I decided to start a clean thread for this, although it follows directly the "Whinging about Wikipedia" thread.

The bit I struggled to get into a Wikipedia entry and was repeatedly rebuffed upon... is now in there, with the same citations and support as I used. It wasn't good enough when I entered it, but now that someone else (I haven't bothered to trace who) wrote it in, it's miraculously pure and valid. A whopping, what, ten days after my last attempt?

Ha ha ha ha ha HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

I will write up the entire story next, identifying the topic and the item. It might take a bit, as it's hard to type while rolling on the floor laughing like a loon.

Okay, here's the whole story (more or less).

I've been a Watchmen fan for a long time, since a co-worker overcame my objections to graphic novels by quietly laying a copy of the book on my desk.

There are quite a few analyses and walkthroughs of the book, including a couple of panel-by-panel commentaries. It's a bit like Heinlein studies through the 1980s, though, in that there's very little truly rigid or professional attention and a lot of fan interpretation - some of it very good, the way Damon Knight did a very good, if faintly fannish take on Heinlein.

For all the obsessed detail, though, no observer has ever noticed the fascinating implications of one panel. I noticed this in my first few readings of the book around 1990, helped - perhaps - by a comment from the guy who suckered me into reading it. I discussed this panel several times over the years with various small groups of fellow fans, and while they all acknowledged the curiosity, it never quite "caught" in the general interpretations.

So around 1999 I wrote it up as a short paper and sent it to a couple of the proprietors of the various panel-by-panel commentaries. Hear the echoes...

A few years later I rewrote it and submitted it again to a couple of loci. Silence...

About two years ago, I began irregular attempts to get the information into the one place where it would become absorbed by the body of fans and generate some discussion - Wikipedia. At first I was hampered by unfamiliarity with the wiki system. Then began the cycle of my posting the item, in one form or another, and having another WPian remove it, sometimes within the hour. Eventually I gave up.

Then, a few months ago, I began a concerted effort to insert the item into the appropriate WP entry. You know most of the story from the other thread: some Joe College big-star WP editing ghod kept deleting my entries for various reasons: "no original research" "unsupported" "vague" "unsuitable source: vanity press" etc.

Now, I will make it clear exactly what the item is. In Watchmen, there are two characters seen only in historical reference and flashback, both supposedly long dead by the time of the main story set in 1985. The costumed hero Hooded Justice disappeared under murky circumstances in 1955; as no one had ever known his real identity, he may have been murdered or simply removed his mask and never been identified. The more significant hero Captain Metropolis is mentioned briefly as having been decapitated in a car accident in 1974.

That's all well and good except that Watchmen is very carefully written and even more carefully illustrated; there are no loose ends for the observant reader. ...Except the fate of HJ and, because it's so vaguely described, CM. Every other hero of the past is convincingly disposed of by the pseudo-documentary material and comments within the story. These two just sort of fade away into a kind of occultation. Very strange by the high standards of the book.

So when I really looked at one panel early in the story on my second or third reading, I almost fell out of my chair... because it clearly shows these two characters, much aged and unmasked, in 1985. Alive and well. All the clues are there.

And that is all I wanted to insert into the group consciousness - "Panel 1:25:4 appears to show Hooded Justice/Rolf Muller and Captain Metropolis/Nelson Gardner, alive in 1985." To me, that bald statement is no more speculation, "original research" or needing of scholarly support than noting that a smiley face button is a recurring motif throughout the book. But Joe College thought so - or was so put out at this contrarian notion that no-way, no-how was he going to let it in. I put it in as a short, sweet statement; I put it in with a paragraph or two of supporting conjecture; I put in a long version; I finally tidied up my paper and posted it on the NitroPress site and referenced it. No good; every instance was deleted for the flimsiest of reasons, including a final, simple insertion of one sentence much like the above.

(I found it hilarious that Joe "I have a master's in English" College kept re-correcting the passage without accepting my edit that CM was decapitated, not "decapacitated"...)

Anyway, you know most of the recent story from the other thread. I accept that some of my attempts were end runs on the proper method, but if I couldn't insert a single, simple, factual, verifiable sentence... using some sleight of hand to get the gist into the entry seemed legitimate. (The matter doesn't hang on whether my observation is correct or not - it's a factual observation about what seems to be in that panel, and worthy of including in the description and discussion of the book's characters. If you disagree, never mind; you may move on.)

So I found another wiki, this one a bit more fannish and devoted strictly to Watchmen, and inserted the long form of my discovery as an article. It has been well received, edited and shorn of inappropriate speculation and additions by successive editors, and even had an important point added - something I had overlooked, but another detail supporting my contention. The article is discreetly linked to the full paper on the NitroPress web site. I've received much interesting mail in the last few weeks from it.

And then, today, idly checking the Wikipedia entry... there's my contention, in a sentence or two. Citation is... (drum roll please)... my "vanity press" posting of my original paper.

I will likely never figure out what was so wrong with my attempts at posting the information - the very lean, straightforward attempts, anyway; I cop to fan-dancing with the more elaborate attempts. Nor will I likely figure out why this same information, posted by someone else and using the same "substandard" reference, was suddenly okay.

I will tell you it's starting to ripple through the fan community and excite some interesting discussion in areas that most fans had written off as thoroughly as, say, the meaning of the character names in Stranger in our world. What fun. And yes, I am a trifle proud of the discovery, which appears to have escaped every other observer for 23 years, and which changes a small but significant portion of the book's interpretation.

Links

Have you ever tried to contact Moore or Gibbons about this? A letter sent in care of the publisher would probably be forwarded.

And what's the deal with the turkey? It has two legs on one side.

A minor point about the .pdf file on the Web site:

Footnote 1 reads:

Read as “Issue (or Chapter) 1, page 19, panel 4 (counting from top left on each page).”

The citation of Footnote 1 reads:

[1:19:5]1

Note the discrepancy in panel number.

Good article! Though I don't understand how Rorschach could possibly alive after Kovacs was killed.

Not to keep flogging this dead horse... okay, yes I am... but the History and Discussion pages for the WP page are hilarious.

I guess someone added a note that so-and-so played such-and-such character... and Joe College erased it "because IMDb is user-written and not a reliable source." Another simple, factual, useful datum, easily verified by any of several sources... but the submitter didn't maintain one-inch margins and capitalize all his headings, or something. (Several respondents pointed out Joe's absurdity as well.)

Joe's got his degree. He's got his WP star editor stars. Now all he needs is a life. What a DB.

Ah, sweet validation.

I've retained some doubts about my interpretation of that Watchmen panel - just a few, wondering if I've cooked up too vast a pot of stew from those scanty oysters.

After posting my material, another Watchmen wiki editor added a detail I'd missed - that the two figures have bow ties drawn to resemble domino masks (unique within the book's art).

Now another observant reader has added what I regard as the absolute clincher: the dinner portrayed in the panel is on October 13, 1985. Hooded Justice's first appearance as a costumed crimefighter was on October 13, 1938. So why are these two elderly, retired heroes out having dinner in tuxes? Because they're celebrating HJ's anniversary.

Which almost certainly means Moore, as writer, was in on this panel's concept and content - something that hasn't been entirely clear before (e.g., it could have been Gibbons having fun on his own).

Game, set, match. Heh. Heh heh.

True. Anyone want to place bets as to what happens when they need a 13th Doctor?

It happened back in the radio days, too. The voice of the Lone Ranger was killed (in a car accident, IIRC) and they had to bring in a substitute. So that no one would notice, LR had an accident that took away his voice and for a few weeks, the other actors filled in the dialogue around his occasional grunts. He slowly got his voice back, and in theory (in those largely pre-recording days) no one noticed the different actor.

Then there's Darren. I loved one of the early proposals for the film version of Bewitched where they were going to replace Nicolas Cage with Robert Picardo halfway through the movie... without having anyone on screen notice.

And then there's the Dread Pirate Roberts...

reminded me of this thread.

Dan

Heh. I note, BTW, that My Point of Contention has been removed from the WP entry again, and there are now quite a few people screaming at Joe College for being, well, what he is.

I think I can understand why your intelligent observation was not accepted by the Wikipedia "community" for that article. It was because WP has a guideline "no original research", meaning that really it only is supposed to consist of regurgitations of other sources which can, if necessary, be referred to directly.

This points up that WP is not quite like a conventional encyclopedia. If the Encyclopedia Britannica organization wants to include an article about 'Lord of the Rings', it commissions an expert to write that article, and often pays him to do so. The expert writes a synthesis of his ideas, ideas from other sources, his own research - actually, anything he likes, provided that the result is an authoritative article up to the Britannica standards. The article usually cites references, but not references for absolutely everything.

But WP would never publish such an article. In principle, WP is a purely derivative compendium. Yes, I know, this rule is often bent or broken, especially in the more recondite articles. But you happen to have tangled with a "user community" (or one member thereof) who believes in standing on the letter of the rules.

Jim, this one's for you:

http://americancomedynetwork.com/animat ... t_id=25239

I saw today in The Onion and thought immediately of our discussion here.