Talk:Matrix defense
Add topicLatest comment: 9 years ago by Jack Upland in topic Should NOT be deleted
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Matrix defense article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Untitled
[edit]Should this be moved to a different title? The Matrix defense, Matrix defense, "The Matrix" defense? Is that last even possible? Rmhermen 13:48, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Should NOT be deleted
[edit]No citations, and available case law (Westlaw) shows that "the matrix defense" was never accepted; but was rather indicative of paranoid schizophrenia or some other underlying pathological condition that could potentially negated culpability. As such it is not a legal defence, or even a factor that mitigates culpability but an expression of a serious mental condition and as such, there is no need to retain it, except perhaps as a footnote for an insanity plea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.146.119.9 (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- So why the NOT?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Jack Upland the NOT seems to have been inserted by a cheeky IP. While the original IP makes an impassioned argument to delete the article, the subject passes WP:GNG, with coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and so should be kept. ‑‑YodinT 11:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- I would suggest a merge.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)