Talk:Walter White (Breaking Bad)

'protagonist'

Is Walter White really the protagonist? He seems more like the antagonist to everyone else on the show. (Narkstraws (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

Protagonist is the central character. This does not mean the character has to be a "good guy". The fact he is antagonistic, villanous, or just generally "bad", does not make him any less the protagonist.

Believe in Colbert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roier (talk • contribs) 09:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree the first line calling him a protagonist is a bit misleading, because of the word's positive connotations... What about main character? Walter White's turn to becoming a villain is complicating the usual protagonist/antagonist dynamic... I think the opening line could be reworked. --142.116.236.181 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Heisenberg was not a teacher

The line " Werner Heisenberg, the author of the Uncertainty principle who was also a teacher diagnosed with cancer[21]" is very strange - Heisenberg was a physicist, not a teacher, and while he died of cancer it was at age 74. Also the reference doesn't seem to have anything to do with this sentence. 92.225.111.11 (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Talking Bad episode. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Season 5/6

It seems like events from the new season are listed under "Season 5". I'm not all that knowledgeable about this show; perhaps someone could fix this, or perhaps I'm wrong. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The currently airing episodes are part of the second half of Season 5. There is no Season 6.

Walter's Death

The article says that Walter's death was on his 52nd birthday, Sept. 7, 2011. That date was also used on the faux tombstone planted in an Albuquerque cemetery as part of a fund raiser.

Disagree. This is fan fiction because the story line doesn't indicate that and surely doesn't correspond to that. We'll all note that immediately prior to being seen in the Denny's for breakfast, Walter was in New Hampshire for some extended period of time in that shack, bored to tears, and that the area was snowed in the entire time he was there. We know that the vacuum cleaner guy who delivered Walter to New Hampshire has made at least two previous runs because he already knew the routine about the $10,000 paid just for an hour's company playing cards, so Walter has been there a while with snow on the ground. He goes into town wearing a parka, and eventually makes his getaway from New Hampshire in a car covered with ice and snow.

Let's assume it takes him 30 hours (only stopping for gas) to traverse the country in the stolen car, as he tells the Denny's waitress. If it is Sept 7, 2011, that puts him in New Hampshire not later than Labor Day, Sept 5, though it was probably an earlier departure since he had to orchestrate his own finish and Marie notes sitings over some period of time.

Really? Ice and snow in New Hampshire on Labor Day, or in August?

It doesn't seem plausible given the story line that Walt was in hiding in Albuquerque since March when there would be snow on the ground in New Hampshire. He implied to the waitress he raced to get there, and it seems unlikely he was just hanging out indefinitely with a stolen car with out of state tags in the middle of the giant manhunt for the killer of two DEA agents, certainly not for months without his chemotherapy.

We see Walter in Denny's wearing a jacket getting his breakfast, which would be very odd for September because New Mexico is warm that time of year, in the 90's. And unless I don't remember it correctly, the final shots of Walter Jr. on the day of Walter Sr's death show him in a heavy jacket of some kind, which would be exceptional for a New Mexico summer day. Jesse is at about that same time leashed in the underground lab. He asks for the tarp to come off but is warned against it because of the cold. Unlikely for NM in September. If that scene was meant to take place in the approximate time of Walt's return, that would put it in the winter too.

So it seems like Walter's return to New Mexico would be long into the winter, maybe March 2012 or so.

I like fan fiction and I don't mind artistic license, but please try to keep the sense of the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.250.44 (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to kill your buzz, especially considering the length of your analysis piece here, but he explicitly says that it's his birthday, forming the number 52 with the bacon on the breakfast plate. Not much beyond that. It's as explicit as it gets. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

He might be referring to the birthdate on his fake ID...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.74.231 (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Name in lede

"Walt" is not a nickname, it's an acceptable shortened version of his name by which his family and friends call him, everywhere else he is referred to as Walter or Heisenberg (no one ever calls him "Walt White"). As for Sr., there is not a single source that calls him that - not the series itself, no secondary sources either, which means calling him that on Wikipedia would be WP:SYN. Finally, a name that is puffed up for no good reason looks grotesque and unencyclopedic. Chunk5Darth (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

For your information, he has a son named Walter White, Jr. If you say that a "Sr." should not be included in there just simply because of not naming the kid after him, then what is your point? Batman194 (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Because if I were you, I would put the "Sr." title back as it was. I'm not saying this to intimidate you Chunk5Darth, I'm just trying to get you some common sense. Batman194 (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You can try not listening to me, but you will. Batman194 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources also confirm that Walt is his nickname. Batman194 (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Explain your third comment, especially in light of the fact that you're the one reinserting unsourced and unencyclopedic info while initially ignoring this discussion. Chunk5Darth (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Back to the subject of discussion, a couple of good examples for nicknames and their inclusion would be Jack Lemmon and Tina Fey. As I explained, had Walt been called "Walt White" more commonly than "Walter White", then the nickname would belong in lede, but it is not the case. As for Sr., it's self-synthesis of published material since he's not referred to as such anywhere. Just because his son carries his name with a Jr. suffix, doesn't mean we can call him Sr. on our own accord. Also, my earlier comment regarding aesthetics still stands. Chunk5Darth (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Real life meth dealer named Walter White

The story has been circulating in the news lately, getting plenty of reliable coverage: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. There is also a story about a meth dealer who was found with a Walter White toy: [7] [8] [9]. Should we create a section called "Real life allusions"? I believe there is enough coverage to establish notability. Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I was asked to comment here. Without looking at the cites, I would note three things:

• Real life does not "allude" to anything (except, perhaps, in some kind of b.s. Jungian kinda way).
• WP:BLP1E is likely an issue.
• If BLP1E is not an issue, this is likely a mirror image of WP:IPC. The connection is a trivial coincidence that tells us nothing of any meaning about this Walter White. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Without looking at the sources" is the problem. The story only hit the news outlets because of the coincidental allusion to BB's Walter White, which is stated in all the sources. (Really, how many meth dealers receive multiple headlines?) BLP1E would only be relevant if I wanted to write a separate article about the real-life Walter White, and IPC states that "When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias" and "Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines". Please look into the sources. Chunk5Darth (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I will be merging that with the obituary section, and also add a sentence or two about the fan theory concerning Walt's death. Sources: [10] [11] [12] [13] Chunk5Darth (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Criminal cases section

I can't speak for @Ironholds: who tried removing the section before I did, but I feel the "Criminal cases" section seen in this revision should not be included in the article. My reasoning is that WP:BLP1E applies, because these individuals are only known for one event -- their arrests and tenuous connections to a fictional character. So we shouldn't include them on this page. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 01:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree fully with that rationale. I'd also note that, even were it not for BLP1E, the entries would still be completely irrelevant: what exactly do they have to do with the show or the character apart from sharing the same arrest premise and name? There's no suggestion that they were influenced by the example of this Walter White. Ironholds (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• BLP1E does not apply here, because: "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when" etc. etc. We're not writing articles about these people, we're adding concise entries to an existing article, which is not a BLP at all.
• The relevance is determined by each and every one of the 13 reliable sources mentioning the show, which for the most part also make it clear (even by their headlines) that the connection to the show is the primary reason those source articles were even published to begin with. Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, look at the discussion right above this one. There were no objections at all, therefore the consensus was left to create the section. This happened over 6 months ago. Chunk5Darth (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No objection at all? SummerPhD raised the exact concerns Ironholds and I have in this section. And you're the only one so far who has said the content should be in the article. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 04:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight; your justification is that, were it not for the existence of this show (something the subjects have no control over), the articles wouldn't have even been published? That's the very core of BLP1E: situations where someone becomes discussable simply for being caught up in something else, not doing something. If you understand BLP policy then you understand, I assume, the rule that "BLP" is not about articles that are purely biographies of living people, but is instead about content covering living people: you can't get away with breaking the policies simply because you do so in another article.

This content does not contribute to the understanding of the subject, does not treat the living people it covers fairly (by its mere inclusion) and so should simply go. What exactly do we learn from it except "Walter White, a deliberately generic name, is generic in the real world, too"? Ironholds (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The content is trivial. The connection is purely coincidental and had no impact on the fictional character or the show. Knowing that there have been individuals whose lives are in some ways similar to the fictional character does not tell us anything about the fictional character, the topic of this article. With several editors (including me) saying this content does not belong here and one dissenting, a consensus seems to have been established. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Where were you in January, SummerPhD? You voiced your opinion, I objected to it by citing the appropriate policies and stated I was going to include the content. You were nowhere to be found, so I added the section. Several editors contributed to it during those six months, without any objection whatsoever. So all of a sudden the content must be removed on sight so I have to convince you how it needs to be reinstated? Again, where have you been all this time? Even by WP:SILENT, there has been an existing consensus for over six months.

Ironholds, BLP1E clearly talks about articles, not just inclusion of instances as short paragraphs within much, much larger articles. When there is a considerable amount of media coverage for criminals named Walter White, in wake of the overwhelming success of a fictional criminal named Walter White, and all those articles write about the show and about the fictional character - who is the subject of this article - it ceases to be unrelated trivia. These articles' mere existence is solely due to the popularity of the subject of this article, which is exactly what we can extract from WP:IPC: "When properly written, ["in popular culture"] sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias (...) Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced". Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about BLP1E in the case of the "BLP applies to non-dedicated articles"; I was simply stating a fact. Our BLP policy is not so narrow that it only applies to content in dedicated biographies. If you disagree with this assertion then that's another discussion to have.

It's absolutely unrelated trivia; is there any indication any of these criminals were influenced by the fictional character, or influenced the creation of the fictional character? If so, please point me to them. Otherwise, you're arguing that because an otherwise non-notable person has the misfortune to be a convicted criminal and share the same name as a fictional convicted criminal, suddenly documenting their (again, otherwise unimportant) crimes and lives becomes valuable, and actively contributes to the discussion of the fictional criminal.

IPC is about references from things within popular culture to the Breaking Bad article. There's no indication that a minor meth dealer in the 1970s is of any general interest; if it was, presumably we'd have an article on it, so quoting IPC (which is an essay, not a policy or guideline) doesn't really get us anywhere.

Regardless, this is clearly against the spirit of BLP1E and in my opinion an improper section to include. You now have 3 people arguing that it should be excluded; will you recognise that your position has failed to reach consensus, or would you like us to take it to (for example) the BLP noticeboard where we can have a conversation with a wider group of participants? Up to you. Ironholds (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Chunk5Darth I cannot sufficiently appologize for my dereliction of duty in January. If you see fit to not fire me today, I promise to do better between now and my next performance appraisal. In the meantime, feel free to dock my pay.

You are the only editor arguing for including the material. Calling that a consensus[14] does not make it a consensus. If you'll recall, the only reason I was here to begin with was your out-of-the-blue invitation to the discussion.[15] I disagreed with your reasoning then and let it go. If you feel that gives your opinion some kind of seniority in the discussion or is a reason to leave the material in the article, I can't say I agree. If you believe that other editors contributing to an article or section demonstrates that they have policy/guideline-based reasons to keep the material, I can't say I agree. The editors discussing our policies and guidelines and how they relate to this material are on the talk page and they all disagree with you.

The real life individuals named are presumably alive, thus WP:BLP (and all of its sections) applies. They are known for one thing. They are not otherwise notable. WP:BLP1E applies.

The information included here is trivial. It does not tell us anything at all about the fictional character. As I stated before, this is a mirror image of WP:IPC. Richard Nixon does not discuss the thousands of TV comedy skits, plays, novels, limericks, knock knock jokes, films, operas, 31st century head-in-a-jar references, etc. that refer to him. Why? Because they do not tell us anything about the real Nixon. The contrary example is Gerald Ford where Chevy Chase's SNL impression of him does merit inclusion because it had a direct, notable impact on Ford. Similarly The Greatest American Hero discusses John Hinckley, Jr. because Hinckley's actions affected the show. Chase (and SNL) and Hinckley are living individuals otherwise notable who impacted Gerald Ford and The Greatest American Hero. The real life Whites are not otherwise notable and did not impact the fictional character. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus over whether the subject is the long-term primary topic. Number 57 14:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Walter White (Breaking Bad) → Walter White – Unquestionably the primary topic. None of the other Walter Whites are nearly as recognizable as the Walt from Breaking Bad. I honestly have never heard of any of the other entries on the page. GeicoHen (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The Breaking Bad character is the clear primary topic. The article has been viewed 137,000 times in the past 90 days. The other articles have been viewed fewer than 15,000 times combined [16], [17], [18], [19]. Given that, I fail to see how anyone could reasonable argue this isn't the primary topic. -- Calidum 04:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support, for the obvious reasons - he is far more covered than anyone else on the dab list. Chunk5Darth (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – Breaking Bad is quite well known at this time, but there is no guarantee that will be true in later years. Walter F. White, however, is still well remembered as a formative leader of the NAACP during the Great Depression, World War II, and postwar years. To my mind, he should be the primary topic but, absent any proposal for that, I say "Walter White" should continue to point to the disambiguation page. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I concur with Steve. Srnec (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:RECENTISM per Strummer -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• RECENTISM is an essay that only deals with article content, not titles. -- Calidum 17:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and Calidum's very clear usage results. Keeping this a dab page is frustrating to our readers. Dohn joe (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (the character does not have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term"). Walter Francis White, who is called "Walter White" in most sources, is alone more important than the character. In sum, more important real person should not be subsumed to less important fake person. —  AjaxSmack  01:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  The problem with that is that you are assigning your own value judgment at the expense of the users of the encyclopedia. Isn't this encyclopedia for them? Shouldn't we let them tell us what topics are more important to them, not the other way around? Dohn joe (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  (1) Page view stats do not show us "what topics are more important to [readers]". (2) The judgement of "enduring notability and educational value" is no more subjective than (a) the assessment of notability generally and (b) adherence to the first pillar: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Srnec (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• SupportI agree completely with the point made by Dohn Joe Somethingwickedly (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Requested move 21 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Walter White (Breaking Bad) → Walter White (character) – The only fictional character with this name. The rest, listed at the Walter White dab page, are real people. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose he's only in one TV series. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCTV#Episode and character articles we use the series name as disambiguator. -- Netoholic @ 02:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Netoholic, the page you linked says, "For an article created about a single episode or character, add the show name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name." But then there is a reason why GOT character Jon Snow's article is Jon Snow (character), not "Jon Snow (Game of Thrones)" or "Jon Snow (A Song of Ice and Fire)". For that same reason, "Walter White (Breaking Bad)" should be moved to "Walter White (character)". The other reason I have so clearly specified is, that there is no other character named Walter White. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Game of Thone's Jon Snow's article is an exception at Jon Snow (character), not "Jon Snow (Game of Thrones)" or "Jon Snow (A Song of Ice and Fire)" because the book and TV series have different names. But frankly it should be at (Game of Thrones) really. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"only if there are other articles by the same name" means across all of Wikipedia. Walter White (disambiguation page) lists several articles with that name, so for the TV character we use the show name in parenthesis. Jon Snow article, as explained, covers the character in multiple media formats and in that case, (character) is used. -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Man, you never cease to amaze me. On the DAB page (apart from Breaking Bad's Walter White) I only see an American footballer, a politician, an architect, a civil rights activist, an English footballer and a Scottish footballer. They don't qualify as "characters", do they? --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to make a redirect (mostly to avoid duplicate article creation and help with searches). But the existing name of this article should stand per WP:NCTV. -- Netoholic @ 08:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic: "per WP:NCTV#Episode and character articles we use the series name as disambiguator" that's not what the guideline says, nor is it wider Wikipedia practice, so if if the guideline did say such a thing, it would be in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It says exactly that. Just like WP:NCFILM#Character articles says to primarily use the film title, and WP:NCGAMESDAB says to primarily use the video game title. Feel free to browse through the subcategories of Category:Television characters and see for yourself because I think you're mistaken about what is the wider Wikipedia practice. -- Netoholic @ 09:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic: then quote it—quote where it says anything about "multiple media" and anything about the title of a show taking precedence over (character). ... nope, nothing, and it would be in violation of Wikipedia practice if it ever did.

So you're obviously wrong, but I'll humour you: if you were right, then as soon as someone made a Breaking Bad novel, movie, video, or whatever, or if Walter White had a walk-on on Better Call Saul, then a move would immediately be required. See how pointless such a situation would be? Place it at (character) per standard practice, and no move would be required until someone else created an article on another character name Walter White.

Do you understand now why Wikipedia does things the way it does? It's really about as straightforward as it gets. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. That just means he is a character who primarily appears in Breaking Bad. A cameo appearance won't necessitate a change. If he appears in multiple series altogether then yes, it should be (character), but this naming scheme helps people distinguish where they are from better._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

ZXCVBNM *Sigh* ... we could split this hair 'til the cows come home, and it would only strengthen my point: at (character) (which is Wikipedia practice in the first place!), it would not only not have to be moved, but we wouldn't even have to dispute whether this or that appearance would warrant a move. (character) avoids problems; (TV SHOW NAME) causes them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support, assuming there actually warrants an article on the character, it passes the IS-A test. Walter White IS-A character—Walter White IS-A Breaking Bad is gibberish, and Walter White (Breaking Bad character) would be necessarily if and only if there were other fictional characters named Walter White. This "multiple media formats" thing is a non sequitur that deserves no more than a face palm. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Walter White - Personally I think this is easily the PRIMARYTOPIC - Add a hatnote pointing to the disam and everyone wins ..... If consensus is still not for this then I support this RM which is the common format (It's no different to having "Tyrion Lannister (Game of Thrones) ..... it would be "(character" wouldn't it....) –Davey2010^Talk 19:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Walter White primary topic, otherwise leave as-is as the show isn't called "Walter White"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I too feel this Walter White is a case of PRIMARYTOPIC (even relatively obscure figures like Amy Jackson, Ian Anderson and Rick Davies are primary topics), considering how he is better known than the other Walter Whites, but this was opposed at the previous move discussion, hence I decided not to bring up the topic again. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Gretchen & Elliot Shwartz's Relationship?

It's distracting in terms of readability to see that Gretchen was Walter's "girlfriend" and Elliot was his "friend" but when the reader (me, in this case) notices that both characters have the same name, the first response is to assume a familial (brother/sister?) relationship between the two. If it exists, it should be mentioned with the boyfriend/girlfriend relationship all at the same time. Note, I've watched and very much enjoyed the entire series and while up to this point I had some vague idea that Walter White formed a company with "someone", it wasn't until reading this Lede that I learned that it was formed with a "girlfriend" and a "friend" who may or may not be related. So one, good information but two remaining silent on their relationship is a reader's speed bump.68.206.249.124 (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)