Talk:The Matrix/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Links

A link to the Matrix page from: http://japanvisitor.com/jc/reviews.html

You can just add it to the article. Fantasy 09:13, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There are several links that didn't give anything new to the reader... imho dictionary-of-matrix, X-matrix.net, MatrixTheories (Weblog), Unplugging The Matrix.

freeze-and-rotate

Is that absolute fact? I'm sure I've seen that freeze and rotate technique many, many years before The Matrix.

Yes. The source is http://www.britannica.com/magazine?ebsco_id=84556&pager.offset=10

ErdemTuzun

Ahhh, apologies, I figured it was refering to the other technique (as described above), but what it that called? I remember seeing it years ago on the BBCs Tomorrow's World.

The freeze-and-pan effect existed before the movie; the technique the movie used to achieve it was new. The effect first appeared in commercials (notably the "Khakis Swing" commercial for The Gap). In the earlier versions, only a handful of cameras surrounded the scene and frames were digitally tweened to create the smooth pan. In the "bullet time" technique, hundreds of cameras are used to get precise views at all angles, and the hard work is managing the enormous amount of data. --LDC

It's not that hard to manage. Each camera in the setup takes one picture. You just put them in sequence. There's quite a bit of artistry in how to use the technique, and I think the director did an excellent job in this instance. --ansible

The freeze-and-pan effect existed before, but what about the slow-down-and-pan effect? That's what bullet time is. --The Cunctator

For anyone who cares: the "track around an object frozen or slowed in time" technology was created by a man named Tim Macmillan, first broadcast on May 12, 1993 in a BBC show called Tomorrow's World, featuring a pan around a dog frozen in time (though it had been filmed before in experimental films and demos); the technology itself goes by the trademarked name Time-slice. The camera rigs he uses are called Josephine and Susan and can give either live action footage or a series of still frames. Koyaanis Qatsi 23:25 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Just to throw in a little color here, there have been lots of examples of 3-D freeze-frame techniques (I mean 3-D in the sense that the camera is moving through space around a still object, not that the image is stereoptical). QuickTime VR is one example, it allowed a series of still shots to be stitched together to view an outward panoramic scene, or inward to show a "rotatable" 3-D view of a still object. Apple wasn't the first to implement something like this, and other companies did similar things with a complete spherical panorama instead of a cylindrical one. I think part of what made the Matrix version stand out was the fact that the action was continuing in slow motion during the pan, which means you can't just use a single camera and move it around the scene, you have to have lots of cameras. The downside is you need to bluescreen or greenscreen the background to keep the cameras from seeing each other. Even with a single camera, you can have the scene change as you pan, but that's more like animation. And human actors are notoriously hard to animate, especially when diving through the air!

Laws of thermodynamics

Didn't the film's producers have something to say about the fairly blatant violation of the laws of thermodynamics (along the lines of "yeah, we knew it was crap but the original reason for keeping people in the matrix (as a source of random inspiration for computing stuff, IIRC) was too hard to explain?"

So what's better: That we (the viewing public) think the producers are stupid, or that the producers think we're stupid? Either is a bad call in my opinion. -- ansible

Movies are made for a broad audience, little of which understands much basic physics let alone computer science. Even if they did, complex ideas like using the brain processes of millions of enslaved humans as a compute server is a tad difficult to get across in a movie. --Robert Merkel

...and it's not that much more plausible either. Human brains are not made for heavy computations nor for direct interconnection. They are mostly specialized pieces of hardware. They probably would be too slow to emulate a pseudo-real world (in real time !) and on top of that to live in that world. Morality: one has to accept implausible things here and there if one wants to enjoy the overall idea of the movie... FvdP

...actually, the human brain is also incredibly adaptable, and more importantly massively parallel. any specialization is evolutionary biology in origin and devised along historical path dependency, but even this specialization tends to allow for thorough internal rewiring. do humans in the matrix dream? there's some peppering of geek-chic sleeplessness / late nights in the original film. (though neo also has trouble sleeping his first night in the real world; though this could be nervousness or acclimatization.) however, there's something of a circular logic to this proposal. "the matrix is necessary to enslave humans to run the program of the matrix." why not just kill all the humans? either there's something necessary about "a form of fusion" which requires building up low-level energies to a threshold where fusion activates (human beings are the glow plugs of the diesel engine that is a fusion reactor), or my suspicion has been that morpheus just doesn't know what he's talking about. my personally favorite theory is that the AI have been encoded with some kind of asimov laws where they are low-level forbidden from outright genocide of the human race (and need the one / the matrix in an attempt to factor out this code to free themselves); and something like HAL in 2001, the contradiction between sentient conquest and impotence to remove the human race led to a third option -- containment and isolation, or stasis. or, something like the HARDAC in batman:tas or VYGR in the first star trek film, where people are kept alive because they quietly possess some trait which the AI lack and seek to reverse engineer.

Well, it might be more plausible to use human brains for computation. Some AI researchers (mostly ones I don't agree with like Roger Penrose) argue that the human brain makes use of quantum mechanical oddities that would make it impossible to simulate in a deterministic system, such as most computers intend to be. I think it is BS, but because at least one Ph.D. thinks so, that makes the idea more plausible than 'human as energy converter', which no one (I hope) with a decent understanding of thermodynamics would believe. --Ansible 18:14, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

used bioelectric energy to spark fusion reactors wasn't it? this should be easily verifiable, since I suppose someone could watch it again.

It's bull. It's not meant to be taken any more scientifically than Kryptonite in the Superman stories. :-)

dude, i've had a kryptonite lock on my bicycle and superman has *never* been able to steal it.

You don't need Superman to have that lock broken. http://www.engadget.com/entry/7796925370303347/

a comments

Hi all. I consider the Matrix to be one of the most overated films ever, so i hope my editing was still NPOV (apart from the kids from Akira bit - heh couldn't resist - remove at will!). I've added some of the more obvious "influences" that were not included by previous contributors - probably because they are more "rip-offs" than influences. ho hum, flame away -- AW

The best comment on The Matrix may be from MaryAnn Johanson, the Flick Filosopher

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/archive/2q99/matrix.html

Don't miss the end of the paragraph that begins: "The SF audience is going nuts for this movie" :-)

"Neo, who is seemingly awakened by the power of her love, realizes the fabricated nature of the Matrix, and it is only then that he is able to transcend the world around him."

my understanding was that, once "dead" his subconscious or somesuch lets go of its circumstantial grounding and neo is able to hear trinity whisper that she loves him despite also connected to the matrix. simply, neo's mind finally truly senses the real world and the matrix simultaneously, which i imagine to be something like lucid dreaming. and just like controlling your dreams when you're awake enough to know you're dreaming, neo steals a scene from akira and stops agents' bullets.

with the final showdown with agent smith, that as morpheus describes "all of their strength and their speed is based on a world built on rules" -- that the AI's programming is deterministic while real life quantum events are stochastic; neo now easily draws upon this quantum psychology to defeat smith.

Sources for the ideas

I am wonderin, did Wachowski's read Lem's books? Idea of computer- created- reality and people who think that this is real seems to be slightly influenced by one of his short stories. szopen

do you mean 'the futurological congress' (ijon tichy)?

Copyright problems

It seems that something about Sophia Stewart should be added and her claims that the movie is based off of her copyrighted script.

Doesn't using a still from the film violate copyright? --Dante Alighieri 10:31 14 May 2003 (UTC)

Using stills from a movie is fair use when used to illustrate an article about the movie. Until a lawyer tells us otherwise, this appears to be the prevaling interpretation here. -- Minesweeper 10:48 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

I've removed Image:Matrix dvdcapture.jpg for the time being, simply because it is a very low resolution picture with black borders to boot. If we resort to fair use, we should at least use a decent copy. --Eloquence 21:41 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

We probably can't "resort to fair use" in this case, as it's a violation of the DMCA and the servers are in California. Has provisions for fair use been made under the DMCA? I was under the impression that they hadn't. ... My point is, anyway, that because of CSS we'd have to circumvent copyright protection to get the DVD still. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:43 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

There are always other ways to do it, the so called 'analogue window', for example, take a photo of the screen, you haven't circumvented the DVD copy protection. If you can display it, you can copy it (not always without loss, of course).

What if a European uploads the picture?

european IP rights are awarded to whoever generated the data. american IP rights are awarded to whoever collected the data. that, and jurisdiction of the location of the server and citizenship of its owner, slants towards the u.s. government thinking they have legal say-so. (as if the u.s. government wasn't already making a claim for universal jurisdiction as it is; except for Henry Kissinger.)

Is the image a screen-capture or has been copied from some site as "fair use" ? Looks like the above discussion was left unfinished. Jay 11:43, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This discussion might be a bit old, but still... I have the Collectors edition of The Matrix, and among other goodies there were a few thick paper A4 sheets, with a still from the movie and the short movie credits that are like the ones hanging outside cinemas. Can't those images be used in fair use as publicity images ? \ wolfenSilva / 04:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comparing The Matrix to Anime

The following quote from this page seems awfully out of place. It seems to complain of the shots being ripped-off from anime films with which I am familiar. I do not personally see where any anime film has cornered the market on any of this imagery, in that similar shots have appeared in earlier films, Japanese and otherwise. I seem to recall Indiana Jones being chased through a fruit market, for instance. Much of the text of this page reads as though the writer had an axe to grind against the films.

"Additionally, there are notable influences from Japanese animation (anime). Both a scene almost at the end of the movie, where Neo's breathing seems to buckle the fabric of reality in a corridor he is standing in, as well as the "psychic children" scene in the Oracle's waiting room are evocative of similar scenes from the 1980s anime classic Akira. The title sequence, the rooftop chase scene where an agent breaks a concrete tile on the roof when landing after a jump, the scene late in the movie where a character hides behind a column while pieces of it are blown away by bullets, and a chase scene in a fruit market where shots hit watermelons, are practically identical to shots in another anime science fiction classic, Ghost in the Shell."

Hi (please insert name here), I agree with you that the wording is not really neutral. One of the maximes of Wikipedia is to write always in a NPOV (Neutrale point of view). This is achieved by people rewriting things other people have written. You can just change the wording (just click edit). I would say, that the comparison is interresting, there are similarities, so this things should be mentioned. Just the wording is not really right. Feel free to change it, Be bold in updating pages! Fantasy 09:03, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Some of the scenes in the matrix might be a deliberate homage, rather than a rip-off. I have heard rumors that Ghost in the Shell was required reading/watching for the whole matrix crew. See also Ghost in the Shell. Does anyone know if those rumors are actually true? 80.126.238.189 20:06, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure neuromancer should be mentioned at all, unless the similarities are particularly striking. Both stories are in the same genre, after all. Kim Bruning 09:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was just reading about TV commercials on wiki and I saw a comment on there about the existence of an NBC Red and a NBC Blue. This obviously got me thinking about the allusion of the red pill and the blue pill in The Matrix. I was wondering whether this was not a meta-reference back to the industry and the choice of channels or something by the writers.

From the earliest days of the medium, television has been used as a vehicle for advertising in some countries. Since their inception in the late 1940s, television commercials have become far and away the most effective, most pervasive, and most popular method of selling products of all sorts. The radio advertising industry was well-established when television made its debut in the 1940s, and in the United States television was intentionally developed as a commercial medium, based upon radio's successful format, by the first television broadcasting networks (especially RCA, the founder and owner of the NBC Red and NBC Blue networks).

Philosophical Influences

I'm wondering if the philosohpical influences section could be clarified some. What can't be considered a philosophical influence to The Matrix? Kant? (One of my tutors suggested that Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action was the foundation for The Matrix: Revolutions.) Could we come to a consensus about the major philosophical underpinnings of the work? Perhaps this can be done by looking at the one philosophical text that actually appeared in the movie, Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation. Remember, Neo uses it to hide the diskette for the white rabbit. He pulls it off the shelf, opens it to show its true nature and reveals that even the book itself exists as a kind of simulation. This slate article on the philosophy of the matrix makes an interesting case for placing Baudrillard's ideas and other postmodern musings about the nature of social reality at the core of our understanding of the movie.

Anyway, I'm going to add reference to the work. We can definitely append some more philosophy into the *exstensive* list. I do wonder... does the musing nature of a movie like this one promote such bizzare popular speculation into it's "core philosophy"? Should Wikipedia represent this by similarly offering every single interpretation as if it "might" be true? Why not just make a case for what evidence exists, and relate certain aspects of the movie to certain philosophers, thinkers, religions, etc.? However, perhaps this is too great a project for such a page...

--Erik Garrison 02:16, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

We could include only the influences mentioned in the philosophy essays from the Official Matrix Site? --Wikiwikifast 02:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

You caught me halfay through an edit. I merged your addition in... and included the same link in the external links section. Perhaps future edits will head in a certain direction with this, but looking at the official site, it seems that we've covered most of the bases in at least a cursory manner.--Erik Garrison 03:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Someone needs to look at the comparisons between The Matrix and Neuromancer, stat. Oh Ye Gods, what a sketchy series of superficial connections. Some of them are ok, but... Mouse is similar to the Finn? No. No no no.

Agreed. I finished reading Neuromancer again just a few weeks ago, and Mouse is nothing at all like the Finn, so far as I noticed. Perhaps they've the same hair color, and someone thought that was relevant? =P PMC 00:21, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

After a highly caffeinated discussion with fellow SF buffs, I settled on the most cogent set of comments we could all agree upon. Anville 21:17, 5 August 2004 (CST)

Look at the book series "The Wonderland Gambit" by Jack L Chalker and you see more similarities than in Neuromancer(albeit not many more). Not that i think the stories are the same but there are certain similarities. Guy whos a computer wizz gets recruited(by asking him to follow the white rabbit, that being a woman dressed in white instead of a tattoo) then to find out he lives inside a computer(but in this story they are trying to get out not having done so yet). there are 2 groups against each other, 1 seemingly wants to get out, the other wanting to have godly powers, since they found a way to control the machine to an extend, and control mankind, but both needing the same things to get them to thier goals.

I don't like the Neuromancer section at all. Very speculative, not very fact based. I think it should be removed outright. fataltourist 20:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Music

I think some info on the music in The Matrix should be added. I know Don Davis wrote the score, and some Rob Dougan stuff was used in the first and second films, and some Juno Reactor in the third, but I know there is other music in at least the first one... -- SS 16:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson, Propellerheads, Ministry, Rob Dougan as "Rob D", Meat Beat Manifesto, Lunatic Calm, The Prodigy, Rob Zombie, Deftones, Hive, Monster Magnet, Rammstein, and Rage Against the Machine all contributed to music in the first Matrix film, The Matrix. Linkin Park, Marilyn Manson, Rob Zombie, Rob Dougan, Deftones, Team Sleep, P.O.D., Unloco, Rage Against the Machine, Oakenfold, Fluke, and Dave Mathews all contributed to the Matrix Reloaded. Pale 3 contributed to the Matrix Revolutions. User: Patrik Mangan October 7th 2004

I've recently added an article on The Matrix (OST). It currently lacks some information on missing tunes (like the infamous dissolved girl) and where each appear. I'll try to improve the article as soon as I get some time to watch the movie again. \ wolfenSilva / 04:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Material to be merged

Could someone please assess the following material as possibly to be merged into this article? VfD consensus was not reached, but nobody said 'keep'. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agent Brown is one of three agents in the 1999 blockbuster, The Matrix, played by Paul Goddard. He was the agent who fired shots at Neo in the scene where Neo bent backwards dodging the bullets in bullet time, created by digital effects guru, John Gaeta.

The Washowskis didn't write it

and they're liars and theives, according to a recent court case. The real writer was Sophia Stewart, and she is going to make an assload of cash from the court's decision. www.slccglobelink.com/news/2004/10/28/Entertainment/mother.Of.The.Matrix.Victorious-785067.shtml I'd write this up, but I'm not a good writer. 'Specially at NPOV.

I just read this story myself and came looking for a mention of it in the article. --Feitclub 01:27, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

However, I wonder how accurate this story is. Has the lawsuit truly been settled? Or even been filed? My searches on Google turned up no other source that didn't cite the article you cited. A story of this magnitude should be reported by someone other than "Salt Lake Community College Globe," even if Ms. Stewart's theories are correct that the entire AOL Time Warner corporation is conspiring against her. --Feitclub 03:39, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

The lawsuit was definitely filed; it was in the news a bit last year. Here's an article from October 2003 that's still available: [1]. I can't find corroborating sources that it's been settled though. --Delirium 07:30, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

May explain what really happened that was mistakenly thought to be Stewart winning the case -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oops, I'll revise the wording. I have found one document filed in the California District Court website but being from the other side of the pond I'm not up to speed on driving your court web-pages. So in summary there is a case, we are just not sure what its current state is? -- Alex Tuesday, 07 December 2004 13:56:23

Well, I have no experience at all in finding court documents. However, I can maybe clarify the situation a little, with of course the warning that I'm not a lawyer, just a layman with a little knowledge. What I'm guessing happened is that the Wachowskis and Warner Brothers asked for a summary judgement. This is when you tell the judge, "You've got certain facts before you that both sides agree on; we're only disagreeing on the interpretation of those facts. Now we're arguing that, given those facts and given the law, that's all that's needed to decide in our favor." This is intended to forestall plaintiffs from bringing impossible cases they know they can't win, just because they know the defendant can't afford to fight the case to the end; if someone's brought a truly meritless case, the defendant may be able to stop it with a summary judgement. So if I'm right and this is the "victory" that the article was describing, it's really not much of a victory at all: all the judge's decision really said is "I can't rule that this case is completely open-and-shut in favor of the Wachowskis and Warner Brothers." Nothing in that says that the case will be settled in Stewart's favor, only that it cannot yet be settled against her. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:43, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nice find, Mr. Feldspar, but I'd feel a hell of a lot better if we had any kind of respected news source verify this story. Dammit, at this point I'll take the New York Post over these random reports. --Feitclub 21:56, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Found a correction from the SLC Globe: www.slccglobelink.com/news/2004/11/16/News/Corrections-805777.shtml Now we know why nobody else is reporting it yet. --Feitclub 01:42, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Influenced by Dark City?

Question about this: The Matrix heavily borrowed plot and style from the film Dark City released in 1998.

If this movie was released just a year before the film came out, how much could it have possibly influenced the plot and style? Can anyone prove/defend the above statement? I understand that the films do have some similarities and used some of the same props, but that does not mean it was influenced by it. - Mattingly23 05:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I reworded the sentence to something I thought was more appropriate. - Mattingly23 14:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neuromancer

I am removing the neuromancer section. It doesn't belong here. fataltourist 02:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Connections to Judism?

How credible it is that, it has parallels with Judaism history? like on EveryThing2 Article and Wikinfo.org Article.

Zain 00:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Matrixism

--Ailric 18:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) The reference to the Baha'i faith seems to be utter nonsense. The philosophies expressed in the Matrix movies are about as similar to any other religion as well.

MFNickster 22:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) Philwelch removed the "Star Wars" tie-in, saying "show me one person who follows a Star Wars-inspired religion." Does Chris Chanada count?

http://chrislight.org/JediismInterview.html

Arguably, but arguably not as well. Regardless, I don't know of any "Star Wars" religious movement (other than the "put your religion as Jedi Knight on the census and they'll recognize it as a national religion!" craze), and I am loath to consider "website-based" religions as actual religions. For all we know, some 13-year old kid made up "Matrixism" because he thought it would be "cool" and is probably going to outgrow it. I can say that because that's the sort of shit I did when I was 13. Philwelch 23:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you did say "show me one," and this guy seems to fit the bill. It's pretty evident that the guy is serious about it, claiming to have been a 'believer' for 26 years in the interview. It's also not unusual for religions to begin with one person, there are many historical examples. George Lucas didn't make it up out of whole cloth, either, he drew on real beliefs of real religions, so as far as I can tell the only mistake Chanada made is calling it "Jediism" instead of giving it a new name. That tends to leave people like you and me incredulous, but as a factual statement I'd say it's true that Star Wars has indeed inspired a religion!

MFNickster 02:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a one-man religion, so it's hardly a significant enough phenomenon to be mentioned. Philwelch 02:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the interview I linked? It's evidently not a one-man religion, and regardless of its membership I think it is worthy of a mention strictly on the basis of its unusual origins. That seems to be the very point of its inclusion, anyway. I think you're letting your personal POV get in the way of a relevant and factual entry.

MFNickster 05:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I read the interview. Go mention it on the Star Wars article then. It's not RELEVANT on the article for The Matrix. Philwelch 06:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can see you really have an axe to grind, since you removed the link yet again. If someone found it relevant enough to add it, and I find it relevant enough to include, why should your judgment prevail? There is no factual dispute, I'm not writing paragraphs of POV stuff on it. How can it "disrupt the flow" if it's the last item of the last section before the Related Articles? I put it back in because it links to an existing WP article on a similar phenomenon that some people might be interested in reading. Plus I met your "requirement" of one example person, so what exactly is your beef?

MFNickster 11:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't setting a requirement, and you're the one with the ax to grind. You added the link to the "put your religion as Jedi on the census" movement, which was more of a practical joke than a serious religious movement. That makes it not even close to similar to this supposed "Matrixism". Philwelch 21:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that winning this stupid argument is more important to you than making this article not suck. The "put Jedi as your religion on the census" movement is completely, utterly, totally irrelevant to anything in the article about The Matrix. If you're that hell-bent on including this information in the Wikipedia, go to the Star Wars article, where it would at least be relevant. Philwelch 22:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And it's increasingly clear to me that you have absolutely no sense of differing points of view, collaboration, or compromise. I don't really care whether the link stays (though I find it relevant and interesting), I just hate to see a user's contribution removed for no good reason except that you don't like it. I guess you believe anybody is free to contribute to Wikipedia, subject to your approval, huh? I think maybe you need a vacation from Wikipedia if you're going to bully other users.

MFNickster 22:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not that I have no sense of differing POV, collaboration, or compromise. It's that I had good reasons for editing and removing something that doesn't fit well, for reasons I have already established. I didn't remove it for "no good reason", I removed it because 'this is the article for The Matrix, not the article for Star Wars'. In fact, I accepted a compromise position by editing down the section on "Matrixism" and not deleting it entirely.

This isn't about me, you, or any other user. It's about Wikipedia. And when anyone comes here and started editing Wikipedia, they accept that their edits and contributions will be challenged and altered by other users for the end of writing a good encyclopedia. That's what we're doing, writing an encyclopedia. Go to Everything2 if you want to do something like this just for the sake of collaboration and getting along with others. Wikipedia has a purpose, and all of my edits are directed toward that purpose. Compromise has no place--no one who cares about Wikipedia will compromise the quality of Wikipedia to placate POV mongers and 12 year olds who have nothing better to do with their time. Philwelch 23:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you might to work on your reading comprehension. I removed the mention to Star Wars because it, as I explained, " is completely, utterly, totally irrelevant to anything in the article about The Matrix." That's pretty far from "no good reason except that I don't like it". Philwelch 23:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My reading comprehension is fine. You missed the reason that I put the link in because I disagree that it's irrelevant. Matrixism is relevant to The Matrix, and as a (significant or not) "movie-derived religion" it is relevant to so-called Jediism. I didn't include any content about Star Wars or Jediism, I just put in a link. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work; articles link to related topics, and in this case people interested in reading about The Matrix might also be interested to know that "Matrixism" exists and has a precedent. Why you think your opinion that it "makes the page suck" is sufficient to justify undoing people's work is beyond me. Ideally, you could propose a revised paragraph that incorporates the link in what you consider an "encyclopedic" fashion, but instead you just deleted it. That's what I object to.

MFNickster 00:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the link you put in because it has no place. As I said before, the "put Jedi as your religion on the census" movement is completely, utterly, totally irrelevant to anything in the article about The Matrix, because it was more of a practical joke than a serious religious movement. This supposed "Matrixism", on the other hand, purports to be a bona fide new religious movement. Oh, and you did link to the "put Jedi as your religion on the census", because there is no article about any existing Star Wars-inspired religion. If you want to create that article, defend it as being encyclopedic, and link it to the bit on Matrixism, that would work. If you even want to edit the article on Star Wars to mention any Star Wars-inspired religious movements, and then link to your new section of the Star Wars article, that would be appropriate. However, the references we've seen as of yet aren't appropriate because it hasn't been established anywhere in Wikipedia that there are any serious Star Wars-inspired religious movements. If you think you have enough facts to establish that in either a separate article or in the Star Wars article, go for it. But as of yet, there is no information in Wikipedia about anything of the kind other than an elaborate prank against the UK, Australia and NZ censuses. Philwelch 00:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have two issues with "Matrixism" that I've reflected in my edits. First, is it an actual religion? All I can see about it from a cursory google search is either from Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors, its own webpage, and web forums where it's being talked up. Second, is it encyclopedic? Even if it is an actual religion, does it have any followers? I think the short mention I have made is not only the most factually accurate mention, it is also the most that Wikipedia can or should say about it. Philwelch 01:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"I find your lack of faith disturbing." :) MFNickster

Every reference to "Matrixism" was added by a small number of IP's (and one user), most of which are responsible only for adding these references. It's clear that the entire thing is the founder(s) attempt at a publicity stunt (a Google search turns up a lot of message boards they've been talking it up on too), so I suspect the whole thing is a violation of "don't write about yourself on Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox/self-promotion/advertising". I rewrote the section on Matrixism accordingly, but I don't know if a relatively small internet-trolling movement is encyclopedic in the first place. These guys aren't even as accomplished as the legendary GNAA. Philwelch 22:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for doing some research into the "religion" of Matrixism. I think you are quite probably right, but I also think you should avoid being over-zealous in your edits. If "Matrixism" turns out to be a fad, publicity stunt or vanity site, it will become apparent and be weeded out in due time. There's no need to ham-handedly stomp out every contribution which smells suspicious to you. Especially considering your accusations of "12-year-olds" creating the religion, based on zero evidence, it indicates POV equal to if not exceeding that of the original contribution.

MFNickster 04:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My own speculation, provided on a talk page, is obviously my point of view. What the fuck else would it be? And how does this affect what goes in the article namespace?Philwelch 05:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your use of the terms "alleged religion of Matrixism" and "supposed beliefs of Matrixism" are heavily biased. You might be completely right about it, but you obviously made those edits based on your own prejudice before having done any research at all into this "religion." That's what I call POV, and that's what I'm talking about when I say you need a vacation from Wikipedia. You obviously have a lot of emotion invested in the article, you're making it out to be far more important than it really is. It's about a movie, fer Chrissake. Is it so vital that it must be "encyclopedic," NOW, today? It makes you come across as a domineering control freak.

MFNickster 06:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Alleged" is factually correct. It hasn't been established that it's an actual religion. I don't have any emotion vested in the article, and I don't know where you get the illusion that I do. You're the one hell-bent on preserving a bad edit that I fixed. Maybe I get a little frustrated when that happens, but why don't you listen to your own advice if you don't think this is important? There are those of us who are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Philwelch 06:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To answer your spurious charge of having "made those edits based on your own prejudice before having done any research at all into this "religion."", I refer you to my comment as of 01:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC), where I state: "All I can see about it from a cursory google search is either from Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors, its own webpage, and web forums where it's being talked up." That proves that I did research it prior to making the original edits. If you are done committing anonymous libel against me I would accept an apology. Philwelch 06:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so you did a "cursory google search," that doesn't tell you anything about the religion or its members beyond what they've published on their web pages. I apologize for accusing you of "doing no research at all," but I don't think it's enough to back up your assumption that is was created by a 13-year-old because that's the "sort of shit you did when you were 13." Did you do anything beyond Googling? If not, how can you possibly say you have any factual information about the "religion" or the people involved? Heaven's Gate had a web page, and they turned out to be plenty encyclopedic. I'm not "hell-bent" on preserving the edit, otherwise I would have reverted it again. I'm just telling you that, in my opinion, you're stepping way beyond the bounds of fair and conscientious editing.

You need to learn the difference between an assumption and a suspicion. I suspected that it's some stunt that was done by a 13 year old, but I never stated or assumed anything of the sort in the article. All that's stated in the article is, quite frankly, the only information that I can verify about the phenomenon. Now, please, stop trolling and get a life. My personal opinions stated on Talk: pages are going to be POV--confine your criticisms of "unfair and unconscientous editing" my edits of article namespace. Philwelch 17:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And when I read on the news that the Matrixists have committed mass suicide from an overdose of mescaline, I'll add that information to the article. Philwelch 17:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for charges of 'anonymous libel', sorry, I can't swallow that. I apologize if I was rude, but I believe that everything I've said is true.

MFNickster 08:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Except the part about how I didn't do any research, which you couldn't have known since you don't have spyware installed on my computer. Philwelch 17:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Matrixism homepage [2] should be link to from Wikipedia's page on "The Matrix" if for no other reason than a wikipedia search for "Matrixism" is re-directed here.

We're trying to fix that. — Phil Welch 02:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then why had you previously deleted all reference to it instead of making a good faith edit? -anonymous

Check the edit histories. I made good faith edits to the "Matrixism" reference in this article, and anonymous linkspamming vandals kept reverting them. When a Request for Comment was made and everyone else agreed to remove all references to "Matrixism" from the article, I went along with that consensus. — Phil Welch 05:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Matrixism is in fact a real religion followed by many people. They may not be as vocal as anti-cult activists but this is only due to fear resultant of the Patriot Act. - Anonymous

I'm sorry. Even if we did have evidence of that, it's not notable enough to warrant mention. — Phil Welch 02:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Over five hundred adherents seems notable enough. All things considered I think many if not most religious scholars would estimate that number to be excedingly low.

There's no evidence it has 500 adherents--anyone can put up a Geocities page and say anything. Cite one "religious scholar" who even considers Matrixism a serious religion. — Phil Welch 09:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Chris Hartney and Dr. Edward F. Crangle of the University of Sydney and Dr. Adam Possami of the University of Western Australia all work in the field of religious study and take the religion of Matrixism seriously. Just because it may be more of a a regional phenomenon is no reason for its censure from wikipedia. ~Anonymous

Baha'i Faith

Really, what does the Baha'i faith have to do with the Matrix. Saying Matrixism "emerged from" the Baha'i faith is incorrect. Influence is probably a better word.--Ailric 03:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds about right. If a group of previously-Baha'i believers had split off to found "Matrixism," then I think "emerged from" would be more accurate.

MFNickster 02:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Matrix borrows heavily from the Baha'i Faith as evidenced by the quotes at [3]. The title of the movie in fact comes from the Baha'i Faith.

No it doesn't. "Matrix" is another term for "womb". It's used this way in Baha'i and in the title. — Phil Welch 01:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neo is born again from the womb of the matrix in the first film. Thus the quotes from the Baha'i Faith are much more related to the film than PhilWelch would have us believe. Simply put the title and concept of "The Matrix" comes directly from the Baha'i Faith therefore mention of this should be made on it's wikipedia page. -Anonymous

The title and concept do NOT come from the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i Faith uses the term "matrix" to mean "womb". The Matrix also uses the term "matrix" to mean "womb". The concept of "birth" (or even "rebirth"!) in art and narrative predates the Baha'i Faith by, oh, a few thousand years. Sure, there are parellels, but no more or less than say, Plato's "Republic", Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Hegel, Baudrillard, etc. — Phil Welch 02:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Among world religions the Baha'i Faith is the only one that uses the term "the matrix" in its scriptures.

False. The King James version of the Bible uses the words "the matrix" five times--three times in Exodus (13:12, 13:15, 34:19) and twice in Numbers (3:12, 18:15). — Phil Welch 05:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Considering the religious nature of the films and the fact that the Wachowski brothers grew up in the shadow of the Baha'i's North American temple it is reasonable to assume this as an influence.

Deceptive. The Baha'i North American Temple is indeed in Chicago, Illinois, but as Chicago is the third largest city in the United States, it's not *particularly* notable for this fact. It's rather like saying that any given New Yorker grew up "in the shadow of Wall Street", and that they are therefore influenced by free-market capitalism. Furthermore, the Matrix films are notable for parallels with Gnostic Christianity and Buddhism. — Phil Welch 05:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further I believe that Mr. Welch is taking this far too personally and is probably a biased "anti-cult" activist. -Anonymous

I'm not an anti-cult activist. If anything, I'm a pro-Wikipedia-not-sucking activist. I'm sorry if that runs counter to your interests. And I would hardly consider the Baha'i Faith a "cult" or "new religious movement". — Phil Welch 05:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, where have I heard this before?

This has been driving me nuts since I first saw The Matrix. Where have I heard this before?

A brilliantly crazy friend told me in 1992 about a book he'd read about a kid born into a virtual reality world, which was all he ever knew. Then, some rebel group broke him out of the lab he lived in, and he had to adjust to the real world and its physics.

Pretty dead-on, right? I swear I'm not making this up. I even read most of the William Gibson books looking for it.

Is it possible the Wackowskis borrowed a good deal of the story from somewhere else? Is this The Third Eye that Sophia Stewart wrote?

Please help, this has been bugging me for 13 years now.

It's definately not The Third Eye, as the "hero" of that story is a post-apocalyptic messiah figure, and I don't think it includes VR at all. Sounds a bit like A Rag, A Bone, and a Hank of Hair by Nicholas Fisk. Socka tume 13:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The role-playing game Shadowrun had a sourcebook titled "Virtual Realities" (published in 1991), which included a novella that sounds exactly like what you describe. The virtual reality world in the game and in the story was called the Matrix. Tradnor 12:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalism

This article has been repeatedly, anonymously vandalized with the rationale of "This was a stub that was voted on by the wikipedia community to be merged and re-directed to here." (regarding the reference to Matrixism). While that was true, the reference was given a factual edit and in fact remains in the present version of the article. Constant, unwarranted, anonymous reversions of good-faith edits constitute vandalism and should be treated as such. Philwelch 05:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A review of the history of the edits to the wikipedia on "The Matrix" will show that Philwelch has an agenda and has made edits that were clearly not in good faith. -anonymous

Undo edits by Jnc

Jnc, you protected the article and made the change of

The Matrix—Cypher defecting to the agents—appears

would you mind changing this back or to —.....something that has more meaning that 8212? Cburnett 17:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

It should be changed to — but it can wait until the page is unprotected. Anything is better than "—" anyway. violet/riga (t) 17:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heh, nowiki tags don't work since mdash is an HTML "command". :) If you want to write it to show up in HTML you'd have to write it as this — by substituting the ampresand for it's HTML equivalent. Cburnett 17:37, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't forget about anything. ;) violet/riga (t) 17:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As an admin, I made the change of —to — - UtherSRG 00:00, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Not sure what the "deleted content" mentioned in the RfC was, I'm thinking it's either about Jediism or Matrixism. Here's my two cents on both of them: Jediism doesn't belong in an article about The Matrix. It's irrelevant. As for Matrixism, if it's alleged, as the article suggests, then it doesn't belong there. Anyone can allege anything about anything, that doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. If it's not alleged, then it should probably be notable. I'm sure someone out there has a movie poster hanging in his bedroom. We're not going to put that in the article, are we? And I believe it was a great movie, along with alot of other people, but you're not going to put my belief in the article either. So why are we going to put a mention of someone else's beliefs? In an article about the movie. -Kbdank71 18:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read the main article, and it's pretty consistent. However, I disagree with the Impact section as currently written, perhaps it might go better in the cyberpunk area or a separate article detailing effects of The Matrix? I believe that all references to Jediism or Matrixism should be removed from the article and concur with Kbdank's reasoning. - Jeremiah Cook 20:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Matrixism seems to have been added in the first place by an attempt to advertise on Wikipedia. It's certainly not encyclopedic. As a compromise, I have allowed the reference to it to remain (albeit in a factually edited form, and with less detail), but given the evidence we now have I support removing the reference to it. The bit about how everyone else ripped off the special effects from The Matrix is factual and that information should remain. I'm not picky about where it is though. Philwelch 23:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Matrixism was not added to wikipedia in the manner that Philwelch alleges. This seems to be further evidence of his bias. -anonymous

The Matrixism article was created by a registered user with fewer than 50 edits. It was then expanded repeatedly by an anonymous IP in the same range as the IP that has been linkspamming New religious movement, List of religions, and The Matrix. Matrixism then went through a VfD and a merge. After an RfC, a consensus was reached to remove references to "Matrixism" from The Matrix, which has been done, yet constantly reverted by the same linkspamming vandals that we've dealt with before. In addition, your IP has continued to commit this linkspamming vandalism.

Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and cease and desist your linkspamming campaign. — Phil Welch 05:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the reference now, since that seems the consensus. Philwelch 23:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reloaded: Comparing the Matrix to Anime

Well, to rebutt the "personal" comment made earlier, one should reference "THE ANIMATRIX", which contains an entire DOCUMENTARY on how ANIME influence the Matrix. I mean, anyone that actually WATCHES anime and HONG KONG CINEMA will understand where the Wachowski brothers were coming from artistically. Many of their shots are rip offs, but they add a whole new feel to this CYBERPUNK store.

Essentially, the person who added the discussion posting about comparing THE MATRIX to ANIME didn't watch the documentary on the ANIMATRIX DVD, nor did he think about the hybrid nature of cinema today. Bullet-time, a film shooting concept/technique that the WACHOWSKI BROTHERS created was inspired by anime. Just watch Ninja Scroll and how the animation creates the sense that a camera is being shot in BULLET time. That's all the Wachowski brothers did. Take a famous HK cinema director, and POW, you've got an instant blockbuster that can make even Keanu Reeves stand out!

I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to here: could you perhaps be a little more specific? Oh, and please stop SHOUTING. Slac speak up! 04:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MIM review

Instead of having a revert war please discuss the issue of including a link to the MIM film review here. AndyL 17:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue is settled, myself--one person thinks that a Maoist article using "The Matrix" as a springboard to talk about communism is a notable and useful addition to the article, and everyone else disagrees. Philwelch 17:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On what basis do you disagree? What is the justification for removing the link besides the fact that some people disagree with the page's content? What policy, if any, does inclusion of the link violate? Given that there are external links to articles that discuss the Matrix from philosphical and Jewish viewpoints what is the objection to having a link to an article with a political take? AndyL 17:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Mista-X has been attempting to add his MIM links to any number of movie pages, including The Matrix Revolutions, The Matrix, Black Hawk Down, A.I., The Animatrix, Aguirre: The Wrath of God, White Noise, etc. These edits have been reverted on those pages by myself, Xezbeth, TheGrza, "LightofGlow", Boothy443, UtherSRG, and possibly others. This certainly seems like spamming, intended to promote his organization and its viewpoints rather than to enhance Wikipedia content. Persistent reverting in the face of opposition by multiple users is either the mark of a newbie, or a disruptive edit warrior. -- Curps 19:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Philwelch 20:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mista-X has stated that he is neither a member of MIM nor a MIM supporter. The reverts, as far as I can see, have been carried out without any discussion in the Talk pages which seems to me to be a violation of wikipedia policy. Further, the reversions don't seem to be based on any wikipedia policy but simply on the fact that some editors dislike the links. Certainly the argument one editor put forward that they are POV is not a justifiable reason as all film reviews are, by definition, POV and that in any case there is no policy against POV external links. If editors are reverting without justification then the problem is with the reverting editors. All I would like is a discussion of the arguments in favour and against keeping the external links rather than a mindless editwar. If agreement cannot be reached than the parties should seek mediation, not enforcement of a majority view through superior firepower. AndyL 19:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mista-X has stated that he is neither a member of MIM nor a MIM supporter — and yet he uses the same idiosyncratic spellings (like "persynally") that MIM does. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

I guess that means Andrea Dworkin and a number of other radical feminists must also be members of MIM? Sorry but the number of people who use such "anti-sexist" spellings are far more numerous than the number of MIM members and supporters. AndyL 04:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are incorrect, there has been plenty of discussion, however it has taken place in various user's talk pages (because Mista-X left comments there and started discussions there).

The religion/philosophy links section of The Matrix was intended for articles that discuss and analyze the Wachowski's underlying philosophy (which seems to be fairly eclectic) or their influences (which seem to be numerous). The MIM review does not take that approach, rather it merely uses the movie as a prop to push its own philosophy, analyzing the movie solely according to its own singular perspective and singular influence. The last paragraph of the MIM review strongly suggests that their interest is solely is using the movie as a didactic propaganda tool, rather than exploring what the Wachowskis actually may have had in mind, and adding this external link to Wikipedia is merely part of this propaganda agenda rather than a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia.

This is akin to a dating-advice site publishing an article saying that Titanic is a good how-to guide for picking up women... they have every right to do so, but we would not really accept this as representing James Cameron's philosophy or his reason for making the movie. Nor would we accept such an external link. If Stormfront or a fundamentalist religious organization began spamming movie pages with external links with a similar agenda, we would have every right to revert. It's entirely appropriate to be selective about what external links should be accepted... if necessary, seek consensus through a vote rather than by edit-warring or inappropriate revert-and-protect to your version. -- Curps 19:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Editing articles is fundamental to Wikipedia; edits can either add content or trim it or both. It is simply not true that every single edit that trims content in any way needs to be justified by citing some official Wikipedia policy. Editors edit according to what they think is relevant and appropriate, and the usual way to resolve disagreements is by seeking consensus. In particular, Wikipedia is usually quite selective about what external links are appropriate to include. This not censorship or violation of Wikipedia policy; it's simply the normal orderly functioning of Wikipedia. -- Curps 21:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note in passing that IMDB has a review links page for The Matrix, with links to no less than 281 reviews. However, MIM does not seem to be one of them. This is not a notable organization, contrary to Mista-X's claims. -- Curps 19:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not a policy violation per se, just a very poor editing decision that almost all other editors involved here except Mister-X disagree with. A number of separate individuals have reverted Mister-X's edits, which shows a general consensus against the edits. According to the reasoning behind the reversions, I believe this is the right decision. Philwelch 20:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This issue has been thrashed out in a number of places, particularly Mista-X's talk page. I fail to see what the value of the review is. Firstly, as has been stated, it's not a notable review, not appearing on the IMDB's list of links. Secondly, the fact that Mista-X has been doing this to any number of movies (adding reviews all of which state "what movie Q is really about is an exercise in dialetical materialism") means that there is little actual value in the review itself (I wonder what this review is going to describe the Matrix as - wow, turns out it's an exercise in dialetical materialism!). The fact is, the Maoist POV is not individually significant enough as an interpretation of the movie to warrant discussion or linking in the article. The fact that the review is openly seeking to "educate people about Materialism and Empiro-Criticism and the drawbacks of anarchism and individualism" means that this is a straightforward case of linkspamming in order to advance a particular POV. Mista-X's repeated assertions that he doesn't agree with the POV are irrelevant: it's quite possible to advance a POV (inadvertantly, especially) without personally endorsing it. Given that, there has been quite enough discussion and a broad enough display of consensus to remove it from the article. Slac speak up! 21:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I might also add that it's slightly incongruous that Mista-X is adding the review while stating he does not endorse the content, while accusing other editors of removing the review because they dislike the content. Slac speak up! 22:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would the parties involved be willing to go to the mediation committee?AndyL 22:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no need for mediation here. By the way, admins aren't supposed to make edits and then shield their own edits under "protection". You have committed an egregious breach of policy that other admins have tried and failed to rectify.

The real problem is that the loosely organized radical-left propaganda campaign on Wikipedia has started to assault non-political articles. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. — Phil Welch 23:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would accept mediation over the protection/reversion dispute between the two of us. However, I think mediation over the content dispute is premature: not all involved parties who engaged in discussion at talk pages have joined the newly centralized discussion here, which was only begun 5 1/2 hours ago. -- Curps 23:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the meantime, I remind you, you protected the page at 16:59 UTC, you added the protected notice at 17:01, but then you made a revert at 17:35. If you have protected a page from editing, then you yourself should not edit it. -- Curps 23:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't "edit" the page. I had meant to protect Mista-X's page in order to ensure that those who objected to it brought their objections to Talk. Do you wish the page unprotected?AndyL 23:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me that there are only two who find this review of note, and only one who has bothered to voice an opinion here. I think it's time to remove all these links from Wikipedia. --The Grza 18:36, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the review is not notable enough to be included in any wikipedia article. We definately need an article on MIM but to allow link spamming througout wikipedia movie articles for non-notable references would be contrary to our goal to be an excellent encyclopedia. Trödel|talk 20:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The idea that you cannot write about films from an ideological perspective flies in the face of film theory. As I recall, TheGrza, you are so blinkered by your own ideology that you even object to a Marxist film critique of The Battleship Potemkin, a film by a Marxist about an event in the 1905 Russian Revolution!AndyL 20:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is an ad hominem attack completely irrelevant to the question under discussion. Besides, it seems that the "review" being linked to doesn't talk about The Matrix from a dialectical-materialist perspective, it talks about dialectical materialism using The Matrix as an example. If one of MIM's notable activities is to explain dialectical materialism through the lens of popular movies, perhaps that fact should be noted on the article for MIM. — Phil Welch 22:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AndyL, have you actually read the MIM review of The Battleship Potemkin before you rose up to defend it? It's actually quite low quality [4] — it's brief and perfunctory and only spends a couple of paragraphs actually talking about the movie itself, and those paragraphs focus on one or two trivial details. That review tells you almost nothing about the movie or its historical significance. So even in the case of that movie, that particular Maoist International Movement review isn't worthy of inclusion as an external link. -- Curps 02:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My take on this:

In 1997, an American philosopher/musicologist named Bill Martin issued a book called "Music of Yes". The book was about the progressive rock group Yes, and had elements of group biography, music criticism and historical commentary.

Bill Martin is a Maoist. He's written on his Maoist convictions in numerous articles, and has defended the Shining Path movement in Peru on more than one occasion. (Actually, much of his academic career has been spent trying to accord the postmodern impulses of Jacques Derrida with a Marxist framework, using revolutionary movements in the third-world as an impetus -- but I digress.)

Martin's philosophical background is evident in his work on Yes. He interprets the lyrics to several twenty-minutes tracks (including "The Revealing Science of God", on Tales From Topographic Oceans, 1974) as signifying the evolution of group consciousness through historical development. He argues that the group's musical impetus came from a situation of lower-middle-class alienation in post-war capitalist Britain. There's even a point where he compares the album cover for Fragile with the insignia of the Shining Path movement.

Many Yes fans have approached "Music of Yes" with bewilderment, and some regard Martin as a charlatan. Nonetheless, the work has been the subject of much discussion among the group's fanbase. I'm not sure if any excerpts are available online; if they are, I'd have no problem listing them from the Yes page.

My point is this: philosophical assessments of popular culture (even those from positions seen as marginal or esoteric) can be useful in providing listeners, viewers, etc. with different ways to interpret the music, movies, etc. I doubt that many Yes fans would assent to all of Martin's conclusions on the group, but he's at least provided a different context in which the music can be interpreted and appreciated.

I have no vested interest in the present discussion on The Matrix (I've never seen the film, and I'm generally suspicious of *any* group that tries to use popular culture to prove a philosophical point), but I have no difficulty with including the review from MIM on the main page. It might be inappropriate, dubious, tendentious or flat-out wrong -- but it might also initiate discussion, or present new ways of interpreting the work.

There are also going to be some limits and exceptions, but the general rule should be to allow as many interpretations as possible (especially in the external links section). CJCurrie 05:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Except for two problems: however notable Maoist interpretations of Yes are in the Yes fanbase, Maoist interpretations of The Matrix are not notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political agitation, and this is a prime example of political agitation. — Phil Welch 05:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm going to write a review of Bambi from the perspective of a man persecuted because his nose was too crooked – I will draw comparisons and prove that the authors were out to defend the rights of those shunned because of their nasal features. A silly example, I agree, but there has to be some sort of sensible inclusion criteria for such links. If more than one review has compared the film to a movement or note any influences that movement had then perhaps it can stay. How about a compromise: if more than one (unidentical) source for this, stating the relationship between this film and MIM, can be found then it is acceptable. violet/riga (t) 06:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MIM reviews are notable. They are very popular on the left and have appeared in Harpers. MIM wrote a review for every single release of The Matrix, even Animatrix. Persynally, I find the reviews entertaining. I don't agree with everything that MIM says, however I think it is pretty clear in this case that MIM reviews are being discriminated on the bases of communism/Maoism. If this was a review from some Phd. who writes for Harpers or something no one would have touched it. --Mista-X 15:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

" Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political agitation, and this is a prime example of political agitation. "

You're taking a principle that applies to the content of articles and misapplying it to external links. By your argument we could not have any external links to political or ideological websites - a ridiculous notion that flies in the face of the status quo on wikipedia. What we've actually tried to do elsewhere is not censor external links but balance them eg make sure where possible that there are both left wing and right wing links (or both pro and con links), rather than remove any links with a POV. I find MIM reviews amusing but I don't really care for them one way or the other. What bothers me is the argument that external links must be NPOV, which is not the case and quite an absured notion, and the argument that film reviews must be non-ideological and must only be strict opinions on content, an assertion that flies in the face of film theory. You may not like the MIM review, you may think it's irrelevent or wrong-headed but that's not a good reason not to have an external link to it. I think some people here are on an ideological crusade against politics they don't like and trying to enforce a narrow agenda that flies in the face of wikipedia policy to apply NPOV not by censoring opinions but by making sure all sides are represented. As for Potemkin, the argument by the editor removing the link was that it was that ideological film reviews have no place in wikipedia, even in the case of Marxist reviews of Marxist films. I couldn't have thought up a better example of reductio ad absurdum had I tried. I've yet to see a good argument, based on wikipolicy, for removing the links. What seems to be happening is that people are removing them because they disagree with the POV and are then speciously coming up with questionable arguments in order to provide a post facto rationalisation for their actions. One person argued that we shouldn't link to Marxist film reviews in the same way we shouldn't link to Christian film reviews. I think in fact we should link to both in order to provide readers with as broad an array of external links as possible. AndyL 15:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of links. A Maoist article using The Matrix to explain dialectical materialism will be of limited interest to the encyclopedia reader who decides to look up "The Matrix", and it's a poor editorial decision to include it. When these poor editorial decisions are made by socialists who are trying to use Wikipedia as a publicity engine for promoting socialist ideas, it crosses the line into soapboxing. I wouldn't link to a libertarian film review of The Matrix for this very reason. — Phil Welch 18:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, the notion that a critical analysis of a film, book or piece of art can only deal with the creator's actual intent flies in the face of numerous modern schools of criticism. If we accept the rationalisations put forward by the pro-censorship crowd for excising the external links to MIM reviews here we'd be setting a very bad precedent which would mean, for instance, that we could not refer to, say, feminist interpretations of Shakespeare or post-modernist interpretations of, well, any popular works.AndyL 15:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that Mista-X and his interlocuters take the matter to mediation. The suggestion that this should be settled through a vote reveals an ignorance of wikipedia practice and policies. See Polls are evil and Don't vote on evertyhingAndyL 16:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AndyL, you are not ignorant of Wikipedia practice and policy, you are merely ignoring it in a self-serving way. I believe you're simply blinded by ideological motivations and your personal strong desire to keep these links.

Editing articles is a basic part of how Wikipedia operates, and edits can trim content as well as add to it. It is entirely normal and appropriate to be selective about what appears in a Wikipedia article. This is especially true for external links, because unfortunately it is often the case that people who add external links have an agenda. People sometimes add external links for the same reason that they create vanity articles... they wish to publicize a cause that's dear to them, or drive attention or web traffic to a particular site.

We use voting and consensus to decide when to delete articles, and the same applies to external links. No justification beyond broad consensus is needed to revert inappropriate or irrelevant or non-notable external links. You are demanding "a good argument, based on wikipolicy, for removing the links". No such argument is needed. Consensus alone is enough. If consensus is sufficient for voting to delete entire articles, you can hardly claim it's not sufficient for removing a mere external link. By the way, calling for "mediation" is not appropriate if your only motivation for doing so is to subvert consensus.

In passing, I note that Stormfront is very popular and prominent among extremists of a different political persuasion, and guess what? They do film reviews too. Here is their charming review of Confessions of a Dangerous Mind: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/printthread.php?t=80986 . And the Landover Baptist Church has this fine review of The Blair Witch Project: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1099/blairwitch.html . [Correction: My mistake. I confused this with the Westboro Baptist Church of Fred Phelps.] Do you plan to add these links to Wikipedia in the name of "ideological diversity"? In fact, Stormfront and Landover Baptist Church are arguably much more notable ("notorious" is probably a better word) than MIM. However, just like MIM's reviews, these are hardly reviews at all... the movie is a mere prop in an ideological tirade. Again, no justification beyond consensus is needed to exclude such external links.

I suspect that you (and Mista-X) are strongly motivated by ideological sympathy for the organization in question, and this is causing you to ignore or self-servingly reinterpret well-established Wikipedia policy and practice and try by all means to subvert consensus. I believe consensus is against you... you practically admit as much by rejecting any call for a vote ahead of time. Since you seem to agree that consensus is against you, at some point you should be willing to let the matter drop. -- Curps 17:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You suspect wrong, I loathe Maoism. I did study towards a degree in film, however, and am therefore taken aback by some of the comments here about what is and what is not an acceptable film review. As for my "rejecting any call for a vote ahead of time", that is based on wikipedia policy discouraging votes as a way of solving disputes. I'm quite suprised you are not familiar with this as evidenced by your advocacy of polls as a solution. Please seePolls are evil. AndyL 17:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for your examples of film reviews, we would not link to the Stormfront review because Stormfront is a hate site with offensive material (which is also illegal in some countries). As for the Landover Baptist Church review, yes I would add that to the Blair Witch Project article as an example of an opposing view.AndyL 17:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"By the way, calling for "mediation" is not appropriate if your only motivation for doing so is to subvert consensus." Where does wikipedia policy state that? It looks to me like you're making things up as you go along. Anyway, given that there are now three editors who support inclusion of the MIM link (myself, CJCurrie and Mista-X) you are incorrect in your assertion that there is consensus on the article. Consensus and majority view are NOT the same thing. AndyL 17:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you are so confident you are correct why do you oppose mediation?AndyL 17:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Curps, according to our article on Consensus decision-making "Consensus decision-making is a decision process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision." Since you assert there is consensus can you please explain how the objections of the minority here have been resolved or mitigated? Given that you have made no attempt to compromise and have instead attempted to steamroll minority views by calling for a vote, a practice that is discouraged by wikipedia policy, I don't see how you can assert that there is a consensus here.AndyL 17:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's an article, not a policy document. Besides, this is pretty much an either-or decision, and except for the established "use Wikipedia as a soapbox for socialism" lobby, we're pretty much all on the same side here. — Phil Welch 18:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Setting aside your questionable description, what you're basically saying is that everyone who agrees with you is on the same side so things are ok. Doesn't sound like you're serious about achieving consensus or have any respect for people who disagree with you. AndyL 18:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I suggested a compromise, but nobody listened. Perhaps a poll should be started as all this discussion is going nowhere. violet/riga (t) 19:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AndyL, you are misrepresenting CJCurrie's position. He merely said he did not oppose the link (presumably meaning that if it was there, he would shrug and not revert it). Philwelch has answered CJCurrie, pointing out that Bill Martin and "Music of Yes" have apparently achieved a certain campy notoriety among Yes fans... MIM has no such notoriety or notability among film reviewers or Matrix fandom.

Actually, you're the one who's misrepresenting my position.CJCurrie 20:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) → See below for the rest of CJCurrie's comments

Polls should not be a first resort, or a substitute for talk page discussion and genuine consensus seeking. They are generally only needed as a solution in cases where consensus is hard to achieve or determine (the "Gdansk/Danzig" controversy), or where one side will not gracefully concede that the consensus is against them and it becomes necessary to actually numerically demonstrate the consensus through a poll.

Once again, we have every right to trim linkspam that seeks to promote a cause rather than enhance Wikipedia. The external links section is a magnet for such linkspam and we have a right to delete such links. If it really has to come down to a vote, so be it... votes are carried out in VfD to decide whether to delete an entire article, so if truly necessary you could hardly object to them being used to determine whether to delete a mere external link. Mista-X's actions in simultaneously linkspamming across a large number of movie articles (which were reverted by multiple users including more than one admin), and the contents of the MIM reviews themselves (movies are mere incidental props in an ideological tirade, rather than being genuinely evaluated on their own terms) reveal an agenda that we have no obligation to go along with.

The MIM "reviews" are not even particularly high quality, particularly the review of The Battleship Potemkin which tells us almost nothing about the film. Tell me, have you actually read the latter review? Frankly, it's crap... most high school students could do better. I'm referring to the quality of the writing, not ideological considerations. Only two paragraphs are actually about the film itself, and they focus on one or two completely trivial details. This is a "review" that doesn't even review the film, or discuss its historical significance or filmmaking techniques.

It's odd that you accuse others of ignoring Wikipedia policy when some of your own actions are quite questionable. In particular you reverted a protected article (this very one) that you yourself protected, all the while furiously denouncing reversion of protected pages! Arguably, you have done some of the very things (abuse of admin powers and ignoring policy) that you seek to accuse others of.

You deny that there is a consensus against you, while simultaneously seeking to thwart any attempt to demonstrate the existence of such a consensus (a vote seems as good a method as any). Mediation would likely fail, because mediation works best when it is one-on-one. Where one or two people are opposed by many, the "many" may have various reasons for their opposition, and mediation acceptable to some might not be acceptable to others. But mediation should not even be needed in such a case, because the very existence of the "many" demonstrates that there is a consensus, and it is against you. It is for this reason that I can't help but feel that your call for mediation is just a ploy to evade consensus. If you disagree that "many" are against you (I note at least seven separate users reverted Mista-X's external links on the various movie-related pages, of which The Matrix was only one), then let's have a survey of opinion. And yet this is the very thing you oppose. -- Curps 19:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one who's misrepresenting my position. If no one had complained about the link, I would have shrugged and left it alone. Since someone has made an issue of it, my view is that it should stay. I don't care about the specifics of MIM and The Matrix one way or the other, but I support the principle of inclusion as a general rule. Clear? CJCurrie 20:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, it's clear now, now that you've clarified and expanded on what you actually originally wrote. Your original post merely said "I have no difficulty with including the review"... I don't think I misrepresented that. By the way, what is your position on including Stormfront and Landover Baptist Church "reviews"? Can you clarify that too? -- Curps 20:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. Black. You unprotected a protected article and claimed it was because I said I was on wikiholiday. Read the protection policy, no where does it say you can unprotect an article for such an absurd reason and furthermore, the fact I was editing made it self-evident that I was not on holiday. You made up an excuse to cover for your actual reason and furthermore you've been unable to admit that your action and the excuse you gave were absolute bull. You also violated the 3RR in the process. Do you agree you should be subjected to a 24 hour tempban?

"then let's have a survey of opinion." Again, see See Polls are evil. Why do you fear mediation?AndyL 20:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I already answered you about both polls and mediation. I took the trouble to reply to you, why don't you bother to respond?

By the way, any page protection applied by one admin can be removed by any other admin, just like any block by one admin can be removed by any other admin. There are quite a few times that this has happened, I can cite examples. This is not done without justification, as a courtesy and in the interests of harmony. In this case, you violated the very first rule of protection policy, so it was entirely justified to undo your wrongful action.

Yes, read the protection policy, indeed. What's the very first protection policy rule? Don't edit or revert a protected page. Your very first action was to broke this rule! You have never explained why. Do you imagine the rules you cite so loudly don't apply to you? Is this not hypocritical? My actions post-protection consisted solely of undoing this wrongful action by you.

You never even had any business protecting the page in the first place. There had been no violation of 3RR, no rapid-fire, heated, out-of-control edit war that required page protection. Mista-X added his link four times over two days, and was reverted by three users including two admins. That's it.

Your subsequent action in reverting the page after you protected it clearly shows, in my opinion, that this wasn't mere poor judgment on your part, but an abusive action on your part. You used this action as a way of trying to freeze a content debate in your favor despite a clearly apparent interim consensus against you (no less than seven users including several admins had reverted Mista-X across all the various movie pages he added his links to). Page protection was not meant to be abused for this purpose.

It's simply amazing that you continually cite protection policy, yet don't seem familiar with it yourself, or you don't seem to think that the very rules you cite apply to you. Will you finally admit you did something wrong? Can I please get a straight answer. -- Curps 22:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no need for mediation when a topic has been so overly discussed at the behest of two users who refuse to accept the community result. This has continued for far too long with such solid agreement. --The Grza 20:24, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why a link to a MIM review is so controversial. You don't have to appreciate their politics to appreciate the ability to read their comments on the film. Also, the Landover Baptist website is a hoax website. Clever, but not really the Christian Right. Hard to compare it to Stormfront which is real. But linking it to the Blair Witch review makes sense, as long as you point out it is a hoax. --Cberlet 20:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In what sense are the Landover Baptist people a "hoax"? Their activities are notorious, they do exist. Can you provide some evidence? You're claiming that they're pranksters? It's news to me.

Landover Baptist Church. Will RTFW (Read The Friendly Wikipedia) be the next acronym we have to make up around here? — Phil Welch 21:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That article isn't exactly crystal clear. Aren't these guys the "god hates fags" bunch, the ones who picketed Matthew Sheppard's funeral? Let's see... ah... Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps. My bad. The point remains valid... one could easily find a real-life example of such a film review, without much effort. -- Curps 22:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linkspammers and agenda pushers are a threat to Wikipedia's integrity. We have a right to judge whether an external link represents an enhancement of Wikipedia content, or merely represents an attempt at vanity or publicizing someone's pet cause. We make the same judgement all the time at VfD, for notability and relevance and suitability. Why would we not be able to make the same determination for external links? -- Curps 21:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a matter of no weight, and since all but a couple people want the link removed, the most harmonious thing to do is leave the link removed. Even mentioning the issue on Talk:The Matrix and protecting the page made it more of an issue than it needed to be. — Phil Welch 21:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even mentioning the issue on Talk:The Matrix and protecting the page made it more of an issue than it needed to be.

So we should have just allowed a revert war to continue rather than have the issue discussed in talk? AndyL 04:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The revert war was over, and then you came here at the behest of Mista-X to revert to his version of the page and then protect it. A clear abuse of admin power if I've ever seen one. — Phil Welch 08:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you honestly believe the revert war would not have continued had there not been page protection? Nonsense. AndyL 08:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The revert war continued because you came in here, flouted policy, and called in your buddies to back you up. — Phil Welch

The revert war would have continued once Mista-X logged back. In any case, we should be dealing with content. The fact is there is no consensus (simply dismissing people you disagree with does not mean the remaining people form "consensus"). So what is your constructive proposal for resolving this?AndyL 09:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"AndyL, you are misrepresenting CJCurrie's position. He merely said he did not oppose the link (presumably meaning that if it was there, he would shrug and not revert it). Philwelch has answered CJCurrie, pointing out that Bill Martin and "Music of Yes" have apparently achieved a certain campy notoriety among Yes fans... MIM has no such notoriety or notability among film reviewers or Matrix fandom."

Nonsense, CJCurrie disagrees with the "consensus" that the link should be removed. Philwelch may have "answered" CJCurrie but you are making an assumption if you think that means he now agrees with your "consensus". Myself, Mista-X, CJCurrie and Cberelet have all disagreed with the majority position that the link must be removed. Clearly, there is no consensus. AndyL 04:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CJCurrie and Cberlet both came here at your behest, AndyL. You came here at the behest of Mista-X. Calling in your buddies to back you up is bad faith. And I'm going to list this dispute on RfC so we get some disinterested parties in here. — Phil Welch 08:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes and Curps is going on various talk pages asking editors to intervene with their opinions as well. So what? That's how wikipedia works. It's perfectly acceptable to ask other editors to look at a discussion and give their opinion. Sorry Phil, but articles are not private clubs. You'll just have to deal with the arrival of people who have a different opinion than you and work out an agreement. As for listing this article on RfC, I did that a day or so ago. [5] AndyL 09:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mista-X added his links to about a dozen movie-related articles, not just this one. There were several users involved in those other movie pages, exchanging messages with Mista-X on various user talk pages, who may not have been aware of the discussion here at The Matrix. As a courtesy, when you decided to solicit other users to come here and comment on this case, you could have also remembered to contact the very people who had some prior involvement in it. But you did not, so I did so later. -- Curps 10:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I see you replaced my neutrally worded RFC with a completely biased one [6] Can you please explain why you did that? Are you unaware of how RfCs are supposed to be phrased?

How to use RFC

To request other users to comment on an issue, add a link to the Talk page for the article, a brief neutral statement of the issue, and the date.

Don't sign it, don't list the details, and don't submit arguments or assign blame.

So let's see, your statement was not neutral, you listed details, submitted arguments and assigned blame. In other words you violated almost all the guidelines regarding RfCs.AndyL 09:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This debate is absurd. It is a matter of cultural taste. If the review has substance--even if most people might disagree with it--what is the problem with posting a link? I provides a different perspective. That's good. It seems the main issue is that at best a tiny handful of people don't like the politics of the website where the link leads. Not a valid reason for removing the link. I have read this whole discussion and the arguments for not linking seem very weak. For the record, I think the MIM politics are way out of line, but that's no reason for pretending they do not exist.--Cberlet 12:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again with this argument. It has nothing to do with the politics and I really don't care if you agree with the Maoists. That is not, and has never been the issue here, and yet Cberlet, AndyL and Mista-X have all brought it up as if this was McCarthyism and an attempt to censor these beliefs. It is simply a matter of 1) It's complete lack of value in understanding the article in question, 2) It IS an agenda being pushed by these links, and by the proliferation of these links on much more absurd pages then even this one, regardless of my personal feelings about Communists, Maoists, Leftists and any other -ists you would like to continue to insist we hate with passions unbound, and 3) The inherent inability of Wikipedia to provide access to every possible link for every possible subject, forcing us as editors to make choices and limit the link section to a reasonable size. This means not including minor articles without sufficient merit. Please stop in your insistent and ad-hominem accusations about my politics determining my edits (I speak for myself, but imagine that others may not be so appreciative of these accusations as well) or my ability to have an opinion regarding Wikipedia. --The Grza 13:01, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, The problem is, Mista-X (talk · contribs) is a link spammer. He spammed MIM links to about a dozen movie pages, and was reverted by at least seven users including three admins. It's clear that he is a supporter or member of MIM despite his denials: his use of the idiosyncratic MIM spellings like "persynally" [7] gives him away. Lying about his affiliation or sympathy with MIM [8] doesn't help his credibility. Who does he think he's fooling?

He is just like any other link spammer: some wish to add external links for commercial profit, but many just wish to publicize or promote themselves or their pet cause or drive visitors to their website. We have a POV pusher with an agenda and, unfortunately, a rogue admin who protected then reverted the page against consensus.

We have every right to be very selective about what kind of external links we want in an article, every right to defend the integrity of Wikipedia against linkspam. Even in the case of perfectly legitimate good-faith links, we'd still need to be selective: we're not a link repository. IMDB has 281 reviews of The Matrix; quite clearly we couldn't possibly include all of these, not more than a very small fraction.

How to decide whether an external link should be included? It's really not that different from any other edit: some changes are retained and some are reverted; that's just the fundamental way editing works on Wikipedia. Most links are quietly added without fuss or controversy (though spamming to multiple pages is certainly not the way to accomplish this), and most of the rest are decided in the normal way, through civil talk page discussion and so forth. But if it comes down to it, we'll have a vote. And if a clear majority considers the link unworthy, then out it goes. No further justification is needed, no imaginary "policy justification requirement". A vote is a last resort, not a first resort, but unless both sides gracefully accept that there is a consensus then a vote will be necessary to demonstrate the consensus. We vote all the time at VfD to decide whether to delete entire pages, so we can certainly vote on whether to delete a mere external link.

I've given my reasons in this talk page why I consider the link unworthy of inclusion, which actually has nothing to do with left-wing politics or even with the abusive way that the MIM links were added; on its own merit, the link just isn't worthy. Others may have a different opinion. Let's find out. The time to hold a vote is rapidly approaching. -- Curps 16:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Curps seems to think he has a great argument for excluding MIM reviews, that they don't talk about the movie from a bourgeois prospective. What do I mean by this? Well, the bourgeois view of art is individual. The artist or creator - in this case Waschowski - must have had a certain view or vision in mind and this is what is so important. On the contrary, what is viewed by others, and the way people will percieve it is more important. Interpreting dialectical materialism from the Matrix may very well be outside the relm from anything that Waschowski had in mind - but who cares? It's like the Black Hawk Down movie, many middle-class amerKKKans who don't have to join the army to get a college degree may view this movie very favourably. True ameriKKKan heros. Black and Latino's may have a different view on the realities of war. And, the people of Somalia may have a very different view of that movie. But, according to curps, it is only correct to criticise what the creator meant to portray, and then technical aspects of the movie, as if no other thought or perceptions should have the right to exist outside of that. Or, as if "art for art" sake exists, and there should be no politics involved. This negates the reality that nothing exists in it's own magical realm. Everything is political. --Mista-X 18:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My sympathy with MIM

Just to clarify, I am a Maoist. But, I am not in with MIM. My sympathy with MIM is that I agree with their use of revolutionary language to expose sexism, imperialism and racism which is inherent in our culture. I also agree with their position on the labour ari$tocracy. But, many other of their views I don't agree with. There are many types of Maoists and MIM are considered to be a small sect by most. I won't ellaborate on this because I really don't know about their size or how much support they have. But I don't think it is even relevant because you are only assuming that I am in MIM and using that as an excuse to remove the link. Is it safe to assume that everyone who adds a link must be with that organization? If so will you hold the same bias for bourgeois type reviews (oh look, that user's page says he is from Vancouver, so he must have posted that Vancouver Sun review because he works for the paper)? The accusation of Spam is not valid, IMO. The Wiki Entry for this explains that Spam is commercial and/or invasive. For example, I would have to be advertising a product for sale, not a free viewpoint. Or I would have to e-mail the links to a bunch of people, or some how code a pop up. I also didn't add links to a that many movies. It was only about 6. As for the IMDB's list of links, why not link straight to that instead of worrying about putting the list itself in the external links? As for Stormfront, it is a racist hate site, so IMO it would not be approprate to add their reviews; however their might be an exception such as movies about Nazis where people might actually want to see what neo-Nazis and/or Nazi sympathizers have to say about it. --Mista-X 18:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, that explains a lot. But the real reasons we oppose adding the link are:

The review itself is not notable.
It was added to a section that was specifically intended to exploring what the artist's intent was in The Matrix. Even if the link was notable, it was put in the wrong place.
Given that the link was put there by someone who avowedly follows the ideology of the review, it constitutes soapboxing. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a forum for spreading your views. Even if the link was notable, it shouldn't be added by a Maoist or any sort of socialist because it's a conflict of interest. It would be in similarly bad form for me to link to a review discussing how The Matrix was a libertarian allegory.
Wikipedia is not a repository for links. I agree that the movie reviews should be included on the MIM page, because they are as a group encyclopdic in explaining the MIM view; however, they are not encyclopdic in explaining the authors intent or the movie itself, but in exploring the interpretation of the movie through the lens of a particular POV - thus encyclopedic as to MIM. (added by Trödel|talk)

— Phil Welch 18:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1.) We already talked about whether or not MIM is notable. They write many reviews which are popular on the left, and have had them published in Harpers. MIM is notable enough.

So mention their movie reviews on the MIM page. Put a link on the MIM page listing to an index of their movie reviews. MIM is not notable in the contest of The Matrix. — Phil Welch 20:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MIM is well known on the left for their reviews of The Matrix series of movies, so I would say it is notable. Since many fans of the movie seemt o be interested in reading various philosophies, theories and viewpoints derived from the movie, I am sure many would be interested in reading MIM's interpretation. They don't have to like what MIM has to say. You're POV seems to be that because MIM takes their review outside of the context of just "art" and applies it to real life, it becomes propaganda and therefore it should not be considered a legit review. --Mista-X 22:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My complaint is that MIM's review is not notable in the context of the film. — Phil Welch 03:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2.) The The Matrix#Religion.2Fphilosophy.2Ftheory of The Matrix section doesn't say that it has do specifically with what the artists was thinking. The Matrix exists without Wasochowski, and if he dies people will still have interpretations of it. In any case, this was not the original reasoning why the link was removed. Originally it was removed because it was communist, no other reason was given. Then it was called vandalism. You have not tried to create a whole host of other excuses to cover your bias. If the link just didn't belong in that section, it could have been moved not removed.

The edit summary, as far as I am aware, is not intended to provide justification for an edit, simply a summary of what edit took place. — Phil Welch 20:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. But we can see from the discussion that progressed on my talk page that the original reasoning is not the same as what is being given now. --Mista-X 22:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what? I don't care what arguments other people made. I'm making better ones, so answer them. — Phil Welch 03:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3.) This reason is completely nonsensical. Should someone who considers themselves apolitical not be allowed to add nuetral/apolitical reviews? Anyone that's left can't post a review from a newspaper that you or some other right-winger might consider leftist? There is no conflict of interest, this isn't a medical patient, it's an article with external links that have different POVs. Most people add external links because they like them. Maybe - but I doubt very often - someone migh add a link to something that they really hate, or that they just thought may be interesting to others. Me being a different type of Maoist than MIMology means that there could very well be things MIM writes that I hate or disagree with, including the movie reviews. You are only assuming that I don't. I created the entry for Alan Duff because I enjoyed the movie Once Were Warriors and was reading the book at the time. Doing research on Duff well writing the article I found that I totally disgreed with his reactionary ideas. But the reason I started the article in the first place, is that I liked something about the subject - which according to you is a conflict of interests - and when I found dislikes I was still able to put my POV aside and present Duff for who he is. Speaking of Lebertarians, I really like the George Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God. My oh my, can that be possible? you know how many people I have tried to get to read that book, who took the same view as you because it is written by a Liberarian? What nonsense! The only reason you are bringing up this point is because I admitted my ideology. As I pointed out, we can't assume to know everyone's ideology and/or motivation and remove links on that bases. --Mista-X 19:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems like I wasn't quite clear enough, so I'll try to explain better. Linking to Maoist "propaganda" (I don't mean that in a derogative sense), on an article that has nothing to do with Maoism, when you yourself are a Maoist, is a bad idea because it can easily be construed as soapboxing. — Phil Welch 20:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems like I wasn't quite clear enough either. Politics, whether Maoism or Libertarianism has to do with everything, and everything has to do with politics. What you are indicating here is that only articles which hold the viewpoint of "art for art sake" should be acceptable.

I am indicating no such thing. Please stop putting words in my mouth. — Phil Welch 03:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thsi is a bourgeois view, and that itself is political. My political ideology is irrelevant here, because you only know it because I made it transparent. You can't assume that everyone that posts something political in context must be behind that viewpoint or have some sort of hidden agenda. --Mista-X 22:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your political ideology is plenty relevant. You're trying to use Wikipedia to further it. — Phil Welch 03:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In general I think there is too much link spamming at wikipedia, additionally, if we allow this one to stand then we will soon be inundated with movie reviews from many other sources - there are christian movie review sites (and published in magazines comparable in circulation to Harpers), as an example. Delete. Trödel|talk 19:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please explain how this is Spam or vanity. It is linking to a POV that is related to the article in question. There is no commercial content, and it is not invasive or forceful. If it gets to the point that the external links are getting too long, then we WikiPedians figure out another solution. --Mista-X 22:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linkspamming doesn't have to be commercial. In your case it's ideological. — Phil Welch 03:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would think it is obvious but... It is vanity to push a particular ideology. It is also marketing that ideology which is SPAM whether or not you define it as being commercial. And regardless of the reason, it is using wikipedia as a repository of links by spreading them out throughout the pages on movies. There are links to the MIM reviews in lots of articles on movies - they should all be removed - and a link to the index placed on the MIM page. Trödel|talk 03:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you're being quite overbroad in your definition of spam and vanity. Should film reviews from the National Review, Commentary, Ms. Magazine or The Tablet (A Catholic publication) be verboten? What about reviews from this site a socialist site that conducts interviews with film directors and reports from film festivals?

Can wikipedia link to none of these interviews with directors because they were conducted by an ideological website and are not listed in IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes?

As I've said a few times now, the incredibly narrow scope several editors use to discern an "acceptable" (ie mainstream) film review flies in the face of the field of film theory (please look at the article) in which films are routinely dissected and analysed from one (or more) of various ideological viewpoints. If wikipedia adopts the narrow view of film criticism advocated by several editors here we'll be out of step with academia and serious film critics and historians. AndyL 04:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is not narrow scope - reviews that focus on advocating a view rather than the specifics of a movie should be included under the article explaining that view not in the article for the movie. Trödel|talk 04:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy. There's no reason why a review cannot both reflect a certain ideology or philosophy and deal with the specifics of the movie. Take a look at Lord of the Rings: A Christian Classic? for instance. Despite the fact that the article is specifically about Lord of the Rings and would be of interest to a number of LOTR fans your logic would place it as an external link in Christianity where it really doesn't seem very appropriate.

That is a particularly poor example since it is well known that Tolkien was a christian (Catholic) and discussed the influence of religion in his work. If the Wachowski brothers were known marxists then it would be entirely appropriate to discuss the influenc eof marxism on thier work. Instead to impose a marxist view on it and claim it is encylopedic is ridiculous.

However, should you find an example - I am sure there are some - of a movie article that has an external link to a review that seeks use the movie to promote its philosophy - please delete it and let me know. PS be sure that the writter/director did not purposefully include that philosphy in which case it would be encyclopedic. Trödel|talk 03:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, Curps, is it your position that there should not be an external link in wikipedia to an article that examines LOTR from a Christian perspective?AndyL 06:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a little different. See, LOTR is actually a retelling of the Bible, with Gaelic and Anglo-Saxon myth involved. The Matrix is not a retelling of Maoism. Isn't this conversation over yet?--The Grza 04:22, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

See the Marxism and the Matrix section below. The notability of Marxist analyses of the Matrix has been established, unless you wish to argue that being on the NY Times Bestsellers List is non-notable. AndyL 06:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

From Ananova (British Press Association):

Communists picketed the Moscow premiere of The Matrix: Revolutions to celebrate the jubilee of the Russian revolution.

A group of 32 youngsters wore red T-shirts, Soviet army helmets and Matrix-style dark glasses outside the Pushkinskiy cinema.

They each held up neon-lit letters which spelt out the slogans "We are NEO-communists" and "Destroy the Matrix".

According to Communist Party ideologists, the Matrix series' central hero Neo is a genuine communist, reports Kommersant.

Oleg Bondarenko, Communist party youth movement leader, said there was "no difference" between Neo and Lenin as revolutionaries.[9]

Now, many of the editors here may not concur with the Russian Communist Party's analysis of the Matrix but that does not mean the article can ignore the fact that the Marxist analysis of the Matrix is notable. AndyL 06:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

That someone sees an analogy to Marxism or Maoism is one thing. The artist purposefully using the story to articulate specific concepts belived by the artist is something else Trödel|talk 07:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

So? The point remains that the Marxist analysis of the Matrix is notable. No one is saying the article should say the creators of the film are Marxists or that they intended the film to be interpreted in a Marxist way. The fact remains, however, that there is a Marxist analysis and that it has been recognised by academics and the media whether some of the editors here like it or not. Therefore, given the facts and their notability, the Marxist analysis merits mention in the article. AndyL 07:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

sometimes I wonder if I am just not being clear enough. So - it is encyclopedic on the page about marxists/maoists i.e. include a link titled: Here are reviews of movies interpretted through the lens of marxism/maoism. It is not encyclopdic for each movie because most interested in the movie couldn't care less what marxist/maoist think of the movie. Trödel|talk 19:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Marxism and the Matrix

It seems there are academics who have analysed the Matrix from a Marxist perspective. Should we be allowed to mention this in the article? Putting "marxism" and "the matrix" in the same google search generates quite a number of hits by the way.

See Pop Culture meets philosophy

An essay applying the ideas of Karl Marx to the movie The Matrix recently landed English Professor Martin Danahay on The New York Times best-seller list.

Dr. Danahay and then-Ph.D. candidate David Rieder co-wrote the piece for The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real, which hit No. 10 on the best-seller list for nonfiction paperbacks in June.

The movie portrays a world overtaken by artificial intelligence machines that draw power by sapping humans of their energy. Danahay says the movie comes closest to giving a visual image of Marx’s ideas in the scene where Morpheus, a resistance leader against the machines, tells new recruit Neo that the computers have reduced him to nothing more than a battery. Morpheus then holds up a battery to illustrate his point.

“Humans in The Matrix must produce electricity to run the machines that enslave them, just as workers in Marx’s analysis must produce surplus value through their work,” Danahay explained. “Also, the rebels in the movie liberate Morpheus from an office, and they rescue Neo from his white-collar job. The rebels are trying to get workers to wake up and realize they are being exploited, which is one of Marx’s aims, too.”

or this article

or this blurb:

Professor lands on NY Times bestseller list

The movie The Matrix has generated many philosophical discussions about its subtext. Now a UTA professor and other writers have taken it a step further. They are taking the viewpoint of a famous philosopher and writing about how that philosopher would view the messages in the The Matrix.

English Professor Martin A. Danahay and former graduate student David Rieder wrote an article about Karl Marx's perspective for The Matrix and Philosophy, which is number 10 on the New York Times bestseller list for non-fiction paperbacks.

Their article is titled "The Matrix: Marx and the Coppertop's Life." The book is part of a series that discusses philosophical issues raised in movies and in TV shows like Seinfeld and The Simpsons.

Professor links 'Matrix', Marxism

STAR-TELEGRAM/STEWART F. HOUSE

An essay Martin Danhay, an English professor at UT-Arlington, co-wrote with a graduate student appears in the book The Matrix and Philosophy.

Professor links 'Matrix,' Marxism

By Patrick Mcgee

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

The Matrix is more than a blockbuster movie that spawned an even bigger sequel. It's a metaphor for the hellacious world that Communist philosopher Karl Marx believed capitalism would create.

The 1999 movie shows comatose people having their energy sucked from them in a world dominated by machines, much like the way capitalist society uses technology to control workers and sap their energy.

Or at least that's the way Martin Danahay sees it. Danahay, an English professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, co-wrote an essay about the movie for The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real. The book was No. 10 on The New York Times bestseller list at the beginning of June.

Danahay co-wrote the essay with David Rieder, who was a Ph.D. candidate at UT-Arlington when the two sat down to analyze the popular science fiction movie for a thoughtful commentary on Marxism. Rieder is now an assistant English professor at North Carolina State University.

Danahay said the Marxist philosophy of the movie centers on the scene where Morpheus, a leader in the resistance against the machines, tells his newest recruit, the recently awakened Neo, that machines have kept him unconscious to harness his energy.

Morpheus holds up a battery to illustrate what Neo had been reduced to -- and Neo panics.

"I thought that was a great image for what workers are in contemporary society," Danahay said. "They are like batteries, and they provide the power."

But the parallels to Marxism don't end there, Danahay said. Rebellion against the machines' domination depicts the modern-day workplace as a prison from which people need to escape.

The evil agents who seek to keep humans docile and efficient are dressed like corporate executives, and Neo escapes from his cubicle to flee from them. When he ambushes the evil agents later in the movie, they are in an office high-rise complete with impersonal decor.

Danahay said he heard through a friend that a philosophical book about The Matrix was in the works and contacted the editor, William Irwin.

Here's a right wing article that argues the Matrix has a Marxist subtext.

Here is an [http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/04/32/matrix.html academic article What is the Matrix? Cinema, Totality, and Topophilia ] that also references the Matrix and Marxism. Can we have an external link to this? Indeed it seems that we could have quite a number of links in an external link section titled "Marxism and the Matrix" and, indeed, there may be enough information out there to include a section on Marxism and the Matrix in the body of the article itself.

Given this context, having an external link to a Marxist analysis of the Matrix such as MIM's review makes eminent sense. AndyL 06:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Admin tangent

"By the way, any page protection applied by one admin can be removed by any other admin, just like any block by one admin can be removed by any other admin. There are quite a few times that this has happened, I can cite examples. This is not done without justification"

And the justification you gave for unprotecting the page was 100% bogus. You have not been able to cite any policies regarding "wikivacations" and page protection. Why? Because you made up the justification on the spot in lieu of any valid reason for unprotecting the page.

"By the way, any page protection applied by one admin can be removed by any other admin"

Yes, an admin can remove a page protection, ie he or she has the technical capability but the removal must be within the guidelines. You are not supposed to remove protection for a page which you've been editing. This you did. (I had not edited the page prior to protecting it). If you had a problem with page protection you should have either gone to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and asked for it to be reviewed by another admin (one who hadn't edited this page) or put a request on another admin's talk page. Instead, you took it upon yourself to violate the rule you are accusing me of having violated! Incidentally, neither of us should now unprotect the page, we either have to wait a few days for the protection to age and for an uninvolved admin to routinely unprotect it or put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or on an admin's page. AndyL 00:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was entirely justified to take appropriate steps to undo your wrongful action, your breaking of the number one rule of protection policy (which you still don't want to admit). You reverted a protected page that you yourself protected. [10]

There were two ways to undo your wrongful policy-violating protect-and-revert: remove the protection or undo the revert. At first, I actually left your revert in and merely removed protection... at the time, I actually considered this a courtesy to you. The action itself was entirely justified, you are merely complaining that I explained it poorly. However, you insisted on reapplying the protection, so the only other alternative was to undo your revert and restore YOUR original protected version, while leaving protection in place. Your reason for reapplying protection was simple: you were afraid someone else would revert you, because the interim consensus was clearly against you. You used protection of a page as a weapon to try to get your way in a content dispute against consensus, a clear abuse.

The fact that you compounded your wrongful action by repeating it more than once hardly gives you grounds for complaining that I had to undo it more than once.

Speaking of making up justifications on the spot, how about this: There would have been no incentive for going to the Talk pages had I protected the version you prefer [11] [12] [13] This is not only preposterous and false (you did protect the "wrong" version, and resorted to to a revert later when you realized your mistake), but it's also insulting: are you saying we would have boycotted the discussion here if you hadn't done the wrongful revert? Well, events prove you wrong: in fact we're having this discussion here right now despite the fact that your wrongful revert was undone. That was nothing but a self-serving attempt to unfairly portray people who disagree with you as unwilling to discuss and use that as a pretext to break the rules.

Since you keep citing policy, where exactly is the policy that says you should revert a protected page "in order to provide an incentive for going to the Talk page"? You are just making things up to suit yourself. And then you turn around and loudly accuse others of doing the very things that you yourself actually did. It's breathtaking. -- Curps 01:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are not supposed to remove protection for a page which you've been editing. This you did. (I had not edited the page prior to protecting it).

What in the world are you saying here? You are actually trying to turn the fact that you delayed your revert until after you did the protect into a point in your favor? You wish to pretend that you did the page protection as some kind of disinterested neutral uninvolved party... and then you wish to pretend that you did the revert later merely to encourage discussion on the talk page, because otherwise there would be no incentive for such discussion? [14] [15] [16] Nonsense. You used protection of a page as a weapon to try to get your way in a content dispute against consensus, a clear abuse. -- Curps 02:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At first, I actually left your revert in and merely removed protection... at the time, I actually considered this a courtesy to you.

Who was it who said "don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining"?

There were two ways to undo your wrongful policy-violating protect-and-revert: remove the protection or undo the revert.

There was a third way which happens to have been the only correct way as the other two violate policy. Make your objection known to an uninvolved arbitrator and let him or her decide if the protection was justified rather than violate policy in order to address what you claim was a violation of policy. Anyway, while your tortured self-justification and evasion is amusing, it has nothing to do with the issue of content. AndyL 04:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Every point you've made has already been addressed. In earlier discussion, when you repeated the very same things, I expressed my opinion that you're not familiar with policy, or that you don't care about it, and that you've invented policy to suit yourself. I gave examples. Anyone who actually cares can look it all up above. There's no point in repeating it all, yet again.

I can't believe I've spent the entire day trying to argue with you.

If you want to take one final parting shot over the protect/revert issue, to get the last word, be my guest. After that, take it to your talk page, or mine, or to an RfC. Your choice.

I'd like to see some actual discussion about the article, and what to do about it. That's what this talk page is supposed to be about, after all. This verbose discussion seems to have driven away any legitimate discussion of that issue by other users, which is a shame. -- Curps 04:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Every point you've made has already been addressed." Where have you addressed your violation of 3RR? "you've invented policy to suit yourself." Like your wikivacation policy? "I expressed my opinion that you're not familiar with policy" Then why didn't you follow policy by seeking a third party arbitrator?AndyL 05:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As promised, you got the last word. Feel free to keep discussing the protect/revert dispute between us, just not here (leave a forwarding link if you wish). Now let's see some actual discussion about the article. -- Curps 05:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Asking questions is not seeking the last word. But it's evident you are unable to answer what I'm asking. AndyL 05:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scroll upward for your answers. If I repeated myself and answered you again, you'd answer back, and we'd go for another dozen rounds. Take it somewhere else. Take it to RfC if you feel comfortable in your glass house. Let's see some actual discussion about the article. -- Curps 06:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Scroll upward for your answers."

Gosh darn it I have and I can't find where you've dealt with your 3RR violation. AndyL 08:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Matrix has probably spawned more religious/philosophical analyses on the internet than any other movie save Star Wars; we don't have room to link to all of those reviews (Google's what that's for, frankly). Therefore, we have to limit ourselves to particularly notable ones, or include none at all. Socka tume 16:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives