Talk:Rorschach (character)

message: I disagree with what the assertion in the Analysis section that his feelings toward the atomic bombs and the "alien" show inconsistencies or progression in his character.  The events are not comparable.  When the bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, everyone knew who did it.  The "alien" is a lie.  It's not that Rorschach is opposed to half of NYC dying to achieve world peace--it's that he's opposed to the deceit behind it.  He'd rather the truth be known and the possibility of losing peace than everyone to live in the dark with peace.
:You make a good argument. I initially agreed with the article as it stands, as I had also gotten that impression when reading Watchmen. However, I find your argument convincing. Anyone opposed to adding a qualifier explaining alternate interpretations that require no inconsistency? Argyrios 04:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to change it, but ignorant people with a mad-on for Rorschach will just revert any changes, misrepresenting creator comments to cover their own bias. WookMuff 23:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistent?

message: I'm not entirely happy with the whole analysis section here - it seems rather POV, and specfically, Ozymandias's point of view. The analysis section seems to take the view that although Veidt's actions were morally ambiguous, his end result was good. I'd argue that, and say it was all ambiguous. Did he do the right thing at all? Who knows. It's perhaps worth observing that real history has shown that the US and Soviet Russia didn't come to nuclear war, without the benefit of an apparent alien invasion wiping out most of New York. Remember the pirate comic, where the protagonist descends into the utmost depravity, then goes on a killing spree in his town in order to save it from the Black Freighter, only to discover he hadn't needed to at all and had become just as bad as they were. Veidt had apparently been dreaming about that, suggesting (to me at least) that perhaps he hadn't been as justified as all that anyway.
So, in that case, Rorschach wasn't cracking in the face of a massive moral ambiguity, but merely wanting to deal with the biggest single crime in human history. His tears may have just been frustration that the people he'd trusted, the few people he could have hoped to rely on to see things the same way as he did, didn't see it that way at all but were swayed by Viedt's rhetoric.
(On a slightly different note, why does Manhattan kill him? He couldn't give a monkey's either way, and he's just going along with what most people want. After all, he's so far beyond right and wrong by that point that he couldn't see them with a telescope on a nice clear night.)
And so Rorschach isn't as black and white as all that either. His normal view seems to be that the ends justify the means, but clearly he doesn't feel it in this case. Like his mask, he may look all black and white, but there's something more complicated underneath. I think that's the central point of the whole book - can you do the right thing for the wrong reasons, and vice versa, and which is which? I have my own opinions on the case presented in Watchmen, but I don't think it can be simplified to the way Rorschach is described in here. It should be counted as a possibility that, maybe, he was the one in the right. And by the end of the book, the only one. Or, again, maybe he wasn't. 
This has been a bit incoherent, I realise. I hope some of it makes sense to someone. There does seem to be an unacknowleged division among fans of the book into Rorschachites and Ozymandiites. Perhaps there's a phd thesis in that for someone?
On a soewhat different tack, I'd disagree with the comment that Rorschach's murder of Big Figure and his henchmen demonstrates his sadism - I don't think he is sadistic in the normal sense. It's not that he gets a thrill out of extreme violence, he just treats the people he views as criminals/scum/lowlife in the way he thinks they deserve. Which is not the same thing at all. Then again, coming back to the main point yet again, is it motives or actions which count more?--MockTurtle 01:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you make good points, and if you want to rewrite or revise the analysis section, I'll support you and review the changes. Argyrios 12:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll give it a bit of thought over the next day or two and see what I come up with. --MockTurtle 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Very interesting take, MockTurtle.  I especially liked the bit about Rorschachites and Ozymandiites -- my own thoughts were kind of heading that way, too, if not quite so eloquently.  I do want to point out, however, that the fact that the U.S. and the Soviet Union never waged a nuclear war in the real world is irrelevant; the book takes place in an alternate reality in which the existence of Dr. Manhattan has brought them much, much closer to the brink of war than they ever were in non-Watchmen reality.  But I agree that the book is ambiguous, and this article less so.  I would imagine that the ambiguity over whether Veidt's actions were necessary or not is just as deliberate and carefully controlled as the ambiguity over whether they were moral or immoral (or "other").  MrBook 20:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "I do want to point out, however, that the fact that the U.S. and the Soviet Union never waged a nuclear war in the real world is irrelevant; the book takes place in an alternate reality in which the existence of Dr. Manhattan has brought them much, much closer to the brink of war than they ever were in non-Watchmen reality." 100% agreed. This information is supported by the back-up article in issue 4. I think Rorschach is a crazy piece of shit. A fascinating character, but, as a person, an extremely racist, terrorized prick. He loved the newspaper that defended the KKK. He defended Truman for Christ sake! Anyone that admires him must have a problem. Moore himself said he was a terrorized man, and that he never would agree with his philosophy. I do think there will still be war in the universe of Watchmen. Veidt's plan wasn't perfect. Like Manhattan said, nothing comes to an end. GeorgeBP 02:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MockTurtle is correct: Rorschach was not necessarily sadistic; such is a subjective interpretation of his actions based on one's own worldview; is a wolf sadistic when it eats a prey's entrails? Rorschach's mindset was as alien to the society around him as was, say, Ahab's, to the Victorian one. Rorschach is sadistic only to those who believe that people deserve mercy when they make mistakes or commit crime. --Chr.K. 12:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis Section 

message: Don't we have a Gibbons picture of him that we can use ? --Beardo 18:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Gibbons picture at the end of the article but I would suggest moving out the Mayhew one completely. Unless there is a connection that I am unaware of and that is not pointed out, there seems little reason to make this the primary visual focus of the article. Perhaps if there were an "other artists renditions" section to hold non-canonical interpretations of the character (the largest problem I see with the work is the ability to read the entire question that has been spray-painted on the wall) it would have a place. As it is now, it almost seems like a random bit of fan-art. PatboyX 09:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea where this image came from, but I can't think of any reason to include it in any Wikipedia article. Rorschach was visually created by Dave Gibbons, and Gibbons is the author of every authorized drawing of the character; his is indisputably the definitive illustration of Rorschach and should be the primary (and probably the only) version featured in Rorschach (comics). -leigh (φθόγγος) 05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I'm removing this image; its use stretches Fair Use far beyond a reasonable point.  Mangojuicetalk 03:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: From Moore's interview on http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/?p=613 : "The thing with Rorschach was intentional. He mentions President Truman on the first page of Watchmen and there is that brief essay which ends up saying “I think President Truman was right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and that’s all I have to say about my parents”, and so, you know… that was a pretty common thought, that Truman was right to drop the bomb for that reason." "But at the end of the book, Ozymandias – who does this awful thing to New York… which is really, by extension, no more horrible than Hiroshima – you’ve got that parallel there."
Now, please, stop vandalizing the article just because you think Rorschach is a knight in a shinning armor. GeorgeBP 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very simple way of looking at things. Once again you are using paragraphs that DON'T SAY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THEY SAY!!! If you wanna say Steve Ditko was right-wing, then sure, thats a great paragraph for it. Steve liked Ayn Rand, right on. Ayn Rand is an objectivist, Ok. But Rorschach is an objectivist, NO. It doesn't say that. You can spin it all you want but thats not what it says. Also, Rorschach isn't based on Ditko, he is based on a creation of Ditko's which Moore then imbued with some of Ditko's attitudes. Please stop the weak attacks, by the way. If you can't say what you mean without telling me to shut up, thats hardly my fault. WookMuff 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiroshima, Veidt and Rorschach

message: Rorschach is not an Objectivist. He is a Sociopath. He is the creation of a Socialist/Anarchist that sees Objectivism as a philosophy of Sociopathic personalities. That is his opinion and not a fact. To say Rorschach is Objectivist is to make the statement a fact. 
To say, "Rorschach’s actions and journal writings display a belief in objectivism and moral absolutism, where good and evil are clearly defined and evil must be violently punished." is incorrect. At no moment in Watchmen does Rorschach mention anything about Ayn Rand or quote any one of her books or essays. It should say, "Rorschach’s actions and journal writings display Alan Moore's negative opinions of Objectivism. He treats it as a kind of moral absolutism where good and evil are clearly defined and evil must be violently punished."Billyjoekoepsel 02:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any sort of interpretation of Rorschach should be mentioned in the article, including those of the authors stated in interviews. The only canon should be that written in Watchmen. The authors' own views can change but Rorschach as a character exists only in the novel, which is constant. 68.42.72.226 (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This article isn't meant to show canon. If you can prove Alan Moore said that he meant for the character to be objectivist, then "it's not in the novel itself" is no reason to exclude the fact that Moore himself thought Rorschach was objecivist. --68.161.144.212 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Alan Moore's negative opinions of Objectivism

message: I think the Themes and Sexuallity section should just outright go.
I just re-read Watchmen and I haven't noticed misogony. Sure, he got ---- up by seeing his abusive mom have sex. Who wouldn't?
Sure, he doesn't like handling women's undies. Who does? Well, some people do. But most people feel weird handling stranger's nether-things.
I've seen no evidence Roschach hates women. Heck, he even restrains himself when asked to by a woman he has every reason to hate. Lots42 03:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Argeed, I've removed that senetence. Tomgreeny 02:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes and Sexuality 

message: :Image:Rorschach.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rorschach.png

message: :Image:Rorshach 300.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rorshach 300.jpg

message: I look at the Nite Owl II page on wiki and it sates that Batman was the inspiration for him, but in numerous interviews Moore has stated that they tried to explore the character of Rorschach and parallel him as being Batman. If you don't believe me here is a vid.(3:18)(http://watchmencomicmovie.com/092407-comics-britannia-alan-moore-video-02.php)
:First off... new threads are supposed to go to the bottom of the page.
:Second... The comments need to be sourced. It looks like you've got one for including the information here. Are the like comments at Nite Owl referenced or just there? Also keep in mind that there may be sources pointing to each of the two characters show some of Batman's characteristics. - J Greb (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Character Parallelism

message: Short before Rorschach is killed by Jon, there is a big panel on the top of a page with a close-up of his mask. In said panel the mask's ink is reproducing almost exactly the picture Kovacs made about his nightmare when he was 13 (one body, two heads, two arms and four legs). I think this is a symbol of sex or male-female union, but since wikipedia doesn't allow original research, I wonder if this has been stated or analysed somewhere else. Thank you.89.131.127.92 (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what scene you're talking about.  That's actually a parallel with the previous page, where Dan and Laurie are coupling/embracing in Karnak.  (I thought this added a phenomenal kind of sadness to the whole thing--Dan and Laurie have each other, but at that point, Rorschach's lost what comraderie he had regained with Dan and is completely alone again.) 12.36.8.62 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexuality reprise

message: someone earased most of this page. it was much bigger last time i checked. ido not know how to fix this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TripleA AAA (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it was vandalised. The user who erased is a notable member, but I think he just wanted the article to include only notable content and exclued in-universe style writing. That should have been taken care of with a rewrite and not a wholesale deletion. That just kills any substance to the article. If the content is that small, then why create a seperate page for it? I undid the revision. 67.189.165.70 (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it looks like WesleyDodds reverted that change. I'm not going to turn this into a revert war. Hopefully one of the admins will notice this. He thinks the content isn't notable. I disagree. A significant portion of the bio gives context to the character. Especially with a movie coming out, the bio is indeed notable. 67.189.165.70 (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  If so little is written about the character, it makes no sense to have a separate page. It should be merged into the Characters List page for the comic or a shorter summary is needed. A shorter history would constitute fair use and I've seen character bios with enough detail that still manages to have a reasonable size. The deletion of the entire section is stupid. 67.189.165.70 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this should probably be redirected as well. indopug (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: is Rorschach the only Watchmen character to have his own individual article left?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.212.84 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its Editor favoritism, ala the guy thats doing it loves Rorschach to the point of deleting all the other characters for bs reasonings yet the Rorschach article falls guilty to those same reasons. 76.2.143.146 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This one was deleted as well but it keeps getting restored. I see no need for it. Lots42 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please keep in mind Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith. Lots42 (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 

message: -Nothing is known of the biological father other than the fact that his name was "Charlie" and that he frequently spoke in favor of Harry Truman.
  
- Rorschach is a very calm, methodical investigator and is capable of withstanding great physical discomfort. Unmasked, he had a physically unattractive face with a blank, unblinking stare. He was polite but aloof and humorless towards allies and enemies alike. Rorschach is described as speaking in a monotone voice. His speech pattern typically consists of sentence fragments and zero article grammar. He bathed infrequently and wore lifts in his shoes to increase his 5'6" stature. Rorschach was generally disliked by everyone except Dan Drieberg.   
- During the failed Crimebusters meeting in a flashback, however, he was shown to speak normally, indicating that his characteristic speech pattern was adopted after his perceived mental breakdown following a kidnapping affair that he handled in 1977. Another instance when Rorscach appeared to speak normally was during his frequent visits to a newsstand. He was remembered by the newsstand owner as a "prophet of doom" signboard carrier (a guise Kovacs took during the daytime). One of these visits was seen in an early chapter long before it was revealed that this then unnamed character was actually Rorschach.Mr. ATOZ (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 'unmasked' sentence is original research. The rest is just fancruft. True facts but fancruft. Lots42 (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please explain how the following removed text is considered original research. 

message: Is this true? I have yet to see evidence of this  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.251.16 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DC Universe Online? 

message: I have uploaded an image of Rorschach in the new Watchmen film and replaced the old one. Sha-Sanio (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: The article currently states that Dr. Manhattan created the fabric that became Rorschach's face, but the comic itself says it was from the "Dr. Manhattan line".  To me that says it was marketed using Manhattan's name, not created by Manhattan himself (especially because I can't imagine Osterman giving a damn about fabric).  Thoughts? 72.83.180.155 (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The material should be presented as indicated by the source. If the source says that, then that's what the article should indicate. Nightscream (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of mask

message: Life before Watchmen
Some incorrect punctuation and a missing word . . . .
Please change -- "bearable but unpleasant". -- to -- "bearable but unpleasant."  (punctuation goes inside quotes)
Please change -- "always changing, never mixing into grey". -- to -- "always changing, never mixing into grey."  (punctuation goes inside quotes)
Please change -- His investigations brought him an abandoned dressmaker's shop. -- to -- His investigations brought him to an abandoned dressmaker's shop.  (add word "to" to sentence)
Please change -- the kidnapper, Grice. had fed the girl to his dogs. -- to -- the kidnapper, Grice, had fed the girl to his dogs.  (replace misplaced period with a comma)
Please change -- "Kovacs pretending to be Rorschach", and became "Rorschach pretending to be Kovacs". -- to -- "Kovacs pretending to be Rorschach," and became "Rorschach pretending to be Kovacs."  (punctuation goes inside quotes - twice)
This should qualify as a minor edit Garbagemania (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the "to" in your third example and fixed the punctuation in your fourth. However, punctuation only goes inside quotes if the punctuation is part of the quoted material (see MOS) so I haven't changed them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Life before Watchmen section 

message: As stated in my edit summary, every other character's article has been reverted to a redirect to that page; it isn't fair that Rorschach is the only character that gets a 'full' page. HalfShadow 03:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: More out-of-universe information exists for this character than for the other ones. It's not about fairness, it's about the level of out-of-universe dissemnated information. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Nothing is something "unfair" to a fictional character.  Not even Ozymandias' towering ego will mind.  The problem is that when you merge a page into another you generally have to cut content to prevent unbalancing the destination article.  There is sufficient non-trivial information about R to merit the article being the size it is now, so leave it be.  Please see the first and last lines of the introductory text to see why Rorschach merits his own page. - BalthCat (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. What does "fairness" have to do with a fictional character? For that matter, how does this pertain to Wikipedia policy? Are the rest of these fictional characters complaining, or something? Nightscream (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted article to redirect to [[Characters of Watchmen]] article 

message: I have removed Dr Long's theory about Rorschach's motivations as they are completely irrelevant.  That journal entry was clearly showed to illustrate that the doc is beginning to worry about what he is going to find out and is not ready to hear it ("case closed").  It doesn't say anything about Rorschach as indeed we find out a few pages later that the doc was wrong. Mentioning it as an alternative theory is confusing and misleading Mezigue (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The doctor's theories might perhaps be mentioned in his section/article. --Michael C. Price talk 13:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where/how exactly was he proven wrong? Nightscream (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We know he was wrong about Moloch's murder.  No evidence he was right about Kitty's. --Michael C. Price talk 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The "evidence" is internal, as it is in all good yarns. Rorschach is presented as being initially quite rational (see Nite Owl II's assessment), which erodes during the course of his career.  Since the Kitty incident was at the start of his career, his recollection of it is presumably correct.--Michael C. Price talk 17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interpretation, which would violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. My point is that Alan Moore makes no unambiguous indication in the story that Long's diagnosis is incorrect. For this reason, it should be included. Nightscream (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Course he does.  This is all before the doc hears the story about the butchered kid and actually understands what Rorschach is all about.Mezigue (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

text: In no way, but I don't buy the bit about Kitty being imaginary either.  That is just intended to show how dismissive the psychologist is about reality he finds uncomfortable. He can only, at that stage, understand someone becoming a masked vigilante for Freudian reasons. However he later accepts Kitty's reality (diary entry 27th October). --Michael C. Price talk 11:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm suprised this is even a debate. When I read the story I felt it was quite clear what happened to Kitty was true and Long's diagnosis was correct. Genoveses's murder is what initially made Kovacs to decide to pursue a career as a vigilante. However the Doctor's also correct when he says that the "flimsy story about Kitty Genovese" is just there for him to justify his behaviour to himself. I don't think he meant the story was untrue when he said it was flimsy, just that it's unlikely that that single incident was Rorschach's sole motivation. Long thinks it's more likely he's acting out against injustice because of the injustice he faced as a child. Upon hearing what happened to Genoverse he decided to use that as an reason to go out and beat up criminals because it sounds better than saying "I beat up criminals because my mother beat me as a child."Ash Loomis (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I never implied that the Genovese story was untrue or "imaginary". My position is that we should include all relevant information on this point, including the fact the diary entry in which Michael points out that Long accepts the reality of the Genovese incident (which I didn't recall when I first edited that passage). No matter how you slice it, when Michael says things like "I don't buy the bit..." or when Ash says "I felt it was quite clear...", what you're doing is explaining your personal interpretation, and this is not appropriate for inclusion. What we should do is include all information pertaining to Kovacs' psychology. Whether this should be in the aforementioned section, or in one that we create devoted to this, we should just list all the scenes, lines of dialogue, etc., that explicitly touch upon this point, and let the reader make their own interpretation. Putting our own in the article violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Nightscream (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We were getting our wires crossed then.  Although I can't help wondering whether such psychological analysis should appear in Dr Long's section? --Michael C. Price talk 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kitty Genovese 

message: Rorschach is too poor and too crazy to be a master in any martial art. He is a powerful, intimidating street fighter, with a background in boxing and gymnastics. That's it. He also happens to be a short, wiry cagey little man who is surprisingly strong and tough. He isn't Captain America, for chrissakes. His physical condition is hardly 'peak'. Furthermore, what qualifies Rorschach as "possessing surprisingly good detective skills"? He does very little detective work in the comic, and when he does, he jumps to conclusions, and disregards other theories. Sounds more like opinion to me. Someone should revert these changes.
:His conclusions are generally correct. --Michael C. Price talk 19:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Master martial artist"? "Peak human ability"?

message: This seems very debatable. The main Watchmen article uses the wording "obvious super powers" and that seems more accurate to the series. While only Doctor Manhattan has obvious super powers, it would seem that the others are more than just good fighters. Silk Spectre is a diminutive girl with an attractive but not chiseled physique who fights unarmored in a costume made of soft cloth. But she is able to defeat multiple rioting violent prisoners bare-handed. Even a well developed martial artist would find such a feet difficult on a good day, let alone while presumably out of practice. Her father, The Comedian is a super-soldier and yet carries no more weaponry than the average soldier. It seems that "realism" would dictate he survived being America's second best weapon against the Vietnamese by more than just his tall stature and possession of a gun (traits many “regular” soldiers have). We do not really know who Rorschach's father is. Rorschach's father could well have been a "super" himself, and so like Silk Spectre II, inherited some enhanced DNA that enables him to defeat multiple much larger opponents with little more than his bare-hands and the tools of his environment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.240.116 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Like most characters in Watchmen, Rorschach has no "super powers".?

message: People, our job is to make a plot summary of what Rorschach does during the comic, not to elaborate in every detail of it.  We do not, for instance, need to say what Rorschach said to the prisoners after he threw hot fat over the prisoner.  In fact, I'm not sure if we even need to mention that event.  We can just say that the prisoners rioted and during that riot Big Figure tried to kill him, but failed. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Nightscream (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much detail 

message: Has it ever been speculated that Rorschach might be a psychopath that eventually became a vigilante out of guilt? There are numerous aspects of his story that point to this.
1- He had an abusive childhood.
2- He was bullied.
3- Was put in a special home due to fight with bullies.
4- Kitty Genovese rejected the dress he made, saying it was ugly, and she was murdered soon after.
5- Blair Roche was kidnapped and killed by a dressmaker. Rorschach was also a dressmaker/tailor.
6- The Rorschach Test is described on Wikipedia, in part, as follows: "It has been employed in diagnosing underlying thought disorder and differentiating psychotic from nonpsychotic thinking in cases where the patient is reluctant to admit openly to psychotic thinking."
7- The "Rorschach inkblot" mask he wears is used to conceal his "identity", in fact he considers the mask his actual face, as if he was trying to hide something about himself, a psychotic nature?
8- Rorschach is also strongly against the idea of keeping the truth hidden from the public. When you take the above into consideration, it is similar to a psychological trait I forget the name of, where one openly objects to something that they are secretly in favor of or secretly involved with (for example, someone who is against gay marriage and gay rights who is actually secretly gay, etc.).
I'm wondering if this has been speculated among Watchmen fans? Thanks 70.48.76.127 (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those things are exclusive to psychopaths. In any event, material can only be included if there are reliable, verifiable sources to support it. Nightscream (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, psychopaths do not suffer from guilt. --Michael C. Price talk 22:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree the description is inaccurate. Does the book have a character describing him as such? --Michael C. Price talk 01:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rorschach a guilt-ridden psychopath/murderer? 

message: I do not know why somebody reverted my changes and put back the bit about nihilism.  I have re-reverted.  Numerous cites attach Rorschach's creation to Objectivism.  Honestly, if somebody wanted to remove the claim that he is an objectivist, I wouldn't care.  Feel free.  However, there are no cites I know of for that bizarre "life is meaningless and a blank canvasse" stuff.  --Bertrc (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the nihilism claims, again.  In the interest of consensus, I also removed the objectivism claim.  The claim about meaninglessness and blank canvasses needs secondary sources, hence my deletion of it as  OR.  Interpretations of Rorschach's psyche based on what he wrote in his journal are practically thesis material -- What does he believe?  What does he come to believe?  Do his beliefs in chapter 6 reflect his true or wishful or earlier or final beliefs? -- we shouldn't be claiming what he truly believes unless there are good, reputable sources.  (IMHO)  --Bertrc (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivism vs Nihilism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Rorschach (comics). 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  tag to http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/081107k.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007003510/http://www.eagleawards.co.uk/category/previous-winners/1988/ to http://www.eagleawards.co.uk/category/previous-winners/1988
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150325104853/http://www.mania.com/before-watchmen-rorschach-1-comic-review_article_133908.html to http://www.mania.com/before-watchmen-rorschach-1-comic-review_article_133908.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130412023705/http://vip.usaweekend.com/2009/03/watchmens-jackie-earle-haley-on-playing-rorschach/ to http://vip.usaweekend.com/2009/03/watchmens-jackie-earle-haley-on-playing-rorschach
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016150724/http://skew.dailyskew.com/2012/08/before-watchmen-reviews-august-2012.html to http://skew.dailyskew.com/2012/08/before-watchmen-reviews-august-2012.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The name of the infobox section is "abilities" not "character traits." Hence "will" and "unpredictability" (whatever those may refer to) are not relevant. Nor is it necessary to repeat one ability in various forms. (e.g. his "tactical brilliance" is on display precisely when he uses improvised weapons.) In general, it is not the place for editors to gush about how awesome Rorschach is in every way. 67.180.143.210 (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Abilities

message: This new character is barely notable, could we pleace move it away from the main article into a smaller section? Kovacs is the version of the character which people actually cover. Seeing "the name of two fictional characters" is painful to read, it implies the two are of equal notability. Several people have held the Batman cape and the Superman mantle, they're still not worth mentioning in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article.★Trekker (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reggie Long cruft 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 14:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Rorschach (character) →  – There are now two characters using the name Rorschach; the other is Rorschach (Reggie Long). NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 May 2023 

message: I do not believe that the "Reggie Long" version of the character meets GNG. Its article is a brief lead, a one sentence "publication history", and one short paragraph "reception" to go with mostly "fictional character biography". As it is so linked with the Kovacs character, it should be merged here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Rorschach (Reggie Long)]] into [[Rorschach (character)]]