Talk:Watchmen/Archive 1

message: This is pure conjecture, and I've slapped an NPOV tag on the article. 
No doubt everyone will come away with thoughts as what the themes are, but unless Alan Moore (or an article discussing the actual themes) Alan Moore put forth, the 'themes' section is just one readers point of view.
Aside from that, the entire article needs a rewrite.
--Joel 01:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Themes Section

message: Should critical analysis be a part of entries about pieces of art? The false document section of this article comes from the talk section of that entry and was posted there as a quick justification for why Watchmen might be included as a false doc text. In that context, it was written without NPOV in mind because it was expressly made as an opinioned argument. But now that it is on an entry page, it raises some questions for me about what should be included in our "synthetic knowledge" of a piece of art. While I am flattered that someone liked the little riff enough to put it on this page, it is not a wholly formed piece of analysis in the first place... but even if it were, should it be here? And if such kinds of texts were included on these entries, where would they go and how would they be contextualized within NPOV? I'm probably making too much out of something small. -trimalchio
Well, I am not sure what to do. (insert moment of intense navel gazing). The text need not be returned anywhere. A copy yet exists in the false doc talk section, so for what it is worth, the original will stand. And the issue really isn't about improving it as analysis... your addition might work, my improvment might work... the issue is whether analysis belongs in an entry at all. (more navel gazing). anyway, I think there is such a things as "true analysis". But is that NPOV? This is a very different issue then determining if a fact is true, like the date of someone's birth. Can literary analysis, even rudimentary stuff like this, be NPOV? Or should there be a place like wikipedia commentary, but under a different title, for wannabe critics and college analytical papers? --trimalchio
:I think it's an excellent piece, but it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia entry. PhilHibbs 17:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: False document setting

message: I've always been a little dubious about the comments both here and elsewhere about the close identity between the Watchmen characters and the Charlton comics heroes. I forget whether the idea has its origin in comments by Alan Moore or not, but if so, it seems to have been taken well out of hand. Many of them seem to resemble better known DC and Marvel characters far more than the Charlton lot. Nite Owl II is a dead ringer for the more gadget-heavy depictions of Batman. Nite Owl I has at least as much a resemblance to the Golden Age Atom as he does to Blue Beetle I. Perhaps most significantly, The Comedian has very little to do with The Peacemaker, but bears an extremely strong resemblance to Marvel's Nick Fury (both were WWII heroes, both later became Government agents, both got that greying temples look, both smoke cigars, both have a facial disfigurement - The Comedian his scar, Fury his missing eye...). Rorschach's backstory is somewhat like The Question's, but his operating style, even before he lost is, is much more like early pulp heroes, especially The Shadow, not to mention more recent vigilante characters such as the Punisher.
While I'm not suggesting the Charlton comics link is non-existant, I do think that saying that each of the characters is directly (and, by implication, solely) inspired by a Charlton is very misleading. Any thoughts? --MockTurtle 01:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True that some of the watchmen do not exactly match the charlton predecessors, also that some of the watchmen closely resemble other mainstream comic characters.Maybe this is worth a mention in the individual character entries? I do think that it is an important point that the entire stable of watchmen languished (mostly) unpublished for a long while, was purchased wholesale by DC, and then revamped by Alan Moore in amazing fashion into a v. important comicbook. I have seen Alan Moore comment about developing the characters, and I also read an article about it in one of the comic monthly review mags. http://www.toonopedia.com/watchmen.htm has it quite right.
I do think this article needs a lot of work, maybe moving the false documentation section would help? Scottbeck 04:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Watchmen characters' and their Charlton equivalents

message: I am placing the bulk of the text of the article Chronology of the Watchmen here as it's marked as a document that requires merging into Watchmen. However, I'm not too sure what it is that the author of the article was trying to point out with this chronology and thought that someone may be able to shed light on whether this should be included as a subcategory in the main article or not. (The deleted portion was a one line introduction to the Watchmen.) Hulleye 22:33, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 'Chronology of the Watchmen' 

message: The article describes Rorshach as "A right-wing extremist vigilante".  I thing "right-wing" here is rather misleading, although I confess I can't think of an adequate replacement.  While he's undoubtedly vastly illiberal and certainly doesn't worry himself about the social causes of crime (so he's certainly no left-winger) he also doesn't really meet either the proper or the popular definition of a violent right-winger either.  He's not part of the system (unlike Batman, he doesn't take orders from the police, for example) and he's not part of any kind of group. Also, he's entirely apolitical, and our calling him a "right-wing extremist" might give readers the idea that he's some kind of nazi or blackshirt; but he doesn't beat up black people, communists, trades unionists, gay people, immigrants or peace activists.  In the proper meaning of the term he's a fascist (like Judge Dredd or Marshall Law) but the term has become so conflated with nazism (etc.) that a reader would get the wrong idea if we called him that too.  Don't get me wrong: he's certainly extreme, certainly a vigilante, and certainly not a bleeding heart liberal.  So I think we should replace "right-wing" with something more accurate, but I don't know quite the word.  "Nut-job" really isn't encyclopedic language :) - John Fader
::In this case, I suggest that 'right-wing extremeist' be replaced with 'staunch/uncomprimising authoritarian'. 
::The notion of 'right-wing' in the political sphere is one that suggests that a person following this ideal believes not only in 'conservative' views to things such as law (in America, I believe this is also extended to the morals one uses to govern everyday life, moreso than it is here in Britian. However, I do not suggest that I am a commentator on the American way of life, so I may be wrong), but also to the practice of a more 'free-market' economy: Pinochet may represent the 'Authoritarian right-wing' stance effectivly, as he privitised many Chilean industires whilst also causing many Communist opponents to 'disappear'. Thatcher would be another example of someone inclined to the privitisation of industry, a right-wing economical view.
::Rorschach shows no verdict on economy; he simply enforces his own moral codes. In this way, he is very much a 'moral absolutist', as is suggested. However, the ways in which his moral stance is enforced is considered by many to be extremely harsh. This lends itself more to the idea of him as a strict/staunch/unwavering Authoritaian than strictly (so simply) 'right-wing'. Thus, this statement is something of a platfrom to my edits on Rorschach. allthesestars 21/09/2005 17:22 BST
:::but he thinks that the comedian serving his country was a posertive action and to a degree at least excuse his moral lapses.Geni 16:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is "right-wing" quite the correct term for Rorshach?

message: I see no mention of the Keene Act in this article. It seems to be an important part of the story and should be explained as best as possible some where.--The_stuart 19:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keene Act 

message: Serious cleanup needed here- I love the watchmen and all it stands for- Alan Moore knows the score! but we have a convoluted, clumsy and unencylopedic article at present. Lets turn t into something to be proud of quercus robur 4 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
:Any suggestions as to how we should proceed? The edits I made involved moving some things around and removing a few bits of irrelevant info (at least in the first sections of the article) and fannish stuff. The ideal I was trying to move towards is something that reads well for someone coming to the article with little or no knowledge of the comics... or comics in general. Motor July 4, 2005 22:21 (UTC)
::I suggest editing the Plot Summary into a Synopsis by Chapter. As it stands, it focuses almost entirely on the action plot. I agree with User:kchishol1970 about the inaccuracy of the 'arms race' idea. I'm not  happy either with the whole thread about Humanism and "what it is to be human": although they are caricatured into almost undiluted form, none of the philosophical/emotional stances of the characters are outside the human range. (I say "almost undiluted" because they're not 100% consistent: Rorschach, for instance, shows compassion in the scenes about Jacobi's laetrile and with Mrs Shairp). Oh, and I'd bin the Mysteries and Conspiracies section as unencyclopedic. Tearlach 9 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)
:::I agree, the Mysteries and Conspiracies section is nonsense. --Ryano 9 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)
Would it be worth nominating this page for Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight? Are we "close" enough to FA status for that? Lord Bodak 00:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup needed

message: I don't think the Comedian is a good example of this philosophy.  In general, the Comedian doesn't seem concerned about the morality of his actions, and will often commit heinous crimes, such as raping the first Silk Spectre and killing the Vietnamese woman he impregnated, without any remorse.  A better example of this is Veidt, who only committed his crimes for what he saw as the greater good.
----
My perception is that the Comedian adopts utilitarianism or whatever more as a way to justify his actions or anything else. What somebody says and what somebody does are different things. When he discovers Veidt's plan, though, he doesn't react with his usual cynicism. --Edward Wakelin 21:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comedian & "End Justifies the Means" 

message: There have been quite a few changes made since the clean up tag was added... so I figured it was worth asking the question and making some suggestions to get discussion going again and finally reach the point where the tag can be satisfactorily removed. So... what remains to be done? The basic need was to make it more of an encyclopedia article and less fannish. Here is my judgement based on a quick read-through... the "Background" section has, unfortunately, had this re-added: 
"The latter, and many other cultural differences, stem from the existence of Dr. Manhattan, an American superhero with vast powers over matter and energy." -- I'm sorry to whoever wrote that but, "vast powers over matter and energy" strays badly into fan territory. So that needs to be changed, IMO.
===Plot summary===
"Comedian had told an old adversary, Moloch, of a plot—one which shattered the Comedian's philosophical armor and brought him to a nervous breakdown." -- shattering "philosophical armor"? Again, apologies to whoever wrote it but, definitely fannish. Actually, I'm tempted to remove the plot summary altogether. It veers between tiny details about "Silk Spectre II" being in long term relationship but spending time with someone else, to skipping over big plot points. IMO, it should just describe the big plot points and be nice and short, as you'd expect from a summary.
===Artistic and narrative themes in Watchmen===
"Watchmen operates on an unusually rich number of dramatic levels, with the artwork, characterization, cultural details, historical references, and supporting fictional documents fully integrated into the narrative events of the story, which itself is both an exciting adventure tale and exploration of deep intellectual issues."
This section should go. Not only is it extremely biased and fannish... it doesn't really add much beyond what should be in an introduction section.
==="Good, Evil, and Humanism", "Authenticity and reality", "Prejudice and social norms", "Visual symbolism"===
Frankly, I'm not sure what to make of these. 
===Related products===
"In 1988 British Acid House music act Bomb the Bass used the blood stained smiley badge on the cover of the "Beat Dis" single release. This influenced the adoption of the Smiley Badge as a feature of rave culture."
How is this a related product? The Watchman had a blood stained smiley badge... and so did the single cover for a band. Is there any connection beyond simple coincidence? No? Then this needs removing.
Straight after that is an entry about the hardcover edition -- not a related product really. That belongs in a section documenting the different editions.
:Would anyone object to adding an "Editions" section to the article, containing ISBNs and details of each edition (the TPB, the old hardcover from Graphitti, the new Absolute edition, and any others that may exist)? Lord Bodak 00:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so.  I've deleted the rumour bit, it was getting ridiculous. --Ryano 09:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup - what remain to be done

message: "In 1988 British Acid House music act Bomb the Bass used the blood stained smiley badge on the cover of the "Beat Dis" single release. This influenced the adoption of the Smiley Badge as a feature of rave culture."
How is this a related product? The Watchman had a blood stained smiley badge... and so did the single cover for a band. Is there any connection beyond simple coincidence? No? Then this needs removing.
Straight after that is an entry about the hardcover edition -- not a related product really. That belongs in a section documenting the different editions.
:Would anyone object to adding an "Editions" section to the article, containing ISBNs and details of each edition (the TPB, the old hardcover from Graphitti, the new Absolute edition, and any others that may exist)? Lord Bodak 00:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Related products

message: "There are also rumors about Hilary Swank, Ron Perlman and Simon Pegg, respectively, taking the roles of Laurie, The Comedian and Rorschach."
I mentioned this before, but is rumour reporting an appropriate function of Wikipedia?
- Motor (talk) 19:19:33, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
: No, I don't think so.  I've deleted the rumour bit, it was getting ridiculous. --Ryano 09:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Film version

message: I have submitted quite a substantial edit to this page, my intent being to rid the page of the 'cleanup' tag. I have attempted to deal with the problems raised above as best I can, as well as performing some minor edits -- mainly those that would assist the reading of the article as a whole. Some of the most substantial edits, and my reasons for their implication, are listed below:
* I have added quite a lot to Rorschach's character overviw (see below), with aims to rid the character of the 'right wing extremist' view. I think I have elaborated on the subject enough to help people to understand his motives. However, I fear I have written a bit too much; Rorschach's section now far outweighs the other characters'. Although, I don't think much of what I have written is superfluous...perhaps it is more that there isn't much written on the other characters. I would ask that people add to each of the characters as they see fit; I'm not sure if I have a great enough knowledge of each character to add bits to each ones description.
* I have completely restructured most of the sections mentioned above by Motor. I have removed the "Artistic and narrative themes in Watchmen" section as I also felt it wasn't NPOV. "Good, Evil, and Humanism" has been renamed 'Character Overviews', for obvious reasons. This section is still quite biased toward the philosophical, but I do not think I can expand it enough to warrant a seperate section for the philosophy inclinations of each character. I have tagged it, as you can see. "Authenticity and reality" has been incorporated into a new section, which I have entitled "Watchmen's Composition", as has "Visual symbolism".  "Prejudice and social norms" has been incorporated into a new section which I have entitled "Author's Influences: Implementation and Relevence thereof". "Unresolved Plot Points" has been made into a new section.
* I have also added a re-write tag to the Summary. I thought it sounded a little too 'fannish'.
I am still relatively new when it comes to editing Wikipedia, so I leave up to others to decide whether the changes I have made are pertinent, or whether I have simply become drunk with editing power. It happens. --Allthesestars 21/09/05 19:28 (BST)
: I think it was a good attempt and thanks for sticking your neck out to try it, but something more radical is needed. See "Radical surgery" section below. - Motor (talk) 16:48:12, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
:Does the assertion that Hooded Justice was homosexual come from the RPG?Geni 18:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I found the mention in silk specter's letters.Geni 13:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Substantial Edit 

message: Okay, I have just completed another edit; some of the sections would really benefit from expansion. I think the Character Overviews section has the potential to be quite comprehensive. I have point 7. altogether. Point 6 and 6.1 have been re-structred and absorbed into Watchmen's Structure. I think this may be a better section, as it allows for sub-titles on specfic parts of the story. 'Composition' and 'Themes' are the only two currently, but I think things like 'Symbolism' could be brought in.
I also re-wrote some areas, and I would appreciate somebody reading over them for spelling errors, because I am aure there will be some. Okay... This is getting better, right?...
Where should we go from here? I am going to have to find my copy of Watchmen and re-read it, methinks. Allthesestars 18:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Attempt 

message: The character Ozymandias shares his name with a poem by Shelly (a romantic era poet, and the husband of the author of Frankenstien)
I think Ozymandias is a name for an Egyptian Pharoh, witch one I don't remeber
I met a traveller from an antique land, 
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone  
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, 
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown 
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command, 
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read, 
Which yet survive stamped on these lifeless things, 
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed; 
.And on the pedestal these words appear: 
'My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; 
Look on my works. Ye Mighty, and despair!' 
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay 
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare 
The lone and level sands stretch far away. 
I don't know...maybe this should be included in the article or something.... --70.49.96.88 01:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of this Pharaoh (Ramesses II) is mentioned within Watchmen, it's the password to Adrian's files on the computer when Rorschach and Nite-Owl are investigating. (According to the poem Ozymandias' article: "The name Ozymandias (or Osymandias) is generally believed to refer to Ramesses the Great (i.e., Ramesses II) , Pharaoh of the Nineteenth dynasty of Ancient Egypt. Ozymandias represents a transliteration into Greek of a part of Ramesses's throne name, User-maat-re Setep-en-re. ") I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think a few lines of the poem also make an appearance somewhere within Watchmen. --Pentasyllabic 02:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you want to add a reference to the poem, be bold and do it at Ozymandias (comics). There's already a reference to his name and Ramesses II. --Pentasyllabic 19:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ozymandias -the poem-

message: Okay, I thought I would take Pentasyllabic's advice and be bold; you can see the results. I have:
* removed "Background" and merged it with "Plot Summary" where neccessary, as I thought the two sections were, essentially, the same thing.
* edited the "Plot Summary", implementing points from 66.201.163.236's version that was posted here, as well as adding small parts.
* added more characters to the "Character Overview" section; I suggest that this be renamed "Major Characters", or something of that nature, because there are many, many characters in "Watchmen" that add to the plot/story, but who cannot be included in a description, as they play a minor part.
* removed the "Theme" sub-section, as it was all conjecture.
* removed the "Films" section, as this was largely conjecture
* attempted to consolidate the last few sections/sub-sections, however, I am not really happy with the section title "Watchmen's Contemperary Influence", as I think that's a rubbish name, I just couldn't think of anything better at the time.
I hope that this, at the very least, prompts some sort of reaction, as I don't want this article to become stagnant. However, I do think my changes have been for the better; we really need to be a bit  Cartesian here, if you will, and remove anything of which we cannot be certain. Allthesestars 15:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I tried my hand at some clean-up and addition to the plot summary. I think it still needs some work, but I can't get my head around what else can go into it right now. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 01:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Once Again, Another Substantial Edit

message: To my mind this seems pretty neutral now, but that's just one guy's POV. Anyone else think the NPOV tag might be ripe for removal from this article? -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 05:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think it still needs cleanup work. Allthesestars has done good work fixing it up, and I've tried to add and correct some things, but it still feels to me like some more fixing needs to be done. I'm particularily worried that some of my additions, while adding clarity, may have made some sections unwieldy (Rorschach, the early part of synopsis). I'm not especially good at paring down an article, when it needs that. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 17:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your kind words. I will endeavour to do my best at refining this page, as I feel like there is the potential for this article to become a good example of a Wikipedia entry (it just needs some work). Rest assured that I will continue reading things over, and making my own edits (I don't know if this puts the mind at ease...) Allthesestars 18:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article still POV?

message: I added the section of Juvenal's satire that is applicable to Watchmen. The translation I have given there is quite literal; Latin is quite a difficult language to translate to English. The lack of the definite article, and, in this case, the lack of prior context, means some things have to be added to aid reading. "pone seram, cohibe" literally means "place behind a bolt, constrain". However, one cannot just write that and expect people to follow it.
Also re-wrote part of the Rorschach summary; I think I have rectified your "unwieldy" additions, Le Scoopertemp [tk]. They weren't that bad! Of course, my additions are open to re-consideration! Good luck here, everyone. I think this page has come a long way. Allthesestars 21:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An addition

message: It would appear that the character name Jane Slater is an allusion to John Slater, another character whose life was sacrificed to maintain a secret of great importance to world affairs.  That character appeared in A.C. Doyle's story "The Lost Special", which has been evergreen in its adaptations.69.127.3.215 (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jane Slater named for John Slater