Jump to content

Talk:The Wachowskis/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Current use of "The Wachowskis" vs "Wachowski Brothers" on individual film articles

I just came across the following html comments at V for Vendetta (film).

  • <!--Credited as "The Wachowski Brothers". Do not change without consensus. See [[Talk:The Matrix#"The Wachowskis" vs "The Wachowski Brothers"]]. -->

The section mentioned (Talk:The Matrix § "The Wachowskis" vs "The Wachowski Brothers") is immediately followed by an RfC (Talk:The Matrix § RfC: How should the directors of this film be presented in the lead?), which in turn led to an ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive928 § User:Betty Logan "overriding" an RfC close at Talk:The Matrix), and a discussion on whether this applies to their other film articles (Talk:The Matrix Reloaded § The Wachowski credit in the lead).

At the end of all of this (in August this year) there seemed to be a decision to draft a RfC for WP:VPP, to get a decision for all cases where creators have changed their names. I've tried to find this RfC but couldn't (the only VPP discussion I could find was Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 124 § Clarifying MOS:IDENTITY in articles in which transgender individuals are mentioned in passing).

I hope I'm not dredging up the past, but I wonder whether any of the editors involved (@Betty Logan:, @Rhododendrites:, @Guy Macon:, @Doniago:, @Pincrete:; apologies if I've missed anyone out) are still up for this, to establish a consensus (and clarify policy if necessary), as the situation across the Wachowski articles at the moment (let alone all other cases across Wikipedia) is a complete mess (see below), with many of the html comments and footnotes pointing to the tip of an iceberg, rather than the conclusive decision I was expecting (and, like the rest, think would be helpful to have).

  • Bound (1996 film): "The Wachowskis" in both infobox and lead
  • The Matrix: "The Wachowski Brothers" in infobox (with html comment), "The Wachowskis" in the lead
  • The Matrix Reloaded: "The Wachowski Brothers" in infobox and lead (with the html comment pointing to the old discussion)
  • The Matrix Revolutions: "The Wachowski Brothers" in infobox and lead (with the html comment pointing to the old discussion)
  • Speed Racer (film): "The Wachowski Brothers" in infobox and lead (with the following footnote: "According to Wikipedia convention, credits "should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made". Because of this, "The Wachowski Brothers", "Larry Wachowski" and "Andy Wachowski" should be kept despite the fact they are transgender women.")
  • Cloud Atlas (film): "Lana Wachowski" and "Andy Wachowski" in the infobox (with html comment) and "The Wachowskis" in the lead
  • Jupiter Ascending: "Lana Wachowski" and "Andy Wachowski" in the infobox (with html comment) and "The Wachowskis" in the lead
  • Assassins (film): "Andy Wachowski" and "Larry Wachowski" in the infobox, "Andy and Larry Wachowski" in the lead
  • The Animatrix: "Andy Wachowski" and "Larry Wachowski" in the infobox (with the html comment pointing to the old discussion) and "The Wachowskis" in the lead
  • The Invasion (film): "The Wachowskis (uncredited)" in the infobox, and "The Wachowskis" in the lead
  • V for Vendetta (film): "Andy Wachowski" and "Larry Wachowski" in the infobox (with the html comment pointing to the old discussion) and "The Wachowski Brothers" in the lead (with the same html comment)
  • Ninja Assassin: "Lana Wachowski" and "Lilly Wachowski" in the infobox and "Lana and Lilly Wachowski" in the lead
  • Sense8: "The Wachowskis" in the infobox and "Lana and Lilly Wachowski" in the lead
  • Enter the Matrix: "The Wachowskis" in both infobox and lead
  • The Matrix Online: "The Wachowskis" in both infobox and lead
  • The Matrix: Path of Neo: "The Wachowskis" in both infobox and lead
  • Ectokid: "Lana Wachowski" and "Lilly Wachowski (uncredited)" in the infobox, and "Lana Wachowski (credited as Larry Wachowski)" and "Wachowski's sister Lilly" in the article
  • Doc Frankenstein: "The Wachowskis" in the infobox, and "the Wachowskis (Lilly and Lana[...])" in the lead
  • Shaolin Cowboy: not mentioned in the infobox, and "the Wachowskis" in the lead
  • The Matrix (franchise): "The Wachowski Brothers" in infobox and lead (with the html comment pointing to the old discussion)

‑‑YodinT 16:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Yodin: You didn't miss it (unless I did, too). It's an RfC that will necessitate some care if it's to be effective, and at the time I was trying [poorly] to start a wikibreak. If you want to create a page to draft the RfC before posting it, I'd be happy to help. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I think an RfC at VPP is a great idea. I think the question asked at the Talk:The Matrix RfC was the right question to ask, and would suggest closely copying it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Yodin: I think it would be a good idead to harmonize the language across the articles. It is worth reading through the later discussion at Talk:The_Matrix_Reloaded#The_Wachowski_credit_in_the_lead which I believe provides the foundations for a solution. While the editors did not arrive at a solution there was a clear direction for one i.e. all editors in that discussion were receptive to a combination of their current name and credit. Ultimately the dilemma—especially on film articles—involves authorship as well as identity, and this lies at the crux of the dispute. I think the RFC has to be very worded more carefully than it was here to avoid falling into the traps that previous discussions have fallen into, so I think we should work on the wording here before posting it at the Pump. Betty Logan (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Pinged here, I took part in early discussions but somehow missed the Pump discussion, though having now read it I feel it 'fudged' the issue, since a clear default position is needed IMO, to which there may be exceptions. In the case of this particular pairing, there isn't much difference between "The surname" and "the surname Brothers", but in other cases name changes are more confusing. Betty Logan correctly defines the problem as 'BLP identity' versus 'sourced/credited authorship'. Personally I see no justification for the first name and first name, surname examples above, UNLESS they are on the credits. Please alert me if further discussion occurs at pump or elsewhere.Pincrete (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Move to"The Wachowskas"

If they say they are female then this is the rule for Slavic naming.--143.167.166.124 (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The Wachowski Sisters

Why is there such a nasty transphobic attitude towards this article???

It was fine to have them as The Wachowski BROTHERS, but the word SISTERS is too much to ask for!? WTF!! It's 2016! The world has seen Caitlyn Jenner! The Wachowski Sisters is what their page should be called and all pages that feature their names NEEDS TO HAVE SISTERS! NO MORE HIDING THEIR GENDER YOU TRANSPHOBIC BIGOTS!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.143.139 (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't be racist, it's "Wachowska Sisters".--143.167.166.41 (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not how it works in the U.S. If they haven't changed their surname then it's still Wachowski. There are plenty of American women of Eastern European descent who have the male version of their surname. 2602:306:B89C:A000:A9FC:17A7:554B:5BD4 (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Assuming this comment is earnest, have they ever actually been credited anywhere as the Wachowski Sisters? They were previously listed as the Wachowski Brothers not because they were brothers named Wachowski, but because that was the joint name they directed under.

2602:306:B89C:A000:A9FC:17A7:554B:5BD4 (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

ChicagoTribune.com LATimes.com

  • "Articles about Larry Wachowski". latimes.com. Retrieved 21 February 2017.
  • "Articles about Andy Wachowski". latimes.com. Retrieved 21 February 2017.
  • "Articles about Wachowski Brothers". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 21 February 2017.

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Retroactive changes made to this article

The article, and alot of pages related to it (such as The Matrix) were heavily changed retroactively to reflect the name change of both persons and the duo stage name. Such changes are should not be carried out here, as we reflect changes from the point where they were changed. This is not usually problematic, but misleading. E.g. "Lilly has been married to Alisa Blasingame since 1991." would point out a homosexual marriage, which was prohibited under U.S. law at the time, and is thus factually wrong. "Lilly Wachowski also came out as a transgender woman," is confusing for a lot of readers, as the most will not see a reason why someone named Lilly would not have been ackknowledged as woman before-hand, and also factually wrong, as no person named Lilly Wachowski ever came out a transgender woman, but rather a man named Andy (/Andrew), who came out so and changed his name to Lilly afterwards. Since this is not quite my WikiProject I will not spend all night fixing the occurencies, but plead for members of this Wproj to take action. Thank you. Lordtobi (✉) 18:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: Please see MOS:GENDERID and WP:BIRTHNAME. The names and pronouns have been extensively discussed and changes need consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Given MOS:GENDERID especially, I concur with EvergreenFir. While we should try to avoid confusing constructions, we should use the latest expressed gender, and I believe that should carry over to naming--especially given the reference to MOS:IDENTITY at WP:BIRTHNAME. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Neither of the guidelines referenced above has a direct involvement in this discussion. GENDERID (+ IDENTITY) only discusses the usage of gender-specific terms (such as pronouns), reflective of the time the GID came to be. BIRTHNAME only discussed the notability of the inclusion of a person's full [birth] name if notable. Neither of those discusses the usage of a changed name in different times, as regardless of the gender ID, someone's name can change for various reasons. I'm not sure if there is a specific guideline against retroactive changes, but currently there is also none for it. What currently goes down on the article is an edit war, as the discussion is not over. Lordtobi (✉) 21:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't share your "confusion" about those two examples, particular the latter. She came out as a woman is far less confusing than the (nonsensical) he came out as a woman would be. WP guidelines clearly warn against illogical-sounding statements such as that. The construction of the statement presupposes that she was already a woman when she made the announcement. Besides, this isn't even (primarily) a gender-identity issue: as a general rule, we use the same name for a person throughout their article, regardless of when they changed it. For example John Wayne refers to him as "Wayne" even in the section about his childhood, when everyone knew him as "Marion Morrison". And on top of that, since MOS:GENDERID clearly says that our use of pronouns should be consistent throughout the article, so it only makes sense that our use of given names would strive to be consistent as well: if we're using female pronouns for her at some point in the article, we should also use her female name in that section. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment On another note I have restored the long-standing "sibling" terminology to the article, following recent attempts to change it to "sisters". MOS:GENDERID addresses gender identity, not biological relationships. There is no policy, guideline or consensus at this article to apply gender idnetity to biological relationships. They are still biologically related as brothers, even though they both identify as women. GENDERID touches on this slightly, suggesting gender-neutral language in such instances i.e. "parent of" instead of "father of" and so on. In the spirit of GENDERID and factual accuracy, it is not necessary to underline their relationship using gender specific language as "siblings" works perfectly well in the context it is used. Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what "biologically related as brothers" is supposed to be mean, but I agree that the gender-neutral "siblings" is preferable, as it's accurate regardless of timeframe/identity/perception/etc. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on The Wachowskis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Photo

Is there not a recent picture of Lilly and Lana, or at least two seperate pictures? The current picture from 2012 was of Andy and Lana. I assume it was previously there and someone just changed Andy to Lilly. Why not just update the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎71.167.132.15 (talk)

Someone would need to contribute a properly licensed photo of them. We can't just snag one from somewhere, because that would be a copyright violation. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Wachowskis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Wachowskis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Slavonic Racism?

Why does anyone think that it is necessary to point out the ethnicity of their father as Polish, but that it is enough to give just the family name and sibling realtion for their mother? People named Luckinbill are suppsoedly beyond having ethicity, because they are taken for granted as an absolute? Rather offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.174.55 (talk • contribs) 7:34 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No need to be offended. There's nothing bad about being polish, so why do you see it as an insult? --178.113.221.81 (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Deadnaming

This page dead names the Wachowskis far too much. Why do we need to be reminded of a name that the no longer use more than one time? Even then, is it necessary to put their dead names in at all if the no longer identify legally with those names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smc625 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Where do you think the deadnames should be removed from? Since they were both really famous under their deadnames, it makes sense to mention it in the lead and the infobox in case people don't know that they've transitioned and are looking for them under their deadnames (per MOS:BIRTHNAME). I suppose the other mention of Lilly's deadname later could be deleted, but that's just one instance, and it seems like you want more than that. -- irn (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
In the 2012 photo we should not name Andy with Lilly, since he changed his name and gender in 2016 and the 2012 photo obviously shows him as a man. His coming out and operation was not before 2016, after the transformation he also looked different than in this photo. --178.113.221.81 (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
See MOS:GENDERID. Since she's Lily now, we refer to her that way throughout her life. -- irn (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Wachowskis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Book Plug

I removed the plug for the upcoming book about their lives from the intro. It might be appropriate to mention it somewhere in the article, but made zero sense being in the introduction as they didn't write the book and doesn't in anyway factor into the significance of their work. Someone else wrote it. It seemed like a shameless plug for someone else's work, at least given its placement in the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.74.30.183 (talk • contribs) 07:37, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

Catholic or a public school?

The article states that, according to the Hollywood Reporter, the Wachowskis went to a Catholic school, namely Kate Starr Kelloggs school in Beverly, Chicago. However, as another editor pointed out in their pending revision, Kate Starr Kellogg is a public school, as it has been since 1927 when Chicago Public Schools bought the property.[1] Moreover, the Kelloggs were Unitarians, not Catholic. The allegation that they went to a Catholic school simply doesn't add up, should the statement be changed to reflect that they went to a public school? I support it as I don't believe the Hollywood Reporter to be that trustworthy, but I'd like a consensus on the matter. lovkal (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If it's not entirely clear if the school was Catholic, the best solution is to take that word out: it's now factual, regardless. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Kate Starr Kellogg History". KATE STARR KELLOGG ELEMENTARY. Retrieved 2018-06-02.

Switch to independent articles for each person

Reading both together as one is confusing. I suggest that everyone have their own article
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.195.226.51 (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be even more confusing if the article was split. They do not have independent careers therefore they do not have independent notability. Betty Logan (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

More recent pictures

REMOVE INFOBOX PICTURE
WP:SNOWCLAUSE to remove picture, with no objections from editors. Picture only to be re-added to the infobox if it is an updated image showing the two people post-transitioned. Having a pre-transitioned picture of the duo further down in the text can be further discussed in a separate section. aNode (discuss) 06:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor requests that the current photo which shows transgender person before her physical transit be removed from the infobox, until a newer picture can be provided. aNode (discuss) 11:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@ANode: Does this really need an RfC? Consensus seems pretty clear to remove the old image from the infobox here. Airplaneman ✈ 19:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Getting further input to establish a stronger consensus/precedent could be helpful. This isn't the only such case. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeahh, there might be people who are actually against this move; it would be good to get their input on this too regardless of the current consensus. aNode (discuss) 05:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The current picture used on the top of the page shows Lilly pre-transition. It should probably be updated to show what they both look like currently. We may also want a picture of both of them pre-transition for the early part of their careers.Jelephant (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should use a recent (post-transition) photo; the problem is that none appear to be available with the proper licensing. In the meantime, I think it would be appropriate to leave the infobox without a photo. MOS:LEADIMAGE says lead images should be "natural and appropriate representations of the subject", and I don't think an anachronistic photo that doesn't represent Lilly as she appears now meets that standard. I think it's actively confusing, because it makes it look like she still presents as male. MOS says "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." Instead I think the 2012 photo is fine for use in the body of the article... I don't think we should go out of our way to include "before/after" photos, but including them naturally at various points in their career is what we do for other people. When we get a suitable recent photo of both women (or one of each) that should be added to the infobox. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Have further input from others first for at most one week before making this move and permanently removing the pic from the infobox. aNode (discuss) 15:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
(Another editor removed it from the info box. I merely followed up by restoring it to the body of the article, where I thought it was more appropriate. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC))
  • I agree that until we have a better photo, it should be removed from the infobox and lead, and put later in the article, in context. ‑‑YodinT 15:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, as per JasonAQuest. Upon removing the image from the infobox, I suggest placing a hidden note pointing to this talk page discussion explaining the requirements for a new image in the lead. Something like, <!-- Please find a post-2016 image of the Wachowskis to use here. See Talk:The_Wachowskis#More_Recent_Pictures for more information. -->. Airplaneman ✈ 15:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, remove the current image. --Loeba (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removing the current image from the infobox. I agree with User:JasonAQuest's interpretation that this photo does not meet the MOS guidelines for lead images. It could be useful to crop and use the Lana half of the photo elsewhere in the article as a photo of her, while we wait for (or look for) a reasonably up-to-date photo for Lilly by herself or both Lana and Lilly together. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support remove. As I've just said on a similar RFC on Talk:Daniel Mallory Ortberg, a photo showing a dated gender-presentation fails to meet the criteria of MOS:LEADIMAGE (natural and appropriate representations of the subject ... Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.) and will often provide WP:UNDUE weight to a subject's transition. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removing until a post-transition photo can be found. --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removing – MOS:GENDERID hasn't been explicitly mentioned thus far, so I will: remember what it says regarding a biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned: Give precedence to self-designation.... Now, that's nominally about the use of pronouns and avoiding deadnaming, but it seems to me that it would do violence to the spirit of MOS:GENDERID to use the correct pronouns and first name, and then crush that by using a pre-transition image implying a different gender in the Infobox.
But by the same reasoning, I don't agree that a pre-transition image has any place in the article further down,either. To me, this smacks of prurient interest or freak-show gawking. What possible relevance does a pre-transition image have to this article, especially when that look may be despised by the person in question? This is not pre-transition Caitlyn Jenner, who as Bruce was an instantly recognizable celebrity for a male atheltic pursuit, whose face appeared on tens of millions of cereal boxes. MOS:GENDERID goes on to say that we should use the words that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise.(italics in the original) While MOS:GENDERID doesn't claim to apply to images, and perhaps an Rfc about this should take place over there, I would say that if we are to avoid deadnaming or using obsolete male pronouns for Lily and Lana because it might be offensive to their latest self-described identity, so equally must we avoid using irrelevant male images from an earlier phase of their lives. They are not decathlon champions on Wheaties boxes; their notability is through their words on paper that millions have read, and for that, how they looked many years ago is completely irrelevant. These are living people; adding pre-transition photos anywhere in the article would violate the spirit of MOS:GENDERID, imho, and might be offensive to them. At the very least, before including such images, they should be contacted to ask if they have a preference about this. Until that time, no such images should be included. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that we should not have a male-presenting image for a female-identifying individual in the infobox, because it suggests that we don't take MOS:GENDERID seriously. If we accept that these two people are each women, we should present them as such, and the infobox picture is part of how we do that. But I think you're making an incorrect assumption about the basis for MOS:GENDERID. We don't refrain from misgendering people "because it might be offensive to" them. We do it because it would be inaccurate. You're suggesting that we give the subject of an article decision-making authority over what we put in that article, and that would be problematic to say the least. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
It's appropriate to consider negative impact on a living subject of an article based on WP:BLP, which says: "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". (Also, MOS:GENDERID makes it clear that we must give precedence to people's gender self-designation in articles - there's no "if we accept" relevant here.) Dreamyshade (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
"It might be offensive" is a very different standard from "possibility of harm". (I didn't intend to make it sound like our acceptance was optional; I consider it a given. I should have written "Since we accept....") -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, "possibility of harm" isn't referring to hurt feelings. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please remove the dead names for the Wachowskis.

At the very least, put the names in their history section, and not headlining the page, so that

1) It accurately reflects who they are, and 2) The page is rendered more readable.

As it is, their dead names contribute nothing to the article, and just clutter it up. Please move them to relevant sections if necessary, but do not keep them in the intro. They are notable as "The Wachowskis," so their dead names are irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.37.24 (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Existing policy: MOS:MULTINAMES. They are indeed notable as "the Wachowskis" (and previously notable as "the Wachowski Brothers") so the preferred style is to leave their birth names out of the lead. DpEpsilon ( talk | contribs ) 11:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
No, that is not the preferred style. They were both notable under their birth names, which appear prominently – individually – in the credits on pretty much all of their works from the first part of their careers. Plus there's all of the media coverage that consistently identified them by those given names (in addition to "the Wachowski brothers"). The policy actually says that notably known birth names are appropriate in the opening sentence of the lede. For example, if someone comes to this article looking for Speed Racer producer "Andy Wachowski", they need immediate confirmation that they're in the right place. –Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis

How should we credit/gender the Wachowskis?

Please give us your input and help us decide. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a few days left on this RfC and opinions remain sharply divided. Have any insight into this issue or good conflict resolution skills? Your input could be very valuable. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The footnote credit for "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers"

How the footnote should appear in relevant Wachowski film articles is being discussed at Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 3#Footnote implementation. Please join the discussion and weigh in with your thoughts and suggestions. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

File up for deletion

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2019_April_9 WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 23:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Footnotes in the lead

@Netoholic: I saw your recent edit pop up on my watchlist and wanted to quickly respond to your edit summary (that footnotes had been undiscussed) by pointing you to this discussion on footnotes and its related RFC on the talk page of The Matrix (franchise). The RFC did not pertain to this specific biography, but in case you were not aware of where this footnote style was coming from, I wanted to point it out, and possibly start a discussion here on whether it is suitable. I'm personally taking a neutral position for the time being. My main focus on this page for the time being is to encourage collaboration, which is why I'm leaving this note here. Airplaneman ✈ 18:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that discussion, but I don't see any reason to deviate from the Manning format example from MOS:MULTIPLENAMES. Hiding the birth names in a note pop-up seems to be more of a capitulation, rather than following clear guidelines or policy and is very unfriendly to readers/searchers. What we say in our articles has to match the sources, per WP:V, and since so much of their fame was under different names, those names should remain prominently displayed. -- Netoholic @ 02:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Technically speaking, yes, this article is outside the scope of that RfC, and MOS:MULTIPLENAMES says that former names are supposed to be listed in bold in the lead. However, sometimes it's good to break the rules, and I want to thank whoever boldly edited the Wachowskis' former names out of the lead a few months ago. That version of the article is a clear improvement: it strikes a middle-of-the-road balance by preserving the Wachowskis' deadnames without overemphasizing them. It could, and should, be a blueprint for future refinements to the MoS. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
No past name is "dead" if someone was famous using it. This rationale is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, not Wikipedia policy or guideline. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
My stance here is informed, in large part, by how mainstream sources write about trans people. A retrospective on the Wachowskis form a major publication might mention their deadnames, but it wouldn't blare their deadnames from a bullhorn. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Placing and bolding in the lead line is a mention, not a use... and comparing it like "blare their deadnames from a bullhorn" is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS confirmed. MOS:GNL is a guideline which directs how to write prose we create and have control of. WP:V and WP:NPOV are policies which demand we present sourced information as it is, not how you would prefer. -- Netoholic @ 04:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

siblings vs. sisters in lead

Its unquestionable that sources early in their career used "brothers" exclusively[1][2], but newer sources use a mix of "sisters"[3] and "siblings" - often within the same source[4][5]. Because "sibling" will always be correct usage for referring to them in the past, present, and future, we should use that in the lead and anywhere else that a general reference to their familial relationship is mentioned. -- Netoholic @ 02:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID: Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
"Sibling" is not a gendered term at all, and reflects their latest gender self ID. But regardless, MOS:GENDERID is a guideline, but WP:V demands that we accurately reflect the sources. Would you prefer we document which span of years they were "brothers", "brother-sister", and then "sisters"?. To be honest, that information would help readers analyze the sources from various dates, but using "siblings" somewhat simplifies that. -- Netoholic @ 04:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Alright, let's go through this point by point....
"sibling" will always be correct usage for referring to them in the past, present, and future: "Sister" will also always be correct usage for the past, present, and future. In any case, the sentence in question is written in the present tense.
"Sibling" is not a gendered term at all, and reflects their latest gender self ID. But regardless, MOS:GENDERID is a guideline, but WP:V demands that we accurately reflect the sources.: "Sisters" is the term the Wachowskis use in interviews and statements. (See, for example, this statement from Lilly: My sister Lana and I...thanks to my fabulous sister...). MOS:GENDERID says to respect self-identification. Doing so does not violate WP:V because reliable sources have not challenged the claim that they are sisters in the time since they came out.
Would you prefer we document which span of years they were "brothers", "brother-sister", and then "sisters"?: Err, the article already documents that they used to go by "brothers", etc. (It even documents the time that they jokingly called themselves "The Wachowski Starship" :)
Regardless of your personal feelings about this issue, as you've noted, Wikipedia is not the venue to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 06:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
MOS:GENDERID says to respect self-identification - not in everything. If person A calls person B their "sister", then that is expressly not self-identification... A is making a claim about B. Person A could say "I am B's sister" and that would be gender self-identification. Regardless, we have copious past sources that use "brothers", of course, and many current sources which use only "siblings". "Siblings" will never be incorrect and it will always be gender-neutral."Siblings" has a much longer history in this article. It seems that "sisters" was implemented by a single-purpose account in Nov 2018, and that has lead to several slow wheel wars of the term since then. It will result in fewer drive-by edits like what's been happening by people that think "sisters" is the wrong term. -- Netoholic @ 06:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
You're violating the spirit of MOS:GENDERID if not the letter. If we're going to change "sisters" to be gender neutral why not change the whole article to be gender neutral? Let's remove all female pronouns. By your logic someone can't "self-identify" as "she", right? And there are, of course, lots of old articles that refer to them with "he" pronouns. In fact, let's just never use any gendered term to ever refer to any trans person, that's the most neutral course of action, in your view, I'm assuming?
Anyway, regardless of who made the change it has been the status-quo since last year, and so, unless you are able to get a new consensus, that is what it should be reverted to per WP:STATUSQUO. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 06:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I never said or implied any of that. MOS:GENDERID refers to the self-identity of an individual on behalf of themselves... and even that limited part is an exception to our overall policy of WP:VERIFIABILITY. Stretching GENDERID to include what an individual says about someone else or about themselves as a member of a group, is pretty clearly controversial judging by the number of times the "sisters" word has been edited out of this article by a number of people. Using a term like "siblings" when done in Wikipedia's voice is NPOV and Verifiable, and that is based on those core policies, not a Manual of Style guideline. There is no STATUSQUO when its the subject of so many reverts since it was put in. "Siblings" was much more stable for a longer period of time. -- Netoholic @ 07:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems like netoholic's problems are with MOS:GENDERID; the policy is clear that using gendered words such as sisters is correct when both subjects identify as women. And both have identified themselves as women so I'm also unclear on where netoholic is going with the Person A, Person B argument. Finally, arguing previous phrasing should hold more weight clearly goes against GENDERID on respecting gender in most recent sources. Rab V (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
My tuppence: 1) "Siblings" was useful here when it was unclear that they both identify as women, and 2) it might be nice if people used gender-neutral terms more often. However 1) their gender IDs are no longer unclear, 2) people generally don't use "sibling" when they can say "sister" which makes its use here seem... dodgy, 3) it demonstrably does not prevent drive-by misgendering edits. Call them "sisters". –Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Matrix 4 announced

To be written and directed by Lana

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/matrix-4-keanu-reeves-carrie-anne-moss-lana-wachowski-1203307955/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.142.10 (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Article photo

The article's main photo, File:Wachowskis, Fantastic Fest, Cloud Atlas.jpg, has the caption "Lilly and Lana Wachowski at Fantastic Fest in 2012". However (according to the article), Lilly only came out being transgender in 2016, 4 years after the photo. So the photo shows someone who was then identified as Andrew Paul or Andy. IMHO, it would be a good idea to change the caption to "Lilly (left, then Andy) and Lana Wachowski at Fantastic Fest in 2012". An ever better option would be to keep the caption (with the addition of who's left and right) and update the photo to a more current one. IIVQ (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Last September, that picture was removed from the lead and moved down in the article as per a discussion on the talk page. I see no reason for mentioning a previously used name, and it would seem strange to do for anyone with a changed name. If necessary, a more simple solution would be to change the caption to "The Wachowskis at Fantastic Fest in 2012". – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of what names they used at the time the photo was taken, their names are now Lilly and Lana, and those are the only names we should use in captioning photos of them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Dead naming transgender people

It's not acceptable to dead name transgender people, and this article does just that. Considering that Wikipedia doesn't have gender guidelines, this practice needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physpkg (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Physpkg. Wikipedia actually does have gender guidelines, and one of them is WP:TRANSNAME. If someone was notable under a previous name, we include that name in the lead sentence. aboideautalk 17:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Abiodeau. I'm thinking this practice draws too much attention to the Wachowski's accomplishments. Additionally, the gender policy as stated seems firmly rooted in past practices and is not up to date with current transgender referencing. See: https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/deadnaming#impact Physpkg (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "draws too much attention to [their] accomplishments", how does including their original names in the lead affect that? As for changing the policy itself, the right place to discuss that would be at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. I linked the wrong policy last time, the main one is MOS:CHANGEDNAME. aboideautalk 18:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I just tried to solve this issue by keeping the deadname yet at the same time displaying it as mistakenly assigned.
I understand that the dead name of trans people is usually displayed on wikipedia if the public audience had previously known them by that name: it enables everyone to find the topic/person.
However, it's uncorrect to depict the dead name as "born that way" (for obvious reasons). It's correct to depict the dead name as a mistake instead. And there's no need to repeat it multiple times.
I regret to see the answer was brief and negative: "Born" is common terminology, see Caitlyn Jenner" and my edit was undone.
You must understand that transphobia is common.
I did not delete the sisters' dead name. The information is still there, and it's not unexact to write "Lana formerly known as William" and "named William at the time". So what's really the problem here? Why is it so difficult for cis people to listen to trans people? The Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm principle applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.9.162 (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not unexact, no, but your additions made the article unnecessarily awkward, especially the parenthetical additions in the Early life section. Their birth names were Laurence and Andrew, and if we remove all mention of that, it makes it confusing for those who are reading the article. aboideautalk 15:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
We use familiar, common idioms such as "born ____" because it is not Wikipedia's role to lead the way in changing how people talk. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
They were born with that name, and it is illogical to say that that name was "wrong" and was never their real name. Is the name "Apple" the "wrong" name for a celebrity's child? Was it "wrong" for Freddie Mercury to have been named Farrokh?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Per MOS:CHANGEDNAME, In the case of transgender and non-binary people...One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly". I would have no objection to changing it to "formerly" (though I also don't have a strong objection to "born"). WanderingWanda (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The parenthetical clause in the first sentence identifies the dates they were born, and the names they were assigned at that time. Changing it to "formerly" would make the point of that clause unclear: in "formerly Laurence Wachowski; June 21, 1965", it isn't immediately obvious what the date refers to... when she changed her name maybe? It'd sacrifice clarity just to avoid a simple descriptive word. In the body of the article, "born [date] in [location] and named [name]" could be used instead, but the word "born" really needs to be there. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
What about "born June 21, 1965; formerly Laurence Wachowski"? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Wachowskis deadnames in Bold in lead

@JasonAQuest and The4lines: MOS:BOLD & MOS:BOLDREDIRECT is pretty clear about when and when not to use bold in an article. The relevant provisions in this case are when something redirects to an article (Lana Wachowski as a {{r to joint biography}}) or when it is the article's title or potential article title (Wachowskis in this case). I'll also WP:BENOTBOLD which discourages use of adding bold everywhere.
My other main concern is that the article repeats the same information three separate times (the lead, early life, and infobox; two of which are now in bold). Literally no one calls them by these names, so why are we giving so much prominence to names which are incredibly irrelevant for 90% of the article?
My position is this: if the Wachowskis are not independently notable, then their neither are their birth names in an article about them as a pair. The same information can be found prominently within the infobox and again in the early life section. To put this exact same information in the lead is nothing less than ridiculous.
Either way, since this is a WP:BLP, I have removed the content one last time since the policy generally is to require explicit consensus for inclusion before content is added to the article. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a break from edit-warring to explain your thinking. Contrary to your assertion, there actually was a consensus to include that information, the way it has been presented, and it was based on the very MOS guidance you cite. (We have discussed this before, you know.)
You declare that "literally no one calls them" by their former names, but that's simply not the case. Those names are in the credits of millions of DVDs, a search for "Andy Wachowski" gets a million hits on Google, and even "Larry Wachowski" still gets 289,000. They were highly notable under those names, and MOS:DEADNAME identifies "when the person was notable under that name" as an appropriate circumstance to include those names in the opening sentence. This isn't even a border case, where somebody changed their name just as they started getting famous; those names are still very well known (in Lilly's case still probably better known than her chosen name). Those redirects are used every day, and MOS:BOLDREDIRECT says, "Normally, we try to make sure that all 'inbound redirects'... are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term." That's exactly what we had here, and I'm at a loss to see how you think it says the opposite.
Arguing that the two women are "not independently notable" is missing the point, because that isn't why they share an article. It's also false; either one of them would be notable enough for a separate article. The reason they share an article is because so much of their career has been in tandem, which makes separate (redundant) articles unnecessary and impractical. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not to split. After two weeks, the discussion indicates that two new articles are not necessary at this time; however, this can be revisited later if their individual careers become substantially large enough to merit a WP:SPINOUT. 2pou (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I propose that we should split Lana and Lilly from this article.

They had worked as a writing and directing team through most of their professional film careers. However, they do not work together in Work in Progress and Matrix 4. --Sharouser (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting two additional articles, or replacing this one with separate articles? I can't imagine how the former would work as stand-alone articles. If it's the latter, the two articles would need to be largely duplicates of each other, which gets messy when one article is edited but the other isn't. Why not have sections in this article for "Lana's solo work" and "Lilly's solo work"? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the latter "replacing" is a valid option at this time. Their long-term, historically-recognized name is The Wachowskis. Evidence would be needed that this has significantly changed in reliable sources since their professional split has occurred, which brings up another question. Are they completely split now on all film projects, or is that just the present state? --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I suggested two additional articles. --Sharouser (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
They haven't worked long enough apart from each other to do that just yet. What if they work again together? Or what if they stop making films (something they have mentioned a few times as a possibility) and they never surface again after Matrix 4 and Work in Progress. Will we be joining their articles again because after all, hey, they made 98% of their works together? To conclude, I think there's no reason to rush at this stage. Also, Lilly might receive some "characters created by" or something credit in Matrix 4 anyway, even if she virtually has nothing to do with that film. Freemanukem (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. In addition to the puzzle of how one would write an article about just one part of a person's career, there simply isn't enough to write an article about. If Lana or Lilly was a new filmmaker, their solo resumé wouldn't even be enough to establish notability. By the same factor, there's no need to split: their relatively small bodies of solo work can be covered easily in this article, just as their individual gender transitions already are. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree that a split feels premature. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is getting ridiculous with Wikipedia

I just changed Untitled Matrix film to The Matrix 4. However, after I clicked on "publish changes", I AM SO MAD THAT IT CHANGED BACK TO UNTITLED MATRIX FILM! Please fix this for me, Wikipedia!! THANKS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:902:C200:CD90:49F5:24A1:54B3:BA58 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This page has pending changes protection, which means any changes have to be approved. It looks like your change is live on the site now. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Incorrectly states that Lilly Wachowski is a “trans man”!! She is NOT — she is a transgender WOMAN. 2601:18A:C680:4CF0:39BC:7C45:5F2C:BC53 (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It says that Mickey Ray Mahoney is a trans man, not Lilly Wachowski ;) TheImaCow (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wachowskis/Archive_3&oldid=1151014781"