Talk:Maddie Ziegler/Archive 4

Controversies
This discussion is about the following section deleted from the article:

{{blockquote|

Controversies over acting as a teenager with autism
In 2020, Sia casted Ziegler in her new movie Music as a teenager with autism. That decision faced criticism from social media and activists. They argued that Sia had to choose a teenager with autism for that character. Sia defended her decision by saying: "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". Sia defended herself by saying that she did hire "special abilities kids" to work on the film, including a girl on the autistic spectrum, before casting Maddie Ziegler, but said this actress found working on the film "unpleasant and stressful". In 2021, a petition amassed more than 55,000 signatures to demand the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. rescind its Golden Globe nominations for Music because they believed that casting Ziegler as a teenager with autism was severely ableist and would contribute to harmful stereotypes of autistic people. Nina Skov Jensen, an autism activist who started the petition jointly with Rosanna Kataja shortly after the Globe nominations were announced, said they want Sia and other people working with this movie to truly understand why the autistic community reacted the way they did. The movie didn't win the Golden Globe awards it was nominated for. }}

Someone keeps deleting the controversies section. Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be biased, you guys. There are people trying to cover Maddie’s controversy over playing an autistic character and someone keeps deleting it because it’s “covered somewhere else.” So what?? Maddie was involved in the situation so the controversy should be in the article. For anyone to say otherwise is honestly a little ableist. It’s not okay to downplay the controversy of mocking Autistic people on screen, which is exactly what Sia instructed MADDIE to do! Joyasaxena21 (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This material does not belong in the Maddie Ziegler article. The article already covers this film and Ziegler's part in it appropriately. As someone already pointed out in the edit summaries, this material is already covered (too) extensively in the movie's article, which is a more appropriate place for it. Moreover it is not an actress's fault if she is cast in a role that some people believe would have been more appropriate for someone else. I also oppose the inclusion of this material. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you Joyasaxena21 for mentioning it. Today, I saw what is happening on this article. I see a list of references, which clearly indicates that the controversy is notable and should be covered in the article. Deleting it is probably a biased act. Wasraw (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * When a notable fact or event is directly related to a person with a Wikipedia article, it should be covered on the article. For example, you may claim that WWII is already covered in WWII and we don't need to cover it on Churchill. It is an extremely poor argument. Wasraw (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, I assert that the controversy is notable and is covered heavily by reliable sources. Just because it is already covered in another article doesn't mean it is not needed to cover it elsewhere. The controversy is clearly about the actor and it is directly related to her. Clearly, the controversy is not covered elsewhere in the article. It is a claim that a number of people who are trying to delete the controversy section are making. Please don't make false claims. The controversy is not covered elsewhere in the article. Wasraw (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

As I see, there are a number of people who have zero tolerance about the controversy. For example as I see this edit by Joyasaxena21 on 5 June 2021: was reverted immediately without a clear reason. I guess some people are protecting the article from negative contents about the actor. Wasraw (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The controversy is covered heavily by media including multiple articles in CNN, Lose Angeles Times, Newsweek, ABC, etc. I even believe it is notable enough to have a wiki article itself. It is highly necessary to be covered on the actor's article. Wasraw (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with Ssilvers this article isn't the appropriate place for these edits. This has already been covered extensively in the films article, which as it's regarding a casting of a character in the film is the more appropriate place. The fact that this person had a lead role in the film in question, a sentence on summary of general critic response of her performance and any awards / accolades received is already included in this article. Any further would be excess per WP:UNDUE. Can Wasraw please stop edit-warring, per WP:BRD, the bold edit was made to include, it was reverted and should now be left out without editor consensus for it's inclusion. Mars Toutatis  talk 15:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The controversy is about the actor, not the movie. I know there are a lot of incentives to protect an actor from criticism. Could you please answer my question? Is the controversy about the actor? If the answer is no, then perhaps you don't know what the word "about" means. If the answer is yes, then it is appropriate to cover it on the article. I cannot understand why there is such resistance to this material. I think the only reason for this amount of resistance is to protect the article from negative content about the actor. It is totally biased and makes this encyclopedia a place for advertising the actors. Wasraw (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear MarsToutatis and Black Kite, you claim that the controversy is already adequately covered on the article. Could you please show me at least one sentence on the article mentioning the controversy?

To all Wikipedia readers who see this message, please take a look at the article and especially the section titled: Reputation and accolades. All you can see in that section is a set of non-encyclopedic material praising the actor for her performance. Some of the words that you can see in that section are dazzling, impressive, great, mesmerizing, a super-human graceful alien, tantalizing allure, lovely, perfectly, astounding, fascinatingly, extraordinary, so expressive, so magnetic. Is it an encyclopedia? From my perspective, it is more like a temple full of worshippers. Why don't you let people add critisms and controversies? I ask MarsToutatis and Black Kite again. You claim that the controversy is already adequately covered on the article. Could you please show me at least one sentence on the article mentioning the controversy? Wasraw (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Despite the avalanche of words from Wasraw I see no consensus that his/her proposed additions are necessary or helpful. A single sentence would cover what Wasraw wishes to inflate into a whole section, and I should not, myself, object to one concise sentence on the point if other editors think the matter is not adequately covered elsewhere. But this great wodge of prose would be no service to our readers.  Tim riley  talk   16:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Here are the two sentences that the article already contains about this performance by Ziegler: "Chris Willman, in Variety, called Ziegler's performance as a non-verbal autistic teenager [in Music] "not always credible". ...[66] ...she received the 2021 Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actress for the role. ...
 * Wasraw, if you know of further negative reviews of Ziegler's work on other projects by reputable reviewers in WP:RSs, we can add them to the article, but the entire section that you wish to add has nothing to do with Ziegler's performance, only with her casting, which is up to the director and producers, and has nothing to do with Ziegler. You are wrong that this article's Reputation section is unencyclopedic -- it is based her reviews in reliable sources by mainstream reviewers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Tim riley, the paragraph is not my own work and I don't totally endorse it. What I'm opposing is censorship. I believe an article which is full of praises, should contain controveries and criticisms as well. Dear Ssilvers, Please think again about the following words: dazzling, impressive, great, mesmerizing, a super-human graceful alien, tantalizing allure, lovely, perfectly, astounding, fascinatingly, extraordinary, so expressive, so magnetic Are they encyclopedic? They cause the reader to really think that the artist is worthy of those exaggerations. Should an encyclopedia use these words just because they are from reliable sources? Wasraw (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, like any good enyclopaedia, should reflect what its sources say. If, for instance and purely hypothetically, the sources used adjectives like "verbose", "opinionated", "half-baked", "bullying", "obsessive" etc, we should report that, although happily none of that obtains in this case. –  Tim riley  talk   17:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Tim riley, An encyclopedia should not feature or advertise artists. An encyclopedia should only cover vital reports, not advertising reports. An encyclopedia should only tell facts about artists. Praises including words such as mesmerizing and extraordinary have no place in an encyclopedia. Wasraw (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * For example, a scientist calls Milky Way mesmerizing and extraordinary. Then should we cover that in the articles about Milky Way? Wasraw (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Wasraw, to answer your question directed to me above, Yes. These are reporting direct quotes about this performer's work, written by professional reviewers in reliable sources. There is no evidence that they are exaggerating.  These professional assessments of the performer are part of what an encyclopedia should report about a performer.  Please see WP:ARTICLE. An encyclopedia is also rightly leery of "controversy" sections: See WP:CRITS.  You cannot add things that are not relevant to the particular article that you are adding to, like a casting decision that was not made by the actress, but rather by the producers of the film.  Again, if you know of criticism of the work of this performer in reliable sources, that would be helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Ssilvers, You claim that an actress doesn't decide anything about her role. It is false. A producer invites an actress and the actress would decide whether or not to play that role. By your argument, you are saying that she was a slave of the producer and it was her duty to do what the producer told her. Absolutely false. By your argument, we should delete all articles of child princes. Because it was not their decision to be a prince. Wasraw (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Ssilvers, You claim that there is no evidence that they are exaggerating. Then there is no evidence that Maddie Ziegler is not a super-human graceful alien. a super-human graceful alien is clearly an exaggeration and non-encyclopedic. These expressions are only used to idolize artists. Wasraw (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Wasraw: you have made your point extremely fully and at astonishing length. May I suggest, with the greatest possible respect, that you hold fire for a day or so to see if any other editor agrees with you? If you can establish a consensus, the rest of us will go along it with. If not, there is much to be said for refraining from further multi-paragraph onslaughts.  Tim riley  talk   17:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It’s ridiculous that I’m the only person who agrees with Wasraw on this issue. I’d love it if someone else had our backs.  I love Maddie as much as the next person but the ableism in the movie needs to be addressed since she was involved.  We’re not blaming her, we’re merely including bad things that happened in her career.  The “Music” situation should be included because this situation pretty much ruined her reputation and career as it is.  Janet Jackson had coverage on the Super Bowl in her article, Billie Eilish had coverage on the queerbaiting and racism in her article, why can’t we have the “Music” stuff covered in Maddie’s article?  Y’all aren’t giving adequate reasons for refusing to cover this facet of her career.  It’s barely mentioned in the article at all and if other sites are already mentioning it, that’s all the more reason to cover it in Wikipedia.  This is a huge issue, guys.  For you guys to refuse to cover this section in the article is very ableist and neglecting of Autistic people.   Joyasaxena21 (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * If it were mentioned in a sentence it would be unexceptional, but you are trying to wedge a 5K paragraph into her article which is completely WP:UNDUE. If anything, the discussion about the any contorversy belongs in the article about the film, not in this one. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I entirely concur with Black Kite. (And as one close to a family member with autism (and more) I'm not very happy about the suggestion that one is "ableist" merely for dissenting from the Wasraw/Joyasaxena line.)  Tim riley  talk   19:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion of how autism is treated in the film, and the casting of Ziegler, are already discussed at length in the Film's article under the sections "Autism and racial criticism" and "Critical response", respectively. And as I noted above, there are already two sentences in this article that discuss criticism of Ziegler with respect to this film. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this article already contains all of the apposite information about Maddie Ziegler's performance in the title role of Music(2021 film). The information about the casting of the film is already discussed in the film's article, where it belongs. Ziegler personally has nothing to do with the criticism of the film by the autistic community, she merely performed the role as directed. Somambulant1 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Was the Super Bowl Janet Jackson’s fault? No. It’s still in her article because it was a blow to her career. Just because we include Maddie’s role in the film in the article doesn’t mean we’re blaming her. Also, stop speaking over the autistic community. Some of you may have close family members with autism but I actually live the experience every day! Maddie was involved in the movie and it tarnished her name and reputation. Therefore, it should be in the article. Joyasaxena21 (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The criticism was not about the movie or its directing. The criticism was about the actor selection. It is true that the blame should be placed on the producer and the director, not Ziegler, but it doesn't mean that it was not her choice to play that role, hence she innocently played a part to make it happen. We know that in a free country like US an actress can decide whether or not to play a role and an actress can choose to play an inappropriate role. The paragraph doesn't say that it was Ziegler's fault but it says that it was part of her career. We can amend the paragraph in a way that it asserts that it was not her fault. But it was her choice to play a pivotal role in a story that drew criticism. The controversy should be covered on the article because Ziegler was part of the story and the story would not happen without her. But I know most likely it was not her fault. Wasraw (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes. We all know what you think. You have told us repeatedly and at inordinate length. That is not how we do things in Wikipedia, and as Clement Attlee said to Harold Laski, "A period of silence on your part would be welcome".  Tim riley  talk   22:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"Exaggerating" reviews
The section titled "Reputation and accolades" contains many quotations from experts and media using words that are non-encyclopedic. It is true that they are from reliable sources but they are more like advertisements than encyclopedic content. They don't describe the performance of the artist in a professional way. For example there is a quotation from People magazine calling the artist as:


 * "a super-human graceful alien sent from Planet Talented to make us mere mortals look really clumsy"

These words are clearly non-encyclopedic and are usually being used in advertisements. These words don't describe the performance in a professional way and are actually advertising the artist with exaggeration. People who oppose my opinion should tell how such quotations can help improving the content of an encyclopedia. Other words that can be seen in that section are dazzling, impressive, great, mesmerizing, a super-human graceful alien, tantalizing allure, lovely, perfectly, astounding, fascinatingly, extraordinary, so expressive, so magnetic.

I wonder how these quotations can help the readers of the encyclopedia. No question that they are from reliable sources and notable people. But in my opinion, they are non-encyclopedic and exaggerating and therefore they shouldn't be on an encyclopedia. Wasraw (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Having gotten nowhere in the previous discussion, you are starting a new discussion in bad faith. As we discussed before, Wikipedia depends on WP:Reliable sources. See also WP:ARTICLE. A representative sample of the critics' viewpoints about a performer published in reliable reviews and other reliable sources should be presented, whether positive, middling or negative. In Ziegler's article, the statements about her work represent the viewpoints, including direct quotes, that we have found about this performer's work, written by professional reviewers in reliable sources. We do present all of the negative materials that we have found, such as the fact that she was the subject of a Golden Raspberry Award and that her reviews for Music were not uniformly positive (although several were). Again, if you know of criticism of the work of this performer in reliable sources, that would be helpful.  Instead of making the same complaints over and over again, do some research about Maddie Ziegler in reliable sources and see if you can find other reviews and critiques that might lend more balance to the Reputation section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree totally with Ssilvers above regarding the use of reliable sources. The article is accurate without the disputed extra material. Jack1956 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I wholly concur with Jack1956 and Ssilvers. We all know Wasras's views by now, and his/her latest effusion adds nothing of interest or value.  Tim riley  talk   16:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Ssilvers, Jack1956 and Tim riley, I respect your opinions but please remember that this website is an encyclopedia. As I said before, there is no question that the quotations are from reliable sources. But it is not enough. Please think again about this quotation:


 * "a super-human graceful alien sent from Planet Talented to make us mere mortals look really clumsy"


 * Isn't it an exaggeration? If it is not an exaggeration, then Maddie Ziegler is a super-human and she has made you look really clumsy. It is absolutely and unquestionably an exaggeration and has no place in an encyclopedia. If it will not be deleted from the encyclopedia then it is because of the editors who are protecting it, not because it is encyclopedic. It is extremely non-encyclopedic. Wasraw (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It is a whimsical description that shows the People reviewer's enthusiasm. We identify who said it, and readers who are interested can easily read this accessible source and take it for what it's worth. Obviously, it is not meant to be taken literally. Your opinion about what is encyclopedic is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. For the millionth time (that is an exaggeration), if you can find less effusive criticism of this artist by reviewers in reliable sources, please reveal them to us.   -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Ssilvers, The author of the People's article is ALISON SCHWARTZ, a person not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Is she an expert? I think you have not read that article. The original sentence is:


 * Although we have reason to believe she’s a super-human graceful alien sent from Planet Talented to make us mere mortals look really clumsy, ...


 * The original sentence is much more exaggerating. An editor has made the sentence less exaggerating and has put it on the encyclopedia. Is it a Wikipedia policy to advertise an artist. You wanted me to find a review from reliable sources. Here is a sentence about her performance:


 * "Her dancing represents something raw and free, ..."


 * It is from The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/maddie-ziegler-interview-sia-music-b1800929.html
 * It describes the performance but it does not exaggerate or advertise. Wasraw (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

These arguments have already been presented, and they have been discussed, refuted and rejected. Somambulant1 (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Info Box
Just to clarify the reason this page has no info box is because two people who monitor this page said no 6 years ago and they are sticking to it. for no good reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.56.165.5 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per section above, some people do support an infobox for this article where six years ago, more than two people oppose that, see Talk:Maddie_Ziegler/Archive_1. Also infoboxes are used in most of the other people who become singers, dancers, actresses etc.. In the end, it is probably down to editor's choices to include on or not in the article though it appears supporting an infobox has currently got more agreement at this moment. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

194.56.165.5 (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)so it is fine to add an info box now that it has majority agreemen? or will the same opinions form 6 years ago previal and remove it like previous times


 * There is no WP:CONSENSUS to add an infobox to this article. BTW, have you ever edited this article to add valuable information and references to it?  The editors who have done so have consistently opposed adding an infobox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Every biographical article should have an infobox. As a frequent reader one of the main things I look for is birth date, birth place, (while it doesn't apply here death date/place), family, etc. which can be easily found in the infobox without having to navigate to different parts of the article. It's strange to me how there is active opposition to that. Kingofthedead (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 100% wrong. Arbcom and Wikipedia guidelines (MOS:INFOBOXUSE) state that users may NOT force infoboxes into articles without a specific consensus to do so at each article. When people become skilled Wikipedia contributors, they tend to realize that infoboxes are poor substitutes for high quality encyclopedic content. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I have been active on Wikipedia for six years with many thousands of edits and hundreds of mostly biographical articles created so I'm not sure what you're insinuating but I'm not falling for it. Seems like you think you own the article here as you've near-singlehandedly shut down most of the infobox discussion over the past few years from a quick look at it. I know the policy and it's my personal opinion that every biographical article should have an infobox and therefore there should be one here. I'm just stating my position as a veteran member of the Wikipedia community and I've got just as much of a right to that opinion as you. Kingofthedead (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

new photos of maddie
Hello, here are some new photos of MZ which i ve done myself on Paris Fashion Week, October 2021. Feel free to use the if you want :) https://imgur.com/a/maH20qW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.28.90.210 (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If you took them, please upload them so that we can use them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Ssilvers my friend, the link is in my 1st comment, it s on imgur [unsigned by IP].


 * I see the link, but you did not upload them to Wikipedia Commons. See How to upload a photo. No one other than you would be allowed to upload them to Wikipedia, as only you have the ability to release the rights to the public domain or under a free Creative Commons license.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Ssilvers ok thx for the info, it s done:    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.28.90.210 (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Television Personality?
Maddie Ziegler is an actress, dancer, and television personality. She started her career in 2011 with Dance Moms, Ziegler was a judge on So You Think You Can Dance. That makes her a television personality too. 75.84.163.45 (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Television personality is not her main occupation. She was known primarily as a dancer as a child, and she is now primarily a film actress.  I object to characterizing her as a "television personality", whatever that is.  Do not WP:EDIT WAR by changing the article prior to receiving a WP:CONSENSUS to make the change.  As far as the other changes you are proposing to the IB, they do not seem helpful, and you have not explained them here. In general, infoboxes should be kept as concise as possible, although I would be happy to delete it, if others agreed with that, as I don't think it is helpful in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Maddie Ziegler is an actress, dancer, and television personality. She started her career in 2011 with Dance Moms, Ziegler was a judge on So You Think You Can Dance. That makes her a television personality too. 75.84.163.45 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Television personality is not her main occupation. She was known primarily as a dancer as a child, and she is now primarily a film actress.  I object to characterizing her as a "television personality", whatever that is. As far as the other changes you are proposing to the IB, they do not seem helpful, and you have not explained them here. In general, infoboxes should be kept as concise as possible, although I would be happy to delete it, if others agreed with that, as I don't think it is helpful in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ssilvers. That is just an adjunct to her dancing career. Per MOS:ROLEBIO we should only list the major occupations she is notable for. Television personality is something that generally gets used when that is all they are known for, not when they are much more notable for other things such as the case here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)