Talk:Red John

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborate effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Comment[edit]

What is the clue the victim wrote on the bathroom wall in his own blood in episode 11? 15:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Jarred? He wrote "He is Mar" or possibly "He is Man" but with the n unfinished. There is also a possibility the is numerical 15. Also of course it may be that Red John wrote the message instead of Jarred. He could have simply done it using Jarreds hand after death. Who knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Have we seen red john jet?

    • We have seen him drinking a cup of tea in the last episode of season 1 Roelofk (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the picture of the smily in black? Red would seem to be much more appropriate. --Jesse (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Saying the following although what you had declaimed was already solved:

Acutally the black smiley had not been that much of a bad idea, since it shows, that the red color of it is n o t of importance to the sign, it may contain. Why I do think that to be a fact, because he arranged a white face out of fog be drawn in the sky in episode 23 of season one? :) Although of course, he didn't run the usual procedure there, I do think, that this explains, that the color does not acutally effect the conclusion of the Red John-Smiley. --178.191.247.162 (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

THere is additional information in episode 23 from season 2 which needs to be formulated and inserted. Red John kills the female Talkshow show whom Kristina talks to and he kills the 3 film students for mocking him with poor imitation. Finally he lifts Jane up wrapped in plastic to a chair from the film students attempt to kill Jane as part of the movie. He recites a poem (needs to be transscribed). leaves only to come back to tell Jane that he is sure Kristina would want him to send her best and that she is awefully fond of him despite their differences. The implication is left open as Kristina escaped earlier and her whereabouts are unknown if she is an accomplice or a victim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.160.107.170 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Parallels[edit]

There are some similarities between Red John and the nemesis in the book "The Crimson Circle" by Edgar Wallace (1925). This book was about a psychic detective who turned out to be the serial killer he was hunting himself. Red John has used hypnosis to get others to do his bidding so it could well be that Patric Jane is Red John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.194.226 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be original research. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In the finale of Season 2 Red John saves Jane, who is tied to a chair, and kills the students who tied Jane to the chair. Dual identity only works if the two personas don't interact whilst a 3rd party is present, as in Fight Club.Gavinturner (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Red John's shooting[edit]

I edited the comment that Jane has killed Red John in the season three finale - with all the twists and turns of this series, it is yet to be determined that the man shot is actually Red John (although he certainly seemed to be from what he told Jane) and, more importantly, that he's dead. He is certainly critically wounded. The nature of the cliffhanger ending may suggest that he may survive (and even later escape.) All we know is that he's been shot. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

With the man claiming to be Red John and providing seemingly indisputable proof that he is Red John, and with Jane believing him, I think we are obligated to believe the man is who he says he is until he isn't. --Boycool (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
We'll just have to see. It could be, with RJ's many "insider" colleagues, that he could have gotten the information about the scents of Jane's wife and daughter from the medical examiner's office, and relayed this to another operative he ordered to pose as him. I personally think this is indeed RJ due to the tone of the voice ... but I have a feeling the writers haven't killed him off just yet. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
That may be true, but due to WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL, we can only go off of what the episode or a cast/crew member states. --Boycool (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Plus considering the trailers for the finale talked of him meeting Red John it would be OR to say he may not be. Further, shot several times, not breathing, eyes open, etc, its OR to say he may not be dead. Further, this article is clearly fannishly wrtitten. Wiki is not for fan opinion or written in an in-universe style. It is suppose to be dispassionate statement of facts. Nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talkcontribs) 18:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I wouldn't want to see any speculation put in the article. That's why I took out the "killed" portion - he may be dead, he may not be. You can't tell from that quick shot of him on the floor whether he's breathing or not. Also, his eyes are closed! I wish Wiki had a place to upload screengrabs temporarily, but I can't find anywhere to do that that doesn't violate so-called 'fair use.' The finale didn't make that clear. He'll certainly bleed to death pretty quick if they don't get him medical attention purty durn quick!  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

I see you Boycool42 reverted my edit. How is this "OR" any more than stating that he's been killed is? Where in the episode is it stated that he's dead? He's certainly critically wounded, but it's not stated he's dead. I am re-verting and please discuss here before putting that statement back, ok? HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

http://www.inlandiapress.com/index.php/2011/05/20/did-patrick-jane-really-kill-red-john-in-season-finale/. creator says hes dead. stop adding OR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talkcontribs) 04:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for FINALLY finding a RS citation for this. At the time, from what I could see/find, my statement was not "OR" - it was reflecting exactly what took place on-screen. This is the whole problem with these "fan" type pages - little or no references. I will ask that the moderation case on this issue be closed, now. In future, please remember to assume good faith, and not issue "orders" to other editors - that's not going to be useful on Wiki. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Please remember not to issue fannish opinions. You were using your opinion that he may not be dead. However, very seldom when someone is murdered or killed is someone said to be dead. Its just blatantly obvious. In the future dont use fannish nonsenseOdoital25 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your 10-yr old mentality opinion. Trying to look cute by saying "fannish" over and over impresses no one, especially since I made none. The statement was unsourced, now it is, and that's the end of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talkcontribs) 03:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"In the season three finale Jane enounters a man who claims to be Red John in a shopping mall cafe/lounge and shoots him three times; whether he's dead and really Red John was a question awaiting season four". Fannish. Trailers for the show already said they would meet. Further, there was no sources claiming that there was any ambiguity of the validity of whether he was red john. Any arguement for ambiguity would be an opinion.

"At the end of the episode, the man claiming to be Red John is shown bleeding and unconscious."-Unconscious has the presumption hes alive. You cant have someone be uncoscious and dead. You claim your reasoning was based on the fact that there were no sources saying he was dead. However, you had no sources saying he was alive. Therefore, your claiming he was unconscious was just as much an assumption as you accused me of. Plus the number of shots are unimportant. You just kept adding it when a page is suppose to be a summation, not overly detailed with unnecessary fluff. So, no I wasnt being cute. I was telling you to act like an editor and not a fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talkcontribs) 05:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You should take a look at Wiki Synthesis and OR and read them carefully. Any assumption - that he was dead - without an RS is synthesis. All we can say without the RS that was later cited was that he was shot three times. Three times is hardly "overly detailed." Also, "fannish" is a child's method of trying to throw some sort of insult around. Perhaps you need to peruse Wiki Civil and Wiki Assumption of Good Faith again. Editors can discuss points on the talk pages without being sarcastic. Such actions can lead to bans by Admins. I've been an editor for over 5 yrs, and I know the rules very well. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Yes any assumption, like that he is alive. Yet you had no problem with that. And yes three times is ridiculous addition. Further, adding that he is a person claiming red john is fannish.You cant even defend the fact that your additions were just as much an assumption; you just blew it off. And yes read the policies on synthesis and OR. Um, saying hes unconscious or may not be red john is just as much OR and assumptions. You could have said neutral statements. However, unconscious is assuming hes alive, which was just as unsourced as my claim was until i found a source. I pointed that out yet you say nothing about that. Also, when you say that red john's fate will be revealed in season 4, thats not acting like an editor. A) There was no source that said that (which you pointed out I didnt hsve for my claim). So you were assuming. Going by the argument about using a source then, your actions were just as much an assumption. Lets say I didnt find a source and his fate was unkown, then yes I was wrong for my additions. However, as were you. Season 4 may have taken the show in a different direction and never touched on red john again, or mentioned his fate in a later season. It also may have. However, no source said either way so any claim you would make about season 4 is an assumption. B) You assumed there was going to be a season four. Even when a show is signed on for another season, which The Mentalist is, there have been times there have been extin0uating circumstances where the season never happens. For someone who has been an editor for five years you really don't edit like you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talkcontribs) 16:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In light of another interview from Bruno Heller, I want to revive the question of whether it's appropriate to state in the article that Red John is dead. Read this, particularly the first two questions and answers: http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/05/26/the-mentalist-finale/ The series creator says, "The question remains: Was that Red John?" He says that Bradley Whitford's character definitely died; he discusses how the final scene was intended to convince the viewer that it was Red John, and that it convinced Patrick Jane. He says, "Thing is, Red John is a master of the mind game. If Red John wanted to die, maybe this is how he wanted to die. Or maybe he just wants Jane to think he’s dead." (He also said, "The answer will be revealed at the beginning of next season," though it's not clear which question he's talking about there.) Also, in the original Inlandia Press interview that's cited in this article, it says "But Baker [the actor who plays Jane] admits the scene may be a “false bottom” to the suitcase, and that things may not be exactly as they seem."

This sure looks like a RS that it's an open question whether or not that was Red John--it's not speculation from watching the episode. Does anyone want to argue that it's still OR? I propose adding Heller's quote. -- Tirmie (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a draft of the page using the quotes from this EW interview, and then reverted it, pending discussion. You can see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_John&diff=435488529&oldid=435486093 -- Tirmie (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we really need to wait for the season to start, because people won't stop speculating until then. --Boycool (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Eh? I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that my proposed change would be speculation? (i.e., it would be speculation to quote the series creator saying that it's an open question whether or not Whitford's character was Red John?) Or are you saying my draft itself isn't speculation, but it would spark additional bad edits? (Also, check your Talk page. I posted a question about something you've said in the Edit Summaries when you've reverted other people's changes.) -- Tirmie (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about not replying on my talk page; I was busy with real-world things. Anyway, we could add something (sourced) about Bruno calling the ending ambiguous, but I really don't think changing everything to "the man Jane is convinced is Red John" is appropriate at this point. --Boycool (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


OK. The main page says that PJ has successfully found and killed RJ. Just because that's what the writers of the series want us to believe doesn't make it true. Most likely he's either killed a decoy or RJ isn't dead. Someone needs to edit it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.206.116 (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And then honestly, using logic either the person that PJ shot was RJ or a puppet that and the either or is the person that PJ shot dead or alive. If the writers are absolute morons it was RJ, he's dead and the series goes from there... Most likely if the person that PJ shot is dead it's not RJ. If he is not dead than he is RJ. But I think that the best way out for both the writers and the audience is that the body of the person that PJ shot is not identified and disappears. That is the easy way to clear PJ of his attempted murder. The line of logic goes is that without a victim there is no crime. With no body or identity (victim) PJ hasn't harmed anyone. Either way I doubt that the real RJ is dead. There is no way that they would carry on this theme just to let it end in a single short episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.206.116 (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to the Season Premiere, the man shot was not Red John[edit]

We'll have to see if Jayne's statement that he killed a 'bad man' but that he wasn't Red John, pans out. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I left the info about him not being red john. I just removed the IMDB references. I watched the episode and yeah he says that but imdb is not reliable to use as a source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talkcontribs) 16:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC) xacl

Red John´s identity[edit]

Robert Kirkland can be the real Red John and Brett Partridge is one of his contract killers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6hU_l2wWwQ http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121009222825/thementalist/images/1/15/Vlcsnap-2012-10-09-23h24m43s165.png

Original research. Pure speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokarosama (talkcontribs) 09:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"Original research. Pure speculation." -- exactly. I know Wikipedia contains spoilers but please let's not ruin this; everyone has their own ideas or no idea who Red John really is. Maybe there's more than one. Hopefully we'll find out in the next season because you can only push this kind of envelope for so long before it backfires (a la Twin Peaks). Quis separabit? 15:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert Kirkland (S 6 E 4) and Brett Partridge (S 6 E 1) are dead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.101.61 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

William Blake[edit]

If the man who saved Jane at the final of season 2 wasn´t Red John, who was he? Todd Johnson, who said to Jane "Tyger, Tyger"? Would Red John tolerate that one of his accomplices talks about "cheap imitations of my work"? This makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.250.137 (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture of Red John[edit]

Is there a decent picture of Red John/Sheriff Thomas McAllister from the most recent episode (titled "Red John"), so we may include i as the articles character profile picture please??--SGCommand (Talk to Me  · contribs  · 16:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC))

I believe that Red John is actually the woman who tried to stab Jane in the church after Jane shot the "other," male, Red John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harleyflhxi (talkcontribs) 19:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there any way this photo could be lightened? It is hard to make out Xander Berkeley's face from the background of the photo. Liz Read! Talk! 17:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)