Talk:The Matrix/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Gender in the Matrix Metaphor

While I know that this movie was filmed before Lana transitioned, there is a lot to be said about her journey's role in the development of the Matrix plot. It explains why teleportation is not possible in the Matrix. For this reason, as well as respect for a noted Transgender activist and film maker, it should not read, "Brothers," rather, "Siblings." For those who understand transgender issues, before Lana came out, she was already identifying as a woman, but the transition had not taken place. We would not persist in supporting errors in other instances, why support the misnomer of the wrong gender for Lana? 24.154.191.204 (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be an acceptable compromise to have "The Wachowskis (Credited as The Wachowski Brothers)" in the infobox? Alecjw (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Alecjw; I am somewhat surprised that it is considered 'controversial' that it is altered FROM 'The Wachowski Brothers' to 'The Wachowskis', and not that the controversial thing is having it the other way round. It may have been the name of the 'group' and what rolls on the credits, but the information is presented on the page such as that it is misleading that this is why it remains 'The Wachowski Brothers' when, for example, IMDB states Andy and Lana as writers. For people with a little knowledge of transgender issues, it is actually the more controversial thing to, where there is opportunity to acknowledge the correct name of the people and the group, enforce the old one (without explanation or acknowledgement). I'm not sure why it is deemed more accurate to have the name on the credits, when it is a is misrepresentation of the people who did actually write/direct the film. From this perspective, it is not clear that it is stated as 'The Wachowski Brothers' to reflect the organsiation 'The Wachowski Brothers' (also now 'The Wachowskis'), or the name on the credits; it reads as if it is not an organisation but two people, which is where it is misleading (especially when clicking on it leads to 'The Wachowskis'). Constantly altering it back also looks like some anti-trans agenda, though I'm sure its not meant to be. In the world of the real, folks change what they can to reflect a person's (or groups) current standing, especially regarding transgender issues; and if its felt that it is somehow 'inaccurate' to state the film was written by the Wachowskis, then simply, as Alecjw suggests, acknowledge BOTH, and/or put an explanatory note in the information on the page. Yardsmyth7 (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should understand what Wikipedia is and how it works before suggesting what you're suggesting. As for old editors, maybe you're familiar with this already: Wikipedia records sourced truth and history. While we respect gays and transvertite, Wikipedia is neither a place to appease nor pander them. In biographies of living persons, there will always be things the person/group involved are not happy about, but while we respect them, the sourced facts remains sourced facts and therefore have a place here until you can find better sourced statements. Wikipedia also records history, meaning that the fact that she was born Larry and that she directed The Matrix and credited as Larry will never change. If you do not believe it, take a look at the example you like waving around. From The Wachowskis article, here's what it says in the very first line:

Lana Wachowski (born Laurence "Larry" Wachowski; June 21, 1965)

You will notice that while we acknowledge her as a woman now, the fact that she was born a he, with a birth certificate and a lot of public appearances and news and all that confirming that fact, it's proven that she was once and male, and the same goes for this article. The Matrix was directed by The Wachowski Brothers, as credited. And no amount of opinion or consensus will alter that fact nor what Wikipedia is. We respect her by calling her a her and Lana, but it is not at all our job to appease her nor a certain group of people by altering the history of her once being Larry nor the fact that she directed The Matrix while still a he. This is true in general, not just against LGBT. A major example is the inclusion of spoilers and the absence of spoiler tags for any movies on Wikipedia. People who got spoiled complain, but the same reason applies: We're here to record truth about the movie, not to keep a certain group of people happy. Straights complain, of course, but things remain that way. So the rules applies to any sexual preferences, which means LGBT as well.

Regarding IMDB, there are also more sources confirming that Larry directed it, and not Lana at the time. Anthonydraco (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

And if you wish to include the statements about why teleportation isn't possible in The Matrix, and why it has something to do with (then) Larry wanting to be a woman, please provide reliable sources to the discussion, as this is how Wikipedia works. Regarding Lana before coming out being already identifying as a woman but the transition had not taken place, I'm afraid it has nothing to do with The Matrix, as she directed it and credited as Larry regardless. Being a woman then didn't change anything about being credited as Larry.Anthonydraco (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is entirely clear on the matter. You use the person's current gender, even when talking about them in the past. We should say the Wachowskis, not the Wachowski Brothers. I see nothing in the discussion above which gives reason to go against the Manual of Style. Bondegezou (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fascinating. Now go read the dozen other discussions on the subject on this talk page and WikiProject Film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some specific pointers if you have the time. My apologies for coming to the discussion late, so to speak, but my understanding of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:MOS is that you need very good reasons to do something different. I quote from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." How have WikiProject Film not simply established a local consensus, but convinced the broader community? If they have done so, perhaps a FAQ on the Talk page is appropriate? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I will attempt to find you some links, but what is this broader community you speak of because the same small group of people write those guidelines as everything else. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_42#The_Matrix_-_Larry_to_Lana_.28And_other_films.29 The latest film project discussion on the matter, long and short, the article is about the work and respects the identity of the work as it is, was and forever shall be, it is not a biography, not about the individual and speaks to their historic participation in said work. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That discussion shows consensus for and no clear policy/guideline objection to what was summarised as: "Film credits in the infobox should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be identified by the name which they were using professionally at the time the film was made." Great. Seems sensible to me too. I made no edit in contradiction to that. However, what I don't see in that discussion is any consensus about how to best handle discussion of Lana Wachowski in the article text (e.g. talking about the Wachowskis rather than the Wachowski Brothers in the lede, which seems like a very easy change to make that isn't going to cause any confusion), but we do have a very clear steer from WP:MOS there. So, yeah, why aren't we following that guideline (WP:MOS)? (You express some dissatisfaction with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but that's policy.) Bondegezou (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And this article falls under the FilmProject and we have our policy. Again it is not a biographical article it is a historical document and we are not bound to the over-sensitive politically correct needs that influenced MOS:Identity otherwise any and all guidelines would be overriden from the source and that is not the case as we are allowed to render our own policy that is specific and applicable to the subject at hand. The historical reality is that it was Larry and Andy Wachowski under the stage name "The Wachowski Brothers" that made The Matrix and changes that did not come into effect credit wise until 2009 do not retroactively modify the history to adhere to some perceived notion of protecting a single individuals feelings. In short, accuracy of the reality over inaccuracy for sensitivity. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have stumbled into a larger debate and there doesn't seem much appetite for change, so I won't push this. I respect that you and others have thought about this matter and come to a considered view of what you feel is the best way forward. However, I will give a summary of my position should the mood change.

a) Your answer is that WikiProject Film has developed a Project policy, this article is within the Project's scope, and that, therefore, holds, overriding the MOS:IDENTITY guideline. I feel that position does not take due account of Wikipedia policy, namely WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. That policy is very clear: as I quoted before, "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." As far as I can see, WikiProject Film have not convinced the broader community of this position, so they cannot decide that MOS:IDENTITY does not apply to articles within their scope.

b) The edit I made (and you reverted) was to change "the Wachowski Brothers" to "the Wachowskis" in the lede. "The Wachowskis", it seems to me, is a very neutral phrasing. It applies whatever one's position as to how to represent Lana's gender at the time. It is a natural-sounding phrase. Indeed, I feel it trips off the tongue better than "the Wachowski Brothers". It is a really simple change that satisfies MOS:IDENTITY and WP:NPOV without overtly changing anything or confusing the reader. The use of "Brothers" there jars, for me, because it comes across as going out of the way to avoid the easy compromise! Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please direct further discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, I've had this discussion about 3 times now and I don't have much time for debating it a fourth. The film is famous as made by the Wachowski Brothers, the film is credited as made by The Wachowski Brothers. If George Lucas changed his name to Shamadoo, his biographical article would probably change, the creator of Star Wars, would not. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I went and read the prior WikiProject Film discussion in detail and it seems to me that your description above is unhelpful. That prior discussion confined itself to discussing what should happen in an infobox (and it did so with due regard for MOS:IDENTITY, satisfying my WP:LOCALCONSENSUS concerns). There was no consensus as to what to do in article prose. You say, "this article falls under the FilmProject and we have our policy", but there is no WikiProject Film policy about article prose on this matter. You are, thus, opposing an edit supported by a Wikipedia-wide guideline (MOS:IDENTITY) on the basis of a Project policy that doesn't actually exist.

As per your wishes, I have started a broader discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Describing_transgendered_individuals. Bondegezou (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The color of the first edit of the movie

I noticed that first trailer of the Matrix as well as the first posters do not have any green tint when scenes take place in the Matrix world. Has it always had a green effect or not?

no, it has not. the original color had green tint in a few scenes, but the dvd and bluray releases made the entire film have a green tint. you can verify this if you get a copy of the telesync, workprint or screener bootleg copies of the film. --Compn (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sophia Stewart, again

Several editors have recently been trying to add that Stewart won her case, claiming that her original story was an uncredited source for The Matrix.[1][2][3][4]

Stewart did file suit claiming copyright infringement against the Wachowskis for The Matrix and the authors of The Terminator. She did not submit any evidence for the case and failed to show for the trial, resulting in a dismissal of the case. Dispite this, an urban legend claims she won the case or that the case has been whitewashed by, of course, powerful corporate interests and/or a conspiracy.[5][6]

Lacking sources, we obviously cannot say she won the case or is the author.

The remaining question is whether the case merits mention. We've had some discussion about this. This one certainly wasn't productive. This was barely a mention. The discussion from 2006 is far more substantial, but refers to a section that is no longer in the article. I do not see discussion about removing the section (it's probably buried in years of edit summaries).

When the section was there, it cited Snopes[7] and -- I swear I am not making this up -- the Salt Lake Community College Globe[8].

The two items I identified[9][10] are the best I can find. I don't think a Snopes page is a great basis for including anything here. The LA Times story is certainly reliable and substantial. There are, of course, thousands of sites making various claims about this, but they all seem to be unreliable sources by people in love with the idea that this is a black vs. white issue.

After all of this, does anyone have additional sources to support including anything? Looks pretty thin to me. YMMV. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sophia the real creator of both The Matrix and The Terminator

http://jasonskywalker5.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/black-author-wins-matrix/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4TQg-1LWY4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.197.61.87 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not noticing the above mention of her. Is the above proof though?

No. See WP:RS. More to the point, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. These are not that, even if they were reliable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Snopes debunks this claim anyway. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Either way it is notable enough of a scandal to warrant a mention.--Inayity (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. At the moment we have one newspaper article and snopes. In my opinion, that isn't enough. Do you have any additional reliable sources for this? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This is largely outside of my area of contribution, so not my topic. I come here because I have seen too many informal discussions to a court case and was expecting some kind of NPOV content on it. Because the case (from what ever angle) is so discussed in the public it should be noted, as it is notable enough. On a side note its exclusion only bolsters claims by Sophia of a "conspiracy" at least I would like to see a balanced representation here and in the franchise Matrix section. Will google it and see what comes up. --Inayity (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ref in addition to those two above: court documents + 2 + 3 + 4 and I am an advocate that RS =/= to mainstream Western press. RS must be inclusive of media sources other than Times, and Guardian. --Inayity (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Court documents, as a primary source, are of little use here. Time boosts this a good bit. The eonline cite doesn't mention the Stewart case, but would help if we were going to mention the other case. The africanglobe source is no help. While I get that it demonstrates that someone did fall for the urban legend, it isn't a reliable source for anything here and one small paper blundering is trivial. So far, we have Time and the L.A. Times (While snopes is regularly debated as a source for info on urban legends, I don't see that it really does anything for the question of notability.) Other opinions? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay with what we got can we then at least have a 2 line note, under the heading of controversy or Copyright claims? --Inayity (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2013

Addition of a section regarding the mythology and symbolism of the Matrix is in order. Morpheus is the Greek god of dreams. In Greek Mythology the mother of Tank and Dozer looses both of her children. The Oracle is a Greek concept. Trinity is a reference to Christian Mythology. Neo means new and is an anagram of the one. An understanding of Greek Mythology provides in depth insight into the plot and motivations of the characters. Boom220.180.56.181 (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 220.180.56.181 (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, much of this is covered in The_Matrix#Influences. To add anything additional, we would need reliable sources connecting it to the film. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Grant Morrison

The article text currently claims that Grant Morrison felt The Matrix had plagiarised his own works; however, the reference cited only reads "I was taken to see The Matrix ... and saw what seemed to me my own combination of ideas enacted on the screen: fetish clothes, bald heads, kung fu, and magic, witnessing the Gnostic invasion of the Hollywood mainstream." This quotation does not seem to represent Morrison accusing the Wachowskis of plagiarism; rather, that he & they shared ideas, were in a sense "kindred spirits". Having read the work this quotation is taken from (Supergods), Morrison is positive about the film. It seems the mention of Morrison should either be removed, or changed to something like "Grant Morrison felt that the film brought many of his own ideas to the mainstream". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.112.232 (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the quotation cited as a source does not sound like an accusation of plagiarism. Does anybody have a source that does back the plagiarism claim? If not, I may change it as 5.66.112.232 suggested. Novusuna ^talk 20:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Morrison makes more direct claims of plagiarism in this interview (though I'm not sure if SuicideGirls is a reliable source – anyone?). —Flax5 20:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Good find. I don't see why it wouldn't be reliable, though I could be wrong. It's an interview with Morrison, so it's a primary source, which we can use as long as we aren't interpreting or analyzing the information we get from it. As for the content issue, the interview makes it fairly clear that he does think the movie plagiarized from him, but he doesn't seem particularly upset by it. Perhaps some mention should be made of that. Novusuna ^talk 21:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who originally added it, but old versions of this article used to link to that interview as the original source for the "plagiarism" comment. (When it used to be in the article, the ref tag gave an URL retrieval date of July 2006, and it stayed in the article for years afterwards.) I only added the Supergods quote as additional info to add a bit of detail/nuance. The SuicideGirls interview was still referenced when I made that edit, and I'm not sure when exactly it was removed - presumably someone erased it because it's not from a reliable source. Nick R^Talk 23:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

So can we include both citations? The more reliable source of Supergods & the more detailed SG interview? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.112.232 (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The theme of The Matrix

This entry on the matrix doesn't address the meaning of "the matrix" and what the matrix is and implies. It seems that there should be a section on this especially since the entry eludes to this explicitly in the plot section.No Nothing (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

While the article should give a sentence or three explaining what the Martix is in the movie, and extensive analysis is inappropriate. While there are likely some independent reliable sources interpreting the "Matrix" and some of that material might be appropriate, Foucault and Kant clearly did not discuss this film (being dead will do that to you). - SummerPhD (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Talked with SummerPhD nothing was accomplished, and so I added back my sub-topic. I'm attempting to add a section on what the meaning of the movie is because its seems to be an important film with interesting principles and notions embedded in the awesome action film it is.Know Nothing (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole section is original research. The sources cited do not discuss the topic of this article. "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Kant and Foucault did not discuss this film. You believe that the film is based in part on ideas they explored. We do not, however, have reliable sources discussing this in relation to the film. I'll add a few tags and let it sit for a few days. Failing policy-based discussion to the contrary, I will remove the section again in a few days -- if no one else removes it before then. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I jumped the gun. The "meaning" of the movie is only relevant insofar as reliable sources have talked about the meaning of The Matrix. If other people have not already published a connection between Foucault or Kant and The Matrix that you can summarize, it's not fit for Wikipedia (as original research). This is not to denigrate the ideas presented here. I think a Foucauldian analysis of The Matrix is very interesting, but more fit for a cultural studies and popular culture journal or conference. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As a follow-up, a brief Google search does show the connection made between Foucault and The Matrix before, as I thought might be the case (I haven't looked for Kant, though). this book chapter and this Rhizomes article appear to be reliable sources. If you summarize these, however, the title of the section I just removed is also inappropriate. It's not about the theme or the meaning.

A more appropriate section (placed not near the top but further down) would be something like "In philosophy." You could draw from existing content in the Influences section and the influences and interpretations section of The Matrix franchise article, presenting these ideas on Foucault, etc. in summary form (based on the reliable sources, without adding your own, that is). I think that could be a really interesting section. I can imagine people have written about this in other contexts, too: Marx, Nietzsche, Frankfurt School, Kittler, etc. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Category

You need to add this film the: Category:Films about philosophy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.156.137 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not about philosophy, that's not the film. It may contain philosophical moments, but it's not about philosophy. Canterbury Tail talk 00:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

References to "The Wachowski Brothers"

Should be changed to "The Wachowskis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.23.224 (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This. Come on people, just check the Manual of Style -- here's the relevant part, under Identity:

• An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and " [sic]" may be used where necessary).

This is pretty cut-and-dried; attribution of the film's writing and direction is in no way a direct quotation, and none of the uses of "Wachowski Brothers" in the article are part of direct quotations. Even among the references, ^#[8] is purely descriptive -- not an actual title.

... And since it's likely someone will argue for use of old names for old attributions at some point: I have difficulty assuming good faith in claims that (prior) names are neutral references. Names having gendered associations is a basic thing that is picked up by people in early childhood in, at the very least, a majority of modern western cultures -- which category includes much of the English Wikipedia's user base as well as the subject persons.

While the exact wording of the policy does not explicitly list names among gendered references, the preceding section clearly indicates that the subject at hand (how to refer to an individual or group in an article) includes titles, descriptors, and names. The only reasonable argument for use of an old, misgendering name would be affixing a "credited as X" note in cases where the work and person's current name are not readily associated (due to very large or very small amounts of time between its creation and their change of name, or the like -- not things such to the person being obscure compared to the work), and that's self-solving problem anyways -- anyone confused over an attribution on a work will click through to the person's page. Since The Matrix series is commonly held the to be the Wachowskis' hallmark films (See the order of their wiki article's headings: Early Work, Matrix franchise, Later Work), and they also maintain a significant level of relevance in popular culture up through the present... — 97.113.188.211 (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2014

Дејствие:

Томас Андерсон е компјутерски програмер кој води двоен живот како хакерот “Нео” . Друг хакер по име Тринити стапува во контакт со Нео и го информира дека човек по име Морфеј може да му го каже значењето на “Матриксот” фраза која Нео често ја среќава на интернет но не ја разбира. Било како, три агенти во црни костуми, под водство на агентот Смит, се решени да го спречат Нео да не го открие вистинското значење и намера на Матриксот. Нео конечно се среќава со Морфеј, кој го предупредува дека штом ќе му го покаже Матриксот, тој нема да може да се врати, Нео ја прифаќа неговата понуда со тоа што ќе ја одбере црвената пилиула; неговата реалност наскоро се распаѓа и ненадејно се буди, гол и слаб, во сад исполнет со течност, наоѓајки се себеси како еден од милјардите луѓе поврзани со кабли со сложен електронски систем. Го спасуваат и го донесуваат во лебдечкиот брод ( Nebuchadnezzar ) на Морфеј. Морфеј му објаснува дека во 21-виот век, луѓето започнале војна со интелигентните машини кои што тие ги направиле. Кога луѓето го блокирале пристапот до соларана енергија на машините, наместо соларна енергија почнале да го собираат биоелектрицитетот од луѓето како соодветен заменски извор на енергија, додека ги чуваат затворени во Матриксот, споделена симулација на светот како што бил во 1999 година, во кој што Нео живее од своето раѓање. Морфеј и неговиот екипаж припаѓаат на група бунтовници кои хакираат во Матриксот и ги исклуцуваат заробените луѓе, и ги регрутираат како бонтовници. Разбирањето на бунтовниците за вистинската природа на симулираната реалност им овозможува да ги искривуваат физичките закони, доделувајки им налик супермоќи. Нео е предупреден дека фатални повреди во Матриксот исто така ќе го убијат и физичкото тело, и дека агентите кои ги сретнал се моќни научници кои отстрануваа закани на системот. Вештините на Нео при вертуелна борба се поуверливи порради верувањето на Морфеј дека Нео е “Тој”- (“the One”) , човек кој според пророштвото треба да стави крај на војната помеѓу луѓето и машините. Групата влегува во Матриксот за да го посети Пророчицата, пророк кој го предвидел појавувањето на “Toj”. Пророчицата имплицира дека Нео не е “ Toj ” , и предупредува дека наскоро треба да одлучи помеѓу животот на Морфеј и неговиот живот . Пред да излезат од Матриксот групата паѓа во заседа на агенти и на специјалци. Морфеј дозволува да го фатат за да може Нео и остатокот од групата да избегаат , сепак нивниот излез за бегство е попречен од Сајфер, член на екипажот илузиран од суровоста на вистинскиот свет, кој тајно ги предаде на агентите во замена за враќање во удобноста на животот во Матриксот. Сајфер прв се исклучува и убива ноколку од сеуште поврзаните членови на екипажот додека лежат безодбранбено, преда да биде убиен од Тенк, член на екипажот кого го остави да лежи мртов. Во матриксот агентите го испрашуваат Морфеј во обид да ги дознаат неговите пристапни кодови до мејнфрејм компјутерот во Зион, прибежиштето на бунтовниците бегалци во вистинскиот свет. Верувајки дека тој не е “Тој” Нео предлага тој да се врати во Матриксот и да го спаси Морфеј, Тринити инсистира таа да го придружува Нео . Тие успеваат да го спасат нивниот водач а со тоа Нео добива доверба во неговите способности правејки подвизи достојни на оние на агентите. Морфеј и Тринити излегуваат од Матриксот, но пред Нео да излезе од Матриксот, Смит го напаѓа Нео од заседа и го убива, во вистинскиот свет машини “Стражари” го напаѓаат (Nebuchadnezzar) бродот на Морфеј, додека Тринити стои над Нео и му шепоти дека Пророкот и кажал дека таа ќе се заљуби во “Toj”. Таа го бакнува Нео и тој оживува со новопронајдена моќ со која може да го разбира и контролира Матриксот. Без никаков напор го уништува Смит и навреме го напушта точно на време за електромагнетскиот пулс да ги уништи стржарите кои напаѓаа. Некое време подоцна, Нео прави телефонски повик во Матриксот, и им ветува на Машините дека на нивните заробеници ќе им покаже свет каде се е можно. Нео го прекинува разговорот и одлетува во небото.

Jovicamilkov (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Not sure what your intent here is - this is a (Macedonian?) translation of the plot, and you're posting in the English Wikipedia. It belongs in the Macedonian Wikipedia, not here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2014

Дејствие:

Томас Андерсон е компјутерски програмер кој води двоен живот како хакерот “Нео” . Друг хакер по име Тринити стапува во контакт со Нео и го информира дека човек по име Морфеј може да му го каже значењето на “Матриксот” фраза која Нео често ја среќава на интернет но не ја разбира. Било како, три агенти во црни костуми, под водство на агентот Смит, се решени да го спречат Нео да не го открие вистинското значење и намера на Матриксот. Нео конечно се среќава со Морфеј, кој го предупредува дека штом ќе му го покаже Матриксот, тој нема да може да се врати, Нео ја прифаќа неговата понуда со тоа што ќе ја одбере црвената пилиула; неговата реалност наскоро се распаѓа и ненадејно се буди, гол и слаб, во сад исполнет со течност, наоѓајки се себеси како еден од милјардите луѓе поврзани со кабли со сложен електронски систем. Го спасуваат и го донесуваат во лебдечкиот брод ( Nebuchadnezzar ) на Морфеј. Морфеј му објаснува дека во 21-виот век, луѓето започнале војна со интелигентните машини кои што тие ги направиле. Кога луѓето го блокирале пристапот до соларана енергија на машините, наместо соларна енергија почнале да го собираат биоелектрицитетот од луѓето како соодветен заменски извор на енергија, додека ги чуваат затворени во Матриксот, споделена симулација на светот како што бил во 1999 година, во кој што Нео живее од своето раѓање. Морфеј и неговиот екипаж припаѓаат на група бунтовници кои хакираат во Матриксот и ги исклуцуваат заробените луѓе, и ги регрутираат како бонтовници. Разбирањето на бунтовниците за вистинската природа на симулираната реалност им овозможува да ги искривуваат физичките закони, доделувајки им налик супермоќи. Нео е предупреден дека фатални повреди во Матриксот исто така ќе го убијат и физичкото тело, и дека агентите кои ги сретнал се моќни научници кои отстрануваа закани на системот. Вештините на Нео при вертуелна борба се поуверливи порради верувањето на Морфеј дека Нео е “Тој”- (“the One”) , човек кој според пророштвото треба да стави крај на војната помеѓу луѓето и машините. Групата влегува во Матриксот за да го посети Пророчицата, пророк кој го предвидел појавувањето на “Toj”. Пророчицата имплицира дека Нео не е “ Toj ” , и предупредува дека наскоро треба да одлучи помеѓу животот на Морфеј и неговиот живот . Пред да излезат од Матриксот групата паѓа во заседа на агенти и на специјалци. Морфеј дозволува да го фатат за да може Нео и остатокот од групата да избегаат , сепак нивниот излез за бегство е попречен од Сајфер, член на екипажот илузиран од суровоста на вистинскиот свет, кој тајно ги предаде на агентите во замена за враќање во удобноста на животот во Матриксот. Сајфер прв се исклучува и убива ноколку од сеуште поврзаните членови на екипажот додека лежат безодбранбено, преда да биде убиен од Тенк, член на екипажот кого го остави да лежи мртов. Во матриксот агентите го испрашуваат Морфеј во обид да ги дознаат неговите пристапни кодови до мејнфрејм компјутерот во Зион, прибежиштето на бунтовниците бегалци во вистинскиот свет. Верувајки дека тој не е “Тој” Нео предлага тој да се врати во Матриксот и да го спаси Морфеј, Тринити инсистира таа да го придружува Нео . Тие успеваат да го спасат нивниот водач а со тоа Нео добива доверба во неговите способности правејки подвизи достојни на оние на агентите. Морфеј и Тринити излегуваат од Матриксот, но пред Нео да излезе од Матриксот, Смит го напаѓа Нео од заседа и го убива, во вистинскиот свет машини “Стражари” го напаѓаат (Nebuchadnezzar) бродот на Морфеј, додека Тринити стои над Нео и му шепоти дека Пророкот и кажал дека таа ќе се заљуби во “Toj”. Таа го бакнува Нео и тој оживува со новопронајдена моќ со која може да го разбира и контролира Матриксот. Без никаков напор го уништува Смит и навреме го напушта точно на време за електромагнетскиот пулс да ги уништи стржарите кои напаѓаа. Некое време подоцна, Нео прави телефонски повик во Матриксот, и им ветува на Машините дека на нивните заробеници ќе им покаже свет каде се е можно. Нео го прекинува разговорот и одлетува во небото.

Jovicamilkov (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Not sure what your intent here is - this is a (Macedonian?) translation of the plot, and you're posting in the English Wikipedia. It belongs in the Macedonian Wikipedia, not here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2014

"Meaning we ourselves are our own agents of deceit, and so in order for one to know truth one must choice to openly pursue truth."

Change to:

"Meaning we ourselves are our own agents of deceit, and so in order for one to know truth one must choose to openly pursue truth."

The change being 'choice' to 'choose'.

Source: English.

Blu3mupp3t-jw (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Corrections

In the 'Philosophical Influences' section there are several typos that are driving me crazy:

- should be 'Agent Smith exclaims', not smith

- 'utopia ,but'

I know they're typos but could someone please fix them? Appearances matter people!

~~Tra~~ 19:26 (BST) 05/06/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.24.162 (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Novusuna ^talk 19:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Prophets, prophetesses, prophetettes

I noticed that another editor introduced the archaic term “prophetess” into this article. Although some ancient stories about female prophets (from equally-ancient cultures) might have used that term, The Matrix is not one of them. Wikipedia's convention is to use gender-neutral language (MOS:GNL). I would suggest we avoid introducing the new term “prophetess” into this article unless the Oracle was explicitly described as a “prophetess” in the dialog of the film, in which case a Wikipedia editress can add it back with the proper citation.  Unician ∇  10:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Off topic chat

Off topic chat

Can something simultaneous really be calculated sequentially? The Problem becomes obvious when you try to write a collision control for a Video game. Sometimes several objects are moving at the same time, but you can only process the movement of one object at once in the Loop. When you want to simulate physics, you Need to compensate the imbalance that results from the sequential processing. This is really giving me headache. Maybe you can make the processing order for all movements of all objects (that result from the Impact of external powers) random, so it would at least statistically compensate the imbalance. Imagine that the objects are atoms with their coordinates. The wrong Butterfly effect would remain, but from a bigger distance it would look correct. You also Need a trigonometry table because the powers have their Impact in a round way. You cannot calculate a circle with a Computer. Sheep angels do not result in same distances in a Matrix, e.g. a 2D- or 3D-array. It is also possible to buffer function calls with their Parameters and do a resorting with a Counter before the actual call is done with the Parameters and the order resulting from the order in the buffer. You can write a path search with that trick. And you perhaps could also simulate the spread of electricity in a conductor with that. But I have still doubts that a Computer Simulation actually works. Maybe they just fooled us. Duracell and Dot Matrix With Stereo Sound. Dura Mater. Nintendo. Maybe the Matrix is only a metaphor for the media and what it does with our minds. Is it shit or good fiction. It depends only on one question: is a Computer Simulation really possible? At least the idea from the human body as an energy source seems to be correct. That sort of perpetum mobile is actually possible according to the laws of physics (saving heat energy in a circle). This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the topic... or whatever that was. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Ironically enough, apart from being off-topic chatter, this refers to mathematical matrices. Nothing that has anything remotely to do with the film this article deals with. --uKER (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"The Wachowskis" vs. "The Wachowski Brothers"

MOS:IDENTITY says, "Wikipedia should use the term most used in sources". However, it continues: "An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns ... that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." The exception in the present case is the use of "Brothers" in the article prose. Please note this discussion, the most recent I could find with a consensus, where the closing admin states, "there is a rough consensus that the subject's preference take precedence over referring to them using their latest expressed gender." It seems to agree with my reading of the guideline. "The Wachowskis" in the article prose is in no way ambiguous and reflects the consensus guideline. Listing "The Wachowski Brothers" in the info box reflects the proper noun usage of the phrase in the film's credits. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Puff

The whole thing is a ludicrous puff piece. These are a couple of people who make SF movies. Can we please get rid of the tedious cod-philosophy and put that on some fan page, if there is one? Sartoresartus (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sophia Stewart

Please note that any information that Sophia Stewart has originally invented the idea is a HOAX http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/11/22/inside-the-billion-dollar-matrix-lawsuit-one-of-the-internets-most-pervasive-hoaxes/ and should be reverted as vandalism. Petrb (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You are using an outdated source. Here is a full explanation for you.

[removed copy/paste copyright issue]

More Information is available at the website: http://www.truthaboutmatrix.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junklit (talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 January 2015

I've removed the material you copy/pasted from the website above as a copyright issue. Feel free to remove my italicized "removed" comment above and replace it with a paraphrase or the like. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A source on her site is not reliable/neutral. Wikipedia only includes what has been reported on in reliable sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. If you are aware of reliable secondary sources (no court records, none of her own statements), please link to them here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

NPR is a reliable source; they had a story dated May 24, 2005: 'Matrix' Lawsuit to Move Forward. Indiewire is an industry-based blog for independent filmmakers; the article there is more recent—April 26, 2013: Why Won't That Story About Sophia Stewart And Her 'Matrix' Lawsuit Die? While apparently the lawsuit was dismissed, it perhaps does deserve some sort of mention in the article, perhaps under a Controversy section title?108.99.74.244 (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

What year did filming start?

Q: What year did filming start for The Matrix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.65.119 (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Neo"

I am not sure, if this is right, but I have a strong suspicion that the name "Neo" is influenced by the name of a canadian hacker called Ne0h.

In 1999, Ne0h made quite some waves for avenging his group members by defacing a governement website with the following text:

"Listen up FBI m____ f_____ers. Don’t f___ with our members, you will loose.

we are holding fbi.gov as I type this. AND YOUR FEARING. We got

arrested because you dumb idouts cant figure out who hacked the whitehoue..

right? so you take us alll in and see if one of them narcs. GOOD

F___ING LUCK.. WE WONT NARC. Don’t you understand? I SAID

WORLD DOMINATION.

the unmerciful, ne0h.”

(information taken from Kevin Mitnicks book The Art of Intrusion)

If this is the case, then you might want to add that information to the article. (and maybe the Ne0h article as well)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Matrix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/02/the-janet-jackson-interview-000258.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070508042743/http://www.ew.com:80/ew/article/0,,20036782_20037403_20037541_25,00.html to http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20036782_20037403_20037541_25,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121022162202/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20037541_25,00.html to http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20037541_25,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)