Talk:Sound of Metal

The risk is real

Performers who are exposed to music as part of their work, as a group have good hearing. Some of them are susceptible and develop tinnitus and hearing disorders, which can be severe. These topics are covered in Wikipedia, as are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_problems_of_musicians. I feel it would make sense to add links in a See also. Looking for feedback on this idea TMorata (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

TMorata, I'm fine with this being added. Perhaps noise-induced hearing loss as well? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Opening sentence

There is zero reason for every film article's opening sentence to start with the director. For some films, the director is simply less noteworthy than other elements of the film, like the actor or the source material. For example, in the New York Times review of the film here, the article title is followed by, "Riz Ahmed is touchingly credible as a musician who loses his hearing in this unusual drama," before it mentions the director. Los Angeles Times reviews the film here with the title, "Review: Peak Riz Ahmed in ‘Sound of Metal,’ a moving drama about deafness and addiction". Furthermore, Ahmed is widely recognized for his performance, as evidenced by the awards. You don't see Marder getting best directing recognition like Zhao has. So this ordering is appropriate per WP:LEAD. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

ParetoOptimusPrime, here is how it is broken down:

• It is not a universal truth that the director should be in the opening sentence of every film article ever. No policy or guideline supports this.
• Per WP:LEAD, the opening sentence should contain contextual links that are noteworthy to nonspecialist readers.
• Such elements can generally include the director, actor(s), source material.
• Sometimes the elements can be even in noteworthiness, where it does not matter as much what order the elements are in.
• It can be WP:UNDUE weight in terms of "prominence of placement" to place a certain element in a more prominent position when other elements are more appropriate.

In regard to Ahmed and Marder, Ahmed has received far more headlines than Marder has. See Google News results for each:

• 1,1930 results for articles headlining Ahmed
• 113 results for articles headlining Marder

The above evidence combined with Ahmed's nominations compared to Marder's, it's not even close. It is due weight to position Ahmed first and Marder after him. It is undue weight to reverse the positioning. If this does not convince you, I don't know what will. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Regular Google search results show Ahmed having ~17,000 results versus Marder having 3,010, though I don't believe regular search results are considered as stable. Still, for general comparison, the point is reinforced. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

ParetoOptimusPrime, reviewing your contributions, I noticed that you have mainly edited only this article and Darius Marder and even Derek Cianfrance. (Not so much Riz Ahmed...) Please see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Erik Thank you for explaining your rationale in depth. My argument is as follows (It should be noted that it is not based on imaginary bias against Riz Ahmed's stunning performance. I have not edited his page much because it is well maintained.):

First and foremost you mischaracterize the contents of WP:LEAD to try to advance your agenda to give less credit to artists by making them less prominent in the introduction to their works.

There is a reason why every film article's opening sentence should start with the filmmaker. Films are works of art and like all works of art should be associated with their creator. For example, in the New York Times review of the film here, the first sentence begins by referring to the film as Darius Marders' Sound of Metal. The headline is irrelevant as headlines are necessarily abridged in way that Wiki ledes need not be and so are not good guidelines for the latter. Within the context of this debate, your focus on the headline is particularly inappropriate since the article in question focuses on Riz Ahmed's performance so the headline reflects that fact. By contrast, the Wiki article on Sound of Metal focuses on Darius Marder's film. Therefore, modeling the Wiki lede off of the New York Times review's headline is incongruent.

To your point that Ahmed is widely recognized for his performance, as evidenced by the awards. You don't see Marder getting best directing recognition like Zhao has. So this ordering is appropriate per WP:LEAD. I do not see where on WP:LEAD it says that fame (which you repeatedly conflate with notability but more on that in the next paragraph) should dictate order of contents within the space of a sentence. To the contrary, WP:LEAD states that the lede should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The film is the topic and the filmmaker is the context insofar as without the filmmaker the film would not exist and therefore not have a Wiki page for the reader to explore. It would also not have a plot or cast, which should follow the filmmaker's introduction. The closest guideline I can find for your agenda to less prominently credit filmmakers is in fact NOT applicable to this article. Namely, For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence. The film is notable for several reasons all of which are provided in the lede paragraph. Marder's placement need not be made less prominent.

To the point of prominence of Ahmed and Marder. You claim Regular Google search results show Ahmed having ~17,000 results versus Marder having 3,010, though I don't believe regular search results are considered as stable. Still, for general comparison, the point is reinforced. By that logic, neither should be in the first sentence of the lede. The film was nominated for 6 Oscars and a cursory search for Oscars yields ~1,610,000,000 results. If we apply your logic then the first sentence should be Sound of Metal is a 2019 American drama film nominated for six Oscars. But of course that makes no sense because it robs the film of context. Well if we go back to context then it only makes sense to attribute the film to its maker, Darius Marder. Next, we would provide the star Riz Ahmed and the plot. Perhaps we would then add the other actors and its release and accolades. What we are left with is the standard lede paragraph of a film, and the structure that you have repeatedly attempted to discard without credible reason (your stated reasons misrepresent the guidance of WP:LEAD).

Finally, in addition to my above arguments, it should be noted that including the filmmaker in the first sentence is not only the appropriate structure but also the ethical structure. I do not have time to even scratch the surface on why prominently crediting artists for their work is a vital practice to engage in and promote. However, I recommend reaching out to friends who are artists or in tangentially related fields that involve content creation such as academia, or engaging in alternative modes of research on the topic. ParetoOptimusPrime (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)}

I agree with you in principle about the importance of directors, but this is irrelevant in Wikipedia's eyes. One could also take the stance that the film would not have happened without Caviar financing the film since one can argue that without money, nothing can happen. With this logic, we should therefore have Caviar in the first sentence. For Marder, nothing did happen until money came into play. Films are works of arts, and they are also commercial products. One could also say the film would not be where it is today if it was not for Ahmed's performance. See how this is all gets subjective among editors whose opinions actually don't matter? That is the point of applying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the world at large is recognizing Riz Ahmed's acting in the film much more than Darius Marder directing the film, then that is the due weight to be applied. The coverage indicates that people will talk about the "Riz Ahmed movie" more than the "Darius Marder movie" because in the scheme of things, Marder who? Same thing would happen if it was Tom Hanks and a no-name director. People aren't going to watch the movie for that director or write about it for that director, it will be much more for Tom Hanks. In any case, Marder is in the immediate next sentence. You've only edited this article and mainly Darius Marder, so I am concerned that you have a conflict of interest focusing on mainly these two articles, especially only adding accolades. I've seen articles about sound design for this movie, but I don't see that being added. Also, see WP:WALLOFTEXT. Brevity would help. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says, "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." To say, "Sound of Metal is a 2019 American drama film starring Riz Ahmed as a metal drummer who loses his hearing," defines the subject very directly. The sentence "Sound of Metal is a 2019 American drama film directed and co-written by Darius Marder" does not satisfy that as well. MOS:CONTEXTLINK says, "The opening sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that are important to the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable." This film can be notable for different reasons, but it is much more notable because of Ahmed than because of Marder. So "my agenda" is applying policies and guidelines rather than preconceived biases of artistry, commerce, or preference. If this were a Steven Spielberg film, of course I would support his name in the opening sentence because the coverage will demonstrate that weight over other elements. And everything else can follow readily. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Erik I am new to Wikipedia. To start, I decided to focus on a film that interested me in quarantine to learn the ropes on editing (notation, linguistic style, etc.) I then started branching out to related topics. I have no bias in favor of Marder over Ahmed. I would have branched out to new topics when I felt I understood the nuances of editing. However, if the misrepresentation of subjectivity as objectivity, and odd rank ordering of one subjective opinion over the consensus opinions of multiple editors, are pervasive then I rather not support this site via labor or funds. To our debate, here is how it is broken down:

• No policy or guideline advise against putting the director first.
• Per WP:LEAD, the opening sentence should contain contextual links AS WELL AS points that are noteworthy to nonspecialist readers.
• Sometimes the contextual importance of the elements is the same as their noteworthiness, so that order is not in dispute. Sometimes they are not. In that case, the contextual elements should be given priority per WP:LEAD.
• If contextual elements can be presented in some order, given that there is no specific guidelines, it is at the authors discretion. Given that even you concede the general importance of crediting filmmakers, you should agree that in the absence of guidance they should be most prominently credited for their work. If you Wikipedia a piece of fine art, this is the accepted standard.

• One could not also take the stance that Caviar should come before Marder because Marder could have made the film without Caviar but not vice versa. It is worth noting that Caviar did not finance the film. Caviar produced the film. Understanding the nuances of filmmaking is important when writing a Wikipedia entry on a film,

• I and many others who edited the page believe your interpretation of Wikipedia policy or guidelines are incorrect. Until I see multiple other editors agree with your interpretation, I will on record object based on what I think is clearly subjective bias on your part that also unethically erodes conventions for crediting artists.
• The first time you removed Marder from the first sentence, your rationale was that you were "sick" of filmmakers receiving credit. That is a textbook example of bias and by your logic you should refrain from editing the first sentence of this page. That being said, I have no problem with you editing this page. I have a problem with you conflating your interpretation of guideline with the guidelines themselves.
• Per WP:LEAD a more informative "definitional" sentence would be "Sound of Metal is a 2019 American drama film directed and co-written by Darius Marder starring Riz Ahmed as a metal drummer who loses his hearing." I will edit this page with that sentence, which is a reasonable compromise. If you object then I give up.
• Your main takeaway from this debate should be that your choice for the first sentence of this page has troubling implications for the crediting of artists made worse by the fact that it is unnecessary. Going forward, I hope you start considering the implications of your interpretation of guidelines before you edit and reconsider where appropriate. ParetoOptimusPrime (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)}

As far as I've seen, and I mainly edit articles related to films, it is a common practice for the lead section to be Title is a [year] [nationality] film directed by [Director] .... I think in this case you may need to gather consensus for this exception to common practice, Erik. I'm particularly undecided on this one: on the one hand it is the common practice, but the actor is far more notable than the director here. However, that's the case for many other films and I haven't seen any of them list the actor first either. —El Millo (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have no problem in principle leaving a director out of the opening sentence. A couple of high-profile examples include Skyfall and Gone with the Wind (film) (the latter of which I wrote the lead for), where I think in both cases the opening sentence better captures the essence of the film i.e. its reason for being. But should we be relegating the director-writer to the second sentence and promoting the star to the first sentence at this particular article? I would support that if the film was clearly intended as a star vehicle (as with Tom Cruise and the Mission: Impossible films, for example), but Sound of Metal seems like a clear cut example of an auteur work than a star vehicle. On that basis I have to confess that if I had written the lead for this article I probably would have included Darius Marder in the opening sentence. Betty Logan (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't we have both of them in the first sentence? I see nothing wrong with Sound of Metal is a 2019 American drama film directed and co-written by Darius Marder starring Riz Ahmed as a metal drummer who loses his hearing. —El Millo (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned by the most recent edit to the main article where the editor referenced WP:BRD. This feels like trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted, as there have been so many edit/revert/edit/revert cycles over this particular issue. Not on that, when looking at the history of this article, the lede crediting the director was in place until March 31, 2021, and only one editor has been consistently editing it to credit Ahmed first instead. If you were going to apply WP:BRD, common-sense and history would suggest that the BOLD edit is the removal of Marder, the REVERT the revert back to crediting Marder as was the case for most of the article's history, and the DISCUSS should be about why Marder doesn't deserve to be credited first. H. Carver (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)