian English makes most sense (British or Canadian English would be a rather random choice).

I think that's where some of the confusion has perhaps occurred. It's not simply about national ties (which are honestly rather weak here), but about the commonality of spelling, with national ties as a more secondary factor.

See | this comparison as to the differences between a few of the major varieties of English. 94.13.35.21 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

No, this is not "a good justification for using an English other than American English." It is a nonsensical justification. The film is an American film with an American cast set in America, and so the article should use American English. Simple. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion between American and Australian English, but I'd like to point out that which type of language this article uses is relatively inconsequential and does not need to have this much fuss made about it. Take a step back, please, all of you, and think about what you're saying, before this debate gets any more heated. Aerin17 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to keep this pretty chilled and solve some issues. Some reasons were presented for Australian English (which really aren't nonsense, although as Aerin says, this really shouldn't be the most controversial topic in the world). Some people agree with those reasons, others are relatively neutral. Ssilvers seems to be the one person really strongly be protesting this, but largely by just throwing attacks. It seemed pretty settled this topic, but apparently not. 94.13.35.21 (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ssilvers wasn't throwing attacks – more, giving valid reasons for the use of American English. Yes, it isn't a big deal, but we need to agree on something so we can add a tag at the top of the page + keep it all consistent. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN clearly says "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. ... When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." This article used American English consistently for more than 5 years before the IP showed up and started to edit war and forum shop to make it into a bloated, unbalanced WP:QUOTEFARM that violates WP:CSECTION, as well as demanding the change in the variety of English. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not "shop" any forums. Furthermore simply because you are a big ol' fan of Sia doesn't make the controversy non-notable. And another accusation of edit warring. You rather prove my point. 94.13.35.21 (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"Could I Love With No Fear" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Could I Love With No Fear. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 2#Could I Love With No Fear until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Lock this page

As a person with autism, all I just smelled is an Oscar bait of a film whether you support it or not. Espngeek (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Whilest it could well be oscar bait, Wikipedia is not censored, so I'm not sure that'd be a reason to lock the page? 94.13.35.21 (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

What I meant is protect this page as the autism controversy won't ever stop. Espngeek (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Even so I'm not sure protecting this page would do much help. Low-level protection only prevents IP editors (or very new users), and high-level protection is highly unlikely. It's also more favoured to protect pages for the minimum amount of time necessary, and indefinite protections are very rare.

The best approach as someone with an account would be to add this page to your watchlist to help steward it. 94.13.35.21 (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Golden Globes Fey/Poehler Comments?

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/golden-globes-2021-best-jokes-b1808955.html

The hosts Tina Fey and Amy Poehler made various comments in the Golden Globes ceremony, including some acknowledging the controversial nomination of Music. Should reference to those be included here or not? 94.13.35.21 (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to include the contents of their joke re: the film in the article? Not relevant at all, in my opinion. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Controversies section

Wow... there’s a plot section of 410 words and a controversies section of 504 words. That’s way too much and breaches WP:WEIGHT. The autism section needs to be trimmed to about a quarter of what it is, and the blackface claim is so woefully wrong that I’m surprised editorial judgement hasn’t just been exercised to remove something that is untruthful, despite what a couple of pop-reviewers have echoed from Twitter trolls. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The autism section is in a good place in my opinion, maybe a couple of things could be omitted, but it's mainly good. Its media coverage has been quite large. I was against the blackface inclusion right from the get-go, and certainly think it should be removed, until it at least begins to have mainstream media coverage. We can discuss - Peterpie123rww (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The autism section on its own is still longer than the plot. It’s repetitive and bloated and could be summarised in about a quarter of the number of words. Not every single organisation or group needs to be quoted, and neither does every group or individual’s action or comment have to be mentioned. It’s WP:UNDUE to have so much detail, which makes the section unencyclopaedic as a result. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay – let's wait for some other editor's comments and thoughts and then move forward from there. - Peterpie123rww (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest either working on the talk page to decide on which sources mentioned in the controversies section should be removed (to prevent edit warring) to make it more easy to read, or to work to increase the plot summary. As the blackface accusations are covered by multiple media outlets, I see no reason to remove it; the term “Twitter trolls” seems to be thrown around a lot on this talk page to debunk controversies that a Wikipedian doesn’t like. 50.126.125.209 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with IP 213... in both respects, and I have been saying much the same for some time. The autism section is far too long and unbalances the article, which is supposed to be about a film, not dominated by the conversation about the offense taken by the autism community. And, of course, the blackface accusation is false on its face: you can see the video yourself! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the autism section is "repetitive and bloated," nor that this article grants undue weight to the movie's portrayal of autism. It is the most significant issue being discussed in the media in regards to this film (as can be seen by a simple Google search), and reliable sources show that the majority opinion is that its portrayal of autism was problematic. This is not a fringe or minority view. That being said, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to removing some of the sources, so long as we can preserve the gist of the current content.

I agree with IP 50 that the blackface accusations should remain. As has been said in previous discussions on this talk page, whether the accusations are true is not our call to make; what matters is that they have been the subject of media coverage, and thus should be mentioned. Aerin17 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

So you’re happy with a controversies section longer than the plot of the film? A section that repeats itself in numerous places and looks like a quote farm? Encyclopaedic writing is about summarising the main points, not bloating them. And what is there is a bloated mess that tries to cover everything said by everyone, which goes against what an encyclopaedia should be.

In terms of the blackface, are you saying that you have no editorial discretion? (Before you think no, the correct answer is yes). If a newspaper prints something that’s not true, it doesn’t have to be repeated, particularly when other newspapers print something that proves it wrong. In this case, it’s nonsense, as has been shown by the explanation about lighting, so a couple of news outlets jumping on a bandwagon without the benefit of intelligent thought isn’t worthy of encyclopaedic writing. Will the blackface point pass the ten year test? No, it won’t, and if it fails that, it shouldn’t be included in what should be a summary of the subject. - 213.205.194.140 (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I’ve removed one sentence (rationale in the edit summary), so let’s see how that goes. I suspect I’ll be reverted, but before you do the revert, ask if there it will be of interest or importance in ten years time. If the petition has some success, it can be re-added later, but anyone can start a petition and we don’t need to report them all. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly reverted, but not really a credible summary left. Feoffer, Is there any reason you’ve ignored WP:RECENT and WP:10Y in re-adding unencyclopaedic fluff? Just because something exists it doesn’t mean it has to be included in an already bloated section that adds undue WP:WEIGHT to a topic? 2A01:4C8:481:EFBD:D08:CE2B:923D:DCA2 (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC) (Same editor as 213.205.194.140)

The deleted material was well-sourced to LA Times and others. Controversy generated by films are routinely covered in articles of this kind even after 10 years. Feoffer (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

So you are happy to delete sourced information here citing DUE, but happy to have an overly bloated here despite DUE? The petition is just one example of a nothing piece of information, particularly if it goes no where, but you think it’s necessary here? 2A01:4C8:481:EFBD:D08:CE2B:923D:DCA2 (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't compare across articles. Discuss the topic at hand, not me. Feoffer (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

But you’re the person who reverted to a bloated state. Why are you happy to ignore DUE on this article? 12:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.140 (talk)

My sincere editorial decision is that the material in question was properly added, well-sourced, and due in this context. Feoffer (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

And you’re happy that the article puts UNDUE weight on this single aspect of the film, to the overall detriment of the article? You’re judgement is that a petition started by a non-notable individual (in WP terms) that may have zero effect is going to pass wp:10Y? 213.205.194.140 (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I endorse the inclusion of the petition because it has been covered by reliable sources. WP:WEIGHT compared to the "Plot" section does not apply here. WP:PLOT says, "Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." A plot summary is essentially complementary and hardly the most important part of an article. Furthermore, the film is most known for criticism of its portrayal of autism, so the weight is adequate. Wikipedia summarizes what has been written about a topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:10Y and get back to me. This article is a poster child of UNDUE, and there is far too much emphasis on this in comparison to the rest of the article. Unless the autism section is reduced by at least half (which is possible and easy to do if anyone here is any good at summarising), it will remain an unbalanced and biased representation of the subject. I’m out of this: editors sitting and defending rate material just because it’s there goes beyond the point of STEWARDSHIP and only the article suffers. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That essay does not overwrite the fact that WP:PLOT shows that a plot summary is essentially complementary. Furthermore, the section in question is only half as long as the "Critical response" section. If the lengths were switched, that could be grounds for discussion. WP:WEIGHT says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Do you honestly think that the biggest focus of this film is not about its portrayal of autism? Not only that, it has been sustained coverage, not something that happened one day and was not discussed again. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The film was a footnote for ages, and probably would've remained a footnote in history, WERE IT NOT for the controversy. The controversy is what created the degree of attention for this film. It is relevant and not unnecessarily repetitive. Furthermore the 10YT is a recommendation of but one method to deal with recentism. The petition in and of itself doesn't necessarily pass the 10YT (though it may do, who knows truly!), but it adds a valuable very measurable metric of the scale of the controversy, and helps provide a perspective to the narrative of it to a reader TODAY. Hence why it is important to include succinctly.

I suggest you actually read the enter recentism essay. Notably the "just wait and see" part. If it proves in the future that any parts were superfluous, we can very freely remove them, it isn't the end of the world. But right not it seems that effectively all parts of the section are quite vital to explaining it. 94.13.35.21 (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

”Footnotes” don’t get nominated for Golden Globes, genius. Your personal opinion about the film is worth as little as mine or any other writer here, and I’ve not seen any sources say anything like your wild claim that the controversy is the only reason for its notability. This is a second rate article with way too much emphasis on the controversies section, particularly as it’s also been partly covered in the Reviews section as well, which adds to the problem. What a mess, but carry on defending this little piece of quote farm as much as you want, it will remain a second rate heap of trash because of your adamant defence of the mediocre. 213.205.194.140 (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

And the golden globes nominations only occurred after the controversy began, a nominations ceremony this year with its own controversies by the boatload, and one which the hosts actually acknowledged the controversial nature of Music at quite directly really. If you want to go throw personal attacks though, go ahead. The consensus has been however to include the petition, in a brief mention, with reliable secondary sources attached. Thus, it is included. You attempted removal of it, someone else reverted it. The world goes on. 94.13.35.21 (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks, so that slur doesn’t work on me. Again, your OR on the course of events is nothing without any evidence to back up the claims. Regardless of the petition, it’s still a bloated section that repeats itself and covers material also covered in the reviews. Fine if you want to try and sideline with innuendo, but it doesn’t change the fact that this is a second rate and unbalanced article that repeats the same material so often it feels like it’s been written by someone with an agenda. (I’m not saying it has, but that’s the impact that the whole article has). 213.205.194.140 (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with 94.13.35.21 that the nod toward the controversy at the Golden Globes speaks volumes about what the film is known for. In regard to the nomination, I am fine with covering it with fuller context if possible. However, a nomination from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association does not outweigh all other entities discussing the portrayal of autism. The 2011 film Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (film) was nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, but based on other coverage, it does not mean its encyclopedic article should weigh toward highlighting Best-Picture traits more than the actual middling general reception as reported by multiple sources. Furthermore, I do understand your argument about recentism, but the essay talks about recent events being disproportionate to the rest of the topic. A broader topic or a topic about a person can have other aspects to discuss in the overall sense. However, the portrayal of autism in this film is interwoven with this film, persistently so. It's not a matter that happened after the fact, when the film has already been covered in general and has been received a normal way, and too much text about the controversy suddenly imbalances the article.

A better example of imbalance would be if we had an autism in film article and coverage about Music took up much more space than any other film. Within a film's own article, if a controversy happened years afterward, we would still maintain what had been written at the time and in the years in between and include the controversy as it fits the whole scope. Or if a film undergoes critical reappraisal, then its article can be refined and rebalanced to address that. Until these things happen, we don't know, and we summarize what we know. Lastly, Wikipedia is not paper, as long as the content is considered encyclopedic. If a petition has been covered multiple times and fits within the scope of a subtopic, then it can be one of several details. In contrast, if there is a petition without any preexisting concern, then it may not be worth mentioning at all (naturally if no sources cover it). Examples of this would be the occasional film that experiences narrow plagiarism accusations that are rarely or minimally revisited by secondary sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)