Talk:Music (2021 film)

"Sister (Upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sister (Upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Sister (Upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"Music (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Music (upcoming film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27 § Music (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

National Council on Severe Autism

A handful of editors have attempted to remove the National Council on Severe Autism statement.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Music_(2021_film)&oldid=1081054970
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Music_(2021_film)&oldid=1083641387
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Music_(2021_film)&oldid=1104765609

To which it has been reverted, generally without an elaboration or with a statement along the lines of such a change having been previously rejected and requiring WP:CONSENSUS.

However no consensus for or against appears to have been reached yet. It is briefly mentioned twice on this talk page already between a couple of editors, but no more definitive conclusion appears to have been reached.

As such, making this section to hopefully spark the previously involved editors and/or any future ones to discuss the matter.

The points presented against it's inclusion seem to rest on its less direct relevance to the reception of the film in the case of the statement from Escher, and of the organisation possibly being a hate group and their inclusion giving undue weight to them.

The points for its inclusion seem to rest on the article possibly being too biased against the film and Sia in its absence.

2A02:C7C:C47D:8700:54DE:4FA7:FFB1:593E (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It should remain in there as it is a key statement from a key organisation in the autistic community. Whether they are polarising or not, it is important to recognise the statement. We can't have an entire article about negative reception when not all reception was negative. — Peterpie123rww (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Peterpie123. It is needed for balance. Jill Esher is a notable person, and her opinion, as well as those of the organization, represent a significant viewpoint that must be reflected in the article. BTW, the Council is a mainstream autism organization that advocates for families who care for children with autism, not a "hate group"; it is quoted and mentioned with approval by the mainstream press, no matter what its opponents say. See this, this, this, this, and this. Autism self-advocates are often at odds with parents and families who care for chidren and adults with severe autism. This article explains why some autism self-activists do not like the Council's views and label them "ableism". -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Foreword: I am the same IP as above.

Deciding which viewpoint on how autistic people should be treated in society isn't something we need to, or should be, proving here, nor is if autism self advocates and the views of parents and families commonly agree, and if not then who is right. As for them being a hate group or not, I merely reiterate it because it's something mentioned in at least one momentary removal, should that individual want to expand on that.

As for them being mentioned by the mainstream press in stories unrelated to the film, that doesn't prove their significance being sufficient to justify inclusion here. Many less significant organizations and figures, especially controversial ones, are quoted in news articles.

All we have to decide is their importance and relevance in this specific topic, Sia's film, Music.

I'd suggest a mention of the view of the organization is worthy of inclusion, as they are given a mention by Variety (source 95 on the page at present), which is a secondary, independent source mentioning the charity in an article discussing the particular topic of this film (in particular the letter published "Thank You for Representing a Girl with Severe Autism", and the organization's official statement), however additionally referring to Escher's statement may be unnecessary?

For example, while we do mention the official statement given by ASAN, we don't additionally mention the separate statement given by it's director of advocacy, Zoe Gross (which is mentioned in secondary sources on its own as well, unlike Escher's from a quick google search). [1][2]

If we do decide both the organization's (NCSA) and Escher's statement are both worthy of inclusion as well as the letter from a fan they published, shouldn't we apply the same standard to ASAN and Gross?

90.195.157.253 (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

" less direct relevance to the reception of the film in the case of the statement from Escher, and of the organisation possibly being a hate group and their inclusion giving undue weight to them." Jesus Christ, the lack of WP:COMPETENCE and understanding of attribution and weight of the users who edit this page! The Council could consist of soccer moms who do not know what the hell they are talking. That is not enough proof that they are a hate group. And the fact that the comment is about how viewers and critics responded to the movie makes it reverent to the subject. It is so obvious to even a 60 IQ individual the comment is relevant. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Humanx, please do not make uncivil accusations against other editors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

What accusations? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"Stars" in Infobox

Currently, the three stars of the film, Hudson, Odom and Ziegler, are listed under "Starring" in the infobox. Both the plot summary and the list of musical numbers confirm that these three are the only stars of the film. Template:Infobox film states: "In general, use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors..... An alternative approach may be determined by local consensus." The template is, of course, only essay-level guidance, not an actual Wikipedia guideline or policy. MOS:INFOBOX is the actual guideline that applies here, which states that "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize... key facts that appear in the article.... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose.... [W]herever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." The status quo in this article has been to list the three stars of the film rather than the full list of names given on the film poster. The three names are the "key facts" about the cast of this film. The full list of names is, of course, given in the text of the article, but I support the status quo, in order to keep the infobox concise and effective. I welcome comments from other editors interested in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hudson, Odom Jr and Ziegler are the stars of the film. They are featured much more prominently in the feature itself than any other cast member and are separated from the rest of the names on the poster here. There are also other posters without any other names, only theirs. Most sources online also refer to them as the stars. Not sure why we'd need a whole list of other names for actors who only appear for a matter of minutes in the film and aren't written on every poster... - Peterpie123rww (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine, if the admins want to do nothing but punish the messenger and want me to just talk it out and "reach a consensus" on what every other experienced film editor has agreed to for a decade, that is their reputation their sinking. But I am not going on their noticeboard if I notice any disruptive editing and vandalism, because I do not trust them to do the right thing anymore.

As for this, you want me to start a discussion on the article talk page? Fine. But I am not going to be friendly, and I seriously hope this is the last of bullshit like this I have to deal with. Anyway...

The users who are on the side of Ssilvers have obviously never edited a film article in their lives, and are only saying what they are saying because that it was sSilvers is saying.

We do not write articles, sources do. Your feelings of who really "starred" in the film and who did not are subjective, and suggesting motives of what the producers thought starred in the film (instead of presenting what they market on the poster) is the definition of pushing a point of view. Simply put, it does not fucking matter who you think were the main characters, and you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. The poster is the source, we represent sources, not our personal feelings, and THAT'S IT!

Once again, people who had experience editing film articles would know better than to not get this, but you have zero clue over how the "starring" field in the billing of film posters work. "Starring roles" are not actors who play the main characters, but usually are those who provide market value to a film. The other names in the starring field (and no, I completely reject Ssilvers' bogus framing of the starring field in the billing being a "long list") have their names there because they have gained notability from starring in other projects, even though most of them play relatively minor roles in the film. The infobox was designed based on how film posters listed their credits (again, we are a damn encyclopedia), so it would be dishonest to suggest the billing did not market certain actors as starring actors.

MOS:INFOBOX absolutely does not prohibit what Ssilvers is trying to block. Ineffective way of presenting info? "Unnecessary" according to who and by what standard? Not by the official fucking marketing, that is for damn sure. Are you seriously suggesting to me most who read this website would be turned off by having to read 10 names? Just listing an amount of names that is seven above three makes the infobox ineffective? And Ssilvers is misrepresenting the quote of the Infobox doc by leaving out it only states to come up with an alternative consensus if there is not a starring field in the poster. Ssilvers, you're really not making it easy for me to believe you are not WP:gaming the system.

What fucking "status quo" of only three actors are you talking about?! Again, I refuse to believe you have experience in film articles, because 99% of the infoboxes I have read have listed way more than three people, and nobody brings it up as a problem, and has for the two decades this website has existed. You know why? Because the average reader can handle reading lists of items in the double digits and not feel exhausted doing so, because they are competent. Ssilvers You are just pulling objects out of thin air to make your case. That is how low you are going.

I cannot believe this nonsense is getting a pass by admins, and I stand by every instance of calling it out. These are not well-substantiated arguments from good faith actors, and to any other user, PLEASE stop treating them as such. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

:Fine. You WP:WIN this WP:BATTLE! You want to get me blocked for comments without any obvious personal attacks? I am striking all of them! I do not believe any of that. There, I did the right thing and decided to be nice! Now leave my safety alone! And do not expect me to help with your Sia articles in any way. They are yours for you to edit. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC) :SsilverS, please do not get the wrong idea that I am trying to tear you down. You obviously have a fantastic portfolio of GA and FA in articles about musicals and theaters, and I thank you for it. But you do not get the right to promote unencyclopedic edits and misread policy because of that. So please, for my own sanity and for your own reputation, stop. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows, Ssilvers felt the need to note Talk:Tazmin about this article talk page... after I did what SsilverS told me to do. Ssilvers, what is wrong with you? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Ssilvers, how about a deal. I strike whatever you perceived as a personal attack. You list all of the examples with diffs, and I put a line on all of them, and you let this be. Deal? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You are threatening my ability to edit any other article on here over this one edit. You know that, right Ssilvers? Do you know how much this starring Music thing has haunted my head for the past month? Do you get that?! Do you understand?! Please write that you understand! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• I seriously do not know what else is going to get misinterpreted here. So I am striking. Tamzin thought I deserved an indef for this, which is loaded beyond belief. Seriously, I can not just... you know, edit, without the threat of a block. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Nah, you know what, while I will not eat any Sia articles anymore, I need at least my points in this discussion. The problems are too obvious to let go:

• We are an encyclopedia. Sources determine content, not our subjective biases. People's opinion of who really "starred" in the film and who did not are subjective, and suggesting motives of what the producers thought starred in the film (instead of presenting what they marketed on the poster) is the definition of pushing a point of view. The poster is the source, we represent sources, not our personal feelings.
• "Starring" field in the billing =/= main roles. "Starring roles" are not actors who play the main characters, but usually are those who provide market value to a film. The other names in the starring field (and no, I completely reject Ssilvers' framing of the starring field in the billing being a "long list") have their names there because they have gained notability from starring in other projects, even though most of them play relatively minor roles in the film. The infobox was designed based on how film posters listed their credits (again, we an damn encyclopedia,), so it would be dishonest to suggest the billing did not market certain actors as starring actors.
• MOS:INFOBOX never says that if more than three items are listed, it is an inefficient way of presenting the "key facts". Are you suggesting to me most who read this website would be turned off by having to read 10 names? Just listing an amount of names that is seven above three makes the infobox ineffective? Also, Ssilvers you might have not caught this, but the quote of the Infobox doc only states to come up with an alternative consensus if there is not a starring field in the poster.
• What "status quo" of only three actors are you talking about? 99% of the infoboxes I have read have listed way more than three people, and nobody brings it up as a problem, and has not for the two decades this website has existed. You know why? Because the average reader can handle reading lists of items in the double digits and not feel exhausted doing so, because they are competent. Again, editing and reading many other film articles would make this clear.

User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 11:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Exclusion of Zoe Gross statement

Starting this section to hopefully welcome discussion of why that statement shouldn't be included, as no clear reason to exclude it is present.

As for inclusion,

• Firstly, applying the same justifications as given for the inclusion of the Escher statement - that is, a statement related to the film and/or Sia, made by a notable senior figure in a charity connected to autism, and accepting that as showing relevance and importance for the statement's inclusion.
• Secondly, it is reported in a secondary reliable source.

2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:1972:A85A:633A:9E5B (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We already have a statement by ASAN, and the additional, repetitive, provocative language you wish to quote (Gross calls the film "catastrophic" -- who died because of it?) is WP:UNDUE. Also, Gross, unlike Esher, is not a WP:NOTABLE person and is not even president of ASAN, so it is not important to name her. However, your comment led me to reevaluate the quotes from Escher, and I have deleted her quotes as also unnecessarily provocative and paraphrased her argument more concisely and neutrally. I think it is fair to say that the ASAN and NCSA content is now well-balanced, with ASAN getting slightly more ink than NCSA. I am pinging User:Peterpie123rww, since they wrote the majority of this article and were involved in the previous discussion, to see if they have an opinion on this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with this.

My position was largely that the notability of both are pretty equivalent. (Granted, Gross is not president, but ASAN is a larger and more notable organisation on the whole). As such, if we quoted one, it'd be reasonable to quote the other, but using just the statements from the organisations as a whole on both sides is a reasonable solution too. (I am the same IP as above) 109.144.219.168 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)