Talk:Wonder Woman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Delays

Since it's a rather significant issue to readers of late, I think the article should address the publishing delays since the reboot - with a neutral POV, of course. It's a touchy subject, I think, so I thought I'd open up a discussion before any edits are made. -- VanPelt101 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What citation can you provide that it's a "significant issue?" CovenantD 22:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to cite among other things, his own comments on his webspace, but he's since removed them. So I guess I'll leave this one be for now. My point was simply that he must ahve been getting a lot of responses to feel the need to post, but no big, I guess.VanPelt101 00:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

graphic novels

I noticed a minor edit war concerning the inclusion of a list of WW graphic novel titles, so as a compromise to the parties involved, I've created Wonder Woman literature. It could probably be expanded, or even integrated into Cultural impact of Wonder Woman, but it's good information nonetheless. —scarecroe 05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wonder Woman's Power

I think we can just delete that article. Everything pertinent is already in this one. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - That article doesn't really contain any new information not contained in this article. Instead of creating a new article for Wonder Woman's powers from scratch, the current abilities section in this article should be split into a separate article if it ever becomes too large.--Trademark123 22:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

DELETE It's all already in this article ... SSJ 5 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've deleted the superfluous article, we have to look at the info here on Wonder Woman's power. Unlike the rest of this article, the power section acts as if wonderwoman were a singular and uncontested concept. We should not say "Wonder woman has the power to heal herself by merging with the earth" but instead something like "STarting with so and so comics and occasionally/rarely after, wonder woman is depicted merging with the earth to heal herself." Most of these powers are frequently ignored by many comic artists, even the lasso of truth is often ommited. And while I'm at it, why is Kingdom Come neccessarily non cannonical? It's by DC. Lots of things ought to be considered cannon in wonder woman but make no sense or contradict other comics that also probably should be considered cannon. 66.41.66.213 05:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of such, too much of this article treats the Perez run as universal Wonder Woman.

Agreed- at the least, the powers & weapons section should detail each version's powers separatedly. Also, this section (and the article overall) could use some trimming, there's too many details. - Wilfredo Martinez 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert quagmire

I'm posting this here as well as on the relevent editor's talk page.

Regarding the points you are trying to under cut, yes under cut:

• "Diana possesses a host of superhuman powers granted to her by the gods and goddesses of Olympus, gifts which have been stated to be equal to their own abilities." -- The section "...to be equal to their own..." is a paraphrase from the citation immediately following the sentences. Specifically: "The Grecian gods commanded Hippolyta to carve the child of her dreams from clay-- --then brought the infant to life, gifting the Princess Diana with powers and abilities equal to their own." (emphasis added) 52 -- Week 12 (July 26, 2006), "The Origin of Wonder Woman", page 1, caption 2 of panel 3 and caption 1 of panel 4. It is a statement of equity, no hedging.
• "...strength and durability equals or surpasses her own, such as..." -- Since the Grecian gods are mentioned in the list "equals or" is extremely appropriate, if not mandatory (see above point). Further, elimination of that phrase puts the character in the unenviable position of either being the weakest of the strong, or strongest of the weak.
• "However, even in those cases, her martial prowess has enabled her to garner victories." -- inclusion of the phrase "on occasion" and and substituting "a victory" for "victories" gives the sentence a connotation of this being an uncommon, if not rare, event.

As per the citation linked to the passage, the text of the first two points should be restored to what it was prior to you edit. As for the third point, if you have a citation that spells out the character rarely winning against opponents her physical equal or superior through martial skills, add it, otherwise this point should be reverted as well.

At this point I'm going to leave it up to the editor in question to review this and decide if his edits are really adding value or undermining the article.

Thanks for listening — J Greb 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words - Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid - Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms

Okay, while 'nearly' isn't listed, given the extreme levels of difference between one author and the next for any hero, it's impossible to cement that Wonder Woman is or is not stronger than anyone else in the DCU. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasels and Peacocks and Bears, oh my! :D Sorry, I'm not disagreeing with your points or mocking you, it's just that I never cease to be amazed by the ever-growing number of Wikipedia's rules. Honestly, it's come to the point I don't read them any more, and I'm very involved as a WP editor. I just go by a) providing interesting content and b) common sense. I leave the correction of details like wording to other, more capable people; that's part of the Wikipedia concept too. We should all keep that in mind. -Wilfredo Martinez 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks? The problem is you have to draw a line somewhere, like with the 'which hotties are close to being as hot as WW?' which we had earlier. If you keep adding in heroes that WW may or may not be as strong as, where do you stop? When does it become a huge list of super strong guys? When is it no longer helpful? Leaving just a couple up there is a nice example, you get the idea, and we can say 'among others' if we have to, but the implication is already there. As for using 'nearly', it's simply not true. Sometimes she's stronger, sometimes she's not. Depends on who's writing. Since my previous attempts at using logic to explain it failed, I resorted to 'rules'. It'd be nice if mr. Anon would post too, though. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Animation

Why isn't her animation debut not mentioned in an Other Media section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.10 (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

See Cultural impact of Wonder Woman. —scarecroe 04:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

On merging and straw polls:

• There are times when the distinction between a DC Comics character and one of their Pre-Crisis counterparts is definitive and long-lasting (e.g.: Superman and Superman (Kal-L), warranting the need for more than one article. However, in most cases, the difference is blurry to the point when it's up to each reader or creator to forge their specific interpretation about the validity of the story when talking about a specific version of the character. "Lex Luthor (Earth-One)", "Robin (Earth-Two) and "Wonder Woman (Earth-Two)" are many among the latter cases. Inevitably, this leads to several bad things for the quality of the articles, including but not limited to: 1 - There is an extreme redundancy when one takes into the account the existance of a "Pre-Crisis" or "Earth-Two" section in the original article. 2 - Most splinter articles, unlike their "parents", are written - against Wikipedia policy - in mostly in-universe style, with barely a mention of the fictional context. 3 - Finally, the splinter articles are often created and then immediately orphaned for a long time, left with information which applies only to the original article from which most of the information was copied from (and when the appropiate information is included, it's basically three sentences which already were in the parent article). Nothing against you personally, User:Netkinetic, but I believe you're taking a suggestion that was made pertaining to a few specific characters to the extreme. There is an enourmous in-universe bias in your work (though I do not deny your good faith). Sometimes the "they're different people!" argument doesn't apply, specially when they WEREN'T different people for years, and when the divergences can be counted with one hand. --Ace ETP 03:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Responded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Survey - jc37 10:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Earth-Two for further discussion of this and other Earth-Two characters. - jc37 10:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bi-monthly

The word "bimonthly" means once every two months. Wonder Woman is currently being published twice per month and therefore this is NOT bimonthly. --Stenun 03:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Twice a month? No, bimonthly is correct, sadly. Heck, the hardly make THAT :P (if you can find a source for it being twice a month, please post with that) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about this source? [1]. Wonder Woman #4 being published 21st February. Wonder Woman #5 being published 14th March. Wonder Woman #6 being published 28th March. Wonder Woman #7 being published 11th April. Wonder Woman #8 being published 25th April. This does not look bimonthly to me. --Stenun 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if the publisher actually meets this schedule before we revise this portion of the entry.--Galliaz 12:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Stenun 13:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Because they're notable for lying to us, Stenun. However I put it in and cited it as scheduled. It's planned and 'announced' so ... we'll see. Why do I get the feeling that they're burning off the series and will cancel it? *sigh* (and I addressed how the change was the wrong way to handle the new info on Stenun's talk page, we cool). -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsarama still cites her as Bimonthly - DC PREVIEWS FOR FEBRUARY 14th , 2007 -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With Jodi Picoult's run coming up, they seem to be confidant that the run will catch up. But hers is only a four issue stint, so the schedule will most likely change again. All of which convinces me further that DC made a huge mistake in dropping Gail Simone when she was tapped for the relaunch (Heinberg dropped out and then recommitted to the project at one point). Hopefully, she'll have time to take over in the near future.VanPelt101 07:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Tintin Pantoja's Wonder Woman

Why isnt this version in the alternate versions of the character? [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.118.222.165 (talk)

Non-notable -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Uebermensch

Why are Superman, Batman and Green Lantern "Uebermensch" characters? Especially Superman has nothing to do with the nietschean concept, which the linked article quite clearly states. 87.123.229.41 23:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

i think the fact they were all men, rather than supermen, only superman is possible a ubermensch an given he based on the old jewis Golem protector story, especially given the term ubermensch connection to nazi ideology

One Year Later

Okay, so she's on new charges in Manhunter, but why was the whole mentioned removed. Her own title is not the only place she's been seen one year later (who are we kidding? she's hardly been seen there at all) and the Manhunter thing should still be mentioned.

It's not clear to me what you mean, because the plot point from Manhunter actually is mentioned in the entry.--Galliaz 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

First appearance

There is a discussion on the Comics Project talk page about the appropriateness of "Historical" and "Modern" in the superherobox. CovenantD 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wonder Woman's Weakness

Do we know of any? I typed a short paragrapgh on the page before but some punk took it off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.92.193 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

She gets trapped if her own "Magic Lasso" is wrapped around her, is tied up with it. 65.163.113.145 07:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if people would call that a weakness, because it is universal to everyone and everything. I was looking for somethign more specific, like Superman's Kryptonite or Martin Manhunters weakness to fire.

Traditionally, she loses her powers if she gets tied up by a man, or sometimes if she gets her bracelets chained together by a man. It's all quite suspect and it used to happen remarkably often. Early stories give the impression that the Amazon's main hobby is finding someone to tie them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.187.20.243 (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, these days Wonder Woman is almost invincible now. Kinda makes her a bit boring in my book, unlike Superman. She doesn't even have effective enemies. When you think of Superman, you think Lex Luthor straight away as a villian, nut with Wonder Woman it's not as straightforward. 121.216.148.12 (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cancelled storyline

There needs to be a source for the statement that DC announced the "Who is Wonder Woman" storyline was being cancelled. I had a feeling something was wrong when issue 4 ended in a cliffhanger and then issue 5 makes no referernce to it. I kept expecting a big reveal that Diana was dreaming or under hypnosis or something. Anyone know why this happened, or was this a frantic "our sales are tanking and we need to rethink" type of situation? 23skidoo 12:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

DC announced it as a press release copied on newsarama. Heinberg posted it on his myspace blog (which is spam blocked ... apologies for what follows) - http:// blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=5462973&blogID=231158852&MyToken=8e1388ef-d0e0-4759-badd-5c8991a06f04 . Is that what you were looking for? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Format

In particular because this is a major character, it's important that this article about Wonder Woman be formatted to the WikiProject Comics editorial style and exemplars, with the sections "Publication history" and "Fictional character bioigraphy". I'm not as conversant with the characters as others, so I'll give it a stab only if better-versed editors don't get to it first. More knowledgeable editors would be preferable, obviously.--Tenebrae 18:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Parodies

Wonder Woman has been parodied by Sarah Michelle Gellar for the MTV Movie Awards, referenced by Bernard Black on Black Books. If there are a sufficient number of other parodies, it may be worth having a section in the article.--Jeffro77 13:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See Cultural impact of Wonder Woman for parodies. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Garner victories vs Garner the Occasional victory

Currently the subject of a revert war, let's talk about it again here. Last time, the break down came at saying 'the occasional victory' implied that she rarely won a fight vs Supes etc. This was opposed because many issues conflict each other, and simply 'Wonder Woman wins when she's scripted to win.' Putting 'occasional' makes her described as less powerful (all around, not just strength but also skill) than other heroes. Since DC doesn't quantify the powers of their super heros (A is strong than B is stronger than C), it's impossible to 100% confirm who is a 'better' fighter than another. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to restate from last time: If the editor putting in the qualifier has a verifiable, reliable source, other than himself, cite it with the insertion. Otherwise, it is, as he has stated, just his opinion and does not belong in the article. - J Greb 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a citation is what's called for here, unless you're suggesting 'if you can find an article wherein someone refers to Wonder Woman's occasional victories...' We're not discussing fact, but phrasing. She's won some battles. Is it few enough that 'occasional' is the correct descriptor, or does it exclude that? -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I concurr with Ipstenu. The phrasing is the main issue. "Occasional" is not an appropiate descriptor, as what number of victories would justify the use of the word is up to each individual. And I can't recall more the two or three battles against über-powered characters such as the ones discussed in which Wonder Woman lost. --Ace ETP 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ipstenu, as well. For me, this phrase from her comment is the core of the question: "[p]utting 'occasional' makes her described as less powerful (all around, not just strength but also skill) than other heroes."--Galliaz 22:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, I'm not disagreeing. It is possible though that there is a critical review of Wonder Woman as a character and the stories that supports the statement. If there is, and an editor is using "occasional" based on that, the cite would justify it being in the article. Last time this happened, the editor championing the term's use didn't bring that type of support with it. To this point, JJonz hasn't provided it either, even after what looks like almost 2 weeks of inserting and re-inserting the word, and within the last week getting hit with the reason why the edit keeps getting reverted. - J Greb 06:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What sort of support are you looking for, if not some review or another? I guess I'm confused as to what you mean by 'citation' in this instance. Need more coffee. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Something along the lines of the books that pick apart/detail the histories, publication and character-wise, Superman or Batman. - J Greb 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm pretty sure there are publications of that kind with Wonder Woman as their focus, I don't think any include a passage which could be cited as an authorative source for Wonder Woman's victory margin over beings with near god-like power. I'm also sure JJonz will not bother looking for them, as it's pretty clear from his more recent contributions to this article (occurring concurrently with our discussion) that his entire editing policy is based on Wikipedia:The Truth. --Ace ETP 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All of you listen, there's no need for people to get so all out of sorts over such a simple little word as "occasional". As I have explained before, this simply means that Wonder Woman, powerful as she is, does not routinely defeat those mentioned in physical confrontations. Yes, she has done so before, but not all the time, as some other editors want everyone to believe. She is not the most "Powerful" being in existence, nor is Superman, Supergirl, Captain Marvel, or the Olympian Gods. The use of the descriptor "an occasional victory" still remains the most appropriate wording. --JJonz 11:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not she wins or loses more often or not, but unless we have a verifiable source in one direction or another, we should leave it with the text that has bias in neither direction. Occasional implies she almost never wins, whereas simply saying victories doesn't really impose bias in either direction. Without a source, it should be left in the NPOV state. She has had victories, whether they are plentiful or few, we have no source for either. Besides the fact that occasional itself is inherently POV, because occasional is subjective. Perhaps it would be better to say some, which implies she has won some and lost some, and is perhaps more NPOV than the previous state.

Also... though you say you don't think Superman is the most powerful, your edits in other articles lead me to believe otherwise... Gscshoyru 11:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

JJonz, no one is asserting that WW is the most powerful being in existence; in fact, the section states "Diana is extremely difficult to defeat in open battle, unless she is fighting beings whose strength and durability surpasses her own, such as Superman, Darkseid, and the Olympian gods." It's this prior statement that makes the insertion of the word "occasional" superfluous.--Galliaz 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

EM Co-created WW?

I have always been concerned by the statement that WWM co-created WW with his wife, EM. The statement has been flagged for citation for some time, and the recently-added cite to the Boston U alumni magazine article doesn't actually provide any evidence that Elizabeth Marston co-created Wonder Woman. Now, I'm not disputing that she was a strong woman who was an important part of Marston's life. Nonetheless, I think "co-created" goes a bit too far, especially since we do have ample evidence, presented in the Daniels Complete History, for Marston's developing core concepts and ideas entirely on his own. Rather than go ahead and revise the sentence in the entry, I thought I'd begin by starting a discussion here.--Galliaz 02:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We also have two articles which cite the influence of Elizabeth Holloway Marston and Olive Byrne, with more information on Marston than Byrne but it is important both are noted. It is not unusual for the contributions of spouses to go unmarked in official histories and the Boston University alumni magazine is a notable source which fills this gap. Marston's influence is was also cited in the Boston Globe. Both of these sources fit Wikipedia guidelines. So I'm not certain I understand the objection. -Classicfilms 02:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with the fact that the women in Marston's life greatly influenced and/or contributed to the depiction of the WW character, and it could be asserted that they served as models for WW (in sharing important attributes with her). My point is that while it's important and necessary to assert that EM and OB were important influences on WMM's life and ideas, the term co-creator doesn't seem to properly describe their role in the process. (Although this might sound like legalistic knit-picking, I think it's a worthwhile distinction to make.) Daniels' text doesn't minimize the importance of EM and OB, but also transcribes letters WMM exchanged with the publisher that describe the process through which the character was developed prior to publication.--Galliaz 03:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But their influence is still clear and certain and needs to be noted. Both articles (sorry I haven't read the biography you reference) make it clear that these women greatly shaped the character - and according to the BU article, it was Marston's idea that the character be female which implies a part in its creation. A question to ask would be, "who" would Wonder Woman be were it not for these two women? All of this is not to argue against your points above -I'm not implying that Elizabeth "wrote" the character or fleshed it out as fully as her husband - but her influence is pretty clear and needs to be noted.

How about a compromise? -Classicfilms 03:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course! (If my comments implied any other intention, I apologize.) The first sentence of the entry now reads: Wonder Woman is a fictional DC Comics superheroine co-created by William Moulton Marston and wife Elizabeth Holloway Marston. Might I suggest: Wonder Woman is a fictional DC Comics superhero created by William Moulton Marston. Two strong women, his wife Elizabeth Holloway and Olive Byrne, a mutual friend, served as exemplars for the character and greatly influenced her creation.--Galliaz 12:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Keep the reference as well since it supports this statement. -Classicfilms 14:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like the following added to the "Origin_and_creator" section with the ref at the end of it. Since, as you pointed out, this is not in the Wonder Woman book cited above (which was published a year prior to this article), it's probably useful to provide the source : According to the Fall 2001 issue of the Boston University alumni magazine, it was Elizabeth's idea to create a female superhero (which was not common in the early 1940s): "William Moulton Marston, a psychologist already famous for inventing the polygraph (forerunner to the magic lasso), struck upon an idea for a new kind of superhero, one who would triumph not with fists or firepower, but with love. 'Fine,' said Elizabeth. 'But make her a woman.'"-Classicfilms 14:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this addition would definitely enhance the "Origin_and_creator" section. (The BU article can be used as a reference for the entry's revised opening sentences and this addition.)--Galliaz 14:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, changes have been added. I'll also make changes in related articles. -Classicfilms 15:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Diana Prince era (1969-1973)

it says that this era owes much to Emma Peel, which is obviously true. yet I thought that Modesty Blaise was also an influence. --Leocomix 12:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Statue Picture

Is the picture of the Amazon statue really necessary in this article? I think it needlessly clutters the page.Jupiterzguy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupiterzguy (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Wonder Woman, so I've removed it. Anakinjmt 01:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Powers

Should we add "able to change her clothes by spinning"? Bearing in mind that neither the TV series or the current comics have established how she does it, just that she does it? Daibhid C 15:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that more be a matter of super speed changing? She does have the speed of Hermes, and in Lois and Clark, Clark changed into Superman by spinning around, and that was just considered superspeed changing. I'd think it'd be the same thing with Wonder Woman. Anakinjmt 01:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Lawless never expressed interest

I don't know where that supposed 'quote' came from, because the link is no longer available. It is also notable that on her own Wiki page that she turned down the role (mainly because of Xena). Someone ought to edit this out--p4 13:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)p4poetic.

What are you talking about? The link works just fine. Anakinjmt 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The link works and she does say she was/is interested. By the way she is playing Wonder Woman in DC direct-to-video Justice League story by Bruce Timm and co.[3]. Web Warlock 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Saying she'd be '...more interested' doesn't mean she was interested to begin with. She stated that Wonder Woman isn't an interesting enough character for her to want to play, period. I don't know why is this so hard to understand.

--p4 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)p4poetic--p4 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

POV edits

An anonymous person using several IPs...

• User talk:69.132.97.126 (contribs)
• User talk:69.132.97.178 (contribs)
• User talk:69.132.96.31 (contribs)
• User talk:69.132.97.97 (contribs)
• User talk:69.132.199.22 (contribs)
• User talk:69.132.97.127 (contribs)
• User talk:69.132.96.145 (contribs)
• User talk:98.24.7.26 (contribs)
• User talk:70.16.134.233 (contribs)

...has been reverted and warned several times not to violate WP:NPOV. I'm logging these IPs here so that their contributions are easier to track. —scarecroe (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a user whose contributions appear to be following the same M.O. as the anon logged above: Special:Contributions/Replicator4.7. —scarecroe (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Powers section trimmed

I tried to decruft that section a little. Never use ten words when two will do! --Noclevername (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Aphrodite's Law

Pre-Crisis, if Wonder Woman allowed herself to be chained by man, she would lose her powers. That should be mentioned. (Not sure if it's post-crisis...) JAF1970 (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Split "Character history"

The page is 66Kib and while size is not a much of an issue for a character of WW caliber, the 34kib removed as character history would provide a more consciese article, and a chain to abbreviate the nearly 70 years of history without concern of content loss. This would also provide a chance to expand the pub hist to include some regular titles WW, JSA, JLA. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC).

Page split due to no response. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC).

That's great but the template on the page asked that the section be split out to a new article. You removed all that information but didn't relocate it anywhere that I can see. —scarecroe (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fictional history of Wonder Woman -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

Thank you! —scarecroe (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

what kind of power

Recent edit wars (excluding vandalism) have swapped out the phrases "god-like power" and "super power" to describe Diana's strength in the infobox. I think we should decide what's the best descriptor here, so we can stick to it on the info box. Diana gets her powers from the gods, and she herself was once made a god. I think "god-like" is an accurate descriptor. What does everyone else think? —scarecroe (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly an argument for both. My suggestion for compromise would be to establish a framework such as "Superhuman powers inspired or derived from the Olympian Gods." (I apologized for the wording, simply off the cuff). This would point to the godlike nature of her powers and keep conistency with other superhero powers description. This preface is comparable to Captain Marvel's box description. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC).

Images

I'm a little surprised this article has only a single image of Wonder Woman. What about her first cover and other representations (Golden Age, Super Friends, etc.)? I'm assuming there has been some discussion on this, but using Superman and Batman as models there can certainly be more images without creating fair use issues. — TAnthony^Talk 16:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a lot of images on this article, but some of the sections were branched out into new articles. —scarecroe (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We should go about putting in some pictures. I myself have found a picture of the DCAU Wonder Woman which I think we can use which is being used by the DCAU Wiki. Here's the picture. What I'm not sure is if we can simply upload it to commons and use the same info concerning fair use and where it was taken from. Anybody have any ideas/suggestions? Anakinjmt (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternate icons

The third paragraph of this article states that Wonder Woman is "arguably the most popular and iconic superheroine in comics" (emphasis mine). This implies that there is at least one other character who might validly be considered the most popular and iconic superheroine in comics. Who would that be, exactly? -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

apparent copyvio

A new website, wonder-who.com, has released the above image of Megan Fox as Wonder Woman attempting to force studio executives to cast Fox over already cast model/actress Megan Gale. Fox, rated as one of the sexiest women in the world, was mocked up in the movie-style trailer which teased fans this week with political-type slogans, including, “It’s time for a new ‘W’” and an Obama-esque “A real change is coming”. The campaign was initially deemed credible in movie gossip circles, given the trailer featured the company logos of Warner Bros, Legendary Pictures and DC Comics.

However, London’s The Guardian newspaper exposed the fan fraud in a blog entitled: “The week in geek.”

The above text was apparently copied and pasted from the corresponding ref: [4]. --Pentasyllabic (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Current Character Biographical Data Needed

One of the many problems with the Powers section is that the last paragrash pf Diana's Post-crisis powers details her relationship with. It's completely unrelated to powers. I don't want to remove it because it looks like it contains useful data and valid links, but there's nowhere else to move it because there is no section that actually details Diana's current history. Anyone up to fleshing this out? SteveG (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Flight?

Has it always been the case that Wonder Woman can fly? In Les Daniel's book 60 Years of DC, doesn't he say that she couldn't originally do so (like Superman)? If she couldn't fly at first, it would explain why she needed an invisible plane! :) - NP Chilla 09:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Flight was added to her powers as part of the 1980's revamp by George Perez. Dstumme 14:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, prior to the revamp, she was able to glide on wind currents, a trick most Amazon were taught during their training. It looked like flying, but it didn't work over long distances. Hence, the need for the plane/jet. Does anyone know when this was introduced? I think it was introduced after the plane was.VanPelt101 22:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just what is this supposed to mean? "She is capable of flying up to sublight speed[26]. " "Up to sublight speed" would set anything less than the speed of light at the upper limit. 10 KPH is sub light. Does that mean that WW can fly up to 10KPH? 17 FPS is sub light. Does that mean WW can fly 17 FPS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.136.223 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WW's Power(s)

I reverted a series of changes that served the purpose of hedging (and hemming-and-hawing) about Diana's power(s). The edits are meant to convey to the reader that even though the character is strong, in the end, she's still a girl. (And therefore weaker than the powerful men in the DCU). The change that I find the most problematic reads like this in the original: Diana is one of the strongest superheroes in the DC Universe. It was changed to: Diana is one of the strongest superheroes in the DC Universe although her over all power level (specifically strength and durability) is still less than that of other heroes such as Superman, Supergirl, or Captain Marvel. Given the character's status as an iconic woman and feminist superhero, I find it unnecessary (and objectionable) that she be compared to a male superhero in that sentence. Diana is one of the DCU's most powerful heroes, period. The entry needs to state that, without comparing her to a man, or hedging about it.--Galliaz 10:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The intention of saying Wonder Woman isn't as powerful as Superman or Captain Marvel isn't chauvanism, but rather to state she isn't in their league in terms of strength and invulnerability. To state that she is one of the DCU's most powerful heroes is woefully sobjective, and to put her in the same league is just plain inaccurate. I can provide a post-crisi citation: in Action Comics #600 Wonder Woman is outmatched by Superman, even by her own admission. Cam anyone cite any instance where Wonder Womand is presented as a match for Superman? I don't even understand how someone familiar with the character can state her invulnerability is "in a class by itself". She has the bracelets because she's not bulletproof. SteveG (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wonder Woman managed to overwhelm Supergirl without breaking a sweat. Please read the comics before making the edits. Wonder Woman was created as Superman's equal. It is this sexist world that made Superman evolve to omnipotence while leaving Wonder Woman behind. Wonder Woman does evolve every now and then, depending on the writer. Superman never outmatched Wonder Woman in Action #600 or in any battle between the two. Wonder Woman did exert extreme effort to defeat Superman during the "Girl Frenzy" story of Phil Jimenez and the OMAC storyline where Wonder Woman had to kill to free Superman from mental control. Stating factual things isn't chauvinism, of course. However, as far as Wonder Woman is concerned, DC tends to be sexist (read the stories before George Perez's time and those that came after). Anybody who thinks that Superman is more powerful than Wonder Woman and vice versa is either sexist or ignorant. But I wouldn't argue with an insecure man; he wouldn't appreciate an equal, much less a woman. - Trevz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.215.124.107 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I was supposed to say, "Wonder Woman managed to overwhelm Supergirl without breaking a sweat. Whoever made the edits, please read the comics before making the edits. I read the storyline involving Supergirl's re-introduction to the DCU, and Wonder Woman did not, at any time, have difficulty dealing with Supergirl.

"Wonder Woman was created as Superman's equal. Admittedly though, Superman is the archetype of the superhero. He launched the superhero genre. All others, including Wonder Woman, are imitations..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.215.124.107 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I am repeating this post to collect the statements I made above to avoid confusion regarding my meaning. Apparently, my statements are somewhat opinionated just like other prejudiced correspondents here who claim that Wonder Woman doesn’t belong to Superman’s league. However, I believe in objectivity. This is an encyclopedia after all. That is why I only removed “although with extreme effort” which makes the statement objective without injecting my view of how Wonder Woman dealt with Supergirl.

The entirety of my first two entries in this talk page should read like this:

“Wonder Woman managed to overwhelm Supergirl without breaking a sweat. Whoever made the edits, please read the comics before making the edits. I read the storyline involving Supergirl's re-introduction to the DCU, and Wonder Woman did not, at any time, have difficulty dealing with Supergirl.

Wonder Woman was created as Superman's equal. Admittedly though, Superman is the archetype of the superhero. He launched the superhero genre. All others, including Wonder Woman, are imitations.

It is this sexist world that made Superman evolve to omnipotence while leaving Wonder Woman behind. Wonder Woman does evolve every now and then, depending on the writer.

Superman never outmatched Wonder Woman in Action #600 or in any battle between the two. Wonder Woman did exert extreme effort to defeat Superman during the "Girl Frenzy" story of Phil Jimenez and the OMAC storyline where Wonder Woman had to kill to free Superman from mental control. Stating factual things isn't chauvinism, of course. However, as far as Wonder Woman is concerned, DC tends to be sexist (read the stories before George Perez's time and those that came after).

Anybody who thinks that Superman is more powerful than Wonder Woman and vice versa is either sexist or ignorant. But I wouldn't argue with an insecure man; he wouldn't appreciate an equal, much less a woman.” – Trevz Trevz (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Out of copyright?

Are the early WW stories still in copyright, or not? (I am aware that the character's name and appearance would still be trademarked...) Thanks.Dawud (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful Resources

Seems Gail Simone is writing a column at Comic Book Resources Wonder of Wonders. I believe that it will be her commentary of Wonder Woman and her iconic nature in society. May be good to draw some cultural commentary on the character, or conscise quotes on the character. -Sharp962 (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC).

Abuse in the Post-Crisis powers section

We have a fan who keeps changing this section to include bogus information to try to make Wonder Woman sound like the most badass character in the DCU. It's stating that she's as strong as Superman and more invulnerable (even though she's not even bulletproof) , more skilled at martial arts than Batman, and can access the speed force to match the Flash at super-speed (this part crosses the line from uncited claim to original research). I can't conceive how a rational person could honestly see one character as a trump for all of these other characters who represent the apex of their respective attributes. How does Wikipedia handle someone defiantly insistent on posting false and unsupportable information, and basically gushing about the character in a biased voice? SteveG (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Diana was able to access the Speed Force in the Wonder Woman + Jesse Quick one-shot comic. Artemisboy (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wonder Woman content link

Hi Wikipedia! I have started a blog called WONDERWOMANMOVIEbyBRAD@blogspot.com. It deals extensively with the Wonder Woman comic, William Moulton Marston, her powers, her history and my proposed Wonder Woman movie. I would like readers of Wikipedia to be able to link to my blog from your excellent Wonder Woman page. Please let me know of your decision on this matter! Thank you very much! Brad S. Barnes Bradsb (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't think it's gonna happen, dude. Lots42 (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I know it isn't going to happen, as it would seem like Wikipedia was endorsing your site, which it cannot and remain neutral. You should feel free, however, to link to the wiki article. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

SHB image

I Propose we use the cover to WW # 600. It shows of her new look at a much higher quality and it keys into her reboot. The same was done for the Iron Man page. - The Mist 1:26, 30 June 2010 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.98.42 (talk) I have to admit, I like the new image better than the old one. What were the concerns last time? - jc37 08:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the new one too. I was just backing up the request for discussion. It was pretty obnoxious for an anonymous user to keep reverting without answering a simple request for discussion. Doczilla 08:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Well that's two of us, who else wants to comment? : ) - jc37 08:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well since I uploaded it, I naturally liked it better. But then some rude anons kept making it an edit war. But if people (registered, civil users) like the two of you like it, I see don't see a problem :) NeoCoronis 14:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the white/clear BG of the current image, though I think the sparkles of the new one give a very accurate and historical feel to the image (and yes, my brain is singing the Lynda Carter show theme song now...). My req for discussion was that last time we tried to change it, it became a knockdown, drag out fight (see above) with people arguing the merits/flaws of images and which was more representative of WW. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone have a problem with the new "sparkly" WW pic? NeoCoronis

Nope. I like it. Since there was apparently a previous edit war over the SHB image, it would be prudent to wait until either a couple more people weigh in or a few more days pass. And when there has been an edit war, anonymous posters can't be the ones to make the definitive move to the sparkly blue. People should wait and let you do it. Doczilla 05:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I like both, though I do prefer the white/clear BG of the current image also. Is it possible to see a white background version of the other? Grey Shadow | Talk 05:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I like the background aside, I don't know if it's a good idea to play with a fair use image that way. - jc37 06:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Grey Shadow | Talk 06:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My only concern about a white background is that then the sparkles would be less apparent. Also, I'm glad that everyone seems to like the "sparkly Wonder Woman", just wish the anons would quit re-posting it (they're tainting it with their rudeness). Would anyone have a problem if I used the new pic for the SHB or should we wait a little more? NeoCoronis 00:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this the most recognizable depiction of Wonder Woman? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would think so, you have WW in her classic costume (with some minor alterations) so the comic readers can easily recognize her, and then you have her doing the sparkly spin-chnage from the TV series, so people who've seen the TV Wonder Woman would recognize her too. Also, I think the pic has that "iconic" feel to it (but that is just my opinion. Like Ipstenu, I kept thinking of the Wonder Woman theme-song when I looked at it). NeoCoronis 15:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should use the most current image of the character until further notice. We must be up-to-date, mustn't we? -- Spore Games 03:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, we must NOT follow the whims of comic book (in)continuity, but rather use the most iconic depiction of Wonder Woman in comic books. On that note, the new reboot costume, complete with the black jacket, is not exactly embraced by everyone, especially most older fans. I propose we use either Alex Ross or Adam Hughes' depictions. The WW #600 had multiple covers, with some by Adam Hughes that recreated the classic covers, we ought to use that and NOT the new changed costume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.131.13.5 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

evolution of the character (history) & pre-crisis / post-crisis (powers and abilities)

In evolution of the character: I added "and mythological" to "Hellenic roots" since Wonder Woman, prior to Greg Potter & George Perez's revamp, honored both Greek and Roman gods. I could have removed "Hellenic" too because "mythological" would have sufficed, but I like the word. In the All-Star Comics #8 splash page where Wonder Woman first appeared, the words clearly stated (in all caps) were "as lovely as Aphrodite - as wise as Athena - with the speed of Mercury and the strength of Hercules..." The story or reprint of Wonder Woman's first appearance can be found in the Net. I also changed "Hermes" to "Mercury". In several stories after (check the Wonder Woman archives or Sensation & Wonder Woman comics), William Moulton Marston changed "speed of Mercury" and "strength of Hercules" to "stronger than Hercules and swifter than Mercury". These changes occurred before the origin story in Wonder Woman Vol. 1 #105 (by which time Dr. Marston had been gone by over a decade).

Greg Potter and George Perez stuck exclusively to Greek mythology (for Wonder Woman's origin story in volume 2) during their term, and this consistency is maintained to this day.

In pre-crisis: I inserted "and Roman" between "Greek" and "gods". I changed "Hermes" to "Mercury" once again and changed the reference/citation.Trevz (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In post-crisis: I changed "Well of Souls" to "Cavern of Souls" (as it appears in Wonder Woman Vol.2 # 1), linked the phrase to a related article and changed the reference/citation. I have the complete collection of volume 2, collected volume 3 from the beginning to the present, and have quite a number of comic books from volume 1. Trevz (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

--- Re: May 14, 2010 edits

I have Wonder Woman comics dating back 4 decades (and earlier), and Wonder Woman splash pages never had "speed of Hermes" as far as I recall; so I reverted "Hermes" to "Mercury." Pre-Crisis writers mixed up Greek and Roman gods, and "Mercury" was in vogue.

It is understandable, though, that some cited sources are erroneous. Trevz (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wonder Woman Movies

Cathy Lee Crosby starred in a Wonder Woman titled movie in 1974.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072419/

Randall W Morris

Randall Morris (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wonder Woman's new direction

Along with a new writer & third millennium sensibilities, she now has a new outfit for the first time in three score years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10459184.stm I think someone familiar with the style enjoyed by this article should update it to reflect this change that was five dozen years in the making. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 03:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, to reflect a stupid change undoing 50 years worth of quality. Leather jacket and bleck leggings? Straczynski's outta his mind. Sheesh. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just read this interesting article [5]; although it's a blog, it seems well written and provides good insights. -Sharp962 (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from Kaej10, 15 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please add the movie done by Cathy Lee Crasby titled Wonder Women made in 1974. Thanks R W Morris Randall Morris (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Randall Morris (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. sonia^♫♪ 01:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

BDSM

How come there is no mention of the hidden BDSM references in the comics on this Wikipedia page? - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You didn't add it yet. Maybe in the concept creation of pub history. -Sharp962 (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC).

I won't know were would be the best place to put it. It's very clear to see in the older issues, but if you need more info, there was documentary on Comic Books on the History Channel a few weeks ago. - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems kind of odd to me also that this was kind of a well-known theme of the comic across a number of years, but there's not much mention of it on any of the main Wonder Woman articles (tucked away at William_Moulton_Marston#Themes, and a little bit at Publication history of Wonder Woman, which is listed at the very bottom row of the Wonder Woman template in the "Miscellaneous" section...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed additional citations tag

This article has 84 references, which may be a record. Yet it is prefaced by a "needs additional citations for verification" tag that then says "Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010)" Seems to me 84 references are more than enough. Removed tag. Dan Quigley (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• The criterion for whether something needs additional citations is whether it has content that needs to be sourced. "But it already has 84 references" is not enough. If any unsourced content exists, it still needs additional citations! WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

• Marino, Mark. "DC Comics gives Wonder Woman a makeover." CNN.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Volumes and issues

The update in the infobox is based on a few points:

• Generally, once a volume is cancelled, it's done. This is especially true if a new volume has been started.
• It's hard to see a "revival" as not picking up the exact next issue number - essentially looking like a hiatus.
• There wasn't a "break" that ended volume 3 - DC just bumped the numbering to match the number of "normal" issues across the volumes.

Best case, we're still seeing volume 3, worst #600 was the "first issue" of volume 4.

- J Greb (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

For WP purposes, it's still Vol. 3. A new Vol. 4 would have started with a new issue #1. Generally, default to what the fine-print indicia say in the comic itself. In the rare cases this isn't helpful (for Marvel and DC, I'm not sure there even are any such cases), use WP:COMMONSENSE. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wandering sentence.

This sentence is trying to say too much:

• 'In an October 25, 1940 interview titled "Don't Laugh at the Comics", conducted by former student Olive Byrne under the pseudonym "Olive Richard" and published in Family Circle, William Moulton Marston described what he saw as the great educational potential of comic books.'

I think this works better:

• "In an October 25, 1940 interview published in Family Circle titled "Don't Laugh at the Comics", William Moulton Marston described what he saw as the great educational potential of comic books."

Then when Olive Byrne is next referenced:

• "Olive Byrne (a former student who conducted the Family Circle interview under the pseudonym "Olive Richard)"

Not perfect, I agree, but I think better than leading in with an information dump. 203.35.82.136 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Changes 203.35.82.136 (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to mention Olive at all, except in source citations, since she's non-notable and no one cares who did the interview in such a case, except as a detail of source verifiability. Mentioning her (twice!) in the article prose is just non-encyclopedic "noise". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Height

Resolved

 – Random suppositions are not encyclopedic.

I always thought that she (being an amazon) would be 6"7' when shown next to superman(who as we all know is 6"3')she is shown as shorter than him except in the Wonder Woman cartoon film with Lucy Lawless providing the voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.165.254 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 5 May 2011

Is there a reliable source for all "Amazons" being 6'7"? (I'm sure you didn't really mean 6 inches and 7 feet). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And when he says source, I think he's referring to one that defines how tall Amazons are in the DCU. - Jack Sebastian (talk)!

Romance with Batman

Resolved

 – Wikipedia is not a chat board.

many people on youtube believe that they should end up together — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmanrules4567 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not relevant to an encyclopedia article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The only notation should be where this has been pointed to by different reviewers commenting on the romance within different media - not our perception of these primary sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge required by policy

Diana Prince has to merge here. The character has abolutely, 100% zero notability (especially under WP:FICT more specifically) except as another name and public facade of the character Wonder Woman, and does not exist outside the fictional universe of that character. Per WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:NAME, WP:MERGE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc., etc., even real people notable under two names do not get separate articles for their separate personae (c.f. Buster Poindexter and David Johansen – same article, despite the fact that only a small percentage of people know he's the same person. And everyone who reads/watches Wonder Woman knows she and Prince are the same fictional person). See also the now-routine inverse of WP:Pokémon test. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, SMcCandlish. Looking at the article for Diana Prince reveals a wealth of information regarding the alter ego of Wonder Woman. Risking the argument that other stuff exists, I'd point out that Clark Kent (the alter ego of Superman) has its own, substantial article. Without delving too far into the metaphysical and psychological aspects of the character (I'm neither a psychologist nor enough of a comic book nerd to argue that overlong), I'd point out that both Clark and Diana have distinct personalities apart from their celebrity superhero identities. Indeed, while Bruce Wayne (who doesn't have his own article) has been argued to be "the mask" of Batman, the opposite is said to be true of SM and WW. Their personalities outside of the costume have developed to the point where their own articles detail these explorations.

Therefore, I don't think the considerations of UNDUE, NAME and INDISCRIMINATE apply. As well, I think the argument of MERGE is deflected as well; it arguably fails three of the four criteria of the rationale for performing a merge (duplication, text and context) and while there is overlap between DP and WW, there isn't as much as one would imagine. They are, after all, the same person, living a distinctly separate life from their hero persona.

Lastly, I think the inverse of the Pokémon test is inapplicable here; both Diana Prince and Wonder Woman are notable.

Is there a merge discussion occurring about this? I was unable to find it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Cultural impact of Wonder Woman article discussion...

I've initiated discussion in Talk: Cultural impact of Wonder Woman, and would really welcome some feedback on the discussion topics I've initiated there. I'd like to have some consensus before proceeding with some overhauling of the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarity please

Although Diana Prince was frequently told not to accompany Trevor at pivotal moments of adventures because it was no place for a woman, Diana was actually the most competent person to tackle a crisis. Diana was actually the most competent person to tackle a crisis, whether by exercising her knowledge or her power as Wonder Woman, riding in with an all-girl cavalry of Etta Candy and the Beeta Lambda sorority

Trevor who? Beeta or Beta?

Wonder Woman paid Prince a large amount of money she had just earned from Al Kale's promotion of her bullets and bracelets routine; in exchange, Prince gave Wonder Woman her credentials and name. She later saved Steve from Axis forces

Who's Al Kale? What promotion? Who is Steve?

When Steve Trevor had fully recovered from injuries sustained in his crash landing on Paradise Island and returned to duty at military intelligence, Wonder Woman followed him, pursuing a job as secretary.

Did they meet in the aftermath of the crash or had they known one another all along? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.75.20 (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

First Appearance of Earth One Wonder Woman

My understanding is that Earth One begins in 1958 with Wonder Woman # 98. This is the first issue with the Andru-Esposito art team (Kannigher was still writer editor.) There was also a new origin story. Andrew Kirschner (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is this article about the book and not the character?

May I remind everyone that when common people say Wonder Woman, they mean the character, not necessarely aware that there's a barely succesful book named after her (althoug it's a given).

--20-dude (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any other superheroes with separate articles for the character and the book(s). --Attitude2000 (talk)

New Costume Section Added

I have added a new section of COSTUME because Wonder Woman is also well known for her iconic costume. As she is one of DC's trinity and is at the same post as Batman and Superman, she deserves a article with much sections and details as they both have got. I'm also adding a PERSONALITY section soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonderBoy1998 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Secret Identity section added

I have added as secret identity section too discussing about the Diana Prince identity. In my view, the proposition of Diana Prince be merged into the article has been fulfilled. I have copied the overview section and post infinite crisis text of the separate Diana Prince article and added a new 52 text. I have also given suitable citations and refs. Shall I delete the separate Diana Prince article? Please discuss. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wonder Woman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) 18:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments:

• Neutrality issues: The lead sentence is her glorification by her creator. A rather WP:PEACOCK statement. A more neutral sentence is needed. "Arguably the most popular and iconic female superhero in comics", "the most powerful female DC Comics superhero" unreferenced POV.
• "was created by William Moulton Marston" mentioned twice in lead.
• Fix tags in the article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed them. Thank you for pointing out.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 2 [6] is not reliable. Replace it with reliable source
• The first whole para is WP:original research, based on a WP:PRIMARY ref (comics).

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

COuld you please point out as to which section does the 'first para' belong or is it the intro's first para. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Personality. Had already tagged in article. Also added tags in Costume. The assertions are based on the wiki-authors' interpretation of the comics. Full review on weekend.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean to say tht I had already cited the personality section correctly or do i need to specify more? I see some original research indicators there still. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The references (being primary sources i.e. sources) do not work here. You need to replace them with WP:SECONARY sources. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have done it now. But I've used the same reference (A Comicbookresources one) everywhere expect for the New 52 part as basically I've used that resource as the reference for the mostly the whole section (new 52 part has a different citation, and image is also there) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonderBoy1998 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fiction: jargon like "Pre-Crisis", "Post-Crisis" is used, but no information exactly it is?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pending
	2c. it contains no original research.	No mention of "Don't Laugh at the Comics" aided Marston's hiring tags added
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	However "In other media" needs to be in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, providing a summary of both daughter articles. May be, "Alternative versions of Wonder Woman"
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Several places where she is said to be "popular". Her popularity resulting in things. She being "the most competent person". seems like glorification.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article is plagued with original research based on primary sources. Please read WP:FICTION and improve.

I will address these issues ASAP and renominate it. Hopefully it passes next time.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

did you know that diana was made out of a sculpture? -wonder girl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.212.81.227 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Help adding FICTIONAL CHARACTER BIOGRAPHY section

I saw that almost every comic character article on Wikipedia has both Publication History and Fictional Char Bio section. But Wonder Woman here only has a Publication History section, plus it needs one as it is a TOP IMPORTANCE article. I'm creating a FICTIONAL CHARACTER BIOGRAPHY section in my sandbox which I'll transfer later. It'll take quite some time. In the meantime, please try and add the section yourself or a atleast create an outline. We can collaborate and create this much-needed section. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Costume

I am moving this from the article to the talkpage to be discussed or re-written:

Her costume did not receive any prominent change until after Infinite Crisis. Her W shaped eagle emblem was turned into a chest-plate and her belt was also shaped into a W. This costume continued until issue #600- J. Michael Straczynski's run of Wonder Woman's altered timeline changed her costume drastically. Her costume was redesigned by Jim Lee and included a redesigned emblem, a golden and red top, black trousers and a later discontinued blue-black jacket.

For 40 years the costume included an eagle shaped breastplate. Not until 1982 was the double W introduced. This needs clarification and more sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for the heads up.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Article structure and due weight

This article is horribly overweighted with info from the last reboot. Please trim that back drasticly. Also it has far too many primary sources that appear to be elaborated on too much. More detail to the original character as created and less insider type narrative as explained in the last GA review. Don't get discouraged. I am not taking over the article...just drawn in from an apeal in the wrong venue at the village pump.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the New 52 reboot with "last reboot"? If so, I would appreciate a lot if you could point out specific areas where I could trim it. After the last GA review, I reduced the primary sources used and added many secondary sources. The places where primary sources are used mainly are in the ficional bio section, where according to me they are appropriate. But if you think that there are specific areas where primary cites should be replaced with secondary/tertiary, please point them out to me and I'll try to my best to replace them. "More detail to the original character as created and less insider type narrative as explained in the last GA review"- I'm sorry I didn't really get this sentence can you please clarify.

I'm really happy someone is giving me valuable feedback on this article. :) I request you to point out to even more places where improvement is due. I would really appreciate your cooperation on this article.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Lets use this new GA review to see what the reviewer suggest as well. this could well be the right time to cleanup the article and get it listed. Give me just a sec. I want to check a few things first and have some suggestions.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As to the issues with it's coverage, here is an excerpt from the last review-

3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	However "In other media" needs to be in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, providing a summary of both daughter articles. May be, "Alternative versions of Wonder Woman"
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

So I think the coverage of the article is fine. The reviewer at that time pointed out that "However "In other media" needs to be in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, providing a summary of both daughter articles. May be, "Alternative versions of Wonder Woman"}}" This point was fixed.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well then I won't bother you with any further details and will simply lay out my concerns with the review. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I didn't mean to prove you wrong. No hard feelings and no offence intended. :)--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry...but you didn't prove me wrong. That isn't the point. The new GA review doesn't even have to agree with old one. What you did was blow me off. Cool.....that's your choice.....but that doesn't mean I was wrong....it means you don't take me seriously....not exactly assuming good faith and not exactly collaboration. You might want to consider that others are going to be writing this article besides yourself.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, just to clarify I never said I proved your wrong. What I meant to say was that proving you wrong is not my intention or motive. And I'm fully aware that the old review and the new review do not always agree with each other. I didn't mean to say that too. And I always welcome suggestions and constructive criticism, and edits by other users too. I'm sorry for blowing you off, you are a more experienced editor than me and I respect you. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Top Importance?

There's a discussion on which comic-related articles should be listed as "Top Importance" on the importance scale, and I feel this article should not be included. If any user disagrees or wishes to contribute, please do so there. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Merging this with the Diana Prince article is Long Overdue

Merging these is a no-brainer. "Wonder Woman" and "Diana Prince" denote the same fictional character. Having two articles for them would be like having separate articles for Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.218.82 (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

…Amazon what champion?

There's been some interesting vandalism on the page… How long has it been there? 193.60.143.15 (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Be specific. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wonder Woman :: the Complete History by Les Daniels

There is but one minor citing of this incredible work on Wonder Woman. With a release date of 2000, I am sure that it is not the most up-to-date work on Wonder Woman, but it takes time to go into great depths of not only the Amazon Princess, but her creator as well. I strongly suggest a fans of Wonder Woman to track down a copy of this publication for reference material. As is the new trend in sensationalist main-stream comics, characters are retconned on a nearly continual basis with increased frequency over the last three decades. This has caused a dramatic shift from the original character conceptions of the character's creators in order to increase sales numbers often through shifts in a characters image (including wardrobe, hair-style, and moral stance) and origin. In some ways these changes are made to make these fantasy characters appear more realistic in an attempt to justify the reading of comic books by adults which in turn takes away from the mythology of super-hero comics and their historically distinctive separation of good and evil which made them morality plays and examples of extraordinary behavior and morals in the face of wrong-doing for children and adolescents for over fifty years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WereTech (talk • contribs) 02:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The article mentions Wonder Woman had telepathy and electro kinesis during the Marston run.

I believe the original Wonder Woman is actually the best known; as it is the only one regularly cited by feminist theories as having a major societal impact. Also I believe given she has a lasso that makes people tell the truth Wonder Woman is a type of psychological fiction. I understand Sherlock Holmes stories are not medical fiction because Conan Doyle was a doctor; but Wonder Womans lasso is clearly the polygraph. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine, you told what you believe. Now tell what you actually want to edit? OccultZone (Talk) 17:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Presumably, CS wants to add categories describing Wonder Woman as a character with telepathy, a polygraph examiner and a psychologist. If so, do reliable sources commonly and consistently define her this way? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If they ever did, I would like to have a view. OccultZone (Talk) 18:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Outfit

I'm curious why the Wonder Woman's new outfit is not being used in the info-box at the top of the article's page?

The pic currently used is not her very first, nor the latest. So, what is the reasoning behind using this outfit as opposed to her newest outfit as per the New 52, which has replaced her former outfit from hereon out?

If the reason is because no high quality images of her in the latest outfit is available, then perhaps an appropriate image can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephSpiral (talk • contribs) 18:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE, we use the most "universally recognizable appearance".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephSpiral (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps...but this does violate non free content use as minimal. You do not need a separate image just for the infobox if others exist.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Wonder Woman a Nazi hunter?

After the war does Wonder Woman continue to fight her old enemies the Nazis in such a fashion calling her a Nazi hunter is justified? CensoredScribe (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it a defining characteristic? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

After the war, she fights Nazis as they commit criminal acts like any other comic book villains. She does not actively devote her life specifically to hunting Nazis, so no, she's not a Nazi hunter. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding Fictional Character Biography

This article is missing the character's fictional biography, it should be added to the article. If it is the Storylines Section it should have its name changed to Fictional Character Biography.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Terminology

The second paragraph under the Creation heading has the sentence "Marston was also inspired by Olive Byrne, who lived with the couple in a polygamous relationship." In the interest of accuracy, shouldn't the term "polyamorous" be used in place of "polygamous"? Xburrows (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Marston was not married to both women.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)|

Merge?

I didn't nominate Diana Prince for merger, but the author didn't create a Talk Page prompt, so I'm starting it. The merger rationale is: "Even real people do not get a separate article for their real name and pseudonym, and this character has zero notability except as Wonder Woman." A quick check shows that Bruce Wayne defaults to Batman, but Clark Kent is an independent page. Are there other secret identities that have their own articles? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I also found Hal Jordan, John Stewart (comics), Kyle Rayner, Guy Gardner (comics), Dick Grayson, Barbara Gordon, and Wally West -- but Barry Allen is listed as Flash (Barry Allen). Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The characters you list above have their own articles because they have either had multiple super hero identities or are one of several people to have the same identity, such as the multiple green lanterns.Spanneraol (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wasn't there a separate, non-WW Diana Prince that featured in the series to some extent? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • She was depowered for a time in the 1970s. Is that what you're thinking of? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• In regards to the merger request, I'd support it primarily because "Diana Prince" is an alias that has only occasionally been used as a secret identity by WW... she isnt tired to it like Superman and Batman are.Spanneraol (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I know you deleted it, but your comment about Donna Troy and Artemis both taking the Wonder Woman name would support the idea that Diana needs a separate article. As it is, the article seems fairly-well developed, and that merger suggestion was from 2011. Is the article strong enough to stand on its own? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• That original merger tag was from 2011. There was one comment on it made in 2012. And then in 2014 an IP editor added the merger tag back, dating it to 2011 AND not creating a talk page post about it. It seems to me that if there was no serious discussion on the issue for three years, we can probably just remove it. Thoughts? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that "Diana Prince" isnt a real character or her real name.. its an alias she has occasionally used... and doesnt seem to be currently using. Spanneraol (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Storylines

• I put the storylines in the template into chronological order becaus it was too bloody annoying otherwise. Also, I think there's jusification for someone more familiar with the actual goings on to put up an article covering the 2nd half of Ruckas run where Athena uses Diana to mount a coup against Zeus, as the whole storyline was a pretty big event that as I recall did reach into JLA for a while. Misterandersen (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

H.G. Peter

While H.G. Peter provided the original artwork, sources credit Marston as the sole creator: [7], [8], [9], [10]. So should he be listed as a co-creator?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Are there sources that call him co-creator? If not, then no. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Harry G. Peter deserves his share of the credit, Marston may have come up with the idea for Wonder Woman' but he only wrote her. H.G. Peter was the one who originally drew her, and the proof is in these links right here: [11], [12], [13], [14]. So yes, Harry G. Peter should be on the Wonder Woman page as co-creator. Zjec — Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

We are not disputing that he was the first artist on WW, we are asking for sources that credit him as a creator. Also we cannot use Wikis as a reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How does that make sense?! when it comes to comic book characters, there are usually 2 or more people who created them. Peter may not have been credited in creating wonder woman, but he still did help create her, so the truth is he really should get the credit in spite of what anyone says. This whole discussion is ridiculous.Zjec — Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If he helped create her, then there should be a source that says so. So please go find one and we'll add it to the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Harry G. Peter is credited as her creator somewhere out there, and sites like this can show it. [15]. Zjec 1:18 am, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This source says Marston created Wonder Woman, and then chose Peter to draw his creation. This source suggests the same thing. This source says Marston created her, and only says Peter drew her. This one says "Created by William Moulton Marston" and only mentions Peter as the first artist. This one calls it Marston's creation, as does this one. I'm not seeing any sources in Google Books that credit Peter with Wonder Woman's creation, and several that make it clear she was Marston's creation. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Its a minor detail, and besides it shows the Peter was there and had a hand in the creation and process. Like it or not I think that's close enough. Zjec 6:06 am, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. That's not how it works. We report what the sources say, we don't interpret them the way we'd like. There is no lack of sources stating Peter was the first artist. None of them call him WW's creator, while the same sources explicitly credit Marston. Some of them say Marston created her and then brought on Peter, which strongly suggests Peter was not her co-creator. "Like it or not", you can't make claims about people that are not backed up by sources. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that Peter, like Bill Finger with Batman, is unquestionably Wonder Woman's Co-Creator. I remember seeing a sketch, done of Wonder Woman, perhaps in watercolor, in her star spangled outfit. What was different was that instead of boots, she wore gladiator sandals and these were different from the ones originally worn by Superman. There was a comment of approval of the sketch but that's all I can trust to my memory as I honestly don't remember where the sketch was reprinted. It could have been in Wonder Woman: The Complete History or maybe a full color magazine article; I've read so many articles over the years my memory isn't always accurate. But one thing is certain, Peter was there at the very beginning and was paid directly by Marston.

"One more note must be added: If Elizabeth Marston claimed later in life to have suggested the idea of a female super-hero, Byrne Marston (Marston's son) believes that his mother,Olive "Dotsie" Richard may have been the inspiration for Wonder Woman, and that Harry Peter may have fashioned Princess Diana to look like her. "I think physically she resembled Wonder Woman more than Elizabeth, who was short, and nice, but not that type of woman at all." Olive Richard, on the other hand, "had black hair and blue eyes. And she was slender. And she had those big silver Indian bracelets and they were heavy. She had one on each wrist and she wore them for many, many years." Les Daniels, "Wonder Woman: The Golden Age" p.33 Chronicle Books, 2001

For the sake of the article, H.G.Peter can and should be listed as a co-creator, but the reason why he doesn't get it from a legal perspective is because he was hired by Marston but Marston never made him a partner in the legal sense of the word. MARK VENTURE (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Just to follow up, I found the original drawing I remembered seeing, unfortunately it doesn't cite where it was reprinted. Apparently, I forgot that WW's original costume also had a bare midriff.MARK VENTURE (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanger link

Jill Lepore, in the New Yorker, suggests that Wonder Woman may have been based on Margaret Sanger. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/last-amazon Any thoughts on if this is a notable enough theory to include in this article? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

She also wrote a book about it, not just the article above -- review here. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/books/review/jill-lepores-secret-history-of-wonder-woman.html?_r=0 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section?

Would such a section be appropriate for including the allegations made in Seduction of the Innocent and for a controversial 70's story line that was dropped where in Wonder Woman protected an abortion clinic. According to the Wikipedia page for Ms. (magazine), "Samuel R. Delany had a planned story arc for the Wonder Woman comic book that was to culminate in Wonder Woman protecting an abortion clinic. This story arc was cancelled because of Gloria Steinem's intervention - her disapproval of Wonder Woman being out of costume was used as a publicity stunt and excuse to remove Delany from the comic book and cancel the controversial storyline.

It seems worth mentioning on the page for Wonder Woman, at least somewhere; I had no idea abortion was even talked about in super hero comics nowadays. Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversy sections are discouraged. See WP:CSECTION. It is strongly preferred that any criticism be integrated into the existing article sections and text. Calling controversy out it its own section frequently violates WP:UNDUE. So no. Skyerise (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

References