Talk:The Wachowskis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Book Plug[edit]

I removed the plug for the upcoming book about their lives from the intro. It might be appropriate to mention it somewhere in the article, but made zero sense being in the introduction as they didn't write the book and doesn't in anyway factor into the significance of their work. Someone else wrote it. It seemed like a shameless plug for someone else's work, at least given its placement in the intro.

Switch to independent articles for each person[edit]

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

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

More recent pictures[edit]

WP:SNOWCLAUSE to remove picture, with no objections from editors. Picture only to be re-added to the infobox if it is an updated image showing the two people post-transitioned. Having a pre-transitioned picture of the duo further down in the text can be further discussed in a separate section. aNode (discuss) 06:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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