Wikipedia

Talk:The Matrix/Archive 6

< Talk:The Matrix
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Betty Logan in topic Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2018
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

The Matrix is a "White savior narrative in film"

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

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#The_Matrix.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F — 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | contrib) (ping me) 17:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Credits in infobox

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments10 people in discussion

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#Credits that appears based on this discussion from August 2012: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 42#Proposal. 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 EvergreenFir, Darkwarriorblake, John "Hannibal" Smith, Mauro Lanari, Gothicfilm, Argento Surfer, Timothyjosephwood. Erik (talk | 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. TimothyJosephWood 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_Wachowski_credit_in_the_lead. 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 | 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)

Gothicfilm, 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 | 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"?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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))

See also

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

JesseRafe is repeatedly pushing their POV that white savior narrative in film does not belong in the "See also" section. At minimum, the "See also" section can include tangentially related topics, and the cinematic trope of the white savior is already more than tangentially related, as evidenced by the detailed mention by reliable sources on the list article. The editor also claims that the mere placement of such a link in the "See also" section is "undue weight" despite being at the end of the article and being among many other links, some which are more frivolous. In essence, JesseRafe is projecting dislike to exclude this article under the guise of "controversy" where there is no such thing except in their head. (If a real controversy existed, that would absolutely be worth mentioning and including.) The trope has been extensively analyzed by a sociology professor who analyzes The Matrix among other films as having this trope. This is also repeated by other reliable sources. JesseRafe does not trump the professor or the other academics in censoring even a mention. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It it is absolutely not my POV that this isn't the above trope, that is on its face the neutral POV here. The is no notable person who has weighed in on this topic, no theorists or critics who are knowledgeable on this subject have discussed it. There is no controversy and no evidence of this trope being ever applied to this film or even discussed, except by a very very tiny few, given a denominator of how much cultural impact the film had. If this was so important to the above editor and their so-called "professor" (a title anybody can have in this uncredited university era and means little on its own, I probably have more degrees than him or her but that's not the point I'm making) then surely it would have a place of discussion in the article? It doesn't and is therefore distracting to put a hot-button issue in a very frequented article that has nothing (not tangents, nothing) to do with it. That is the controversy, and that is the POV of Erik above. Further, this distracts from the real issue of when the white savior narrative is actually used as a trope, and by diluting the examples to nonsense like this film, it makes the whole theoretical issues for the trope being a subtle and persistent form of racism weaker, which sounds like the goal of the above - to dilute a discourse by attaching it to whatever is popular no matter how farfetched. Absurd. As noted above, Will Smith was the original first choice for the savior of this narrative, that alone shows that story of a Chinese-Hawaiian Canadian born in Lebanon is not a "white savior". I await Erik's further disingenuous readings of WP:UNDUE about tiny minorities and ask he keep conversations in one place, as per WP convention, and kindly stay off my User talk page AND tagging me unnecessarily on the article talk, which is almost harassment. JesseRafe (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
"The is no notable person who has weighed in on this topic, no theorists or critics who are knowledgeable on this subject have discussed it." This is an outright lie. You are setting the bar impossibly high to require such fame of academics to warrant inclusion. You removed references for the trope that are from reliable published sources. The "See also" section is the first possible place to identify the trope, and you claim that because the article has not discussed race at all, that there is no place for this trope. There is a lot of race-related coverage for The Matrix, and this trope is among that coverage. In an ideal article, there would be a section about all that. Do you disagree with that? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
To make it clear, JesseRafe thinks their POV overrides that of Matthew Hughey, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Connecticut who published under Temple University Press the sociological book The White Savior Film which discusses, among others, The Matrix, and has been well-reviewed here and here for its expert approach to the topic, as well as other academics who have discussed this trope in the film. Please note that their dismissiveness is completely shoot-from-the-hip. Such projecting from an armchair critic is not relevant. We must recognize reliable sources for what they are and for the coverage they have. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
You're wantonly putting words in my mouth in this strawman argument. Matthew Hughey is still just some guy. This isn't global warming or vaccines, there's not 98% conformity among sociologists that this is a white savior narrative in film. I said no notable authorities have spoken on this. The list of notable college professors and film critics is quite long. This guy is not on it. And that makes his theory a fringe minority -- which is one of the best ways to get published as it happens. How do you not see the irony in you relentlessly pushing your agenda of discrediting an actual problematic societal trope by unduly placing it all over the encyclopedia by NNPOV edits where it does not belong? JesseRafe (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
That's your problem. You think he "is still just some guy". No, you and I are that, as mere Wikipedia editors. You're right that this isn't global warming. Like I said, this is not a denialist position like global warming, Flat Earth, 9/11 conspiracies, etc. This is a sociological matter, so this must be approached differently. The categorization of a film is not a zero-sum definition. It can co-exist with other genres and categories. A claim like a film having this trope is empirically supportable. This has been observed by multiple reliable sources, which you continue to ignore. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Is Die Hard a white savior narrative because there are people of colour employed at Nakatomi? Ridiculous. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Can't help but notice he responded to me once after you wrote the above and then even came back but had no answer for this. It just shows that this editor is bending the MOS and guidelines to his will regardless of others' reasons and arguments. JesseRafe (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
There was not an policy-based or guideline-based argument to be had. Do you really think a layperson personally drawing a comparison validates anything you said? Heck, I even went to search for Die Hard and the white savior trope out of curiosity. I did not find anything about that, but I did find commentary about interracial buddy film. I am wanting to base Wikipedia on reliable sources and not the whims of editors who are going to get personally bothered by race-related topics. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this is not the first complaint about this topic. An editor did not want The Matrix listed at white savior narrative in film at all, but an RfC resoundingly rejected that, recognizing that the sources involved are reliable. See here: Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 6#Inclusion of The Matrix. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

There are 7 billion people in the world, any of them can see something that isn't there and happen to also have a degree, but not know what they are talking about. See Anita Sarkeesian. This is the first page in a search for "The Matrix White Savior" (note that the auto fill is "The matrix white rabbit" NOT white savior and the majority of results are here or blogs. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Erik, since you're so comfortable identifying what others' problems are for them, your problem is your automatic assumption that anyone who disagrees with your non-neutral agenda editing is "personally bothered by race-related topics" which is not only absurd but also almost an attack, if not an insinuation. I think you're wrong on the facts, not in the opinion or their interpretation. And, to the conversation above, yes, he is still just some guy. What makes him THE authority on this? Says whom? And are these people also notable or recognized in their fields? Sounds like fashionable nonsense to me. There are probably 5-12,000 people with PhDs in sociology. Big whoop. It's a minority opinion and it's fringe, based on very little. Strongly beginning to expect COI with you regards to this source as you push it so heavily and tell people to read it on multiple talk pages. JesseRafe (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess my issue is that I am seeing you reference the same policies and guidelines that have been soundly rejected elsewhere by people who express extreme discomfort with the very topic. You pushed extraordinarily hard for a more-than-tangentially-related link to be removed from the footer of the article and also reverted me when I restored with sources, claiming that these were just "non-notable fringe theorists" when they are clearly not. Basically, you're just smearing stuff because you've already decided the outcome. You haven't even answered my question about if this article could have an article about race in the film, of which the trope would inevitably be a part, due to the reliable sources writing about the matter. You are the one who is "just some guy", and I am too. You don't think I disagree with some of the films identified to have the trope? But that is just me, and I am not credentialed or published, and nor are you. If reliable sources discuss the trope, I list it and set it up for cross-navigation as I do with other lists. I don't know what it takes for you to recognize Dr. Hughey as a reliable source in this matter because I find that he more than meets the criteria, even before we get to the other sources. I don't find that you are assessing sources very well, and you're kind of too dug in to really admit Hughey's credentials. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment While I fully get the skepticism about The Matrix being listed at White savior narrative in film (I even outlined some reservations at Talk:White_savior_narrative_in_film/Archive_1#The_Matrix) the fact remains it is on the list and there is a significant amount of discussion at The Matrix entry. There was an RFC about it and the consensus was to list it, and while it is included on the list it is not unreasonable to assmume that a reader of this article may be interested in what is written about the film at the White Savior article. While there is a chunk of info about the film over at the White Savior article then there should be a link to it somewhere in this article, whether be that in the prose, the "see also" section or some template or other. Betty Logan (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Gibberish

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"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)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)

  Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Matrix/Archive_6&oldid=1064418677"