Talk:The Matrix/Archive 6

The Matrix is a "White savior narrative in film"
The article White savior narrative in film declares that The Matrix is a member of that class of film. To support this idea, The Matrix is described as "In the science fiction film, a white computer hacker (played by Keanu Reeves) is rescued from being plugged into a computer system, by a black character, and becomes a messiah figure who confronts all-white villains. Black characters serve him as disciples." The editor who guards the article and wrote that absurd description will not hear of any argument, any contrary edits will be reverted, so don't even try unless you have the stomach for a months' long battle. 202.81.248.27 (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Rather than start a parallel thread about a different article, let's just consider this message a notice of a discussion that may be of interest to editors on this page: Talk:White savior narrative in film &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

While there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:White savior narrative in film, it should be noted that multiple sources note the white savior trope in this film. In particular, the academic book The White Savior Film by a sociology professor lists The Matrix among the films its assesses. Editors can personally disagree with this classification, but this does not overturn the sources when it comes to Wikipedia's coverage. In addition, this should not be perceived to mean that The Matrix is a racist movie. This trope is one that is assessed through a sociological lens, meaning the placement of the film and its elements in society. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Multiple sources"? There is only one citation in the article, to the book you hold in such esteem as to base an entire article on the list it contains and then to go around labelling films such as this as having a racist agenda. No matter if it is in print, this is a purely subjective opinion by one person. WP:UNDUE should apply; there are thousands of reviews and analyses of The Matrix. What proportion describe it as a "white saviour" film? One? Two? 202.81.248.27 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The list article is actually not based on the Hughey book. It is only referenced a couple of times. The book came after the list was put together, but it does list many of the films and even more. This means that the Hughey book helps validate multiple films on the list. In addition, please see the current state of the article where there is more commentary available for The Matrix. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I do think that the phrase is misleading in this article and in fact, it dilutes its own power by mistakenly being applied to this film which doesn't subscribe to the actual and troubling trope. It's wrong and there are only one or two people mistakenly using it. The Matrix, unlike say Avatar or Last Samurai or any of the countless others, was race-neutral cast. WILL SMITH was supposed to be Neo! The role wasn't written for a white savior, just a savior. You can't replace Kevin Costner with a non-white actor in Dances with Wolves and it be the same movie. But you can with Reeves in the Matrix. I agree this conversation should be on that page, but this is an example of editorial overbearing and putting undue weight on the mistaken, albeit published word, of a small few. Also, it's an unreasonable expectation to find sources stating that the film is not an example of the White Savior Narrative because who bothers to write unprompted counterfactuals? We should define members of the category narrowly, by including only films which meet the rules established, not wantonly and widely including any movie any one ever mentioned fits. JesseRafe (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What phrase are you referring to? The row for The Matrix now includes commentary from multiple sources. I would argue that WP:UNDUE does not apply because the film's listing is within the context of the sociological topic. It would be undue weight to write too much about the white savior in the film's article itself. (I'm not sure if it would warrant a sentence or a paragraph there, but I doubt a full section, considering the other sub-topics.) In regard to writing about whether or not The Matrix has a white savior, you're right that there is not anyone directly disputing the white savior trope. But see what the sociologist said, that it is not a zero-sum definition. Having a white savior does not mean that other elements cannot be had or take precedent. My concern here is that people have a base reaction to this categorization and are referencing their own viewings of the movie to shape content on Wikipedia. The row for this film already mentions someone referring to the black characters as the stars of the movie. This commentary does not mean the film should be removed, just that the commentary should have in-text attribution. Another film, McFarland, USA, has the director saying they did not intend a white savior film, but that was observed by others anyway. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the list article I refer to is white savior narrative in film. The WP:UNDUE example is the Flat Earth theory, which is at explicit odds with mainstream science. Based on the sociologist's comments, a viewing through a sociological lens is not at explicit odds with the general viewing of the film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Erik's reference to "undue weight" test is key here. 125.209.180.91 (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: Erik, the creator of the "white savior" article, has started an RFC  on the talk page of his article about The Matrix. Evidently he didn't think anyone here woud be interested, but in case you are, I copy the notice below: Talk:White savior narrative in film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.248.232 (talk)
 * That's a good idea. Thanks for sharing here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Credits in infobox
In the past 30 days, I have seen edit warring over the "Directed by" and "Written by" credits in the infobox, between having "The Wachowski Brothers" and "The Wachowskis". The article's lead section uses "The Wachowskis" based on the RfC above. To have "The Wachowskis" in the lead section and "The Wachowski Brothers" in the infobox seems inconsistent. We do have Template:Infobox film that appears based on this discussion from August 2012: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 42. However, I do not think the infobox has to be an exact mimicry of the credits. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. For example, if such sources overwhelmingly identify a person as being director, writer, etc. despite the official credits not reflecting this, we would include it. I would suggest extending the same logic applied in having "The Wachowskis" in the lead section, to the infobox as well. However, I do think we need a note of some sort, perhaps in both places, where we can state the crediting detail at the time. Thoughts on this? Pinging recently involved editors, , , , , ,. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the edit-warring has been by and will continue to be by editors, whether anonymous or not, who ignore or even delete the no wiki notes directing them how to link/credit the Wachowskis. The solution is only either: to let it be changed to Wachowskis, keep it permanently protected, or constantly revert. The edits away from "Wachowski Brothers" will not abate on their own and the < > warnings will not be heeded no matter how they're worded or where they're placed -- that's just not how those editors are using the encyclopedia. Plus, if anyone were to write about them or the movie now, they'd not use "brothers" unless specifically talking about how it was credited. JesseRafe (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This page is still ridiculous. Wikipedia policy should guide but should not be applied so rigidly. They are accurately, and not controversially, referred to as the Wachowskis. Recognition of what they are, qualified by a footnote about what they were, would be an accurate, informative and inclusive way of referring to them. I'm not saying Wikipedia policy on this point should be ignored or discarded . In fact it should serve as the default position, but where in this case, interested parties want to learn about those who wrote, directed and produced these groundbreaking films, it should be recognised that accuracy, efficiency and other countervailing factors weigh in favour of displacing the default position and referring to Lilly and Lana was "the Wachowskis (formerly... ".This outcome hurts no one and presumably matters to at least two people. Application of policy must be flexible. This limitation on decision makers has been recognised in judicial review for decades. 125.209.180.91 (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me, that since the Wachowskis are no longer "brothers", and are now referred to as "The Wachowskis" in every media reference, that we should respect that and no longer use "brothers". Continuing to use "brothers" would be like insisting that Caitlin Jenner still be called "Bruce". Hannibal Smith   ❯❯❯  22:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I came here from recent changes, and have no opinion other than making such a change with an edit summary of they are not brothers anymore. they are sisters seemed to be obvious vandalism. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I already offered a suggestion on this, using the notes as used by opening title at Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain so it'd be The Wachowski Brothers[a]. "Respect" is a word bandied around a lot in these discussions to attempt to establish a moral high ground for one side of the debate, as in "if you are not doing what I suggest, you have no respect". History isn't about respect, it's about reflecting the truth ugly or otherwise, Wikipedia is not a fan article, it's meant to be an encyclopedia, and retroactively modifying history for an individual is not respecting them, it's insulting every reader. If you're more interested in coddling a group or individual than helping build towards a respected encylopedia to be used by the world for knowledge, then you are in the wrong place and should go over to the Matrix fan Wikia. If they outright changed their name to the Zibberdoodas, the Matrix would still be known as a Wachowski film, that name is famously associated with the film and to change all the credits to Zibberdoodas would be confusing. And if they did change their name to the Zibberdoodas without changing genders, I don't think nearly as big a deal would be made about constantly trying to change the information on this page. This isn't a BIO, and any information here is not reflective of them and it's not meant to be an account of their lives, their later personal history is not involved at any time in any way with this production. So knock that "respect" high ground stuff off. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the infobox should reflect the credits, and thus use "The Wachowski Brothers". The lead and first main body instance can use "The Wachowskis (then known as The Wachowski Brothers)" and everything else should use "the Wachowskis". This way we reflect the preferred nomenclature of the two as currently expressed, but also accept that at the time they were not known by that name, and to claim otherwise would not be correct.
 * Different trans people have different opinions on this stuff. Say someone changed their name from Darryl to Sophie - some trans people would say that they were always Sophie, others would say that they were Darryl but now are Sophie. It's personal preference as to which is correct for each person, and neither is inherently wrong. I do not know what the opinion of the Wachowskis is on this matter, but I would personally go with a royal perspective on matters. Queen Elizabeth II was not always queen, once she was Princess Elizabeth - to refer to her pre-accession as queen would be incorrect. There's a person called Elizabeth, but before 1952 she was using the title Princess Elizabeth, now she goes by Queen Elizabeth. An article about such things may well say "Princess Elizabeth (the future Queen Elizabeth II)", and thereafter refer to her just as "Elizabeth". In the same way, there are two people called the Wachowskis. Once they were known as The Wachowski Brothers, now they're known as The Wachowskis. We can call them The Wachowski Brothers, note they now use a different name, and thereafter use the small-T "the" version. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this page isn't on my watchlist, but V for Vendetta (film) is, which has the same issue. When I see it changed there, I check the editor's contribs to see if they did it elsewhere. I think a solid compromise between the credits and their current names would be to handle it the same way as author's writing under pseudonyms (see The Long Walk), ie: The Wachowskis writing as The Wachowski Brothers. I've made this suggestion before, but it didn't get much traction. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with Argento Surfer's suggestion? It would seem to solve everything and has precedent. Can we all have a grown-up's discussion about it? 125.209.180.91 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment This issue was discussed in depth at Talk:The_Matrix_Reloaded. The general view is that they were credited as The Wachowski Brothers and it is important to retain the formal credit, but also they are now known as The Wachowskis and that should be acknowledged in some way too. The discussion didn't arrive at a conesnsus but it did arrive at an understanding that the only way forward is probably a combination style solution or use of a note. The next step proposed was taking it to the village pump so should we push ahead with that rather than persisting with yet another local discussion? Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, a wider discussion would be great. Even if the status quo is maintained here, though, I still think we should include notes. We should not just assume that passerby readers and editors "get" the distinction between use of "The Wachowskis" and "The Wachowski Brothers" in the lead section and the infobox, respectively. Do you want to launch it, or should I? What page is it exactly? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The suggetsion was to have it at the village pump to attract a wider audience, but really the discussion needs to be framed in such a way to arrive at a solution. There have been several discussions on this issue and they all end with a split between those who want to use the current name and those who want to use the original credit. Both points are valid—our articles need to respect MOS:IDENTITY but we are also documenting authorship too so ideally a solution needs to accommodate both of these factors. Betty Logan (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

, I find it problematic to just write "Wachowski Brothers" throughout the whole article. There is a case made above to use "Wachowski Brothers" for the crediting, but not everywhere else. It's simple enough to just write Wachowskis throughout the article body. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. I was restoring the article to how it was until three days ago. But I'm okay with using "the Wachowskis" in the article body as it is neutral, as long as that use does not seem to be reflecting an official credit. Official credits need to remain historically accurate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the such a thing as a "neutral accent"?
Article says, "He developed a neutral accent . . . ." Is there such a thing as a neutral accent? If a source refers to such a thing, does that render that source unreliable? (PeacePeace (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC))

Gibberish
"Once one accepts The Matrix as a generated reality of malicious machines invention then this is Descartes' First Meditation, or evil demon, a hypothesis that the perceived world might be a comprehensive illusion created to deceive us.” A completely unintelligible sentence. The ensuing discussion of Kant is equally obtuse and overreaching. Kant's notion of the synthetic a priori has nothing to do with the with the modern concept of “synthetic” intelligence. The article generally smacks of an effort to sound “cool” instead of cooly reasoned. To write that “The role made Moss...” followed by a comma and other information sets the reader up with the expectation that we will learn what exactly it “made” her. Only after stumbling back to the beginning are we aware that the writer is speaking idiomatic Hollywoodese. Orthotox (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on The Matrix. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/2003/11/matrix/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://scis.nova.edu/~rbuckley/Film%20Essay.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sbc.ac.in/voice/bullet.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tracksounds.com/reviews/matrix_music_from.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.screened.com/news/under-the-influence-the-matrix/2218/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209012608/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=364
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/deuce-bigalow-male-gigolo
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,198378,00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/marx_enters_the_matrix
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2001/03/03/conkers-bad-fur-day
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20030514%2FREVIEWS%2F305140301%2F1023
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2003/05/15/the_matrix_reloaded_2003_review.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2003/05/23/the-animatrix
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://asia.gamespot.com/enter-the-matrix/reviews/enter-the-matrix-review-6028627/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/04/15/the-matrix-online
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://asia.gamespot.com/the-matrix-online/reviews/the-matrix-online-review-6121636/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/11/17/the-matrix-path-of-neo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2018
Add Category:Science fiction adventure films per https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-matrix-1999 MDBilly (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC) MDBilly (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * A single review does not make this an "adventure" film. None of the American Film Institute, British Film Institute, Allmovie, TCM and IMDB regard The Matrix as an "adventure" film. They all consider it a science-fiction film or a science-fiction/action film. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)