Talk:The Matrix/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

The Wachowskis

Shouldn't the "The Wachowskis Brothers" be changed to "The Wachowskis" since they're not going by that name anymore since they transitioned? ZeroDayNuclear (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

See the lengthy discussion above. Film pages use people's names from the time when they worked on the film, in this case Larry and Andy Wachowski and "The Wachowskis". The latter especially since it was a collective pseudonym. Lordtobi (✉) 05:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, there is no overarching guideline or policy supporting that "Film pages use people's names from the time when they worked on the film". There is a purely local consensus that exists here. It would be much better to write "The Wachowskis (credited as The Wachowski Brothers)" because right now the presentation looks outdated. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It is an overreaching guideline at least for the film infobox, as found in its docs. IMO, "The Wachowskis (credited as The Wachowski Brothers)" reads to me like they accidentally miscredited the directors when the film released (it could equally be "The Wachowskis (credited as The Washowskees)", which also points towards an error). A better solution there would be "The Wachowski Brothers (now known as The Wachowskis)", as it is unambigous and includes the correct chronological order. It also avoids the neccesity of changing the name throughout the entire article. However, as far as I recall, it has been declined to use this format, though I wouldn't be against its inclusion (if used unambigously). Lordtobi (✉) 13:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think a parallel to draw would be directors' uses of pseudonyms. We would not "play along" with that to write just the pseudonym (and concealing the real name in a piped link). I'm not sure if writing "<pseudonym> (alias for <real name>)" would fly either, for the same reason. The reality-based name should come first as the most explicit and direct approach, followed by whatever explanation is warranted. Wikipedia can afford to be dynamic and "live". In any case, I don't see this particular consensus changing for now. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This situation is not analogous to a creator using a pseudonym, and it should not be treated as such. There is nothing wrong with a credit looking "out of date" when the work is decades old - though in this case it doesn't look out of date to me, and the Wachowskis have never asked to have their pre-2010 credits changed. An encyclopedia needs to respect history. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe Talk:The Matrix/Archive 5#RfC: How should the directors of this film be presented in the lead? was the last RfC on the issue followed by the AN discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive928#User:Betty Logan "overriding" an RfC close at Talk:The Matrix. There would be reasonable cause to revisit the issue in a properly-formed RfC that notifies all Matrix film talk pages along with WT:FILM, but I think the options presented need to be thoroughly discussed and past discussion links included in the description. Until then, the current consensus is to refer to the directors as "The Wachowskis" in this article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's interesting to note that in the recent UHD 4K Blu-ray release of the films, "The Wachowskis" is referenced on the back cover. I wonder if this has changed in the end credits as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Reissues don't affect how the original release was credited. Support "The Wachowski Brothers (now known as The Wachowskis)" for reasons above. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

If a redistribution of a work modifies the credit, it may indicate that those being credited have demanded the change. I was addressing a point above that there has been no indication that this credit change was ever demanded, and this would point to the contrary. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but at the very least, a new RfC would be needed to override the previous one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Note – I restored the previous phrasing in the lead per the RfC linked above. In addition, I've added a footnote that should help satisfy any concerns that some mention of the original credit be kept. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Just adding my voice here that "Brothers" should not be used here, except with "credited as". The humans referred to here are not brothers, and do not use the term "Brothers" to refer to themselves or in their current media. It reads awkwardly. Camipco (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

They are brothers, not sisters. That's just a biological fact. Self-identification doesn't trump biology because that would require the wholesale rejection of empirical science, which would go against everything Wikipedia stands for. However, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on identification instruct us to be sensitive on this issue and respect self-identification where it does not obfuscate a fact i.e. this is also an issue of courtesy and respect, as well as factual accuracy. In this case they are now identified as "The Wachowskis" and we should follow suit where it is feasible, but "The Wachowski Brothers" also serves as part of the formal credit; on this basis, where we are clearly discussing them as people we should refer to them as "The Wachowskis", but where we refer to them in the context of authorship we should refer to them as "The Wachowski Brothers" because this is the name under which they are credited. Betty Logan (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

They are sisters. I'm surprised that someone has said the quiet part out loud - that the desire to emblazon the Wachowski sisters' pages with the phrase "Wachowski Brothers" often doesn't reflect a neutral desire to preserve the historical record but, instead, a basic lack of respect for trans people and a lack of understanding of what science says gender identity. WanderingWanda (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know much about this subject, but is the following really true (or neutral): "That's just a biological fact. Self-identification doesn't trump biology because that would require the wholesale rejection of empirical science, which would go against everything Wikipedia stands for"? At the very least "note 1" should fully deal with the matter. Rwood128 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that to clarify this matter note 1 be revised to read as follows:

The Wachowskis, formerly the Wachowski Brothers, are trans sisters, Lana Wachowski (formerly Laurence "Larry" Wachowski, born June 21, 1965) and Lilly Wachowski (formerly Andrew Paul' "Andy" Wachowski, born December 29, 1967)

:Lana Wachowski (formerly Laurence "Larry" Wachowski, born June 21, 1965) and Lilly Wachowski (formerly Andrew Paul' "Andy" Wachowski, born December 29, 1967) They are sisters, and are both trans women. Collectively known as the Wachowskis and formerly as the Wachowski Brothers, they have worked as a writing and directing team through most of their professional film careers.

This is now an edited version of the opening paragraph of the lede of The Wachowskis. Rwood128 (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rwood128 I understand the desire to clarify the situation for people that might be confused, but the Manual of Style says: "do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned." It's not really relevant to an article about the Matrix. An analogy: if a director has had a name change because of marriage, you might expect an article about one of their films to have a short note saying that their name is different now, but it would be weird if the article tried to explain the change in detail: 'so-and-so is a married woman who was born so-and-so on August 4, 1954, before marrying so-and-so on September 16...' etc. WanderingWanda (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't know how many times it has to be said that regardless of what you want to imagine yourself to be, you can't rewrite history. You're white knighting for people you've never met and have no conception of their wants or needs, and yet you're constantly demanding that history alter itself to respect an individuals view. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda "Referring to the person in other articles

Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned." This isn't a bio. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake "brothers" isn't a name, it's a gendered noun. The guidelines say "gendered nouns" should "reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification" and this "applies in references to any phase of that person's life". In any case, when it comes to names, it does not say "use their old names whenever there is even the slightest excuse." It says to look at it on a "case-by-case" basis and, in this case, there is no reason to misgender the Wachowski sisters. "The Wachowskis" is the best, clearest, most respectful, and most neutral way to refer to them. I'm just trying to make Wikipedia follow best practices on this issue. No mainstream publication would call the Wachowski sisters "brothers" in an article about their work. I'm trying really hard to be fair minded and to see both sides of this issue but it's hard when I hear loaded phrases like "what you want to imagine yourself to be". All mainstream medical and psychiatric organizations agree that gender identity should be respected and not treated like something imagined or pathological. But I have come up with a fair compromise for people who are insistent that the article contains the exact, but now incorrect, credit that pops up at the end of the movie: that credit can be listed in a footnote, for reference. That way the Wachowskis are not misgendered at the top of the article but nothing is erased from the record. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Brothers is a name in this context. They were known professionally as The Wachowski Brothers. Not the Wachowski brothers. The capital changes it from an adjective to a proper noun, from a descriptor to a name. The film was directed by The Wachowski Brothers, who were at the time Wachowski brothers. I think it's like if a band changes their name - you don't go and change the name on all their back issues. But you do group it together. The infobox should state that it was directed by "The Wachowski Brothers", because that is how they are credited. The lead should probably say "The Wachowskis" (professional name), with a note saying they were then known as The Wachowski Brothers, and from thereon refer to "the Wachowskis" (non-name grouping of Wachowskis). -mattbuck (Talk) 22:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I can see your argument, but as any trans person could tell you, a band changing its name is not analogous to a pair of transgender sisters revealing their identity. If there is any doubt, it is better to err on the side of respecting a person's chosen gender identity if possible. It would be one thing if this was a case that could cause genuine confusion. But if you told the average person that the film The Matrix was "directed by the Wachowskis" would they be confused? Would they protest that you were being factually incorrect? I don't think so. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWands here's the thing though. I don't argue that, if we said the film was directed by "Andy and Larry Wachowski", we would be on the wrong side. The movie was directed by Lilly and Lana Wachowski, and yes we should respect their gender identities. But while they may be the people who directed the movie, the credit line is "The Wachowski Brothers". That was their professional name. There was no "The Wachowskis" then, only "The Wachowski Brothers". It is not erasing their gender identity to say that they were collectively called "The Wachowski Brothers". My opinion on this all along is that the correct way to go about this is as follows:

1. The Infobox says The Wachowski Brothers, on the grounds that that is what is in the credits
2. The lead and first reference in the body refers to "The Wachowskis, credited as The Wachowski Brothers" (capital The - proper noun).
3. Thereafter refer to "the Wachowskis" (lower-case the - merely a pronoun).

This was the prevailing consensus, and much as you keep arguing no one has come up with anything which has that level of support. But day after day editors come and change it because they are sure their interpretation of tea leaves or goat entrails means that The Wachowski Brothers should be erased from history. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mattbuck - if we're agreed that the Matrix was directed by a pair of women, and that the "The Wachowski Brothers" should be treated as a professional/pseudonymous/fictitious name, then we should look to see how other articles treat professional pseudonyms. I've never seen a single Wikipedia article say "directed by Alan Smithee". The encyclopedia always treats "Alan Smithee" credits as something to be mentioned parenthetically. They don't treat the credits that pop up at the end of the movie as Holy Writ and, instead, always say the movie was "directed by" whomever the actual director was. In this case, the actual directors are a pair of sisters, not brothers. Or: look at how albums by Wendy Carlos albums are treated. They credit her as "Wendy Carlos", and treat her old, dead name as parenthetical. Some people will say that's a different case because her albums have been reissued under her new name. But that's true of the Matrix too! I just checked Amazon - the most recent release of the trilogy says "Written introduction by The Wachowskis" (with a capital T). WanderingWanda (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, there have been thorough discussions on this in the past, which you can access at the links I provided above. Those discussions have to do with forming a consensus on how The Wachowskis are presented in the lead. A note was eventually added as well. For the infobox, I advise you take a look at Talk:The Matrix/Archive 5#"The Wachowskis" vs "The Wachowski Brothers". That's a separate beast, and I haven't seen anything in this discussion so far that wasn't already previously brought to the table. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi GoneIn60 , thank you. I'll point out that that discussion is a couple of years old and society is rapidly evolving on this issue, and that even in the discussion back then there was a lot of support for gendering the Wachowski sisters correctly. Reliable, mainstream sources now avoid misgendering the Wachowskis even when cataloging to their past work. See: NYTimes and Netflix. Changing the credits in the infobox to read the "Wachowskis" would be a simple, non-confusing, and conservative change, and if the infobox policy needs to change to accommodate this, then it should be. I'd like to invite everyone to look at my version of the article, which was reverted, as part of the BRD cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Matrix&oldid=880490308. It takes into account both sides of the issue - both the desire to respect The Wachowski's gender identity, but also the side that wants to preserve the original credits on the film. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner did not win the men's Olympic gold. You can discuss them however you want in the present as of their change and going forwards, but this is the stage name they used at the time. What are you respecting exactly. Do you have a personal relationship with the Wachowskis? Have they asked for their credits to be retroactively changed or have you assumed their wants and needs and taken it upon yourself to enact things as you see them? This is a tedious argument where we are constantly having to argue about rewriting history just to accommodate someone's "feelings", when is an encylopedia is a cold, unbiased, historical document of reference. I guarantee you they do not give a crap about what is on this Wikipedia article but if they did, it wouldn't matter, because your feelings don't factor into facts. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I admit, Darkwarriorblake, that I think you are being less "cold" and "unbiased" and factual than you think you are. And no, I am not particularly concerned with the Wachowski sisters' feelings about their Wikipedia page. They probably have better things to do than look themselves up on Wikipedia, like, say, hang out in a swimming pool full of money. :) I care more about the feelings of, say, the young transgender kid who logs onto a supposedly "neutral" and "fair" encyclopedia and sees that their identity and their history are angrily erased and bitterly debated. If you want to talk about cold facts instead of feelings, though, alright. Fact: The American Psychological Association says that you should use "names and pronouns that are appropriate to the person’s gender presentation and identity". Fact: the AP Style Book says: "Call people transgender only if relevant; give the name they use publicly; avoid references to being born a boy or girl." Fact: the validity of trans identities have been backed up by a variety of data. You can look at studies comparing the brains of trans and cis people, for example, or the case of David Reimer. Fact: trans people have been recognized for thousands of years. Fact: The Matrix was directed by two trans women. This article's current insistence on referring to them as "brothers" is pedantic, outdated, stubborn, biased, hypocritical, and outside the mainstream. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

So the "kid" wouldn't notice that this has already been accommodated in the lead paragraph? I'm not buying that, and while I don't hold significant stock in how its presented in the infobox, I think the arguments in favor of screen credits are slightly stronger for this area of the article. A reasonable path forward for adding a note might be to leave "The Wachowski Brothers" as the main text and placing "The Wachowskis" inside the note. Both sides might be more willing to accept that. In any case, I would suggest beginning a new RfC notifying all Matrix talk pages, WT:FILM, and Template Talk:Infobox film of the discussion. If you want it to cover all past works of the Wachowskis, then publish the RfC at WT:FILM, otherwise here works. I would also suggest keeping the number of options to a minimum. Maybe something like:

A) The Wachowski Brothers^[note], note reads: "Now known as The Wachowskis"

B) The Wachowskis^[note], note reads: "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers"

C) The Wachowski Brothers (no change)

Anything more than that increases the difficulty of assessing the RfC's closure. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

One reason the article should not say things like "directed by the Wachowski Brothers" is that it lacks clarity. If we are following Wikipedia's Manual of Style, or just standards of common decency, then we are respecting people's gender identities. It would be against Wikipedia's MoS, for example, to call a pair of trans women "brothers", even when referring to a period from before they came out publicly as women*. Some people have argued that "The Wachowski Brothers" is a proper title and therefore you can use it without really calling them brothers. But is that clear to the reader? Or, to the average reader, does it sound like you are calling them brothers? If we are honestly trying to respect their identities as women and follow the principles of good, clear, writing, then we should avoid that kind of construction. Saying it was "directed by the Wachowskis" is the clearest and most elegant way to handle it. (Since apparently a lot of people find it necessary to include the exact wording of the original credit, that can be added with a footnote.) WanderingWanda (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

*For the same reason you would not say that Neil Patrick Harris (or another gay celebrity) "used to be straight" just because there was a period where he was not publicly gay. Or if someone publicly came out as married, you wouldn't say they were "unmarried" during the period where their marriage wasn't public. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not equivalent. If Neil patrick Harris publicly presented as straight by constantly dating women, would you not mention the women he dated in his bio? Because it conflicts with his current gay status? There was an extensive, EXTENSIVE period where they used the stage name the Wachowski Brothers to make films. Not The Wachowskis (which they had the option to do), but the Wachowski Brothers, were married and I believe they had kids as well. Their current status does not erase their history, and if we are pretending that history was one way to help out a hypothetical trans kid reading the Matrix then where do we draw the line? Is it only people who you agree with that are offended we should protect or do we modify history as and when someone may be offended by something? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there hasn't been an RfC discussion on the infobox specifically, so if that's the area you'd like to see changed, your best chance of that happening is to begin one. RfC's are an efficient process of dispute resolution to solicit community-wide feedback, particularly from editors who haven't engaged in heated discussions on the topic. If you're not sure where to begin, there are plenty of areas on Wikipedia where you can ask for help. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you're not getting the answers you need. This discussion isn't going to lead to a solid consensus, so I'd advise escalating it at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

References

WanderingWanda have you heard of WP: CANVASSING? 07:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Darkwarriorblake. I tried very hard to unbiased and fair with my RfC. After I wrote my first draft of the poll question, for example, I read it over, decided it was biased, and tossed it out, and then spent hours crafting something that I thought was neutral and fair to both sides. I avoided sharing the RfC with friends, acquaintances, or anyone else whose opinions about the issue I knew. When I posted links to the RfC my thought was "where would a neutral robot think was a good place to post this link?" I'm happy to list where I posted it - I don't think an unbiased observer would find them controversial: 1. Talk:The Matrix ‎2. Talk:The Matrix Reloaded 3. Talk:WikiProject LGBT studies 4. Talk:WikiProject Gender Studies ‎‎5. Talk:WikiProject Film ‎6. Talk:The Wachowskis ‎7. Talk:The Matrix Revolutions ‎8. Talk:V for Vendetta (film) ‎9. Talk:Speed Racer (film) ‎10. Talk:Bound (1996 film) 11. Talk:WikiProject Science Fiction ‎(For the majority of those, to be honest, I cringed when I posted the link - thinking 'oh God, I bet most of the people who post here won't be on my side' but I went ahead anyway. :) ) Also, the two categories I posted it to were: Media and Style. WanderingWanda (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis

Multiple editors have asked me to create an RfC about the name issue, so I have! :) Since it covers multiple Wachowski films I thought the talk page for the The Matrix franchise would be a good place to put it:

Talk:The_Matrix_(franchise)#Request_for_Comment_-_Crediting_The_Wachowskis

WanderingWanda (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, All due respect, the description of the RfC is missing critical information. First, there's no reason to throw out the option to use footnotes. Second, it should list past discussion links including the one above on this page, especially the most recent RfC, which recommended using "The Wachowskis" in the lead with "The Wachowski Brothers" mentioned in a footnote. It also doesn't distinguish between the infobox and the lead lumping both together. I'm afraid it may not give the intended result, but we'll see what happens. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey GoneIn60, thanks for your input. 1. It does have past discussion links, including to the RfC you linked. 2. I don't know if it was the right approach but I decided simpler was better for the poll. Convoluted polls make me dizzy. It seems to me things boil down to this: are you more concerned with respecting the Wachowskis' gender identity? Or more concerned with preserving a record of the original credits? So I made those the two options. Also, I figured that if people had alternate proposals that they could "vote neither" and write in their own suggestions. I'll be honest, though, I'm a new wikipedia editor and I'm jumping feet first into this. I probably wouldn't have even made the poll if several people didn't ask me to. :) WanderingWanda (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, keeping it simple and beginning a new RfC were suggestions I gave (which by the way, I'm not seeing the "several people" you're referring to, but that's a moot point). You're right that people can write in their own suggestions, but keep in mind that if a lot of editors do that, it may make consensus difficult to assess resulting in "no consensus". I think having hidden footnotes as options on the table makes it more likely for both sides to come together, but I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You, user:Doniago (in the V for Vendetta talk page), and user:Erik (on my talk page) all suggested it. Anyway, I don't think I put footnotes off the table...or if I did, I at least put them on a nearby table. I do mention the possibility of using footnotes twice, even if I didn't specifically ask if footnotes should be used. BTW: I thought the note you added to the poll was a good addition. WanderingWanda (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a good faith effort on your part, and it's appreciated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a few days left on this RfC and opinions remain sharply divided. Have any insight into this issue or good conflict resolution skills? Your input could be very valuable. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The footnote credit for "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers"

How the footnote should appear in relevant Wachowski film articles is being discussed at Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 3#Footnote implementation. Please join the discussion and weigh in with your thoughts and suggestions. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

MRA movement

I feel like the MRA movement's appropriation of the film and its imagery is significant and should be mentioned somewhere, though it may be tricky to do so in a neutral-sounding way. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 17:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

See Also White Savior in Film

This article is linked to the "White savior narrative in film" article, but the Matrix seems not to be associated with that article beyond the superficial fact that Neo is apparantly white, and some non-white characters exist. The linked article suggests "The white savior usually is a man who is out of place within his own society, until he assumes the burden of racial leadership to rescue non-white foreigners and minorities from their plights." Whereas although Neo is messianic figure, he doesn't assume racial leadership in among some kind of indigenous racial population. Indeed the world of the matrix, outside the matrix, seems pan-racial or aracial. Neo doesn't seem to be of a different "race" than the people he comes to lead, and it would seem to be mischaracterizing the movie to suggest Neo is "rescuing characters of color." as the plot unfolds.

The link to this article seems to be racializing the matrix in a way that it is fundamentally not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:1820:500:5CC:D3CE:C682:587F (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"See also" sections don't advocate for the claims or legitimacy of another article. All they do is alert readers to the fact that there is more information available that is relevant to the topic of the current article. On that basis the link belongs here because there is a sizeable amount of information at the White Savior article that readers of this article may be interested in. Betty Logan (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about this, but the White savior narrative in film article does have a long section on The Matrix with several citations. (Personally, I don't know if I'd call it a "white savior" film, but certain things make it feel at least white-savior-film-adjacent, like its white-hero-becomes-master-of-asian-martial-arts narrative.) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 17:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"Whatisthematrix" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Whatisthematrix. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Cast list layout

Is there a particular reason for the bullet-linebreak formatting of § Cast? The content seems a better fit for a description list. Figured I’d check before changing it. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

For example:

• Joe Pantoliano as Cypher:
  Another human freed by Morpheus, but one who regrets taking the red pill and seeks to be returned to the Matrix, ultimately betraying the rebels to Agent Smith. Pantoliano had worked with the Wachowskis prior to appearing in The Matrix, starring in their 1996 film Bound.
• Marcus Chong as Tank:
  A "natural" human born outside of the Matrix. He is Dozer's sibling and the "operator" of the Nebuchadnezzar.

becomes

Joe Pantoliano as Cypher

Another human freed by Morpheus, but one who regrets taking the red pill and seeks to be returned to the Matrix, ultimately betraying the rebels to Agent Smith. Pantoliano had worked with the Wachowskis prior to appearing in The Matrix, starring in their 1996 film Bound.

Marcus Chong as Tank

A "natural" human born outside of the Matrix. He is Dozer's sibling and the "operator" of the Nebuchadnezzar.

—151.132.206.250 (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We cannot use boldface for emphasis in article text, per MOS:NOBOLD. I have not really worked on articles that have these line breaks, but my understanding is that it makes it easier to see an actor and their role. If there was no line break, it is a little harder to eyeball the names. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Erik: Apologies for the late reply. There was no boldface used for emphasis here. This is a description list, which is rendered with boldface under Wikipedia’s default CSS (users can customize it) and is explicitly encouraged over other styles for at least WP:GLOSSARIES. I have also seen them used in several other lists of characters and the like, and it seems a syntactically better fit here. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(same user as above) I have WP:BOLDly reformatted the list as previously suggested, as I believe it to be stylistically superior to odd-looking multiline bullet points and no other alternative has been suggested. I have no interest in edit-warring over it, but if anyone does wish to revert, I urge you to also discuss the matter.

To add to my rationale above: This sort of list is exactly what the description list was designed for. If that’s not what we want, let’s restructure it, not use ugly hacks. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Ahrens, Jörn (2009). "How to Save the Unsaved World? Transforming the Self in The Matrix, The Terminator, and 12 Monkeys". In Hart, Kylo-Patrick R.; Holba, Annette M. (eds.). Media and the Apocalypse. Peter Lang Publishing. pp. 53–66. ISBN 1433104199.
• Booker, M. Keith (2006). "The Matrix". Alternate Americas: Science Fiction Film and American Culture. Praeger. pp. 247–264. ISBN 0275983951.
• Clover, Joshua (2004). The Matrix. BFI Modern Classics. London: BFI Publishing. ISBN 1844570452.
• Conard, Mark T. (2007). "The Matrix, the Cave, and the Cogito". In Sanders, Steven M (ed.). The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film. The Philosophy of Popular Culture. pp. 207–222. ISBN 0813124727.
• Desilet, Gregory (2005). "Apocalyptic Melodrama: The Terminator and The Matrix". Our Faith in Evil: Melodrama and the Effects of Entertainment Violence. McFarland. pp. 276–287. ISBN 078642348X.
• Diocaretz, Myriam; Herbrechter, Stefan, eds. (2006). The Matrix in Theory. Critical Studies. Editions Rodopi BV. ISBN 9042016396.
• Litch, Mary M (2002). "Skepticism – Films: Total Recall and The Matrix". Philosophy Through Film. Routledge. pp. 7–36. ISBN 0415938759.
• Matrix, Sidney Eve (2006). "Technomasculinity and GenderBLUR in The Matrix". Cyberpop: Digital Lifestyles and Commodity Culture. Routledge Studies in New Media and Cyberculture. Routledge. pp. 61–84. ISBN 0415976774.
• Wartenberg, Thomas E. (2007). "A skeptical thought experiment: The Matrix". Thinking on Screen: Film as Philosophy. Routledge. pp. 55–75. ISBN 0415774314.

• Arts of Darkness: American Noir and the Quest for Redemption ISBN-10: 1890626716. Some details about the book http://www.thomashibbs.org/4966/arts-of-darkness . The link is not the book, but it cited the book. We can probably say that The Matrix is noir, following the statement in the link, and citing the book.

• "The Matrix as a Neo Noir - An Analysis of The Matrix with Special Focus on Style and Motifs of Film Noir" by Monique Bre. http://books.google.co.th/books?id=fsM23SWAzlsC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=the+matrix+production+dark+noir&source=bl&ots=GJ7NGduowD&sig=c3ZjFHmd_bWtD9tcY7inFLkrF5o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g7zWUPPkI8LXrQfT6IHQAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=the%20matrix%20production%20dark%20noir&f=false Covers a significant amount on Production Design section.

Online references.

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3028249.stm Mentions The Matrix's influences on A LOT of movies, including Shrek (parody), Charlie's Angels (imitating BT), Equilibrium (similar costume design imitating its darker tone), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (wire fu and choreography opening doors to Asian action films), Max Payne (BT effect) Formatted ref:

• http://www.screened.com/news/under-the-influence-the-matrix/2218/ Mentions 3 million sales, mentions some effect of Bound into getting The Wachowskis direct it (a part of three film deals), noted how memorable the fight sequences was, the differences between wire fu and eastern stunts, and how The Matrix's wire fu caused some shift to the Asian approach. Mentions the influence of Ghost in a Shell, The Invisibles, and Doctor Who, Plato's Allegory of the Cave (and also clarify how this works as 'nothing is real' in the film), linking the Neo's virgin birth, and how 'Anderson' can be interpreted as Christ, Judas/Cypher and Morpheus/John the Baptist metaphors and Neo's Christ-like death, and how the success of Star Wars, The Matrix, The Lord of the Rings influence Hollywood into making trilogies. Formatted ref:

• http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20478022,00.html EW calling it the most influential action movie of the generation (not directly in this article), mentioned how it affect Charlie's Angels (2000), Night Watch (2004), Wanted, Inception (2010), Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010), TRON: Legacy (2010) (noting how the original TRON paved the way for The Matrix, which inspired Disney to make its own Matrix with a TRON sequel.) Formatted ref:

• http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,450805,00.html The actual article of EW calling The Matrix "the most influential action movie of the generation." Also a brief mention of how the films were shot back to back.

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/19/hollywood-ghost-in-the-shell Not directly about The Matrix, but described how Hollywood is affected by Ghost in the Shell.

• http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/Night-Watch-1141.html Reliable, subjected to editorials by authors and film journalists. Notes how Night Watch follows The Matrix dark costume design.

• http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=422513 Reliable, as it came from Austrilia's respected museum. Contains significant info about shooting in Sydney. And you won't believe this: it already has Wiki citation mark-up waiting for us. LOL There are parts written by them, and there are a part taken from us. Careful not to cite the part taken from us to prevent circular sourcing.

• http://travel.cnn.com/sydney/visit/five-famous-film-sites-sydney-053166 Confirms the location of helicopter scene.

• http://www.pajiba.com/seriously_random_lists/mindhole-blowers-20-facts-about-the-matrix-that-might-make-you-say-whoa.php

• http://www.movie-locations.com/movies/m/Matrix.html#.UcpWADs3CSo

• Faller, Stephen (2004). Beyond The Matrix: Revolutions and Revelations. Chalice Press. ISBN 0-8272-0235-0.

• Herbrechter, Stefan (2006). The Matrix in Theory. Rodopi. ISBN 90-420-1639-6.

• Irwin, William (2005). The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real. Open Court. ISBN 0-8126-9501-1.

• Kapel, Matthew; Doty, William G. (2006). Jacking in to the Matrix Franchise: Cultural Reception and Interpretation. Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-1909-7.

• Bisset, Jennifer (October 19, 2017). "Creator of The Matrix code reveals its mysterious origins". CNET.com. CNET. Retrieved October 25, 2017. Simon Whiteley, creator of The Matrix code, attributes the design to his wife, who's from Japan. [...] He scanned the characters from his wife's Japanese cookbooks. "Without that code, there is no Matrix."

References

Influences and Sources: What about Dean Koontz?

I find it strange that in neither the article nor the talk page is there any mention of Dean Koontz' 1973 short story "Wake Up To Thunder", which contains the entire premise of the film except those elements which inspire the characters to run around shooting at each other. The look and feel of the film certainly is the Wachowski's own, but the article contains plenty of talk about philosophical influences from Descartes to Hilary Putnam without any mention of Koontz' story, which is basically the movie without its makeup on. I read it in 1978 in "children of infinity: original science fiction stories for young readers" (note the groovy '70s lack of capitalization), which according to the Wikipedia Koontz bibliography was first published in 1973. To judge by the book's price on Amazon ($30+ for "Good" and Very Good" copies), it's still pretty sought-after, which implies people are familiar with it. Scutigera (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source that compares the two? For us to do so on our own would be original research. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

Can we please expand on the section discussing the transgender themes of the film? Not only is it relevant because of the filmmaker's intentions, but also because the film is important for the transgender community. I also the think the article in general should be expanded, similar to how Darkwarriorblake expanded the articles for Aliens and Back to the Future. Thank you and have an excellent day! 2601:583:C001:950:F9BB:80B0:2399:864D (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a worthwhile suggestion, but it requires published sources that talk about that aspect of the subject. (See previous request.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I will get to it eventually, but it's way down my list of future projects. I've got like... 4 other films I want to work on first. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I heard this guy do an interesting talk about it, so there's probably some material to be found in his book. [1] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

Request to change

The plot has been confirmed to be an allegory for transgender identity

To be removed. The point is quite broad and vague and largely untrue of the movie. It is also a mis-representation of the source point. Reviewing the source indicates the director explaining a single character in the first movie only explored the idea of transformation which was a larger narrative of the movie (transformation that is). This sentence ' The plot has been confirmed to be an allegory for transgender identity' is misleading making you believe the entire movie is an allegory for transgender identity but it is not the case. Paul Mentor 31 (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The author specifically states the entire concept of "Matrix" is an allegory, and the character, Switch, just demonstrated that more clearly. The "transformation" is part of that, as stated by the author: 'The Matrix' stuff was all about a desire for transformation but it was all coming from a closeted point of view." Ynneblack (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose whitewashing, and requesting reversion. Also, requesting user is a new account, who's only edit is on this page. I suspect a sock account of an editor from a few weeks ago.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You get that the content is still in the article right? One line of content was removed because it didn't belong in the opening paragraph in a way that implied that was entirely what the movie is about when the source is from 20 years after the film was released. The user was absolutely right to point out it's very broad and undue prominence in the opening paragraph. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The authors address why they are talking about it 20 years after the film was released, and not back then. I definitely think the line could use improvements or clarification, but maybe not necessarily removal. This could use more opinions before deletion. But most importantly, as far as I can tell, the request comes from misunderstanding what the creators said (i.e. thinking the allegory only refers to Switch, I did not find any quote that would support this claim). Ynneblack (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the authors or their intent, it didn't belong in the lead paragraph or to be presented as the only theme in the film, because there is an entire section of the article dedicated to analysing it. It isn't an attack on anyone, and I think the level of upset, particularly the use of the term "whitewashing" as an opening argument, shows that maybe there is not a balanced view here regarding the article as a whole. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

And the information is still in the article. All that was removed is the unclearly written statement in the lede. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The lede says the film deals with "difficult subjects" and "deeper themes" which are overshadowed by the visuals, but doesn't really say what those are, and I think it would be worthwhile to at least name-check some in the lede. I'd go with: reality vs. perception, freedom vs. slavery, and self-identity. (Saying it's just an allegory for being transgender puts way too much emphasis on one brief article and sells short the rest of the film's intellectual landscape.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

Please change the unordered list in {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing to a description list, as discussed above. The sole opposition at the time was based on a lack of understanding of the markup. I had changed it myself, but it was later reverted without explanation or comment. 96.8.24.95 (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Paul ❬talk❭ 18:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Plot summary: Is the hotel really abandoned?

Maybe this was just an oversight, but we can clearly see in the opening scene of the movie the hotel's sign is lit up (Heart o' the city Hotel). This suggests the hotel is not abandoned but simply run-down, as someone is obviously still paying the electric bill, plus, a lit up sign implies they're open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damaband (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Spoilers in the intro

I know the movie is two decades old, but the explanation for what The Matrix is a central revelation of the movie. Is it common to include spoilers in the intro? I just worry about younger readers who haven’t seen the movie having it ruined. Anamelesseditor (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the issue, per WP:SPOILER. DonIago (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Neo Noir?

The film's been cited by critics and film scholars as a neo-noir. Would it be accurate to include this category for the film specifically?Internet Informant (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not? It's listed and sourced at List of neo-noir films. DonIago (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

"Transgender Themes" section

The transgender themes section should be removed, because it is obvious nonsense that was never in the actual film. Krehel (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The section appears to be pretty well-sourced to me. On what are you basing your claim that it's "obvious nonsense that was never in the actual film"? Do you have sources that have refuted the claims currently made in the article? DonIago (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoax

Hello. I'm not good at wikipedia but has this ever been addresssed?

https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/11/22/inside-the-billion-dollar-matrix-lawsuit-one-of-the-internets-most-pervasive-hoaxes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.79.69 (talk)

Debunking hoaxes is more Snopes' thing, not Wikipedia's. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Sophia stewart

Her work has been officially recognised and has won her lawsuit. She is the true writer of both the matrix and terminator, please adjust the wikipedia pages to guve the accurate information including additional information about her lawsuit and plight to be recognised for her work which was stolen and plagiarised by the wachowskis. this was further implicated by their erasure of the story’s true intent; disguising it as a trans allegory despite it being written by a black woman to cater to black people as an allegory of the black experience. ITS IMPORTANT TO GIVE HER THE PROPER RECOGNITION!!! 2A02:C7F:3B06:6C00:9DA7:C174:CF43:F59E (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/05/instagram-posts/no-woman-didnt-win-25-billion-matrix-lawsuit-over-/ Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)