Were the two boys from his childhood the detectives?

I'm thinking nope. If they were, that fact would have been presented more prominently in the GN. Quiscustodiet 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I once wondered the same thing. It's possible, but there's nowhere near enough evidence to even suggest it on the wiki. -- Supermorff 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


New topic: I think that we should be using images of the characters from the GN, not the movie, as their primary pictures. Quiscustodiet 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not all that bothered. Especially with the film just days away, I think there's something to be said for having film pictures up so that new users - perhaps introduced to Watchmen through the movie - will feel more comfortable. After a while we can make the GN pics more prominent. Although if you feel strongly about it, go ahead and make the change. -- Supermorff 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How does he see?

does anybody wonder how he actually sees through his mask? Yojimbo and diagoro 20:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Kinda. Some property of the fabric, I guess. -- Supermorff 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I spose yet it doesnt actually mention it within the comicYojimbo and diagoro 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you can see through the fabric when it is close to your eyes, of course depending on how porous it is. MoffRebus 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

this page is looking a little clutered the pictures here need to be structured a little betterYojimbo and diagoro 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you do it yourself or not? MoffRebus 00:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Major cleanup...

This page is really a jumble of material that belongs all through the wiki. I'll apply some time to it as I have but one of the more senior editors might want to tackle a major reorganization. NitroPress 01:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I question the final part of the "death and legacy" section. That about his character, role and symbolism. I read it a couple of times but I don't think that I understand a thing. I even attempted to rewrite some of it in a simpler language but no good with that. It's seems pure OR and POV. MoffRebus 12:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This page needs serious editing. The format of this happened, then this, then this is perhaps more appropriate for 6th grade book reports.


How fruitful is it to include the dig at Moore, when it's pointed out immediately prior that the school of Anarchic thought he subscribes to is unclear? It seems like a superfluous nudge at Moore being "wrong," when it admits just prior it lacks all of the facts.(And does anyone REALLY think it's more likely he's in favour of anarcho-capitalism?)FangsFirst 03:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's all in how you read it. If you're a fan of Moore, you're going to see him being snubbed, and if you aren't, you're going to see it as a fair statement.
Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talkcontribsemail) 05:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a big grumpy Moore fan, and will shruggingly admit when he catches himself in an inanity, but this just seemed designed by someone who doesn't like him actively, rather than someone reporting a fact, because it isn't quite a fact, as the paragraph itself admits. Anyone who peruses Moore's work could see that associating him with anarcho-capitalism when he says "anarchism" is ludicrous and nonsensical--hence it reading like an ignorant attack, as it is based on one vague quote, which goes on to admit the vagueness and then say, "Oh, but if he means this one which he may or may not mean, he's ignorant and actually advocates what he just said he's against (if he meant that, and if he didn't this whole statement is pointless)!"
More importantly, it sets up a false dichotomy: there's no such delineation of "anarcho-syndicalism" and "anarcho-capitalism" as the only possible schools of thought implied by the word "anarchism." I've been sitting here trying to think up a proper analogy, but it's not coming to me.
All of this together makes it read an awful lot like someone set out to make Moore look like a fool to me, and I have no great investment in Moore. I understood, from what I've read of his work and from the context of the comment itself, that reading "anarcho-capitalism" into it makes absolutely no sense at all. Hell, anarcho-capitalism is almost never associated with the un-modified form of "anarchism." Why not social anarchism? Collectivist anarchism? Individualist anarchism? In fact, under the heading of "Anarchist Schools of Thought", it's only a sub division of contemporary free market anarchism, and considered a "contemporary development."
Just saying.
FangsFirst 06:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
If you feel strongly about it, change it. It's a wiki afer all. I thought it was weird too, but I don't really know and/or care enough to edit. -- Supermorff 17:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


The latest edit by...wait...really? A swastika? Is my browser displaying something weird? Um, anyway, so, the latest edit changes the graphic novel events to the movie events. Is there a declared preference of one over the other somewhere? Somewhere to note the variances between the two, rather than just delete the graphic novel's events in favour of the movie's (or vice versa)? FangsFirst 06:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Both should be included. My preference is for the graphic novel's info primarily, with a section (probably entitled ==Film==) included lower down, describing any differences. -- Supermorff 17:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, they should, which is why I dropped it under "Other Media," though of course "==Film==" might be a better choice.FangsFirst 17:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I wasn't aware that the graphic novel took priority and I fully agree in noting differences. 23:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I suspected it was a simple matter, it just seemed that the greater amount of background and story info for the gn would give it precedent, and figured if nothing else it was safer to revert it but store your valid info for later dissemination (if my chosen location was no good, which I fully realize it may be). FangsFirst 01:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Given the comments of a young Walter regarding his father, is there any possibility of the Comedian being in actual fact the biological DaDa of Rorschach? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osyrys (talkcontribs)

Which comments specifically are you talking about? -- Supermorff 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Very very unlikely „Charlie" Kovacs' father was keen on Truman given the Comedians later political leanings it is doubtful he would have been a fan of Harry S. Although it could be that his father was just a john and even his mother wasn't too sure who he was. Unfunny 12:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Speech Bubbles

I noticed a few things about Rorschach's wiggly speech bubbles.

1. When he is not wearing his mask, he has normal speech bubbles.

2. When he is wearing his mask but has it partially pulled up to eat, he has the wiggly speech bubbles.

3. In the flashback relating to the Crimebusters (This flashback takes place before he "became Rorschach"), he both speaks in full sentences and has normal speech bubbles.

I think that the speech bubbles are caused by him intentionally changing his voice while he is wearing his mask, and not caused by the mask itself. After his "face" was taken away, he felt no need to use his "voice" anymore. --The mouse that roared 21:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read somewhere about that and it seems a sound speculation. I think it should be included in the article. MoffRebus 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Should it be noted that in the Graphic Novel he wore platform shoes? I distinctively recall a policeman calling him a "runt" and saying he wore platform shoes. I'd find the direct quote, but a friend borrowed the book from me. Cerebral plague 20:21, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

If you can find the reference, then yes that would probably be worth mentioning! -- Supermorff 13:07, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
In the film, he was also visibly shorter than at least two of his colleagues; Adrian and Nite Owl. Xeno the Hedgehog 18:18, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


I don't think the article says enough about the irony, or in some cases hypocrisy, of Rorschach's actions and words. For instance, in his essay "my parents" he states that he admires President Truman's decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on the grounds that if those lives had not been lost, the war would have continued. Then at the end of the series, he denounces Veidt's plan, despite the fact that its purpose and consequences are largely identical to that of Truman's actions. Furthermore, Rorschach's death could be seen as a form of compromise, as his death was a means of silencing the only party involved that would have divulged the truth, yet he had mailed his journal to the New Frontiersman. Alternatively, Rorschach's insistence that Manhattan kill him could also serve multiple purposes, including, but not limited to, allowing Rorschach to keep their secret without actually agreeing to do so, justifying Manhattan's image as a murderer (at least in the film), and perhaps removing the last perceived blemish from Veidt's "utopia". Your thoughts? Xeno the Hedgehog 18:17, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think you point is very valid, and it would be great to have more info on this, but I don't think I could add anything quite as cogently and concisely as you have done. Why not add it to the article yourself, wherever you feel appropriate? -- Supermorff 11:10, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

== Headline text ==Villain Category Statues

Should he be categorized as a villain? He may have been a mentally ill vigilante but he was still a hero. He even told Dr. Manhattan to kill him when he knew he couldn't go on knowing what happened without telling the world what Adrian did, so he gave up his life so the world could live in peace (albeit one based on lies). (Jman321 (talk) 04:06, January 2, 2018 (UTC))