Talk:Music (2021 film)/Archive 2

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. . This was Sia's statement later . 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." (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: . 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)

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)

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.
 * 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:, , and . There is even an article that points to the film's lower RT, IMDB, and Metacritic scores than Cats . 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)

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., 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 &#124; 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 &#124; 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)
 * The critics were not the only parties to comment on the portrayal of autism, so a distinct section is appropriate. If anything, if we sample a film critic's response, it should be a fair summary of what they thought of the film. Like if they had critiques beyond the portrayal of autism, that should be part of the summary. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do please highlight what original research is going on. Uncited statements are a travesty and we must endeavour to source them wherever we can! That's the exact reason this article has over 100 references! (Perhaps even slightly overreferenced in spots, an issue to resolve itself!) I do however suspect you are trying to shotgun out attacks on parts you disagree with till you hope something sticks. The petition, the part you removed, is very well sourced (although perhaps I should look over if there are any updated sources, I suspect not but it'd be worthwhile to check).
 * Rather than just moaning that you don't like the section, why not propose specific improvements, yes specific ones, actually provide the genuine reasons they are improvements to the article, and then see if you can get a consensus to agree? Does that sound like a fair idea? 94.13.35.21 (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 a new and belated 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 &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As always you put it more eloquently than me, much appreciated!
 * One thing that did jump to mind as a side-effect of this talk, I realized quite how huge a number of references we have. Given you are on at the moment I might just pose a question of if in your opinion you think we should focus on trying to prune a few of them? 94.13.35.21 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never really worried about the number of references in articles. But one thing that could be done is reference later coverage, which tends to summarize preceding events more and more. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Someone argued that the controversies section should be long because it is not longer than the critical response section, but the critical response section is, itself, devoted partly to the criticism of the casting and how autism is handled in the movie, so actually, the controversies section is already largely redundant. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 13 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 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)
 * Yes, that IP is also accusing editors of WP:OWN, even though they are the one who changes IP while recommending other IPs to create accounts (??) + at least 90% of their edits deal with this article and often include edit warring/disruptive editing. ภץאคгöร 10:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My IP changed once due to an internet issue (which I declared somewhere back when I first noticed it). You do love to throw about accusations about sockpuppetry. As I've said before, if you want to accuse me of such, please open an investigation at WP:SPI so the sockpuppetry can finally be ended! Unless you are simply using it as a personal attack and don't genuinely believe I'm engaged in sockpuppetry, in which case please stop the baseless accusations. 94.13.35.21 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If what you deduce from these sentences is sockpuppetry, nobody will want future conversations. You are having trouble understanding. Instead of empty words, you can create an account as you suggest to others and start contributing by making constructive changes. ภץאคгöร 06:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have never suggested others create an account. You are stating a strawman there.
 * The "they are the one who changes IP" sounds like you are suggesting I intentionally change IP to obfuscate things.
 * I can contribute with constructive changes WITHOUT making an account. That is a core part of wikipedia. Ending that is a perennial proposal that always fails
 * So please, stop placing lies and accusations about be in place of actual discussion. If you are going to accusee me of some breach of rules, start an investigation against me. 94.13.35.21 (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"critic reviews" vs. "reviews from critics"

 * On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 8% of 48 critic reviews for Music are positive, with an average rating of 3.7/10.


 * On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 8% of 48 reviews from critics for Music are positive, with an average rating of 3.7/10.

I don't think either of these is hugely grammatical wrong (though don't quote me on that), but the top one definitely doesn't parse brilliantly. It treats critic as a quality of the reviews (i.e. expert reviews) hence why critic is singular, but we would more often say "a critic's review" than "critic review" - that is "critic" is treated as a person whom the review is from, and not a quality of the review, but "critic's reviews" would suggest multiple reviews from one critic, thus you'd need "critics' reviews".

The possessive plurals like that are not the nicest part of English (in my opinion at least), and sometimes they are necessary, but this small rephrasing adds a single word and helps avoid this whole situation and doesn't change the meaning or tense at all. 94.13.35.21 (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Gonna add-in, the current phrasing at WP:Review aggregators is as good in my opinion, I went for the minimum change to wording however. 94.13.35.21 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

DO NOT add cast names to plot summary.

 * WP:PLOTSUM only supports the adding of cast names here with articles where no cast section is added. ("For articles that do not have a dedicated cast section, as key characters are introduced in the plot of a film or play with a known cast, list the actors' names in parentheses after them, Character (Actor), where applicable.")
 * MOS:FILMPLOT more importantly states "Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is considered redundant to the "Cast" section."

As such, this information should explicitly NOT be added given the presence of a cast section in this article. 94.13.35.21 (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Golden Raspberry
is it customary for nominations for these awards to be in introductions? I checked in the last few years and it seems to only be the case for Music? It is normally in the body of the wikipedia page not the introduction of the film. Such as for Wonderwomen 2021

I will remove it. Please let me know if this is correct. Dancer174 (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The positioning of weight given to any elements is never going to be identical between other films, a lot of Music's publicity is about it's controversy and divisive nature, so displaying BOTH the globes and raspberry has some justification here, that said I agree that the raspberries should not have gone first, both because the globes are a sort of higher profile award, and in the temporal sense came first for this film too. This really is something for us to discuss. May be good to establish a more explicit consensus if possible. 94.13.35.21 (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The double Gs were also the reason I heard of this film in the first place. Espngeek (talk) 14:06, 25 March 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 &#124; 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. 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. 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,, 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)

This presence or absence of blackface in the film has been previously discussed. I'm on the side of not seeing it, but some people clearly do see this in the film, and enough people to warrant articles being written about it. This division of opinion is why the word "allegedly" is used. The actual existence of such a controversy however is shown to exist, hence it's mention on the page of a film plagued and renowned for it's controversies. If you wish to provide a counterpoint in the article that no, there is not blackface, and you are able to provide a source to go along with such a statement, that would be great! Simply removing the (intentionally) very brief mention, ultimately off what is solely your own opinion, is not OK.

To put this in more technical language: WP:NPOV requires that we "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." 2A01:388:505:150:0:0:1:81 (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As you can read above, this is not just my opinion. Many people argue that the Earth is flat, should they be represented on the Earth article? And yes, in this case it's as patently absurd, as you can see from the clearest available picture at https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7541720/mediaviewer/rm1350552065/ Calling that makeup "blackface" is just ridiculous. These claims aren't about "critizicing", it's some people's weird campaign. It should go. Mr. Split (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with ; it is completely unecessary and nowhere near as widely-commented on as the autism section. Needs to go - Peterpie123rww (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll remove it then, if there is no further objection.Mr. Split (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I won't re-add the blackface controversy at present, but I would like to point out a few things., firstly we do in fact have a page Flat Earth which is in fact mentioned on the page for the Earth under the "Cultural and Historical viewpoint" category. I personally agree that it seems a stretch to call the makeup blackface (it should be noted that not just skin tone, but hair style in combination with that is apparently the reasons for such accusations), if we believe or do not believe this specific controversy is irrelevant. The controversy itself has notability, and notable things should be recorded in Wikipedia.
 * How we include such information is a whole other matter, and I am definitely against us using certain terms when referring to the blackface controversy, instead favouring phrasing like "allegedly" to show uncertainty over this. 176.251.175.52 (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it's not just a matter of "uncertainty" in this case. See the image I linked above, it's nothing like that particular style of caricature makeup. The Flat Earth fallacy is a very notorious one (even has its own article); should we go the same way then and portray this fallacy as such, complete with sources to that effect? I don't think it's worth the trouble.Mr. Split (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Well no, of course this controversy shouldn't have it's own article. However I am not proposing that it should. I am saying it should be mentioned, briefly, within a relevant article which covers a wider topic this falls within, such as... Oh I don't know... the film the blackface is said to have occurred in? The choice is not black-and-white of either a dissertation or complete absence of note on the subject, we can choose to mention things to differing levels of detail and prominence.
 * As far as "it's nothing like that particular style of caricature makeup", I would agree with the addition that it is nothing like ones I have seen as previous historic examples. As someone not from an ethnic minority, I am not qualified to say if it is or is not blackface because ultimately blackface is not just limited to that which strictly obeys its historic appearance, but any sort of makeup/outfit that mocks racial stereotypes in some way.
 * Clearly there are other people which do definitively believe this is an example of blackface. This division of opinion and the unrest it causes is why I am STRONGLY FOR a brief mention using language such as "allegedly".176.251.175.52 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

One of the worst movies of the 2020s?
Is it too early to include this film as one of the worst of all time (even with reliable sources)? Espngeek (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely, especially absent reliable notable sources which describe it as such. Perhaps by the end of this year we might be able to consider such a categorization, and while I do agree it's a terrible film (both socially and as a film in its own right), we can't really make a judgement like that on here yet. 176.251.175.52 (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Soundtrack
It seems more and more likely that the soundtrack of the film will not be released. The section in the article that was called "soundtrack" is all about the studio album, not the soundtrack, so I've changed it to "Album". The last sentence of the section notes that a soundtrack was, at one point, expected but that it has not been released. As far as I can see, there has been nothing announced about a separate soundtrack since the film was released. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup – v. unlikely that it will ever come out now! - Peterpie123rww (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

re: "but it was never released" -- I don't think we should use Sia's discography at AllMusic to source the soundtrack's non-release. I think we should either use a source which confirms the album was not released, or leave out the claim. Thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * What? Where is the album?  It was not released.  If this Sia album had been released, it would be easy to find it.  See WP:BLUE.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ssilvers Right, I'm agreeing the album was not released. But I don't think we should be using a discography source to say an album was not released. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * We need to cite something because of WP:NOTBLUE, to placate those, ahem, geniuses, who insist that everything needs a cite. I strongly disagree that the claim can be omitted, as it begs the very reasonable question as to whatever happened to the soundtrack album. If you've got a better source, I'm all ears. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ssilvers I've removed the citation and changed the text to say, "but has not come to fruition". We shouldn't use a source which says nothing about the album. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, I strongly disagree. I think the source is helpful, and removing it makes the article worse.  Also "come to fruition" is not only very bad prose, but also is not true: the soundtrack album has come to fruition, it just hasn't been released.  The current statement is true and clear.  There is no WP:CONSENSUS to remove this source, which I believe adequately verifies the fact. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't make sense to me to use a source which has nothing to do with the album, but ok! I've got more important things to worry about. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)