Talk:Bound (1996 film)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Ratings (re: GA nom)
Just a brief comment (not an official review), but I'm unsure about the list of ratings. It is purely a list, violates Wikipedia is not a video guide and is out of context. The JPStalk to me 10:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I reckon the article is spot on. If it weren't for that list, I would happily pass it. The JPStalk to me 10:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've been mulling this over for a few days. I hadn't realised his template was so controversial, but I've been looking at its talkpage, AFD etc. I'm not sure I agree with you 100% but I think you're probably right in that it doesn't really add much to this particular article. So, I'm just going to take it out. Thanks for your comments. --BelovedFreak 11:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Promoted to GA
The article is broad in coverage, has many reliable sources; non-free media have appropriate rationales. Well done. (For the record, the ratings template thing was a preference of mine -- I wouldn't have stood in the way of someone else promoting the article with it, but i don't think it adds anything at all. Plus, ratings can change through time and/or different mediums.) The JPStalk to me 14:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
GA Sweeps
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Overlinking
To the anonymous Citigroup editor with changing a IP address; please explain why you think that the common word "sex" needs to be linked, and why this isn't a case of overlinking. I also don't understand why you feel the need to link to lesbian sexual practices. I think that most people reading this article will understand what a lesbian is; linking to that article does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film. It seems a little gratuitous to me. The point of he plot detail is that their relationship became a sexual one, not what exactly they got up to. I will leave your change for a day or two in the hopes that you engage in discussion here. --BelovedFreak 13:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Wachowskis/Wachowski Sisters
I have just reverted some good faith edits that had changed "Wachowski Brothers" to "Wachowskis". While it is my understanding that the Wachowskis are now credited like that, when Bound was released, they were credited as "The Wachowski Brothers" and "Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski". (See this poster). I don't think it's really relevant what they are known as now (although am happy to discuss it of course). For example, when actors change their names after getting married or divorced, we continue to credit them as they were known at the time a film was made. (eg. "Courteney Cox" vs. "Courteney Cox Arquette" I have also started a thread at the Film Wikiproject to try to check wider consensus.--BelovedFreak 11:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Not that I have a very strong opinion about it, but when I consider your point it seems to me that if they are being CREDITED, if an article title uses the former name, if someone is QUOTED using the former name, then leave it. But the article is talking refering to TODAY'S entities looking back at something they did in the past. Consider your best friend having had a sex change changes his name from Larry to Lana. You wouldn't tell a story at dinner and say "Remember when Larry stepped on that rake and it hit him in the face?" You would alter the story and say "Do you remember the time that Lana stepped on that rake and it hit her in the face." even though it was "Larry" who did it at the time. This is why I left the handful of "Wachowski Brothers" citations at the bottom of the article. All of this said, as I think about this I'm sure Wikipedia has a protocol for this exact scenario and one of the superusers will step in and clarify. Thanks for your side of this work... ours is a worthy effort. Bricktopus (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose that makes sense, so if there was a quote from L. Wachowski speaking in 2011 about this particular film, we could use "Lana Wachowski", as long as we avoid any unnecessary confusion. Cartainly, we try to be respectful to individual gender identities on Wikipedia. This particular situation isn't helped by the fact that it's all a bit vague anyway with respect to what she is now officially known as. Currently, the best we have on the Wachowskis article is "In December 2010, The Hollywood Reporter referred to the Wachowskis as, "Andy and Lana (formerly Larry) Wachowski"".--BelovedFreak 18:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- You say we try to be respectful of gender identities, but reversions like this smack of prejudice. If someone identifies as female, and you refuse to acknowledge this and continue to refer to them with male pronouns etc., that is disrespectful. Note I did not change any quotes or titles of past articles; I only changed the prose and metadata, which should be told from a present-day perspective. If every article were limited to telling only the facts available at the time they were written, then Michael Jackson's page should read that he IS "an American recording artist, entertainer, and businessman" rather than "was". You claimed that this subject was "not uncontroversial", but what exactly is controversial about updating an article to be more accurate? There is nothing vague about this in the least. Lana is a woman. You don't need an official source to deduce the proper way to refer to two siblings who do not share the same gender. It's either "The Wachowskis" or "The Wachowski siblings". The latter is awkward phrasing in English, and the former is already the title of their article's page, so I opted for that. It's nitpicky stuff like this that makes me want to avoid contributing to Wikipedia at all. --Hughguiney (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're referring to prejudice of Wikipedia in general, or me personally, but I fail to see where I have shown prejudice, or in fact insisted on referring to this person with male pronouns (see above comment dated 3 May). Just because it's a sensitive topic, it is not the case that all decisions around it are influenced by prejudice. When I say "controversial", I mean simply that there has been much discussion on this in the past and previously little consensus. It seems nitpicky, but how she is described (or rather, named) in this article about a topic from 1996 is a different matter to how she is named in the article on the Wachowskis. (see the Courteney Cox comparison above).
- You say we try to be respectful of gender identities, but reversions like this smack of prejudice. If someone identifies as female, and you refuse to acknowledge this and continue to refer to them with male pronouns etc., that is disrespectful. Note I did not change any quotes or titles of past articles; I only changed the prose and metadata, which should be told from a present-day perspective. If every article were limited to telling only the facts available at the time they were written, then Michael Jackson's page should read that he IS "an American recording artist, entertainer, and businessman" rather than "was". You claimed that this subject was "not uncontroversial", but what exactly is controversial about updating an article to be more accurate? There is nothing vague about this in the least. Lana is a woman. You don't need an official source to deduce the proper way to refer to two siblings who do not share the same gender. It's either "The Wachowskis" or "The Wachowski siblings". The latter is awkward phrasing in English, and the former is already the title of their article's page, so I opted for that. It's nitpicky stuff like this that makes me want to avoid contributing to Wikipedia at all. --Hughguiney (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I believe my last revert was a little over-zealous, for which I apologise, and I have reinstated some of your changes. Bear in mind it's been a little while since I was looking at Wachowski stuff, and the use of "Lana Wachowski" seems now to be accepted by the mainstream (ie. reliable sources that Wikipedia relies on.) That said, statements like "Lana is a woman" or "siblings who do not share the same gender" are certainly not uncontroversial and should certainly not be added to any article without references to high quality reliable sources. The Biographies of living persons policy is relevant here. Unless there is some official word from Wachowski herself (and she understandably may never make any such statement) how can we be sure exactly how she identifies? At this time (from what I can gather from the sources I've seen) all we really know is that she know goes by the name "Lana". None of that is really relevant for this article though.
- I have left the "Wachowski brothers" in the infobox. The infobox reflects the film credits (not present-day perspective) and so in my opinion should be left as is. If you want to get further discussion on that, I again would recommend the Wikipedia film project as this page does not receive much traffic. --BelovedFreak 15:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- The way the main text of the article handles the sisters' identity is a good compromise (it calls the sisters The Wachowskis but then adds a pop-up note with the original, now incorrect, credits, for reference.) I don't see why the sidebar should be handled differently. Yes, I see that the page about infoboxes says that "name changes" shouldn't be reflected. However changing "Wachowski Brothers" to "Wachowskis" isn't really a name change but a title change. In any case, misgendering trans people is hurtful, and should probably be considered a special case. In my view the the MoS guidelines for respecting people's gender identity should supersede the guideline about info boxes. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- In view of the ongoing debate in relation to this issue and the inconsistency in regards to how the Wachowskis are referred to among related articles I have started a discussion at Talk:The Matrix Reloaded#The Wachowski credit in the lead in attempt to resolve the issue across all affected articles. Betty Logan (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)