Jump to content

Talk:The Matrix Reloaded/Archive 2

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

The Wachowski credit in the lead

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.

To recap the situation, The Wachowskis were originally two brothers credited as "The Wachowski Brothers" on their films, before Larry underwent a sex change and became Lana in 2008. They were subsequently credited as "The Wachowskis". Andy Wachowski also underwent a sex change in 2016 and became Lilly. Some editors feel their new credit should be applied restrospectively to their earlier work, thus changing "The Wachowski Brothers" to "The Wachowskis". Other editors feel that this sort of revisionism is inappropriate in an encyclopedia, and regardless of the lifestyle choice of these two people, Wikipedia's job is to document history, and not to re-write it. As a consequence the record of their authorship in the articles about their earlier films is inconsistently handled:

There was recently a discussion at Talk:The Matrix#RfC: How should the directors of this film be presented in the lead? resulting in a consensus on the basis of MOS:IDENTITY to change the lead in the article from "written and directed by the Wachowski Brothers" to "written and directed by the Wachowskis". There is now the question of whether that consensus should be extended to the other articles to make them consistent.

The four options at The Matrix discussion were as follows:

"The Matrix is a [...] film written and directed by..."

  • A - "the Wachowski Brothers"
  • B - "the Wachowski Brothers (now known as the Wachowskis)"
  • C - "the Wachowskis"
  • D - "the Wachowskis (credited as the Wachowski Brothers)"
  • E – add a NOTE by the name which immediately links the reader to the bottom where the modern name is shown/explained, i.e. "The Wachowski Brothers[1]" which links to "Later/Now known professionally as The Wachowskis" and creates a hover-over box displaying it immediately without clicking. (This is a new option proposed by Darkwarriorblake in the side discussion below — 02:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)).
  • F – the inverse of Option E "The Wachowskis[1]" which links to "At the time of production professionally as The Wachowski Brothers"? (Proposed by soetermans in the side discussion below — 15:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The question I want to assess, is whether we should try to bring all the articles into line or leave it up to the individual articles editors to determine the best approach. If we do choose to make the articles consistent, should we follow the consensus for The Matrix article or select one of the other solutions.Betty Logan (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Comment I believe we should have a consistent approach to all of the articles listed above, but I also believe the solution selected at The Matrix discussion is not compliant with policy. I do not believe Wikipedia policy supports revisionism, and I feel that the non-admin close at The Matrix discussion did not fully account for one of Wikipedia's core policies. These are the key points as I see them:
  1. The issue is about more than just identity; it is also about authorship i.e. Beatles albums don't stop being Beatles albums simply because the group disbanded. We don't ignore the name "George Eliot" simply because it was a pen name. When documenting works of fiction it should be crystal clear in the lead which name the work was authored under.
  2. MOS:GENDERID may favor "the Wachowskis" (option C), but it is just a guideline and guidelines do not trump policies.
  3. WP:Verifiability necessitates the inclusion of "(The) Wachowski Brothers" since this is the actual athorship credit. This is the name you will find on the works themselves and registered at the copyright database.
  4. MOS:GENDERID does not preclude inclusion of the authorship credit, and WP:V does not preclude the inclusion of their current professional name. In other words both of options B and D are compliant with the policy and guideline.
In regards to the last two points, I am leaning to including both names in the lead, that is option B or option D. There is also precedent for this, as seen at Switched-On Bach. Betty Logan (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC). I am also ok with the newly proposed option E too which I believe is also compliant with the policy and guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support B or D – Regardless of the formatting choice (I'm indifferent on that part), there needs to be a clear cut reference to the credited name in the lead and body of the article. It is very odd to see one form in the infobox and another throughout the article, with no mention of why this discrepancy exists. Furthermore, the previous survey at Talk:The Matrix#RfC: How should the directors of this film be presented in the lead? is undeniably a reflection of the article's editing history, in which there is no clear consensus for one particular choice over the others. While that RfC may technically lean in favor of option C, the level of consensus there is questionable with very limited participation. Options B and D, or some form of them, provide a compromise that satisfies both parties. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Update: With the new option, add strong support for E as well. I would support E, B, and D in that order. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support B or D per GoneIn60's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Idem. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support B – The credits for the film and the way the filmmakers chose to credit themselves needs to be maintained and respected. Note the Wachowskis have not expressed any desire to have their credited name changed on their pre-2010 films. The credited name should be before the current one, as seen in B. And option C, where the actual credited name is not seen at all, is historically inaccurate and least acceptable. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A, maybe B - If there are any sourced information in the article that uses references where they are given their new identities, then it might make sense to make sure the reader in this article is aware they will find references that refer to them by their current name. Otherwise, since all sourcing seems to be before the transition and uses their previous names, there's no reason to change from how it will bills or represented at the press at that time. Obviously, clicking the blue link will reveal the transition, but it doesn't need to be called out here, unless it is critical to understanding the sourcing. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support B makes most sense to me to show the credits as they were at the time of the release, with a note afterwards. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support C or E (or my suggestion of F); options B and D are simply too long; it unnecessarily repeats "Wachowski" and "now known as" and "credited as" doesn't explain why. For instance, the lead on The Matrix should be a summary of the article, starting off with a note in-text like that doesn't help readability. I don't see why it would be so important to mention their professional name at the time, but if it should, I think option E (or possibly F) is best. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support D As I have previously opined in a similar discussion, we need to both respect the identity that the people in question present now, and respect our readers by not using a name that wasn't the one presented then. Option D satisfies both these criteria. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment the above discussion arose out of an earlier 'Matrix' RfC. An ANI discussion is currently suggesting that a Village-pump policy discussion should take place about all such instances, ie all events and created works, which at the time of the event or created work the person was famous under another name. If that policy discussion occurs (which I think would solve this issue), it may well 'trump' this local consensus. Suggest we hold back here and see if that policy discussion goes ahead.Pincrete (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Hold off for now per Pincrete, especially given that we're now comparing a "generic" Talk page discussion with an RfC. Honestly, I think this thread should have been started as an RfC as well, but I've also noted concerns about the placement of this discussion given its scope at the ANI filing linked above. I'll weigh in on the issue itself if and when it's clear to me that proceeding with this discussion will be productive. DonIago (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we should let this play out and see where we end up at. We may get a solution that satisfies the concerns of both sides. The last time this was attempted at the Village Pump (see the discussion linked to by Trystan) the consensus was to use "context to decide on what action to take". That type of outcome doesn't really offer us much guidance. That suggests to me the question is too broad for the Village Pump. In fact, the crux of this discussion is to determine the context for WP:V and MOS:IDENTITY in the case of authorship. All the relevant article talk pages have been notified and so have their associated projects so I think we should see how it pans out. Betty Logan (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pincrete is right. If I have to !vote here, it's C, D, or F. I disagree with a number of things Betty Logan said in the description of the issue (though they may border on the pedantic). The mission of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, not "preserve history". History, like language, is not a static, reified thing. It changes with more information that changes our understanding of the past. Also, within the trans communities, it's generally understood that a trans person was always trans. To refer to them by old names (deadnaming) or genders disrespects and denies them after they've come out. It's not accurate, from this view point, to say "Larry underwent a sex change and became Lana in 2008". She was always Lana. People just didn't know it and it wasn't public. I understand the concern with "accurately" reflecting the credits, but we can inform the reader of that issue without disrespecting the directors. The compromise in WP:BIRTHNAME is that if someone is notable prior to coming out publicly, use their name but mention their previous name too. We can do the same here. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
DHeyward brought up an interesting point in the other RfC (and I'm paraphrasing here) that "The Wachowski Brothers" is a proper name of a brand or association, and while it only concerns two people, this is an entity; gender preference doesn't seem to apply. That would be like "Warner Bros." changing their name to "Warner Sisters", and though it is a much larger entity, would MOS:ID truly apply in either case? </end of paraphrasing> I'm not sure if that's the best comparison, as it may be leaning apples to oranges, but it's a point worth considering. Obviously, it comes down to whether or not you see the name as a representation of a group vs. a company; the former would be covered by the guideline. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I think my point was Warner Bros. is an association that includes all genders and people that work there or are stockholders or directors (even if they were female direct descendants named "Warner"), we wouldn't (and don't) consider proper names to be gendered - also note that proper name is "Warner Bros.", not "Warner Brothers" or "Warner brothers". The proper name is very specific and doesn't expand out to anything more than the brand. Microsoft is never "Microcomputer Software." Twisted Sister (and its alter ego Bent Brother) for example is not conferring gender. --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: I think there is a big difference in saying "The Wachowski Brothers" and "the Wachowski brothers." The first, all caps, refers to the collaborative name they chose. The name "The Wachowskis" was available and if either were uncomfortable with the term "Brothers" as their credit, they could have just left it off. We are using the name of the association they chose for the credit (most likely to avoid first/second credit position - so we should dump any option that lists them in an order, it's equal billing). There are places where they took credit by their name and those can be changed with a "credited as" note but they were minor credits not in the infobox (i.e. their credit as "Executive Producer" was as individuals). The problem with changing the name is one of Original Research and Synthesis. That movie continues to be made and distributed and they don't update the credits. We can certainly use their current names when discussing individuals in present tense and give links to their present affiliation but we need to match the names on the screen when we discuss the movie. "The Wachowski Brothers" as a proper name is not a dead name, just an old name of an association. "Larry" and "Andy" are dead names and should not be used except as a "credited as." It's simply incorrect though to replace "The Wachowski Brothers" with another association name or with two individual names within the context of describing the movie credits. The group "The Wachowskis" had nothing to do with "The Matrix" and the siblings that wrote it chose to be credited as a group instead of individuals. There is a tangential observation regarding success and privilege that is in play as they pitched the funding for this particular project as middle aged, married, heterosexual, white males. Hiding that aspect would seem to be saying that two lesbian transgender women were afforded opportunities that are not typical and whitewashes the issues of privilege. I do not know if that aspect has a place in the discussion but I don't think it should be lost. --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting point DHeyward. I'm wondering though if we know that "The Wachowski Brothers" is indeed a brand name like Warner Bros.? I guess I'm asking for a source or evidence. If that's the case, that it's a production company name or something similar, that would indeed change things. But if it's just a moniker they chose, and not a brand, then I think my original opinion would remain unchanged. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: It's considered a "corporate name" by the copyright office for "The Matrix" film release. The list of corporate names with claims are (for PA0000949615) :
Names: Village Roadshow Pictures
       Groucho II Film Partnership
       Silver Pictures
       Wachowski Brothers
       WV Films, LLC
       Warner Brothers
The copyright office also has personal name entries under Larry, Lana, etc. There is definitely a distinction. Also, there is nothing under "Wachowskis" - Jupiter Ascending for example is copyrighted listing personal names "Larry Wachowski" and "Lana Wachowski". --DHeyward (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@DHeyward: Hm... but The Wachowskis (and the old title of the article The Wachowski Brothers) refers to the individual director... So the credit is a corporate name but our article is about the individuals. Therein lies the issues/confusion I think. Not sure what I think of this... I guess the question becomes are we referring to the people when we say "The Wachowski Brothers" in the article, or are we referring to the corporate name? If the former, I think C, D, or F. But if the latter, A and B make sense too. Looking at the article, to me it seems we're referring more to the individuals when referred to outside of their role as directors/writers. But when we say "directed by/written by" that's more the corporate name (...? maybe?). This has become much more nuanced then I expected. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
While we do want to be an encyclopedia one role we serve is to summarize sources and provide references for a reader who wishes to learn more to go find. Importantly here, thus, is to make sure what names they may need to search for, and it is very unlikely that the sources published at the time of this film's release (particularly print ones) are going to restart what they have to match what has happened past publication. As such, while there is certainly room to debate whether we should include "now known as the Wachowski Sisters", it would be a disservice to omit "The Wachowski Brothers", note only as that was how they were credited but frequently named in media sources from that time. --MASEM (t) 00:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the "former known as" part which I think allays this concern. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support D as the clearest and most informative choice; with B as a second choice. Option D is the only one that clearly conveys the name the reader might know them by now while making explicit what the credit was in the film. B is a more awkward version of the same information.--Trystan (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow me to add my 2 cents worth! I haven't been to any of these pages before but I just watched the Matrix Trilogy and then decided to do some reading about it on Wikipedia. When I opened "The Matrix (franchise)" article I immediately noticed that it referred to "The Wachowski Brothers" and my thought was that it should be updated. I then started poking around and eventually came across this discussion. Now then ... I'm not saying I'm right in my belief that referring to "The Wachowski Brothers" is wrong; I can see both sides of the argument. What I'm saying is that there must be many other people like me AND there must be plenty of people who would also think referring to "The Wachowski's" is wrong. Therefore the best solution is a combination such as "Directed by The Wachowski's (credited as The Wachowski Brothers)" so that anyone who knows the story will understand what has been done and won't go on a wild goose chase - like me - trying to get the article(s) corrected. If that makes sense? It's the only real solution which solves all the different problems presented by this issue... FillsHerTease (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Side discussion

I'm not sure why these are the only options. The only acceptable representation is A because we live in the real world and reflect reality. The OPTION is we add a NOTE by the name which immediately links the reader to the bottom where the modern name is shown/explained, i.e. "The Wachowski Brothers[1]" which links to "Later/Now known professionally as The Wachowskis" and creates a hover-over box displaying it immediately without clicking. This is far more elegant than sticking "the Wachowski Brothers (now known as the Wachowskis)" in the lead or infobox and factual, unlike C - "the Wachowskis" and D - "the Wachowskis (credited as the Wachowski Brothers)". See the immediate start of the lead at Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain for an example. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a way to make it look more elegant without a note, as in Betty's example Switched-On Bach. However, the note is another excellent proposal. I think the discussion is hinging on whether or not we mention the original credited name at all within the article, and not so much the formatting of how it appears (there are likely a lot of good options not listed such as the note you suggest). At least for me, the format is not a concern, though it may be for others. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I will add your note option to the list of options above so it can be fairly considered alongside all the others. If that is not acceptable please feel free to revert me. If anybody wants to propose further solutions please feel free to add them to the list of options. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Why not Option F: "The Wachowskis[1]" which links to "At the time of production professionally as The Wachowski Brothers"? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts after reading through the related ANI discussion... It does appear that Betty explained the reasoning behind the non-RfC start and the intention of escalating this into an RfC once the dispute's talking points have been well-formed. The concerns by some editors questioning how this was approached are valid, but we should also keep in mind that RfCs are inherently discussions themselves, and while closure represents a stopping point, a new discussion/RfC involving the same dispute can and often should be continued if there are new arguments, ideas, and solutions not previously considered. I think a close look at what has been presented here (in the context of the last RfC's limited participation) would reveal reasonable justification for extending the discussion. As suggested in the ANI, the most effective way is likely to approach this from a site-wide policy perspective that supersedes the discussion here or at any related WikiProject. That said, such a move is only being contemplated. There's no harm in the meantime to weigh in here, as it may help form a solid foundation for the various perspectives, some of which may carry over if and when said discussion commences. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually feel like the above discussion has made some headway. Clearly people have divergent views on the issue but every single editor so far has been willing to entertain an option that includes both names. We might not get a solution here where we agree on the exact form but if we can agree on the nature of the content then the wider community can then help us with that. Betty Logan (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Summary

The discussion seems to have come to a natural conclusion. Despite the fact there is not clear consensus for any single option, it seems clear to me that there is a consensus for a "combo" solution, or rather nobody is opposed to a combination i.e. a permutation of both names or the inclusion of a footnote. There are several ways we can deal with this: i) leave it to individual articles editors to develop their own solution withing the general framework outlined here, or ii) begin an RFC to develop a universal format within the framework that we have more or less agreed on here. If we select to go with the RFC we can construct the community question here to get the details ironed out, and then run it at the village pump. Betty Logan (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Footnote. Neater, sensible, retains the original credit, retains readability, satisfies the pedants. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it makes a lot of sense to put together an RfC to apply to all e.g. "creative professionals whose name/identity has changed since the publication/release of a creative work". Since it applies to projects associated with the works and people themselves, as well as to stylistic guidelines and the BLP policy, it should probably be held at WP:VPP or some other similarly central venue, and take the form of an RfC. Perhaps we should set up a collaborative space (in userspace, at a dedicated RfC page, etc.) to develop the wording of the RfC beforehand? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea. It would be nice to get project wide approach to this problem. Betty Logan (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2016 (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.
  • Support C or F I strongly oppose A, B, E or any other option that prominently misgenders the Wachowski sisters. The two sisters are not, and never have been, brothers, and their gender identities should be respected. Incorrect or pseudonymous film credits are generally ignored or only referred to parenthetically in wikipedia articles. (The editor for Coen Brothers movies is almost never referred to as “Roderick Jaynes” and I’ve never seen a single article on wikipedia say that a film was “directed by Alan Smithee”.) There is a big difference between a pen name like “George Eliot” and the incorrect film credit that we are discussing. For one thing, the incorrect credits on the Wachowski sisters’ older films are buried at the end of those films. They aren’t emblazoned on the covers in large print like “George Eliot”. A library will file a George Eliot book under E for Eliot, but libraries never file movies by director or writer. For another thing, “the Wachowskis” is not a wholly separate name - we are talking about a change that will not cause any confusion. A final point: if there is any doubt at all, we should err on the side of honoring people's identities and letting transgender readers know that they are valued and respected. (...Hopefully it's OK for me to jump in here even if there hasn't been any votes in two years! I'm new at all this :) ) WanderingWanda (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis

Hi!

How should we credit/gender the Wachowskis?

Please give us your input. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:16, 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) 05:54, 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) 15:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Matrix_Reloaded/Archive_2&oldid=1145790609"