Jump to content

Talk:The Wachowskis/Archive 2

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

dealing with gender/name over time

In the lede/current/general information we should use the subjects preferred name/gender. No question. But in historical information, shouldn't we use the name/gender used at that time? Lana Wachowski did not make the Matrix etc. At a minimum phrases like "then known as Larry" etc need to be used to make things clear. Also, specifically on the transition, it seems like "rumors of Lana changing her gender from male to female" doesn't really make sense. If you are talking about the from->to transition, you need to talk about the "from" as the "from". describing the "from" as the "to" and then saying they transitioned from "to" to "to" makes no sense. Additionally, it is WP:OR for us to assume we know what their self identified gender was in the past time. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a (already started) discussion about MOS:IDENTITY addressing this specific issue going on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Modification_to_MOS:IDENTITY Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
One of the great things about names is that when they are current, they can be used to refer to a person at any point in their life. This is why we would be correct to say, "Ang Lee was born in 1954," even if Ang was given his name after he was born. This is why the Mark Twain entry is not wrong to refer to Twain as Twain, even when talking about his life prior to the adoption of his pen name. Pronouns work the same way. If we were to make the changes you are talking about, anyone who understands how names and pronouns work would think that Lana is not Lana and does not prefer "she"; this would be misleading, because it contradicts the reliable sources we have pertaining to the matter. Having said that, I have no objections to phrases like "whose name used to be . . .", "who used to be called . . .", etc., because in these cases the name is not being used to refer to Lana. By all means let's take the route that respects the English language, that respects the current MOS, and that respects trans people. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
We can use Lana in most cases, but when we're specifically talking about the period she was transitioning and adopted a new name, we need to use the name she was called before that. As I said above, anyone who didn't know that Larry and Lana were the same person would be confused by that phrasing. As such, I've changed that particular instance back.--Cúchullain t/c 15:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
It has not escaped my attention that you have evaded my arguments above. Would you care to explain why we should adopt a special way of referring to Lana that we would not use while referring to Ang Lee in my example? Your wording is confusing, because you are ignoring how names and referential pronouns ordinarily work. Because you obviously appreciate the value of avoiding confusion, I will be reverting your edit. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Ang Lee had no say in the matter until much later. Lana voluntarily used the name Larry for a very long time. we have no knowledge of Lana's personal feelings of her identity at the time. She repeatedly refered to herself as one of the "Wachowski Brothers". To pretend that history and statement of fact did not exist, is inaaccurate, and unecyclopedic, and forcing your WP:OR opinion of what Lana's identity was retroactively, without any evidence. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how Ang Lee is relevant here, and please do not threaten to edit war. In this case, the sentence is specifically about the period in which she adopted her current name - and when the media began reporting about that new name. It makes no sense to refer to her as "Lana" when talking about that time, and neither the MOS nor simple logic recommend against mentioning the name people used at the time.--Cúchullain t/c 16:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Gaijin42, regarding Ang Lee, I do not see how your comment is relevant to my point, which is that people frequently, if not usually, refer to people using the names they currently use, even if they did not have those names at the time. Communication would come to a standstill, if we did not, because quite often we do not know how people were referred to in the past. Taking so radical a departure from this common way of speaking about people suggests a viewpoint that many would find objectionable; it is a violation of NPOV. Also, I recommend reading this Talk page at your earliest convenience; you will find among other things that I have explicitly said that I have no objections to indicating that Lana was once the referent of masculine nouns and pronouns. (Thus I would not object to any and all use of the phrase Wachowski Brothers as long as it is not used to refer to Lana.) I do not appreciate having words put into my mouth. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Cúchullain, my point regarding Ang Lee is the same point that I have made (and that you have ignored) before -- that names and other referential words do not work the way you seem to think they do. There is nothing unusual about using a word that currently refers to someone when talking about events before it referred to them. And no one is threatening an edit war, though I think it's notable that as far as I can tell you are the only editor who has edited the disputed sentence to insert Lana's old name, and you have repeatedly reverted the work of at least two different editors to have your way without trying to seek a consensus here first. You may not have violated 3RR yet, but a pattern of tendentious editing is becoming apparent. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In real life terms, I'd totally be with you on this one Marie but in terms of the article I think I'm falling somewhere between you and everyone else. I think if we're not careful with our phrasing people reading the article (who don't edit here and may not know the back ground) may get confused. Some of the example articles being discussed at MOS:IDENTITY are made very confusing by the fact that the person is being referred strictly in terms of their current identity in spite of their history (the chick who was in Jethro Tull when she still identified as a man was the worst from what I recall, it's kind of a nightmare to read) and the time period they are notable for. I know it can make for some unwieldy sentences, but I think when we're talking about the period of transition, it's probably good to stick to noting the "then still identifying as Larry" type of stuff where it's applicable. Our lead on this one reads pretty well to me in that regard. Perhaps we can take some inspiration from the style and phrasing there. Millahnna (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I know it can make for some unwieldy sentences, but I think when we're talking about the period of transition, it's probably good to stick to noting the "then still identifying as Larry" type of stuff where it's applicable. If this is what you think, then I would say we are closer in our positions than you seem to think we are. As I have said both here and on Cúchullain's Talk page[1], I do not object to any and all use of Lana's old name. (Seriously, how can anyone think that, when there are so many mentions of Lana's old name in the article that I have left untouched?) The main point of my contention has been that editors continue to use the term to refer to Lana. If someone wanted to refer to Lana as Lana in the disputed sentence and add your suggested phrase (i.e. "then still identifying as Larry"), I would not object -- well, not as strongly anyway. It would then be a concern that we not make gratuitous use of her old name. I would say once in the lead, once in the side bar, and once in the "Personal life" section is sufficient, with perhaps other uses as the need arises. I would prefer that we substitute "formerly known as" for "born" in the lead, but the lead handles the difficulty in a manner that is leaps and bounds better than the "Personal life" section currently does. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

An Overview of a Compromise

So we have seen edits here (and on other articles about trans people) that reflect one of two positions. The first is that we should remove all mention of Lana's old name. The second is that we should refer to Lana by her old name, at least when talking about times when she was not yet known as Lana. I believe that we can have many of the benefits of each position by adopting a compromise: We should mention Lana's old name from time to time without using it to refer to her. (For example, we can use phrasing along the lines of, "Lana, whose name used to be . . . .") Can anyone offer a compelling reason not to take the compromise approach that is compelling, is consistent with NPOV, and is consistent with the MOS?

Here is my case for those who want to avoid all mention of Lana's old name:

  1. Lana's old name is notable, and people should be able to find information on Lana when they use it as input.
  2. We cannot count on people who use Lana's old name to understand why they have ended up at an article about Lana Wachowski without some explanation.

Here is my case for those who want to refer to Lana by her old name (if you want to save time, Points 2 and 5 are my only new points):

  1. Referring to people by their current names is what is commonly, if not usually, done. If I may give an example other than the ones I have used so far, in the article on El Greco we refer to El Greco as El Greco, even in the Early Years and Family section.
  2. For that matter we do not even consistently apply a use-her-old-name-whenever-we-talk-about-her-past rule in this article. Case in point: "Lana Wachowski (born Laurence Wachowski; June 21, 1965) . . ." (the opening of the first sentence). The current use of Lana's old name is sporadic, is confusing, is unencyclopedic, and does not even conform to the stated standard being proposed.
  3. Because it is normal to refer to people using their current names and pronouns, even while talking about their past, it does not suggest anything about how people ought to think of trans people pre-transition or how trans people thought of themselves at that time. On the other hand, referring to trans people using former names and pronouns does suggest a stance on these matters and is thus non-neutral and (in regards to how trans people have viewed themselves) possibly inaccurate.
  4. Like it or not the MOS currently requires us to refer to trans people using their currently preferred pronouns. When we take the position of always referring to trans people in the past by their old pronouns, we end up with inelegant phrasing such as what we currently have in the "Personal life" section: "Rumors that Larry Wachowski was transitioning her gender . . ." (emphasis mine). Removing "her" is a stop-gap measure we should not count on to work all the time. (I hate to say I was right, but the word "her" crept into the sentence after I first pointed out that referring to Lana by her old name would lead to conflicts with the MOS.)
  5. The proposed manner of dealing with old names is better suited for tabloid journalism, in which it is common to talk about a trans person as though they one day became an entirely different person with a different name and a different gender. This makes it easier to introduce an element of shock (e.g. it allows statements like, "Perry had a secret he was hiding from everyone else; he was really Carrie"). Whatever the merits of this in other media, it does not mesh with an encyclopedic tone or with an accurate view of trans people. (Even setting aside the question of whether trans people have always had their genders, it is not the case that they complete every aspect of their transition simultaneously.)
  6. Making use of old names without using them to refer is consistent with external policies for respecting trans people.

And a final case for this solution:

  1. It is a compromise between the two extreme views espoused by people who have been making recent edits.
  2. Edits made to depart from this compromise have been made by editors who have not tried to find consensus here before making the edits.
  3. So far it is the only solution for which we have anything approaching consensus. (See my exchange with Millahnna[2] above.)

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on this case yet, but I will say that if we go that way we have to be very careful. Before I fixed it, the article on Alexis Reich was written much the same way and was well-nigh impossible to read (I recognize that's a somewhat loaded example and the sources are much more one-sided there than here, which is why I'm considering this on its own merits, but the style of writing was pretty much congruous). I'm not saying it can't be done, and I'll think about it some more, but it's something we need to be cautious about. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I am glad you are interested in making Wikipedia's articles more readable. Apart from using Lana's (or Alexis's) old name to refer to her what steps do you think can be taken to make articles such as this more accessible to readers? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
My opinion has always been that we should use the current name in most cases, but there are times when using the former name is more appropriate, and we don't need to bend over backwards to remove it from the article. For example, in instances where we're specifically discussing what she was called at a particular time, such as what she was called as a child, or what the media called her when they began reporting she was transitioning, we should use that name.Cúchullain t/c 02:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. Do you think it is necessary to use the former name to refer to Lana in these cases? Is mere use of the old name sufficient? -- Marie Paradox (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it's fine to say that Lana was "Lana Wachowski was born Laurence Wachowski..." and that "Rumors that Larry Wachowski was transitioning gender..." In the first case, it's an undisputed fact that she was named Lawrence Wachowski when she was born; in the second, we're just stating what the contemporary rumors were, we're not using the name ourselves. And of course direct quotes about "Larry Wachowski" can't be altered, and we do need to make sure it's totally clear readers that Lana is the same person as Larry. Other than cases like these, I recommend using the name Lana and female gender pronouns in the rest of the article.--Cúchullain t/c 16:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
You are right about direct quotes, of course. But "Rumors that . . ." is an indirect quote. Indirect quotes are subject to very different constraints than direct quotes, which is why it would be okay to write, "John reported, 'I heard that one of the Wachowskis was transgender,'" but not, "It is reported that I heard one of the Wachowskis was transgender." If we leave the sentence as is, we are in fact using the name ourselves, and we are using it to refer to Lana (which, again, is the real problem, as no one hear has been complaining about mere use of the name). Please avoid making edits/reversions of this sort in the future. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a quote. Nevertheless, I still feel the use of "Larry" is most appropriate there for the reasons given by myself and others above. I stand by this, and will continue to push for it until consensus changes. For your part, please avoid making edits/reversions for which there is no consensus.Cúchullain t/c 23:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion, it appears that this is the one and only sentence where we disagree. Could you offer a suggestion on how to improve the wording in that instance?--Cúchullain t/c 04:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to try to find a mutually satisfying solution on this. How do you feel about "Rumors that Larry Wachowski, then still identifying as Larry, was transitioning gender from male to female . . ." (a suggestion inspired by Millahnna's comment)? If you do not see that as an improvement, could we simply omit the sentence and make some minor tweaking (still retaining Lana's name in those cases where it is already present) to what remains? It seems to me that there is already sufficient information about Lana's transition in the paragraph. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean, "Rumors that Lana Wachowski, then still identifying as Larry..."? I could live with that.Cúchullain t/c 05:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant. Sorry for the mix-up. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

New edits to Lana Wachowski

I see that the Larry/Lana conversation has been going on here for several years, but now that Lana actively identifies as Lana in unambiguous ways, I think it's only fair that the entire article reflect the name change while still being straightforward to those who remember "Larry Wachowski." I hope my edits clarified rather than sensationalized, and in places where Lana was quoted as Larry, I left Larry in.

Again, my motive isn't to spread gossip or speculation, it's rather to accurately identify, label, and respect individuals making changes in their lives relevant to the way they are discussed in media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapferbinger (talk • contribs) 01:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Dig a little and there are plenty of people out and about with her during the filming of Cloud Atlas - http://www.nilerodgers.com/blogs/planet-c-in-english/487-so-fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.5.214 (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and most of the information regarding this is based on rumors I think Larry should remain as Larry until one of the siblings opens up about it or it's covered in a mainstream news piece. I mean we don't even know if he's a cross dresser or transgender, in the case of the latter a name change would be appropriate but in the case of the former it should remain what it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.147.100 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lana-wachowski-reveals-suicide-plan-382169m should be satisfactory enough on all counts. RevAladdinSane (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


Here is another extensive interview where she discusses the issue http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/wachowskis-tom-tykwer-cloud-atlas-378824 Gaijin42 (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why it has be told that the media refers to them by name? 141.70.81.151 (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Individual pages for each sibling

I was trying to find some information about Lana Wachowski and her personal story, and when I search Lana Wachowski it redirects me to The Wachowskis. There should be one individual page for each brother, with their biography, and then one with their joint venture (The Wachowskis Starship). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.71.98 (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The notability of each sibling is pretty much entirely intertwined with the other; there really isn't a body of work for either Andy or Lana that's separate from their work as a duo. The best analogy I can come up with at the moment is the Collyer brothers; they aren't notable by themselves, but what they did together made them both notable. It's kinda hard to explain, and I apologize if I'm not clear, but do you get what I'm saying? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with TBotNL. They have done nothing independantly, and notability is not inherited. Lana did get a bunch of independant coverage as a result of her transition. If that level of independant notability is sustained then she could fork out later, but it is not sufficient as of yet, as all of that coverage is in the context of their group projects. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that true of a lot of members of rock bands too, but the members frequently have their own pages... just sayin'... Iamvered (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep Single Article – After restructuring article yesterday, I've concluded there is insufficient material and insufficient personal notability to support separate biography articles. Should a split be undertaken, IMO, the material at hand supports at best 2 articles, a shared work article, and a shared biography article since the bulk of the biographical material is shared. Keeping the article organized into (1) shared work material, (2) shared natal family material, (3) shared college years material, (4) unique Lana material, and (5) unique Andy material sections yields the best article we can hope for given the sparse information available from the subjects preference for personal privacy which I assert we should respect. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"Lana" update

The press for the upcoming Cloud Atlas is uniformly referring to the elder Wachowski as "Lana".[3] Additionally, her IMdB credit is now at "Lana Wachowski".[4] Variety has been using "Lana" all year.[5] It is obvious that "Lana" is how she prefers to be referred to and how future sources will refer to her. It's time to update the article.--Cúchullain t/c 15:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, though I wish that the Wachowskis would make it easy for us but actually coming out and discussing the issue instead of just using a different name. I suggest we start and RfC just to get some consensus on the issue before an edit war starts. Angryapathy (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought IMDB was not ... what's the word, accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source. Lots42 (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not acceptable as a source for articles, but it's a fine tool for further research. What a person's name is would qualify. At any rate Variety and the news reports are all reliable sources, and say the same thing.--Cúchullain t/c 20:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as a trans person myself, I can totally understand Ms. Wachowski's decision not to make a big deal out of this. Given that it is clear that she is now being (and presumably prefers to be) referred to as Lana, it would be both inaccurate and disrespectful to keep the article as is. Just because nobody has actually said directly that she is trans, doesn't mean it's not actually true. If the concern is a fear of libel, surely there is no risk in simply following a convention already set by the press? 86.30.188.101 (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
If there's no proof, then changing the article would be illogical. Lots42 (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean? The press is now unanimous in calling her Lana Wachowski. Where is the evidence that it should be left as "Larry"? I suppose an RFC is in order.--Cúchullain t/c 13:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Last go around, the press was just referencing each other and had no actual proof. Plus, in the case of real people, Wikipedia demands extra caution. Yes, it's morally okay to be a transgender person but if Larry is not, this could cause all sorts of headaches. Lots42 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Misgendering hurts a transgender person more than a cisgender (ie, what Lana would be if all this turned out to be some massive mistake on the part of others) person because invariably a transgender person is misgendered more frequently than a cisgender person, and the damage to a person's psychological and emotional wellbeing from misgendering is cumulative. In most cases, a cisgender person could shrug it off. In the unlikely event that Lana is actually not trans then it's true that she would have encountered more misgendering in the past few years than most cis people do in a lifetime... but still less misgendering than she was victim to in the first 40 years of her life, if she is trans, when she was assumed to be male - and she will continue to be misgendered by transphobic bigots even if everyone with good intentions respects her wishes. If there's any question at all, she should be referred to as Lana and female. 87.218.185.41 (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"clarification needed" ?

According to Larry they were "the family that no one liked", and he was beaten up every day he came home from school.[clarification needed]

What exactly needs to be clarified?

From the source:

"A. Wachowski: We were in the lower-income bracket as well. [laughs] And so our family sort of came together a little bit more, and it sort of bonded us, and we had to stick up for each other.

L. Wachowski: I’d get beat up every day coming home from school.

A. Wachowski: Yeah."

I think there's nothing to clarify and the tag should be removed. Freemanukem (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Severe Subject Problem

This article covers the following subjects:

  1. Organization: Wachowski Partnership
  2. Biography: Lana Wachowski
  3. Biography: Andy Wachowski

The content amongst the three Subjects is distributed as follows:

  • The great bulk of the article is their work (Organization) and IMO, its notability is beyond doubt.
  • The Lana content (Biography) constitutes only a short article, the bulk being her gender transition.
  • The Andy content (Biography) is an exceptionally brief article.
  • IMO, their work bestows significant secondary notability to both.
  • I suggest the Biography coverage is severely unbalanced:
    • I suggest gender transition alone is not notable.
    • The bulk of Lana's coverage is gender transition.
    • When work and gender are ignored both Biographies are exceptionally short.
  • Should the siblings work alone or with others then maintenance becomes worse.

After writing this I shall keep single article but reorganize into sections numbered above. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Today, I'm documenting my edit performed 04:30, March 29, 2013 (42,580 bytes) (+128) yielding the following article structure:

1 Wachowski partnership
1.1 Owned companies
1.2 Future films
1.3 Style
1.4 Gaming
1.5 Works
1.5.1 Films
1.5.2 Television
1.5.3 Video games
1.5.4 Comic books
1.6 Awards and nominations
2 Natal family
2.1 Parents
2.2 Siblings
2.3 Religious practice
2.4 Social alienation
3 College years
4 Lana Wachowski
4.1 Gender change
4.1.1 HRC Visibility Award
4.2 Personal life
5 Andy Wachowski
5.1 Personal life
6 References
7 External links

I assert the new structures survival represents a supporting de facto consensus. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

WHAT THE?!?

"I could assume that eastern-European immigrants were probably Jewish?" Don't assume it makes an ass out of you and me! But WHAT THE?!? How the hell do you come up with that conclusion, there were many, many NON-JEWISH immigrants from Eastern-Europe! Jews weren't the only one's that immigrated from Europe. Moron! And P.S. They are Jewish! SOURCE: Who are the Wachowski Brothers? - innovateus.net www.innovateus.net/innopedia/who-are-wachowski-brothers‎ Wachowski Brothers composing of Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski, the ... and producers born to Lynne and Wachowski are of Jewish-Polish American ... (120.149.113.202 (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC))

I agree, the lack of a citation is suspect. The Jewish category shall be removed until a reliable source is presented.
They aren't of Jewish ancestry. Their father was of non-Jewish Polish descent. And their mother was of non-Jewish Anglo-American ancestry. I removed it again. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Added "formerly Larry"

Hope this isn't too conversial (saw that the name was only changed today); I added "formerly Larry" after Lana's name - I came to the page trying to look up the director for The Matrix, who was referred in the source I read as "Larry". The sex-change was only mentioned in the Personal Life section, and it wasn't clear until that point that both names referred to the same individual. It also adds context to the "Formerly the Wachowski Brothers" paren in the same paragraph. 82.46.65.173 (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not see the point of giving indication of Lana's trans status in the lead. I find it gratuitous (what does it have to do with her ability as a director?) and would prefer that all such indications be relegated to the "Personal Life" section. However, I will wait until you and my other fellow good faith editors have a chance to defend your position before making such edits myself. For now I have just added the words "known as" to avoid violating the Manual of Style. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't need to make much of the point, but Lana Wachowski was known as Larry, and the duo were known as the "Wachowski Brothers", for much of their professional career, including the time they made their most successful films. That certainly does belong in the lead.
MOS:IDENTITY says nothing about avoiding previous names, let alone avoiding the name by which the subject was originally notable. It says to use their latest preferred "gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives"; not remove their previous name or any reference to their transition. As far as the gendered pronouns go, we've already done that here.--Cúchullain t/c 20:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The name "Larry" is a gendered noun. Thus Lana should not be "referred to" using the name. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
That's clearly not what the MOS means by "gendered noun". What it's talking about is things like "waiter/waitress", "actor/actress", "chairman/chairwoman", etc. Using the name she used at the start of her transition is appropriate there. The sources don't refer to *Lana* transitioning, they refer to *Larry* beginning the transition, during which she took the name Lana.--Cúchullain t/c 21:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Larry is gendered[6] and is a noun[7]. If anything is clear, it is that Larry is a gendered noun.
"The sources don't refer to *Lana* transitioning, they refer to *Larry* beginning the transition" Names do not work this way. They do not fail to refer to a person simply because the person did not always have the name. If that were the case, sentences along the lines of, "Jane Smith was born in 1983," would nearly always be false, considering that most infants are named after they are born.
May I ask what it is you are trying to do? I for one had no objection to the line "formerly known as Larry", and though I was not fond of its placement, I was willing to let it go for the time being. If you want to let readers know what Lana's former name was, why not choose from among the dozens of ways you could do so that do not involve violating the MOS or being offensive?
-- Marie Paradox (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It is NEVER appropriate to use a transgendered person's former name to refer to them, no matter what the context. It's actually pretty offensive. Pandoradawn (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
82.46.65.173 here. My edit stemmed from my own confusion when reading the article. I'd failed to read the sidebar, and the main text of the article doesn't mention that Larry changed his name until the Personal Life section - it wasn't clear until I reached that point that Lana and Larry were names for the same individual, and I was confused until that point why Andy's brother Larry wasn't mentioned. My desire was to reduce confusion for other readers.
I agree that the former name "Larry" has nothing to do with Lana's "ability as a director", but including the fact that Lana was formerly known as Larry in her introduction does not say anything, positive or negative, about such abilities: it simply states a true and verifiable fact, which is that she was formerly known, and was formerly notable, under the name "Larry". Merely stating the name is not making any kind of value judgement about anything at all.
The names she has directed under are relevant to an article about her and her career, and it should be clear to visitors looking for information about "Andy and Larry Wachowski" and the "The Wachowski Brothers" as early as possible in the article that they have come to the right place. 217.204.106.166 (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I concur. Including the name someone was called when they first became notable is appropriate, and I'd think necessary. As it was before it read like we were intentionally obscuring the fact that Lana Wachowski was ever known as Larry, which is extremely confusing for the reader. It needs to be in the lead.--Cúchullain t/c 12:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree too, for me the best lead so far is this one (by Nick R): more information and immediately. Best also the previous infobox, indeed: I would change the Coen because less fluid and understandable. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that the problem with two infoboxs is they have much common informations such as birth place, occupation, years active and influences. That would make a lot of repeat. --Hyliad (d) 15:27, 30 August 2012 (CEST)
Right, but a single infobox seems to me confusing. Maybe then less worse if repetitive, what do you think? --Mauro Lanari (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe you couldn't remove from lead the redirects: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laurence_Wachowski&redirect=no, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Wachowski&redirect=no, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Wachowski&redirect=no & http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wachowski_Brothers&redirect=no. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the infobox(es). There's not much consistency in other articles in Category:Sibling duos, even among other filmmakers. Articles on duos with one personal infobox include Coen Brothers, Sid and Marty Croft, Duncan Sisters, and Hughes brothers. Articles with two personal infoboxes include the Wright brothers, Kano sisters, Farrelly brothers. In duo articles where the siblings have their own articles, the personal infobox are usually left in the individual articles, or they have a simplified infobox, such as Williams sisters, Brothers Grimm, and Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. Some duo articles have no personal infoboxes, for instance Jake and Dinos Chapman, Lyle and Erik Menendez, Chang and Eng Bunker, and Fox sisters. Food for thought.--Cúchullain t/c 13:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Marie Paradox, in regards to this edit, once again, a person's name is not a gendered noun. A gendered noun is a particular type of noun that identifies a gender, for example man/woman; waitress/waiter, and bull/cow. Not only is your edit out of step with the MOS, it makes the sentence utterly confusing. Please stop reverting.--Cúchullain t/c 13:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is "utterly confusing" only if someone adheres to the ideas that (a) trans people were not born having their actual genders but obtain them by transitioning and (b) proper names somehow fail to refer to people before they obtain them. As far as I know, (a) is not Wikipedia policy; please correct me if I am wrong. As for (b), it has already been explained[8] to you why this is nonsensical. Even if your interpretation of the MOS were correct, it would not make my edits "out of step"; it would simply mean the MOS is silent on the MOS we are discussing, and we would still be under no obligation to write about Lana in a way that disrespects her. What's more, even if the MOS did not directly prohibit your edits, it would still make them undesirable, as it would lead to sentences such as, "John Smith started transitioning when she was 30 years old." I have left other comments about this on your user talk page. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
As I said above and on my talk page, this is a misinterpretation of what MOS:IDENTITY says. Plain and simple a personal name is not a gendered noun. The MOS certainly does not prohibit using the name someone was called at the time, when we are directly addressing the period in which they adopted the new name.
The issue of Wachowski's gender isn't the real issue here; the issue is the name. It is an undisputable fact that Lana was known to the world as Larry previously. The media did not start reporting that Lana was transitioning, they say that the person known up to that point as Larry Wachowski was transitioning. It was only during this point that the name Lana became used in the media. For anyone who didn't know that Larry and Lana Wachowski are the same person, your phrasing is very confusing. --Cúchullain t/c 15:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal information on Lana Wachowski's wife

I've removed some personal information on Lana Wachowski's wife. Most importantly, her "stage name" is not found in what is far and away the most reliable source for the material, the New Yorker piece.[9] In fact, that source doesn't even give her real name, saying only that they married in 2009, though her name is verified in passing references in other reliable sources like this. The wife of Lana Wachowski is not a public figure and there's no encyclopedic reason to cover her in detail here.--Cúchullain t/c 15:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

i find it a little odd that wikipedia, which usually, when writing about the hollywood set, lavishes some attention on their personal lives, says nothing in this article about the wachowskis. even if a personal section were to say that they are so reclusive and secretive that nothing is known of their private lifes -- which would be hard to believe -- that would be worth stating, if only for consistency's sake. chris

Larry Wachowskis?

Where is the rule set on the name of Larry Wachowskis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.105.219.139 (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We have to use the name Larry if doing so is consistent with the "do not re-word direct quotations" rule. Georgia guy (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Larry or Lana

Wikipedia's MOS says to use Lana throughout, not to use Larry before the operation. The general rule is that trans women are women. Georgia guy (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the policy section? It would help if it could be 'on the record.' Alaney2k (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia:Manual of style, specifically the Identity section of the TOC. Georgia guy (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's an idea...How about including the obvious fact that the Wachowski's clearly stole copyrighted material for the entire matrix brand!!!???

Check out Sophia Stewart's website, it more specifically, check out her legal news tab!! Game Over!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.62.253 (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Are there external sources relating this story ? Apart from the ones that didn't state that sh didn't win the case against Warner, of course. Xerxes (contact) 17:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is the most reliable one, stating that it is a hoax. [10] Xerxes (contact) 17:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

A recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFur and the Manning dispute

I noticed you mentioned bringing this up in an edit summary.

But I can't find that you actually did bring it up? Anyway, for interested editors, it's here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Lilly Wachowski changes

So, a find->replace for Lilly Wachowski's former name would be appropriate, and ditto for combing through to replace outdated pronouns and such.

In addition, we've already got a section on Lana Wachowski's transition, it seems appropriate that we add something similar discussing Lilly Wachowski's recent experience with threats of being outed against her will, maybe eventually merge the two sections if folks feel they're similar enough in content? (for reference, http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Second-Wachowski-filmmaker-sibling-comes-out-as-trans-/54509.html)

Comrade pem (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This also brings up a good point about their name. They still rocking the simple Wachowskis or should we adopt The Wachowski Sisters? --82.40.171.48 (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a forum post. Georgia guy (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Windy City Times is a pretty well known LGBT newspaper in Minneapolis/Twin Cities. The story was also picked up by The Guardian, BBC News, The Telegraph, The Independent and the Washington Post. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Need a post-transition image for Lilly Wachowski as well. Maybe crop the image currently on the top right of the article so it only shows Lana, and then find a similarly post-transition image for Lilly?JaneSwifty (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
We had the same issue with Caitlyn Jenner. Her gender expression in old photos does not negate her current identity. We can keep an image up until we find a more recent one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The article is about both of them; it seems appropriate to me that the page image be of them together since there exists a good photo. Additionally, the Chelsea Manning page which was so influential to MOS:GENDERID still has a pre-transition image of Manning. If a good, more up-to-date image becomes available here, though, a change should be fine. 91.125.22.249 (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
There's now a section about Lilly's transition. Re calling them the Wachowski Sisters, I've not (yet) seen that in any sources; if and when other sources start calling them that, we can add it to the article. —me_and 16:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
[11] — goethean 17:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Do they call themselves "The Wachowski Sisters" now? The article doesn't say. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The reliable sources aren't using the phrase "The Wachowski Sisters", so we shouldn't either. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Awards chart

WP:FILM articles do not list non-notable awards, defined as those without Wikipedia articles. I've removed the non-notable Las Vegas Film Critics information, but the near-impenetrable coding with rowspans nestled within rowspans still needs to be adjusted. And perhaps a discussion in a larger forum should begin on how complicated nesting rows in table should be before even a longtime editor who's worked with such tables before finds himself stymied. I can't imagine how a newer editor wouldn't find this unwelcoming.

In the meantime, perhaps someone more coding literate than I could adjust the table to remove the empty boxes where the Las Vegas information used to be. I would have imagined that going "rowspan=2|2000" and "rowspan=2|The Matrix" would have worked, but it did not, nor did various variations --Tenebrae (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed :) Freemanukem (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

This article really needs pronunciation for the sisters' surname. I imagine it's Polish, but not usually pronounced as it would be in Polish. Correctrix (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really relevant, but I'll bite. I've only heard their name pronounced like the normal English pronunciation of the letters, so it's not really an issue to point out in the article. If they were Polish (as in Polish nationals), it could be pointed out I think. Basically, the Polish pronunciation would likely be simply substituting 'v' for the 'w's and 'h' for the 'ch' in the name, as in Vahovski. If they used the Polish spelling, it would be Wachowska (because they are female) or maybe Wachowskie (for family). Alaney2k (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I always pronounced the name as /və'kɒfski/, which is as it's spelt as far as I was concerned. Then it occurred to me that it's probably anglicised more than that, and I wondered to what degree. "Ow" in English can certainly be /əʊ/ as in "blow", or /aʊ/ as in "now". "Ch" is most commonly /tʃ/ but there are large numbers of words where it is pronounced otherwise. I guess you're saying it's /wə'tʃaʊski/. It's not at all obvious. Correctrix (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wachowski Sisters?

Should the page be renamed to the Wachowski sisters now? Shadowrunner(stuff) 22:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not their WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS do not refer to them as such. If they do eventually, it's WP:TOOSOON. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Compare The Supremes. Do we call them the Supreme Sisters?? No, they're just the Supremes. Georgia guy (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I think this question was motivated by the fact that the page was moved from 'Wachowski brothers' to 'The Wachowskis' when Lana came out. 82.181.79.70 (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I also think it should be renamed. They were world known for years as "Wachowski brothers", so following that, it should now be Wachowski Sisters, as they announced by them self. --Axiomus (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It needs to be backed up by some reliable sources, not just personal preference. Alaney2k (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: I've seen several articles refer to them as former "Wachowski brothers" and "Wachowski siblings", but none as "Wachowski sisters". Unless they themselves start to call themselves "Wachowski sisters" the press (our sources) will hardly do it, and we should certainly not do it. Just because somebody once called themselves "NNN Brothers" doesn't mean they will now call themselves "NNN Sisters" - they could start to call themselves "NNN Superstars" for what we know: we should not lead, we should follow. CapnZapp (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: I concur with CapnZapp. We shouldn't use "Sisters" as part of a formal, proper-noun phrase until it's established in reliable press/academic/industry sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: They refer themselves as just "The Wachowskis," so the current name of the article is fine. If they officially refer to themselves as "The Wachowski Sisters," then by all means rename the article. Josh (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I dislike the template at the top of the article - no, we at Wikipedia do not suggest the subjects of the article should change their title. So per WP:SNOWBALL I'm removing that template. If you still want to change the article title, I would like to point you to WP:RM#CM. Regards, ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp (talk • contribs) 13:38, 11 March 2016‎ (UTC)

I put it (the tpl) after a revert. The person who did the change should have done a requested move, but I was not going to make a requested move as I disagreed with it. And I wanted to get comments on the suggestion. Alaney2k (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Wachowska

Shouldn't they have the feminine suffix instead of the masculine suffix now?--143.167.169.78 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Caption for infobox picture

This concerns File:Wachowskis,_Fantastic_Fest,_Cloud_Atlas.jpg. Wikipedia does support Lilly's right to self-identification, but also recognises the need to apply context where there is history involved. I fully support that position and believe that while we do need to mention their former names due to historic notability under those names, we should also minimise the usage. I am quite happy to respect Lilly's current preferences, and agree that she should be regarded as female for most purposes. MOS:GENDERID says to Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. In this particular context, the historical photo clearly is from a public appearance where she was still presenting herself to the world as Andy, pre-transition. I feel that it is appropriate to make a minimal reference to her former name in that context, to minimise any potential confusion for the reader. The picture is a frozen moment in time, prior to her changing her presentation to match her true inner identity. Murph9000 (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Murph9000, with all due respect, the bit you've quoted from MOS:GENDERID is about "Referring to the person in other articles." I think it's clear from the main section on "Main biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned" that we should use the latest gender identification, and for all phases of that person's life. As such, I disagree with your change, and I think the Manual of Style is with me. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Dumuzid, that quote is simply the closest thing in the manual to this situation. The manual does not properly address the issue of a mismatch between a historical photograph and current gender. I believe that my interpretation is correct, and the sprit of past community discussion was to make minimal references based on the context. In the context of that photograph, it makes sense to me for the caption to make a minimal and respectful reference to her past name.
I'd like to propose a compromise / alternative approach, that we change the caption to "The Wachowskis at …", and completely omit their individual names. That seems like it would both be fully descriptive of the picture and eliminate the need to deal with gender transition. Does that seem reasonable to you? Murph9000 (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I am perfectly fine with that solution, but I disagree that your quote is "the closest thing in the manual to this situation." As I read it, we are given explicit guidance that says in the main biographical article, we are to use latest gender identification. I see no reason that wouldn't apply to pictures. Again, your quote, by the section caption, explicitly does not apply to what we have here. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I think what you are advocating is a change to the MoS rather than adherence to the current version (which is of course fine). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: I'm going by both MOS:GENDERID and the RFC closure which established / ratified that section of the manual. The RFC placed significant emphasis on the need to consider context, as well as the need to avoid over-emphasis of past names. I have changed the caption to be gender-neutral. Murph9000 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure of which RFC you mean, but if it countermands the plain wording of MOS:GENDERID, then I certainly think the wording should be changed. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification. My statements above are based on memory of reading it thoroughly in the past. I didn't re-read it fully for this discussion, so if I got anything wrong in my memory of it, I apologise and accept that. It does not so much contradict the manual as acknowledge that the correct handling of history is tricky where there is a change of gender involved, to both reasonably represent history and properly respect the individual's current preference. Yes, the manual probably could do with additional clarification for the handling of photograph captions. This article complicates things by not being a single person's biography, so slightly straddles the line between primary article and other article. I think the ideal solution here would be to get a current photograph of the sisters, or two individual current photos, and use that/them instead, but they don't make all that many public appearances. For now, I think the gender-neutral caption is a good approach, but I'm not going to turn this into a campaign if others feel strongly that it should go a different way. Murph9000 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

deadname

Using their deadnames (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deadname), in the first paragraph "... formerly..." is nothing which is necessary for the article and it is even very impolite and disrespectful in coversations with people or refering to them, it's something you just do not do. ng0 (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out." They both were. Equinox ◑ 18:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm an ancient, but only ever-so-slightly-active Wikipedian, so I'm very out-of-touch with processes. Would you happen to know where I go to initiate the process of getting this changed, or to effectively voice my feelings in a place where it is already undergoing change? (= ELLIOTTCABLE (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The guideline's talk page would probably be the best place for that sort of discussion, although it might be better over at the BLP policy talk page. However, we recently had that very conversation and reached no consensus. I should note that there was very little, if any, support for removing deadnames of people who were famous before transitioning. -- Irn (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Constructive edits of this day

I was bold in moving a sub-section of information on influences, out of early life and education, because some of the works, and periods of influence, coincide not with early life but with their adult years (per the sources, e.g., re-reading Homer while working on Matrix).

Otherwise, I hope I have not offended, in putting birth names back into the early life section. Encyclopedias are resources for research and further study. The two had one pair of names until a particular actual date, and after that date, they each had a different name. And the dates for each are distinct.

Not allowing the first pair of names to appear with the events during which they went by those names obscures the factual material, especially for young people using the encyclopedia as a resource. We need to make clear, under which names particular events will be found associated, in further research (e.g., that the two went to school, while young, under their birth names). There is no agenda here, apart from clarity vis-a-vis the association of historical events with particular names, for the longterm value of the encyclopedia as a resource. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My reckoning is we present the history respectfully, truthfully, and factually; and without any emphasis or theatrical production about it. I think it's much more disrespectful to hide it away like a dirty secret (which it absolutely isn't and should not be). The previous phases of their lives had huge global notability, arguably making a permanent and significant impact on the film industry. We have a duty to history to accurately document that while remaining respectful. We also keep it reasonably minimised, and that point is what may end up being debated. I'm not going to revert you on it, but another WP:BRD cycle may be underway. Murph9000 (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wachowskis/Archive_2&oldid=1137245460"