Talk:Joker (character)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Real Name

Although it is never stated in the movie, the series from which this movie was spun off from has stated on numerous occasions that, in its continuity, The Joker's real name is also Jack Napier.

As for instance? To the best of my recollection, the series mentions the name "Jack Napier" exactly once, and on that occasion it's explicitly described as an alias. --Paul A 06:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it is explicitly stated in the 89 movie that this is his name. Also, various comics have used "Jack" or "Napier" or both as his name in various origins - and it is mentioned twice (once in dialogue) to be his name on the Animated Series. In essence, it serves as a placeholder real name until the comics fully verify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.115.9 (talk • contribs) at 04:46, August 3, 2006

It doesn't work that way, GIPU. Look at Deadpool and Rogue (comics). The movie has no baring on comics continuity and, in fact, any of-hand references were likely just that. Look at Ultimate Wolverine Vs. Hulk#Trivia. At best, it can be argued that his name might be Jack, but honestly, that's Jack. Until DC's ready to give the bastard a solid original and past, the name's out. Futhermore, it's not an offucial alias, either. Lastly, sign your freaking comments. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've recently read Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth and it seems heavily alluded to that The Joker is Amadeus Arkham. Eluchil 08:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can't Jack Napier be on as an alias? they've used it for him, that much counts. Why Should it not be mentioned? Nathen

Because it's not significant in the Comics continuity. That one author used it as his alias in a nod to the movie is not significant. Creative teams on comics often seek to insert simple nods and jokes, but if we included every one, we'd haveto go through every time Joker's used any sort of culturally related alias. As I recall he's used the real names of some of the Marx Bros., and buster keaton. That would all be trivial at best. Until the editors give us a name, indexing his aliases is probably a bad idea.ThuranX 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He's not a serial killer

While he has certainly murdered countless people, he has never been portrayed as committing murder to satisfy a violent and/or sexual compulsion, which is required to qualify him as a serial killer. Treybien, 23:08 15 April (UTC)

First off, your definition is wrong. Second, "The Joker doesn't have a violent compulsion"? is that what you're saying? If so, I gotta ask, what next? Lex Luther doesn't want to bone the same women as Supes? Sinestro wasn't corrupted by power? Black Manta isn't Black?! Ace Class Shadow 06:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more of a compulsion towards morbid humor than actual violence. I probably haven't read as many of the comics as you guys, but I always got the impression that he enjoyed the jokes more than the violence.--Vercalos 07:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Further research into the definition of serial killer makes me agree though.. Joker more closely fits into the category of a 'spree killer' rather than a serial killer(as the Joker is always the Joker, with one exception).--Vercalos 07:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

um, mass murderer for sure. he does seem to have an overarching theme to his sprees, however: that of luring Batman into a duel of sorts, with the repeatedly stated intention of Batman's demise. i classified him as a mass murderer. Gilgamesh Rex 08:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Andy Dick for Joker

Director Christopher Nolan should cast Andy Dick as The Joker in BATMAN BEGINS 2.

• • Wikipedia is not a bulletin board or chatroom. IceDrake523

pictures

Can't we replace that Alex Ross painting with something better? I hate that brain dead liberal's mediocre paintings... every painting he does is a horrid knockoff of some better artist.

Sounds like you have a political reason why you don't like his work, rather than a constructive argument. Alex Ross' paintings are popular because they're realistic, and that realism is appealing to people (sometimes the more realistic something looks, the more believable they tend to be to the reader). But, if you don't like it, then what did you have in mind? Search around and find a better picture.--Kelly Chartier 07:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to have the main/top picture replaced, because it's too realistic. For me, a comic book character should "look" like a comic book character. When they become as realistic as Alex Ross makes them, they just lose their comic book charm. In my opinion, the picture from The Killing Joke by Bryan Bolland (seen later in the article) would fit much better. Or maybe the cover of the same story (Where he has a camera and says "Smile").

You make an interesting point. The mythological idea of comic book characters is incredibly important to the genre, but there are many different ways of artisticly portreying the characters (the most popular movement for comic book artists tends to be a contemporary version of art nouveau). If you don't think that Alex Ross does a very good job of depicting the personality behind the character, then I agree with you, but if your argument is stimply that realism shouldn't be an artistic method in portreying the character, then I disagree with you (many mythological characters not within the comic book genre have been depicted in realism and don't lose their "charm", so there is potential that is not quite met yet). I personally don't think that the cover of The Killing Joke should be used because it doesn't show the whole face of the character. I'm not sure what picture should be used, but it should be one that shows the face of the character without an obstruction).--Kelly Chartier 13:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.fanboyreview.com/images/Gotham%20Central%2013.jpg Check out that cover (Gotham Central #13). Were somebody to edit out the rest of the cover, this could be a good choice for a new mainpage image. Personally, I love Alex Ross' work, but I've never felt that his interpretation of the Joker was particularly good at capturing the essence of the character... Ross makes him too vampiric, while Lee and Sale both make him too inhuman... I think this is a good version of the character.

Well, everyone's going to have a different opinion. I think Ross makes the Joker look too much like Jack Nicholson (sp?), and that sorta destracts me from the fictional character to a living actor. To each their own. The picture you chose is fine, though I am concerned that cropping the part needed would make the image very small.--Kelly Chartier 07:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps that last page out of Hush. You know...Now That's how you make an entrance! SMegatron 11:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Mike Deodato piece next to powers and abilities would be perfect I think. Just switch them, maybe? Odowla 4:55, July 19, 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. You just linked to files on IGN. Also, is this really necessary? Aside from using a full-body image, I don't know how a change would especially help. Maybe a gallary. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ahem. You just linked to files on IGN." I've yet to edit images onto Wikipedia so I'm kinda confused on why what I did is a bad thing. Is there something I'm not getting? Did I break a rule? "Also, is this really necessary?" No, but it seems that some people want to change the image because they don't like it, my problem is that no one is changing it. A gallary is a nice idea, but I don't know how to do that and I don't know if that'll satisfy people. I suppose my idea of a vote was a bad one, my bad. =P --Kelly Chartier 03:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily bad, but they were mislinked. I don't think it breaks any rules. It was just unsightly. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not terribly fond of the Ross image either. Though I'm not a registered Wikipedian, I would strongly suggest the Brian Bolland image from The Killing Joke that we have on this page. It's a clear portrayal of the Joker's insanity, it shows him as he is most frequently portrayed (with the purple suit), and it's a critical moment in the Joker's history. I even think the "Hahahaha"s in the background add to his image as an evil clown. 12:18, 1 October 2006

Super-crazy

In Elseworlds: Distant Fires, after a nuclear holocost all the superheroes who had powers survived but lost their powers, and all who had no powers were dead. The Joker was alive but sane.

In Amalgam: Marvel vs. DC, the Joker recognized Spider Man, and even criticized him changing his costume even thogh Spider Man had never (in this plot line) been in the DC universe - he had been plucked from one universe to another.

This suggests that the Joker's insanity is a super power. I'm going to try to write it up.Harvestdancer 22:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Joker had been in the DC Universe, when he and Carnage teamed-up in the Batman/Spider-Man crossover.

You mean Joker has been in the MARVEL universe right?

• Right

Also note that in the same Marvel vs DC comic, the Green Lantern and the Silver Surfer mention that they previously worked together to save their corresponding universes, a reference to a crossover in which they were starring in (one that also showed the "box" of Marvel vs DC in its epilogue). It's entirely possible and fully logical that the Joker remembers Spiderman for the same reason the Green Lantern and Silver Surfer remember each other. Spiderman might not remember the Joker because there were two people donning the Spiderman mask at the time, it could've been that different Spidermans were in the two crossovers. Then again it is not made clear if the Spiderman in Marvel vs DC is who - Reilly or Parker.

---

"Well, it's really Ben Reilly, but my professional name is Peter Parker, so I guess that's what you can call me." - Ben in Marvel Vs. DC

No comic awareness for Joker in this case, just Clone Saga stuff. It's Ben in Marvel Vs. DC, and Peter in the Spidey/Batman crossover books before it, hence Joker's comment. It's just made needlessly complicated in Marvel Vs. DC, as Ben starts working for the Daily Planet using Peter's name (and still with brown hair).

---

Another point may be that due to what one writer described as a super sanity, Joker may be IMMUNE to the changes due to Crisis and Zero Hour. His so-called Insanity may help him remember events and even if he talks about them Bats and everyone else would just call him crazy.

---

Just want to point out, the Elseworlds are completely diferent realities from the regular DCUniverse. If we are to use the Elseworlds to prove if the insanity is a super power, I'd like to refer you to Act of God. A purple light causes all super powered beings (good and bad) to lose their powers, leaving the superheroes and supervillians with no powers, but with technology, still active. Joker, in the imploy of Lex Luthor, abducts Booster Gold, Blue Beetle and another hero for experiments. Here the Joker is just as nuts as ever.

It is NOT Amalgam... thats why i edited the damn thing. DC vs Marvel led to the amalgam universe but they are not the same thing! WookMuff

The Batman: Joker origins

"Most recently, a very different version of the character appeared in the new animated series The Batman. No explanation for this Joker's origin has yet been given, "

I just watched an episode of The Batman in which Joker has a flashback of himself falling into a vat of chemicals, while ranting about an over-controlling "Boss" "Pushing him over the edge".

I have such a poor memory that I can't remember the name of the episode, or all the relevant details, but suffice it to say, the origin has at least been hinted at. -This episode was the first part of what is I presume a two parter showing the origin of clayface. Luckily I have it Tivo'd so I will be able to have all those details available shortly.

• It's episode 12 of the first season, called "The Rubberface of Comedy". It's the one were he uses his a slight variation of his "infamous" line, saying "All it takes is one rotten day..." and so on. However, I don't recall him saying anything about a over-controling boss "pushing him over the edge". Even if he did, I would think he would be refering to Ethan's issues with his boss, and not to himself. Hecko 04:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Porn star

There also is a Porn star by the name Jack Napier (porn star). --Abdull 10:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Assorted

Flash#53 has Wally West speculate that the Joker is a sexual invert.

Aside from that, Deadman could not possess the Joker due to his insanity in a time-travel story.

Killing Joke

hmm is Killing Joke thought of as an elseworld these days?

I don't think so. there's nothing in killing joke that conflicts with the today's batman story. and with no killing joke, how does barbara gordon become wheelchair bound? if you're speaking of joker's origin, remember, it would seem that not even he knows his origin, for sure. he says something about it being "multiple choice." --R66y 12:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't need the entire story to be canon; just the idea that she got shot through the spine and sexually assaulted. --Chris Griswold 14:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the Joker's insanity prevents him from remembering any single past before his accident, and that the flashbacks in "The Killing Joke" could have simply been fabrications of a truth... The idea that he doesn't really know who he is seems to be a recurring theme. --Dont Waltz 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Where has it been suggested? I have never read this, nor have I read his not knowing his own identity. --Chris Griswold 01:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another...If I’m going to have a past, I prefer it to be 'multiple choice!' HA HA HA!" taken from the Wikipedia article. I don't know how being photographed nude equels sexual assault, but let's move on.

The Killing Joke is effective canon, yes. Just check the article. The Joker cannot correctly remember anything before his accident for certain, either. If he could, he might be more interested in trying to go back to whatever life he lived. ACS (Wikipedian) 01:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What the article says is "much of the Joker's story from "The Killing Joke" was confirmed as being correct (since the events were observed and reported by a third party—Riddler—with no reason to lie)." The Joker's story, yes. But not the entire story. For instance, Batman's laughing at the end is very probably not canonical. It's pretty clear the story was not intended to be. --Chris Griswold 04:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit confused by what you mean by 'Batman's laughing at the end is very probably not canonical'.--Joseph Q Publique 07:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Might help to read the article. >.> Batman:_The_Killing_Joke#Plot_summary. The reference is to Batman's laughter at the end of the book, despite the dark themes and serious crimes the Joker has commited. I don't think it's so implausible, but ah well. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I thought it might be referring to that. I just wasn't aware that there was any question over Killing Joke's canonicity (but then, I also thought that Batman was just laughing at the joke the Joker told - I'm naive like that :-)).--Joseph Q Publique 14:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In the TPB JLA:World War III, there's something that leads me to believe it's canon (I can't say what because it would give away a plot twist in one of the adventures). Also, Barbara Gordon's paralyzed. If Killing Joke isn't canon, then how do they explain that? Evernut 16:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The main events of The Killing Joke are canon. You're right, Barbara's paralyzed. What's debatable is the canonicity of the flashbacks regarding the Joker's origin. Even within The Killing Joke, the Joker says that sometimes he remembers it one way, sometimes another. Doczilla 16:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Regenerative powers?

In comic message boards it's often speculated that the Joker has romantic feelings for Batman. I've found some evidence that supports this like:

• In Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns the Joker repeatedly refered to Batman as "my sweet" and "sweetie" in Miller's. Les Daniels also commented on this in the history of Batman as well as his lipstick wearing. There is also a supposed backstory that I haven't found where the Joker actually raped Jason Todd before killing him.
• In Brian Azzarello's Broken City story arc he stated "I love surprises almost as I love you" to Batman.
• In Mask of The Phantasm he comments on Batman being cute.
• In Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth: he slaps Batman's ass, tries to grill him on his relationship with Robin, wears high heels and wants him to admit he's just like him as well as make him live in the same "house".
• Though it is not a sign that he's gay he frequently denies Harley Quinn sexual attention.
• Theres also his constant complimenting of Batman and remarking how they're two of a kind.

These are the ones I can think off the top of my head but I remember seeing many more, can anyone provide me with more sources that support this theory?

In "The Long Halloween" which is in current DC continuity, the Joker playfully asks Batman for a kiss before being punched out by Batman in the New Year's volume of the story arc.

It's also been theorized that he may have Green Goblin/Wolverine style regenerative powers. In nearly every comic I've read with his he gets those huge teeth of his knocked out and he has survived so many near deaths and normally fatal wounds yet he appears the next time not only fully recovered but spry as a spring. No bullet or stab wounds are shown, he has a full set of teeth and so on. This includes more serious ones such as having a kneecap shattered at the end of No Man's Land. Though this may be true of many comic characters this happens to him too frequently. Is this worthy of an addition to the article?

Its a comic. He's crazy. Why make it more complicated then it actually is. Sunburst 15:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It has to be understood, that these seemingly homesexual attractions aren't sexual, rather showing The Jokers insane obsession with Batman.

Joker's never shown any evidence of Wolverine-style regenerative powers during a fight. There is one simple explanation as to why Joker recovers so well between stories, why the cops don't gun down Joker when he's loose, and why Joker so rarely goes to a SECURE prison (like the Slab). If the writers "disposed" of The Joker, they wouldn't have him handy to use again in the next story line... Therefore, "magic" recoveries". --172.161.243.53 03:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont necessarily think that Joker is homosexual per se. i think that with batman he is just fixated, in the same way that gollum is with the one ring. calling batman his sweetie and such are like gollum calling the ring his precious. hes obsessed. I think there are definitely homosexual undertones, but i feel they are done more as a means of showing how creepy the joker can be and that he is defined by batman, just as batman is by him. again, hes just extremely fixated.

as well, joker is extremely narcissistic. he loves himself and is in love with himself, just like he is with batman. and his fixation is meant to be shown as something unnatural (which im not arguing that homosexuality is or isnt, just that the jokers obsession is) and something that would get under batmans skin, like a taunt.

if that doesnt satisfy you, see the above post. hes nuts.

Dangit... typing in the dark just don't work for me. Aaaaaaaaanyway, all the writers mentioned above are Modern Age-rs through and through, and think nothing of throwing around a little tittilation to get the fanboy's arguing. Just read Morrison on X-Men if you want an example of throwing out continuity and going with whatever the heck you please! Senor Wookmuff, Esquire

No way is Joker gay. He wears pink and green and those two colors should simply never be seen together, and just look at that palid complexion.

Origins of the creation

I don't think the inspiration should be credited to Conrad Veidt's Gwynplaine alone. Jerry Robinson and Bill Finger cited sources like a Coney Island statue and a specific Joker Card.

Yeah I know what you mean, I read in the Les Daniels book the Complete History of Batman these sources have been cited but I don't have the book with me. I remembered the Coney Island head looked a lot like this caricture found in an abandoned building: [[1]].

In looking up pictures of Cesar Romero, I came across a site [2] that reports that there is a dispute as to who created the Joker. Bob Kane apparently denies that Jerry Robinson had anything to do with it. I'm not sure if this needs to be mentioned in the article or not. --GentlemanGhost 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

original research

An awful lot of this Character Analysis section of this article smacks of original research, particularly the material about the symbolic significance of the character and speculation about Friedrich Nietzsche. If these are other than the pet theories of the editor, they need to be sourced. Otherwise, I'd like to start moving the questionable sections off the main page and onto this one. --Misterwindupbird 05:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It is a valid point to make, i may raise the thesis on Everything 2 another date. --Raddicks 21:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Appearances in animation

We need to include information about the Joker's cartoon appearances before Batman: the Animated Series (most notably in Superfriends). I would do it, but my knowledge is lacking in that area. WesleyDodds 01:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Post-Zero Hour, Recent Status

Okay, with all the crap hitting the fan as far as the Joker goes, his origin is becoming more defined while becoming more muddied. Is Leslie Thompkins still his mother? I see that The Further Adventures of the Joker was published in 1990, which puts it squarely in the post-Crisis, pre-Zero Hour malaise of Batman. Now that Joker is confirmed as being the Red Hood, does this mean his name is Jack Napier? Mostly, I'm concerned about his relationship to Leslie Thompkins. Her article is a stub, but both her article and the Joker's article reference her as being his mother. I need either a confirmation of this, or a denial, otherwise I'm chalking it up as lost to Zero Hour. And don't give me any bullshit about Hypertime, it's no longer an editorial option. 06:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Geez-Leslie Thompkins IS NOT HIS MOTHER. That was ONE author's non canonical story in The Further Adventures of The Joker.

Parodies/References

Know parodies/references to the Joker:

• Whiteface
• Violator (comics)

Ubermensch

I think that applying Neitzsche's 'Ubermensch' philosophy to the character of The Joker is an apt one. I'd be willing to do this but I feel that someone with a greater degree of philosophical knowledge would do better.

It would be interesting to connect Nietzsche's view of the Overman, being able to laugh at everything including himself (or even one's own death), with the obvious quality of the Joker's "personality". --Brandon Tiongison 02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Anybody else with an opinion on the matter?

rather than being able to and choosing to laugh at everything including his own death etc. joker appears to be compelled to laugh by his insanity. Gilgamesh Rex 12:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography Help...

I've done all I could with gathering up information from the internet; so, now, I pass the torch to all of those who can add to the comic book and graphic novel bibliography (please keep in mind that they are sorted by date). Please help me on this one.

Also, if anyone has anything to add to the "Bibliography" section - such as a list of all of the animated series episodes the character appeared on - please do. Thanks.--Kelly Chartier 11:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit: The list is getting rather long. I'm not too sure how much of an eye-sore this will be to people - is there any way I can organize this list better? I still want it listed by date, but perhaps this list can be linked to rather than be visible on the info page. Or, maybe there's another way that I'm not familliar with. Thanks.--Kelly Chartier 14:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, it seems that Apostrophe doesn't like my edit. That's fine, I think it looks a bit ugly too - though, I don't know what those abreviations Apostrophe made meant. But, I want to keep the list somehow for collectors. So, to make both of us happy, I'll try to find a way to link to the list, rather than have it on the article.--Kelly Chartier 07:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Those abbreviations refer to other parts of the article. Don't worry about those. See WP:NOR and WP:NPOV for details. Again, don't bother to worry about those. ' 07:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I understand now - thank you.--Kelly Chartier 02:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a conflict: it seems that people don't like my bibliography. One person thought it was biased and unorganized (sorry about the mess, but I think it would be nice for the collectors), and when I separated the bibliography to spare the mess another person thought it should be merged with the main article. Is there a possible way I can make both people happy?--Kelly Chartier 08:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. But someone will be happy depending on the results of the current AfD for the bibliography page. Vote on this if you care. GentlemanGhost 04:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Insanity-induced strength

This is a viable theory, I am thinking. I have heard firsthand accounts of people who had superhuman strength when in an altered state of mind. For example, when my father was younger, he knew a guy who believed he was a werewolf(not a large fellow, in fact rather small), and by the light of the moon, picked up a fencepost from a chain link fence, with cement still attached, and threw it at him and two of his friends. When they returned later, it took all three of them just to lift it.. Also drugs that alter one's mental state make one able to ignore injuries that would normally leave a man unable to move.--Vercalos 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

while quite interesting, still anecdotal. i have also heard similiar stories-anyone checked snopes? and methinks PCP, etc. isn't really an option for the joker... Gilgamesh Rex 09:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

One time on COPS there was this suspect walking around naked, covered in blood, and high on PCP or some such substance (I think it might have been that rapper who killed and partially ate some woman. I read the article on that and it sounded very similar to this incident). At one point, he actually punched a hole through a wooden fence (!) and then tried to climb through it! I was watching with my cousin Mike, and I asked, "What makes him think he can get through that hole!? It's big as holes in fences go, but there's go way he can get through that!". The hole was about a foot long and six inches wide. Anyway, as far as PCP goes, the number of reports of that kind of behavior have been exaggerated, but they have occured. Saying no one has ever displayed violent, superhuman strength while on PCP is like saying no one's ever died from using cocaine. Both have happened. As for insanity-induced strength and endurance, I'm sure if you asked nurses in a psych hospital, they'd have some stories to tell you! However, if you said in the article that The Joker had insanity-induced strength, someone would gripe about it because it wasn't etched in stone by the current Batman writers. Still, I think it's viable theory as well. I also hope that werewolf guy Vercalos's father knew is all right. Evernut 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Batman Continues

Okay, who's really in the running to be the Joker in this movie? Perhaps a greater standard should be appled...like...From now on, I'd like at least one credible source for every name. Ace Class Shadow 18:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree here. Personally, I have never heard of Adam Sandler being in the running. I think it's fair to assume that Lachy Hulme and Paul Bettany do not need sources. Anyway, I've noticed some of my revisions have been deleted because of cultural differences. Living in Britain, Empire Magazine and its readership has lobbied for John C. McGinley and Christopher Eccleston - Jack of Blades

Do we really even need to list canidates? It only seems to encourage name-dropping, all of which are, as mentioned, uncited. Can't we just say that many actors' names have been brought up and leave it at that? --Bacteria 06:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to ideas, but if I thought up and removing the list was plausible I'd have done it long ago. I'm thinking we reformat it other something. Like the cast/hopefuls for the Transformers movie. No one gets on without some source to back up the claim. However, if we just remove it, the names will just keep popping up. Unjustifible Vandalism is one thing, but believe me, no one's more dangerous than a person or group that thinks they're helping. The Anti-Gnome 06:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Being consider for and lobbied for are two very different things. I've added a citation needed tag to the entire list and removed some of them. CovenantD 14:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now that we have decided not to include candidates. I've decided to take Hulme's name off the list as a.)he hasn't been confirmed, b.)other actors are still being mentioned and c.) it will just lead to another stream of links and names without any evidence.--195.93.21.138 00:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Who would you like to see?

Personally, I would like to see Robin Williams in the role. He was already cast as the Joker once, but cheated by Warner and Jack. His cool exterior and subtle neurosis in Insomnia makes him a perfect fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.248.114 (talk • contribs)

No. The Anti-Gnome 23:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul Bettany

This is not a message board. This page is for discussing how to make the article better. --Chris Griswold 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cousin Jack

"(Although this doesn't necessarily imply that his name is Jack, it's possible he would have said Jason, Jacob, or any other myriad of names.)"

Is that really necessary? It's pretty obvious to most fans that the writer was hinting at his name being Jack as opposed to suggesting his name as being Jacob or Jay. I'm deleting it but if anyone proposes a good argument for its placement (other than it simply being a possibilty) than I won't argue if you put it back up.

--Jack of Blades 20:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Several characters in Lieberman's altered Gotham Knights Joker origin also call him Jack (including his wife), so I think that the articleshould at least mention that fact. SMegatron 12:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Caesar Romero Image

I deleted the image romero.jpg That image was replaced by some publicity still. I attempted to recover the original but I'm not a savvy enough wikipedian. wasserperson 06:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Deceased?

Did I miss something here? The local bookstore isn't carrying all of the One Year Later titles, did the Joker die in one of those?

Supposing he did die in an issue I missed, I'm pretty sure it was a "no body, no death" deal so his status could be changed to Unknown.

Simon Beavis

It's because of the explosion thing at the end of Batman 650 that apparently got him. Jason Todd's already been shown to have survived in Nightwing, so I suppose Joker could have survived as well. Anyway, you know what he's like - practically unkillable anyway. SMegatron 09:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He survived that ordeal, because he killed Alexander Luthor at the end of Infinite Crisis #7. 71.112.65.153 08:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we don't know that he doesn't die in that fight because it takes place before the creation of New Earth.--Chris Griswold 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In Batman 655, which came out yesterday July 26, 2006, it appears he dies, although as it is the Joker he'll be back and kicking in 2 issues probably. So, it can be assumed he did die, and thus the article should reflect that.

Why are fan films in the article?

Maybe some people think that mentioning various fan films that portray the Joker is a good idea, but I think it should be removed. That opens the door for any self-serving fan to upload his or her own take on the Joker. I could call myself a version of the Joker with some makeup and a webcam, but that doesn't mean I belong on Wikipedia. I don't care if Keven Smith likes my fan work either. It needs to go.

I agree. Toss it. --Chris Griswold 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Put it in the general fan film article, perhaps, but not here. --GentlemanGhost 21:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. "Batman: Dead End" may technically be a fanfilm, but it was made by professionals using professional-quality equipment and the end result does have professional quality. The short movie is also widely acclaimed and it's quite reasonable to consider it way more significant than a random home video. What is it that excludes it from being mentioned at all in the "in film" section? Because it's short? Because it's not commercial? Where is it defined that only commercial long films are eligible to be mentioned in a "in film" section? I think that you are staring too much into the name "fanfilm" and making a too strong assumption that it means the same as "home video". Batman: Dead End is far far beyond being a petty "home video".

Let's look at it the other way: Why is Tim Burton's film eligible for this section? Because it's commercial? Because it's a long film? What? Those arguments are just ridiculous. Quality cannot be a measurement because Batman: Dead End may arguably be considered to have even higher quality than Burton's Batman film. Moreover, why is the 60's TV series eligible for being mentioned in the article? Commerciality again? What is it that makes it so different from Dead End that it can be mentioned in the article but the latter can't? Your arguments just don't make any sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.2.66 (talk • contribs)

Burton's film is in there because of it's cultural significance. That's the same reason that the fanfilm doesn't belong, in my opinion. It's not a matter of "commercial" status or budget or even quality, but the overall impact on society. CovenantD 15:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How much impact does the Dead End movie have to have on society (even if it's limited to the internet) before it can be considered eligible? Or is having impact outside the internet a mandagory prerequisite?

Fan films are about as notable as blogs or amateur poetry. There aren't any real commercial or editorial gatekeepers to establish them as worthwhile, so in order to establishe their worthiness, you have to work a little harder. How much money has it earned? How much has the non-comics-related press covered it? Did it springboard the creators to success? --Chris Griswold 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If those were truely valid measurements, then many of the other mentions in media would be removed too. For instance, I have hard time believing some obscure comic or animation series or a guest appearance in a series (such as The New Scooby-Doo Movies) has got such a press coverage as Batman: Dead End has got (unless internet publications don't count, for whatever reason; however I don't think many real-life press has published many reviews on many of the cartoons or comics mentioned in the main article). The wikipedia page about Batman: Dead End mentions some of the achievements the movie has made, as well as mentioning the success of the movie's director on getting known. You can't seriously claim this is "just a fanfilm" like any other home-made video. There's a clear difference, in both quality and its impact on the online society and beyond (given that the movie was, after all, published first in a big Comic Con).

Those are valid measurements for fan films. New Scooby Movies is a Hanna Barbera cartoon that aired on broadcast TV and now cable. It's available on several Scooby-Doo DVDs. Lots of fan films are shown at comic cons. That makes it a little more notable, but not much. --Chris Griswold 19:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A perfect comparison. And take obscure comic books, too. Even if these 'obscure' titles weren't noticed by the mainstream media for the most part, there were still thousands of copies printed and sold in major outlets across the country by a major company, all of which add up to notability. --InShaneee 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. And every step of the way had to be approved by someone: editors, publishers, distributors, and to some extent advertisers, shop owners, and customers. With a self-produced item, you have more of a burden to provide evidence that the subject is notable. --Chris Griswold 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So now the new policy of wikipedia is that this remarkable fanfilm must not be even mentioned in any shape or form in the Joker page. Even the "see also" reference has been removed. What next? Remove the "Batman: Dead End" page itself? Search for every possible mention of this fanfilm in the entire wikipedia and remove it? Censor the entire existence of this fanfilm? I though that the entire idea of wikipedia is that people can find interesting information there. I'm pretty sure that people who are looking for info on the Joker character (and who have never heard of the Dead End fanfilm) will be quite interested in such a high-quality fanfilm. However, now every mention of the existence of such film has been censored. And why? Because of some twisted weird principle of some people that fanfilms are all low-class and don't deserve even a mention, regardless of what kind of fanfilm it is. May I also note that there are several pages in wikipedia where fan videos and films are being referenced and linked (if nowhere else, at least in the external links sections), many of which are of much much lower quality than this one. Why is this one so different that it deserves complete censorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.2.65 (talk • contribs) at 20:49, August 1, 2006

Sign your comments. It's not hard and pages clearly state how. Second, you might as well get an account. Third, you're biased. Bit blunt, I'll admit, but you're little tirade over this thing reaks of fanboy. lt's not even that good. Freaking Xenomorphs and Yautjas? Not to mention a hack child actor who clearly couldn't make it in legit hollywood productions. BTW, aside from that little rant he does in the fanshort—similar to you, actually—what else is there? He gets eated/killed, right? A better example of Joker fanfilm would be Patient J by Bat in the sun Productions and even that has it's faults. The fanfilms that are referenced on Wikipedia have proved their worth and notibility by being well known, serious, respectable, et cetera. Praise helps, too. Where's that for this piece (of [expletive])? Look at Lobo (DC Comics)#Lobo on film. The Lobo paramilitary christmas special proves it's worth time and time again. That truly was done with donated help from pros who weren't simply down on their luck or outright low level. Also, all that praise it suggestedly garnered is citeless. Face it, people liked this thing because of its limited "Cool" factor. The interpretation of Batman and the Joker's relationship isn't so great, either. Simply put, this thing isn't worth the mention because it's not really anyhing special and by no means did anything truly note worthy with the Joker. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 04:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So your arguments against even mentioning this fanfilm are: 1) You didn't like it, you think it's ridiculous. Yes, that's a good reason. 2) There exists at least one other fanfilm with a good (perhaps even better) depiction. Yes, of course by your logic this means that neither one cannot be mentioned in the article. 3) The fanfilm has not got praise, yet in your own words "people liked this thing". So even though people liked it (regardless of for what reason) it has not been praised, and this is a good argument to censor the existence of this fanfilm so that people reading this article will not be informed of its existence. Yes, your logic makes so much sense that you convinced me. Wopr 22:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tangent Joker

It seems to me that the info about the Tangent Comics' version of the Joker needs to have its own article. It does not pertain to the actual Joker, which is why people read this article. The Tangent comics version can be mentioned in "see also" or "other media". Just wanted some feedback before it is removed. -ClemsonChuck

Don't remove it. It belongs here because it is not noteworthy enough to appear in its own article. It only appears in, what, two issues? --Chris Griswold 18:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

perhaps, but there are Wikipedia articles on various characters from the Amalgam Comics line, and they only had one or two issues. I agree with you that it is not really noteworthy, but I guess I just thought there was a little more info then needed. No one who wants to look up information on the Joker will be interested in the Tangent material. Maybe it should be moved to the article on Tangent Comics? Oh well, I won't touch it unless it gets less noteworthy.-ClemsonChuck

I agree there's too much information about the Tangent character, and I think it should be cut down. You're also right that some of it should be moved to the Tangent article. --Chris Griswold 19:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

fan made picture of Conrad Veidt's Gwynplaine as the Joker

I added a file (11 KB) of a proposed poster, showing the Joker based on Conrad Veidt's Gwynplaine from the 1928 (1927 ?) film The Man who Laughs.

I do not know who created the picture. Feel free to use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Veidtasjoker.jpg

--Haris 05:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Chris, can you be more specific about what needs cleaning up? I did a quick skim to see how bad the lack of context was and at a glance it looks pretty good. Is that really what is wrong with the article or is there something else? --GentlemanGhost 01:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, it needs to be copy edited. This article has undergone a lot of change over the last few months, and an editor simply needs to go over it, copy editing it and making it flow like it's one article. If you have any more questions, feel free to write to me. Thanks. --Chris Griswold 09:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes it clearer. The way the tag is written, it seems to indicate that there no context for the article, thus making it impossible for new readers to follow, but this does not seem to be the case. --GentlemanGhost 19:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, you're right; it may need to be re-written. --Chris Griswold 22:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think one thing that would help greatly is a few spoiler warnings. There are currently none, and I know there are several spoilers, particularly as I noticed in the description of the 1989 Batman film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.207.247 (talk • contribs) 11:50 July 20, 2006

Put them where you think they should go. The templates are listed here: Category:Spoiler warning templates. Also, please try to sign your posts. --Chris Griswold 07:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh man i am totally all over this one.Gilgamesh Rex 10:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Casting Rumors & Crisis

Everyone -- please remember that this isn't the place for rumors about who will play this character in an upcoming film. Unless contracts are signed, official announcements are made and production on the film has started, these are nothing but speculation, and don't belong in an encyclopedia article.

Also: I removed Infinite Crisis spoilers from the opening paragraphs. Perhaps these could go elsewhere in the article, but in addition to being in a spot where a reader would not expect to find Infinite Crisis spoilers, I'm not sure they are notible enough to warrent such a prominant place. ~CS 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can compromise and place the inforamtion elsewhere in the article then. As the definitive source for information, I believe nothing of note should be excluded. The death of a major character by the Jokers hands is always relevant. Alexander Luthor Jr. has played a major part in the events of the DCU. also, Jim Gordons second wife Sarah Essen should be mentioned as well. Her death shows how the Joker has effected the lives of not only Batman but Commish Gordon as well.

Elsewhere in the article would be perfectly appropriate. I appreciate that for continuity fans of the DCU this is a major event, but I think it's important to remember that this is an encyclopedia article, and the focus should be on clear information in the context of a reader who wants to know more about the character. Complicated continuity stories like Crisis are incidental to the Joker's use inthe Bat-Titles, IMHO. Those first paragraphs above the table of contents are supposed to explain who the Joker is in a nutshell -- and I think the Crisis information, when placed there, complicates and confuses instead of clarifying. ~CS 01:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

By all means, find an appropriate place later in the article, however! Since the focus of this article is the Joker, and not Crisis, and it would be nice to avoid Crisis spoilers here, perhaps instead of explaining what he did, we should just say "The Joker plays an important part in the conclusion of Infinite Crisis" or something of that sort, that will direct the reader to the relevant article if they want more information? ~CS 01:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

Subsections were restored in accordance with Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Headings policy. I put them there in the first place because I wanted anchors on the subsections to link to, so please don't break my links! If you think they're ugly, fix with Help:User style. Vagary 23:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Found my way here via WP:3O. I can see some basis for using bolded text as a heading, where doing so avoids cluttering up the page with too many sections. We're nearing (or past) the point where that might become a problem, but given that the rest of the page uses traditional headings, and doing so here would only add four more, I'm inclined to do that. If nothing else, I'd prefer discussion to a revert war. Though I have a feeling this is already more or less resolved, let's see. :) Luna Santin 03:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

This page is listed in WP:POLLS. The question is: Should subsections be semantically marked up (with equals syntax), or only implied by formatting (with bold subsection titles)? Examples of the latter include Joker (comics)#Powers and abilities, Venom (comics)#Character history, Son Goku (Dragon Ball)#Forms and transformations, Vegeta#Forms and transformations, and Carnage (comics)#Appearances in other media.

It should be a mixture of both. There's no need to have the titles of the movies in the film section show up in the contents for example, its clutter and it looks visually ugly, at least in part because the headings are just so damn big for the most part.Darkwarriorblake 03:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

major removals during edits

Please discuss the big chops of material, or at least explain in your summaries, when large sections are removed. Thank you.ThuranX 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the revision Treybien made was appropreate. The long list of story arc synapses up currently is a bit cumbersome. All of those events can easily be described in a small paragraph with links to more detailed articles (i.e ones about No Man's Land and the Killing Joke) in case a reader would like more information.

Then re-write them. They already are heavily summarised with links to the full articles if they exist. THey are for the most part (Except Joker and the Mask) there to show the major parts in his life just as Batman or Superman have mammoth sections of character history. Before I added those things, if someone came here they wouldn't even have any knowledge of half the major events, Killing Joke was briefly mentioned and only for his origin not his other actions. I don't think No Man's Land was mentioned at all.Darkwarriorblake 03:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"making him perhaps the most prolific killer in comic book history"

This is demonstratably untrue, so I'm taking it out. Despite that, I think there might be some merit to this claim if it could be phrased better. Most of the big killers I can think of from comics (Ozymandias, Saint of Killers, whoever caused the plague in Y: The Last Man) did it either in one fell swoop or had supernatural powers. The Joker may be the most prolific long-term killer who does it by his own hand, or something like that. If someone can think of a good way to phrase it, please do so. Stilgar135 01:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, a while ago you had an amazing piece on Joker breaking the fourth wall. I as wondering if you can put back up the pic of him making the comment about being a comic book character.

Evil clown link

I think we really, really need a link to evil clown in this article. The Joker is one of the oldest and most well-known examples of an evil clown, outdating other famous representations such as Stephen King's It by decades. I added a link to the opening section which was removed (entirely fairly, as my addition was POV), but this article certainly needs a link somewhere. I just can't find anywhere appropriate to add it. --203.208.72.234

perhaps by constructing a section or reference within a section which speaks to the Joker's impact on the real world, or some such... ThuranX 20:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

joker isn't so much an evil clown as a terrorist that dresses like one. according to the 'vat of chemicals' origin, he was a petty theif previous to his career as the Joker. definitely symbolized as an evil clown, but i fail to see much actual clownage going on, i.e. chilling a lot at the circus. yeah. Gilgamesh Rex 10:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of what makes him an evil clown though. Pennywise from It isn't actually a clown. Nor is the doll from Poltergeist, or the aliens from Killer Klowns from Outer Space. The idea of an evil clown is of an absolutely evil entity that has the appearance of a clown, not a real clown that is evil. As far as I can tell, Joker is the earliest and most famous evil clown in fiction. A link should be put up in my opinion. --Switch 11:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I follow, but Gacy, The Clowns from Akira, Doink the Clown- I would argue the majority of these had choice in the matter of their 'clown-icity', to be obtuse about the english language. joker can't take off the makeup, and had no real choice in donning it, regardless of which origin you subscribe to. thus, shouldn't the evil clown be referenced as more sybolism, rather than concrete sadistic fantasy? Gilgamesh Rex 12:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that isn't exactly what the article describes:

• "The image of the evil clown is a recent development in American popular culture in which the playful trope of the clown is rendered as disturbing through the use of horror elements and dark humor."

It refers more to a phenomenon in popular culture than evil people being clowns, or vice versa. I mean, "rendering a clown as disturbing" pretty much sums up the Joker, yeah? He predates most of the examples in that article by decades, and he's certainly one of the most famous, and probably beats out It and Poltergeist. --Switch 05:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Gilgamesh Rex 07:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Move

Now, you only hace to write The Joker ([[The Joker]]) and it links here... How ever same problem with The Penguin, because "The Joker" and "The Penguin" are actually redirects, the article titles are "Penguin (comics)" and "The Joker (comics)". But if we request the moving (we cannot just copy-paste) we can have "The Joker" and "The Penguin" as the titles of the articles (there isn't any other articles using those titles).

My main argument, besides the redirect thing and that it'd be very comfortable just typing The Joker to link here, is that the characters are not that often just called Joker or Penguin; and in comics context, they are not "a joker" or "a penguin" they are "The yaddayadda..." (you get the point, I say it one more time and I'll blow up).--The Judge 11:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You cannot change the status quo or make exceptions. "The" is not put in comic book character titles, not matter what; it just isn't. Now, you've got the biased redirect you wanted,—"The Joker" to this article—why don't you let it rest? Besides, your comment is technically incorrect—well, besides being written poorly—in that "The Joker" was the title of the redirect page. I've corrected the article title and the resulting double redirect. If you'd like to help, I suggest correcting all links from the title "The Joker (comics)". ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As Ace says, there is a naming convention in place here on Wikipedia. You need to observe it. If you feel the naming convention is not reasonable, take it there. The Wikiproject Comics people can help you out. ThuranX 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't violate it I just didn't know. Too bad, because I think the character is The Penguin in everyone's mind, while a joker is either the card or the medival occupation. Same as The penguin and a penguin. It could have been conveniet.--The Judge 09:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Chronology order

A Death in the Family and The Killing Joke

I am pretty certain that ADitF comes after TKJ (the first even references Barbara's disability). Yet the current version of the article implies otherwise. Luis Dantas 05:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Joker from the WB Batman cartoon series

One of the best cartoons ever, but where is the picture from the Joker voiced by Mark Hamil? This is the best known and true joker. Someone add the picutre and maybe even change the first pic into this one.

-G—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.157.66 (talk • contribs)

Hamill's is not the best known Joker according to everyone. And it's not the DC Comics canonical Joker. Doczilla 08:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think many fans of the Animated Series would consider Hamill's Joker to be the definitive version of the character. Perhaps he's not canon, but the DC Comics Batman has changed so much over the years that it's impossible to decide just whose Joker is the real deal. However, for cartoon enthusiasts, it's an easy choice to make... to them, there's no better Joker than Hamill's Joker. --M.Neko 07:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You could just as easily say that to fans of the old TV show, there's no better than Cesar Romero. To fans of the movies . . . etc. Doczilla 08:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but wouldn't you agree that there really is no such thing as a canonical Joker? The Batman comic has been written by at least a half-dozen individuals, all with different visions of Gotham and its residents. It would be impossible to choose one "real" Joker because in the comics alone, there have been so many distinct versions of the character. --M.Neko 20:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Joker as drawn for the early B:TAS isn't here for two reasons. One, no one has added such a pic in the past, and the article doesn't need so many images as is. Adding more is not going to help the article, because it will mean more clutter and cruftishness, instead of more refinement nad focus on the encyclopedic. ThuranX 22:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm uncertain what the debate here is about? There is a picture of the Joker from B:tAS in the section on B:tAS, and it has been there for some time. I agree that putting this version in the top image is probably not appropriate, but the original poster primarily seemed concerned that there was a lack of B:tAS images, which is incorrect. ~CS 00:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

RabidPanda's Gramatical Corrections

Doczilla -- could you identify where you read Wikipedia style puts punctuation outside of quotation marks? I think you may be mistaking the need to put punctuation outside when coding with punctuation marks.

"Regular quotation marks" or 'single quotation marks' function as normal within wiki code, and I believe these should be inputted with regard to normal grammatical rules. Double quotation marks and triple quotation marks cause text within to be italicized or bold, respectively -- it is then necessary to put punctuation outside these marks, or the punctuation will also be bold or italicized.

If your understanding is different, could you identify why Wikipedia deviates from typical grammatical rules? ~CS 18:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MOS#Quotation_marks:

Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". (Only a fragment is quoted; the full stop [period] is not part of the quotation.) Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable." (The full sentence is quoted; the period is part of the quotation.)

I didn't make it up. Doczilla 20:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this when I was checking earlier -- I believe the use written about in this section is only relevent to "logical quotations" and is not intended to be a general rule for all quotation use. ~CS 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And why do you believe that? Doczilla 23:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I could be misreading, but the guidline in question appears to be in regard to the specific issue of quoted passages and when to include punctuation as part of the quote, and when to put the punctuation outside the quote. While in, as you put it, "the real world" punctuation is usually put inside the quote, the style as outlined in the Wiki style manual is occationally used elsewhere -- the purpose is to make the original author's punctuation clear. As far as I can tell, the Wiki manual is not addressing the issue of titles in quotation marks -- it's addressing the issue of punctuation in quoted material. ~CS 00:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm shocked that nobody around here has ever once looked at any handbooks of gramatical standards and formatting guidelines. Wikipedia or World Book Encyclopedia, the fact remains that the educated community puts punctuation inside of quotation marks. I'll give you websites or cite suggested reading for you if you don't believe me. I have experience editing newspaper and publications of the like, so I have a pretty good knowledge of fundamentals like this. Another accepted modern standard is that in a list of three or more items seperated by commas, if the conjunction "and" is used, the comma preceeding it is optional. I really think that Wikipedia needs to do some kind of test or a background check or something before they allow people to do this kinda thing. It is people who don't know writing mechanics that cause some of the problems here. Not to mention facts here aren't always right. By the way, the only reason I failed to continue correcting these types of mistakes is because I am trying to follow good Wikipedia policy by resricting my number of edits in a day on a single article to three, although I fear I may have violated that... I didn't keep count, but I don't want to anger anybody. RabidPanda V 01:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have to state my disgust in the lack of fundamental and basic mechanical knowledge of people who have the nerve to call themselves editors on this site. Paying attention, knowing what you're doing and actually understanding how the English language is supposed to be written are very important and reverting my proper corrections becuase somebody around here doesn't understand the difference between writing mechanics and Wikipedia coding is unacceptable in my eyes. I've been quiet about this for much too long. If you don't know what you are doing, back away. If you don't know correct information, don't make it up (i.e. birthdates... those are so often fabricated on this site when somebody doesn't know the truth)... please stop and let people who know what they are doing do the gritty work. RabidPanda V 01:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, and agree with much of your sentiment, but could I ask that you take a deep breath and not to be uncivil while discussing this? A single individual disagreed with your corrections -- most of which I have since restored or written around. Although I could be mistaken, I believe the reversion was made in good faith -- a simple misreading of the style guide. We'll let the editor weigh in later after s/he's reread the guide with our comments in mind. The issues addressed in the guide appear to me to be legitimate, although infrequent, variations on punctuation -- although I am more accustomed to seeing them in technical writing, I recall the variation of putting question marks and exclamation points outside of quotes being brought up elsewhere. ~CS 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the rest of the article. Count how many times you'll find a quotation mark followed by a comma ( ", ). A lot of contributors have written those, not me. I'm not the only person who reads it this way. This isn't the place to debate Wikipedia style guides. If you think Wikipedia style should change, take it up elsewhere. It's not my fault. The principle (dang it, I wish I could remember off hand which Wikipedia style policy explains this, because I myself didn't want to give in to this way of doing things until I read the explanation) is explained as part of a compromise between American and non-American style regarding quotes. If the period or comma isn't part of the title or quote, it goes outside the quotation mark. Doczilla 04:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the compromise line is about using American-style double(") quotations verses British-style single(') quotes, which has nothing to do with this discussion. At any rate, this is a rather silly issue for people to be getting spatty over. I simply fail to see where the asserted policy is stated. ~CS 04:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no reason for anybody to get spatty. We're all just trying to make sure we do this right. Here's a statement from MOS on titles (with italics added to distinguish from our remarks, underlining added to point out key part):

Punctuation

Whether the title is in italics or quotes, punctuation (such as commas) belongs outside the markup, as can be seen in the lists above—the comma is not part of the title. (The name of the book is not Huckleberry Finn,.)

Panda, I completely understand where you're coming from. My mind rebelled at it, but that's how Wikipedia is. Doczilla 05:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I just have a hard time figuring out why Wikipedia, an English-language encyclopedia, ignores guidelines from major standards like MLA and APA and makes up its own. I understand the American/Non-American thing, but let us remember which country hosts the site's servers. Doczilla, I read the MOS and I understand how and what you were reading and the methodology behind your implementation. I didn't mean to get snippy or sound like I was targeting you. I have had problems with incompetent users in the past who only knew Wiki code and not a thing about proper anything in the English language. Definitely not a personal attack at you in the slightest... I'm sorry for that misinterpretation... my wording probably wasn't right. One other comment in response to that individual who called me snippy and did not sign their post... We are not discussing whether or not the punctuation goes inside our outside of Wiki markup... outside is a given there. We are referring to punctuation inside of quotation marks--the real thing. I've never heard of placing punctuation outside of quotations before and I plan to do some investigative research on Wikipedia's Manual of Style against real manuals of style that professionals use. The reason I get so fired up about this is because I hate hearing people criticize Wikipedia as being second-rate and unreliable. If I can at least try to get the style respectable, I can hold out hope that the content side will get better and maybe one day this site will be considered legitimate by people with higher education. It's sort of a passion of mine... I really care about the well-being of this site. RabidPanda V 18:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The unsigned post was mine -- just an typo on my part that I have since fixed. From Doczilla's clarification s/he is correct: the issue does indeed appear to be with the Wikipedia MOS. I agree with you one-hundred percent: Wikipedia should not deviate from normal English-language punctuation, and this standard is a flaw in the Wikipedia style guide. (As I noted above, the US/UK issue is not relevant to the discussion at hand.) Also -- I understand what kind of quotes we are discussing -- the original comments about wiki markup were depreciated after Doczilla's original explanation. As far as comparing style manuals, the first place to check for precedent regarding this issue is probably not with the MLA or APA (which, as I recall, concur with us on the issue) but journalism style handbooks and technical writing. ~CS 20:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll say this on your talk page too: Not for one second did I ever take it as a personal attack. You wanted to get this right and you were (and still are, quite rightly) venting your dismay at the possibility this might be true about Wikipedia style. Doczilla 19:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

An acquaintance of mine is a professor and a lecturer in a Professional Writing & Editing course. He has confirmed to me that you are correct (confirming what my English and Literature teachers taught me all throughout school) on the issue of punctuation placement with quotes. However, it is the Wikipedia MOS that should be followed here, not English language grammatical conventions. This may be unfortunate, but it is the case. The issue raised is important, but it should be raised in relation to the Wikipedia MOS, not an individual article.

I also feel compelled to say that while it has become widely accepted even in academic circles, a comma preceding an "and" at the end of a list is an incorrect use of punctuation. --Switch 11:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not "incorrect." From WP:MOS#Serial_commas: "The serial comma (also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma) is a comma used immediately before a conjunction in a list of three or more items." Non-journalistic style guides say to use the serial comma; newspaper style guides say avoid it. Wikipedia has no consensus, but we should strive for consistency. Regardless, it's not "incorrect". (And in my own discussion, I can put a period inside the quotation marks.) Doczilla 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(joke! ~CS)

New Display Image?

How would people feel if the Alex Ross picture [3] was replaced with something like this? [4]?

JoeDestructive

I prefer the Ross painting to the suggested image. THe Ross image is simple, straightforward, and clear. It's one of the most 'fine-art- representations of the joker, and I find it to be very encyclopaedic, whereas the other image is far more likely to prompt a long set of image shuffles (see Poison Ivy's page for more on that sort of thing.) There's a move on a lot of the pages to ensure Out-of-Universe perspectives and trend toward the encyclopedic. I think that image gets far closer to the 'fanboyish'. I'd actually prefer it if we could use far more of Ross' or Ross-like works, or more of the creating artist's works. For example, I'd love to have a Jack Cole image for plastic man, kirby works for the fantastic four, and so on. ThuranX 19:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Replace the Ross picture with something. Right now, the article has two Ross pics, which is not indicative of how the character normally appears. Doczilla 06:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the suggested image would be considered fanboyish, as it depicts Joker as he is. He's psychotic, he's evil, yet he tries to have a sense of humor, even if that too is sick. The Ross painting does suggest he's evil (due to the appearance of the painting), but it shows him more of an evil clown than it does a psychotic villain and killer. I prefer the suggested image instead of the Ross painting, as there is already a painting by him listed on the page of him and Harley Quinn.

JoeDestructive

I see that we're playing round robin with the display image. I'm not getting into that edit scuffle except to say again that the article shouldn't have two Ross images. Doczilla 20:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Total agreement with Doczilla - one Ross is enough. CovenantD 22:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there have been a couple suggestions so far. I'm personally not going to get into this either, I already tried once (and that's all I'll try), and it apparently wasn't in favor (See above pic suggestion). Some people want the Ross DP, but as said above, there already 2. Some want the Bolland one of Joker throwing the ball, but then there'd be 3 Bolland pics. I'm personally happy with the picture I suggested (of Joker with his BANG gun, after "killing" Thomas Elliot) being down in the article somewhere, not necessarily as the DP. JoeDestructive 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I prefer Ross' work, I didn't mind the new image at all, and haven't been involved in this reversion debacle. I would like to see it stay there for a while. It does embody some significant aspects of the character. ThuranX 03:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Jim Lee image is terrible. Let's replace it with a Ross or Bolland work. Come on now, aren't there any real Joker fans here?

The Jim Lee one is indeed dire. I agree that still more Ross or Bolland images might not be the way to go (although I do think the prior Ross image was the best thing we've ever had in that infobox) but there's got to be something better than what we've got now. Doug Mahnke? http://www.comicartcommunity.com/gallery/data/media/91/batman-manwholaughs.jpg D1Puck1T 07:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the Jim Lee image, but I don't like it as a lead-in image. Apart from its width annoying me, I think Lee has taken the character too far in his own direction. That's not a "definitive" Joker there. I like the idea of finding a Mahnke image to be the lead-in. --Switch 18:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead-in image should be The Joker as he is classicly portrayed. The Ross and Bolland works demonstrate that. If there are to many images by those artists already, lets agree on something else.Xodus900 21:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't realize my link wasn't working. How does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Manwholaughs.jpg work for people? It's more of a classic design for the Joker, and if Ross and Bolland have too much art on the page, this seems reasonable.D1Puck1T 02:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the one here? (Scroll down to the very bottom): http://www.telusplanet.net/public/lunden/faces.html (The one of him with his evil Jack-In-The-Box) It's... different (considering it came from a crossover). Maybe if you cropped it a bit, to focus on Joker, and not his arm sticking up... JackOfHearts 03:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Mahnke image is good too. Perhaps a quick straw poll, with the losing image being relocated elsewhere in the article, and the Ross joker image staying elsewhere in the article? All three have their positives, but we should find a consensus nad stick to it for a while (i.e., a year or more, it's an image, not underwear, it doesn't need daily changing.) ThuranX 03:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't care for the Lee picture either and would prefer it to be replaced, it at least gives a view of the Joker's full-body appearance. The display image needs to, well, put him on display. Doczilla 04:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I know I don't really have a place for much say here, but I think that a pic from BTAS would be very appropriate... the character there really does blend both aspects of his personality very well. RabidPanda V 12:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like most of us agree that the JimLee image should go in favor of something better. I wouldn't be opposed to relocating the "KillingJoke" Bolland image as the Lead-In. Or adding a Bolland image as the lead-in, and removing the other ones all together. The Joker image with him holding the jack-inthe-box suits me fine too. - The Mahnke image isn't my fav. but it's better than what's there now. Xodus900 19:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with the Mahnke image at the moment, though I would be happier with a Bolland image. On the other hand, though I think the style is appropriate, I can't think of an individual Bolland image I'd prefer to the current Mahnke one. --Switch 07:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with the Mahnke image. I'm also sort of dismayed by a certain amount of 'artist preference here'. Although I liked the Ross image, I liked it for it's evocation of certain parts of Joker's character, specifically his sinister and sadistic nature. However, I've seen a number of pages where Bolland is the preferred artist. I'd instead like to see a directed effort to vary the artists. There are literally hundreds of top two pencillers and inkers, and I think it's more visually interesting and encyclopedic to use a variety of talent to showcase the breadth of the industry. If there's a Bolland here, maybe a Jimenez at Penguin, a Harris at Solomon Grundy, an Infantino at Riddler, and so on. ThuranX 17:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an image from "The Killing Joke" would be adaquent desplay image, as it seemed to capture a rather generic variant of the Joker image wise. Where certain artists display him in a way that outwardly appears quite manic and disturbed, such as Jim Lee and whoever it was that illustrated Arkham Asylum, others depict him as a rather comical, cartoonish figure, such as Bruce Timm or Tim Sale. Where I personally prefer the darker tone Jim Lee gives the character, it seems as though a rather plainly drawn variant would be ideal for the display image, and to have the article dipict varying interpretations of him later on. 66.24.236.62 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea for me to stick my two cents into this debate: I like Alex Ross, he's a fantastic artist - I think his Joker/Harley Quinn Tango piece is wonderful - but I also find his artwork very retro and sort of campy (which is fine for him, but not to my tastes). Also, the particular Joker image by Alex Ross that we used to have desplayed was a very blurred image and did not show his characteristic purple suit. On the plus side: yes, the Joker looks very evil in that piece. I'll admit, I'm bias: one of my favorite comic book artists is Brian Bolland, and it benifits Bolland that he is the artist for The Killing Joke. But it's a bit difficult to make a decision of what image by Bolland to use: the Last Laugh series Joker (where he's throwing up the 8-ball) shows him looking all sinister, but he's not wearing his purple suit, nor is he wearing his purple suit when he goes insane in The Killing Joke. So, I propose (for Bolland), if you can take off the text, the Back Issue #3 cover: http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/news_images/4968_12991_1.jpg. Or, from The Joker's Circus web site): http://www.telusplanet.net/public/lunden/joker.gif. Or, how about Alex Horley? His artwork is dark and exaggerated, but also very lucious: http://www.imagenetion.net/matrix/ahorley/pages/al_021_ofn_ahorley_Joker.htm. And: http://www.imagenetion.net/matrix/ahorley/pages/al_060_ofn_QMan_AH_BM_1891_The_Joker.htm.--Kelly Chartier 05:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Chartier, I love all the pics that you suggested. Xodus900 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope that I've put some real motion into some sort of agreement. Though I must point out that one of the links doesn't seem to work; you can find the last image (http://www.imagenetion.net/matrix/ahorley/pages/al_060_ofn_QMan_AH_BM_1891_The_Joker.htm) in Alex Horley's gallary: http://www.imagenetion.net/matrix/ahorley2.htm. Also, I noticed when I clicked on the Joker's Circus link that the image (http://www.telusplanet.net/public/lunden/joker.gif) doesn't come out right; my mistake, the image can be seen more clearly on its home page: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/lunden/. But, I don't know if the image can be used because of it's error. There, hopefully that fixes everything.--Kelly Chartier 00:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all of these appear to be copyrighted fan art, which puts two strikes against its' use. The Bolland you cited is visually too busy to make a good encyclopedic image. The Mahnke image meets fair use and is already up. ThuranX 02:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Horley piece isn't fan art -- it's from the Batman: Masterpieces card series, and can be found on page 195 of the book that collects them. I don't care for it, but if there were overwhelming interest in it for the top image, I'd be happy to scan a low-rez version with proper copyright attributes. I believe the "Shake" image is also from a book cover -- but I'm having trouble placing it at the moment. Kelly's Boland link is fantastic -- but as you say, the image is too "busy" due to the magazine cover images. If another source can be found for it, I think it's the best image we've seen so far. Other than that -- I do like the Bruce Timm image Rabid Panda suggested. I don't think the animated series is the "definitive" representation of the Joker -- but I do think the image works visually as a top-page image. ~CS 03:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also -- for what it's worth: 1 2 ~CS 03:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In an above topic, ACS suggested a gallary of images. I know it doesn't solve the debate of what to do with the articles main image, but I thought I'd throw in that idea in anyways. And, I'm afraid I cant find a better Back Issue #3 image than that. Damn.--Kelly Chartier 05:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only is there no need for a gallery of images, our Wikipedia guidelines discourage them. A gallery of images of the same character exceeds fair use. (See previous debates regarding articles like Iron Fist.) Doczilla 06:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, it seems as though a fairly generic picture, one depicting the Joker as he is most well known, is ideal. Personally, I liked the second picture posted by CS, although I also think the images here (http://cobweb.scarymonsters.net/~corleyj/images/mush/crazy4it.jpg) and here (http://robertmonroe.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/tegneserie2.JPG) might work, although the latter most likely isn't generic enough for the top of the page, however it may look good later on in the article. 66.24.236.62 00:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of these seem far too stylized for a picture meant to sum up the character. Although it's not perfect, so far the Mahnke image being used as a placeholder seems a good indication of what should be aimed for - a piece that's not too stylized (like Sale's or some of the others), and has him posed without excessive props, word balloons, etc.D1Puck1T 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. A lot of the pictures people love grab people's attention because of the creative ways they deviate from standard Joker depictions, and the article can certainly use some of those. The display image, however, needs to represent a more typical Joker depiction. Doczilla 05:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe we should just return to the Ross image. It's traditional and pretty agreeable to everyone.Xodus900 16:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We already have a Ross image. One of the things we've kind of agreed on is that the article shouldn't have two Rosses. The one that's on there is a really good choice for capturing the Joker's connection to Harley. Doczilla 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Duck and Doczilla's recent comments. No duplicate Ross paintings, much as I admire his skill. I'd like to go one further, and say NO duplicate artists AT ALL. Given the 65+ year history of the character, we all know there are probably 100 different Sequential Artists who've rendered him in just the various batman books, to say nothign of his goes against the JLA, Superman, and Archie and the riverdale gang. Let's go for variety, not 'favorites'.ThuranX 03:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but think exceptions can be made to the "no duplicate artists" where a good argument can be made. Right now we have one Brian Bolland Joker, and one Brian Bolland "the man who may have become Joker". I think that's within reason. Using an artist's work in the article and in the box though, does not seem within reason.D1Puck1T 04:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment to thank SwitChar for reverting to the Mahnke image while we all discuss this. I remind all participants and regular editors that shoving in a new image to the one you support while a hearty and well-intentioned civil debate goes on is NOT being bold, but rude. Please participate instead on the talk page.ThuranX 03:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

---

As it seems to have been deleted altogether, can someone tell me what the Bolland image was? Was it the one of him tossing an eight ball of the one with the laughing fish? And also what was the Alex Ross one that was there in the first place? Could someone maybe put them all here as thumbnails so we could compare and contrast?

What about this image by Alex Horley?

I really like the one you have right now. It's a good picture that shows what the character looks like in the comics as of right now. I also think it's a remake of one of his pictures from Batman #1.172.189.195.66 03:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How would this image work? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/The_Joker.JPG

66.24.236.62 05:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely too small, at just over 100 pixels in each dimension, and in my opinion, both far too closely cropped, and not indicative of his 'evil' nature. ThuranX 05:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Then how about this one? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/53/Jokerkillingjoke.png)

Although it is used later on in the article, it does seem to reflect the madness his character is generally portrayed with. Further, it seems much less 'cartoonish' than the current image. However, it could be argued that it relates far too much to a single interpretation of the character's past66.24.236.62 04:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll

I don't know if we're actually getting anywhere in deciding what image we really want to have up on the article. Would it be possible to find a web site where we can vote on what image we want (and decide from all of the images everyone has suggested)?--Kelly Chartier 02:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're asking abou a 'Straw Poll'. YOu can start one right here. Unfortunately, I don't think it will solve much. New editors will keep arriving, as seen when we went from Ross to Lee. We had it settled for about 3 days, and new editors pushed for other images. My vote's for the Mahnke until something truly 'better' comes along. ThuranX 03:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of not having the image constantly changed then? If no conclusion comes out of this discussion then there's really no point in the Mahnke image remain on the article until our discussion is over. Why are we even discussing this if there is no conclusion? My vote's for the Mahnke until something truly 'better' comes along. That's one vote for Mahnke.--Kelly Chartier 06:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the art quality on Mahnke, but my vote also is for Mahnke until something better comes along. As we've discussed, the character has been drawn by so many artists, there's no reason for the display image to be by someone who has another picture on the page. I love the Ross picture with Harley right where it is. The Ross that was used for the display image does not capture the normal appearance of the character. We have enough Bolland. The Jim Lee picture didn't capture the character's essence as well as the Mahnke. Doczilla 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"I don't like the art quality on Mahnke, but my vote also is for Mahnke until something better comes along." Agree. Three votes for Mahnke, until a better image is found. --Switch 08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Make it four, just to solidify the way things are going. CovenantD 19:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure when Straw Polls are supposed to end. But I gather everyone's happy with the image remaining as it is, seeing as though no one can find "a better picture to come along" (which may never happen). That's cool. I like the Mahnke piece. =)--Kelly Chartier 05:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no one's commented in over a month, I'm going to call this straw poll closed, result was unanimous support of the Mahnke image. ThuranX 12:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I See Crazy People

The article dates his 1st app as 1940; what was the cover date? Trekphiler 10:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Batman #1 is from 1940, the only "date" on the cover is "Spring Issue." It does not appear at first glance that The Dark Knight Archives, The Greatest Batman Stories Ever Told, Batman #1 Milenium Edition, or Batman: A Complete History give a more precise date. Someone with more specific sources than I might be able to provide more information. ~CS 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears it was published in April, going by this advert. 172.143.75.115 06:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Batman (comic book) already gave the date. I think, though, the conention is to utilise the cover date and the year of publication in the boxes, and the cover date is just "Spring". 172.143.75.115 06:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks y'all! Tradition is to use cover date, which in this case is Spring '40 (which I knew). It looks like the ad gives a date which can't be "official" from the traditional POV, but looks authentic. I'm adding the month on that basis. (It's usual to judge "1st app" by newstand date only when there are 2 or more apps the same month, such as "1st SA Airboy", in both Scout & Swords of Texas {I think}.) Trekphiler 06:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC) & 04:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Infinite Crisis

I believe that the Infinite Crisis section is misleading, if not inaccurate -- Joker first used his acid on, then shot, Alexander Luthor, for the snub Alex gave in making him the only villian excluded from the Society of Villians Alex created. Virtually every villian EVER was included, but in an earlier confrontation, the Joker learned he was considered too unstable and wasn't wanted.

Alex was NOT Luthor's son -- not this one -- and Luthor and Alex were bitter enemies.

Furthermore, Jason Todd and the Joker had a very character-developing dialogue when Jason kidnapped him and confronted Batman with his 'failure' to avenge him. This may not be an article about Jason Todd, but the incident was very interesting, and Joker/Batman/Jason Todd are very intertwined emotionally. So would it be possible to include Todd's theory about the Joker's sanity -- the one that made the Joker stop laughing... JDudeman 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC) JDudeman

• I went through some of this on your talk page. You're right, though, about Alex not being Luthor's son. I can't believe so many people never noticed that was in there. Thanks for pointing that out. The full details of what Joker did to Alex before killing him aren't necessary for the point of the sentence. The article has already made it clear that the Joker does that kind of thing. A super-brief mention of Jason's idea that the Joker isn't quite as crazy as he leads people to believe is okay. We have no confirmation that Jason knows what he's talking about, though, so elaboration is not called for. Doczilla 08:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Main Image

I'm going to make a serious push for using the "Killing Joke" image by Brian Bolland for the main display image of the article. My reasons for this are: 1. It's a critical point in the Joker's history. 2. It's a very classic representation of the character, with a darker violet suit. 3. It's from one of the most popular and acclaimed Joker stories of all time. 4. It's darker, creepier, and thus more in keeping with the overall tone of Batman and the Joker in general. 5. It has lots of creepy "Hahahas" in the background.

I think it's easily the best image on the page so I'd say it's a natural choice to head the article. 12:55, 16 February 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.131.242 (talk • contribs)

The current image was the result of a previous debate where editors decided it was a good but imperfect compromise until we found a more iconic image. I too would like to see a Bolland or Bolland-like image of the Joker in his violet suit. The general consensus seems to be the more iconic the imagry, the better. The problem we had at the time was in finding a clean image that would be appropiate for the top page. I do not feel that the Bolland image currently in the article would be appropriate as a top-page image, as it is a little too small, visually very busy and cluttered, and depicts the Joker in an atypical pose. I still think another image could be used -- but for now the Mahnke image is the best one put forward. ~CS 19:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The image I placed as the header image is the most recent and canon depiction of the character, from Batman #663 (out on 2/14/07). It is how he will be portrayed in future comics, with a "permanent smile." This article is about the comic incarnation of the character, and in this capacity, the Van Fleet image is the most appropriate. --CmdrClow 02:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the guidelines the Project is using for character infobox pictures here. The material from one of this weeks comics does not fit the criteria of "the most universally recognisable appearance of a character". It may be DC's intent that the look from this one issue is "the look" for the present, but it is hardly instantly and universally recognizable as the Joker. — J Greb 03:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Green hair? Check. White skin? Check. Universally creepy grin rigor mortised on his face? Check. Seems pretty identifiable as The Joker to me. Unless of course, you know of another comic supervillain who looks that way. Which I doubt. Besides, according to your guidelines, the Mahnke image doesn't qualify either. I don't see his complete torso in that image, and I have seen a full body photo placed there before. --CmdrClow 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

1. We're talking about this article and it meeting guidelines. You want to go on a riff about other articles, do it on their talk page, on the Project notice page, or the Project guideline talk page.
2. As other's have pointed out, the current image was arrived at by consensus. Consensus can be used to over rule guidelines.
3. Unilateral actions by an editor, while bold, do not have the weight of consensus. Existing or new consensus can overrule such acts.
4. Unilateral edits in the face of consensus, or other editors pointing out that they are contrary to could be seen in a poor light.

— J Greb 03:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- the responsibility of this page isn't to unveil new character designs, but to represent the most widespread and iconic image of the character. After 60+ years the anorexic gangster in a violet suit is much more iconic than one issue of GothJoker. In addition, I have few doubts that the New Joker design will be about as long-lasting as Electric Superman. Wikipedia is not a fansite to demonstrate new trends -- it's an encyclopedia concerned with history. ~CS 04:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) Stick with the iconic image. We've had too many discussions about this image. Some contributors have engaged in outright feuds over it. (2) The "New Look" image is too artsy to meet project guidelines regarding what image to use. It also doesn't give a good enough view of the character. (3) It's strange to me that anyone thinks that divulging something from a comic that came out last week is not a spoiler. Do they know what a spoiler is? (4) It's even stranger to me that someone else thinks the fact that a reader hasn't read a comic that came out Wednesday means the reader doesn't read that series. Most people don't buy a comic the day it comes out. Some of the most avid comics readers get their comics in monthly shipments whenever the heck their comic dealers mail them out. People with subscriptions get their comics later than other people. Don't judge someone else's reading habits. Doczilla 06:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Usually the most avid comic readers get their books the day they come out. That's why they are "avid." Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but not one always concerned with history. Wikipedia documents current events regularly, and in this regard, the new look of the Joker (which isn't even that different anyways) is the canon depiction of the character. Wikipedia also contains pages concerned with years in the future, listing when expected events are supposed to happen. It's highly likely that the new film will adopt a similar premise with the character's look, and then the new look may be the one that is most closely identified with the character. This image was hardly an unveiling. That not withstanding, a psychotic grin is still one of the things most closely identified with the character. Some might define that image as an iconic representation of the psychology of the character. --CmdrClow 09:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a Marvel zombie, but Batman and the Joker are two DC characters I've always been into. In fact, they're the only characters I have collections of, from any house. That said, I used to have Spider-Man on my watchlist. When Civil War started, there was a big push to change the lead Spider-Man image to one of the "Iron Spider" costume because it was the most recent and canon.

The result of the big debate was to keep the classic blue/red costume. Why? Beause it's about Spider-Man as a fictional character and icon, not about Spider-Man as a person. At current, the most recognised version of Spider-Man is still the classic outfit, not the Iron Spider or the black suit which he's been wearing recently. The article isn't, and shouldn't be, concerned with keeping to canon. It has to be written in an out-of-universe perspective.

The same priniple applies here. At the moment, people think of the Joker as they saw him in B:TAS, Bats89 or the 60s series: Violet suit, chalk-white skin, green hair, red lips and manic smile. That's the image we should use for the lead. We should use one that is effective, shows his character more-or-less, and gives a clear depiction of his most famous, to a non-reader, appearance. The Mahnke image is the best proposed.

The other image shows neither white skin nor violet suit, and is far too artsy and too little practical to be the lead. People may even think they've got the wrong character. The image of Ledger is, first off, not of ledger at all (Hint: Mahnke image is the cover of...?), is fan-created and was released within days of the casting being announced (I saw it three after), and is purely speculative - it may not be what the new film Joker looks like at all. ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

(UNDENT) For the record, the Joker fan image is Lachey Hulme, not even Heath Ledger. Some asshat made it long ago to 'convinve the studios through tha intarwebzez that Hulme is tha bombest deal-y-o.' Further, Keep the Mahnke. Regular editors of this page JUST had this same argument. Repeating the same argument every fe months drives the editors who care away. That's not good for this article, comics articles in general, or Wikipedia. It leads to fanboy crufting of the pages with summaries of each and every scene in every B:TAS episode, as was happening on the Ra's Al Ghul page, and so on. There's good editing, there's reasonable updating, and there's crapping up pages with fannish cruft. A character as widely recognized and iconic as the Joker shoudl be one of the WP:COMIC project's most carefully watched, and a demonstration of what the project can achieve, it shouldn't be a constant debate about which picture is the coolest this month. ThuranX 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Joker nicknames

I think we should have a list of Joker nicknames. I have several, but I wanted to check with the rest of you first. First off, I've heard him refered to as "The Crown Prince of Crime" and "The Ace of Knaves". Batman: The Doomsday Prophecy, a DC Superpowers Which Way book by Richard Wenk, also refers to him as "the Contempible Clown", the "Crafty Contriver of Crimes", "the Terrible Trickster", "the Barnum of Buffoonery", "the Merry Master of Mayhem", "the Machiavelli of Mischief", and "the Monarch of Mirth." I also read in a Batman book (I'd have to look up which one it was) that The Joker has something like 40 different nicknames, so maybe that could be part of the article rather than part of the infobox. In any case, I'm adding "The Clown Prince of Crime" because I've heard him called that so much. Evernut 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the "Harlequin of Hate." My personal favorite. --CmdrClow 02:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

On first blush I don't think this would really fly on Original Research grounds. On second blush it may create an ugly precedent with the nicknames for other characters. — J Greb 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

None of these things are "original research" -- they are simply reports of what is contained in primary sources. Although, I too have the Superpowers "Which Way Book" -- but I don't think it's exactly a canonical source. That said, none of these things are aliases. They're nicknames, and we have not been including such things in infoboxes -- just legitimate aliases. ~CS 04:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We should pass on this. It's an UGLY precedent, and sets up for a HUGE amount of Listcruft on the comics pages. Let's avoid this, and the inevitable fannish arguing about priorities thereon. ThuranX 05:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

While it would probably be appropriate to mention Clown Prince of Crime, I wouldn't want to on precedent grounds... Pass. ~Switch ^{t c g} 07:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't set this precedent. Also, it does involve some POV & OR in judging which names to include. How many times does a character have to be called something to list it as a nickname? Should we put "Vulchie" on the Vulture's page just because Spider-Man has mocked him with that before? No. Doczilla 08:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha. "Fannish arguing." As if that's something to try and avoid, that's all that happens between us nerds, especially on Wikipedia. Ha. --CmdrClow 09:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken Evernut 15:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

'Jack' is now OFFICIALLY the Joker's real name!!!!!!

In the newly-canon BATMAN: CONFIDENTIAL# 7 (published today,) the Joker's original name is revealed to be "Jack!" So now, the Jack Napier-haters are partially wrong, according to DC Comics (his last name has yet to be revealed.)

It is true that he is refered to as Jack. However, many criminal types do not use their real names.

Batman Confidential is not exactly in continuity. This is not an official origin for the Joker.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.43.130 (talk • contribs)

• Plus, a person can be called "Jack" like being called "bub", "buddy", or "dumbo" without it being his name. Doczilla 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Batman Confidential is in continuity. Read it's article. This is his official origin. But it's possible Jack isn't his real name only an alias.

With the series not yet finished, there is NO guarantee that this origin will become canon. Other possible origins stories have ended with an "out", that is, a means to evade continuity/canon. I'd suggest holding off till the story is over. Further, we've seen that other recent 'canon' changes, like Issue 663, seem unlikely to hold, and will be excised rapidly. ThuranX 07:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All the other Joker origins came from Joker's unreliable memory. This story is not a memory of Joker's. The story isn't even told from Joker's point of view. It's from Batman's. Confidential is continuity. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less so.

Wait, and see. If this really is his origin, I'm sure we'll find iterviews about it, because that would amount to a significant editorial decision. Further, it may come to pass that this is his origin in one of the OTHER Earths of the multiverse, one that gets destroyed during Countdown. it may turn out that this story is built on batman's case notes, and in the end, there's some event which leaves batman unsure about the Jack/Joker thing. Wait, see, then report. We aern't a scooper site, and we aren't required to be the first to report things. ThuranX 15:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Countdown 31 = Jack Napier mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.104.240 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's put as "...a mob killer named Napier...", no first name. And it's still put forth in a way that it cannot be taken as definitive — the Joker is narrating is and gives 3 different starts to the story. - J Greb 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm really tired of this stuff. Given that the 'confidential' series' are stories set in the characters' pasts, and that countdown makes it vague delierately, there's no reason to even bother with the 'Jack', I think. DC is unlikely to ever really explain who Joker is in an absolute, official canon way. ThuranX 04:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if he's called Jack Napier in some story, that doesn't mean it's his real name any more than he's Joe Kerr, Mr. Rekoj, or any other name he's ever used. Doczilla 05:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean for the Riddler's story in Gotham Knights? He has no reason to lie about knowing the truth about the Joker's wife, but Jack's wife was not mentioned at all during the Confidental arc. It is possible, of course, that she died accidentally or was murdered by another mob (not the current one in Confidential), and it could also add to why Jack seems depressed about his lot in life at the start of the arc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.197.46 (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just proof that this origin is no more official than any other promised reveal of his origin. Concurrent releases with different information ... ThuranX 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)