nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> If the plot in the Watchmen entry can't be taken for granted, they'd 
> better just drop the whole entry altogether.

  You are still confusing "original research" with "hard to prove" or
"doubtful" or whatever.

  It doesn't matter how much the plot in the wikipedia entry for the
Watchmen resembles the plot in the Incredibles entry. They could be
word-for-word identical for all that matters. Claiming that one is
inspired by the other, without giving any valid third-party references,
would still be original research. In other words, the writer of the
encyclopedia giving his own personal opinion.

  You can argue all you want about how similar they are, but you will be
completely missing the point.

  (Another problem with you making the claim, without verifiable sources,
is that your claim might be *false*. That's the problem with original
research: It reflects *your* opinion and/or *your* findings, rather than
the opinion/findings of a wider respectable community of knowlegdeable
people. An encyclopedia is not a journal where you can publish your own
findings or opinions. Moreover, you might be *wrong* altogether.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> On 5/15/2009 2:30 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > I gave wikipedia's own Watchmen entry. Yeah, not respectable at all.

> Actually, it isn't.

> Wikipedia has huge credibility issues.

  It's not about crediblity. It's simply that an encyclopedia cannot use
itself as reference in the exact same way as, for example, a scientific
publication cannot use itself as reference. The reference would be
circular and completely invaluable.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Publish a paper on it on your website.

> Then, in Wikipedia, reference that paper.

> That should satisfy the "no original research" policy just fine.

  The encyclopedia writer referencing his own work is not much more
credible than the encyclopedia referencing itself.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 May 2009 21:34:53 +0200, nemesis  
<nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>
> There are no outlawed heroes nor huge squids in either Batman

Read 'The Dark Knight Returns'.


> or the Bible.

Read the New Testament.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> The Incredibles or Watchmen?  your choice...
> 
> Your plotline doesn't really match Watchmen, or Incredibles.
> 
> Watchmen didn't have super-heros abounding - they were normal people, 
> except for Jon, who doesn't exactly Abound.

Yes.  You still call Batman, Daredevil or The Phantom a super-hero, 
don't you?

BTW, the first Night Owl looks remarkably similar both to The Phantom 
(mask, hood and smile) and to Robin (scaled underwears, shirts).

>  The government rules them 
> out for different reasons, and those reasons motivate the remaining 
> heroes differently.

They are still ruled out by the government.

> In Watchmen, there are people living normal lives, 
> some in undercover activities, and some working for the government.

Yes, in undercover ops.

> In Incredibles, nobody "discovers" a malign plan hidden on an island

Tell that to Gazerbeam, who even went as far as uncovering a password.

> In Incredibles, nobody goes investigating any conspiracy to 
> kill super heroes - nobody knows they're dead until Mr Incredible finds 
> the bodies.

 From the get-go Mr Incredible is interested in the missing of 
Gazerbeam.  When he finally gets aware of Syndrome's plan, he goes 
investigating and enters the computer room where he finds about all dead 
heroes.

> Rorschach isn't tortured, he's locked in prison.

Mr Incredible is tortured and locked in prison.  Rorschach is -- ok, not 
tortured -- badly beaten by cops.

> It isn't 
> "Fellows" who free Mr Incredible, but his family.

Still his allies.

> You left out all the things in the movies that make them different, as 
> well.

Sure, I was pointing out the similarities.

> Or are you saying it would be difficult to write a plot summary for 
> Watchmen that shares *nothing* with the plot summary above?

You certainly can.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   (Another problem with you making the claim, without verifiable sources,
> is that your claim might be *false*. That's the problem with original
> research: It reflects *your* opinion and/or *your* findings, rather than
> the opinion/findings of a wider respectable community of knowlegdeable
> people. An encyclopedia is not a journal where you can publish your own
> findings or opinions. Moreover, you might be *wrong* altogether.)

I'm not making any claims nor finds nor research of any kinds.  I'm just 
pointing out the points where both plots collide.  They both have 
outlawed heroes, a huge squid threat, a suggested plot to kill old 
heroes etc.

There's no original research there, it's only a matter of reading the 
work and enumerating the coincidences between one of the most 
influential comic books ever and a movie about super-heroes...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> I'm not making any claims nor finds nor research of any kinds.  I'm just 
> pointing out the points where both plots collide.

  "A more direct inspiration is the comic book masterpiece Watchmen, by
Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons."

  You didn't say "the plot of The Incredibles resembles the plot of
Watchmen". You are directly making the claim ghat Watchmens was an
inspiration for the plot of The Incredibles. Without any references to
corroborate this claim.

  Even if you had simply pointed out the similarities, that would also
border the line of original research, because you are basically documenting
your own finding, rather than repeating (and thus referencing) what others
have published.

  However, you are not just pointing out the similarities. You are directly
making the claim that one plot was *inspired* by another, without any
actual references that this was indeed so. This would be a dubious practice
even if it was journalism. With an encyclopedia, which should just repeat
common results, it's even worse.

  It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. An encyclopedia is *not*
a journal to publish your findings.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> They both have 
> outlawed heroes, a huge squid threat, a suggested plot to kill old 
> heroes etc.

Sounds like The Matrix to me!

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> There are no outlawed heroes nor huge squids in either Batman or the Bible.

Oh, so neither Moses nor Jesus were outlawed heros? Sorry.

> I guess you can't trace a similar parallel between the plots for Matrix 
> and The Incredibles.

I could. It's just not worth the effort of going through it.

> He set out to make a movie about super-heroes.  He had to draw some 
> references.  How about the plot of one of the most acclaimed comic books 
> in the genre?  

In generics, "good guy scoffs at secret admirer, and winds up having to 
defeat admirer's plan to get revenge" is pretty standard fare.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> but the simple idea that the plot is similar to that of Watchmen 
> isn't allowed

But that isn't what you claimed. You claimed it was an inspiration.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message