Talk:Watchmen/Archive 4

Robert Redford

In the Allusions to iconography, art, and history section, there is a reference to Robert Redford standing for the 1988 election. All I can recall in the book is a mention of "RR", an actor, as a potential presidential candidate. Is it not far more likely that RR refers to Ronald Reagan? Fatjonslim (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Check a couple pages later. The intern-guy in the smiley-face shirt mentions Redford running for President, and its potential as a story for the paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.178.251 (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Metropolis

Captain Metropolis isn't a main character of Watchmen, so I'm taking him out of the list in the "trading card" summary at the top right of the page. If this is a problem, feel free to change it back, but please discuss it here with me. I'll check back in a bit. Benjamin.s.quigley (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Captain Metropolis is the glue that holds the watchmen together. He's a huge supporting character, and now he's not mentioned in the wiki at all? Absurd. I don't know how to change things back and forth, I just thought I'd voice my opinion. Just putting it out there. 68.81.97.59 (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Merchandising.

A few very minor notes on the merchandising section...

The badge set did not come with a bloody smiley. The bloody smiley was a promotional item that was given away in comic stores. The badge set had a Rorschach blot, a hydrogen symbol, the blood obscured clock, and one with the words "Ego ipse custude custudios" on it. I'm probably misspelling the Latin quote. The Comedian's smiley was a separate production, and about half the size of the others.

The two Watchmen gaming supplements published by Mayfair were more than just 'approved by Alan Moore'. Taking Out the Trash has original material provided by Alan Moore, and he is credited for his "special design assistance" and is listed as the co-author of a background section in the supplement. It contains, among other things, a brief section where Doctor Manhattan rationalizes his apathy (or explains it better, depending on how you view the character) on a more personal level. Who Watches the Watchmen includes original artwork by Dave Gibbons for some of the side characters in the adventure.

There were also official Watchmen t-shirts by Graffiti. One had an ink blot (I think it was the doughy blot Rorschach imagines as his mother having sex in the prison interview), and another had the six main characters standing around together in front of the bloody smiley. There were probably others, but it's difficult to remember after all this time. For some reason I think there were other ink blot shirts, with different blots than the one I had, but I might be completely wrong on that one. ~ Thirdrail

Another t-shirt was 'Nuclear Kiss' - 2 skeletons kissing, in the middle of an explosion. And a hourglass clock on there, somewhere. I'll try to dig it out and then update this.

193.243.227.1 (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Tags for (end of) Plot Summary

I'd like to see if there is any consensus on this. Speaking personally I found the surprise ending of Watchmen to be the best and most satisfying plot revelation I have ever read. I certainly wouldn't want to put a spoiler tag in a plot section for just any work of fiction, but considering that this story has a brilliant revelatory plot twist which HASN'T been massively spoiled for most people who haven't read it yet (unlike Luke's father, the Sixth Sense ending, the guy who dies in Harry potter etc.) any people reading the Plot section might not realise that there is a twist which could be spoiled (I personally had no idea that there would be a big twist when I first read Watchmen). We don't necessarily have to us the spoiler tags as such, some note that the story contains a mystery/twist (without revealing it) before the reader comes to the plot section could be used if someone really dislikes spoiler tags. Do any regular editors of this article have strong feeling one way or another on this? Tomgreeny 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

all information is subject to our Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, and the section is clearly labelled as being a plot summary, which establishes it will detail elements of the plot. The lead establishes that the work is a murder mystery. I think that's enough. Hiding Talk 13:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In view of the absence of agreement here, I've reverted Wedineinheck's insertion of a spoiler tag immediately after the "Plot summary" section heading. --Tony Sidaway 15:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a spoiler tag is inappropriate here. Inasmuch as comics have classic works (a statement I make only because of the youth of the medium as a major artistic form), Watchmen is indisputably among the most classic. It's one of the few comics that, like, say, Citizen Kane, has become clearly more important in its reception than in terms of its actual narrative experience. And so as brilliant as the twist is, fundamentally, this work strikes me as one that it is particularly inappropriate to use spoiler tags on, simply because the somewhat fannish approach indicated by spoiler tags is a particularly and egregiously limited perspective for this particular work. That, combined with the basic issues of "it's over 20 years old," "it's the plot section, so if there's a twist it'll be there," and the old classic "it's been spoiled elsewhere" (most notably in casting announcements for the film), makes me think that this is a uniquely poor place for a spoiler tag. Phil Sandifer 16:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree merely for the "it's the plot section", but it being 20 years old and it being "spoiled elsewhere" aren't that great a reason. It's a classic, but that just means that more people who didn't grow up with it are going to be finding it for the first time. Natedubya 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Full agreement to exclude spoiler tags. The section heading defines the section as a summary of the plot, and that includes the ending. Major discussion has already taken place about this at WP:SPOILER. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags are for douchebags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.58.254 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

I don't know how the editors for this article came to their conclusion for certain sections of the summary, but near the conclusion, the sentence "Osterman attempts to dissuade Kovacs, but when Kovacs challenges Osterman to silence him through murder, Osterman does so with almost no hesitation" is rather jarring, depending on interpretation.

Wikipedia isn't a place for personal viewpoints as the website clearly and frequently points out, but a plot summary must have a correct interpretation, if it is to have one at all. Now I'm not saying that this one is incorrect, merely that I, and a number of my friends disagree with it. I think the tears in Rorschach's eyes when he screams "DO IT!" preceded by his solemn drone of how Manhattan must, of course, kill him to preserve the peace that arose from Ozy's actions mean that Rorschach realises that he cannot be allowed to proceed with his own action which may destroy what peace Ozymandias created, but due to his failings as a person he cannot stand by and do nothing about it. When Rorschach says "Never compromise. Even in the face of Armageddon", he is merely asserting his own beliefs.

He is not daring Manhattan to kill him. He's begging him to kill him. Manhattans pause before Rorschach screams at him seems to show that Manhattan does have misgivings about killing Rorschach, but since Kovacs wants him to do it, he reluctantly obliges.

Anyhow, that's just what I think, and I won't change it until I hear more opinions on the matter, because, of course, I could be wrong. CronoDroid 13:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note: It's better to add discussion at the end of a talk page for chronological ordering. :) As for the plot summary, such interpretations should be avoided when possible. It would be best to avoid any implications of characters' mindsets. Maybe it could be written to say that Rorschach yells at Dr. Manhattan to kill him, and the quantum superhero complies. No need to delve any deeper than that for the purposes of the plot summary. If there is real-world commentary about this scene (and I'm pretty sure there is some), it can be included in another part of the article. Unfortunately, this article is very poor for its FA status, and I plan to initiate the FAR process soon. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why the 'sic' after the quote including the phrase 'best of breed'? There is nothing wrong with 'best of breed' - it is a category of prize in dog shows and the like. 194.176.105.40 (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I always too the view that Rorchach already knows the end result of their investigation, and that he knows that he cannot be allowed to tell the truth or turn in his companions - Why else would he post his journal to the magazine ??

I always suspected that Dr Manhattan knows that he will be involved in the repercussions, considering his ability for time travel and his leaving for another galaxy.

193.243.227.1 (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Watching the Watchmen

Not sure if you want to add it in yet so I'll drop information in here for the moment. Titan Books press release [1] (Emperor (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Language and Character References

Not having read Watchmen, I found that the constant switching between character names and their masked pseudonyms made the article rather difficult to follow. It would be better, I think, to introduce the characters with their names and pseudonyms, then stick to a consistent naming convention throughout the rest of the article, using just first names, just last names or just pseudonyms. Personally, I believe that the pseudonyms, being tied to their role in the plot and being rather memorable, would be the best choice.

Any concerns with changing the article in this way?

Thopper (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be a little confusing in some parts, yes. I think the idea is to refer to the characters by the names they were using at the time - so an out-of-costume Nite Owl is "Dreiberg"; an in-superhero-mode Veidt is "Ozymandius," etc. Plus, how they are termed in-story at any given point might be the clincher as currently written. But you're right: it loses something clarity-wise by doing that.

Using just pseudonyms would work for Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan and possibly Nite Owl. But Silk Spectre should be predominantly "Laurie" and Ozymandius should be "Veidt," in my opinion. Rather than standardizing them all the same way, it should be "most used" - so Rorschach and Manhattan are almost-never referred to by their first or last "real" names; whereas Dan, Laurie and Veidt are probably most-often referred to in those ways. Certainly the pseudonyms "Ozymandius," "Silk Spectre" (and maybe even "Nite Owl") are not nearly as memorable as Adrian Veidt, Laurie and Dan Dreiberg, names-wise.

Just my thoughts. :o) ntnon (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Broken link

The link for ref 43 (the Stan Lee commet) is broken. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How's that? ntnon (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

IS the former group crimebusters the Watchmen?

I know the only two groups in this story are minutemen and crimebusters but do you the group the main protagonists are in are really called the watchmen even though they didnt say about the name of the group Watchmen only the protestors say ~~MartyTholath21~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martytholath21 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that anybody calls themselves "The Watchmen" in the book. It's just a term from the expression "Who watches the watchmen", and, indeed, some protesters spray-painted part of that on a wall. There's no actual "Watchmen" team name though.

Roygbiv666 (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay I understand but If the the main protagonists teams arent name watchmen as we known them as crimebusters The why alan moore givethe name Watchmen to the novel is it possibly The the term Who will watch the watchmen is like the team withour the comedian or is it about how the team will try to find a way to stop the problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martytholath21 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming I grasp the question - which seems to be along the lines of: "why is Watchmen the title if it doesn't refer to a specific group?" - then the answer is mostly what Roygbiv666 writes above. It refers to the iconic phrase questioning both the authority of those who set themselves above the rest of us, and the checks and balances which ought to exist to keep them in check. It's also surely a simple pun - "watch"men, referencing the counting down of the minute hand towards Nuclear holocaust. ("Minutemen" being a similar pun, of course.)

Then there are other conceivable readings of greater of lesser significance - you need to watch carefully to appreciate the nuances; the main three (four) characters are men; Veidt and Manhattan spend much of their time observing (watching) humanity; a wristwatch plays a key role in Jon Osterman's transformation, etc., etc. ntnon (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Etc what what? I need to know more that all ~~Martytholath21~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martytholath21 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read through Watchmen (and the annotations), you'll find a number of major and minor allusions to watches and time which may - or may not - have played a part in the naming of the series. The phrase is the key, though, with it's questioning of the self-appointed guardians of humanity, reflected in the graffiti with the book. The all-powerful, world-shaping powers of Manhattan and Ozymandias show up the futility of mankind in the face of those who think they know best, making it a more plaintive cry than ever.

The philosophical underpinnings of "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" are fascinating. Have a read of the page here on the phrase, and consider how Manhattan and Ozymandias (and Rorschach, and the rest) all embody different fulfilments of:

"...rul[ing] because they believe it right, not because they desire it."

There are implications of tyranny, dictatorships, morality and corruptability. (Remember also that Nixon and the threat of Russia both have places in the Watchmen universe...) It's not without the bounds of possibility that the origin of the phrase in Juvenal's Satires may be a sideswipe at the traditional comics interpretation of the superteam is effectively a satire on the likely "reality." (Added to which, the death of Dollar Bill and other minor plot points are a clear satire on superheroics in general.) Philosophy is at the core of Watchmen - the 'for the greater good' ending also raises the important philosophical debate on "one vs. many," and is one self-appointed "watchman"s choice. Who is he to take that decision? Who watches/judges him?

(Wrist)Watches are important; referencing the infamous images of the Hiroshima stopped-watch(es) as well as the many quotes and allusions surrounding Dr Manhattan. Have a read of the Everything2 pages. To summarise parts of that page: Osterman's father is a watchmaker who turns to nuclear physics; Osterman later fixes his fellow-scientists wristwatch for her; Dr Manhattan talks about "reassembling the components" of himself in terms of fixing a watch; the Hiroshima image is seen on a Time magazine cover; Dali's "Persistence of Memory" is seen; the Martian palace is composed of hourglasses & watch-hands; Einstein regretted the onset of the atomic bomb thus - "If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."

The relentless march of time, timers, countdowns, clocks... and then Jon's ability to both be outside of the inevitability of time AND yet feel restrained by it also adds another level to the "watch" part: he can only watch events unfold without being able to change/affect them. (Or can he?)

And some high-literary theorists may be able to read even more into this complex work, (both "rightly" and "oddly"), should they set their minds to it. Dave Gibbons' "Watching the Watchmen" may even have something to say about the explicit origins of the title, when it comes out. ntnon (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're overcomplicating this. There are some charged with maintaining order in society. They watch over us. But who watches over them? Who does or can make sure that the watchmen themselves stay in line with the rules they enforce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.58.254 (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical error

The quote "Who are we protecting [society] from" is wrong on two accounts as far as I can tell; "who" is in the subjective case whereas it should be in the objective case (that is to say "whom") and a sentence shouldn't end with a preposition; so it should technically be "From whom are we protecting society?", but we of course couldn't change a quote. Should a sic be added, possibly even two of them? --BiT (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to do that. Firstly, even the page here on Objective pronouns says:

"the word whom, technically the objective form of who, is falling into disuse in some areas. Who is commonly being used for both the objective and nominative cases, similar to the word you."

Secondly, I'm reasonably sure that not ending with a preposition is not an official grammatical rule. On a more mundane level, "who are we protecting them from?" reads and sounds better than "From whom..". ntnon (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah I'm sorry , I can see how obnoxiously pedantic my post was. Didn't mean to be such a tight ass :) sorry once again --BiT (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Special thanks to Neil Gaiman

According to Neil Gaiman's online journal, his "special thank" credit in Watchmen was merited by the following:

"I remember Alan ringing me up when he was writing Watchmen #3, and said, "Neil, you're an educated bloke. Where does the quote `Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?' come from? I think someone said it when they were dying, but I don't know when."

I went out, and found it for him, rang him back, and said, "No. It's Genesis. God threatening to nuke Sodom and Gomorrah." He said, "Thanks", then went off.He rang me back a few months later and said, "Neil, I haven't any quotes for the titles of #7 and #8. This is what happens in them, go find me a quote." So I went off and got him "Brother to dragons, and companion to owls..." from Job for #7, and the poem for #8, Eleanor Farjeon's "Hallowe'en". "On Hallowe'en the old ghosts come."Also, while I was researching the Old Testament stuff, I was working my way through a huge Biblical concordance, getting various details. It fell open to a page on obscure history, and the name Rameses jumped out at me. I discovered this quote that said, roughly, "I've killed all these places, and left the widows weeping there. Everything is at peace, and everything is great in the world." So I rang up Alan, and said, "What do you think of this?" He said "Great! I'll stick it in #12" So you've got Ozymandias quoting Rameses in Watchmen. (ED: #12, Pg. 20)"

Is this worth a mention? --Stanley Accrington (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite being very interesting, it is probably a little long-winded and trivial for an already long encyclopedia article. Ashmoo (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As importantly, what about Pat Mills...? ntnon (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Mmeltdowns

At the end of paragraph four of the plot summary, a candy called "Meltdowns" is mentioned. I've read the graphic novel, and the name is "Mmeltdowns" with a double m. I have no idea why it was chosen to be spelled this way, but if you look close enough, it's there. I can see how this will be hard to protect from people scouting for typos, but we should not be representing the graphic novel unfaithfully, rather it should be unflinchingly. Even if it means constantly editing the name back in. Or we can add one of those things where you can add text that doesn't appear on screen. In anycase, I am adding the correct spelling back in. --MwNNrules (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine it's a play on "mmmmm, tastes good" combined with the literal "Meltodown".

Roygbiv666 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --MwNNrules (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Dan Dreiberg

Just a quick question really: why does the plot summary skirt over Dreiberg's impotence in its discussion of his relationship with Laurie Juspeczyk? One of the central themes of Chapter Seven is his inability to, er, 'perform' unless he's wearing his Nite Owl suit. This is a vital aspect of Dreiberg's psychology -- and by extension the other masked avengers, if you take Sally Jupiter's comments about sexuality into the equation -- and to mention it only in terms of 'affection' seems rather prudish. Jswba (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC) (edit: forgot to sign my post)

possible new topic/section - Motion Comic of Chapter 1

I'm not sure if this is a good idea but I just thought I'd toss out the idea, as some of you may or may not be aware of, the first chapter/issue of the watchmen novel was turned into a motion comic, should there be a section or part of the article mentioning this? - RVDDP2501 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If we are talking about the same 'motion comic', I would say No. The motion comic is just a fan creation and while fairly well done is barely notable. Ashmoo (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don;t think your right, Ashmoo. I think its not a fan creation but in fact a promotion for the 2009 film, I vaguely remember there being word of it happening a while back, especailly according to this information - http://www.i4u.com/article19092.html - http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=7493 - http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/061008-watchmen-comic-webisodes.php - RVDDP2501 (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of another 'animated Watchmen'. But since the version you are talking about is a promo for the movie, it should go in that article. Additionally, I would wait till it actually exists before adding it, since all the sources you provided are still just rumours or promises that it will one day exist. Ashmoo (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does exist, I've seen it, you can probably find it by now on youtube or some other site but I know for a fact it exists as the first link has stated - "The debut episode of DC Comics' "Watchmen" is now available exclusively as a free iTunes download for the next two weeks via Entertainment Weekly's website. Beginning August 2nd, the debut "Watchmen" Motion Comic will be available on the iTunes Store for purchase and download for $1.99." - RVDDP2501 (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Watchmen Motion Comic is not on iTune website in Canada. So Many poeple outside the USA don't know what you're talking about! So a "section" on the Merchandising and adaptations part willn't be a bad thing, of it is a on going!!--Brown Shoes22 (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Allusions to iconography, art, and history

This section needs a major overhaul or else it needs to be scrapped. I'll look for some sources when I get the chance. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Editions

In the Graphitti Designs hardcover edition which is supposedly from 1987 it says: "Artwork on page 33 is a copyright (c) 1988 Dave Gibbons and is used with his permission." (right after the "Minutes" title page) How can that be? Were there several Graphitti hardcover editions? My books publication information sports:

DC Comics Inc.

A Warner communications Company

Printed in Canada

First Printing

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.189.55 (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that whether the book is dated 1987 or 1988, since #12 only came out cover-dated to October 1987 (according to the Standard Catalog of Comic Books, at least), that would put the collection as being published in very late 1987, so maybe it made sense to copyright things for '88? Or it could be as simple as a typo. ntnon (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

On sale in February, 1988, so that should answer that question. The TPB was '87 (dated Dec, on sale at the end of September), hence that copyright date, but the Graphitti book was early '88 (and nominally dated May). :o) ntnon (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

'Real' names

...so, tell me again why Kovacs and Osterman don't deserve to be mentioned as the "real" names of Rorschach and Manhattan..?! How bizarre.

Also, while I alphabetised by codename, I quite deliberately left Veidt as "Veidt," because he has retired and in better known throughout as Veidt. (In fact, if Kovacs shouldn't be mentioned, all the more reason for Veidt to be the primary name...). ntnon (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Rorschach and Doctor Manhattan in a sense don't have "civilian" identities in the story, despite having birth names, because of how detached they have become. In contrast, Veidt's business is built upon his Ozymandias identity, and he performs as Madison Square Garden in the story under that name. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Manhattan maybe; Rorschach, no. He's unmasked and named as a major plot point. And Veidt's business may exploit his alter ego, but it's "Veidt" not "Ozymandias" on all his company stationery... ntnon (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

It is somewhat farcical to remove an inherently notable image (TCJ #116; art by Gibbons, composite smiley face - demonstrating the ubiquitous nature of the symbol so early on, main/major source of information for this article, etc.), but even more so to gut the description from the only other.. It was a lengthy caption, but the part that has been cut was the relevent part. It's not desperately important which character is which, since people either know, can work it out, or won't much mind (or can find out by reading Watchmen). It is important to credit the artist (even if it's palpably obvious, but Gibbons is NOT the only artist ever to draw the characters), and particularly in light of other comments, vital to accurately credit the image's creation/origin to the Mayfair Games module. ntnon (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Watchmen and Mars in fiction

There's been an edit war recently over the classification of the article under "Mars in fiction", "Antarctica in fiction" and "Vietnam War fiction". I'm with WesleyDodds on this one. I can't see how these classifications could possibly help anyone. There was nothing about the Mars in Watchmen that made it Mars; it was just a remote location for Dr. Manhattan to brood in. Same with Antarctica and Ozymandias. Vietnam supplied nothing but a pregnant woman for the Comedian to kill in cold blood. It was an important moment in the story, but it wasn't about Vietnam or the war or even the woman, it was about the characters of Blake and Dr. Manhattan. There's no end of the categories we could put the article in if we accept connections this peripheral. There's a Category:Clinical psychology tests and a Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction, and I think Watchmen said more about Rorschach inkblots and Ramesses II than about Mars. -- BenRG (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Compare this article to War of the Worlds, where Mars is pivotal in the story as the source of the book's antagonists. In Watchmen, Doctor Manhattan just hangs around Mars for a few issues. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Mars and Antartica, but I think Vietnam in different, as Watchmen imagines what would happen if supers existed specifically during the Vietnam war and how winning in Vietnam might change American politics. Ashmoo (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Super heroes?

Why are the Watchmen referred to as superheroes throughout the article? Surely a superhero is someone that has, by way of magic or science or mutation, become better than human. With the exception of Manhattan, aren't the Watchmen only exceptionally fast/strong/smart but essentially normal people wearing costumes? Is this even a distinction that needs to be made? 81.109.253.163 (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Supeheroes don't need superpowers. The obvious example is Batman. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If a superhero doesn't need to have superpowers, then what does it need to possess? A cape? An alias? Does a superhero need to fight crime? There are a lot of people who fight crime, whom I wouldn't refer to as "superheros". What's the definition? --BiT (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Almost all sources refer to the characters in Watchmen as superheroes or that Watchmen itself is a commentary on superheroes. See for example, [2]. I'm firmly in the camp that the text itself doesn't use the phrase, but given the sheer weight of reliable secondary sources that do use superhero, I think it would breach WP:NPOV not to refer to them in that way. I'd be interested in discussing whether the article should state that the term superhero is not utilised in the text though. That seems an important point, and is made by Scott Bukatman in Matters of Gravity, who in mentioning that the characters are referred to as masks tise the mask motif to other instances of maskery, and discusses the idea that superheroes fight crime in order to wear the costume. He goes further, and ties this to a need to anonymously partake in chaos, albeit in an altruistic manner. I'd think there's possibly a stance where you could tie that back into Watchmen, which Bukatman doesn't appear to have done, but that's a whole 'nother post for a whole 'nother forum. Hiding T 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

although they could be considered super heroes, in under the mask the writer says that super hero did not become a household term until doctor manhattan. before that (and even after that) the rest are for the most part masked avdentures or costumed something or other. they just call themselves adventurers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.238 (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Effron link

I have re-added the link to [3] since I believe it improves the article, containing information which the article cannot hope to. It is a thesis for the American Studies Department at Wesleyan University, and if we are including Atkinson's annotations I fail to see why we do not also include this thesis. I have checked WP:EL, and I believe the link qualifies on the fourth point of links to be included, and I cannot see any of the links to avoid reasons this breaches. Although it has been posted on a blog, it is quite clear to me this is not a blog. I have amended the link to point to the intro, which makes it clearer that this is a scholarly thesis which has been presented. I hope that clarifies my reasoning. Hiding T 13:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He's been repeatedly been spamming by adding the link, though, and has been blocked. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think calling my revisions "spamming" is a bit excessive - I am new here and did not understand the etiquette to discuss first, and felt that the removal of the link was arbitrary. Also, unless something happened that I am not aware, I have not been blocked. I think the issue is whether my article would be of interest and use to those looking to understand Watchmen at a deeper level than is possible in this wikipedia article, and I believe the answer is yes. I am happy to engage in a dialogue about it though. My intentions were never to disrespect any of the more active editors, merely to add to the understanding of the topic. Seffron (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Seffron

Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest - "Due to the rising prominence of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Note that since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links may not alter search engine rankings."

WP has a general guideline against using the site to promote oneself or your own original research, even if you are notable or your works have significance. For what it's worth though, I agree with User:Hiding that it's a site that should be linked (although I'm not sure why someone would post their thesis on a blog, which is probably what started the revert war in the first place.) --Pentasyllabic (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"although I'm not sure why someone would post their thesis on a blog" - It was free. If you have a better suggestion for free hosting, I'm open for suggestions if it will eliminate the controversy here. I apologize for not following the Wikipedia etiquette, I was not well informed of them. Seffron (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Seffron

It seems that the links to the Atkinson Annotation and the Effron Thesis have been removed (again). I thought this was settled already. WesleyDodds - what is your opposition to their inclusion? Both are beyond the scope of the wikipedia article and contribute to the overall understanding of the book. What gives? Admittedly, I'm new to Wikipedia, but these edits seem to be more driven by personal control over the article than contribution to the overall usefulness of it. Seffron (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Seffron

I took our both links just to be fair, given what Hiding said above. The thing that gets me about the thesis is: why this should be linked? Was it published? Because otherwise it's just a paper someone wrote for a class and posted on a blog, and we don't need to link to that. Also, as discussed, given your conflict of interest you should not reinstate the link; an impartial editor may do so with a valid explanation. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was published by Wesleyan University Honors College in 1996 and received High Honors from the faculty of the University. It also appears to be one of the only long-form academic treatises on Watchmen (at least one of the only ones available online), which is surprising considering its impact on comics and culture, but also should be notable. As to why it should be linked, I freely admit I have a conflict of interest, but I believe it provides a depth of understanding of the book that is not possible in a Wikipedia article and would be of interest and value to those seeking to understand more about the topic than is possible here. A better question is, considering that other editors have already determined that the link is valuable, why would you remove it? It appears that your choice is not in the best interest of the article, more to satisfy some kind of editorial ownership or control over the piece. In addition, it seems you cut off your nose to spite your face by deleting the link to the Atkinson Annotation. That has been an invaluable source of information to all those who seek to understand Watchmen since even before I wrote my thesis in 1996. I'll leave it to other editors to resolve the issue without bias. Seffron (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Seffron

WesleyDodds - I thought this issue was settled? Why do continue to remove useful links that do not violate the spirit of any Wikipedia regulations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.105.2 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they do. I read WP:ELNO and it says no blogs or personal sites in the external links section, so these links needs to go. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If it was not evident before, it is clear now that these edits are not made to improve the article, but to satisfy your own ego and editorial control over this article. As has been discussed before, the neither of the links (neither the Atkinson nor the Effron) lead to "personal sites" or to blogs. The Effron site may be hosted at blogspot, but it has never been updated with other content and is merely there for free hosting. To remove both links for such trivial technicalities in the name of Wikipedia policy is ludicrous and diminishes the usefulness of this article to anyone other than WesleyDodds, especially after consensus has been reached that both links are proper and useful. I will leave it to others to reinstate the links, but I hope that you do, as WesleyDodds has shown that he is not an impartial editor revising for the betterment of the article, only an ego-driven personality wishing to make the Watchmen entry on Wikipedia "his". Seffron (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Seffron

I'm sorry, but policy says your link isn't suitable for the article. Theses are not "trivial technicalities". Given you have a clear conflict of interest, it's best for you not to press the issue. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy says you cannot link to "blogs" which are defined by Wikipedia as: a Web site, usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order. Under this definition, the link does not go to a blog, because there are not regular entries of anything - it is static. Just because it is hosted at a service that hosts other blogs does not make it a blog. Further, the Atkinson link is not hosted on a blog either. The policy you cite also says that you cannot link to "personal web pages", which is defined by Wikipedia as: pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature. There is nothing personal on either the Effron link or the Atkinson link. So, if you are so concerned about policy and technicalities, you will revert your edit, as neither of these links violates either the spirit or the letter of the Wikipedia law. As far as conflict of interest, it appears you have one yourself - complete and domineering control over the content of this article. Seffron (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Seffron

Apologies if my language appears heated, I guess I am confused about the concept of consensus - which it appears was achieved above with the input from Hiding and Pentasyllabic. If consensus is achieved to add links, doesn't it also have to be re-achieved to remove them? Can someone other than WesleyDodds and me chime in here? Seffron (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Seffron

I'm not a big fan of the link: I read it and personally didn't find much value in it. I'd love to have a *neutral* take on the subject (a one-pass casual reader of Watchmen who then evaluates the merit of the Effron link), and I would love for someone other than SEFfron to be pushing for the inclusion. Let Hiding or someone else be the advocate. I have some pretty great online resources that aren't linked to from Wikipedia: I'll live, and so will they. If the casual reader finds value in that, I'm for adding it. If not, I'm against it. But I don't want this pushed by SEffron. If it is excellent, someone else should be advocating it. --Preppy (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach's Journal

There have been repeated incorrect edits as regards what happens with Rorschach's journal after it is sent to the New Frontiersman on issue 10 page 22. We see it delivered and opened on issue 10 page 24, where Seymour briefly reads it to the editor, Hector. Hector condemns it as being the usual unsolicited garbage and it is put in the crank file. It is stated at that point that the crank file will be burnt at the beginning of new year. In issue 12 page 32 we return to the journal at some unknown time. Given the previous scenes with Dan and Laurie, it may be around Christmas, but the only calendar reference in this scene that I'm aware of is the "Happy New Year" sign on the Burgers 'n' Borscht door. Seymour is told to fill two pages with material from the crank file, and in the last scenes reaches toward the crank file. Rorschach's journal is near the top of the crank file - but on top of Rorschach's journal are two pages of writing: potentially exactly fitting the request that Hector has made.

Also of interest is that on issue 6 page 29 a Rorschach journal that the police have found is noted as unreadable. That journal is identified by Rorschach on issue 10 page 6 as being only "rough notes". The "final draft" sent to the New Frontiersman, which Seymour is able to read at least half a sentence of. It is unclear if the journal is generally readable.

The contents of the journal are generally unclear. In issues one through five (i1p1, i1p14, i1p19, i1p24, i2p25-28, i5p6, i5p11, i5p18) Rorschach's entries are about investigating the mask killer, and the final entry there is that the 'mask killer' theory has been proven. There is one final entry we know of on issue 10 p22, where he states 'whatever precise nature of this conspiracy, Adrian Veidt responsible'. It is unclear if the recent investigations have been documented.

All the facts as regards the material were verified with the seventh edition Watchmen trade paperback and double-checked with Absolute Watchmen to ensure nothing was changed. Preppy (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll grant you "near the top" (had been considering that myself, but didn't want to be too picky) I am changing the contents of the journal back to the investigation, instead of just R's Veidt suspicions, since the journal contains more than just R's Veidt suspicions. --Bertrc (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you support or cite that supposition? The actual source material explicitly does not support this statement: "which chronicles their investigation up until that point". The Final Draft journal is retrieved and we see one further entry which is extremely vague and does not actually mention the specifics of the investigation. I'm reading your edit as speculation unsupported by the source material. A clean reading of the journal entries would lead one at most to conclude that Veidt is behind some sort of conspiracy related to the mask killer and potentially involved in discrediting Dr Manhattan. It is unclear whether the investigation at Veidt Tower is documented.

. . . Okay, I guess I shouldn't have worried about being to picky. If you want to take "a clean reading" to the extreme, then there is nothing to prove that any of the yellow text balloons, other than the first sentence of the first ballon, exist in the actual journal. Even his Veidt Suspicions are not proven to be in the journal he mailed. However, I think that such a stance is too extreme, and I do not think it is a stretch to conclude that all the yellow text ballons, from the first sentence to the last, were included in the journal he mailed. Your edit would not let people know that R had been writing in the journal regularly through out the series, but I am willing to put it up to a vote. --Bertrc (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As regards the second aspect I reverted: the first sentence used in the "Watchmen" comic is indeed read aloud, but it is purely speculation that that is the first entry within the journal. Preppy (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Second aspect: . . . Okay, I will use "one" sentence instead of "First Sentence". I think it important to indicate how little of the journal was read. By saying "part" somebody may think that enough had been read to understand what the journal was about. --Bertrc (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WLU reinserted the journal references again: I've hewed them back to what's supported by the source material. I would plead again that anybody feeling that the journal needs to be mentioned please refer to Watchmen itself and stick to what it supports as opposed to one's own speculation and inference. --Preppy (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for stepping into that. I've reworded a bit to shorten but tried to keep it vague yet true to what's in the book. Hope it's acceptable, and apologies for not asking first; I do think it's important to include, it'd be nice if there were an interview where Moore or Gibbons state what actually happened. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, but we're operating within the context of what the book tells us. I could tell you that Seymour burns the journal during the year end purge, but within the context of the story we still wouldn't know. Author's intent is an interesting grey area that would be good to avoid. I reedited it again: the sentence as it stood implied that the entire plan might be revealed, that the publication of the journal would be a crucial factor in discovery, and that the contents of the journal were speculations on Veidt. I don't think any of those points pass muster. Veidt carefully hides his trail: Dan and Rorschach only know it because Veidt tells them. The discovery of the journal could lead to any number of scenarios: it's not critical to plot discovery that they publish anything. The journal contents are generally unknown, and only at one point (the last entry) does it finger Veidt, and it is precisely one page-in-Watchmen after they simply believe that Veidt is behind the current mask-killer 'conspiracy'. This coda is one of many excellent touches in the work, but I don't think it needs to be oversold. --Preppy (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff, I'm fine with the current version. If it appears in any extra-comic material, it might be worth putting in elsewhere (depending on what is said). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere in all the edits, it got removed, again. I will re-add the last version.--Bertrc (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it was voted Off twice. Re-reading Moore's commentary about Watchmen and what is in the journal, it appears that the most that will happen is that Veidt might be discovered as the murderer of R, but even that seems unlikely given the public adulation of Veidt. So again, I think this is a complicated subject that doesn't bear mention and is way too easy to oversell. --Preppy (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I got your last version. I change "Hint" to "Possibility". --Bertrc (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you doing an end run around your own vote request? :-) Also, I strongly disagree with my own edit suggestion now that I have further reread Watchmen again. Strongly disagree. There's no way that they discover the global plot, and the Dark Freighter parallel seemingly hints that at most humanity is safe and Veidt is simply damned. --Preppy (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Preppy, you say two votes against in your comment. With WLU, I make it two votes for. Besides, I thought I had gotten your last version -- Ther version that WLU said he was fine with. Did I grab the wrong version? --Bertrc (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been two vote collections so far: your own "need votes" area below and the Featured Article review. As I noted just above, I strongly disagree with my own previously watered-down inclusion revision after a full rereading of Watchmen. They might discover any number of things given this needle in a haystack-probably-about-to-be-burnt, and good luck expressing that concisely in one sentence. I think you have your own interpretation here that is a highly speculative one that strays far from what a strict reading would grant. I would encourage you to reread Watchmen with the journal in mind, and reexamine the possibilities here. --Preppy (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are too many sections on the Journal. I actually count 3 vs 3, not 2 vs 2: Preppy, Wesley and Hiding vs Bertrc, Aakre and WLU (I'm not counting the people who aren't willing to register). --Bertrc (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we should archive the page soon. Why if it's a tie in the new post-FAR semi-vote are you ramming the edit back in instead of discussing it? Are you not assuming Good Faith effort to achieve article excellence on the part of others? This is alienating to me.

As mentioned again again, I believe that we are greatly overselling the journal. 'Veidt's plan might be revealed' is not supported based upon Veidt destroying all the evidence and the only loose 'documentation' found in R's journal. Veidt's plan will probably never be fully uncovered: it's burnt, killed, blown up, and at the bottom of the ocean. Pieces, maybe. But even that is intensely speculative based upon the tiny shred of possibility that the large journal in a pile about to be burnt will be pulled out when "two pages" are needed. What happens if the journal is discovered? Does R get reexamined by society? Do the Watchmen get reexamined by society? I can think of all sorts of scenarios in the context of Watchmen post-journal-discovery, and given Veidt's high societal standing and intelligence, I would see this as potentially leading to a smirch about his reputation and little more.

I would urge you most strongly again again to reread Watchmen in full and closely follow the journal and revisit your beliefs about discovery. I think this is being very oversold.

I again vote strongly against inclusion of a journal reference, but for a journal section where this can be examined in fairness. Beyond a 'vote' as to value of inclusion, I believe the validity of the journal edits must be examined with an eye to the source material and away from speculation and inference. Clearly people have been hewing to their own bias: I believe rereading Watchmen might well lead to a better common ground. --Preppy (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly assume Good Faith on your part, Preppy, and on Hiding's part and WLU's and Aakre's and Wesley's parts. We are all trying to make Wikipedia better. I believe that you honestly feel the journal is of absolutely no matter and that even if it were chosen and printed, it would have no affect; I believe you feel this strongly. IMHO, we all feel strongly in our opinions on this; I certainly do, at least as strongly as you -- if you feel my language has not been passionate enough to convey such, I can only attribute that to my writing style -- I also understand that you feel those who think the journal matters are misreading the series; I feel similarly about those who think the journal doesn't matter. You seem to imply that those in favor of the journal have not read Watchmen closely enough; I believe we have all read Watchmen closely, but have come to different conclusions. I do think my mock up [4] is the road to compromise. The mock up doesn't say the journal matters, and it doesn't say the journal doesn't matter. It says the journal existed and the series ends with a hand reaching for a pile where the journal is near the top. Let the Wiki reader decide if Moore meant something by ending with that scene. I would certainly take on your suggestions: "a small right wing magazine" instead of "Newspaper"; "The Editor" instead of "The Chief Editor"; we could even say "in need of two pages of filler material" although I think that that is excessive. --Bertrc (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the journal is an interesting aspect that might have an effect upon the world of Watchmen, so you are incorrect there. The effect of that possible discovery is clearly unknown. The statement "Veidt's plan might be revealed" is inherently speculative, especially given that most of the journal is not about "Veidt's plan". Ignoring the last page, what would a reader of the journal learn?

Note that your road to "compromise" seems to be the road to "the journal must be mentioned", such as by ignoring the previous discussion upon this from the Featured Article Review or asking for a vote and then acting when the vote is mixed at best. I started this section with an analysis of what Watchmen actually has to share with on this subject, and I think it's illuminating to note that there's barely any further mention of the source material in this "discussion". So, yes, I do question whether these article edits are made from the source material or from personal speculative interpretation. And yes, I do not feel as strongly about my opinions as you do that I would bludgeon my point of view into the article, but I believe that's actually positive in a supposedly collaborative venue. Let me know when we're trying to collaborate to improve article quality as opposed to merely ensuring that our personal bias can be reflected. We've passed the point in my book where I would believe you are in good faith trying to collaborate, and as such I am largely removing myself from this (non-)issue. The current edit is bad. I'll leave it at that. --Preppy (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What the plot summary currently contains about the final scene in the story highlights why we can't include it. "The final scene in the series alludes to the possibility that Veidt's plan might be revealed if a newspaper assistant in search of filler material picks up Rorschach's journal, which ends with speculations on Veidt's role in an uncertain conspiracy, from a "Crank" pile." There's too much speculation on what the primary source is trying to convey, and we can't do that, because it violates WP:OR. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How about working on my earlier mock up [5] It doesn't speculate. It says what is in the source, and lets the wiki reader decide. If you want, we could take on Preppy's suggestions: "a small right wing magazine" instead of "Newspaper"; "The Editor" instead of "The Chief Editor"; we could even say "in need of two pages of filler material" although I think that that is excessive. --Bertrc (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I created an up do date mockup: [6] I think it eliminates speculation, and is faithful (almost verbatim) to the source. I was tempted to point out that the New Fronteirsman had already noticed many of the kidnappings involved in Veidt's plan, but that seems unnecessary and excessive. --Bertrc (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It still doesn't work, because it's hinging on the word "alludes". You're still running into the original research problem. WesleyDodds (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

. . . ? My mock up doesn't have the word "alludes" anywhere in it . . . Sorry, I am not the best at links, but click on the link that follows this sentence: [7] There should be a number appearing before this sentence which is a link to the changes I am proposing. That is the mock up I was referring to. It doesn't say "alludes" anywhere in it . . . Well, apparently the "Black Freighter" section uses "alludes" but that is not my fault. :-) --Bertrc (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the mock up [8] (which, I reiterate, is the included link showing my proposed changes, and does not add the word "alludes") or shall I make the additions to start the BDSM cycle (or whatever acronym wikipedians use for the "Be Bold" --> "Discuss" --> etc. process) ? --Bertrc (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The bit "of being behind the conspiracy, whatever it may be" is so vague as to be useless and misleading. Which to me is where the rub here is. It's Yet Another Great Alan Moore Plot Point(TM) but so very vexing to try to cram usefully into a quick plot summary. It's like Hollywoodizing a Moore story: you could, but why? The value of this is in the reading, not the encyclopedic describing. --Preppy (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it misleading? It is almost verbatim from the source. I suppose we could put in an actual quote, if you prefer (I think the exact quote is something like: "Whatever the nature of the conspiracy is, Veidt is behind it.") but I dislike quoting fictional characters, and I honestly think the proposed text summarizes the entry accurately. I guess a summary of my thoughts is: We shouldn't speculate on whether or not the last entry is too vague; that is something I think the wiki-reader should get to decide. Since the proposed text gives the wiki-reader enough accurate (almost verbatim) info with which to make an informed decision, I do not see how it is useless. Since it is almost verbatim from the source, I do not see how it can be misleading --Bertrc (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry: it doesn't provide any useful or specific information. "A vague accusation is leveled about Veidt potentially being involved with some sort of conspiracy that lead to the death of Blake"? That'd be more accurate to text - the slice of that quote out of the context of the story is what makes it misleading to me. The R journal contains information about the death of Blake, not the super squid. --Preppy (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

. . . I never thought I would be saying this, but . . . that seems speculative to me. He doesn't mention Blake, and I don't think it is too vague; and, as I said above, I find it very useful. The last entry explicitly says "Whatever the precise nature of this conspiracy, Adrian Veidt responsible." In what incorrect direction do you think that that will (mis)lead people? The wiki reader is free to interpret that as being too vague or only about the Comedian, but we shouldn't speculate and make that decision for them (IMHO). So, does anybody besides myself and Preppy have an opinion on how to describe the last entry in the journal? --Bertrc (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

WesleyDodds, Preppy had an issue with the content of the final entry, so I left that out. What was your issue with the edit? [9] --Bertrc (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

. . . So . . . I'll re-add my edit then? [10] We can then archive all these threads and focus on the remaining issue of the content of the last journal entry. Or is there an issue with the edit? --Bertrc (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

. . . Okay, then . . . I will re-add the edit. [11] Does anybody know how to archive threads? --Bertrc (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, it's best to wait until you have some more consensus on your side before putting it back into the article yourself. Counting both this talk page and the FAR discussion, you don't have that right now. Just wait and see if someone else comes to the discussion to support your viewpoint; no need to press it. It's really not the most important thing the article needs right now (that would be references verifying some award wins that we had to take out during the rewrite because we couldn't find verify them). WesleyDodds (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That cuts both ways. You should have consensus before removing it. Discussion and FAR threads indicate Wesley, Preppy and Hiding: against; bertrc, WLU and Aakre: for. I'm not counting the recurring anonymous edits that keep adding it in, but they are another motivation to get a proper version (and, to be honest, I feel that they are a push towards including the journal). Preppy didn't like including what was in the final entry, so I am presently leaving it out. You had concerns with speculating, so I have tried to create a version that does not speculate. Do you still have issues with the edit? If so, can you let me know what they are, so I can work on it? [12] I'll step back and wait for a bit to see if anybody has comments/issues on the edit (other than the "comment" of removing it without explaining what they feel is wrong with it). --Bertrc (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

. . . Okay then . . . once again . . . in the absense of any constructive criticism (or unconstructive criticism, for that matter) of the edit [13] I will re-add it. As for "if it happens, it happens" -- It looks like it did happen: 203.155.1.252 added text on the journal [14] but the edit was reverted without explanation. I think my text is a bit better worded, but 203.155.1.252 (or anybody else) feel free to give your opinions or alterations. --Bertrc (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposed edit has no notability. I strongly oppose that inclusion. If you must continue to push The Journal, I would think it better to write up a separate section about the journal framing and the value it adds to the story. I am strongly opposed to any attempts to jam it into the plot summary. If you find yourself wanting to add it back in, remember that I am diametrically opposed to you on the subject and cancel out your admittedly biased "vote". I am biased too, but I'm biased towards writing an excellent, tight, non-speculative article. The journal edits read as minutia and don't help build a tight article. --Preppy (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I was actually chastised for starting a thread calling for a vote; there is an entire wiki policy explicitly saying that this is not a democracy. One of the reasons I want to get to a point of archiving these threads is to hide that little embarrassment.  :-)*sigh* I'm not quite sure how to respond to you, Preppy. You seem to imply I do not want an excellent, tight, non-speculative article (just as I feel you implied those who disagreed with you had not read the series carefully). I'm trying to respect your opinions with regards to the article, even though I disagree with those opinions, but it is hard to respect your tone in this discussion; I will try to stick to the article. We seem to disagree on the definition of "excellent" and "tight", but maybe we can work on "non-speculative". Why don't you tell me what aspect of the proposed text is speculative. I'm feel that the entire edit is from the source, and is not making asumptions as to what it means or what effect it will have. The proposed text leaves such speculation up to the wiki-reader, I believe. Where do you see the speculation? --Bertrc (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, Preppy, maybe I can take on the question of "tight" as well. I understand that you feel the journal is minutia and has no real effect on the plot. That is a perfectly valid opinion and many people have it, but a lot of people also disagree with it. Not just WLU, Aakre and myself (and possibly WesleyDodds, who, I think, is more concerned that the journal can't be described well) Heck, you can see that others consider the journal important via the recurring and constant anonymous edits that keep re-adding it [15][16][17][18][19][20] (just looking at this month). As such, adding the journal does not weaken (loosen?) the article. If added properly, it allows the wiki-reader to decide if the journal is minutia or not. --Bertrc (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad populi isn't a compelling argument. I think the latest revision of yours that I checked out avoided speculation well, but now that it's hewed back to source material I again don't see why it's worthy of inclusion - which is exactly where my previous thoughts were after I had reread Watchmen with an eye on this subject. Could you explain why the non-speculative edit is interesting or valuable? The 68.81.89.100 edit veers back to a speculative conclusion. The net effects of the journal are unknown and unknowable. The Black Freighter is not mentioned in the Plot section at all either. I don't understand why this issue is critical, and I don't think it adds value in any meaningful fashion as an addition to the plot. Like The Black Freighter, I think it could add value in its own section, but within the plot section I think it only detracts or distracts. There are a variety of small elements that don't really merit direct inclusion. --Preppy (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Meaningful: I think it adds value because it leaves the ending of the series open-ended with respect to whether Veidt's plan is uncovered. Without the journal, even if he fails to take over the world, he at least gets away with mass murder. I feel this is a key aspect of the plot, just as is the ambiguous ending of "The Lady and the Tiger." Now you may disagree with that interpretation of the journal; I respect that, so the edit does not force somebody to take my interpretation; it does, however, allow them to come to their own conclusion. DM's "nothing ever ends" is a Zen comment about whether the world turns out okay and whether Veidt was in the right; it does not confront the key cliff-hanging aspect of whether or not Veidt got away with it -- up to the last scene, anybody who could expose Veidt is dead, off earth or sworn to secrecy -- To draw a corallary: in a Hitchcock show, the last scene showing a butcher's knife in the man's trunk doesn't mean the man is actually guilty of the crime he was "framed" for, but the wiki readers should still know about that last scene so that they can choose for themselves. 2) Separate section: The journal won't work in a separate section, because then, I think, we would have to speculate on what the journal means; with it in the plot summary, we don't need to speculate and the wiki-reader can make their own decision; feel free to give a separate section a try, though. 3) Black Freighter: IMHO, the story would turn out the same regardless of whether the kid was reading the Black Freighter or not; I've never heard an argument to show how the BF story affects the plot. In that way, the BF story differs from the potential discovery of the journal. --Bertrc (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Yes, that is the huge unsupported speculative effect of a speculative discovery that I noted you were speculating upon the merit or effects of. With "the journal" (contents generally unknown beyond exactly what I detailed previously), he may save the world (he has not been trying to take it over) and he may get away with murder and mass murder. There's a variety of other great plot summaries which don't attempt to do anything more than give a brief plot summary, not an entire break-down of the work. Maybe the value is in watching the Hitchcock work, not in reading people's attempts to hatchet it down to a page summary that "captures everything the artist was trying to say". --Preppy (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to reword 68.81.89.100's edit [21]. --Bertrc (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WesleyDodds, if you are going to use "consensus" as an excuse to remove an edit [22] you should explain in the discussion page what is keeping you from agreeing with the edit. That will allow people to work on the edit to try meet your concerns. This is the way in which consensus is reached, afaik. In this specific instance, some time ago, you had concerns about speculation when including the journal (specifically with the word "alludes, I believe). The proposed text has changed considerably since then. Do you feel there is still speculation? If so, what aspect is speculation? If not, what other concerns do you have with the edit? --Bertrc (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, let me try expanding on the hitchcock example. I am going to give two Plot summaries of a Hitchcock episode

A salseman with a flat tire walks to a sheriff's station for help, only to find it empty. The Sheriff arrives shortly after, with a prisoner, arrested for the murder of a local girl. The prisoner manages to overpower the sheriff, killing him. The prisoner hides the sheriff's body in the basement and locks the salesman in the cell. The former prisoner then flees the building claiming "anybody could be the murderer, even you!" A lynch mob, having heard an arrest was made, storms the jail and, finding the salesman locked up, assumes he is the one the sheriff arrested. A SWAT team arrives just as themob is about to hanghim, saving his life.

This is all well and good. However, a proper summary (IMHO) should include the last scene:

The last scene shows the salesman, having just replaced his tire, talking to his wife on a cell phone, apologizing for being late and promising that he has an amazing story to share when he gets home. The final shot focuses on his hand putting the jack back in the trunk . . . right next to an oversized butcher's knife which he hastily covers with a blanket.

Now then, both summaries are accurate, and we certainly should not say that the salesman is the murderer, but Hitchock had that last scene for a reason, and a summary should include it so that the Wiki Reader can make their own choice. The prisoner's exclamation gives possible ambiguity, but hardly to the extent indended. The summary doesn't have to point out that the evidence was circumstantial or that the murdered girl was stabbed, any more than my proposed Watchmen edits point out that the New Frontiersman had already noticed the the disapearances of veidt's scientists, artists and psychic; the final scene is sufficient in both cases.--Bertrc (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

208.87.44.35, I mispoke in my edit comment [23]. Your edit (IMHO) is not speculative, but I think that the other editors may not like it. There were complaints, earlier, when we did not point out that the journal was initially discarded by the tabloid, or that the journal needed a more precise (or less precise) description, etc. --Bertrc (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WesleyDodds, I thought your issue was with speculation. Do you feel that way about the text you removed [24]? If so, what do you feel is speculative? If not, is there another issue you have with it? --Bertrc (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

. . . Re: [25] If you feel the journal text is not settled, can you explain your issues with the text so that either a) those who feel the journal should be be included can be convinced that it doesn't need to be included or b) your issues can be addressed, and the text can be revised to meet your needs . . . and so that the discussion can take place in more than just undoes and edit comments (and so that we do not need to worry about the 3RR) --Bertrc (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out that you've been keeping this discussion going and you're the one trying to force this in in the face of consensus. No one on the talk page has agreed with you, and that's not even including the discussion about it during the Featured Article Review. As I mentioned before, you shouldn't put this into the article until you can gather consensus for it on the talk page. That's all I really have to say, and that's why I haven't added more recently. I understand you mean well, but you're repeatedly pushing this one detail. I'll leave some in depth comments on your talk page. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, two other registered users on the talk page have agreed with me, just as only two other users have agreed with you (At least, I think they agreed with you. You haven't been describing your position, so I am making an assumption) Plus numerous unregistered users have agreed with me on the article page itself and have been re-adding it. In fact, I wasn't the one who added it. I editted the text somebody else added to take into account discussions we had had here. The FAR discussion is just you and one of the editors who agrees (I think) with you here. The reason I have been reverting your reverts of my edit is that you are not giving any information about what you see is wrong with the edits. Earlier, you you were contributing meaningfully. You were pointing out speculation and you were helping to make the text better. Consensus works both ways -- you shouldn't be removing without consensus -- Give some actual ideas. What is it about the journal that makes you want to exclude it (then I would mull over your points and at least wait for somebody to come on my side before re-adding); or are you fine with the journal and are only concerned with how it is mentioned, if it is mentioned (Then I would work on the text, and ask for opinions before re-adding); or do you not care about the journal at all (. . . then I guess I would ask you to leave it be until you had an opinion)? --Bertrc (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a long article. You've got an ambiguous possibility for discovery (noting that it's not what was asked for, that it may be about to be destroyed) of ambiguous content (only some of which even deals with C's death) of an ambiguous remark ("whatever that is") with a press already under censorship ("nobody's allowed to say bad things about ... the Russians") and you're suggesting that "one of America's best-respected ... superheroes" will have some aspect of his plot discovered through those vague ramblings, even though "those involved are all dead, killed by kilers who killed each other, a lethal pyramid". The work of saving the world temporarily has succeeded. Given that it's a long article already, given the vague content and absolutely speculative effects of the journal... it's an excellent teaser in the source material, but I don't support forcing it into the article: the latest edit adding it weakened what I thought was an excellent (if overly detailed) summary. But given that this has been a pretty one-sided conversation where the journal edits get readded regardless of anything else, I've kind of already typed enough on this subject. Like I said, I strongly oppose inclusion of the journal in the plot summary, but I don't watch this article anymore because I don't feel like my opinion actually matters to you (which is a bad sign, because to me wikipedia is about community, so when I'm being asked to appease one person, something is awry). Please don't humor me on that: I don't care. I've written reams and reread the source material too many times trying to have a worthwhile discussion upon this, and this subject has been flogged to death. You do what you need to do, and I'll just grit my teeth and enjoy not caring or thinking about this article anymore. I've got better things to do with my time. :) --Preppy (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Need a vote on the contents of Rorschach's Journal

All: Preppy and I cannot seem to agree on how to describe R's journal.

I think it is safe, and not speculative, to assume that all of the yellow text ballons, covering R's investigation, were included in the journal which he mails. I feel that this is supported sufficiently when the assistant reads the first sentence in the journal, which is the first sentence from way at the start of the series. I think that only mentioning the final entry is not a true representation of the journal.

Preppy feels that it is too speculative to assume anything other than the first sentence and the last entry are part of the journal (Preppy, feel free to elaborate your side)

The underlying vote is as to which sentence is more honest as a description of the journal:

1) "After mailing Rorschach's journal, which chronicles their investigation up until that point, to a newspaper, the pair confront Veidt at his Antarctic retreat."

2) "After mailing Rorschach's journal, which indicates that Rorschach believes Veidt is behind the conspiracy, to a newspaper, the pair confront Veidt at his Antarctic retreat."

--Bertrc (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I cited each and every instance of R's yellow text balloons in Watchmen - i1p1, i1p14, i1p19, i1p24, i2p25-28, i5p6, i5p11, i5p18, and i10p22. I find those to all be clearly within the scope of what is expected to be found within the journal. The difference on our positions is clear: mine is that the ongoing investigation has stopped being documented as far as the reader knows from issue five through ten. I actually would even object to the use of "the conspiracy", but was being generous. The use of "a conspiracy" would be truer to the source material. It is unclear if the more recent investigations, such as of Pyramid, are documented. Can you cite where it is? If not, this would seem like a bad speculative edit regardless of popularity. Preppy (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the vote is deciding where to draw the line for labelling something as speculation: Is it speculation to believe that the journal contains anything other than the first sentence? Is it too much to assume that every yellow ballon is in the journal? Is it a reach to think that Rorschach has been documenting the investigation in his journal? Where is it reasonable to draw the line? We know where your and my vote are. --Bertrc (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is critical to you understanding my position that I am taking the full source material at face value. I have cited each and every instance of the yellow balloons found within the Watchmen text. None of those would have left the New Frontiersman with the knowledge that the "alien invasion" was caused by Veidt. Thus adding references to the potentially misleading-within-the-Watchmen-reality journal are going to be misleading and confusing within the Wikipedia article. Because of repeated attempts to ram information about the journal into the article, I thought it a good faith tact to hew the journal-mentioning edits to source material accuracy. It is not defensible nor votable that the true Veidt Conspiracy was ever documented by R's journal. I am strongly against mentioning the Rorhschach journal at all, but if you really must add it the article despite repeated counteredits, at least use the source material to talk about it and not speculative interpretation. I think the journal is an interesting addition to the enjoyment of the actual source material, but cannot easily be expressed in a way that adds value to the article. --Preppy (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just thought of a compromise. In answering WesleyDodds, I realized that my problem is leaving out the last scene. This results in an inaccurate and incomplete plot summary, but I can't see talking about the journal for the first time there. Preppy thinks that I speculate on the journal's content too much when I first introduced it. How about this: We first introduce the journal when we first introduce R. a la "R., who records his thoughts in a journal, ..." In the paragraph about mailing say "After adding a final enty, chronicling, his suspicions of Veidt, R. mails his journal to a newspaper. He and Nite Owl then go to antarctica, etc. etc." Then we leave the last scene (as presently written, there is no speculation, just an accurate description of the last scene) I think that that removes all speculations, but keeps the plot summary complete: Rorschach does keep his thoughts in a journal, but we are not delving deeper; His final entry does record suspicions of Veidt; And we accurrately depict the ending of the story and we leave it to the wiki reader to decide what happens after. --Bertrc (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is merely your opinion that there is an incomplete plot summary. A plot summary is by definition going to be missing things. Therefore we need to work very hard at examing our opinions on what is missing and why we feel that way before asserting that anything is inaccurate. Hiding T 22:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Um . . . Agreed, it is my opinion that the summary is not complete nor accurate without the ending of the story. I assume it is your opinion that the summary is complete and accurate without the ending of the story . . . You are saying we should examine why we have these opinions, but you do not explain why you think the summary is complete when it leaves out the ending of the story. What do you (and WesleyDodds and Preppy) think about my compromise above. I think that it covers all our bases. It meets my completness criteria, and I think it avoids speculation. --Bertrc (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'suspicions' documented in the journal are as regards the Mask Killer and not as regards the "alien invasion" and thus that edit would seem misleading. Veidt has deliberately been leading Rorschach on a wild goose chase, and that misleading investigation is what we know is in the journal. Everything beyond that is speculation. --Preppy (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In the journal, it says "Dreiberg, convinced Veidt's behind everything...", "whatever precise nature of this conspiracy, Adrian Veidt responsible". This literally says that the precise nature of the conspiracy is not known, and not limited to just the assassination of the comedian. --Erlend Aakre (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It remains pure speculation that given a need for "two pages" of filler space in Frontiersman that Seymour reads through the entire thing (which before was opened and could clearly not be identified as the writings of Rorschach) and somehow now reads to the presumable last entries in this thick journal and decrypts that back from the Mask Killer phantom menace to the link to the alien invasion phantom menace. The journal contains no substantive link nor reason for linking the alien invasion to Adrian, just suspicions related to the Mask Killer. Dreiberg is underground and Jon is off in space, so the little pyramid of bodies built by Eidrian seems pretty finalized. It is speculation that "the conspiracy" is "not limited to just the assassination". The journal is a good touch within the actual reading of the story itself, but so much of the meaning of The Journal stems from inference and speculation that it doesn't seem possible to edit this in a way which adds value. For example, your edit of "Rorschach's journal is about to be discovered" is clearly speculative and inappropriate. On the pro-discovery side, for example, given that there is a potential dearth of material given the new peacetime publication standards, it is more possible that they would need to dig deep within the Crank File. But that too is speculation. I very much get and understand that this is yet one more fascinating aspect of Watchmen, but not every element needs to be included in the write-up. And given the complexity of this vague issue, pretty much all the suggested edits to date have been inappropriate. This is a nice touch for the interested and actual reader to discover, but it's rather a throw-away scene when you look at, in the final analysis. --Preppy (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes its speculation that R's journal is picked up, but it is also peculation that it is not. That's the point. I agree that it shouldn't say "about to be discovered", but I think it safe to say the assistant is reaching for the crank pile, near the top of which is R's journal. It is also speculation to say that there is no link to the invasion in the journal (just as it is speculation to say that there is a link) That is the whole point. Moore deliberately left it open, just like wassisname's lady and the tiger story. However, to avoid charges that I am speculating by saying Moore deliberately left it open, I say we put in the summary what Moore put in the books and let the Wiki reader decide. As it is, we are giving a definite ending in our summary (IMHO). Maybe I can do a mock up. --Bertrc (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It is my opinion that we cannot cover every aspect of the book, and nor should we try, when summarising the plot. We seem to be having a difference of opinion as to what constitutes plot and what constitutes an essential plot point. It is my assertion that the contents of roughly two pages are not essential and are not plot, but rather serve to reinforce a point already made, that nothing ever ends and one that requires secondary sourcing, that that we all have to share the burden of watching the watchmen. I'm certainly challenging you to explain why the final few panels need conveying, especially when the consensus is that we shouldn't cover the Black Freighter storyline in the summary, nor the storylines of other characters who garner as much attention, if not more, as the events in this page and a half. If I understand you correctly, you want it added to convey ambiguity. I believe, as I have stated already, the ambiguity is covered already. Why do you not believe it is? Hiding T 11:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, among the four of us who care, it seems I have been outvoted. I'll give one more try, but I will leave you guys to your edits. FYI, I readily acknowledge that the following (as well as all the preceding) is opinion:

1) The Black Freighter is just a thematic device and is not a plot point. It is used to give a parallel vision of Veidt's descent; Its absense would not affect what happens in the series beyond the BF story itself; the kid could have been reading anything and the overall series would have the same beginning middle and end. The last scene, however, is not just a thematic device and is a plot point because it affects the entire potential ending of the story.

2) DM's vague "Nothing ever ends" refers to V's question about whether he did the right thing in the end. V does not ask if he got away with it in the end or if he succeeded in the end. DM's answer provides ambiguity to morality (right or wrong) in the series. The assistant reaching for the crank pile provides ambiguity to the plot's actual ending in the series.

I guess my summary is: V's plan is key to the plot. Without the final scene, the summary gives a definite ending (to the extent that V's plan to fool the world succeeded) because the summary leaves nothing and nobody to connect him to the tragedy; the only unknown, without the final scene, is whether V was justified (did the right thing). I feel this is not an accurate portrayal. With the final scene, the summary does not give a definite ending to the series (to the extent that V's plan may still collapse) because there is the potential of something connecting him to the tragedy. I feel this would be a more accurate portrayal. --Bertrc (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I guessed this was where our views diverged. If you re-read the comic, Manhattan's reply is to a very precise question asked by Veidt, which is not 'about whether he did the right thing in the end' but rather, to quote, Veidt asks "It all worked out in the end?" and Manhattan replies that "'In the end'? Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends." Now we can argue all over the place about what that means and whether it applies to morality (I don't think it does in the way you do) and to the plot's ending (which I think it does in part apply to, even if you do not), but we would be interpreting the work, which we can't do. We don't even know that the ending is ambiguous, based on the text alone, because the text is not ambiguous. It ends. Anything which we may like to speculate upon as happening afterwards is, by definition, speculation. So from my point of view I see no value in adding a lot of tortured text to note a very small point in the comic. I'm firmly on the side of critics, (who I am saddened aren't quoted in the article) who assert that the last page is a challenge to the reader, that it is left in our hands. That's a point that should be in the article, because it is sourcable to secondary source. I don't think the plot summary needs this extra snippet because I simply do not see it as advancing the plot any further than Manhattan's statement. I'm also intrigued we don't also add the potential that Laurie and Dan are to have children, since that also leads to questions regarding what they may or may not tell their kids, especially when you examine Laurie's arc and how secrets were kept from her and her statement that sometimes people do things they can't talk about. One could argue that this indicates she may talk about them to her children, if she has any, in much the same way that one could argue that the journal will be published and instead of being dismissed will be believed and the brave new world will crash down. Realistically, I think the biggest indication that Veidt's plan is doomed is the fact that he takes his name and inspiration from Alexander the Great. A man whose empire barely outlived him. Nothing ever ends. You can't really get anymore definitive in ambiguity than that.

I've waffled long enough. I think what I mean to say is that I reject the argument that Veidt's plan may collapse because of the journal is in any form the end of the plot. The end of the plot is clearly (to me) that Veidt's plan is meaningless (in part) because nothing ever ends. In their own way, all six (Blake included) "heroes" ultimately recognise this, hence the appropriate endings of their arcs. Watchmen is a work about "superhero" characters, rather than defeating a "super-villain's" plot. Hiding T 22:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Bertrc, I think the journal is important as it directly links Veidt to a conspiracy that involves more than just the murder of the comedian: "whatever precise nature of this conspiracy, adrian veidt responsible".

I think this should be in the plot as it is more clear as to the uncertainly of Veidt's plan (will it be discovered) than just Jon's statement about nothing ending which is more more diffuse. (Personally I believe Jon's statement is based on his non-linear perception of time, and in that way nothing has a start or a beginning). Either way I think the journal should be mentioned as it gives a more certain uncertainty about the ending :) --Erlend Aakre (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's 2 to 3, Erlend Aakre. I think your comment, above, on the journal's content really strengthens our side, but we are still outvoted. So, anybody else? --Bertrc (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I did a mock up. [26] Preppy, Do you think it is speculative? I really think that it is only listing what is in the series. --Bertrc (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am categorically strongly opposed to this addition, regardless of wording. The first part of the mock-up seems vague and misleading, as it conflates the mask killer investigation with the true Veidt plan through the use of "the" conspiracy. I pretty firmly believe that you can't explain the significance and probably content in a meaningful and concise fashion that does not lend itself to accidental misinterpretation. I do not see why it is of value to try to force this issue. --Preppy (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Preppy, I thought you would appreciate the exactness of the mock up. R's last journal entry explicitly says "Whatever the nature of the conspiracy". Heck, does his last entry even mention the mask killer theory? Your summary gives no significance to the journal, which I think is speculation. Heh, I guess it is also speculation to give significance to the journal, but that is my point: I believe we need to mention R's journal, and let the wiki reader decide if it has significance or not. --Bertrc (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's Schrodinger's Journal. "In a final scene set at the New Frontiersman, the staff there may be about to discover Rorschach's journal, which may expose Veidt's machinations." Something like that would be about as far as I'd go. I just think it's far too easy to overreach here based upon the scant support within the source material. --Preppy (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur, although I am less opposed to the overall concept than Zachdms. Believe me, we tried to work it in before, but ultimately we feared making assumptions about the source text, particularly since as a Featured Article this needs to be especially well-sourced and well-written. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Wesley and Zachdms. I also have issues with describing the New Frontiersman as a newspaper. It is, I hope we could perhaps all agree, at best a fringe publication. I'd note that in the mock ups we see in the comic, from memory it appears to be weekly and relatively new. I'm sure an issue is referred to as issue 21, although I may have missed a volume number. I'd also take issue with teh term chief editor; this implies there are other editors, we never see any, so that's speculative. Like Wesley says, this is a really hard thing to summarise, because it is so ambiguous. Hiding T 15:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's hard to get the journal into the plot just to mention the ending.. How about a own section (maybe under Art and Composition)? I think it deserves to be at least mentioned somewhere in this article, as it is the first thing and the last thing we see. It also works as kind of a narrator, and (to at least two of us) is an important part of the ending :) --Erlend Aakre (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Preppy, this [27] was not vandalism. At worst, it is obstinacy and rudeness. 98.201.62.184, why don't you register and take part of the debate? Even I feel that what you are adding about the journal is innaccurate, but I would certainly support an accurate mentioning of the journal.--Bertrc (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we archive this thread, so that there is only on journal thread? [28] --Bertrc (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Should the journal even be mentioned

During the Featured Article Review, we decided not to mention Rorschach's journal in the plot summary, because it's hard to do so in a forthright way without making assumptions. For example, this is why the last panel of issue twelve is not mentioned; it's all implication, nothing definite is conveyed. It's also barely mentioned by secondary sources, so there's no need to devote space in the article to it. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I feel that not mentioning the journal is not a true summary. Moore didn't end with everybody either dying, leaving earth or swearing not to disclose what happenned. He didn't end with the Newspaper condemning the journal to the blaze. He ended with the assistant reaching toward the pile, near the top of which was the journal. Everything depends on the assistant's choice (and, as per my present debate with Preppy on the content of the journal) A plot summary can't skip the ending of the story. That would make it either a teaser or innaccurate. --Bertrc (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wesley. This was discussed earlier, and there is no way to summarise this aspect of the work from primary source without conducting original research. As to the story, if you re-read it you will actually note it ends with a quotation. And we could argue all day about what the ending means, but if nothing else it means that nothing ever ends... We don't know what happens at the end, that's part of the point. It isn't important to the work itself in that sense, it's rather more important in terms of how it empowers us to make our choice, both to the story's end and the way we live our life. Moore ended the work with ambiguity, exactly where our summary ends it. And let us not forget, we are attempting a summary, not a retelling. We need only the essential. Is it essential to an understanding of the work itself that Rorschach's journal may or may not have contained anything intelligible which may or may not have been published in a fringe magazine where it may or may not have gotten any attention at all? I'd argue what is essential is that actually, "Nothing ever ends". At this point, I guess I should leave Wikipedia. Hiding T 22:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that that is the issue. If the summary ends without detailing the final scene, then everybody who knows about Veidt has either died, left earth or sworn themselves to secrecy. No possibility for ambiguity. With my compromise above (in the voting thread) I feel that it accurately depicts the possibility of ambiguity without speculating. The description of the last scene, before Hiding snipped it, did not say Moore left the ending ambiguous, since that would be speculation, but neither does it say Moore left the ending definite, since that would also be speculation. As it was written, that last paragraph allowed the wiki reader to decide if Moore meant the ending to be ambiguous or not. --Bertrc (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As it is a plot synopsis, the plot effectively ends when Dr. Manhattan leaves Earth and Dan and Laurie meet Laurie's mother. The final scene is too ambiguous to try and fit into the plot synopsis; it's more important to readers on a thematic level. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see my last stand in the "Need a vote" thread. I guess I think the journal is more important to the plot than Laurie and Sally's reunion. BTW, nice rework of Laurie's parentage! --Bertrc (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The ambiguity you desire is there in the direct quote from Doctor Manhattan, who states that nothing ever ends. You cannot possibly be more ambiguous than that. I'm not sure what more you require in terms of ambiguity. I'm also unsure why you believe that Rorschach's journal is a central, important factor of the book. Hiding T 11:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see my last stand in the "Need a vote" thread. I tried to answer your points, there. --Bertrc (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we archive this thread, so that there is only one journal thread? [29] --Bertrc (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Graphic Novel Link

I know that for some reason, people have theological positions on graphic novels vs trade paperbacks, but that is not a factor in my inclusion of this page in the Super Heroes Graphic Novel category. I linked the category simply because reputable news sources and magazines refer to it as a graphic novel and because it was marketed as a graphic novel. Somebody trying to track down watchmen in wikipedia, without knowing the name, would use that as a starting point. The article, itself, covers the controversy around the term Personally, I have no opinion at all as to whether it should be called a graphic novel; I simply figure that if the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and just about every other news magazine refer to it as a "Graphic Novel" then people are going to try to get to it via that term and, hence, via that category. Otherwise, what's the point of the WIki categories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertrc (talk • contribs) 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The category itself says it's only for graphic novels featuring original material, not trade paperbacks collecting previously-published comics. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it says Original Graphic Novels, as opposed to Trade Paperbacks. This is story is original, as the characters do not exist in any on going series outside of this self contained story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertrc (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous debate. Trade paperback is a publishing format, not a literary form. "Graphic novel" is a literary form, not a publishing format No one argues that the first appearance of Dickens' novels as newspaper serials makes them "not novels," This false dichotomy isn't even a comparison of apples and oranges -- it's a comparison of apples and packing crates.13:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Movie Link

There seems to be an ongoing edit war as regards direct linking to the film as opposed to using disambiguation. Can we get a consensus on this so that this stops being flipped every day? --Preppy (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty unnecessary as the link at the top of the article links to the general disambiguation page, the movie is linked in the lead, and the movie is an adaptation of the subject of this very article. It's somewhat akin to how we don't dismabiguated between music albums and songs that share the same name; they're connected, so we don't need to worry about confusing people. The Watchman link covers all the bases most concisely. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems likely that a large fraction of the people who look up "Watchmen" in Wikipedia at this point in time will be looking for information on the movie—since it's a current event and the comic isn't—and a direct link would save them time (versus scanning the disambiguation page or the lead for the link they want). I don't feel that strongly about this, but the time-saving benefit seems to outweigh the minor extra clutter to me. -- BenRG (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand people will want to look up the movie, but at this moment the original miniseries has far greater notability (and the movie isn't even release yet). We want to avoid recentism. As the film is an adaption of this article's topic, the topic of the movie is quite naturally mentioned and linked to in the lead, which should be sufficient. I'm fine with disambiguating for unrelated topics, but these topics are closely related, and in essence the Watchmen film page is a daugther article of this page, since there's an entire section devoted to it in the article (where it is also linked appropriately). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Richest man in the world?

The description of Veidt was changed to read that he's the "richest man in the world". I skimmed through Watchmen last night and found repeated references to him probably being the "smartest man in the world", but none in that skim to him being the richest man. Did I miss some reference here? Wouldn't the repeated emphasis that he's the smartest man in the world be more contextually notable? --Preppy (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no actual evidence that he's the smartest man in the world in the story; that's just what he's referred to due to his high intelligence. We could say "referred to as 'The smartest man in the world'". WesleyDodds (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed Massive and inaccurate spoiler from the introduction

• Spoiler*

"As the story progresses, the protagonists discover that one of the heroes has resolved to stave off war between the United States and the USSR by carrying out a plan that will kill millions of innocent people."

This is not true. They don't find it out as the story progresses, but at the very end. What a silly thing to put _in the intro_ where everyone will read it and it will spoil the ending for everyone who hasn't already read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.237.160 (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia contains spoilers. See Wikipedia:Spoiler. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the inclusion of that sentence for two reasons. One, as noted, they don't discover that he "has resolved to", they discover that "has completed a plan to...". And two, that does come as a late final revelation. I would think the section would be stronger by alternatively switching to: "After government-sponsored superhero the Comedian is found murdered, the vigilante Rorschach begins an investigation into what he believes is a conspiracy to kill costumed heroes." I do think that the old version-without-"spoilers" is weak, but ... that "spoiler" in question is mentioned prominently (in the current "spoiler edit") yet is not the central focus of Watchmen in my eyes. As such its inclusion seems more misleading than anything else to me. --Preppy (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The plot development is key because it plays into the themes of the story, ie. that you shouldn't put your fate into the hands of the "watchmen" who wish to save the world. It's the whole reason the plot functions: Veidt kills the Comedian after his figured out what he was planning, and the other characters are taken out during the course of the story to accomodate his plan. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If spoilers must be included, then the spoilers should be accurate. Edited to describe what actually happened. Personally, I think spoilers about _the very end of the series_ should not be put in _the introduction_ when they could be well put in the summary of the story, but whatever. I've read it, so you're only spoiling it for other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.237.160 (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't really summarize this plot in such a short paragraph. It really didn't read well. "Pulled out of retirement by Personal Troubles" sounded like a feminine hygeine commercial. Besides, remember that somebody reading the intro may not have read the book -- Who is in retirement? Retired from what? -- Do we really need a plot summary in the intro? If we want to emphasize the theme, shouldn't we just say what the theme is instead of hoping people will pick it up by implication? --Bertrc (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I took another stab at the plot summary; the original plot synopsis I put in the lead was merely a boilerplate description I created during the article rewrite until we could come up with something better. Yes, we need a plot summary in the article introduction, because the purpose of the lead section is to provide a concise summary of the article subject for unfamiliar readers. Keep in mind we need to summarize the article as a whole with the lead, so we need to provide details about the story's plot to compliment the latter paragraphs in the lead discussing themes and so forth. Also, it's best not to end sentences in an encyclopedic entry with rhetorical questions. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Preppy's last version. I feel the limitted plot details presently there are misleading. The protagonists don't uncover the plot; rather, they are confronted with it at the end. It also doesn't flow well from the mask killer theory to Nuclear armageddon. I do not think you can go to the depth of detailing the Comedian's murder, R's Mask Killer Theory and the Climactic reveal in such a short space. Besides, I thought you wanted to highlight the theme. There is no mention that a super hero is involved in the plot to kill millions, so you lose the "who Watches the Watchmen" implication. If you do not want to end with a question, how about Preppy's last version, ending with: ". . . underscore the recurring question of who watches the Watchmen." I'm going to try a rewrite from Preppy's version. --Bertrc (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I just did an edit that included more background info, but deals with the specifics at a higher level (Do we need to include the commedian's name and description when we can save space by including only his description? Removing the countries involved in the staved off war also saved space) Preppy, did you really think my original mention of betrayals was unsourced and POV? I was referring to Veidt betraying all of them, but specifically The Comedian, Dr. M. and R. I feel that it is self evident Veidt betrayed them and mentioning betrayals underscores that the Watchmen need watching, but I don't feel so strongly enough to override your objection. --Bertrc (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

WesleyDodds, "be straight forward"?! Heh, how much more straightforward could I be than to explicitly state the theme?  :-D Aren't we being indirect by not stating the theme and, instead, trying to express it via implication? It is not important to me; I only included that sentence because expressing the theme seemed to be your motivation for putting in low level plot details. I take it you are okay with the existing higher level summary. --Bertrc (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reread Watchmen a painful number of times and wouldn't think it summarized well by any of the three notions presented (acts of betrayal, brutality, mass murder). I had to actually think about what you might be alluding to in each case. I would not classify Veidt's action as "betrayal": he's attempting to save them in spite of themselves. I would potentially classify the death of Hooded Justice as a betrayal - but it's also mostly just a brutal murder motivated by revenge. I'm not passionate about in/exclusion of the latter concepts, even though I think it puts too much emphasis on them, but I'd think 'betrayal' steps too far. --Preppy (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the introduction of the plot summary, or the lead? In the lead, I'd simply remove the final part of the plot summary sentence as too much detail (i.e. take out "and eventually leads them to confront a plot by one of their own to stave off nuclear war by killing millions of innocent people"). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Change was made as part of my edits for the references. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

References tweaking

I'm going to play with the references throughout to get them slightly more uniform and with some neat linking I learned about. If I'm lucky, google books will play a role. Please give me half an hour or so; if people hate it, they can revert, but the true majesty isn't revealed until I'm done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Done for now, will try to finish the remainder of the citation templates tomorrow; the guts of what I wanted to do is there though - now references cited in text link directly to the google books page if available, and to the references section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, you're not supposed to change the style of referencing in articles if there's already an established reference style. In particular, you don't need the cite templates once you get the hang of formatting by hand (hell, you don't need them ever; see Wikipedia:Citation templates). I've reverted the reference formatting and removed some of the overlinking also introduced, but all the other changes should still remain. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Your revert undid several changes that I consider very useful. First, every book in the references section I linked to google books (when available, to the full limited preview, otherwise to the snippet view). I also linked each page referenced to the specific google books page that was cited, allowing readers and editors to verify the text cited with a direct review of the page in question. I also converted the references to citation templates (which I consider very useful) throughout the entire article, not just one section, adding specifications of dates, authors, publishers and other fields as I went. The citation templates are in my mind just as easy to use to give a uniform reference formatting as a manual formatting. Any experienced editor will probably be equally handy with either manual or citation templates, as well as being familiar with the wide variety of tools to produce them (such as diberri); new editors won't be any better with manual formatting versus citation templates and could follow either example already found in the text with equal facility in my mind. One thing I also like to add to citations (and did here throughout the article, beginning to end) is a wikilink to the publisher when available, which gives extra context on the reliability of the source. Also, per this section of citing sources (actually a sub-page) my links allowed pretty direct links from body text to reflist to references section - now if readers are wondering about a specific citation, they have to click on the reference, then manually figure out which reference in the references section is actually referenced (as well as not having a url to the google books link). We've been bold and reverted, but I would like to discuss whether there's merit to including some of my changes. At minimum, I would think the references section should be moved to after the footnotes, and google books links added. Visually there's no difference to the reader, but I do feel that for editing citation templates are better. Once you get the hang of formatting using citation templates, I find formatting by hand to be more tedious. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've re-linked the books and pages to google books to aid verification. Also, keeping in mind the tension between overlinking and building the web, I've re-linked carcinogenic and Soviet Union - carcinogenic isn't sufficiently self-explanatory that a link is out of place, and the Soviet Union isn't around anymore so it's also worth linking to. Might also be worth linking the characters to their specific list of... entries, perhaps in the infobox or the main body. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I know you put a lot of work into it, but proper Wikipedia etiquette is not to change the reference style for articles. The main reason is that it's a major inconveience to change the way sources are cited for editors who edit the articles regularly. Not everyone uses the citations templates; in fact most experienced editors don't. If you're adding new source information, you do it in the reference format established. For instance, I've done work on The Smashing Pumpkins, Joy Division, and In Utero, to name three articles; each one has a different reference style depending on what was established. Additionally you don't need to link Google Books for verifiability purposes, since providing the book publication info and pages numbers does that anyway. I personally don't do it because pages aren't always available on it. I also put the list of books before the footnotes because the majority of book citations simply list the author and page; the "References" section gives each book's information in full first. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

new pages

for the third time, the second generation and the comedian are so in depth that for the most part, they should have their own pages. do not delete this. i will find out who did and report you. i want to hear why these characters do not have their own pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.238 (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

They probably don't have their own pages because no-one has written them yet. Why not write them yourself and then link them? Please ensure that it passes WP:FICT. Threatening to report us is generally either laughable or insulting as it implies bad faith. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

They had their own pages before. Some user set out to delete all Watchmen related pages. Most of the character pages are back now though. --76.2.143.146 (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

They were redirected because individual character pages are unnecessary, and were filled with overly detailed plot summary. Ultimately, they were bad examples of how to write articles on elements of fiction. Rorschach is probably the only character that has enough independent notability to warrant his own article, but even that is iffy. If you want to add details to the characters, do so at List of characters in Watchmen. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

okay thank you. he only reason the threat was there was i had tried to ask the question twice befor and it had been deleted.

Inspirations for Watchmen

Read an article on ScifiWire suggesting Mad Magazine had been an influence on Alan Moore in his writing of Watchmen. Would be worth including in the article but I think a secondary source to corroborate it first would be a good idea. -- Horkana (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC) http://scifiwire.com/2009/01/bid-on-the-superduperman-artwork-that-inspired-watchmen.php

It's already mentioned in the article, but thanks anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The plotline involving creating an artificial (dead) alien in order to eliminate world political tensions (followed by killing off all those responsible for the alien's creation) and leaving a teaser at the end of the story that the plot might be uncovered by an as-yet unsuspecting person, is all included in the 1970's novel Wild Card by Raymond Hawkey and Roger Bingham; the plot similarities are too strong to believe this is a coincidence: Wild Card must have been an influence on Moore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.171.153.38 (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any outside source that comments on this or backs it up? I thought that the Wild Card virus really did come from aliens. --Bertrc (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The novel Wild Card by Hawkey and Bingham, written in 1976, has nothing to do with the Wild Card series or the Wild Card virus contained in that series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.171.153.38 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a scene in the Watchmen movie (and quite possibly the graphic novel, I haven't read that yet so perhaps someone else could comment) which reminds me strongly of a scene in the Heinlein novel "Sixth Column".

The scene that made me wonder is the one wherein a giant-sized Doctor Manhattan is walking through rice paddies in Vietnam exploding bad guys with the power of his mind. In the book, suppression of the surface tension in the cells of bad guys' bodies makes the cells' internal pressure cause them to explode. This is used in conjunction with holograms of a giant, heroic figure to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy... who are Pan-Asian.

The similarities are striking enough to make me wonder. Is this just my imagination? Denimskater (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I heard that Watchmen was influenced by the novel Superfolks. It deals with superheroes in realistic situations in the same way that watchmen does Bosco13 11:28 23 April 2009 (GMT)

Tales of the Black Freighter

I think the "Tales of the Black Freighter" summary needs to be adjusted. The summary mentions that at the end of the comic, the protagonist climbs aboard the Black Freighter. But this isn't true. There is no actual Black Freighter. It is a delusion. At the end of the comic, the protagonist reaches for a rope from the non-existent freighter, but we don't see him actually touch it. --130.207.64.118 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Burton

I feel it is a safe bet to say he climbed aboard, but if it troubles you, you could rephrase to something like ". . . he learns that the Black Freighter had not come to claim the town; it had come to claim him. Accepting his fate, the protagonist swims out to join the cursed ship." You also might want to point out that it was the Black Freighter, itself, that destroyed his original ship and shipmates. --Bertrc (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Going through my Watchmen trade, the Black Freighter story ends in issue eleven with the protagonist climbing aboard the ship. The last caption boxes the kid reads from the story say "A rope snaked down. Sputtering, I grabbed it." "...And from the decks above a cheer went up, both gross and black its stench affornting heaven." "THE END." WesleyDodds (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WesleyDodds, are you sure that the Reynolds citation should be located at the end of the Black Freighter plot summary? With the exception of the quoted phrase, the text seems to be based directly on the source (even before my modification) It is a summary of what is in the series. --Bertrc (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's Reynolds' summary of the series that I cited. When possible, I prefer to cite a secondary source, so as to rely as little as possible on draing conclusions from the primary source. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

. . . So now we have a summary of Reynold's summary of the tale of the BF? Is the text still faithful to Reynold's summary? I do not think we can confidently cite Reynold's for anything other than the direct quote. If the text read: Reynold's summarizes "Marooned" as the story of a young Mariner . . . it had come to claim him . . . swims out to sea and climbs aboard would Reynold's say: "Except for the quote, I didn't really write that." If so, we need to either move the cite, or pull the text back to Reynold's summary. I know for a fact that I did not use Reynold's as the base for my edit; I used the source. I feel that the only contribution Reynolds made beyond the source is the "shedding of inhibitions" quote. Does Wiki have a citing-somebody's-summary policy? --Bertrc (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the policy [30] The inhibitions quote falls under "When Quoting someone", but the rest of the summary does not seem to fall under "When Qualifying sources" or any other category. --Bertrc (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a direct quote of Reynolds; it's paraphrasing what he wrote while still sourcing him, which is also fine and in fact preferred, as direct quotes should be used sparingly. As for your edits, I think you just removed a few words, although nothing major. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to qualify the paraphrase as per the wiki citation policy. I added "It had not come for the town, it had come for him" which I pulled almost verbatim from the source. Does Reynolds include that? I feel it should be added because it is supported by the source and is significantly different from simply finding the ship and climbing on board. --Bertrc (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I restored the old version of the paragraph in order to accomodate the citation. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You still need to qualify it. Otherwise the next poor schlub who thinks that the summary is inadequate is not going to realize that he is editting a summary of a summary that he has not read. IMHO, it makes more sense to move the citation to the actual quote and then make the summary more adequate --Bertrc (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be qualified; the citation coming at the end of the summary verifies what is cited. This is how information is typically cited. This is how it's done in other parts of the article and how it's done in high-quality articles throughout Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that your citation does not make clear what is being attributed to Reynolds. How does the wikireader (or editor) know where the text from Reynolds starts? Where else in the article do we paraphrase somebody without qualifying the paraphrase? Besides which, why are we summarizing somebody else's summary of a story when we can summarize it ourselves? That is like the game of telephone. I'll wait a bit to see if there are any opinions in the Citation policy discussion. [31] --Bertrc (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that you qualified it . . . although I still don't see the point in summarizing somebody else's summary. --Bertrc (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Does Reynolds really say "Mistakenly killing innocents" and "Accidentally attacking his wife"? It is not quite accurate. Those actions were not really mistakes or accidents. He did them deliberately under false assumptions. Also, is Reynolds not explicit about the ship coming for the mariner, himself? --Bertrc (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Anybody? The present text is not phrased well and, as a summary, is insufficient. If Reynolds did say it, then his summary doesn't deserve to be quoted to such an extent. Unless he is being misquoted and somebody corrects it soon, I am going to rephrase using the source, and push the citation to what will remain of the Reynolds quote. --Bertrc (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

. . . Okay then. I will repshrase. I want to clarify the text, removing "mistakenly killing" and "accidentally attacking" since those actions were actually deliberatly done, though under incorrect assumptions. I also want to clarify that the Black Freighter had come for him, and not for the town. Since I do not know if this is in line with Reynolds, I will move the citation to the exact quote of Reynolds which will remain ("Shedding inhibitions, etc.") --Bertrc (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll check the book tomorrow, although I do want to emphasize it's best to rely on his description; you "want to clarify the text", but his comments about the story later in the section are based on his reading of the book, not ours. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Th black freighter still has that questionable phrasing. I understand your desire to keep Reynolds summary to match his comments, but his summary is really not that good (at least, according to our summary of his summary) and note that we are also quoting Moore. I am going to rephrase from the source, since his comment is ultimately based on (and still matches) the source. --Bertrc (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, I haven't had a chance to check the book yet (I have non-wiki obligations). It's always preferable to rely on a secondary source than to draw from our own observations about the source material. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

. . . um . . . we all have non-wiki obligations, and none of us own this article (that is, improvements do not wait for your, my or any editor's convenience). I'm not even going to try to debate whether it makes sense to summarize somebody else's summary of a story, or whether a summarization constitutes an "observation". The phrasing of the Black Freighter summary was not very good. I changed where I felt necessary (tried to use "mistaken" accurately, removed "accidental" and made clear that the ship had been coming for him -- as opposed to him simply arriving early, ahead of the ship) I have no idea if this still matches Reynolds. As such, I have moved the cite. If you do have the inclination to check Reynolds, and if it turns out the present phrasing still matches him, feel free to move the cite (although I would specify where the cite starts) If it doesn't match Reynolds, but a more accurate description can be cribbed from him, feel free to rephrase and move the cite (although I would still specify where the cite starts) If it doesn't match Reynolds, and Reynolds' summary is as poorly phrased as the original text, then I think the text should be left alone. Whether you or I have time or not, wikipedia shouldn't include a sloppy summary. --Bertrc (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem you're running into is that you want the summary of the story to fit your interpretation/phrasing, when we should be relying on secondary source description because the analysis is intertwined; it's not straight plot summary. Reynolds comments are based on his analysis; this is how most literature academic papers are written, and this is why we need to source him, because that's how he describes the story. The acceptable course of action would be to find another source that better describes the story. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I'd like to say that I agree with you that "desperate" should not be in there. Sorry, I thought I had removed it (darn cut and paste) However, that was not the meat of my changes. It is not my interpretation that the ship comes for him and not for the town; that is verbatim in the series; As the summary is presently written, it sounds like the mariner simply beat the black freighter to the town and is now going out to join it (Heck, when I read this summary, I felt it was saying he was about to join in the attack on his town) As for the use of "mistakenly" and "Accidentally", I readily admit that it is my opinion that the words are being used incorrectly. Do you disagree? Do you feel that the use of those words is logically correct? I understand your desire to try to summarize the summary of the person you are quoting. However, in this instance, I think you are being too dogmatic about it. First, as I have tried to convey, the summary is not well phrased. Secondly, we are including Moore's quotes, which are based on the original source, not on Reynolds' summary. Thirdly, we may eventually have other quotes about the BF, that will also be based on the original source. Lastly, Reynolds observations are still applicable, even if you compare them against the original source, rather than his summarization. --Bertrc (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We're not directly quoting Moore's descripion of the story at all. At most you're quoting a parts of a story he wrote, which is not quoting Moore directly. Anyway, I feel current description clearly describes what happens. He "[believes his home town is] already be under the occupation of the ship's crew, [and] he accidentally attacks his own wife in their darkened home." Because he believes the crew has taken over the town, this leads him to attack his wife unintentionally. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. We are directly quoting Moore's observations (for lack of a better term) Read the article, again. We have the summary and then we quote Reynold's analysis and then we quote Moore's analysis (if I may steal your term) Heck, in an earlier version, we were first quoting Reynold then Moore then Reynolds again then Moore again. Anyway, Moore's ideas (a better term) are based on the story itself, not Reynold's summary. In the future, editor's might want to add observations from other people. It makes sense to summarize using the common denominator: The series, itself. Additionally, although it might be clear to you, the summary does not use "accidentally" and "mistakenly" accurately; "mistakenly killing innocent people as he makes his way to town" sounds like he didn't mean to kill them; we haven't even established his erroneous assumption by that point. A third aspect that disappoints me in the text is that the presence of the BF at the end is not properly explained. --Bertrc (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have rephrased for the reasons above, but also to bring the separate Reynolds quotes together. [32] --Bertrc (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Characters section - Laurie's description

Laurie's description in the characters section is extremely short when compared to the rest of the cast (all of whom get more than a paragraph devoted to them; she gets three sentences). I am not qualified to add more information about her persona, but I think her section should be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.85.102 (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that's actually all there is available on the character. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There's more than that available, but WesleyDodds doesn't have access to the Absolute Edition and deletes all edits based on the Absolute Edition. Kolanifv (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You can insert information yourself. I gave you details on how to cite material properly. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It was also removed again after I cited it since the Absolute has no page numbers, I suppose that means you didn't make that edit then. 206.255.59.188 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Should Rorschach's journal be mentioned in the Plot Summary of The Watchmen?

There is contention about whether Rorschach's journal is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the plot summary of the Watchmen comic book limitted series, as well as how it should be described, if it is mentioned. —bertrc (via posting script) 20:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Um . . Hello. This debate has been going on for some time (a few months, I think). Three registered editors have felt the journal is worthy of mention (Bertrc, WLU and Erlend Aakre ), and three have felt that it is not (WesleyDodds, Preppy and Hiding ) During the FAR discussion, 2 of those presently against the journal decided it should not be mentioned. Additionally, many anonymous posters have felt it is worthy of mention and have editted the Plot Summary section to include it. After much wrangling, the latest text -- which has been added, reverted, revised, implemented by rewording another edit, removed, etc. -- is found in this link: [33]

Additionally, if the journal is included, there is contention about how the final entry in the journal should be described. The final entry contains: "If reading this now, whether I am alive or dead, you will know [the] truth: Whatever the precise nature of the conspiracy, Adrian Veidt [is] responsible." I felt the final journal entry should be described as: "After adding a final entry accusing Veidt of being behind the conspiracy, whatever its precise nature might be, Rorschach mails his journal to a magazine." Another editor, however, feels that this is misleading; he probably feels this way because, prior to learning Veidt (who was, himself, a masked vigilante) is behind it all, Rorschach had thought the conspiracy was from somebody out to kill all former masked adventurers.

I worry that I have lost my perspective on this, so am looking for an outside view by which I will abide. --Bertrc (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The best summary thread on this topic, I feel, is: [34] but there have been 2 other threads: [35] and [36]. Additionally, during the FAR discussion, two editors, presently against the inclusion, spoke to each other about the journal: [37] (search for "final scene into") --Bertrc (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Restating my opinion before, it's difficult to incorportate the final scene of the story (which is the ultimate purpose of incorportating information about Rorscharch's journal) into the plot summary without drawing too many conclusions for the reader, and that violates our original research policy. Additionally, it's not all that necessary; it's the final scene, but it's a coda to the main plot. Furthermore, secondary sources don't discuss it. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked to provide an opinion. This for me is a hard issue to decide upon, which is why I have largely stayed out of it. I understand why people feel this should be in the summary, but I believe it is very hard to summarise the totality of the situation because so much of it is left to reader interpretation. From memory I recall that Rorschach's journal was thought to be hard to read; do we summarise that? If we include it, we should perhaps say that Rorschach implicates Veidt as being behind a conspiracy, but again, how do we summarise that. Many of my concerns have been met with teh current proposed text, and although I still have some, I feel a way forwards might be found. I'd also point all interested to [38] and [39], where secondary sources can be found. I tend to agree with a suggestion above that maybe the best idea is to work up a separate section on the journal. So I guess I sit on the fence. If it is to be done, it must be done well. I am of the opinion that it is not likely that it can be done, but given the good faith effort to attempt to get it done, I am not opposed to attempting to go further. But I cannot as yet crack the nut of stating that Rorschach's Journal is both significant and yet insignificant as a plot point. Hiding T 21:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read at least two of those sources and their mention of the journal is pretty minor. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: the journal being hard to read: When Rorschach is set up and captured, the police say he had some unreadable notes in his pockets. However, when he escapes and retrieves the journal from his apartment, he says that it is the final draft of the journal, and that the police had only found rough notes in his pockets. I do not think we need to summarize all that; IMHO, the implication was that the notes were rough, but the final draft sent to the magazine is fine (The magazine assistant has no problem reading it and the yellow journal ballons have very clear handwriting; they are not printed with a font) --Bertrc (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

One point that I have made in passing, but would like to emphasize, is that the magazine that receives R's journal had already noticed (and become suspicious of) the disapearances caused by Veidt's plan. I don't think we need to include this tidbit, but it is another reason why I think the journal will compromise Veidt's plan if the assistant chooses it. --Bertrc (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That does rely on a bit too much speculation. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is just my personal view. I do not suggest we include that. However, do you think the latest text [40] is speculation or draws too many conclusions for the reader? --Bertrc (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Although virtually all speculation is removed from that version, without it the significance of the scene is unclear. There's also a disproportionate weight placed on the journal itself in the plot summary just to pay off that one scene. That's the other part of the problem with the final scene; it relies so heavily on implication it's basically meaningless without it. It works great when you actually read the story, but as plot summary for an article that discusses the series as a whole, from creation to reception, it's not really necessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, it seems that nobody from the outside wiki world cares about this. It is still just us. WesleyDodds, if we describe the actual final entry, do you still think that the significance of the final scene is unclear? P.S. Can you archive the other journal threads? --Bertrc (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm bowing out of this. You two need to reconcile your views to find a consensus. I'm interested in discussing a couple of modifications to [41] at a later date. Hiding T 11:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiding, since nobody else is bowing in, I think I have to throw in the towel. However, in case somebody from the outside wiki world does make a fuss someday, I'd like to have something ready. What modifications were you thinking of? --Bertrc (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Looking at [42]:

• The insertion of "who keeps a personal journal," could be done better. I get that the journal is being introduced, but that's a really clunky introduction which over-extends the sentence into which it is inserted. So I'd like to find a better wording, maybe splitting that sentence into two.
• After adding a final entry, and before leaving to confront Veidt, Rorschach mails his journal to a small right wing magazine. The structure of the sentence is off here. The journal is introduced way too late in the sentence, so you're left wondering what the hell he's added a final entry to. This also needs to be rebalanced. I'm also concerned at describing The New Frontiersman as "a small right wing magazine", although I admit I haven't got anything better on the table right now. There are sources out there which summarise this though, which is why I really support a section on the ending being added to the article. But they'd also give us an idea as to how to describe The New Frontiersman. It's presentation in the comic is never completely clear, it seems to border on the edge of being a fanzine, would you agree? Not that I am suggesting it is a fanzine, merely that it's actual nature is very ambiguous.
• In New York City, the editor of the magazine which received Rorschach's journal had placed it in a "Crank" pile after having heard only one sentence read. Some time later (after Veidt's attack) and in need of filler material, the editor sends his assistant to grab something from the "Crank" pile. The series ends with a shot of the assistant reaching for the pile, near the top of which is Rorschach's journal. This needs a rewrite. I get the intent, and I think it has the gist of what happened right, it just has it presented in a really bad way. We don't need "(after Veidt's attack)", and we should be able to date or ground it better than "Some time later". Basically, I guess I'm suggesting we look at the nuts and bolts of what happened, and how best we summarise that. The crucial aspect is the hand hovering above a pile of submissions, within which lies Rorscahch's journal, tantalisingly close to publication, and therefore tantalisingly close to... well, ultimately, to what? That's the rub. Moore has set us all up. Given the nature of The New Frontiersman, how widely is Rorschach's allegation going to be disseminated, believed, credited or discussed? How do we summarise that Moore leaves the work open-ended, allowing the reader to ultimately decide the fate of Veidt's plan? Moore's already done that, and we have too, with the "Nothing ever ends" line. If you ask me, this page is as much about getting the smiley face into the end as anything; it's as much an artistic as authorial decision. Which would be a great piece of commentary if we could source it! But I'm getting off the track. Personally, if we have to have a mention of the Journal in the plot summary, I'd like it to use prose which is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard, per WP:FACR. So, to tidy up the third insertion, I think we need to work backwards. What is the bare minimum which needs to be established in order to describe the final scene. What is the best way to describe the final scene. How much weight should we afford the final scene. I'm prepared to reach a consensus on this, as long as it is well written and structured. Is that fair enough? Hiding T 18:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think "Fanzine" is a bit speculative. The New Frontiersman seems prominent enough to tick off the paper that "outed" Dr. M. I feel it is safe to consider the New Fronteirsman a recognized journal periodical. As for the "Final entry" paragraph, I believe we should say that the final entry accuses Veidt of being behind the conspiracy, whatever its nature might be. I , and many others, consider that direct enough to give importance to the journal. If you do not, fine -- it doesn't force you to take that view, but it doesn't withhold information thus preventing you from seeing that view, IMHO. ie: "R. mails his journal to a small rightwing magazine after adding a final entry accusing V of being behind the conspiracy, whatever its precice nature may be. The pair then go to alaska yadda yadda." --Bertrc (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Did you read above where I stated "Not that I am suggesting it is a fanzine, merely that it's actual nature is very ambiguous." I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'The New Frontiersman seems prominent enough to tick off the paper that "outed" Dr. M.' Editorial decisions have nothing to do with prominence, do they? What a person chooses to publish has no relation to the prominence of the publication, surely. I don't see how it is safe to consider The New Frontiersman as anything other than a publication. I'd certainly avoid calling it a Journal. Regarding the "Final entry" paragraph, I'm unsure what you are attempting to discuss here. If you want to introduce the fact that Rorschach, although unaware of any actualities, speculates in a final entry in his journal, as legible as possible, that "Whatever precise nature of this conspiracy, Adrian Veidt responsible", then we're going to have to do that as free from speculation and as descriptively as possible, if we can find a way of doing so that doesn't unbalance the plot summary nor give the situation undue weight. But like I say, I think we are talking at cross purposes. I'm trying to discuss stylistic issues at the moment. I'd also appreciate it if we could avoid statements like "I, and many others". I speak only for myself, as does everyone else. Let's keep this at the level of a conversation between two people both trying to do what's right for Wikipedia, and let other people chip in as and when they see fit. Deal? Hiding T 11:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Deal. :-D I had inferred you felt that the NF was a minor, obscure magazine that nobody would really notice outside of a select community (a la a fanzine) and that would have no impact if it published R's journal. By "recognized journal periodical" I meant a magazine prominent enough that people would notice if it published R's journal (not that we shuold explicitly state such speculation) Essentially, I was saying that "A small right wing magazine" should be sufficient description; I don't think additional building up or trivialization is necessary. --Bertrc (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we're making this too complicated. We could just add a final sentence which states something like "The story ends with the possible publication of Rorschach's journal, in which he'd speculated that "(w)hatever precise nature of this conspiracy, Adrian Veidt responsible". Hiding T 10:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Asked to comment by Hiding, I shall do so first briefly: Q: "Should Rorschach's journal be mentioned in the Plot Summary of The Watchmen?" A: YES. ntnon (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach's Journal is crucial. Rorschach, says Moore "provides the thread of the story." (AmHe #97, p. 46) How does he do this - through his Journal, excerpted as captions/internal monologue. Gibbons says (on the issue of minute plot details, following reference to the saga of Dan's sugar supply) "You can say about The Watchmen (sic) that nothing is done at whim. Everything means something..." (Ibid., p. 52). Issue 1, Panel 1, Words 1 and 2: "RORSCHACH'S JOURNAL"/Issue 12, Page 32, Final - pictorial - Panel: Rorchach's Journal. In Chapter VI, you have Dr. Long's notes; in all chapters you have overlaid text/conversations, and in most you have the Black Freighter text. Before, between and after, you have Rorschach's Journal.

There are no 'captions' and no thought bubbles; no internal diologue (barring the flashback conceit, which is essentially internalised memory) - none of the then-"normal" methods by which information not conveyed in speech bubbles could be conveyed. Only the comic-within-a-comic-commentating-on-the-comic, Dr. Long's notes (in one chapter) and... Rorschach's Journal. It's utterly integral. Notice that because of this, it's only really two minds the reader gets proper insight into (although Dreiberg's fetish-'revealing' dream could run a close third): Rorschach's, and the doctor examining Rorschach. (N.B. I'm still searching for a definitive quote about the lack of thought bubbles and captions - since checking the comics seems to be taboo - but so far the nearest I've got is Dave Gibbons: "I think it helps in the writing if there are not captions, nothing artificial, so that you get the idea "this isn't being written, this isn't being drawn, this is happening," and the more attention you draw to the graphic aspects of the page, the less you get involved in the actual story content." (CI #65, p. 57))

Moore has said that Rorschach's 'poet's soul' (Sharrett) is "a kind of black lyricism," with his main inspiration being "the notes Son of Sam gave to the police," (CI #65, p. 8) plus (naturally) Ditko's Mr. A and his Ayn Randian character. Rorschach's voice is based on notes; Rorschach's voice is his journal... ergo, the journal is his voice, and as he's arguably the central character, the journal is utterly vital.

Incidentally, alongside Rorschach's Journal being crucial to the ending (as, on a slightly lower level is Seymour's crucial role - Moore's "ordinary common slob" (CI #65, p. 7) - in the closing panel), so too is Moore's express intention to imbue a double meaning to the closing lines ("I leave it entirely in your hands") which "was directed at the reader more than at Seymour. The fate of the world is undecided: everyone has responsibility." (CI #65, p. 8). ntnon (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd favor some sort of discussion of the journal, but I'm wary of endorsing the view that Rorschach is even arguably the central character, given Moore is very adamant he isn't. "Is Rorschach the protagonist of the book? No, I don't think there is a center of the book." p113 of The Extraordinary Works of Alan Moore (Indispensible Edition). (2008) George Khoury et al. But Moore is equally clear that the last page is a direct statement to the readers: "as I say in the last panel, I leave it entirely in your hands." p.114, same source as before. I'll have a bash at the page again, see if we can get something we all agree on. Hiding T 11:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quite, it's directed at the reader. As per CI #65 as well as the (later? same?) quote from Extraordinary Works. However, "arguably" and "centre" are semantic debates. Rorschach is the first character, first "voice" and driving force behind the (macguffin) nominal plot. His work/thoughts close the book; his "no compromise" position typifies the defining schism between hero and villain (and aptly shows the shades of grey between the positions). Even the symmetary of his mask echoes the book in microcosm! Moore obviously - rightly! - notes that there is no 'centre' to the book; there is no 'right' reading; no 'right' view. But he's also said that Rorschach and the Comedian are the closest to his own outlook (even as he, also rightly, notes that he can write any perspective believably), and Rorschach is the only "hero" to stick true to his beliefs. Clearly Rorschach is the central character... The Black Freighter is Adrian's story, but even that has its 'raw shark' undercurrent. But I'm naturally loathe to argue with the master, hence "arguably". :o) ntnon (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Extraordinary Works interview gives the appearance of being later. It's framed as one long interview, but whether that is a framing device I don't know. I don't have the CI interview, but it might be later because his views seemed to have changed. I'm not going to disagree that Rorschach's a cipher for a view that Moore's pushing to the extreme in the book, and that that view is a central one, but I'm not sure I'd deduce from that the idea that Rorschach is the central character. I think the central theme of the book is carried by Veidt, Manhattan and Rorschach, and I think Manhattan is probably Moore's wish fulfilment character, but obviously I can't source that. But Moore is quite clear there is no central character for the reader to identify with. Whereabouts did he say Rorschach is the only "hero" to stick true to his beliefs? That's curious, he seems to undercut that here, and it isn't something I'd totally agree with. I'm more inclined to agree with this interview, that they are "doing their best according to their lives". I'm more coming at it from the angle that Moore's exploring how these characters/ideas react when confronted with these events. On that basis, they are all true. Still, each to their own. Hiding T 10:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Diff

Okay, I've made this edit [43] to try and address all our concerns and hopefully reflect the consensus of participants in the debate. Hiding T 11:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the minimalist Journal intro. You may want a two sentence conclusion, though, to remove the word "potential" which some editors might consider speculation. Maybe something based on 68.236.250.22's ending: [44]. How about "Back in New York, a newspaper editor complains about having nothing to print and tells his assistant to print whatever he wants. The series ends with the young man reaching for a pile of discarded submissions, near the top of which is Rorschach's journal." --Bertrc (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with that text is we get into issues with "newspaper editor". The reason I used potential was because I'd already used the word possible earlier in the sentence. How about: "Back in New York, an editor complains about having to pull a two page column due to the new political climate. He asks his assistant to find some filler material, leaving the choice of what to run in his hands. The series ends with the young man reaching towards a pile of discarded submissions, near the top of which is Rorschach's journal." Okay, it's three sentences, but does that cover what happens beyond dispute? Hiding T 12:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it! The "due to the new political climate" phrasing is perfect. I don't think it needs ", leaving the choice of what to run in his hands", though. I feel it reads better without that, and the sentiment is clear from the rest of the text. --Bertrc (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's done and dusted. Cool beans, as people have been known to say. Hiding T 09:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Human bean juice"?

I'm mildly bemused by "small New York publication" - why make an (albeit likely) arbitrary judgement on its smallness? What's wrong with "the right-wing publication/political magazine The New Frontiersman"? Where's the mentions that W eschews voiceover captions and thought bubbles in favour of juxtaposition and written entries in a couple of books? "Rorschach's Journal" are the first words we read, etc. ntnon (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Manhattan narrates issue three with caption boxes. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with "the right-wing publication The New Frontiersman", but I think earlier in the debate there was resistance due to that being just as arbitrary, although equally likely. I guess another option is "publication The New Frontiersman". As to the mentions of captions and so on, do they belong in the plot summary or somewhere else? Hiding T 09:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The captions don't need to be mentioned at all since they actually appear quite frequently in the story as a way to convey information (Rorschach's journal, Manhattan's reflections, large chunks of dialogue, lines from Tales of the Black Freighter, etc.), but there's nothing particularly special or unique about them (it might amuse some to know that when thinking about the use of captions, dialogue from Frank Miller comics pops into my head). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)