This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
See extensive discussion at Talk:The Matrix#"The Wachowskis" vs "The Wachowski Brothers". That article uses The Wachowskis and this one should too. I would also support changing the infobox on both articles, but at the very least it's way past time for the first sentence of this article to change. Franciscrot ( talk) 18:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
As a student of philosophy, I thought I should point out that I encountered no philosophical elements in the 'reloaded' episode. I know the word 'philosophy' has received many alternate meanings (one of the most irritating of which is companies thinking that their marketing scheme can be called 'a philosophy'), but that is no excuse to misuse the word in an encyclopedia, even if the article is not about philosophy but about a film. And especially, of course, if the word is linked to the philosophy article. Sorry about being so stuck up. :) DirkvdM 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the Matrix is "philosophy for dummies", and not in any real sense philosophical. Saying that the story is specifically "complex" is arguable, and saying that the story is "incorporating many philosophical elements" is really giving it too much praise. Of course, Nietsche isn't shallow but every "use" of philosophy (everything about the oracle, for instance) in the films are fairly shallow, and the ideas pondered over in them could have been written by anyone fairly bright. This has always been my main objection with the films. //Swedish philosophy student.
It's more like introductory philosophy. It covers a broad range of topics, and is designed to skim the surface and make you think. That's the heart of philosophy, so this definitely isn't "shallow." Complaining that it doesn't go in depth enough is ridiculous when there's so much going on and the purpose of the films wouldn't allow. That's part of the reason the first one was so great, there's enough there for the more intelligent, thoughtful person to consider afterwards, but there's not too much like in the later ones that it's hard to understand, or restrictive on the imagination. If you want a movie that goes in depth in philosophy you either need to be watching highly intelligent, little-known indie films or READING A BOOK. Don't expect a popular film to talk about the semiotics of a developing civilization. Jjmckool ( talk) 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
People occasionally confuse "philosophy" and "superstition" (i.e. the Oracle). While there's some overlap, they deviate at reality's end. Liberty5651 ( talk) 20:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Matrix (franchise). 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Any objection to my setting up auto-archiving on this page for threads older than, say, ten years? If I hear no objection within a week or so, I'll put it into effect. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 20:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Oops. Didn't notice this section before starting autoarchiving. Just seemed awfully long with some old threads. Not typically controversial in such circumstances. Don't know why the archive wasn't showing up in the archivebox, but the talk header might be more appropriate for this page anyway. Replaced. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
How should the Wachowskis be credited in articles about films/media they worked on before they came out as women? (The main point of contention is how they’re credited in leads and infoboxes.)
A: Reflect their preferred gender identity and avoid referring to them as “brothers” (except in footnotes and references.) For example, the Matrix Revolutions article should say that the film was directed by "The Wachowskis" in the lead and infobox.
B: Reflect how they were credited when their films were released. For example, the Matrix Revolutions article should say that the film was directed by "The Wachowski Brothers” in the lead and infobox.
C: Reflect the credit as it is currently recorded on the work in question. (Added by Betty Logan ( talk))
OTHER: Please specify. (Added by WanderingWanda ( talk))
(Previous RfCs: here and here. Previous discussions: here, here, and here.) WanderingWanda ( talk) 05:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
My latest comment and a response have been moved below by request. WanderingWanda ( talk) 05:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Betty Logan's vote
|
---|
|
Although I don't know of any instance of the Wachowskis talking about their old credits, in the speech Lana Wachowski gave when she received the HRC Visibility Award, she talked about 1. not wanting to be seen as a one of "the Wachowski Brothers" and 2. wanting her gender identity to be visible to young people.
...I was recently out to dinner with a mixture of friends and strangers who were all very excited to meet a “Hollywood” director, but all they want to do is ask about Tom Hanks, Keanu Reeves and Halle Berry, and throughout the dinner they repeatedly refer to me as “he” or one of the “Wachowski Brothers,” sometimes using half my name, “Laaaaaa,” as an awkward bridge between identities, unable or perhaps unwilling to see me as I am, but only for the things I do.
-
I am here because when I was young, I wanted very badly to be a writer, I wanted to be a filmmaker, but I couldn’t find anyone like me in the world and it felt like my dreams were foreclosed simply because my gender was less typical than others. If I can be that person for someone else then the sacrifice of my private civic life may have value.
-Lana Wachowski ( speech) ( transcript) WanderingWanda ( talk) 05:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Erik's vote
|
---|
|
DisneyMetalhead's vote/comment
|
---|
|
Flyer22's comment
|
---|
|
Per legal documents..., I have no clue what you mean. Honestly, bringing it up is just another can of worms. Movie credits are not in anyway legal documents. If you are looking for a good essay on interpreting MOS:GENDERID, I recommend Wikipedia:Gender identity ( WP:GENDERID). It more accurately encapsulates the sentiments of many editors in this thread including myself. Therefore, context for the infobox would generally be up for interpretation.
The latest release of the Matrix trilogy, for example, refers to the directors as "The Wachowskis" on the cover."The Wachowskis" is accurate. Regardless of the logic you choose to use. ― MJL -Talk- ☖ 00:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
In conclusion: there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article. This particular discussion does not support the broad and "retroactive" application of any "new" gender in the way suggested by WP:Gender identity. All of which helps us for this particular article but does little to solve the more general problem of how to properly describe a changing world. And it seems to me that this discussion does indicate we need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY, since the support here for proposal 1 is really broad and suggests, more or less, the rejection of the formulation in MOS:IDENTITY. Do NOT read this as "MOS:IDENTITY is rejected"--it is a suggestion, and thus an incentive to have a broader conversation.
Caitlyn Jenner is very famous now, but, in the future, she may not be very famous to newer generations.I will refer you to WP:CRYSTALBALL.
If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention. However, see MOS:IDENTITY. For example, Pope John Paul I was known as Albino Luciani before he was elevated to the papacy. Any reference to him before he became pope should use the name Albino Luciani.
Credits in the infobox 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." If that isn't denial, then I'm not sure what is. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 15:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
If we're being fair, we should acknowledge that this is NOT a discussion about editors' opinions regarding gender identification. We should be careful not to imply that the reason for an editor's position has to do with their feelings toward transgender or genderqueer people. This is first and foremost a discussion about current policies and guidelines, and debate surrounding their interpretation.
— User:GoneIn60
Gothicfilm's vote
|
---|
|
Pyxis Solitary's vote
|
---|
|
Rab V's vote
|
---|
|
I think it is worth reminding everyone that the question is how do we credit individual films in articles about those films, not about how do we talk about two individuals, either on their own biog articles - or on their partnership page. We hardly need any kind of reference, new or old to write about 'the Wachowskis' (note no capital 't' - which is how the above sources refer to them), anymore than we would need a reference to write about 'the Clintons', to mean that partnership or ' the Coens' to refer to theirs. These are all generic terms used to refer to a body of collaboration - their use tells us nothing about who was credited with writing, directing or producing any specific film (nor who was President and Governor and who was First Lady, Sec State and Senator). The newer sources don't indicate that different people are now believed to have made any of these films (if they did I would be in favour of using them), they simply tell us that the creators have changed their private and/or professional names since making the films. No sources offered even imply that the people officially or widely credited with making the films has changed, merely the names those people are now known by.
Using anything other than original credits (supplemented by the, very rare instance, of new info having entered the public sphere about who did what) will inevitably lead to anachronism, ( Prince Philip) did not marry Queen Liz in 1947. Julius Caeser's troops didn't occupy France. Finding news sources that imply either, because they are assuming the reader is not going to interpret the content literally, does not make the impossible factual). If not anachronistic, then incomplete info will be added by using the generic, where specific credits were originally used. Finally, I think that when we are reduced to looking at the (very brief) 'blurb' on the packaging for a specific box-set, to establish exact credits for specific films, we are on very shaky ground. Pincrete ( talk) 13:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Trystan's vote
|
---|
|
SMcCandlish's vote
|
---|
|
Anonymous vote
|
---|
|
How should the Wachowskis be credited in articles about films/media they worked on before they came out as women?And I advertised it to the talk pages of any of their films I could think of (including Bound, Speed Racer, and V For Vendetta.) (Note that "media" can encompass videogames and comics too.) WanderingWanda ( talk) 20:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Bilorv's vote
|
---|
|
The Wachowskis created films under the "Wachowski Brothers" name. They chose that professional name. And the name they worked under before they transitioned has not been changed in these films. Altering facts to accommodate activism is a slippery slope, and what becomes acceptable in Wikipedia in order to please one faction today will eventually have to become acceptable wiki-wide. Pyxis Solitary yak 15:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The pair were known professionally as "the Wachowski Brothers" during the production of the movie. And of course I'd object to the removal of any such encyclopedic content, as it is information relevant to the topic. I'm simply saying: in the voice of Wikipedia we should not be referring to two women as "brothers"; to do so is to implicitly if not explicitly purport a falsehood. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
the Wachowskisand then having a footnote reading something like
The pair were credited as "the Wachowski Brothers" at the time., but I wouldn't mandate such a footnote either. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
...a common argument is that many infobox film entries (particularly those dealing with credits) are essentially quoted pieces of information from the work itself.
— User:GoneIn60
"in the voice of Wikipedia we should not be referring to two women as "brothers"Regardless of intention, by flatly saying that The Matrix was "Directed by The Wachowski Brothers", it feels like Wikipedia is saying that, well, the film was "Directed" by a pair of "Brothers". Which is a statement that is biased and factually incorrect.
Written and Directed by Lana and Lilly Wachowski (originally credited as "The Wachowski Brothers"). It's a less elegant and more awkward solution, and perhaps it would still give off the uncomfortable sense that the article was going out of its way to use the word "Brothers", but it would be a step in the right direction.
It probably would have been clearer had this RfC simply focused solely on the infobox, as I don't think there was a movement or desire to challenge the 2016 RfC.
— User:GoneIn60
[[The Wachowski Brothers]]
and [[The Wachowskis]]<ref>Originally credited as "The Wachowski Brothers"<ref>
. Neither I nor (I believe) any of the other contributors to this RfC are here to do any sort of activism. Our (or at least my) intention here is not to "obscure the past identities of transsexual individuals," and I do not see how the above change does so (I am genuinely confused about this - if you could clarify how this change amounts to a corruption of the facts, I invite you to please do so). In my view, this is simply a change to bring us more into line with contemporary reliable secondary sources, without removing any information. In fact, there are a number of secondary benefits to this beyond WanderingWanda's points, including a reduction in the amount of good-faith reverts that we regularly need to do on the articles (see
these
three
diffs in the past two days alone) because of IP users who notice that Wikipedia is not in line with contemporary secondary sources. (P.S. - this thread is getting a bit long. Should it be moved down to discussion? Sorry, but I'm a bit new at this.)
disgruntledGM ❮
talk /
contribs❯ 19:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
[[The Wachowski Brothers]]
to [[The Wachowskis]]<ref>Originally credited as "The Wachowski Brothers"</ref>
amounts to an alteration or removal of facts - indeed, I would argue that this presentation is more clear, as "The Wachowski Brothers" is no longer in common use (as evidenced by the sources mentioned below). Please help me understand why you believe that this change, which seems to better-reflect the contemporary secondary sources on which Wikipedia articles are
supposed to primarily rely, is instead a harmful change based upon "transgender ideology that seeks, in the case of the Wachowski siblings, to obscure the past identity of transexual individuals in Wikipedia's coverage about their works" - at the moment, I simply do not see evidence of this obscurement, nor do I see a reason why the change would not benefit the encyclopedia. I believe that your viewpoint is valuable, and I hope that you continue to contribute to the discussion.
disgruntledGM ❮
talk /
contribs❯ 17:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[[The Wachowski Brothers]]
and [[The Wachowskis]]<ref>Originally credited as "The Wachowski Brothers"<ref>
around to [[The Wachowski Brothers]]{{efn|Professional name of the Wachowskis when the film was produced and released.}}
as a more accurate explanation in the infobox for the film credit.
Pyxis Solitary
yak 13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)The pair were known professionally as "the Wachowski Brothers" during the production of the movie. Any mention of what they were "known as" or "known professionally as" strikes me as fraught. I believe Lana Wachowski has said she started presenting as a woman on the set of one of The Matrix sequels, for example, which is a professional setting. WanderingWanda ( talk) 18:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned.This would seem to fit that exact standard. I fail to see the distinction between preserving credits only on a case-by-case basis and using the correct GenderID on a case-by-case basis. ― MJL -Talk- ☖ 19:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed several commenters have used primary sources such as the DVD covers, promotional posters and credits. WP:RS is clear that secondary sources are to be preferred over primary sources. Nothing I find in MOS:MOVIE seems to contradict that guidance. In this case, modern secondary sources tend towards referring to the directors as The Wachowskis and secondary sources are favored when there is this kind of conflict. Rab V ( talk) 06:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
As professional editors, the Coen Bros. always use the name "Roderick Jaynes", and it is how, for example, the Academy Awards credit them when they are nominated for editing. You could make a strong case that it is how they should be credited in the infobox, according to the guideline. But instead they are currently credited as "Joel Coen / Ethan Coen" in the infoboxes for all their films except one (one film does list the pseudonym, but even there, editors felt a need to add a footnote explaining that Roderick Jaynes is not a real person.) Why has that consensus emerged after all these years? Perhaps because, in the end, Wikipedia is about reflecting fact not fiction. "Roderick Jaynes" feels like a fictional construct, not a cold, hard fact, and so poor Roderick is tossed to the side. That seems fair enough. But, what, then, does it say that Wikipedia still clings to the credit "The Wachowski Brothers", even though mainstream sources no longer do, and even though the Wachowskis have come out as sisters, making the credit demonstrably incorrect? Intended or not, it's hard not to read an unstated message into that: that the Wachowskis' gender is somehow not factual. That it's merely a fiction, like Roderick Jaynes.A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made.
WP:RS is clear that secondary sources are to be preferred over primary sources."
Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.
References
A response to these two guidelines that have been brought up:
"If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention."
- MOS:BIO#Changed names
-
"Credits in the infobox 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."
- Template:Infobox_film#Credits
Crediting the Wachowskis as "The Wachowskis" does not, to me, seem to violate either guideline. They were known personally and professionally under the last name "Wachowski" when all their films were released. We're not talking about changing a credited first name or last name. Some people have compared the term "The Wachowski Brothers" to band names like "The Beatles", but this comparison strikes me as dubious (unless you're going to argue that John, Paul, George, and Ringo are all giant insects.) Things might be different if the Wachowski sisters went under a more fanciful moniker like "The Razzmatazz Brothers", but as it is? Yes, the words may have been written in title case, but we're still just talking about a credit that combines their actual last name with a common plural noun.
In conclusion, how to apply the two guidelines in question in this specific case seems very ambiguous at best. And perhaps it goes without saying that Wikipedia gives us wide latitude to interpret guidelines broadly and even to ignore them where appropriate.
"Wikipedia has no firm rules / Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions."
- Wikipedia:Five_pillars
One other point: if you read through the MoS, there seems like a general consensus that transgender subjects should be treated judiciously and respectfully. For example, regarding biographical articles, it says:
This rule has no direct relevance to the issue at hand, but if one were to draw a general principle from it, it might be don't go out of your way to misgender or deadname trans people."In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence [of biographical articles] only when the person was notable under that name."
- Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Changed_names
One last, lighthearted, note: in the world of The Matrix, if you don't respect someone else's identity, you are one of the bad guys, not one the good guys. :)
WanderingWanda ( talk) 20:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Agent Smith: That is the sound of your death. Goodbye, Mr. Anderson.
Neo: My name is Neo.
- The Matrix, written and directed by The Wachowskis
Let's construct an overview of how recent sources credit or refer to the Wachowskis when discussing their older work. This is just FYI - how much weight, if any, to give to give these sources can be (and is being) debated above. Please feel free to add to this list. For reference, Lana Wachowski came out as a woman around 2010 and Lilly came out in 2016. (Note: many sources that I'm adding were found by other editors above.) WanderingWanda ( talk) 04:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Current names/terms (sources that exclusively refer to "the Wachowskis", "The Wachowskis", and/or Lana/Lilly Wachowski)
- 2019 "...as sibling co-creators the Wachowskis..." Leigh, Danny (21 Jan 2019). "From red pills to red, white and blue Brexit: how The Matrix shaped our reality". The Guardian. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
- 2018 "...written and directed by The Wachowskis..." "...Back, too, are The Wachowskis..." UHD Packing for The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolutions, and The Matrix trilogy. The Matrix ("4K Ultra HD + Blu Ray + Digital"). Warner Bros. 2018. Retrieved February 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
- 2018 "SPEED RACER (2008) Director: Lana Wachowski, Lilly Wachowski" Olson, Christopher (2018). 100 Greatest Cult Films. London: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 221. ISBN 9781442211049. WanderingWanda
- 2018 "...with a screenplay by Lana and Lilly Wachowski — their first project after the 'Matrix' trilogy." Bailey, Jason (June 22, 2018). "11 Great Titles Expiring From Netflix in July". The New York Times. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
- 2018 "Siblings Lana and Lilly were the minds behind the groundbreaking Matrix trilogy..." Hertz, Barry (June 20, 2018). "The Wachowskis' Speed Racer tears into the Cinesphere for a tenth anniversary celebration". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
- 2018 "...'The Matrix' by the Wachowskis." Lee, Nathaniel (Aug 13, 2018). "How one film can fix the superhero genre". Business Insider. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
- 2017 "...Lana and Lilly completed the script for The Matrix..." Mapua, Jeff (2017). Transgender Pioneers: Lana Wachowski. New York: Rosen Publishing Group. p. 37. ISBN 9781508171607. WanderingWanda
- 2017 "The Matrix...written and directed by the Wachowskis." Fleming Jr., Mike (Mar 14, 2017). "Warner Bros Ponders More Of 'The Matrix'". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
- No date "V for Vendetta...Writers / Lilly Wachowski / Lana Wachowski" "V For Vendetta". Netflix. Retrieved Feb 7, 2019. WanderingWanda
Old names/terms
- No date "Directors: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski" "THE MATRIX (1999)". AFI Catalog. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
- No date "Directors Andy Wachowski Larry Wachowski" "The Matrix (1999)". BFI. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
Mix/Other
- 2016 "...Andy and Lana Wachowski, The Matrix, directed by The Wachowski Brothers..." Chang, Sharon (2016). Raising Mixed Race: Multiracial Asian Children in a Post-Racial World. New York, NY: Routledge. p. 234. ISBN 9781612058481. WanderingWanda
- No date "Directed by Lana Wachowski ... (as The Wachowski Brothers) / Lilly Wachowski...(as The Wachowski Brothers)" "The Matrix (1999) Full Cast & Crew". IMDb. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
unless new info is available which contradicts/alters that orig info- that's exactly what happened in this case! New info has come out about the Wachowski sisters' gender. We now know that they are women and aren't "brothers". How do we know they're women? Because they say they are. (Self-identification is the only reasonable way to determine someone's gender.) No, it doesn't matter that they weren't public about their gender until recently - someone coming out as transgender is best thought of as a gender reveal not a gender change, unless the person in question specifically says otherwise. Lana Wachowski, for example, was already out to some friends and family while the sisters were working on the Matrix sequels, and both sisters were grappling with their gender as early as childhood. But, you ask, didn't they pick the moniker "The Wachowski Brothers" for themselves? Maybe - what does it matter? If they chose it, that doesn't mean it's accurate or appropriate. All those "Alan Smithee" directors chose that moniker for themselves - so what? Actually, one could argue that ignoring "Alan Smithee" credits in infoboxes is far more "revisionist". Directors don't take their names off movies lightly. An "Alan Smithee" credit likely signifies that a director feels that the work isn't theirs in some fundamental sense - that they lost control of the movie. That information, apparently, isn't important enough to convey in infoboxes, but dropping a single incorrect gendered common noun is somehow profoundly revisionist and wrong? No matter what, Wikipedia's infoboxes aren't going to match the screen credits exactly. Look at the infobox for The Matrix. It lists the credits as "Directed by...Produced by...Written by..." but that's not how they're broken down in the movie! The movie says "written and directed by". Ultimately, the important thing here isn't exactitude but accuracy. In this specific case, dropping the incorrect gendered term in question will make the infobox less of an exact copy, but it won't make the infobox less accurate.
We are not discussing how to write about these two individuals, but rather about how to write about works published under earlier names.I'll point to one specific entry above - the book 100 Greatest Cult Films, published by Rowman & Littlefield. It isn't a biographical work but a compendium of broad overviews of various films, like the Wikipedia articles in question. And the author, the copyeditors, and the publisher apparently think that copying the Wachowskis' old and incorrect screen credits is not the best or most accurate way to credit them, even in the bibliographic references at the end of the book. Why does Wikipedia disagree? WanderingWanda ( talk) 16:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Trans Q+A - this section has been collapsed by request
|
---|
In any discussion about how to refer to trans people it is, I'd argue, important for everyone to have a basic level of trans knowledge. Many of you will know a lot of this already, but I hope some will find the below Q+A useful. Note: I don't claim to have an expert level of knowledge about this topic, but I consider myself fairly well informed. (If you want to dig into my personal life, I identify as queer and have been in a long term relationship with a trans man.) If I get anything wrong below please correct me. Q: Is it really that offensive to misgender a trans person? A: Yes. In the trans community it is generally considered very hurtful and offensive to say anything that implies a trans person isn't the gender they say they are, or to use their old (dead) name. - The Washington Post - Laverne Cox Q: Wait, how can misgendering be a form of violence? Aren't words, by definition, not violence? A: That depends which definition you use. Dictionary.com says violence can mean "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power" or "rough or immoderate vehemence". Perhaps misgendering is sometimes linked with the word "violence" because the trans community faces a disproportionate amount of physical violence. Q: How much physical violence? To quote Wikipedia's article on transphobia, according to one survey, "9% [of respondents] had been physically attacked for being transgender. 10% had been sexually assaulted during the previous year, and 47% had been sexually assaulted at some point in their life." Also "40% had attempted suicide at some point in their life, compared to 4.6 percent of the American population." According to another study, "Over 80% of transgender teens report feeling unsafe in a school environment, more than 40% report having been physically abused". The high rates of suicide and violent assault both stem from society's basic lack of acceptance of and respect for trans people. Here is a list of trans people who were murdered last year in the U.S. - take a moment to look through the names: https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-transgender-community-in-2018 Here's a moving speech by Lana Wachowski where she talks about, among many other things, a time she almost jumped in front of a train as a teenager because she couldn't see herself ever being accepted by society: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crHHycz7T_c Q: When is it appropriate to use a trans person's old/dead name? Anecdotally, the response to this question from most trans people is: approximately never. You should just use their chosen name and pronouns even when talking about the past. Deadnaming generally feels like a punch to the gut. Q: But what if you're talking about a trans woman's old bar mitzvah? Or the time she won silver in the men's 100 meter dash? Surely it would be ridiculous to use a female name when talking about specifically male activities? Would it be ridiculous to say that "Michelle Obama attended elementary school"? After all, she's an adult and elementary school is for kids... and she didn't even have the name "Obama" when she was a kid! And yet that sentence sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn't it? Sometimes something can seem "ridiculous" just because you're not used to it. That doesn't mean it actually is. Young white kids sometimes have trouble with the term "black person" - "they're brown, not black!" But once someone gets used to it any sense that calling someone "black" might be weird or ridiculous fades away. Q: So you're saying Wikipedia should never, ever use someone's deadname? I'm just trying to give some background info. I'm not going to comment on what Wikipedia should or shouldn't do in this Q+A. Q: If someone didn't transition until recently, why change history? A: Just because a gender transition seems "recent" from the outside doesn't mean it feels like a recent change to the person in question. Before a person comes out publicly there was probably a period where they were out to a few people but not everyone, and before that they probably knew but weren't out to anyone, and before that they might not have understood their gender identity but knew something was up with their gender. What might feel like "changing history" on the outside is really just honoring someone's experience and identity. Lana Wachowski only came out publicly recently, but she has talked movingly about how her gender has been something she's been grappling with since childhood. Here's an excerpt from the speech I linked above:
- Lana Wachowski {{end hi
|
A concrete mockup of what The Matrix Revolutions article (and other Wachowski film articles) could look like in the near future:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:WanderingWanda/sandbox&oldid=885132247
In this mockup, the Wachowski sisters are listed as "The Wachowskis" in the infobox and the lead sentence, and there is a footnote saying Credited as "The Wachowski Brothers"
.
A note on the footnote: Personally, I have mixed feelings about it (and I'll note that option A does not, as written, mandate the addition of one.) One could argue it feels like its putting an asterisk on the Wachowskis' womanhood, and contemporary secondary sources seem comfortable completely omitting the "Wachowski Brothers" credit and just using the sisters' current names. However, enough editors have said that preserving the original credits is important that I'm willing to accept footnotes that credit them as "Brothers" in the name of consensus building.
With the above mockup I tried hard to honor people on all sides of this debate. Yes, it reflects 'Side A' and all the arguments we've made about how contemporary secondary sources credit the Wachowskis, and what contemporary style guides say, and how film infoboxes often do not quote screen credits exactly, and how implying that the Wachowskis are "brothers" may be considered biased and factually inaccurate, etc.
But the mockup also honors the perspectives of 'Side B' and 'Side C'.
Betty Logan eloquently pointed out that ...the credit the work carries is an important bibliographic record.
The addition of a footnote with the original credit preserves this bibliographic record.
I also took a cue from GoneIn60 and the other two editors who voted for 'C in the infobox and A in the lead'. I had a choice of putting the footnote in either the lead or the infobox, and I chose to put it in the infobox in response to the perspective that the infobox should be more attuned to the exact wording of the screen credits.
I'd like to ask everyone who voted for option B or C to look over the above mockup and see if it would be acceptable to you. Note that the "Wachowski Brothers" credit is the very first footnote in the article. Note that the credit is set off by itself, above the clutter of the reference section, and surrounded by white space - even someone who isn't reading the article that closely is likely to see it. In order to help us reach a consensus, uKER was open and generous enough to change their vote from B to A (adding the stipulation that they thought the article must contain a footnote with the original credit.) I humbly ask others who voted for B or C to consider doing the same.
I'd like to ask everyone else who voted to look over the mockup as well. If you are an option A voter who feels the "Wachowski Brothers" credit should not be listed anywhere in the article, even in a footnote: please let us know and edit your vote to reflect this.
Thank you for your input, everyone. :)
Pings: Betty Logan, Argento Surfer, DonIago, Secundus Zephyrus, Erik, GoneIn60, -sche, DisneyMetalhead, MJL, Markbassett, Flyer22 Reborn, Gothicfilm, Pyxis Solitary, Pincrete, Rab V, Trystan, SMcCandlish, uKER, disgruntledGM, Bilorv, Rhododendrites, Mooeena - WanderingWanda ( talk) 17:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
20. The Matrix (Lilly and Lana Wachowski, 1999)"(Personally, I'd have ranked it higher than 20!)
Not a footnote. At minimum the lead and infobox need to say "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers". The original and still-standing credit - which the Wachowskis have not asked to be changed - needs to be maintained where people will see it. Not relegated to a footnote. Encyclopedias need to respect history. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 03:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment - This section is going to complicate things, I think, because it's moving on from the RfC into specific implementation, which should be a next step. Combining them may make closure of this whole thread more difficult. FWIW, I don't have a strong opinion of whether acknowledgment of how their name appears in the credits goes in a footnote or in the body. Disinclined with regard to the lead/infobox, but again, this RfC didn't get into much nuance about implementation, so maybe let's nix this section and wait for the closure. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I'm sorry, but the draft does nothing to address the central objection, which is that altering original credits (except in very rare instances) is 'time-bending' and inherently WP:OR. Suits did not have a character played by the Duchess of Sussex, Muhammad Ali did not win the Boxing Gold medal at the 1960 Olympics. Of course, for brevity and clarity, it may be simpler on Meghan's or Ali's biog page to phrase as "won as C M Clay" or similar, but why would we complicate the 'Suits' article or the '1960 Olympics article' because of a later name changes by single individuals - changes which have no direct relevance to either of those articles.
This particular instance seems especially silly, I'm UK and have never seen most of the Wachowski's output - but even so, I know them to be trans. If I go to see one of their films on TV or in the cinema - original (gendered) name/s will be credited. If I own, borrow or buy a DVD, ditto. If I read any contemporary reviews ditto. And any database, such as the BFI (and probably the AFI?), (even Amazon), is going to use original credits. Millions of uses of whatever name the Wachowski's chose at the time will be recorded around the world - but we should not use credited names? I'm sorry, but that is so silly, regardless of how honourable the motives may be. Jan Morris is a fairly well known UK trans figure, almost all of the books she wrote were written as 'James', her male name. The subject of her transition can and should be treated sensitively on her biog article - but would be almost entirely irrelevant to any articles about her books (unless anyone had described them as 'trans books' - which is not the case). Pincrete ( talk) 15:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
not M. Ali, who did not meaningfully exist in 1960.This strikes as a rather bizarre claim. Our article on name begins "
A name is a term used for identification. [...] A personal name identifies, not necessarily uniquely, a specific individual human." A name is not an object in itself (unless it has quotation marks around it), but an identifier for an object. Thus it's correct to say "Ali won the 1960 Olympics" or "Clay won the 1960 Olympics" or, in context, "He won the 1960 Olympics", because we understand [Ali], [Clay] and [he] to refer to the same semantic object—a human being born in 1942, who under any of those names did exist in 1960. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Ali
and Clay
, and the code x <- Ali
would produce the same results as x <- Clay
("use"), but the code x <- "Ali"
and x <- "Clay"
are different ("mention"). But here, it's clear from a linguistic and syntactic standpoint that we're talking about contexts in which we're using words, not simply mentioning them. —
Bilorv (he/him)
(talk) 21:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Comment - As this is not a bio article, the guideline we should be following comes from Infobox Film: Credits in the infobox 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. That means if "The Wachowskis" is used, the lead and infobox also need to say "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers". - Gothicfilm ( talk) 23:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe it's dubious to bundle the lead and infobox together. Personally I believe the infobox should reflect the credits while there may be more flexibility with the lead, but as written the RfC doesn't allow for that. I also find it problematic that after Betty added an Option C it was diminished by the RfC poster [3] with what appears to be a unilateral claim that it was identical to option B; a claim that I'm not sure I agree with. I would like to hear from Betty regarding their views on this as well. As-is, I feel I've been pushed perilously close to believing that this RfC is malformed, or at least is being manipulated after the fact. DonIago ( talk) 16:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to do it because I don't want to be accused of demoting an opposing viewpoint farther down the page, but if we're moving all the responses to Flyer22's comment down to Discussion I think things would be more readable if Flyer's comment was also moved down. WanderingWanda ( talk) 03:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone else here feel like this RfC has been going on for eternity? I feel like we keep discussing the same 5 points over-and-over again... Just me? ― MJL -Talk- ☖ 22:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey all, I've made a draft of a reorganized version of the RfC on my Sandbox page. I tried to make everything more readable and organized by 1. splitting the discussion section into subsections and 2. moving the long back-and-forth that's sprung up under Bilorv's vote down to the discussion section. I'll implement this soon unless anyone has any objections: User:WanderingWanda/sandbox WanderingWanda ( talk) 02:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
In 24 hours it will be 30 days since this RfC began, which, I believe, is the standard RfC length. Should we extend it at this point or close, and would it be best to get an administrator to do a formal closure? WanderingWanda ( talk) 05:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
05:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC) - two options were presented
- A: Reflect their preferred gender identity and avoid referring to them as “brothers” (except in footnotes and references.) For example, the Matrix Revolutions article should say that the film was directed by "The Wachowskis" in the lead and infobox.
- B: Reflect how they were credited when their films were released. For example, the Matrix Revolutions article should say that the film was directed by "The Wachowski Brothers” in the lead and infobox.
12:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC) - Betty Logan added a third option (and refined the wording shortly afterward.)
- C: Reflect the credit as it is currently recorded on the work in question.
15:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC) - I merged options B and C
- B: Reflect how they were credited when their films were released and how their credits are currently recorded on the work in question. For example, the Matrix Revolutions article should say that the film was directed by "The Wachowski Brothers” in the lead and infobox.
19:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC) - I'm refining option B and adding "OTHER"
- B: Reflect how they are credited on their work. For example, the Matrix Revolutions article should say that the film was directed by "The Wachowski Brothers” in the lead and infobox.
- OTHER: Please specify.
23:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC) - reverted option B to original wording, restored option C to top of the page.
This record created by WanderingWanda ( talk) at 19:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC) and modified at 23:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Huggums537 Pfhorrest Betty Logan Argento Surfer Doniago Secundus Zephyrus Erik GoneIn60 -sche The Wachowski survey options may have changed a bit since you voted. Please look over the survey again when you get a chance. Thank you very much for your input. WanderingWanda ( talk) 00:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
See extensive discussion at Talk:The Matrix#"The Wachowskis" vs "The Wachowski Brothers". That article uses The Wachowskis and this one should too. I would also support changing the infobox on both articles, but at the very least it's way past time for the first sentence of this article to change. Franciscrot ( talk) 18:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
As a student of philosophy, I thought I should point out that I encountered no philosophical elements in the 'reloaded' episode. I know the word 'philosophy' has received many alternate meanings (one of the most irritating of which is companies thinking that their marketing scheme can be called 'a philosophy'), but that is no excuse to misuse the word in an encyclopedia, even if the article is not about philosophy but about a film. And especially, of course, if the word is linked to the philosophy article. Sorry about being so stuck up. :) DirkvdM 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the Matrix is "philosophy for dummies", and not in any real sense philosophical. Saying that the story is specifically "complex" is arguable, and saying that the story is "incorporating many philosophical elements" is really giving it too much praise. Of course, Nietsche isn't shallow but every "use" of philosophy (everything about the oracle, for instance) in the films are fairly shallow, and the ideas pondered over in them could have been written by anyone fairly bright. This has always been my main objection with the films. //Swedish philosophy student.
It's more like introductory philosophy. It covers a broad range of topics, and is designed to skim the surface and make you think. That's the heart of philosophy, so this definitely isn't "shallow." Complaining that it doesn't go in depth enough is ridiculous when there's so much going on and the purpose of the films wouldn't allow. That's part of the reason the first one was so great, there's enough there for the more intelligent, thoughtful person to consider afterwards, but there's not too much like in the later ones that it's hard to understand, or restrictive on the imagination. If you want a movie that goes in depth in philosophy you either need to be watching highly intelligent, little-known indie films or READING A BOOK. Don't expect a popular film to talk about the semiotics of a developing civilization. Jjmckool ( talk) 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
People occasionally confuse "philosophy" and "superstition" (i.e. the Oracle). While there's some overlap, they deviate at reality's end. Liberty5651 ( talk) 20:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Matrix (franchise). 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Any objection to my setting up auto-archiving on this page for threads older than, say, ten years? If I hear no objection within a week or so, I'll put it into effect. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 20:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Oops. Didn't notice this section before starting autoarchiving. Just seemed awfully long with some old threads. Not typically controversial in such circumstances. Don't know why the archive wasn't showing up in the archivebox, but the talk header might be more appropriate for this page anyway. Replaced. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
How should the Wachowskis be credited in articles about films/media they worked on before they came out as women? (The main point of contention is how they’re credited in leads and infoboxes.)
A: Reflect their preferred gender identity and avoid referring to them as “brothers” (except in footnotes and references.) For example, the Matrix Revolutions article should say that the film was directed by "The Wachowskis" in the lead and infobox.
B: Reflect how they were credited when their films were released. For example, the Matrix Revolutions article should say that the film was directed by "The Wachowski Brothers” in the lead and infobox.
C: Reflect the credit as it is currently recorded on the work in question. (Added by Betty Logan ( talk))
OTHER: Please specify. (Added by WanderingWanda ( talk))
(Previous RfCs: here and here. Previous discussions: here, here, and here.) WanderingWanda ( talk) 05:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
My latest comment and a response have been moved below by request. WanderingWanda ( talk) 05:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Betty Logan's vote
|
---|
|
Although I don't know of any instance of the Wachowskis talking about their old credits, in the speech Lana Wachowski gave when she received the HRC Visibility Award, she talked about 1. not wanting to be seen as a one of "the Wachowski Brothers" and 2. wanting her gender identity to be visible to young people.
...I was recently out to dinner with a mixture of friends and strangers who were all very excited to meet a “Hollywood” director, but all they want to do is ask about Tom Hanks, Keanu Reeves and Halle Berry, and throughout the dinner they repeatedly refer to me as “he” or one of the “Wachowski Brothers,” sometimes using half my name, “Laaaaaa,” as an awkward bridge between identities, unable or perhaps unwilling to see me as I am, but only for the things I do.
-
I am here because when I was young, I wanted very badly to be a writer, I wanted to be a filmmaker, but I couldn’t find anyone like me in the world and it felt like my dreams were foreclosed simply because my gender was less typical than others. If I can be that person for someone else then the sacrifice of my private civic life may have value.
-Lana Wachowski ( speech) ( transcript) WanderingWanda ( talk) 05:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Erik's vote
|
---|
|
DisneyMetalhead's vote/comment
|
---|
|
Flyer22's comment
|
---|
|
Per legal documents..., I have no clue what you mean. Honestly, bringing it up is just another can of worms. Movie credits are not in anyway legal documents. If you are looking for a good essay on interpreting MOS:GENDERID, I recommend Wikipedia:Gender identity ( WP:GENDERID). It more accurately encapsulates the sentiments of many editors in this thread including myself. Therefore, context for the infobox would generally be up for interpretation.
The latest release of the Matrix trilogy, for example, refers to the directors as "The Wachowskis" on the cover."The Wachowskis" is accurate. Regardless of the logic you choose to use. ― MJL -Talk- ☖ 00:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
In conclusion: there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article. This particular discussion does not support the broad and "retroactive" application of any "new" gender in the way suggested by WP:Gender identity. All of which helps us for this particular article but does little to solve the more general problem of how to properly describe a changing world. And it seems to me that this discussion does indicate we need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY, since the support here for proposal 1 is really broad and suggests, more or less, the rejection of the formulation in MOS:IDENTITY. Do NOT read this as "MOS:IDENTITY is rejected"--it is a suggestion, and thus an incentive to have a broader conversation.
Caitlyn Jenner is very famous now, but, in the future, she may not be very famous to newer generations.I will refer you to WP:CRYSTALBALL.
If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention. However, see MOS:IDENTITY. For example, Pope John Paul I was known as Albino Luciani before he was elevated to the papacy. Any reference to him before he became pope should use the name Albino Luciani.
Credits in the infobox 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." If that isn't denial, then I'm not sure what is. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 15:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
If we're being fair, we should acknowledge that this is NOT a discussion about editors' opinions regarding gender identification. We should be careful not to imply that the reason for an editor's position has to do with their feelings toward transgender or genderqueer people. This is first and foremost a discussion about current policies and guidelines, and debate surrounding their interpretation.
— User:GoneIn60
Gothicfilm's vote
|
---|
|
Pyxis Solitary's vote
|
---|
|
Rab V's vote
|
---|
|
I think it is worth reminding everyone that the question is how do we credit individual films in articles about those films, not about how do we talk about two individuals, either on their own biog articles - or on their partnership page. We hardly need any kind of reference, new or old to write about 'the Wachowskis' (note no capital 't' - which is how the above sources refer to them), anymore than we would need a reference to write about 'the Clintons', to mean that partnership or ' the Coens' to refer to theirs. These are all generic terms used to refer to a body of collaboration - their use tells us nothing about who was credited with writing, directing or producing any specific film (nor who was President and Governor and who was First Lady, Sec State and Senator). The newer sources don't indicate that different people are now believed to have made any of these films (if they did I would be in favour of using them), they simply tell us that the creators have changed their private and/or professional names since making the films. No sources offered even imply that the people officially or widely credited with making the films has changed, merely the names those people are now known by.
Using anything other than original credits (supplemented by the, very rare instance, of new info having entered the public sphere about who did what) will inevitably lead to anachronism, ( Prince Philip) did not marry Queen Liz in 1947. Julius Caeser's troops didn't occupy France. Finding news sources that imply either, because they are assuming the reader is not going to interpret the content literally, does not make the impossible factual). If not anachronistic, then incomplete info will be added by using the generic, where specific credits were originally used. Finally, I think that when we are reduced to looking at the (very brief) 'blurb' on the packaging for a specific box-set, to establish exact credits for specific films, we are on very shaky ground. Pincrete ( talk) 13:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Trystan's vote
|
---|
|
SMcCandlish's vote
|
---|
|
Anonymous vote
|
---|
|
How should the Wachowskis be credited in articles about films/media they worked on before they came out as women?And I advertised it to the talk pages of any of their films I could think of (including Bound, Speed Racer, and V For Vendetta.) (Note that "media" can encompass videogames and comics too.) WanderingWanda ( talk) 20:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Bilorv's vote
|
---|
|
The Wachowskis created films under the "Wachowski Brothers" name. They chose that professional name. And the name they worked under before they transitioned has not been changed in these films. Altering facts to accommodate activism is a slippery slope, and what becomes acceptable in Wikipedia in order to please one faction today will eventually have to become acceptable wiki-wide. Pyxis Solitary yak 15:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The pair were known professionally as "the Wachowski Brothers" during the production of the movie. And of course I'd object to the removal of any such encyclopedic content, as it is information relevant to the topic. I'm simply saying: in the voice of Wikipedia we should not be referring to two women as "brothers"; to do so is to implicitly if not explicitly purport a falsehood. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
the Wachowskisand then having a footnote reading something like
The pair were credited as "the Wachowski Brothers" at the time., but I wouldn't mandate such a footnote either. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
...a common argument is that many infobox film entries (particularly those dealing with credits) are essentially quoted pieces of information from the work itself.
— User:GoneIn60
"in the voice of Wikipedia we should not be referring to two women as "brothers"Regardless of intention, by flatly saying that The Matrix was "Directed by The Wachowski Brothers", it feels like Wikipedia is saying that, well, the film was "Directed" by a pair of "Brothers". Which is a statement that is biased and factually incorrect.
Written and Directed by Lana and Lilly Wachowski (originally credited as "The Wachowski Brothers"). It's a less elegant and more awkward solution, and perhaps it would still give off the uncomfortable sense that the article was going out of its way to use the word "Brothers", but it would be a step in the right direction.
It probably would have been clearer had this RfC simply focused solely on the infobox, as I don't think there was a movement or desire to challenge the 2016 RfC.
— User:GoneIn60
[[The Wachowski Brothers]]
and [[The Wachowskis]]<ref>Originally credited as "The Wachowski Brothers"<ref>
. Neither I nor (I believe) any of the other contributors to this RfC are here to do any sort of activism. Our (or at least my) intention here is not to "obscure the past identities of transsexual individuals," and I do not see how the above change does so (I am genuinely confused about this - if you could clarify how this change amounts to a corruption of the facts, I invite you to please do so). In my view, this is simply a change to bring us more into line with contemporary reliable secondary sources, without removing any information. In fact, there are a number of secondary benefits to this beyond WanderingWanda's points, including a reduction in the amount of good-faith reverts that we regularly need to do on the articles (see
these
three
diffs in the past two days alone) because of IP users who notice that Wikipedia is not in line with contemporary secondary sources. (P.S. - this thread is getting a bit long. Should it be moved down to discussion? Sorry, but I'm a bit new at this.)
disgruntledGM ❮
talk /
contribs❯ 19:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
[[The Wachowski Brothers]]
to [[The Wachowskis]]<ref>Originally credited as "The Wachowski Brothers"</ref>
amounts to an alteration or removal of facts - indeed, I would argue that this presentation is more clear, as "The Wachowski Brothers" is no longer in common use (as evidenced by the sources mentioned below). Please help me understand why you believe that this change, which seems to better-reflect the contemporary secondary sources on which Wikipedia articles are
supposed to primarily rely, is instead a harmful change based upon "transgender ideology that seeks, in the case of the Wachowski siblings, to obscure the past identity of transexual individuals in Wikipedia's coverage about their works" - at the moment, I simply do not see evidence of this obscurement, nor do I see a reason why the change would not benefit the encyclopedia. I believe that your viewpoint is valuable, and I hope that you continue to contribute to the discussion.
disgruntledGM ❮
talk /
contribs❯ 17:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[[The Wachowski Brothers]]
and [[The Wachowskis]]<ref>Originally credited as "The Wachowski Brothers"<ref>
around to [[The Wachowski Brothers]]{{efn|Professional name of the Wachowskis when the film was produced and released.}}
as a more accurate explanation in the infobox for the film credit.
Pyxis Solitary
yak 13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)The pair were known professionally as "the Wachowski Brothers" during the production of the movie. Any mention of what they were "known as" or "known professionally as" strikes me as fraught. I believe Lana Wachowski has said she started presenting as a woman on the set of one of The Matrix sequels, for example, which is a professional setting. WanderingWanda ( talk) 18:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned.This would seem to fit that exact standard. I fail to see the distinction between preserving credits only on a case-by-case basis and using the correct GenderID on a case-by-case basis. ― MJL -Talk- ☖ 19:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed several commenters have used primary sources such as the DVD covers, promotional posters and credits. WP:RS is clear that secondary sources are to be preferred over primary sources. Nothing I find in MOS:MOVIE seems to contradict that guidance. In this case, modern secondary sources tend towards referring to the directors as The Wachowskis and secondary sources are favored when there is this kind of conflict. Rab V ( talk) 06:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
As professional editors, the Coen Bros. always use the name "Roderick Jaynes", and it is how, for example, the Academy Awards credit them when they are nominated for editing. You could make a strong case that it is how they should be credited in the infobox, according to the guideline. But instead they are currently credited as "Joel Coen / Ethan Coen" in the infoboxes for all their films except one (one film does list the pseudonym, but even there, editors felt a need to add a footnote explaining that Roderick Jaynes is not a real person.) Why has that consensus emerged after all these years? Perhaps because, in the end, Wikipedia is about reflecting fact not fiction. "Roderick Jaynes" feels like a fictional construct, not a cold, hard fact, and so poor Roderick is tossed to the side. That seems fair enough. But, what, then, does it say that Wikipedia still clings to the credit "The Wachowski Brothers", even though mainstream sources no longer do, and even though the Wachowskis have come out as sisters, making the credit demonstrably incorrect? Intended or not, it's hard not to read an unstated message into that: that the Wachowskis' gender is somehow not factual. That it's merely a fiction, like Roderick Jaynes.A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made.
WP:RS is clear that secondary sources are to be preferred over primary sources."
Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.
References
A response to these two guidelines that have been brought up:
"If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention."
- MOS:BIO#Changed names
-
"Credits in the infobox 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."
- Template:Infobox_film#Credits
Crediting the Wachowskis as "The Wachowskis" does not, to me, seem to violate either guideline. They were known personally and professionally under the last name "Wachowski" when all their films were released. We're not talking about changing a credited first name or last name. Some people have compared the term "The Wachowski Brothers" to band names like "The Beatles", but this comparison strikes me as dubious (unless you're going to argue that John, Paul, George, and Ringo are all giant insects.) Things might be different if the Wachowski sisters went under a more fanciful moniker like "The Razzmatazz Brothers", but as it is? Yes, the words may have been written in title case, but we're still just talking about a credit that combines their actual last name with a common plural noun.
In conclusion, how to apply the two guidelines in question in this specific case seems very ambiguous at best. And perhaps it goes without saying that Wikipedia gives us wide latitude to interpret guidelines broadly and even to ignore them where appropriate.
"Wikipedia has no firm rules / Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions."
- Wikipedia:Five_pillars
One other point: if you read through the MoS, there seems like a general consensus that transgender subjects should be treated judiciously and respectfully. For example, regarding biographical articles, it says:
This rule has no direct relevance to the issue at hand, but if one were to draw a general principle from it, it might be don't go out of your way to misgender or deadname trans people."In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence [of biographical articles] only when the person was notable under that name."
- Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Changed_names
One last, lighthearted, note: in the world of The Matrix, if you don't respect someone else's identity, you are one of the bad guys, not one the good guys. :)
WanderingWanda ( talk) 20:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Agent Smith: That is the sound of your death. Goodbye, Mr. Anderson.
Neo: My name is Neo.
- The Matrix, written and directed by The Wachowskis
Let's construct an overview of how recent sources credit or refer to the Wachowskis when discussing their older work. This is just FYI - how much weight, if any, to give to give these sources can be (and is being) debated above. Please feel free to add to this list. For reference, Lana Wachowski came out as a woman around 2010 and Lilly came out in 2016. (Note: many sources that I'm adding were found by other editors above.) WanderingWanda ( talk) 04:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Current names/terms (sources that exclusively refer to "the Wachowskis", "The Wachowskis", and/or Lana/Lilly Wachowski)
- 2019 "...as sibling co-creators the Wachowskis..." Leigh, Danny (21 Jan 2019). "From red pills to red, white and blue Brexit: how The Matrix shaped our reality". The Guardian. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
- 2018 "...written and directed by The Wachowskis..." "...Back, too, are The Wachowskis..." UHD Packing for The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolutions, and The Matrix trilogy. The Matrix ("4K Ultra HD + Blu Ray + Digital"). Warner Bros. 2018. Retrieved February 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
- 2018 "SPEED RACER (2008) Director: Lana Wachowski, Lilly Wachowski" Olson, Christopher (2018). 100 Greatest Cult Films. London: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 221. ISBN 9781442211049. WanderingWanda
- 2018 "...with a screenplay by Lana and Lilly Wachowski — their first project after the 'Matrix' trilogy." Bailey, Jason (June 22, 2018). "11 Great Titles Expiring From Netflix in July". The New York Times. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
- 2018 "Siblings Lana and Lilly were the minds behind the groundbreaking Matrix trilogy..." Hertz, Barry (June 20, 2018). "The Wachowskis' Speed Racer tears into the Cinesphere for a tenth anniversary celebration". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
- 2018 "...'The Matrix' by the Wachowskis." Lee, Nathaniel (Aug 13, 2018). "How one film can fix the superhero genre". Business Insider. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
- 2017 "...Lana and Lilly completed the script for The Matrix..." Mapua, Jeff (2017). Transgender Pioneers: Lana Wachowski. New York: Rosen Publishing Group. p. 37. ISBN 9781508171607. WanderingWanda
- 2017 "The Matrix...written and directed by the Wachowskis." Fleming Jr., Mike (Mar 14, 2017). "Warner Bros Ponders More Of 'The Matrix'". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
- No date "V for Vendetta...Writers / Lilly Wachowski / Lana Wachowski" "V For Vendetta". Netflix. Retrieved Feb 7, 2019. WanderingWanda
Old names/terms
- No date "Directors: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski" "THE MATRIX (1999)". AFI Catalog. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
- No date "Directors Andy Wachowski Larry Wachowski" "The Matrix (1999)". BFI. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
Mix/Other
- 2016 "...Andy and Lana Wachowski, The Matrix, directed by The Wachowski Brothers..." Chang, Sharon (2016). Raising Mixed Race: Multiracial Asian Children in a Post-Racial World. New York, NY: Routledge. p. 234. ISBN 9781612058481. WanderingWanda
- No date "Directed by Lana Wachowski ... (as The Wachowski Brothers) / Lilly Wachowski...(as The Wachowski Brothers)" "The Matrix (1999) Full Cast & Crew". IMDb. Retrieved Feb 6, 2019. WanderingWanda
unless new info is available which contradicts/alters that orig info- that's exactly what happened in this case! New info has come out about the Wachowski sisters' gender. We now know that they are women and aren't "brothers". How do we know they're women? Because they say they are. (Self-identification is the only reasonable way to determine someone's gender.) No, it doesn't matter that they weren't public about their gender until recently - someone coming out as transgender is best thought of as a gender reveal not a gender change, unless the person in question specifically says otherwise. Lana Wachowski, for example, was already out to some friends and family while the sisters were working on the Matrix sequels, and both sisters were grappling with their gender as early as childhood. But, you ask, didn't they pick the moniker "The Wachowski Brothers" for themselves? Maybe - what does it matter? If they chose it, that doesn't mean it's accurate or appropriate. All those "Alan Smithee" directors chose that moniker for themselves - so what? Actually, one could argue that ignoring "Alan Smithee" credits in infoboxes is far more "revisionist". Directors don't take their names off movies lightly. An "Alan Smithee" credit likely signifies that a director feels that the work isn't theirs in some fundamental sense - that they lost control of the movie. That information, apparently, isn't important enough to convey in infoboxes, but dropping a single incorrect gendered common noun is somehow profoundly revisionist and wrong? No matter what, Wikipedia's infoboxes aren't going to match the screen credits exactly. Look at the infobox for The Matrix. It lists the credits as "Directed by...Produced by...Written by..." but that's not how they're broken down in the movie! The movie says "written and directed by". Ultimately, the important thing here isn't exactitude but accuracy. In this specific case, dropping the incorrect gendered term in question will make the infobox less of an exact copy, but it won't make the infobox less accurate.
We are not discussing how to write about these two individuals, but rather about how to write about works published under earlier names.I'll point to one specific entry above - the book 100 Greatest Cult Films, published by Rowman & Littlefield. It isn't a biographical work but a compendium of broad overviews of various films, like the Wikipedia articles in question. And the author, the copyeditors, and the publisher apparently think that copying the Wachowskis' old and incorrect screen credits is not the best or most accurate way to credit them, even in the bibliographic references at the end of the book. Why does Wikipedia disagree? WanderingWanda ( talk) 16:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Trans Q+A - this section has been collapsed by request
|
---|
In any discussion about how to refer to trans people it is, I'd argue, important for everyone to have a basic level of trans knowledge. Many of you will know a lot of this already, but I hope some will find the below Q+A useful. Note: I don't claim to have an expert level of knowledge about this topic, but I consider myself fairly well informed. (If you want to dig into my personal life, I identify as queer and have been in a long term relationship with a trans man.) If I get anything wrong below please correct me. Q: Is it really that offensive to misgender a trans person? A: Yes. In the trans community it is generally considered very hurtful and offensive to say anything that implies a trans person isn't the gender they say they are, or to use their old (dead) name. - The Washington Post - Laverne Cox Q: Wait, how can misgendering be a form of violence? Aren't words, by definition, not violence? A: That depends which definition you use. Dictionary.com says violence can mean "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power" or "rough or immoderate vehemence". Perhaps misgendering is sometimes linked with the word "violence" because the trans community faces a disproportionate amount of physical violence. Q: How much physical violence? To quote Wikipedia's article on transphobia, according to one survey, "9% [of respondents] had been physically attacked for being transgender. 10% had been sexually assaulted during the previous year, and 47% had been sexually assaulted at some point in their life." Also "40% had attempted suicide at some point in their life, compared to 4.6 percent of the American population." According to another study, "Over 80% of transgender teens report feeling unsafe in a school environment, more than 40% report having been physically abused". The high rates of suicide and violent assault both stem from society's basic lack of acceptance of and respect for trans people. Here is a list of trans people who were murdered last year in the U.S. - take a moment to look through the names: https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-transgender-community-in-2018 Here's a moving speech by Lana Wachowski where she talks about, among many other things, a time she almost jumped in front of a train as a teenager because she couldn't see herself ever being accepted by society: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crHHycz7T_c Q: When is it appropriate to use a trans person's old/dead name? Anecdotally, the response to this question from most trans people is: approximately never. You should just use their chosen name and pronouns even when talking about the past. Deadnaming generally feels like a punch to the gut. Q: But what if you're talking about a trans woman's old bar mitzvah? Or the time she won silver in the men's 100 meter dash? Surely it would be ridiculous to use a female name when talking about specifically male activities? Would it be ridiculous to say that "Michelle Obama attended elementary school"? After all, she's an adult and elementary school is for kids... and she didn't even have the name "Obama" when she was a kid! And yet that sentence sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn't it? Sometimes something can seem "ridiculous" just because you're not used to it. That doesn't mean it actually is. Young white kids sometimes have trouble with the term "black person" - "they're brown, not black!" But once someone gets used to it any sense that calling someone "black" might be weird or ridiculous fades away. Q: So you're saying Wikipedia should never, ever use someone's deadname? I'm just trying to give some background info. I'm not going to comment on what Wikipedia should or shouldn't do in this Q+A. Q: If someone didn't transition until recently, why change history? A: Just because a gender transition seems "recent" from the outside doesn't mean it feels like a recent change to the person in question. Before a person comes out publicly there was probably a period where they were out to a few people but not everyone, and before that they probably knew but weren't out to anyone, and before that they might not have understood their gender identity but knew something was up with their gender. What might feel like "changing history" on the outside is really just honoring someone's experience and identity. Lana Wachowski only came out publicly recently, but she has talked movingly about how her gender has been something she's been grappling with since childhood. Here's an excerpt from the speech I linked above:
- Lana Wachowski {{end hi
|
A concrete mockup of what The Matrix Revolutions article (and other Wachowski film articles) could look like in the near future:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:WanderingWanda/sandbox&oldid=885132247
In this mockup, the Wachowski sisters are listed as "The Wachowskis" in the infobox and the lead sentence, and there is a footnote saying Credited as "The Wachowski Brothers"
.
A note on the footnote: Personally, I have mixed feelings about it (and I'll note that option A does not, as written, mandate the addition of one.) One could argue it feels like its putting an asterisk on the Wachowskis' womanhood, and contemporary secondary sources seem comfortable completely omitting the "Wachowski Brothers" credit and just using the sisters' current names. However, enough editors have said that preserving the original credits is important that I'm willing to accept footnotes that credit them as "Brothers" in the name of consensus building.
With the above mockup I tried hard to honor people on all sides of this debate. Yes, it reflects 'Side A' and all the arguments we've made about how contemporary secondary sources credit the Wachowskis, and what contemporary style guides say, and how film infoboxes often do not quote screen credits exactly, and how implying that the Wachowskis are "brothers" may be considered biased and factually inaccurate, etc.
But the mockup also honors the perspectives of 'Side B' and 'Side C'.
Betty Logan eloquently pointed out that ...the credit the work carries is an important bibliographic record.
The addition of a footnote with the original credit preserves this bibliographic record.
I also took a cue from GoneIn60 and the other two editors who voted for 'C in the infobox and A in the lead'. I had a choice of putting the footnote in either the lead or the infobox, and I chose to put it in the infobox in response to the perspective that the infobox should be more attuned to the exact wording of the screen credits.
I'd like to ask everyone who voted for option B or C to look over the above mockup and see if it would be acceptable to you. Note that the "Wachowski Brothers" credit is the very first footnote in the article. Note that the credit is set off by itself, above the clutter of the reference section, and surrounded by white space - even someone who isn't reading the article that closely is likely to see it. In order to help us reach a consensus, uKER was open and generous enough to change their vote from B to A (adding the stipulation that they thought the article must contain a footnote with the original credit.) I humbly ask others who voted for B or C to consider doing the same.
I'd like to ask everyone else who voted to look over the mockup as well. If you are an option A voter who feels the "Wachowski Brothers" credit should not be listed anywhere in the article, even in a footnote: please let us know and edit your vote to reflect this.
Thank you for your input, everyone. :)
Pings: Betty Logan, Argento Surfer, DonIago, Secundus Zephyrus, Erik, GoneIn60, -sche, DisneyMetalhead, MJL, Markbassett, Flyer22 Reborn, Gothicfilm, Pyxis Solitary, Pincrete, Rab V, Trystan, SMcCandlish, uKER, disgruntledGM, Bilorv, Rhododendrites, Mooeena - WanderingWanda ( talk) 17:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
20. The Matrix (Lilly and Lana Wachowski, 1999)"(Personally, I'd have ranked it higher than 20!)
Not a footnote. At minimum the lead and infobox need to say "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers". The original and still-standing credit - which the Wachowskis have not asked to be changed - needs to be maintained where people will see it. Not relegated to a footnote. Encyclopedias need to respect history. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 03:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment - This section is going to complicate things, I think, because it's moving on from the RfC into specific implementation, which should be a next step. Combining them may make closure of this whole thread more difficult. FWIW, I don't have a strong opinion of whether acknowledgment of how their name appears in the credits goes in a footnote or in the body. Disinclined with regard to the lead/infobox, but again, this RfC didn't get into much nuance about implementation, so maybe let's nix this section and wait for the closure. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I'm sorry, but the draft does nothing to address the central objection, which is that altering original credits (except in very rare instances) is 'time-bending' and inherently WP:OR. Suits did not have a character played by the Duchess of Sussex, Muhammad Ali did not win the Boxing Gold medal at the 1960 Olympics. Of course, for brevity and clarity, it may be simpler on Meghan's or Ali's biog page to phrase as "won as C M Clay" or similar, but why would we complicate the 'Suits' article or the '1960 Olympics article' because of a later name changes by single individuals - changes which have no direct relevance to either of those articles.
This particular instance seems especially silly, I'm UK and have never seen most of the Wachowski's output - but even so, I know them to be trans. If I go to see one of their films on TV or in the cinema - original (gendered) name/s will be credited. If I own, borrow or buy a DVD, ditto. If I read any contemporary reviews ditto. And any database, such as the BFI (and probably the AFI?), (even Amazon), is going to use original credits. Millions of uses of whatever name the Wachowski's chose at the time will be recorded around the world - but we should not use credited names? I'm sorry, but that is so silly, regardless of how honourable the motives may be. Jan Morris is a fairly well known UK trans figure, almost all of the books she wrote were written as 'James', her male name. The subject of her transition can and should be treated sensitively on her biog article - but would be almost entirely irrelevant to any articles about her books (unless anyone had described them as 'trans books' - which is not the case). Pincrete ( talk) 15:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
not M. Ali, who did not meaningfully exist in 1960.This strikes as a rather bizarre claim. Our article on name begins "
A name is a term used for identification. [...] A personal name identifies, not necessarily uniquely, a specific individual human." A name is not an object in itself (unless it has quotation marks around it), but an identifier for an object. Thus it's correct to say "Ali won the 1960 Olympics" or "Clay won the 1960 Olympics" or, in context, "He won the 1960 Olympics", because we understand [Ali], [Clay] and [he] to refer to the same semantic object—a human being born in 1942, who under any of those names did exist in 1960. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Ali
and Clay
, and the code x <- Ali
would produce the same results as x <- Clay
("use"), but the code x <- "Ali"
and x <- "Clay"
are different ("mention"). But here, it's clear from a linguistic and syntactic standpoint that we're talking about contexts in which we're using words, not simply mentioning them. —
Bilorv (he/him)
(talk) 21:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Comment - As this is not a bio article, the guideline we should be following comes from Infobox Film: Credits in the infobox 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. That means if "The Wachowskis" is used, the lead and infobox also need to say "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers". - Gothicfilm ( talk) 23:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe it's dubious to bundle the lead and infobox together. Personally I believe the infobox should reflect the credits while there may be more flexibility with the lead, but as written the RfC doesn't allow for that. I also find it problematic that after Betty added an Option C it was diminished by the RfC poster [3] with what appears to be a unilateral claim that it was identical to option B; a claim that I'm not sure I agree with. I would like to hear from Betty regarding their views on this as well. As-is, I feel I've been pushed perilously close to believing that this RfC is malformed, or at least is being manipulated after the fact. DonIago ( talk) 16:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to do it because I don't want to be accused of demoting an opposing viewpoint farther down the page, but if we're moving all the responses to Flyer22's comment down to Discussion I think things would be more readable if Flyer's comment was also moved down. WanderingWanda ( talk) 03:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone else here feel like this RfC has been going on for eternity? I feel like we keep discussing the same 5 points over-and-over again... Just me? ― MJL -Talk- ☖ 22:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey all, I've made a draft of a reorganized version of the RfC on my Sandbox page. I tried to make everything more readable and organized by 1. splitting the discussion section into subsections and 2. moving the long back-and-forth that's sprung up under Bilorv's vote down to the discussion section. I'll implement this soon unless anyone has any objections: User:WanderingWanda/sandbox WanderingWanda ( talk) 02:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
In 24 hours it will be 30 days since this RfC began, which, I believe, is the standard RfC length. Should we extend it at this point or close, and would it be best to get an administrator to do a formal closure? WanderingWanda ( talk) 05:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
05:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC) - two options were presented
- A: Reflect their preferred gender identity and avoid referring to them as “brothers” (except in footnotes and references.) For example, the Matrix Revolutions article should say that the film was directed by "The Wachowskis" in the lead and infobox.
- B: Reflect how they were credited when their films were released. For example, the Matrix Revolutions article should say that the film was directed by "The Wachowski Brothers” in the lead and infobox.
12:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC) - Betty Logan added a third option (and refined the wording shortly afterward.)
- C: Reflect the credit as it is currently recorded on the work in question.
15:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC) - I merged options B and C
- B: Reflect how they were credited when their films were released and how their credits are currently recorded on the work in question. For example, the Matrix Revolutions article should say that the film was directed by "The Wachowski Brothers” in the lead and infobox.
19:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC) - I'm refining option B and adding "OTHER"
- B: Reflect how they are credited on their work. For example, the Matrix Revolutions article should say that the film was directed by "The Wachowski Brothers” in the lead and infobox.
- OTHER: Please specify.
23:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC) - reverted option B to original wording, restored option C to top of the page.
This record created by WanderingWanda ( talk) at 19:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC) and modified at 23:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Huggums537 Pfhorrest Betty Logan Argento Surfer Doniago Secundus Zephyrus Erik GoneIn60 -sche The Wachowski survey options may have changed a bit since you voted. Please look over the survey again when you get a chance. Thank you very much for your input. WanderingWanda ( talk) 00:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)