User talk:Matrixism

The history of this article raises the bar exceptionally high for quality. As such, one of the things that NEEDS to happen next BEFORE a revisit by editors is proper citation. Just noting sources is not enough; the facts in the few paragraphs written need to be actually cited, page and verse, for the books. The facts that need individual citation would include number of followers, for example. And any mention of ANY topic which is itself wikified (religion, for example) should be linked to that entry. Jfarber 10:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Completely agree - the content has to be attributable to reliable sources, not the geo-cities web site, which is a legitimate external link for this article. Addhoc 22:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I used numbers to associate citations with the appropriate references. Would appreciate is someone could put them in the proper format so I could learn from the example. 206.124.144.3 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at the working article for this title User:Xoloz/Matrixism. The references and citations for it are extremely thorough (see list below). This article should be published. Otherwise wikipedia would appear to be arbitrarily biased.


 * Bouma, Gary (2007). Australian Soul, Cambridge University Press. ISBN-13 978-0521673891
 * Morris, Linda (2005, May 19). They're all God Movies. NPR. Retrieved on 2006-08-05.
 * Moscaritolo, Maria (2006, June 12). Matter of faith. News Limited Australia. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
 * Possamai, Adam (2005). "Religion and Popular Culture: A Hyper-Real Testament", Peter Lang Publishing Group. ISBN 90-5201-272-5 / US-ISBN 0-8204-6634-4 pb.
 * Jordison, Sam (2006, April 8). Everything you always wanted to know about sects. The Scotsman. Retrieved on 2007-05-04.
 * Kohn, Rachael. The Spirit of Things, Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National, August 20, 2006.
 * Whibley, Amanda (2005, November 18). God.com: Preaching the Word in a consumer-driven world. University of Western Sydney. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
 * Johnson, Phil (2005, April 10). Matrixism. Circle of Pneuma. Retrieved on 2007-04-02.
 * Jordison, Sam (2005). The Joy of Sects, Robson Books. ISBN 1861059051


 * 24.20.252.74 19:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Second holy day?
The article currently says "one of the two holy days...is" but then does not go on to mention a second holy day. Either we should mention the second holy day (w/ citation?), or rewrite the that paragraph to simply say "Matrixism celebrates date, the birthday of _______, ________, and ________, as a holy day." This would need to be cited. Can we find other citation than the geocities page? It seems unreliable. Jfarber 10:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by unreliable. The complete URL for Matrixism (http://www.geocities.com/matrixism2069) is written into the content of several sources cited by this article (sources 1,4,7&9). If nothing else the website has been documented as being authoritative. 206.124.144.3 16:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this deleted?
When I searched for Matrixism on Wikipedia I found that the main article had been deleted. I'm not exactly sure why it was deleted, but I still don't think this article should be going if an article on the same subject was bad enough to qualify for speedy deletion.


 * The AfD resulted in a merge and redirect. Addhoc 23:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The general consensus at that time was indeed merge and redirect. And rightfully so: the article depended on one geocities primary source as a reference, reported the findings of that page indiscriminantly, and was otherwise uncited.   But discussion in the light of numerous mentions in various citable sources since then has suggested that if an article were written well, and with those new academic-press citations, it would clear the usual bars for article creation.   (In other words, just because the article was silly before doesn't mean it was an inherently silly topic.   Assuming, of course, that "it was once deemed not worth writing" is not mistaken for "the subject does not and will never deserve coverage" by Af(un)D at that time, we believe the project worth working on.  Or are we to assume that no subject ever changes in its relevance?  If so, I hope nothing ever happens again, because we're going to be looking pretty out of date without articles on those not-yet-viable topics once they turn out to matter much, and to many.)  Jfarber 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the past, multiple supposed sources, upon further examination, have turned out to mention Matrixism only in passing, and seemingly took the webpage at face value. To date there is still no clear evidence that such a religious movement even exists outside a lone Geocities page and a series of edits from IP addresses to Wikipedia promoting that page. Philwelch 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone believes the religion truly exists - the hoax is in itself notable, however, due to the amount of press coverage, mentions in publications, etc. Neil   ム  10:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a rather new tack—and still, I would have to say no. It's gotten a minimal amount of press coverage, and it just plain is not notable enough to merit mention in Wikipedia. The Jedi census phenomenon was a notable hoax. While there may be some prejudice against Matrixism (not only on my part but on the part of others as well), most of this is because we've dealt with people (or possibly the same person) trying to use Wikipedia to promote Matrixism since 2005. Sure, it's evolved from a blatant linkspamming campaign to a subtle linkspamming campaign with a touch of undue weight and a veneer of credibility thrown in, but it's still self-promotion. Plus, the anonymous edits trying to push Matrixism have, in the past, used references that were either just plain wrong or vastly overstated—mostly, someone taking the Geocities cite at face value. Given this history of misleading references, I would strongly suggest that any supposed references that are not readily available online should be reviewed before they are considered for use. Philwelch 10:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Recreation
The page has been recreated following work on it at User:Neil/Matrixism. Please continue to improve it! Neil  (not Proto ►)  17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well
That's not how DRV works. I am disinclined to grant such a request from a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest, especially if the request comes paired with a threat.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since obviously this account was only created to stir up trouble with respect to a deletion presently under review, it has been blocked indefintely.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Current Work on Matrixism Article
A working Matrixism article and current discussion can be found at User:Xoloz/Matrixism. 206.124.144.3 11:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Xoloz deleted the working version of the Matrixism after its content was merged with the article titled "The Matrix (series)". Since that merger the content on Matrixism has been altered considerably to the point that it no longer resembles the Matrixism article at all. For this reason a new working article on Matrixism has been started at User:TR166ER/Matrixism. 206.188.56.24 18:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently Wikipedia references Matrixism in the article The Matrix (series). 71.231.122.22 (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)