Talk:List of Watchmen characters

"Sin Queen?"

There is no character in Watchmen called "Sin Queen." The character is called "The Twilight Lady." Where did anyone get "Sin Queen" from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hooded Justice Section

The following information is unnecessary:

(This may be contrary to the intent of the original novel. In chapter 1, the fourth panel of page 25 focuses on two old men sitting affectionately together near Dan and Laurie in Rafael's restaurant. They look very much like older versions of Rolf Muller and Nelson Gardner, and it was speculated by many fans that these were in fact HJ and CM, who had faked their deaths in order to retire and be together. Dave Gibbons said this was unintended but allowed that it might be true, but in the retconned world of Before Watchmen it is obviously not the case.)

Since Gibbons has explicitly stated that it was never the original intention, the entire point of this paragraph is rendered moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Error in Comedian Section

Edward Blake's having joined the Minuteman at age 16 wasn't established in Before Watchmen. It was stated in the first issue of Watchmen.

Is there a need for Nietzschean interpretation ?

Asking because I doubt it was actually specified that Manhattan was the 'ubermensch', or that Ozymandias was the Apollonian aspect. Yes, Alan Moore referenced Nietzsche in Rosharch's chapter, but I doubt we can add such an interpretation to an article that aims objectively (noting this as other articles that I've seen possessing a Nietzschean interpretations have had such interprepations removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.250.12 (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Not only is the Nietzschean analysis unnecessary, it is half-hearted and oversimple. As was already mentioned, other articles on comic books (or poems, books, etc.) don't tend to include analysis at all, so why should this one? I've deleted the sections in question. Robertoalencar (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason that Watchmen should have an analysis section above other comics is that Watchmen is anything but your typical comic. Most comics HAVE nothing to analyze. Reading Watchmen is like wading through literary symbolism given viscous physical form. And I have seen numerous articles on books and poems (the article for the poem Ozymandias, coincidentally enough) with analysis sections. I can't help but feel that Watchmen is being discriminated against because your average joe regards it as "just a comic book." Shralla (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can source and summarize a reputable analysis, that's one thing. But analytical, POV terms cannot just be tossed into an article because you or any other editor feels that it's significant. If it's significant, find a source. If there's no source, it doesn't belong here; it belongs on a fanpage. And that goes for absolutely everything, from classic novels to "just comic books."199.73.152.100 (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Right now, the Article reads that Ozymandias represents Nietzsches Übermensch. a) I do find that the arguments against interpretation in regards to ethical archetypes in the Watchmen cast by the OP are quite valid, at least for an article with focus on general overview, like this one. b) It's plain unreasonable. Ozymandias' action and justification clearly make him a radical utilitarist. Thus, the remark should be removed, including labelling Doc Manhattan a god figure and the claim of Superman bein named after Nietzsches concept (see Superman#Influences fifth paragraph for the complete incongruity; also, "Superman" isnt a creation of Nietzsche, but a lousy and largely disregarded translation of "Übermensch", see Übermensch#Übermensch_in_English). 87.176.115.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC).

wikis and spoilerisation

One problem I still see is that it is contary to the style guide to have wikis in the section headings. Dyslexic agnostic 20:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

One problem I see all over is giving away major plot developments. There can be a difference between explaining who a character is and describing everything that happens to them in the story from beginning to end.

I agree. I came to this page to find out about the Watchmen characters, having never heard of them before seeing a commercial on TV for the 2009 movie. Instead, this page seems to be a re-telling of the novel & movie broken out by character. This article spoiled them both for me.

24.15.61.110 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Comedian's placement

Why is he in the "post" section? He was a founding member and in the famed photograph-of-eight. He was, in fact, the first person expelled, yet the article as written suggests he became active around 1966.BryanEkers 13:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe put a small section about him in the Minutemen section and the main description in the Post-Minutemen section? Corky842 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Moloch?

Moloch is a villain of the Minuteman era, not one of the heroes. He doesn't belong here. Removing... Anonymous 24.7.10.194 18:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that title "Characters of Watchmen" also includes the villains and the rest of the crowd that appear in the comic? I find that the character of Bubastis is unjustly underrated! :P ---> A-Doo 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The section 'characters of Watchmen' implies that any relevant character from the book is included. This should include Moloch, as well as the newstand characters. Possibly Bubastis, although I can't really place any particular importance on the cat which is more than a simple extension of Ozymandias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.224.134 (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rorschach

The description of Rorschach's behavior seems to neglect that he doesn't just punish criminals with occasionally extreme results, he leaned toward violence from early childhood. He's basically a serial killer, although the nuance of the character makes that easy to overlook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.154.188 (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Kovacs had a rage problem ever since childhood, yeah, but the comic strongly implies that he was actually a fairly normal person (at least by costumed adventurer standards) before the Blair Roche kidnapping case and had never actually killed anyone before then, either. Not that he didn't have all kinds of mental problems, but he definitely wasn't any kind of murderous psycho until he snapped in '75. 12.36.8.62 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it is shameful to completely have his psychological mindset completely absent from his description, though. That IS his character. His attachment to his mask, his double personality, his rough childhood, the inkblots, the violence. All that is described is a few irrevelant details that are more centralized around ALL of the characters, not just Rorschach personally. It needs cleaned up. OhDoTell (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I quote from the article- "In 1975, after a failed attempt to find and rescue a young kidnapped girl before she was murdered, he loses his sanity, viewing Rorschach as his real identity..." is there really enough evidence to describe Rorschach as lacking his sanity? He might be just a bit off his knocker, but that could point to having a disability- not insanity.

P.S. I do appreciate whoever's idea it was to make a seperate article for the guy. --I reject your reality, and substitute my own. 05:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

At the beginning of the movie (forgive me for not reading the novel yet) Woodward and Bernstein are shown murdered with Rorshach's signature next to them. Later The Comedian jokes about killing them. So did Rorshach and The Comedian kill W&B? I don't think so. Killing journalists goes against Rorshach's ideologies, they are not criminals. So why was his card there? Could it be, in The Watchmen universe Rorshach was deepthroat? Rorshach's voice, hat, and trench coat all match the description of the man W&B provided before Deepthroat identified himself a few years ago. Another clue is the line Rorshach delivers before confronting Veidt in Antartica..."follow the money". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.38.49 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comedian - is he the father?

Is Comedian really the father of Silk Spectre II? I wouldn't be so sure about it, it is VERY unclear from comics (especially Chapter IX). If there is no clear evindence in the book, I will maybe delete it. --Have a nice day. Running 21:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not unclear in the slightest. The comic is very clear and unambiguous on this fact. He's Laurie's father.

OK, I have read the book again and yes, he VERY LIKELY is. I will add something like "probably" there. --Have a nice day. Running 14:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

He absolutely is. Check their hair, check Laurie's talk with her mother in #12, reread #9. Do we need a spoiler warning? --Leocomix 10:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's absurd that there's even any question of it. The comic is very clear on this point. That's the huge reveal about Laurie on Mars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Do we need a spoiler warning?" YES OF COURSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.157.251 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Comedian IS the father of the Silk Spectre II, anyone who overlooked that obviously just wasnt paying attention to detail, just because it isnt explicitly stated, it IS explicitly implied, and once his daughter realizes her father, the novel continues to carry out that situation as fact, and even does so beforehand, if one is paying attention. OhDoTell (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The movie explicitly states it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.14.79 (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The final Watchmen volume explicitly states that Edward Blake (The Comedian) is the father of Laurie (The Silk Spectre II), and it is previously explicitly implied also, when Jon Osterman (Dr. Manhattan) took Laurie to Mars. Remember the bit where Jon was saying Laurie was trying to hide something and she was trying to deny it, and Blake's comments were repeating themselves ("Can't a guy talk to his, y'know, his...daughter" - the bit about "old friend" that Blake actually did say is completely missed when it is repeated at the time Laurie throws the bottle or whatever it is). And at the party where Laurie got drunk and confronted Blake about his attempted rape of Sally, he said "Only once." You could percieve that as him trying to hide the fact that he's Laurie's father, as in by saying "only once" it sounds as if he only tried to have sex with her once. He is undoubtedly Laurie's biological father.Kamiccolo (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Other characters

What about all the other characters? Fron what perspectice only costumed character are there? Some supporting chrcters are more developed than 40s costumed charcaters. Bernard, Bernie, the two inspectors, the kidnapped scientists, the recurring journalists, the psychiatrist, any character that appears in more than one issue is interesting. --Leocomix 10:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistent with articles?

It seems that this article is inconsistent with the individual character articles (the glaring one is Blind Justice). Is this on purpose? If not, we should try to make them consistent. I would, but it's been years since I've read the book Darquis (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed that Hooded Justice be merged into this article. He is the only member of the Minutemen with his own article and is not even the most important of the group. It seems there was some period of time where several (or all) of the Minutemen had their own articles, and were eventually all merged here and Hooded Justice's article survived. ShadowUltra (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

what

where did the crimebuster's articles go (the comedian, Nite Owl II, etc...). these characters are very in depth and need there own article. i can not find theirs. they used to be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TripleA AAA (talk • contribs) 20:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The articles were redirected. The last versions are here: [1] [2]. As can be seen they are heavy in plot, which not only means they fail WP:WAF and WP:PLOT but, as that plot is covered in the Watchmen article, it was technically redundant.

As I've said on the Comics Project talk page there is not a problem if someone wants to expand the section with out-of-universe material (and there are plenty of sources out there discussing the character development, design, etc.) and then propose a split to start a new article. (Emperor (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC))

Expansion?

There seems to be a general lack of information on this page. While the page does a fairly good job of providing character analysis from secondary sources for the main characters (it can always use more)there is a lack of background information for both the main and supporting characters (especially these). The page could benefit by adding more information to the fictional character biographies. A good exaple of this can be found at the Watchmen Wiki page. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by CloneAlias (talk • contribs) 22:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This page is still severely lacking information, I am replacing the expasion tags.CloneAlias (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is little need for more information on the characters' fictional histories; all we need is enough for context. Real-world notability is paramount. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of this page if not to expand apon information given in the main page? The same exact information is outlined here as it is there. As it stands now this page is a waste of bandwidth.CloneAlias (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to check out some books from the library again to expand it slightly. Also, I'll be trimming some details from the main article so they'll only be on this page. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ whose idea was this?

This page was obviously written by someone under the age of 15. Please unmerge this and give the characters their own page. This looks like rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kareem Said (talk • contribs) 09:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Fuck this merge.

I've started a discussion here. What would be helpful is if someone could add more out-of-universe material on character development. (Emperor (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

Pretty much all that's available is already present in Watchmen. In fact, the more I work on this page, the more inclined I am to think that we don't even need separate pages about the characters. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense Mr. Dodds, but perhaps that means you should work on this page a bit less? Wikipedia has many pages, I'm sure perhaps there are ones where you can take more time expanding the available information rather than contracting it? I admit that both are necessary, for space constraints and ease of use, but it seems to me that you're swimming upstream. I'm definitely among the people that think that this amalgamation of principle characters format is a mess. Firstly, it makes information harder to access about principal characters. Secondly, while you seem completely unable to admit it- there is other media about the principal characters. There's information around about the creative origins, games, toys, halloween costumes, the principal comic, and the movie (or at least there was, I hear). No offense, but these are fictional characters. I am not exactly sure how much more 'out of universe' stuff you're expecting. That's where comic characters are represented: creator's thoughts, comics, films, games, merchandising, cultural references, parodies, and more comics. The watchmen principal characters hit about 6 of these categories. From what I can see about most fictional character articles, that seems to be on the high end rather than the low end. So what's the deal? Why not go pick on all the pages of the Blade supporting characters or something? Benjamid (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn it, why did someone have to do this to Comedian, Nite Owl, and others? It sucks ass!! (JoeLoeb (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Because there's very little secondary source information on the characters, so that covering them all in one article is preferrable to having separate two-paragraph long pages. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2009

Thirded I liked the way the pages were before, i liked it when there was a seperate page for each character and you could have a comparison between their movie version and their comic book version.

This is not a valid rationale for having articles around, per WP:ILIKEIT. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fourth I agree this merger was a bad idea! Mergers are best when used with useless background or secondary characters/villains who do little for the book than that of a red shirt. However these are all main characters and deserve their own pages! when i first read the separate articles they were well plotted detailed and developed the character giving the reader the knowledge necessary this merger makes them feel lame and pedantic and makes them seem like secondary characters with no use. If Marvel characters with three paragraphs to their biographies and contributed nothing to their respective comic like Preview can have their own page then so should the Watchmen who ARE the comic! The previous pages were fine perfectly well developed and had great insight to their respective characters. Undo the merge the pages wikipedia is a place to read well developed summaries of characters and their biographies not a place for useless blurbs with sorely lacking information. Otherwise there's no reason to come here for the information we need. Stellrmn (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2009

Those articles consisted soley of ficitonal character bigraphies, which are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Also, being a major character in a story doesn't directly correlated with having an article. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fifth The current merged format is also filled with spoilers. The original characters articles clearly delineated spoiler information in addition to being far superior in terms of information! Please unmerge the articles. Shatterdaymorn (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia contains spoilers. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sixth All six of the main characters have enough backstory to have their own article, and there's enough information on the minor characters for them to have more than just one bullet point. It was fine before the merge. Agent Chieftain (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't have enough backstory to have their own articles. I know; I've done tons of research on the characters while working on Watchmen. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Seventh. WesleyDodds, I understand where you are coming from and I am not disputing the validity of what you are saying, but often enough it is important to remember that what is correct is not always right. The old character breakdown that was in place is more in line with what people expect of Wikipedia. The information that was once present on Doctor Manhattan, for example, covered quite a bit of information that is simply lacking from this merged article. Yes, some of it was speculation and I'll admit to that much, but there was a substantial amount of information on that page that simple doesn't exist in this tiny merger. I truly do believe this to be a step in the wrong direction and I agree with the sentiment that individual pages for each character should be restored. Once that is done, we should look at the pages as a whole and decide what to do with the information that was once present. We should debate on the merits of what is valid and what isn't and come to a consensus as to what information should stay, and what should go. 72.192.223.53 (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Have to agree with Wesley and Emperor on this one. The best way to demonstrate that this page should be split is to add sourced information to this list. Hiding T 16:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Eighth It was perfect the way it was before. I think Wikipedia hates Watchmen. They keep deleting the category every time i create one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco13 (talk • contribs)

Ninth

In relation to Bosco13's comment, Wikipedia doesn't hate Watchmen; WesleyDodds does. Check out the edit history on these pages. He has systematically dismantled anything of relevance from these articles. Unsurprisingly, he's a fan of "The Golden age of Comics". Obviously, these comics are of an inferior quality and must be expunged. Ironically, he neutered the Rorschach page too, but it seems it's recovered somewhat despite his best efforts. If it weren't for the movie, I don't even think the whole Watchmen comic page would exist.

Keep fighting the good fight Wesley. You don't nearly have enough stars on your page. 98.229.186.63 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Tenth, by the way. In case it was not obvious where I stand. Benjamid (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Watchmen → Characters of Watchmen — This is not a list article, and citing the examples of articles like Characters of Carnivàle and Characters of Smallville, this article should be moved to a more appropriate title. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC) — WesleyDodds (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support move since it is more prose-driven than list-driven. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral either way works, this is still a list though. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• A list article primarily consists of links to other articles with little to no in-depth prose. This is not one of those. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose since supporting characters are bieng listed and attempts narrativize them are being blocked.CloneAlias (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• We can remvoe the supporting characters lists because there is very little secondary source info on them. Nonetheless, this article is not a list article. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would be in favor of this move if those sections were expanded not removed. There is enough information in the primary source to include fictional biographies for them. Which should be done for every character by the way.CloneAlias (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support Not really a list at all, as opposed to an overview. Landfritter (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Minutemen

It is nowhere explained what the Minutemen are, so somebody not familiar with the comics does not get an explanation of their connection/relation to the Watchmen. The fact that Minutemen (comics) simply redirects to the main page doesn't really help, either... Thanks for anyone who will include the approriate info. --Cruncher (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Against merge of main character they deserve their own articles

There was never a debate regarding the merge of these article. The AfD focused on keeping these article. Secondly because of the film release and video game these main character has been covered in different story lines and have been featured outside of the comic itself therefore they are more notable. I also opened a discussion on the Watchmen talk page. Valoem ^talk 16:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the discussion was carried out at WikiProject Comics. The thing is when cleanup is done for the separate articles to remove all the problems (in-universe focus, original research, etc.) you're only left with the material that's contained here. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please cite that discussion to remove the character pages and note it in the individual character talk pages. As of now, all the talk pages say about the subject is that the AfD concluded keep. Sligocki (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There was some discussion WikiProject Comics in December. See also my question to WesleyDodds and his response on my talk page, as well as a few discussion on his talk page. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The executive summary appears to be: "Not enough information in the individual character pages, they are mostly plot summary." It sounds to me like they are just underdeveloped. Is there precedence for deleting or keeping character pages? I know that many characters of V for Vendetta have their own pages. If there is a reasonable discussion that decides this, I will not complain, but it seems like it's just the two of you guys deciding to delete these all when no consensus was reached. Sligocki (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Guidance for fictional articles is at WP:FICT. It was once policy, but is under protracted discussion (long, simmering debate?). The guideline states to avoid splitting articles if real-world information does not exist. There is also WP:NOT#PLOT, which...is also under dispute, apparently. Ugh. In any case, we've adopted a "merge now, if real-world info can be found, then split" policy. Rorschach has more real-world info and thus he remains, but none of the others have real-world info.

As for the specific V for Vendetta example, I've engaged in some warring over the Eric Finch article [4] and the Peter Creedy AFD was pretty unequivocal: they needed more third-party sources. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen was heavily rebuilt to be a true Featured Article (since its original FAC was a farce), and in the process, Characters of Watchmen was developed to include real-world context and exclude plot bloat. There's no underdevelopment, and this collective article of the comic's characters suffices. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I support the notion of merging the characters to one page until such time that it can be demonstrated that they can be branched out. If that time is here, show me where it has been demonstrated. Hiding T 12:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDB can't be used as a source?

I see information has been deleted on the grounds that "IMDB can't be used as a source. " This is a specious reason for deletion. Tag if you think a better source is needed, but don't delete, since I doubt any one seriously questions that Dollar Bill was played by Dan Payne, for instance. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is widely considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia, since it's user submitted. You don't need to cite cast members of a film because the credits are part of the film, but the actors really not worth mentioning anyway since that's the purpose of the film article. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is also user-submitted :-) Your last point has some validity. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And because of that, Wikipedia can't be used as a source, either. HalfShadow 17:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comedian - Edward Blake, public knowledge or secret?

I'm puzzled. The Comedian's identity is a secret (Jacobi/Moloch only finds out because he sees the Comedian without his mask) at the time of Edward Blake's death, yet we see the Comedian in Vietnam without his mask and Blake attends parties in his honour in his civilian guise, where he is accosted by Laurie about his attempted rape as the Comedian. Explain? --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Silk Spectre II (Laurie Juspeczyk)_pronunciation of her last name.

I have corrected the pronunciation of the name Juspeczyk more than once and I keep getting a message saying the edit is unconstructive and it is vandalism. That is nonsense. Saying something correctly is simply 'correct' not unconstructive.

The name is Polish and is pronounced yoo-SPEH-chick. The article keeps reverting to "juice-puh-check).

I am not interested in playing edit games with some bored teenager so I don't expect it to be left correct but can't say I didn't try ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.121.98.15 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Asked the Polish WikiProject: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#How_is_the_name_Juspeczyk_pronounced.3F - Updated with IPA WhisperToMe (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• I wander if Juspeczyk is Polish name at all; but lets say it is. If so, my favorite version of pronounciation would be use-patch-ick. Brig.gen. (ret.) Maliszewski, always sick and tired of repeated question: would you spell your last name? answered: No, I would not. Try to pronounciate it like this: "Ma" - as for mather, "li" - as general Lee, "szew" - as a shef, and "ski" as winter sport... :) belissarius (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't even see the pronunciation in the article anymore. I really don't understand all the confusion over the pronunciation. The name is for sure Polish. Polish pronunciation is regular and doesn't vary. "patch" would not be correct. In Polish the name would be stressed like this "ju-SPE-czyk" or in English sounds "yoo-SPEH-chick" The stress is always on the second to last syllable. Little things like this make wiki incredibly unreliable. Yeah its a comic and doesn't mean much but if the article is on something important people can be really misinformed because of laziness or incorrect editing. Some things are ambiguous..some are not...this one is not. Ask anyone Polish how to pronounce the name and I guarantee they will say it "yoo-SPEH-chick" unless they are trying to dumb it down for English.

Sam Hamm script references?

Why is the "Sam Hamm" script repeatedly mentioned? An unproduced script in the infant stages of development isn't in any way noteworthy, why is it repeatedly referenced (and in a way that essentially restates the same thing every time)? I'm asking the people who aren't WesleyDodds, I'm sure he'll share his opinion, it's just that his opinion has proven pretty worthless and he seems like a tool. Yeah yeah, I know, no personal attacks, but sometimes a douchbage is a douchebag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.55.11 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Without even having seen your comment, I was coming to the talk page to ask the same question. "In the 1989 Sam Hamm script..." = WHO CARES? That's just trivia for the sake of being trivia, which Wikipedia is not here for. DreamGuy (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal Opinion in Article?

To quote from the end of the Doctor Manhattan section... "Doctor Manhattan is arguably more evil than Ozmandias because he would prefer that the pulic be fat, dumb and happy, and completely ignorant of the world around them. He prevents the truth from being told and even kills Rorschach when Rorschach refuses to cover up Ozmandias' plan. Doctor Manhattan does not uphold the truth instead he keeps the public ignorant of he danger around them instead of letting them face the truth and fight for themselves. Rorschach while easier to dislike than the seemingly morally upstanding Doctor Manhattan is the better person because he knows that truth is the most important thing in a civilized society. While it may not seem good or helpful te truth makes things known and keeps society from faling into a rotten pit of hypocrisy and despair."

To be honest whilst it makes some relevant points, it seems purely conjecture, and as such has no place on the article surely? If there were some evidence to support this it would still be shady, I would recommend deleting it completely or at least trimming most of the unsubstantiated details here. Some of it just reads and feels wrong for a Wiki article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenightmarecreature (talk • contribs) 03:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

On Doctor Manhattan

Has Alan Moore ever given any indication that the name "Doctor Manhattan" might have stemmed from the Manhattan Project? Or (less likely) that his accident was semi-based off the fate of Louis Slotin? The connection seems rather clear to me, and I was almost going to reference it in the article, before I realized it was original research (!). If it was deliberate, it's worth mentioning, but I can only find a blog post on the subject—not exactly encyclopedic. So I'll drop this message off here to see if anyone else can find stronger proof of the link. ... And if not, maybe it doesn't exist. Oh well. —Switchercat ^talk_cont 21:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It is specifically stated in Watchmen that he was named after the Manhattan Project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there is some resemblance to Oppenheimer.--Jrm2007 (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious why Manhattan would need an exception to the "Keene Act" as he is not costumed or in disguise in any way. 76.183.228.143 (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Couple of issues with this page

Firstly, how is this relavent to WP:US or WP:UK except in the very broadest definition of the term "relevant"? Second, the section on The Comedian is basically a complete plot history of his character and is almost completely unsourced - the rest of the page is sourced so I'm guessing this was edited separately at some point but I can't see where. 86.148.178.112 (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The author is British, but it is set in the USA - It was published by a US company. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Years

I've removed the years because such classification encourages viewing of the characters within an in-universe perspective, which is discouraged, see WP:WAF. Also, some of them were outright untrue. Veidt, for instance, is not killed in the novel, and Dan's birth year is never listed, as far as I know. Manhattan's birth year is also disputed - he was 16 in August 1945, conventionally putting him at 1929, but he could also have a birth month of November or something, making him 1928. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, as far as I understood it, the Crimebusters never existed as a group, only during that meeting. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Mothman's abilites

I read some where that Mothman can fly via his fake wings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golem866 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Move

Shouldn't this article be List of Characters from Watchmen? -173.57.71.251 (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Flase Info on Hooded Justice

I read the Under the Hood pages in the Watchmen and it never metioned that Hooded Justice was homosexual or even pretending to be in love with Slik Spectre I. -Golem866 (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Watchmen is very specific in making clear that Hooded Justice is in a gay relationship with Captain Metropolis, with Sally acting as his beard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

the implications of Hooded Justice's sexual preferences are not in "Under the Hood" but are alluded to in the letter from Larry to Sally Jupiter at the end of 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.100.13 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Superpowers

Nowhere is it stated in the comic that only Dr Manhattan has superpowers. In fact, Ozymandius has mastered and advanced several fields of science from genetics to physics - far beyond what might be possible with non-superpowered intelligence in today's world. The Comedian is referred to as having a special insight in the human condition (eg. getting the joke) and Rorshack has fought and prevailed against overwhelming odds in face-to-face combat. These are clearly not un-powered people, but there is no reliable source either direction. -69.143.48.114 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The comic makes it clear that Manhattan is the only superhuman.

The fight between The Comedian and Ozy at the beginning seems to indicate at the very least The Comedian is almost superhumanly tough -- he was not knocked out when his head went through the stone countertop, etc.--Jrm2007 (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing the film and the comic.

The "stone countertop" matter is from the film. No question that Blake/Comedian was extremely tough, but this isn't really a valid observation except with respect to the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.8.89 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that-with exception of "Dr. Manhattan"-the others may have been extraodinarily gifted, but not by any means "super-human". Adrian Viedt, for example, reminds me more of "Doc Savage" than Thunderbolt. Veidt not only had a self image that he could accomplish anything if put his mind to it. But consider that we have MILLIONS of mentally gifted ppl across the planet whose mental and\or physical abilities are well above and beyond what we would consider average. One recent example came about in a "Dateline" TV magazine broadcast that revealved among certain classes of ppl who were endowed with a peculiar form of adrenal-activated celeberal ability that gave them a type of photographic memory. T.V. and stage actress MARILU HENNER was one of these most prominately cited. Who would have guessed? In Rochasch and the Comedian's case, their "extreme" personalites may border on psychopathic sociopathy. Both may have a condition where they can disregard a certain level of physical pain, and ignore the obvious consequences of their actions. In addition to having above-average motor skills and reflexes; added with a 'hit, strike, and pummel-first" attitude. In Blake's case especially, he couldn't keep his psychopathic tendencies in check, as witnessed by his rape of Sally Jupiter, the sudden disruption of the Crimebusters meeting, rather than civilly rendering his rebuttal to Captain Metroplis and the other ingenue adventurers; the cold-blooded killing of the pregnant Vietamese woman. As long as he had a "mission" (of mayhem), Blake fooled the world into believing that he was "Superhero",as did Hooded Justice. (It's also amusing that Alan Moore has this character become a magnet that draws violence to and against him, personally. Among the people who have beaten the crap outta Blake were Hooded Justice, Sally Jupiter, the Vietnamese girl (got him good on that one, eh); the New York City rioter who beaned him on the head with a can. Then there was Laurie Jupiter's reaction which was curiously as restrained as her mother's "tepid' defense.) And finally Adrian Veidt. I suppose in Adrians warped mind, beside eliminating Blake as a "stool-pigeon", he also pummeled, and then threw him out the window as a sort of "thank you" for putting Adrian on the path to revealation of society's imminent calamity, and the extreme solutions he thought must be istituted. Truly Grim stuff. That's what Veidt explained in the end, that Blake, in those last few moments understood, at last! In Rochasch's case, same thing, except he has the merit of being inbued with a moral restraint based on the tragic narraitive of his life that both define and drives him. Interestingly enough, "Dr, Jon", far from being impassive, seems to reposnd to loud, direct orders and actions that momemtarily breaks him out of his "cosmic stupor": If one commands him in a loud or commanding voice to "Stop", or "Do this", he promptly responds. --96.250.195.93 (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

Wow...

I was reading the discussion page and saw that there was at one point a merge done on this article and I have to ask why did it end up staying the way it is? I was looking for a little more background information on the characters in the comic book and movie adaption and these descriptions are just horrible. It just seems like they deserve more than a tiny paragraph. Not being very familiar with the story or characters I figured that I'd come here to see if I could learn more about everything, but I'm left with more questions than answers. Is there going to be an unmerge, or a rewrite on the individual characters anytime soon? Drunknesmonsta (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• An encyclopedia is not the place for more in-depth examination of the characters. Try a fansite, like the wiki-based http://watchmen.wikia.com. --Raerth (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Kali is incorrect-->should be Shiva

The text refers to Dr. Manhatan as 'Kali'. Although the theology of Kali does indicate her in a specific event in which she was violent, the more correct interpretation would be Shiva.

Shiva is actually known as the 'destroyer'. In the Hindu 3 main forms of God are taken Brahma-the creator, Vishnu-the protector, and Shiva-the destroyer. The reference to Oppenheimer also fits here. His quote 'I am become death the shatterer of worlds' refers to the Gita and Shiva's dance, not Kali's.

Last, the article talks about Vishnu as a possible reference to Dr. Manhattan. A more correct reference would be Krsna/Krishna, not Vishnu. Krishna was an avatar, or form, of Vishnu taken when he came to earth. His complexion was 'blue' and he possessed superhuman abilities.

More than likely, Dr. Manhattan represents Shiva and Krishna, not Vishnu and Kali.

Please note I have made these corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.168.153 (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Metropolis "suicide"?

The line that Captain Metropolis' death was "later shown to be a suicide" is rubbish. I can't think of any substantiating line within the novel or the accepted additions such as the game notes. If this is kept in through some faint collateral connection (the Hamm screenplay, perhaps?) then the issues of Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis possibly surviving their reputed deaths (and appearing in panel 1:25:4) should be included as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.8.89 (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Gibbons has stated that the older gentlemen were never intended to be Metropolis and H.J. But you're correct--it was not a suicide. I have no idea where anyone got that impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Separate articles for main characters

I know this has been discussed several times before, but the other four of the six main characters are significant enough for their own articles. The Comedian and Doctor Manhattan should at least get their own articles, since they are basically the point of the whole franchise. Seriously. --Boycool (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Rorschach and Ozymandias have their own articles, why not the others? Of course, just the central characters, people like Dollar Bill don't have too much information to be given an article. I believe a survey should be considered to generate a more open consensus. I Support this idea. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:37 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's more a case of sourcing sufficient secondary material. If you pull together enough of that to establish notability, then nothing's preventing separate articles. GRAPPLE X 19:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked how they originally looked and they didn't look really good. (Talk about in-universe and cruft and only a little bit of sources) We are going to have to do some research and remodeling on the articles first probably. But I am definitely not against the idea of creating seperate articles for them. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Especially now that they have appeared in more than just Watchmen. Ausir (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

About Crudup's Motion Capture as Dr. Manhattan

Some time ago the article contained a quick bit about how Dr. Manhattan was a CGI character and Billy Crudup only provided voice, and motion & performance capture. Someone undid that to make it state that he portrayed the character, but that is extremely misleading and Crudup has stated in interviews how ridiculous it is to suggest that that was him on screen. Obviously the bulk of info about the CGI character and how it was created belongs in the movie article, but a line describing what it really was is important to keep here. In other words, Please don't take this information away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.85.188 (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If he performed voice, motion and performance capture, surely it's just as valid to say he portrayed the character as it is to say that, for example, Kevin Conroy portrayed Batman in Batman: Arkham Asylum or Mask of the Phantasm, isn't it? I mean, to 'portray' a character doesn't exclusively mean to physically stand there and perform every aspect of the character in the flesh. GRAPPLE X 19:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course he did portray the character via those technologies/techniques and maybe my phrasing above could be misconstrued as denying that. (certainly not my intention) But whereas nobody would think that Conroy was on screen wearing cape and cowl, some people apparently actually have believed that Crudup was on screen nude somehow with a massive physique (Yes, really. Web surfing reveals some strange things, at least that's suggested in those same interviews with Crudup.) A big paragraph about how it was done would be out of place, but a quick mention that the character was CGI modeled after Greg Plitt with Crudup's motion & performance capture is appropriate and better than just "portrayed by Billy Crudup" without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.85.188 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A detailed section about how it was done would be a good thing to include in a standalone article about Manhattan. --Boycool (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Boycool. For this article, I looked up another way of phrasing it - the article on Gollum phrases it quite succinctly as " Gollum is a CGI character voiced and performed by actor Andy Serkis", which I think works. It gets across that the visual character is simply a rendering, and not Crudup himself, but that Crudup did do the acting for it. GRAPPLE X 20:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting "The Hooded Justice" Character

"You like this huh,? Is this what gets you hot?" I think that Alan Moore make big boo-boo in not dissecting the character strong man's Rolf Muller's motivation for donning a costume and becoming a "masked crimefighter", since he was the first to do so and set-off the spree of others to follow suit. I'm especially drawn to the incident where Edward Blake is prevented from raping The Silk Specter. Muller pummels Eddie; Blake then makes his seemingly insightful statement with blood gushing from his face. We are reminded in the novel that Mueller and Cap't Metroplis had an alleged homo "relationship", where it was revealed by Hollis and Sally Jupiter that Mueller often was violent to Metro(polis). (Hey, do you suppose that the name was actually meant to have been "Captain Metro-Sexual"? Oh, well.) To continue: What made Mueller put on the costume in the first place? I doubt it was any kind of sense of justice, as the character was reputed to pick-up boy hustlers and young runaways which would make him a pedophile! So, what was it? And isn't it strange that "Hollis Mason" didn't later in his auto-bio retract his descision to become 'Nite Owl' based on the fact that he emmulated a violent homosexual? How did that jive with his 'mid-western, moral values"? Anyway, the answer can be found in that moment when Blake is downed by Mueller. Pay attention: Blake, being the sociopath that he is, and unable to keep his violent tendencies in check, attacks Sally. Mueller, who alleges to have the same viloent impulse, and further spurred by his peculiar sexual drives is in congruence with EDWARD BLAKE, a 'kindred spirit", though Eddie would never have Rolf come near him, otherwise obviously. That is what Blake sensed. And if true, then Rolf Mueller, a\k\a "Hooded Justice" was a sham all along. Mueller might have donned the costume to contain or direct his violent tendencies in a manner that would be both socially aceptable, and deceptive to the publis's prying eyes at the same time. (Him being a circus performer, like his cohorts in the carny bsiness, knew all about deceiving the public, as he was among outcast, freaks, etc.) Mueller may have also harbored a hatred of hetro-sexual males, thus further driving his 'avenger' persona. What I don't understand is what drove Captain Metropolis? More than Rolf Mueller, he is more difficult to dicepher. Was he possibly-like Roschasch-phsically abused as a child, perhaps sexually? If so, then apart fom Mason, Lewis and Jupiter, the other three 'Minutemen"(including Ursula Zandt "The Silhoette") were three rather messed-up, essential "out-casts" ppl. Conclusively, this would make Rocshasch, Blake, and conditionally Metropolis sociopaththic. Interesting how in the beginning Roschach is opposed to Blake at the "Crimebusters" meeting, but since his "ordeal", later found himself approving of Blake's actions (in the U.S., anyway). I am surprised that Mr. Moore, after all these decades hasn't expanded on the profiles of said characters. --74.88.160.39 (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

WP:NOTAFORUM. --Boycool (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A question

How come Rorschach has his own page but Dr. Manhattan doesn't? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.12.211 (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Because the community has decided that Rorschach meets the notability requirements for inclusion and Manhattan does not. See WP:N for more (general) information. Achowat (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically because that would require some actual effort, thought, and searching for sources, and we're too lazy to do it. --Boycool (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Cast Credits

How come there is no mention of the actor who played Dr. Malcolm Long, who treated Rosasch? What is the actor's name? --67.86.110.9 (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Veryverser

Before Watchmen Canon?

Should the stories of characters in Before Watchmen be treated as canon to the Watchmen universe? I know they're owned by DC Comics so technically they are, but Dave Gibbons said he doesn't consider it canon, and I'm pretty sure if Alan Moore were asked he'd say the same.--Wrath X (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dave Gibbons endorsed Before Watchmen and was paid a quarter of a million dollars to serve as a consultant on it. That, in fact, caused a rift between Moore and Gibbons, ending their friendship--according to Moore himself in an interview a few years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.126.55 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I want to second this. Many people don't consider the "Before Watchmen" stories canon, including both creators of the book. I understand that the information has to be included in some way, due to being complete, maybe it should be visually separated from the original information. I tried to address this in a way by my recent edit, to at least draw attention to the somewhat questionable status.Die-yng (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Manhatten is not undead

I recently tried to make an edit listing watchmen (specifically Doctor Manhatten though he doesn't have his own page), under the list of fictional un dead. On thinking about it more I realize that it is impossible to tell whether he was alive or dead when he gained his powers; even in the film version; as he was atomized so quickly. Also I think the characters of watchmen are notable enough to deserve separate pages like Rorschach; given there are pages on far less notable subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 December 2013‎ (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Watchmen characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616151010/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/21.html to http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/21.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)