Talk:The Matrix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 4, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
June 10, 2013 Peer review Reviewed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is on the project's core list.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Social sciences and society.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for The Matrix:
  • Check if the current version has little enough close paraphrasing. Check new references by Andrew Godowski especially. See Duplication detector report before CE and Duplication detector report after CE for more information.
  • Reformat and reword the filming section to avoid listing how they film scene by scene.
  • Summarize large bulks of direct quotes in critical reception section.
Priority 1 (top)

References to use[edit]

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. 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. 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 . 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.

Online references.

  • 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: [1] [1]
  • 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: [2] [2]
  •,,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: [3] [3]
  • 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.


  1. ^ a b Dowling, Stephen (May 21, 2003). "Under The Matrix influence". BBC. Retrieved December 22, 2012. 
  2. ^ a b Godoski, Andrew. "Under The Influence: The Matrix". Archived from the original on December 22, 2012. Retrieved December 22, 2012. 
  3. ^ a b Vary, Adam (Apr 01, 2011). "'The Matrix': A Groundbreaking Cyberthriller". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved December 22, 2012.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ a b Fierman, Daniel (May 12, 2003). "The Neo Wave". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved December 22, 2012. 

"The Wachowskis" vs "The Wachowski Brothers"[edit]

Which way is appropriate to credit them here? They are now known as The Wachowskis (reflecting Lana's gender transition), and it seems to be in good taste to credit them as such, but I'm not sure what the official policy is. Victor veitch (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Policy is to credit them as they were credited in the film at the time of its original release. That's why the hidden note is there, which you changed without discussion. Try discussing first and getting WP:Consensus before changing hidden notes and what they're addressing. - Gothicfilm (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
which policy? Victor veitch (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
There was a heated argument about this at Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_24#.22credited_at_the_time.22. -- Chamith (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Laura Jane Grace is consistently referred to as such on pages for material released when she was still known professionally as Tom Gabel. Referring to the Wachowskis as the Wachowski Brothers seems inconsistent to me. — Hi i'm emily (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Now that Lilly has come out as well, it's unquestionably in poor taste to credit them as "The Wachowski Brothers". I suggest changing the text immediately - either to "The Wachowskis" or "The Wachowski sisters". A foolish consistency - "credit at the time" - is a poor substitute for good judgment. Etherjammer (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the above user and think, especially given the fact that Lilly has just also come out, that it is time for a new consensus on this issue. The discussion linked to above is compelling, with interesting arguments on both sides, but is not hard law. If several more users can come forward to help explain why listing the Wachowskis definitively under names and genders that do not apply to them is not a productive use of this page, I think that we can come to a new consensus. Showpaw (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I also agree with Etherjammer. I don't see the problem as crediting them as "The Wachowskis" rather than "The Wachowski Brothers", especially if the article is linked. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ) 15:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
My preference would be to go with "The Wachowski Brothers", on the grounds that that is how they are credited in the film. If we decide to change it, then there should probably be a footnote "credited as The Wachowski Brothers", along the lines of how iMDB might say " Anthony Head ... Rupert Giles (as Anthony Stewart Head) ".
I would say that if a new consensus is to be reached, it should not be on this page but at a wider discussion to ensure consistency for all people who are credited differently to how they are now known. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that a (credited as "The Wachowski Brothers") might be the best compromise, and I think that a broader reach for this consensus could be a good idea. Where would you recommend moving this discussion?Showpaw (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The policy that films should be credited according to the original release, clearly overrides MOS:IDENTITY, and the term "The Wachowskis" gives more google results than "The Wachowski Brothers". And after all, the policies aren't the rules set in stone..–– ♫ Ellie 13:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the consensus, I suggest the page be temporarily protected; all of the non-vandal edits from the last few days are back-and-forths on the name issue. Etherjammer (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Folks, MOS:BIO#Changed names is clear on this issue. It makes no exception for gender changes, so for now, deadnaming is factually required on Wikipedia (at least outside of the subject's own article). If you want that policy changed, you need to address the issue at the relevant places. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid argument in this case: When articles call Laura Jane Grace or other transitioned trans people by their post-transition names when they were still known under their deadnames, this is counter to current policy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

And part of the issue, which is why people are talking about moving this discussion elsewhere, is that some of us think it's a bad policy. Etherjammer (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd point out that MOS:BIO#Changed names also says "However, see MOS:IDENTITY." By my reading, this applies here and thus allows us to use The Wachowskis. Yihkrys (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hay folks, the question is one of transphobic policy v accurate referencing of the directors names and gender. This is an encyclopaedia and both accuracy and avoiding discrimination is important. The policy requiring the directors to be credited as they were when the film was released is clearly transphobic and as such constitutes a discriminatory policy that inaccurately references the directors names and gender identity. If the choice is between transphobia and avoiding transphobic discrimination, I must go with accurately referencing the directors names and gender identity to avoid discriminating against transgender people. Nick carson (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not transphobic to acknowledge that in 1999 neither Wachowski was publicly using the names they now go by. The film credits state directed by "The Wachowski Brothers". It is my view that no matter what, it needs to be stated that they were credited as "The Wachowski Brothers", as per my earlier comment. Whether we also include "The Wachowskis" I leave up to you.
As an aside, how does one pronounce Wachowski? It's been bugging me for 15 years now. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Further thought, I would say that the infobox should say "The Wachowski Brothers"; the first mention in prose should be "The Wachowskis, then known as the Wachowski Brothers", and refer to "The Wachowskis" thereafter. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that by MOS:IDENTITY, we should be using "The Wachowskis". Since there seems to be some consensus, I've changed it to this effect, and also added a footnote saying they were credited as The Wachowski Brothers. Yihkrys (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither of them are male, and it is not only inaccurate to refer to them as such, it is in fact outright offensive. This should be changed immediately. Cassandra Leo (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. They chose the name as the credit for the group of two. Are you saying they offended themselves? "The Wachowski Brothers" is a a created stage name like any rock band or comedy troupe and has no gender except what you imagine. It is especially true in this case where two woman created the stage name "The Wachowski Brothers" for themselves. Why would you deny them that? Why are you offended by their choice? --DHeyward (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
No, it is not nonsense. As a trans individual myself, there are contexts in which I am required by the contexts in which I operate to misgender and misname myself. The analogy to a stage name is invalid. (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
They are not identifying themselves individually and it is a stage name, not an analogy. There is no individual named "The Wachowski Brothers" or "The Wachowski's". They are identified as a team and it is their term. We are not calling them male and it's why "Brothers" has a capital "B". They chose "The Wachowski Brothers" for whatever reason. They weren't required to. There is no context where they would even have to identify as a team. But they did for this movie. For this movie, the description is either "The Wachowski Brothers" or if we discuss who the "The Wachowski Brothers" are, it's Lana Wachowski and Lilly Wachowski. They chose how to reflect their collaboration. Two transgender women chose "The Wachowski Brothers" for this film and had they wished, it could have been their individual names or any group identity they wished including "The Wachowskis." But they did not. This is not a case of anyone misgendering them, it's name they took for themselves as a collaborative group. We are not calling them brothers, we are reflecting their chosen "The Wachowski Brothers." --DHeyward (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It is a textbook case of misgendering and is one of the most offensive and transphobic things you can do. The fact that they chose that name at that time is irrelevant. It is not what they choose to refer to themselves now. If you want to note that they were credited as "the Wachowski Brothers" in a footnote or parenthetical remark, that would be acceptable, but they are not brothers, and identifying them as such is not only inaccurate but outright belittling to them. And, frankly, as what I presume to be a cisgendered individual, you do not get to tell trans individuals what is offensive, and calling such claims "nonsense" is itself offensive. Cassandra Leo (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Presuming the user to be cisgender seems like a pretty textbook case of misgendering, name-calling, abuse, harassment, belittling, irrelevant and whatever other powerful and misused words you want to throw in there, and seems like a pretty offensive and cisphobic thing to do. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
There's no such thing as cisphobia, as it would imply cisgendered people are an oppressed minority; do you also believe in reverse racism? The case is clear cut: individuals chose a name for their team, and changed it. Since the team has another name, it should be updated. Any argument about keeping the old name because they chose it back then is absurd as in retrospect we know they chose it to remain inconspicuous and safe. A footnote about the credit should be more than fitting! RomanXNS (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Demanding consensus on this issue is in itself transphobic. When policies are called out as transphobic, the appropriate thing to do is change the policy, not to debate whether or not being transphobic is okay or in accordance with policy. Also, removing deadnaming is clearly not vandalism. (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Did I miss a meeting where we were allowed to call opinions transphobic in an attempt to dismiss them? This is an encyclopedia based on fact, not E! magazine. Just like Caitlyn Jenner never won the men's decathlon because it's physically impossible for her to have entered the event as a woman, the Wachowski Brothers are the credited names, pseudonyms, stage names, whatever you wish to call them, of the people who made the film, and the wikilink directs readers to their personal article where contemporary changes would matter or be relevant. This is not a time sensitive article. It is NOT transphobic to reflect history, and saying so doesn't make it so, it's an attempt to cut down a differing view by making them look like villains. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Without consensus, there is no way of knowing whether this is transphobic. Just a claim, without consensus, that it's transphobic isn't sufficient, otherwise anyone could call out anything as being so to have Wikipedia say anything; clearly a bad eventuality. Holomanga (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@ let's see, you want us to ignore the group crediting choice of "The Wachowski Brothers" made by two transgender women of the group just so it conforms to your version of gender??!? And it's transphobic if we ignore their choice and use yours? And you're serious? --DHeyward (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a few questions we need to ask here, because as has been pointed out, MOS: Gender Identity leaves an interpretive loophole for mentions outside of the main biographical article. From what I can think of, these concerns are:

1: Accuracy in reflecting the subject

2: Accuracy in reflecting the film credits

3: Ability for a naive reader to verify the information (e.g. figure out why the name in the credits is different from the name in this article.)

Some in this argument have stated that 1 overrides 2 and 3, others have argued 2 and 3 override 1. However, I think it should be clear here that changing the reference to "The Wachowskis" compromises neither 2 nor 3. It is obvious to a naive reader that "The Wachowskis" refers to the people mentioned in the credits as "The Wachowski Brothers." As for 2, the "accuracy of the credits" does not refer to reflecting the physical credits as they were broadcast in a release. If someone gets married and changes their name (which is admittedly less common in the film industry than average, but it still happens), I think we could all agree that crediting them with their new name does not inaccurately represent the credits-as-broadcast; it is in fact more accurate. The credits-as-broadcast lacked a later-acquired piece of information.

It is clear from the MOS (and the extended ArbCom case that precipitated that entry in the MOS) that the spirit of the policy is that Wikipedia should try wherever policy to respect the gender identity of the people it represents. It is left up to the editors to decide how that applies to articles outside of main biographical ones. Here, I think that the problems created by using "The Wachowskis" are far too minor to impinge on that over-arching policy of respect.

As an aside, I do not believe that it is worth creating a larger RfC for this issue. The interpretive loophole in the MOS exists because it is impossible to foresee all circumstances where these issues come up. I think any RfC will just immediately come to the conclusion that the ambiguity is necessary, and that it should be handled on a case-by-case basis, as we are doing now. Jhugh95 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I've replaced the recruiting template, added by CoffeeCrumbs, which was removed by an anonymous user. The recruiting template is accurate; this subject was canvassed on a large public facebook group. That is how I learned of the dispute; I chose to participate anyway because it is a topic I would have engaged with even if I had not seen the canvassing. Also, apologies for my previous bizarre edit - I have not used wikipedia in a couple months and had forgotten that I had installed a word replacer extension in the meantime, resulting in a bizarre edit on this page. Jhugh95 (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The "Wachowski Brothers" is the only option for crediting. It is not unlike the name for a band. When we credit the "The Beatles," it doesn't matter that they later broke up. The credit remains. The focus on the word "brothers" is misguided. When the members of the the "Wachowski Brothers" are written about individually, we can use current names for the individuals. Many artists create a name for their group and we reflect that name. In this case, two transgender women chose the name "The Wachowski Brothers" to create and promote their film. The article should reflect and respect that choice. --DHeyward (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It can be left "Wachowski Brothers" with a note indicating the current name and/or gender. See United States at the 1976 Summer Olympics for the way it was handled with Caitlyn Jenner. —Torchiest talkedits 15:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I think this is a reasonable compromise. Even though I think it's always dangerous when explicit policies, such as not retroactively naming those listed in film credits, are ignored and become the subject of endless edit wars, the risk of this article becoming a flashpoint of internet advocacy on both sides of the issue probably outweighs the risk of stretching the rule a bit here. However (this isn't directed at you Torchiest) I am quite disturbed by the tone of some of the discussion here the last few days. I posted the template here for a reason - when an organized internet group discussion on Wikipedia has people high-fiving each other over talk page vandalism (as they were vis-à-vis darkwarriorblake's talk page), it makes sense to be vigilant and I'm happy that the page protection was heightened. Infobox + gender issue couldn't be more guaranteed to start a real headache at ANI if we got there.
And on the main subject, let me be clear that my preference for "The Wachowski Brothers" is solely for the infobox and I will have little patience for those misnaming them outside this very specific context which is governed by the explicit policy that we do not retroactively change names of film credits. Lana and Lilly are The Wachowskis when talked about as people rather than as historical references. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Lana and Lilly are both "The Wachowskis" and "The Wachowski Brothers" . Those are credit names like the Beatles or Wings. When we talk about them individually, they should always be referenced by their proper name. If they are lumped into their stage credits, they should reflect the credits. There should be no reference to the "The Wachowskis" in this article as there is nothing changed. We can talk about the "The Wachowski Brothers" and how they are made up of Lana and Lilly. but it's not okay to give way to the stage name as if it is the name of a person or has a gender regardless of what it is. '"The Wachowski Brothers" was the name used by the sibling duo of Lana and Lilly Wachowski.' is a perfectly apt description. We can even describe they are now known as "The Wachowskis" when they work together. Often group stage names reflect shifting memberships and even shifting names. We don't refer to the groups that were credited, though, differently than when they created and attributed their work. That troupe's such as "Monty Python" doesn't exist anymore doesn't change the credits. Even if a member revealed a new gender and name, we wouldn't change "Monty Python." The issue that is bollocksing this up is that people are incorrectly assigning gender to a group name. It has no gender. It's a title. This is a concept that may be difficult to understand as people are implicitly assigning gender to the term "Brothers" as if it could be removed and analyzed seperately. It cannot. Just as if they had stopped using a group name for a credit and used individual names (i.e. in an interview they may be credited separately using their proper names) - we wouldn't ignore the separate credits and call them by a group name. --DHeyward (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you on the principle and my preference is -- for this infobox only -- to refer to them as The Wachowski Brothers. But I'm also practical and if we can get consensus that stops the vandalism and the edit wars, adding a note after Wachowski Brothers that they are now the Wachowskis is, I believe, a reasonable accommodation (see Onassis after Jacqueline Kennedy in List of First Ladies). An imperfect solution is better than making this yet another tiring war zone.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It redirects there anyway so I don't care if we clarify it in the info box. Nowhere in this article should we have "The Wachowskis", though. It's either their full names, Lilly and Lana, or their credited stage name "The Wachowski Brothers" with a capital B and always as a proper name. --DHeyward (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd disagree with you there. Using "the Wachowskis" makes sense to me, as in several Wachowskis. The first reference should be to The Wachowski Brothers, mention now known as The Wachowskis, then just use the Wachowskis. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Considering they have "The Wachowskis" as their proper name for collaborative works, I would never use the diminutive reference. Lana, for example, was married previously and went through a divorce where her wife, also name Wachowski, asked for a significant portion of the revenue from "The Matrix." There are several Wachowski's that claim a form of title to the movie but only the specific two, are we discussing here. It should either be their proper name, or proper group name when we are only discussing Lilly and Lana. --DHeyward (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I really don't see any way that our discussion over the infobox solution should be expanded to modifying the rest of the article's compliance with Wikipedia's gender identity policies. The only reason this is an argument is because two policies - the infobox crediting policy and the MOS gender identity policy - are in conflict. For the rest of the article, there is no conflict. Wikipedia prioritizes respect for gender identity as a policy, in a vacuum of conflicting policies. Calling "the Wachowskis" diminutive seems like a major reach to me. There isn't a formal writing guide on this earth that would call that diminutive - referring to two people who share a last name was "the [Pluralized Name]" is a common formal construction. Regardless of whether that construction happens to differ by one capitalization from a shortened version of a stage name, it's a valid construction in formal writing. Even if it was moderately informal, (which it's not), it would still be worth using to ensure respect for the subject's gender identity.
I also think it should be clear that "The Wachowski Brothers" is gendered. Human beings read language like humans, not computers. Gendered language doesn't become de-gendered when it's part of a name/mark, because language doesn't work like that. Language doesn't work like that because people don't read/hear language like that.
As for the compromise suggested, I think having both would be a decent policy, especially when vandalism prevention is considered. (That is, it should be obvious to any patrolling editor that someone removing one of the two names without explanation on the talk page is vandalizing with an agenda.) It could read along the lines of "The Wachowskis" *break* "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers." The reverse would be harder to clearly phrase. Jhugh95 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
With respect, it would appear that the reading of MOS:IDENTITY, as implied above, does not accurately reflect that guideline. The "compromise" appears to be a classic middle ground fallacy. Arguments that we should combine the credited "The Wachowski Brothers" with other facts to arrive at a different result, unsupported by reliable sources, are original research, per WP:SYNTH. See also WP:RGW. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
With respect, the relevant section of MOS:GENDERID reads "The MoS does not have specific rules stipulating when to give both names, which name to use first, or how [the name that is used first] should be written." All of these situations include "[giving] precedence to self-designation". The article (excluding the infobox) refers to the Wachowskis as the Wachowskis, following MOS:GENDERID, with the exception of the first sentence of the lead. For consistency, I propose changing the lead to read "The Wachowskis" and the infobox to read "The Wachowskis (credited as The Wachowski Brothers)" in order to comply with MOS:GENDERID and the "A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made." guideline from film infobox credits
It is the truth that "The Wachowskis (credited as The Wachowski Brothers)" provides more information than "The Wachowski Brothers". That the Wachowskis are professionally known today as The Wachowskis is a fact supported by reliable (Lana Wachowski IMDB page) sources (Lilly Wachowski's statement to the Windy City Tiems) and is certainly not original research. Combining this fact with the fact that the Wachowskis were credited as The Wachowski Brothers, as they were known at the time, still does not constitute synthesis as no conclusion is being made. finagle29 (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
With respect, MOS:GENDERID provides guidelines for documenting individual persons in biographical articles about those persons; it does not suggest [giving] precendence to self-designation for coverage in other than those main biographical articles; and this is clearly not the main biographical article of either Wachowski sibling.
In addition, DHeyward is correct when they suggest that "The Wachowski Brothers" is not an individual person, and, consequently, not covered by the suggestions in MOS:GENDERID.
That the persons who wrote and directed The Matrix are now commonly referred to as The Wachowskis may be a verifiable fact. That this should be combined with other facts to suggest that the film's writing, direction or other credits were to "The Wachowskis", against the verifiably sourced credits, is a WP:SYNTHesis. Any such proposal to synthetically derive contents of the article, including the Infobox, is strongly opposed. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
With respect, while MOS:GENDERID does not prescribe rules for referring to persons in articles other than the main biographical articles, the intent of MOS:GENDERID is to respect self-designation. Though the group previously called The Wachowski Brothers is not an individual person, it is comprised of individual persons with gender identities covered by the suggestions in MOS:GENDERID that give precedence to self-designation.
That the persons who wrote and directed The Matrix are now correctly referred to as The Wachowskis is a verifiable fact. Combining the previous fact with the facts that the film's writing and direction were credited to The Wachowski Brothers does not suggest that the film's writing and direction credits were to The Wachowskis but rather that the people who were credited as The Wachowski Brothers are now correctly referred to as The Wachowskis, a fact supported by the sources I previously referenced. finagle29 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Combining facts to reach a conclusion not reached by sources is WP:SYNTH. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 17:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
With respect, referring to the simple intuition that multiple reliable sources credit X and multiple reliable sources state that X is referred to as Y, ergo Y was involved in the movie, as WP:SYNTH, is vastly overstating the level of logic in the statement. By that logic, every lede paragraph on Wikipedia is synthesis, because it's combining the (largely itemized) information down in the article into a paraphrased summary. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, takes the information in secondary sources, collates it, and presents it. Putting two names because sources tell us the names refer to the same person isn't synthesis, it's presenting the information.
I strongly support changing the infobox reference to "The Wachowskis (credited as 'The Wachowski Brothers')." Jhugh95 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
With respect, the analogy with article lead sections is a false one. Though a lead section may be a paraphrasal or summary of the main article body, WP:NOR does not permit that it contain original research; each statement in the lead, as elsewhere, must be verifiable by a reliable source. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 17:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there consensus enough to support one way or the other by now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Coming back to this[edit]

Starting a subsection because the above looks like it got stale.

I see a few people claiming consensus on this, without actually seeing any demonstration thereof.

We have a proposal on an infobox talk page (which was four years ago, not actually an RfC, as far as I can tell, and only drew participation from 6 people). Taking that for granted, we have a sense of consensus for the infobox to reflect what film credits say. Shaky, but ok. That has no bearing on the rest of the article. Am I just overlooking where the consensus on the lead was established, such that it's acceptable to repeatedly override WP:ID?

We're not listing the credits of the film in the lead; we're summarizing an article about a film -- a film directed by people -- people we name using their names. It's not the wikidata field for "director credit", it's the actual people who directed it. Hence while it may make sense to say "credited as the Wachowski Brothers", it does need to name them as they are named now. The question isn't "what do sources say about the name listed under 'written and directed' in the credits of the movie" (at least not for the article outside the infobox); the question is "what is the name reliable sources call these people who directed the movie"? The burden is on those who want to override the spirit of WP:BLP and WP:ID to find consensus, not the other way around. "the Wachowskis (credited as the Wachowski Brothers)" seems like a very reasonable compromise (not even a compromise -- just the best approach). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You're confusing stale with over but not resulting in the answer you want. You can't just repeatedly open the same discussions until the outcome suits you. Using 7 words in the place of 3 is not reasonable just to satisfy a personal desire over a factual accuracy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't confuse anything. I see many threads on the subject with no conclusion, but a few people who claim consensus in absolute terms. That, to me, says it's time to get broader participation and come to a more formal conclusion. I realize that for those who believe a consensus already exists, this RfC may be tedious, but if you're right then formalizing the consensus will function to head off people like myself who would be inclined to change (at least those of us who do look at the talk page before doing so)... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Rhododendrites is absolutely correct. There is no consensus in the discussion that happened previously, the argument continued until the end and trailed off, with several people supporting the status quo and several supporting an alternate solution; towards the end, most opposed to the status quo were suggesting a compromise of "The Wachowskis (credited as The Wachowski Brothers)." Only two people ever actually thought that the discussion had progressed far enough to submit a position on a proposal, myself and Ryk72. That's hardly a complete discussion. Darkwarriorblake, You're confusing "contested" with "consensus for the status quo."
For what it's worth, since those are mostly the two proposals seen, I'm going to start a subsection for the proposal of that wording so that people can discuss the proposal in a dedicated space and we can move towards actual consensus. Jhugh95 (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jhugh95: Because I don't know what other proposal you're referring to, I'll just point out that there is an RfC below :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you're right! Whoops, that's embarrassing. I'll go throw my hat in down there. Jhugh95 (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


In order to best follow the policies at WP:ID and WP:BLP, which do allow some room for interpretation in specific circumstances outside of a subject's biographical article but generally direct us to always default to using a subject's stated preferred name, propose changing references to "The Wachowski Brothers" to "The Wachowskis (credited as The Wachowski Brothers)" inside the infobox. Jhugh95 (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, nevermind - missed the creation of the RFC section. Ignore this. Jhugh95 (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I know you said ignore this, but the RfC doesn't precisely tackle the same thing, so I'll respond anyway. The RfC's scope is limited to the lead, not the infobox. I saw that there had been a discussion (at WikiProject Film) that ended with an unopposed proposal for "Wachowski Brothers" in the infobox, and I saw people claiming that there was consensus for anything beyond the infobox, which I did not see. The RfC is an attempt to address that. You could always revisit the infobox issue with a new proposal/RfC, but to avoid confusing things perhaps revisiting the infobox can wait until after the RfC about the lead? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Wait, the RFC is on the lede? That's ridiculous. The lede must be The Wachowskis, that's 100% clear unambiguous BLP policy. It was The Wachowskis before the infobox conflict started, I didn't even realize that the editors doing the infobox reverting had at some point started putting "brothers" in the lede too. That's extremely inappropriate. Jhugh95 (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but it's clear there's a difference of opinion as three different editors restored the "Wachowski Brothers" sans parenthetical today. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: How should the directors of this film be presented in the lead?[edit]

Consensus, I think, supports Option C here, for the purposes of the lead. It's quite close in terms of !votes, but C has the most, and is also considered acceptable by one or two contributors who prefer D. Moreover, in terms of policy, there are clear arguments for C under MOS:IDENTITY. There also seems to be consensus, without any opposition, in favour of capitalising "The". So I make the consensus form "The Wachowskis". (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How should the directors of this film be presented in the lead of the article?

"The Matrix is a [...] film written and directed by..."

  • A - "the Wachowski Brothers"
  • B - "the Wachowski Brothers (now known as the Wachowskis)"
  • C - "the Wachowskis"
  • D - "the Wachowskis (credited as the Wachowski Brothers)"

For context, the Wachowski Brothers have both come out as transgender women in the time since The Matrix was released. They are now credited as the Wachowskis, not the Wachowski Brothers.

This is a matter that has been argued over extensively. A 2012 discussion at WikiProject Film ended with the determination that the infobox should reflect names as they appear in the credits, but I have not been able to find any such consensus for anything outside of the infobox. After many threads and many edits back and forth, a more formal RfC seems useful. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


  • D (first choice) or C (second choice) - When we name people in the lead, we're not parroting data from the film's credits, we're explaining subjects that exist outside of this film -- people who have directed many other movies and a television show. And those people who exist outside of The Matrix go by "the Wachowskis", not the Wachowski Brothers. It's reasonable to think the infobox, which contains data, would simply take the "director" field from the credits of the movie. In the lead, however, we should name the people who directed the film without limiting ourselves to the way their names are presented in the credits. The vast majority of current reliable sources (last several years) call the directors of The Matrix "the Wachowskis". The infobox may ask us to fill in a director field, but the lead is where we explain actual subjects, not fill in data. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • B makes most sense here to me.."the Wachowski Brothers (now known as the Wachowskis)" (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Change to C immediately per MOS:ID and WP:BLP. Both B and D clearly violate MOS:ID, which states:
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.
And A violates BLP, which is obvious. This is grey area when it comes to the infobox, where there are questions over whether it should be a verbatim quote of the director field, but for the lede, there really is to grey area. Jhugh95 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I think this is a unique problem because they were known as "brothers" at one it is inherently relevant in the future due to the potential confusion it could create for not sure the policy has fully anticipated this.... (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
FWIW I don't think the addition of "credited as the Wachowski Brothers" qualifies as "going into detail". I would think "in detail" would be actually giving the background/process/events/timeline e.g. "Lana Wachowski (formerly Larry) came out as a transgender woman in 2010, making her the first major Hollywood director to come out as transgender; Lilly Wachowski (formerly Andy) came out as a transgender woman in 2016. The duo now goes by 'the Wachowskis'."). As it says not to go into detail rather than "do not mention", it seems to me like some brief mention is acceptable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Jhugh95, I would say this does not violate BLP or ID because it is relevant that in the credits you find them credited as one thing, but they now go by another thing.
I think of it sort of like a band getting renamed. Coldplay were originally known as something else (I forget what, let's assume it's Hotplay), and if they had released any music while known as Hotplay, we should note that the music was released as Hotplay, but the band is now known as Coldplay. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A (first choice) or B (second choice) They were known professionally at the time as 'A', links take one to their 'personal' page. A professional name is in part a 'trademark', we are not claiming that they ARE this, merely that they worked professionally, and made this film under that name. As the article is about the film, I do not see the need even for a 'mention' as described by Rhododendrites. Is it pertinent to the film any more than any other subsequent event of those involved? Pincrete (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • B - They were referred to "Wachowski Brothers" but now go by "the Wachowskis", which now seems to be the name used more often. Meatsgains (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A or B equally (I'd support either that looked to be reaching consensus). I don't buy WP:BLP here, it's a professional designation that was used at the time which isn't necessarily a gender identifier. When talked about as people rather than a historical professional designation for the pair that was used contemporaneously, they should properly be referred to as sisters. There's nothing inherently unworkable about that - Twisted Sister and Queens of the Stone Age are groups that identify as men and Caitlyn Jenner won a gold medal in the Men's decathlon. I don't support "Wachowski Brothers" anywhere outside the infobox, just to be clear. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @CoffeeCrumbs: Perhaps I'm misreading, but it seems you're doing precisely the opposite of what you say in your last sentence. This RfC concerns only the lead, not the infobox. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Apparently I'm illiterate - I thought we were talking about the infobox again. If we're just in the lead, then Prefer C CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • C or D Whether we are talking about them as individuals or an organization, they have stated their preferred name. Also, whatever text we display in the infobox, the actual hyperlink should be to "the Wachowskis", rather than to "the Wachowski Brothers", then redirecting. Torven (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • B While they have stated their preferred names now, at the time the films were made they had stated their preferred names to be the Wachowski brothers. This changed later, but at the time, their identity was made as clear as their identity now. Now they are the Wachowskis, then they were the Wachowski brothers. As far as I can see it, the movie was made by the Wachowski brothers, but it would be necessary to indicate to a reader that if they look for that name now, they'll find the individuals under the new name "the Wachowskis". So B is the only choice that seems to fit. Fieari (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • C - This should be the format used in the lead. The infobox should state "Wachowski Brothers", because this is as they are credited. The article text should state The Wachowskis (then known as The Wachowski Brothers). -mattbuck (Talk) 11:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

this is muddling as B and D are functionally shouldn't appear that people voting for these two are voting differently.. (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I would dispute that B and D are the same thing. They both have the same information, but I think most people would agree that the order does matter. Fieari (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • All wrong except possibly "C". "The Wachowski Brothers" is a proper name, so "The" is always capitalized. It is not a gendered term. The credit "The Wachowskis" is also a proper name. Capitalization is not necessary if you are referring to them informally by their given name instead of their stage/brand name. Obviously "the Wachowski brothers" is not okay but "The Wachowski Brothers" is the name they chose for their joint credit. Trying to genderize it is like trying to genderize "Warner Bros." It doesn't have a gender and there are many female employees and stockholders. it's equivalent to a brand. It's a proper name for an assocation. They changed their name for future projects but the ones already released have proper credits. "The Matrix" is still produced as a blu-ray and dvd and still has the credits as they existed. Please give them credit that they knew their mind when they chose it and not inflict personal preferences about deadnaming or misgendering - it's not like "The Wachowskis" wasn't available when they created their association. References to individuals in the articles should use their current names but the credit byline for the film is "The Wachowski Brothers." --DHeyward (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah, your contention is the capitalization of "The". I think you're right about that... a cursory google search reveals a few sources neglecting to capitalize "the", but indeed, the majority do, even in the middle of a sentence. "The" is part of the brand, and is a proper name. I support this change. That said, I do think it would still be useful to readers to know that the owners of the brand have later rebranded themselves, via a parenthetical comment. Fieari (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • C or D Per MOS:GENDERID. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • D with the definite article in "The Wachowski Brothers" capitalised. Per DHeyward, The Wachowski Brothers is a proper noun, in this case also a professional or "stage" name. Of MOS:GENDERID only Referring to the person in other articles applies; and this only covers reference to names of persons, which is not relevant to the choices above. Compare also Chestnut Street Incident for another example of how we cover changes in professional name. Strongly oppose the unlisted option "The Wachowski Sisters", which would be a WP:SYNTHesis of the coming out with the previous professional name; unless this becomes the WP:COMMONNAME for the Wachowskis, and then only with the "credited as" clause included. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • D is both currently and historically accurate. Seems like an obvious choice. RomanXNS (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • C (first choice) or D (weak second choice). Per MOS:ID, in this case the two names are close enough that I don't believe D is required, especially for the lead. PaleAqua (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • B – Respect historical reality. — JFG talk 05:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • C - respect the subject, per MOS:GENDERID. We shouldn't mention they were credited as "The Wachowski Brothers". Wikipedia is not a tabloid, the directors' gender isn't of relevance. -- Yihkrys (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further discussion[edit]

Dionysodorus This should not have been closed. There is no consensus for "the Wachowskis". Despite canvassing on Facebook, there's more votes for keeping the "Wachowski Brothers" or "credited as the Wachowski Brothers" in the lead. Normally when there is no clear outcome, you keep the status quo, and this page had previously reached agreement on using the name the filmmakers chose for their own credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I am happy to answer any questions about my closure, as required at WP:AN/RFC. A quick look at the logs suggests there has been edit-warring between A and C for over a year, so I find it doubtful that A can be treated as a firm status quo. I think, however, even if A were the status quo, the RfC clearly shows consensus not to retain A, which is the least popular of the four options - so it would be unacceptable to revert to it. Moreover, I think that there is consensus for C here, for the reasons outlined in my closing statement, and I think it meets the requirements set out at WP:CLOSE: a preponderance of responders to the RfC preferred C or said it was their alternative preference to D, and the arguments for C were reasonable and backed up by policy. I do not think WP:NOCONSENSUS would have been the right close for this RfC.
I was not aware that there was any canvassing. It is not mentioned in the RfC, the text of which I based my closing rationale on. I don't know that as closer I can do anything much about it, especially as I can't see the evidence. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Consensus does not support Option C. You did not address the previous agreement reached here, that the historical credit needs to be respected. The canvassing is addressed in the discussion above. The majority of respondents to the RfC were against C - they wanted some version of the term "Wachowski Brothers" kept. My objection is you declaring C somehow the preference when it was not, and when the obvious compromise here is option
  • B - "the Wachowski Brothers (now known as the Wachowskis)" or
  • D - "the Wachowskis (credited as the Wachowski Brothers)".
The majority of respondents are clearly agreeable to one of those two. There is no justification for not using one of those (whether or not the "the" is capitalized). The credits for the film and the way the filmmakers chose to credit themselves needs to be maintained to at least that degree. The Wachowskis have not expressed any desire to have their credited name be changed on their pre-2010 films. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I only claim to have judged the consensus in the above RfC. I did not read the previous discussion, and therefore can't comment on the canvassing.
I don't see anything in WP:CLOSE about always going for a compromise. I considered that possibility, but I don't and didn't think that the RfC had a consensus for a compromise, and the guidelines are very clear about not imposing one's own opinion and just judging the consensus as it exists. That's what I did.
I'm not going to argue about the issue itself - how the filmmakers chose to credit themselves, or whether we should respect the historical credit - because I didn't judge the issue, just the consensus. Personally, I have no strong opinion on the matter. Dionysodorus (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have overturned the close to "no consensus" since it is clear that "option c" does not have the support of the community at this stage. Neither do I feel that the community has been sufficiently engage enough to implement the change across multiple articles. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
On the basis of what policy are you allowed to do that, User:Betty Logan? Dionysodorus (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no policy that prohibits review of a discussion outcome. Two things are clear from the discussion: the majority of the participants did not support "option c", and the majority of the participants supported included the formal credit "The Wachowski Brothers" in some form, by virtue of the fact taht the combined support for options A, B & D outweighed the support for Option C. Also, as I stated in my review I do not believe the outcome was reached properly: it affects a group of articles—not just this one—and editors at those articles should have received adequate notification of this discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what discussion you're looking at. Not even a combined A, B, and D outweigh C, nevermind any one in particular. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's not how this works. I've removed the completely out-of-process supervote close. The first step would be to discuss with Dionysodorus, not overrule his/her close and insert your own. If discussion doesn't resolve things for you, then take it to AN. This seems like a pretty straightforward closure. By the numbers, 9 out of 14 participants favored C or D as their first choice (8 for C, 1 for D). Only 5 people supported either A or B (1 and 4, respectively). A 2:1 margin for C vs. B, and 8:1 for C vs. A. Numbers aren't everything, but you need a seriously compelling reason to go against that kind of majority. If you think that exists, take it to AN. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
By my count only 6 editors out 15 support option C; 9 editors supported some combination of option s A, B & D which means that the majority of the participants do not support Option C and the majority expressed a preference for including the formal credit in some form. Furthermore, even if we accept the "consensus" on this article that does not provide you with a mandate to push it through on ther other Wachowski articles where the matter has not been discussed. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Eh? In order: D or C, B, C, A or B, B, C (note that CoffeeCrumbs switched his vote when it was pointed out he misinterpreted what was being asked), C or D, B, C, C, C or D, D, D, C or D, B, C. That's 1 in support of A, 5 in support of B, 9 in support of C, and 6 in support of D. Or, going just with first choices: A:1, B:4, C:8, D:1. Even if "the other three combined were more than the one favored by most" were a valid reason to override the closure out of process, it's not even true that such is the case (to clarify, the former numbers, since the product of some votes for more than one, cannot be added together. 1, 4, 8, and 1 add up to the total participants; 1+5+9+6 does not). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Betty Logan, the relevant section of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE makes it very clear that you can't overturn an RfC unilaterally, and that me not being an admin makes no difference.
I provided a clear close rationale, which I have clarified for Gothicfilm's benefit. Wikipedia doesn't, to my knowledge, have a cast-iron doctrine of precedent, and my close doesn't necessarily imply that all other affected articles should do the same. (That is to say I think I agree with you that the consensus here should not necessarily be implemented everywhere, if that is controversial; that falls outside this RfC's remit as I understood it.) You may well be right that a further RfC is needed on a more general footing, which may well override this one, if it reaches the opposite conclusion - but that isn't in itself a reason for reconsidering my closure of this RfC.
I am very happy to answer any further questions about my closure of this RfC. The right procedure is for you to ask me to address any more specific concerns you might have. Then, I recommend that you open a more general RfC whose conclusions can determine a consensus across relevant articles - and which can supplant this RfC's consensus if that is what is decided. Alternatively, once you have asked me about any concerns you have and if the answers do not satisfy you, you could take it to WP:AN - but I would have thought the route of starting a more general RfC would be most constructive. Dionysodorus (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Betty_Logan_.22overriding.22_an_RfC_close_at_Talk:The_MatrixRhododendrites talk \\ 01:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • While I am prepared to accept the consensus at this article it still needs to be determined how the decision here affects the other articles with the same problem. Because it is probably not fair to immediately revisit the decision at this article I have grouped together all the other affected articles at Talk:The Matrix Reloaded#The Wachowski credit in the lead so the issue can be considered collectively. I have also dropped notifications at the talk pages of affected articles. The question posed there is whether or not we should adopt the solution here, and asks us to consider the alternatives. If the consensus there is to implement the consensus here at ther other articles then that is what we will do; if we opt for another solution at the other articles, then that will be grounds to revisit the consensus at this article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The Matrix is a "White savior narrative in film"[edit]

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. (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.3FRhododendrites 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? (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)

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

Should The Matrix be listed with other films at white savior narrative in film? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

That's a good idea. Thanks for sharing here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, early close per WP:SNOW. — JFG talk 22:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The MatrixThe Matrix (film) "The Matrix" should redirect to the disambiguation page matrix. (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The definite article is transformative. The film is overwhelmingly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What Ryk72 said. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:THE. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 19:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now; if someone wrote an article on "the Matrix" as a concept more broadly, I would strongly support such a move, since the film (and franchise) are derived from the much broader cyberpunk fiction trope, and that usage is actually rooted in real-world jargon ("the matrix" or "the Matrix" has been used off-and-on since at least the early 1990s if not the late 1980s to refer to the Internet in the broadest possible sense, including gatewayed othernets like the the big ones of the era, such as BITnet, SprintNet, CompuServe, BiX, AOL, FidoNet-technology BBSes, mainframe-based institutional timesharing networks, etc.). While obsolete today, because cyberpunk fiction itself is essentially a dead genre, and because virtually everything in the real world uses TPC/IP and related protocols natively now, it was historically an important concept; without it, the Wachowskis' film would probably have been called The Net or something else.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.