Talk:Joker (character)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

Good article reassessment

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The original quick-fail of this article was endorsed, and therefore it was not listed as a good article. Please see the archived discussion for further information. PeterSymonds | talk 21:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A Healing Factor?

Am I the only one to think that Joker's "death defying" has gotten to points where you can't logically think of him as having anything but a healing factor? I mean, in Batman Detective I saw him get hit by a Mack Truck, knocked over an overpass into moving traffic and he escaped before anyone got to his body. This happened right after he got a faceful of his own knock out gas. How can some one do shit like that off pure adrenaline?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.9.99 (talk • contribs)

Sloppy or unrealistic writing doesn't give us grounds to introduce speculation into the article. Doczilla STOMP! 05:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're the only one who sees writers' inability to move on, and fans' inability to let go as a 'healing factor', but, if that counts, then please give Cagney and Lacey a healing factor entry. ThuranX (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Venomous little children, aren't you? This is just the internet after all. Common courtesy for one's view points and all. And though I don't care enough about this site to get a real account, I'm pretty sure it has viewpoints on harassment and I'd hate to see you two get in trouble for that. *wink* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.9.99 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but there was not one harassing word in there. We said that the comics' writers can be sloppy in their work and series can be unrealistic in their depictions. ThuranX used a TV show as an illustration of a point. Doczilla STOMP! 07:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, blunt speech isn't harrassment. However, blanking pages, as you did here and here is against policy, and can easily result in a block. Sorry that you didn't find agreement with your assessment, but jsut because writers like using him and thus don't kill him off hardly speaks to a superpower inherent in the character, unless 'super sales potential' becomes a power. it's jsut the way it is. ThuranX (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Joker Education

SInce the Joker was orignally and engineer wouldn't that mean he has at least a college degree and obviously to create his joker venom and deadly gadgets then wouldn't he have to be exceptionally good at Math and Science especially in Chemistry/Physics and Calculus? I think this article does not emphasize enough about Joker's Intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.181.210 (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all supposition. Unless there's a citation available for a formal education in those subjects, it can't be added. ThuranX (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that's true but it there should be a note about his intelligence it is even referenced many times in various comics and media that even as a child JOker was extremely Intelligent and excelled in school and as some stories infer may have taken AP Courses in his school career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.181.210 (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, readers infer, writers imply. I have yet to see a story in which writers imply anything about Joker's APs, SATs, PSATs, GMATs, or any other standard exams. ThuranX (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the Joker was educated in some way. That education helped create an exceptionally intelligent man. Maybe we should simply include what we know about his intelligence, rather than assuming the methods in which he obtained it? (24.191.218.71 (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Disambiguation

Can someone add a link to a disambiguation page, for I searched "the joker" for the steve miller band song and had to physically type the (song) after it to get a result (it's not that I'm lazy, it's tht people might not be able to find the page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crieff405 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. The Joker page was improperly redirecting here instead of to the disambig page. ThuranX (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i don't know where to put this: does the joker shave? he's always clean shaven even while in arkham, and im sure the staff at arkham would never let him near a razor. i cant find anything on this in wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.187.62 (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not here because it's never been addressed. Can't answer that, simply put. ThuranX (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

SHB image?

Shouldn't the image show the Joker more? I mean, it's pretty much just a mug shot of the character who also has his back turned against us. I think the Joker #1 cover is better choice for the SHB: DCincarnate (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Joker-1.jpg

  • I don't think so. you can see his entire face, it's not like all you see is his shoulders. I think it's a perfect image.--Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
First off, fair use image aren't supposed to be posted to the talk pages. Links, sure (hence the edit), but posted to show.
Beyond that, I agree this one isn't an improvement, and in a lot of ways is a step back. image:B251.JPG maybe, but it has contortion, obstruction, and lighting issues. image:Killingjoke.JPG has the same issue with obstructions. Image:Detective Comics 475.jpg might work, but the character really isn't the focus of the image.
The current one works best of the lot, lets leave it as is. - J Greb (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This conversation goes on every few months. There are a few good reasons to leave it. One, it survives the question each time; the mroe often it survives, the more stable the consensus it demonstrated to be. Two, it helps avoid the focus on certain artists that occurs. There are a large number of people who advocate for Bolland and a few other artists as much as possible. Mahnke's work is visually strong, and hes' not on dozens of pages, like Bolland, so Wikipedia gets a greater breadth of artists to show. Three, its' unobstructed, and conveys both a traditional look of the character and traditional supporting elements, the playing cards. As such, until a truly spectacular 'better image' arrives, I doubt we'll see a change. That said, I'd like to see this wrapped up before the release of TDK; this page will no doubt see lots of drive-by editing for a few weeks after that. ThuranX (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
We need an image that follows Wikipedia guidelines. Image:Detective Comics 475.jpg actually isn't bad, it shows the character more, and it does focus on the Joker. It's also the cover for that Laughing Fish story, which is mentioned in the PH section. DCincarnate (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Please take the time to review all the archive sections about the image. And if you persist, then I leave it all on you to clean up the messes. ThuranX (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Article name change

Perhaps, considering the number of appearances he's made in many media forms, the article should be amended to simply "Joker" or, "The Joker", because the title and intro both suggest (alright, not "suggest", but imply) that he's only in the comics. You'll notice the Batman article title makes no such marginalization. In addition, maybe they should both be referred to as characters within "the Batman universe" (or something similar)... I dunno. Let's get some vote on this. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

LSS: Naming convention with character centric articles is "The" doesn't go in the article title. This is both a Wiki-level and a Comics project-level guideline. There are articles that are exceptions, but generally those are the ones where the article focuses mainly on a show, book, or other like work making the name also the proper title of a published work.
This article isn't built as an exception, it focuses on the Joker as a character.
- J Greb (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: The "(comics)" is a necessary dab suffix since "Joker" is likely to be searched for other things, some as or more common that the comic book character. - J Greb (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with J Greb. No name change, it fits the naming conventions as is. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Abilities

Following the release of The Dark Knight, does anyone else think "ballistics" or "bomb expert" should be added to Joker's repertoire of abilities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.192.175 (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not addressed as to whether he made those explosives himself. Also, powers he's given in one iteration probably don't apply to the general article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.87.194.21 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

bibliography.

This has nothing to do with the movie but it has a lot to do with the article. A while back this article had a "Bibliography" of the joker, why has it been taken down? The else world list is still there, so why not the actual bibliography? there are new books coming out after the movie and they should all be mentioned. Such as: "The Joker by Brian Azzerello and Lee Bermejo" or "Batman: Joker's Asylum (Batman) those are just two examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.152.94 (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just looking for the comic bibliography. Whomever took it back down can just go ahead & put it right back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Joker Bibliography, by name instead of date: http://www.comicvine.com/myvine/likalaruku/for-the-youtube-gals-my-list-of-comics-with-the-joker/87-37891/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

References?

This article appears to be lacking a reference section, which makes some of the citations incomplete. For example, footnote #5 simply says "Steranko 1970", with no title to explain what that is. Nick xylas (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Judging by the format of that citation, what I suspect happened is that in an older version of the page, a full citation was given, and that short form you see was a subsequent use of the same source. At some later point, that comprehensive citation was lost, orphaning the short form. I'd suggest you search through the article history at 3 month intervals till you find the long form information, then copy and paste in the long form. You might even be able to bring back the relevant information which that steranko source had supported. ThuranX (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Other media images

Some observations since the section got folded back in:

  • At best, there are 5 distinct images that should be present:
    1. Romero
    2. Nicholson
    3. Ledger
    4. Timm (Batman: The Animated Series)
    5. The Batman
  • The images used should be examples of the Joker, not "Joker and..."
  • Image sizing should be consistent — the 180px seems right — and with the text for the relevant adaptation.
  • An image may not be needed if such a an image is included within the article on the adaptation.

The upshot:

- J Greb (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind Fair Use images should be kept to a minimum. Five is far too many for the section. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

-True but I think we can all agree that the picture of "live action joker" shouldn't be of Cesar Romero. I doubt anyone has any quibbles with the picture of Heath's portrayal, seeing as its more or less now considered the "definitive" film portrayal. Hamza883 (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit early to say it's definitive. I left Cesar Romero there because the show has a long cultural and academic legacy (moreso than the other portrayals; I know, I've checked), and, well, you can see his mustache (helps fair use!). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
With regard to Ledger and "definative"... IIRC the same was said about Nicholson. It's hard to use that as a standard for "the only one".
As for "minimal use"... that's a tough dance.
With the live action, Romero, Nicholson, and Ledge each present a distinct visual, and each is given, roughly, equal treatment. Having one and not the others seems slanted. The exception, as I noted above would be Ledge since the film that section touches on is using the same image.
The animated has the same issue. Both The Animated series and The Batman tinkered with the basics: the first to give the series a smooth style, the later a modern one. (The previous ones were more literal lifts from the comics.) And again, given that the text in the article points out the divergance, there is justification for that image.
These are uses that are within the scope of fair and minimal use: they add to the understanding of the passages while not being redundant.
- J Greb (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Realistically we can't add five images to the section because of fair use, page crowding, and because it'll make page loading more difficult for slower connections. At most I say three, but we should keep it as small a number as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Question on a dodge/compromise then... would it be reasonable to insert the images into "stack" similar to Image:10dr19.jpg or (more appropriately here) Image:Superman actors.jpg. It can beset up to avoid the crowding and the load time issue.
As for fair use, can you point out exactly why it broaches fair use? I've been pointing out by fair use why the 5 can be justified. If and this is a damn big if with how articles have gone, the versions were expanded on with the images else where, yes, there is a point under WP:NFC to say it shouldn't go here. But only the Ledger image falls under that. Batman (1989) is using a "Joker and" image, the Joker (movie version) article has long since gotten a resounding "no", and the "List of <Show> characters" routinely get the images purged, limiting options for Batman (1966), Batman: The Animated Series, and The Batman. The last option, "In other media", is exactly what got folded back into this article.
- J Greb (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

-I was thinking about a "stacked" image as well. It's by far the best option since it adds a more complete and authoritative feel to the article as a whole. In addition, I think the juxtaposition of the images themselves would be interesting.

Also I'm leaving one with both Nicholson and Ledger for the moment. I find it ridiculous that a quick google search of 'the joker' yields mountains of images of Heath Ledger's portrayal and yet some think his image shouldn't be on the wikipedia page. Hamza883 (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Joker's BMI.

cna we get some easy consensus bac khere that this is an IP being a dick, adding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, so we can try to keep it out better? this keeps getting stuck in there, and it's completely unsubstantiated nonsense. ThuranX (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should warn the user and add a hidden note on not adding that info. into the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
He's been warned on his talk page and hasn't stopped. ThuranX (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe if you report the IP to AVI. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Joker/Mask

The Mask and Batman crossover needs to be added. Joker had the mask.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mask#Joker.2FMask_.28.231-4.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.72.146 (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's covered in the Mask article. The Mask has so little publication history that it's significant. The Joker has way too much to include every variation. Doczilla STOMP! 08:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Joker's Height and Weight

It varies depending on story time and place some times he's shorter then batman some times he's taller it all depends on who's doing the story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.225.161 (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Video Games

Merging the Joker in Other Media article to the Joker article was a good idea, but why no mention of his video game appearences?--72.189.238.209 (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 13:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Video game appearances really aren't notable. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes they are. It's another form of media, and a very popular one at that. They may be remembered more for TV/movies, but it's "...in other media", which includes video games. Anakinjmt (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Video games for Batman and related character are often considered merchandise to promote the comic/movies/cartoon series. The Joker appearing in a game is not inherently notable. Besides, tf we tried to list them all it would be a mess. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
We can summarize his appearances in a single paragraph. 'Joker has appeared in all/many/few Batman themed video games. IN XY and Z, he was the final villian, while in A, B, and C, he was a minor boss or plot moving character.' That's all we need to say, and I agree it's a notable other media. saying it's not because it just promotes the primary is bull; it's a profitable venture. If we used your theory, we could eliminate the TV series, cartoons, and movies as all just trivial promotions of the comic book, but that would be equally nonsensical. ThuranX (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just having "he was in multiple Batman video games" isn't going to cut it. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Romero/Nicholson/Ledger Triptych

Is there any reason why it's three combined photos in one image instead of three seperate ones? Since it's three different fair use photos of different copyright, I don't see why it would be any more 'legit' for Wikipedia instead of having them seperate at different points in the article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been discussions about this above, please catch up on the image discussions. Thanks. ThuranX (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I did. I just missed it because it was part of a seperate discussion.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The L&S: The use of the 3 is within the NFC/fair use guides. The "stack" is a work around for the section size and load time. - J Greb (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Real Name

Why does the opening paragraph say that his real name was never revealed? Both the 1989 movie and the animated series revealed it to be Jack Napier. Emperor001 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And that's just in the Burton movies.
It never made it back into the comics as a concrete plot point, nor did it show up as such in any of the other spin-off media.
The article is laid out to cover the bulk of the character primarily, that's the comics, and the spin-offs in a specific subsection, which includes Batman (1989).
- J Greb (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
But the animated series also calls him Napier. It seems that they've established this as his real name. Emperor001 (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. That makes and assumption that "Jack" is also used.
  2. It's still spin-off media, not the comics proper.
  3. IIRC, the single story where it's used is left ambiguous to it being fact, fabrication, or fantasy.
  4. The comics have been very explicit — no actual name has been given and stuck to and everything coming from the Joker is very, very suspect.
- J Greb (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually the animated series did refer to him as Jack Napier. One episode destinctivley said "Jack Napier, Pamela Isley, Harvey Dent, or as you like to call the The Joker, Poison Ivy, and Two-Face". Emperor001 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


It has long been a staple of the character that his past is mysterious. Even The Killing Joke didn't give him a name. Why should we? ThuranX (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
We're not giving him a name. The movie and TV show did. Emperor001 (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
No, a name is not being put in the article because the Joker's real name is unknown. "We" don't give characters names, and just because the movie and cartoon gave a name does not mean that is the name of the Joker in the comics, which is what this article is about: the comic book character Joker. Joker in the movie and cartoon could be considered "alternate Jokers", if you will, not the main Joker; therefore information about an "alternate Joker" is not valid for the actual Joker unless it is stated in the comics. Anakinjmt (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The TV show, the movies, and the Comics all take place in different continuities. Think of it this way: In the Superman Comics, Braniac is an alien from an unheard of planet. In the superman Animated Series, he's a Robot from Krypton. It's the same with the Joker. We don't know his real name, or even his backstory proper. (I'm not counting the killing joke because that was meant to SUGGEST a backstory, not confirm one. Otherwise the joker wouldn't have said "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another; if I'm going to have a past , I prefer it to be multiple choice!" This way, we see maybe a version of what happened to the joker, but the only things we can confirm happened are the things that Batman was there for too.) It's also evident in "The Dark Knight" that you can't trust anything the Joker says because he gives different explanations about how he got his scars, seemingly sincere every time. It's like reading Othello, you can pretty much count on the fact that anything Iago says to another character is a lie. (Could someone add a "preceding unsigned comment" thing to this? I don't know how.)

Smylex?

Smylex redirects to the Joker article, but it is never named, much less explained what this is. Perhaps such info should be added to the page about the 1989 movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.143.152 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it by redirecting Smylex to the Batman (1989 film) page. ThuranX (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


Seperate Article

Am I the only one that thinks the Dark Knight rendition of the Joker should have its own article? Many characteristics of him are altered to the point where it's like a different character. 207.255.85.121 (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest? If there's more than just a bullet point list, it may be worth it to move the other media section back out. The variations from Batman (1989), The Batman, and The Dark Knight do diverge from the comic version, and there should be material that can be used to put together decent section on those three. And IIRC it was pointed out at one point that there is also material on the technical aspects (makeup and prosthetics) of Batman which should be included. As for the characters from Batman (1966) and BTNA/TNBA, I'd be surprised if there isn't material for solid sections there as well.
But Such a redo should start out in a sandbox before being put into a live article. Also, the last time there was a "movie version" article, it got quickly folded back into here, so I don't think a plot summary article on the Joker from The Dark Knight wold survive.
- J Greb (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with J Greb. I would suggest further that sections might be worked on back here, or in a talk page subpage, allowing editors to nudge back and forth. ThuranX (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
A Dark Knight rendition article simply serves no purpose. However successful it's been, it's still just one movie with one version out of the many, many versions of the Joker that have existed. Between this article and the article for that movie, the character differences are (or can easily be) adequately covered. Doczilla STOMP! 08:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Chemcal burns

Okay, I know he got his skin and hair stained by acid, but wouldn't new, normal, skin and hair have eventually grown back underdeath the damaged? It'd just take a few years but would he eventuallly go back to normal? Emperor001 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for discussing things like that. See Wikipedia talk page guidelines. If you go visit comic talk forums elsewhere, you can probably get a great talk going with people speculating over that. Doczilla STOMP! 19:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
SorryEmperor001 (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Why so serious?

I've been trying to put this sentence in but people keep deleting it. Shouldn't it be here because that's what everyone knows the Joker for? It's basically become his new catchphrase. Emperor001 (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

None of what you've asserted about the phrase is true. It's not a catchphrase, it's an advertising point. It's not what he's known for. Being the Batman's adversary is. It shouldn't be in at all. ThuranX (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
But it has become a famous fan quotation. Everyone I know now knows him for that phrase. Emperor001 (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
SO SOME fans like it. Big deal. That's no assertion of notability or importance. Citation, citation, citation. thank you. ThuranX (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

but that is form the movie and not the comics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.84.42.211 (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Jack Napier in Batman Forever

Everybody knows that Batman Forever is a sequel to the original Batman and Batman Returns despite the extreme style change. And because they take place in the same universe wouldn't the gunman who got a cameo in Batman Forever be Jack Napier technically? Shouldn't that be mentioned at all? 64.53.225.41 (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No. "Continuity" gets revised. The scene with the gunman doesn't match the scene from the first movie, so it's not up to us to speculate about anything other than what it specifically states or shows. He was not the Joker in that flashback/dream sequence. He's not identified as Jack Napier in the credits. Doczilla STOMP! 08:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Fine, but they did make references to the previous movies in the sequels. The director decided to make the scene his own and they didn't denounce or say that it was Jack Napier. They did hint at it in the scene Dick Grayson told Bruce, "You parents weren't killed by a maniac." Bruce replied, "Yes they were." The actual killer of his parents in the comics was Joe Chill, and he was perfectly sane, and was just a small time crook. I think that they didn't use stock footage because the director wanted his scene to be different, and the one in Batman Forever seemed more like a nightmare then what may have actually happened. Just saying. 64.53.225.41 (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Every Batman film fan know that Jack Napier appears in Batman Forever playd by David U. Hodges, director may have been changed and the scene too but is the same plot and has been credited as Shooter. That has not been released as Jack Napier does not mean that the plot has changed. The last discussion say the truth; when Dick says to Bruce: You parents weren't killed by a maniac." Bruce replied, "Yes they were.". ThuranX, JGreb, Doczilla and Thinkblue aren't Batman films fans. As we say in Colombia "Give the signature; Jack Napier are in Batman Forever portrayed by David U. Hodges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.79.46.219 (talk • contribs) 17:35, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
"Every Batman film fan know" is not considered a reliable, verifiable source for information for a Wikipedia article. Adding information based on what "[e]very Batman film fan know[s]" amounts to original research, and will not fly. This is an issue of Wikipedia guidelines and policies which "fans" don't get to run roughshod over just because they are "fans".
The last time this was forced into the article, it was done in pointed manner that included 10 references that were all unreliable and unacceptable. Before it's added again, please try to find a reliable source that the scriptwriters, producers, and/or director did indeed mean for "Shooter" to be "Jack Napier" from Batman. Lack of such a source will just get it stripped out again. - J Greb (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
We've been fighting this editor off for over a year. He's clearly either too stupid, or too stubborn to learn, so I think it's simply best to adopt a policy of revert on sight, block on sight. ThuranX (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Heavily Based on the Joker?

Hunter x Hunter's Hisoka: Similarities to the Joker. http://kickin_rad.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/main_hisoka.jpg

  • Homicidal clown.
  • Unnatural hair color.
  • Ambiguous sexuality.
  • Either insane or clever & terribly sadistic.
  • Dresses like Harley Quinn.
  • Undefeated arch rival of the main protagonist.
  • Will kill anyone else who tries to kill the protagonist before he can.
  • Last name unknown.
  • No record of his past is known.
  • Is known for manipulating & terrifying people.
  • Has no alter ego.
  • Gets aroused by violence.
  • Has a bizarre sadomasochistic & questionably sexual interest in his enemy.
  • Not afraid to die & hopes to die in the greatest battle of his life.
  • Is the most unstopable enemy among all the enemies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Original research. If a reliable source says he was, then we could include it. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of "The Man Who Laughed"?then talk about originality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.2.2 (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you heard of the graphic novel "Joker"?

I ask this because I see many articles about it on the web. But no information transfer here. I know your editors must be working around the clock with news as well as pop culture articles.So this is a mere suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.72.132 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Notable Aliases

Why does it read only "Jack" and not "Jack Napier"? That was his real name in the movie and animated series, why shouldn't it get some mention in the info box? Emperor001 (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Because, and you know this, this articles, is primarily about the comic character, not the character in all media equally. ThuranX (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but should there be a box listing his names in alternate media. I know, his name was never given in the comics, but shouldn't there be a section saying what his real name was in alternate media where it was given? Emperor001 (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Name

Why is the article called Joker instead of The Joker? In all of the Batman media I've seen, he's only called Joker by people talking directly to him. When referring to him in the third person, he's always The Joker. Emperor001 (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Other cases. That might answer your concerns. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I did, and the convention seems to favor adding The to the articles name. Since he is often credited as The Joker and the convention states "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name." Granted, sources alternate between capitalizing and not capitalizing the "the". In every article where The Joker gets a mention in a list of cast, The is capitalized. Emperor001 (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Au contraire, our style guide is very much against that. Look at the articles Flash (comics) and Cheetah (comics). Notice how they're presented? As such, you normally wouldn't be seeing "The" on comic characters. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and I'd add Batman and Spirit, though an argument could be made that since The Shadow allows for the use of '"'the", IAR may be in play. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
His case is different because the character was introduced in a radio series, not comics. Those are but spin-off products. I'm not so sure about The Mask though. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure that the 'radio' argument is a strong enough argument, Sesshomaru. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, then you might wanna feast your eyes on this old thread. The Mask is probably at a wrong title. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dark Knight Changes

Was there ever a reason given as to why the Joker is so different in The Dark Knight than in other media? If so, shouldn't it be put in the article? Emperor001 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dramatic license? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
He isn't. The Joker personality we see in Dark Knight was first elucidated in Batman comics, and eventually graphic novels, beginning in the early 1980s. Since that time, more than one presentation, and especially Arkham Asylum: House of Horrors, has shown him to be a virulent 'chaoticist' (as opposed to anarchist, which he openly proclaimed himself not to be, via his "Agent of Chaos" line, despite the statement that to create such chaos, he did use anarchy) exhibited in the film, in balance with the more camp versions. Also, it can be argued that the Joker of the comics is far less possible in a real world context than the Joker of the movie...which would seem completely rational, as a goal the filmmakers were striving for. --Chr.K. (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Emperor 001, this Ledgoker looks like Tim Burton's Beetlejuice & is rather out of character. Since when does he smack his lips in habbit? He's not really into petty bank robery or crossdressing either. He did get scars, but only after the movie came out. Batman 663 says the scars are from the surgery after Black Mask shot him & electroshock therapy, though they're actualy stitches instead of scars. Same goes for Batman Confidential, which says he got his mouth cut by a batterang. The Joker has never had chlorine-blonde/green hair (outside of DC1sts), has never worn a blue shirt, particolored-socks, brown shoed, olive green vest (regular green, but not olive), camoflage tie, or black gloves. He's supposed to be egotistical & expencive with his appearance, not look like a bum who dosen't care. He had no sence of humor on top of everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, this isn't a forum, nor does that matter. It's the new-universe (or whatever it's called) Joker. 'Nuff said. The Joker's Woman[BlackPearl14•contribs!] 22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know its a minor detail, but in The Dark Knight, he starts out as a bank robber targeting mob banks. The way it is written basically implies hes a terrorist to begin with and was working for them, which he orignally wasnt. Shouldnt it be added that he was a bank robber first, then later showed/acted as a terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoss (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, his socio-political views about chaos and the true nature of people are evident before the crime bosses hire him; his actions are terroristic through and through. ThuranX (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

um no. granted his viwes are terroist in nature but he doesnt act on them. also you dont know hes a terrorist before they hire him. all u know is that he is a bank robber who stole from a mob bank, double crossed everyone, and that he wore make up. Even when the mob and he first meet, not one thing he says is terrorist in nature. I'm not saying hes not because he is. But the article said before that he was a terrorist for higher working for the mob, but in the movie, before he is hired by the mob hes robbing from them. it isnt until after hes highered that the audience finds out about his terrorist bent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoss (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

He talks, from the beginning, about changing the way society, or an aspect of it works. He does so by violent acts. He's a terrorist. ThuranX (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

im not saying hes not a terrorist, im just saying that he wasnt a terrorist for higher. at the end of batman begins and the begining of the dark knight he was a robber. is he a terrorist? yes. i agree. but was he a terrorist for hire? no. because all the audience knew (other then he was smart and violent) was that he was a bank robber. he doesnt start talking about changing society until later. i have most of his dialogue memorized, almost scene by scene. if necessary ill quote it. like i said HE IS A TERRORIST, im not deneying that, im just saying that he didnt start out as a terroirst for higher who was working for the mob. if he was a) why would he be robbing them and b) why were they momentarily debating what to do about him at their meeting and c) why would gamble want to kill him. he is a terroist he just wasnt originially some terrorist working for the mob who was then highered to kill batman. to them he was a "freak" bank robber. and he doesnt say his views on society until much later. once again, i agree hes a terroist, i just dont agree with the way the article original described him. Largoss (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, then we're agreed. He's a terrorist, who then gets hired by the mob to kill Batman. Done, we can put the article back to as it was. By the way, just because people don't 'understand' his motives doesn't make him not a terrorist, it makes them ignorant of his goals. ThuranX (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

your not paying attention to anything i say or any points that refute ur claim. i said i agree hes a terrorist. the way the article is writen it defines him as a terroirst for hire working for the mob who is later hired to kill batman. he wasnt acting as a terrorist at the time. he was a bankrobber, robbing from the mob, and they later hired him to kill batman. why dont we put it something like this (not exactly it needs work i know) he was robbing from the mob but is later hired by them to kill batman and becomes a terroist obsessed with goading batman. it make sense to the plot. we both get what we want. we both agree hes a terrorist, just disagree when this nature becomes apparent. and we both clearly care about the character enough to disagree to an extent. but we have to be acurate for those who read the article. if we come up with a synthisis of our ideas it is not confusing to the reader and captures the essence of the character.Largoss (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I like your proposal. It's basically "let's go back to my way, and you can go away'. That's classy. No. He's not robbing any bank, he's going after the mob banks for a reason. He wants to destabilize things, to shake them up. He says so. The robberies, by his own description, are about social upheaval. He later changes his focus to Batman, and gets the mob to recruit him, but the basic anarchy/chaos motive continues throughout. ThuranX (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

no its trying to compromise here. read the way its writen. he is not acting like an terrorist at the time. hes being a bank robber. i agree hes a terroist. he just isnt a terroist for hire. hes a terroirst who, at the time he comes to the attention of the mob or the police is behaving as a bankrobber. was there some plan? id like to think so, but as he doesnt say that his acting as a bankrobber was part of his plan, you assuming it was is original research on your part. did he want to cause chaos? yes. clearly. but he never says robbing them was part of his plan. ur assuming it was. all im trying to say is, he wasnt a terroist for hire. they didnt know he was a terroist. sal even says hes "a two bit wack job" does that sound like someone who has been a terroist for higher working for the mob? no. do they hire him yes. but when they hire him, to them he is some "freak" bankrobber. Largoss (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I can't parse your poor grammar anymore. All I keep reading is you saying the same thing over and over, and insisting you're right. ThuranX (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

i can say the same thing about your argument. you say from the begining the joker talks of his desire to shake up society. well fine, what scene in the begining does he say that? does he use terroist means early in the movie? yes. but does he say its for his desire to shake up society? no. it isnt until hes arrested that he even says his view of society. before that all he appears to be doing is using guerilla tacticts to fulfil the job the mob hired him for. the way the article is orginally writen is misleading and even now its misleading. what is the problem with just pointing out he appears as a bankrobber, then gradually reveals his "true agenda" or his "true plan" or what ever you want to call it.Largoss (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't write up our characterization to avoid spoilers in the plot, or any other part of the article, which seems to be your interest. When he gives his motivations, that's enough; we don't have to tie his philosophy to scene-by-scene conversations. ThuranX (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

we are also suppose to be acquarate which the first description. And your the one who said that from the begining he states his desire to shake up society. Im not saying put it in the article. Im saying say it here to prove me wrong. Which you didn't. Not only that, if we are suppose to give his motivations, my description is just as acurate as yours by that argument. Largoss (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, your says he's a totally rational guy who decides that robbing banks isn't enough, so he lets the mob approach him about killing batman. not at all the case. However, since you've taken to edit warring on the page (you're up past 3RR), I'm gonna walk away for a while, and let others revert your nonsense. ThuranX (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Individual photos

So I changed the promotional pictures from the one big picture to three individual photos. I think it is better for each section. Ndrly (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've reverted this, twice now. We went through this mess months ago. There's a reason all three were in one. Read the talk page and archives. ThuranX (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

Why isn't this page consistent with the other pages of Batman characters? The others have individual photos of each media adaptation, and more detailed information of each portrayal. Why not here? - Ndrly (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Real World Influence

In the Real World Influence-category it is stated that

In January 2009, a young man with a white-painted face, black eye shadow and ginger-dyed hair stabbed two infants and an attendant to death, injuring twelve others in a children's daycare centre in Dendermonde, Belgium.[52] Among other newspapers, De Standaard noted that the appearance and method resembled those of the Joker. The perpetrator is also said to play games with the police and laugh during police interrogations.

This information is verified by an article on the website of De Standaard. Later articles include quotations of authorities stating that the roumors of Kim De Gelder playing games with his interrogators and laughing at allegations are false and that the Joker-theme in the events is also believed to be a dead-end and will not be pursued as possible lead in the case.

Personally I believe the information quoted above is irrelevant to the article about The Joker. No connections whatsoever to this horrible crime have been proven and the false association that has been made between Kim De Gelder and The Joker by adding this information to the Joker-article will only aid pleads of insanity and martyrize the perpetrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.198.212 (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

While I understand your desire to distance the crime from the character, right now it's a 'current event', meaning things may change. A cop's hardly the person I'd trust, sans photo, as a source for such comparison for a long term addition to the article, but for now, while we wait and see, it'll do. It may turn out that his makeup was some lousy attempt at a disguise and nothing more, in which case the off-hand comment of one cop isn't enough, or it may turn out he's some deranged fan trying to make it real. Who knows? ThuranX (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
On that note, the paragraph about how the role of the character may have contributed to Ledger's death states just that: it MAY have but it is unsure. Doesn't that thereby class as speculation and therefore should be removed? Dac (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree and I removed it Fbunny (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dendermonde nursery attack

This section was reverted out with the reasoning that the connection was both "speculative" and "irrelevant". I rather disagree, as there are three citations (1, 2, 3) from reliable sources notably making the connection (and I am sure that there will be more). I've tagged the section as a current event. If someone wants to delete it - and I am not at all convinced that it should be - we need to discuss how we are going to overlook the presence of connecting citation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Until recently, I supported the inclusion of this section. But now I think that as long as there are no other alleged copycat cases, undue weight is given to this one attack. One alleged copycat does not justify a whole seperate section. I would place the link to the "See also" section with an explanatory note until (and I hope not) other copycats wreak havoc.Sijo Ripa (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I note above that there was discussion and consensus about removal; two editors discussed removal and agreed, i was fine with it, and now sijo ripa. I think it should stay out. ThuranX (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Really? Three whole editors? Hmm, you are one, Sijo is two, and where is the third who discussed the matter? Sorry, neither undue weight nor BLP apply. We do not have copycat crimes, and this one was connected to the Joker. With citations. From reliable sources. It should stay. Full stop. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The IP address is a third. ThuranX (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but they weren't really discussing their edits, now were they? For all we know, it could have been vandalism. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was reached above, and therefore there was no need for discussion when I removed a section which has already been agreed needed to be removed. On the contrary you would need consensus to add it. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, you had reverted the material twice without discussion or explanation; you know this, as you have admitted to such on your own talk page. The non-contentious material was added, you said, without seeking consensus first. That's not really how we do things here; info gets added and stays there unless valid reasons exist for it not to be, as explained in either edit summary or - even better - via the discussion page. You availed yourself of neither. The material added passes the litmus test for inclusion set by Wikipedia; what additional criteria are you suggesting it isn't following? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm with you Arcayne. If anything that data is secondary information, therefore, it's legitimate. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I took this out because, apart from being bs, as many people have already explained, it in particular has nothing to do with THE ARTICLE. I hate reading Wikipedia articles with sections that go off at a complete tangent. It is not secondary information, it's just irrelevant nonsense. Like, on the page about "cat" should I start discussing the habits of my domestic companion? It's about on the same level, IMHOFbunny (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the Alternate versions of the Joker?

Josiah Kerr, Gotham by Gaslight Joker, The Laughing Man, Kingdom Come Joker, The Clown, Jack the Grin, Bianca Steeplechase, All Star Joker\DKR Joker, etc... What happened to the alternate versions of the Joker?(JoeLoeb (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

I believe most were removed as a trivia list; a few are referencd in various sections of the article. ThuranX (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Old news, misleading statement

An editor keeps adding in the following information:

"The police also refused to confirm any connection to The Joker. [1]"

The last edit adding it back in came with the following edit summary: "last sentence, second to last paragraph. It does say it. Stop biasing this irrelevant stuff to incriminate The Joker, a fictional character.."
The cited source, dated 14:47 GMT, Tuesday, 27 January 2009 actually states:

"The media have reported that he was wearing make-up at the time of the attack, that made him look like the Joker character from the Batman films, but police say that is not confirmed."

Not "refused" - which seems to cast a negative tone on the description - but simply "police say". Let's be clear: we aren't here to defend the Joker article from anything that might besmirch a fictional character. We are here to defend the encyclopedia. We use the cited source as depicted and, if necessary, in quotes.
Additionally, this information appears to be dated from two days ago, and newer information seems to have kicked to the curb the above info. thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

if you can cite week old sources for what you want to include, and I include newer sources to refute that, how can you then turn around and bitch about new sources being too old to use? Your older sources are acceptable, newer sources about his attorney aren't. Even newer refutations from the Police aren't acceptable because they're too old, but your statements predating that are acceptable? That's hypocritical. You're clearly biased toward your own version of this event, you ignore consensus that it doesn't even belong here, and you further ignore any other citations. You need to stop WP:OWNing this section.As it stands, you're ignoring consensus that it does not even belong, you're refusing to accept any other editors changes, you're refusing to accept that sources newer than those you insist on referring to for all proof of reasons to keep, and it's getting beyond absurd. As for your 3RR warning on my page, I remind you to stop stalking me, and waiting for ways to 'get' me. I note that you're past 3RR, by the way. ThuranX (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first of all. please calm down. If you feel the initial source of the information is so old that the info therein is outdated, pleas inform us all here, and we can address/fix it. The article isn't driven towards one point of view or the other. I am sorry if I presented you with the idea that my sources are "better" than yours; the aren't - they are just newer, and relatively overshadow the info you added from a source that is days old. It isn't a matter of recentism but one of better information. Your interpretation of the sources was different than that actually presented in the citation.
As for ignoring consensus, I have previously paraphrased the following from the first paragraph of WP:CONSENSUS:
"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages."
In short, despite the very small consensus presented here to exclude the info, our policies require information that is notable, verifiable and reliable to be used neutrally. Excluding information that clearly is related to the subject is not neutral.
Lastly, I think that if you check a tad more closely, you will find that I have not exceeded 3RR. That said, I think it is time for everyone to stop considering that they are going to manhandle the article into what they want it to say. We all need to follow that bit of advice, as no one is the smartest person in the room while editing Wikipedia, and edit-warring the point is only going to get everyone frustrated and destabilize the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't you tell me to calm down. You've been stalking me, ignoring policy, ignoring sources, playing wikilawyering games, and generally being obnoxious to many editors while engaging in two edit wars about this topic, when on both pages, multiple editors have opposed you. If you REALLY believed your policy argument held water, you'd have reinserted this on The Dark Knight page. Instead, you're simply continuing this here to see how much trouble you can cause for me, and to how many editors you can be so completely rude. A fast review of the history of the article (Last 50 only) and talk page shows 12.108.93.11, Sijo Ripa, 82.4.69.113, Darren Husted, Fbunny, 81.164.182.140 and 78.22.198.212 all agreed with me that it was not relevant and should be removed. Eight editors oppose the content. That's not two or three, as you've said before. But you ignore all of them, and all of their arguments, whether made in edit summaries or on the talk page. It's simple. No one can argue with you. You just don't listen. ThuranX (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Please take your personal baggage elsewhere, ThuranX. This isn't the place for you to vent your spleen. I will say it yet again: consensus doesn't override policy. Full stop.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Arcayne, in my opinion a whole section dedicated to the Dendermonde attack is giving undue weight to this one (terrible) incident. So, I do not think that the policy argument holds - there are many policy guidelines and many interpretations of each of them. Wikipedia basically just says: use common sense, be friendly, let's discuss and find a solution. So I ask you: do you object if I would replace the section with a link in the see also section, like:
  • Kim De Gelder - a Belgian mass murderer whose appearance and killing method were similar to those of the Joker.
After all, the section does not really contain more info than that. Once there would be more and more clear links with The Joker / Heath Ledger established, or if similar incidents happen elsewhere, the 'real world influence' section can be re-added to the article. What do you think? Sijo Ripa (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS is Policy. ThuranX (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ThuranX, you are indeed right: Consensus is policy. WP:UNDUE (or WP:STRUCTURE) is another policy argument that can be used to advance the removal of the section. But if one tries, one can find some policies that would support the inclusion. We just need to use common sense and find a solution, without laying too much emphasis on policies and guidelines. From my experience, such discussions often mount to disrespect and annoyance. Basically, Arcayne thinks that this article should contain a clear reference to the mayhem in Dendermonde, and me and you think that devoting a whole section to this topic would undermine the focus and quality of this article. Thus, we should find a way in which we can keep the inclusion, without affecting the quality of this article. So, we should better spend our time on discussing how we can find this middle ground. This cannot be too hard: we can refer to the incident in the text of some other section, or we can put it in the 'see also' section, or we can try to find other copycats and make one-of-a-heck 'real world' section, or ... etc. I am sure that a lot of solutions can be drawn up. There is also no rush - the article is still good and nobody will use or think lesser of Wikipedia, this article or our work because one small part of this article will be under discussion for several days or weeks. Arcayne, what do you think? Sijo Ripa (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the info needs to be in the article, because others have connected it. It is not - i repeat not up to us to assess whether the news stories 'got it wrong'/are idiots/whatever. Our jobs are to present information on a subject neutrally, ensuring that the information added is reliably cited, verifiable and notable. Consensus is a policy - indeed WP doesn't function without it, but consensus doesn't outweigh RS, V and Note. EVER. To claim that consensus to preserve the article to be about - and only about - a fictional character living within the vacuum of comic books and other fantastical media is undue weight and ownership. The real world is out there. Disturbed folk see Taxi Driver and read Catcher in the Rye and do horrible things, claiming inspiration from those sources that isn't there. The Joker is no exception, at least, by the current information available to us. We are an encyclopedia, not a fan forum. We have numerous, credible and pertinent examples of similar instances that indicate that this is neither a BLP violation (as was at one point contended rather hotly) or some heretofore unheard-of precedent.
Does it deserve its own section? I am not sure, but because no one has added other cultural impacts of the Joker, this would appear to be the only one currently. It doesn't belong anywhere else in the article, as it is currently sectioned.
I welcome an RfC, or any other form of mediation or neutral viewpoint on this. There is precedent for its inclusion, and while I respect some of the comments in opposition to inclusion, none of them surpass both policy and precedent. I am open to finding a happy medium, but that medium cannot be absenting the info altogether. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And though you keep shouting those policies, others keep removing, and explaining that he connection is tenuous, denied by reliable sources, and so on. You need to accept this. Many editors feel that one anonymous comment does not rise to the level of connection warranting inclusion. ALl that is verifiable is that SOMEONE said it's connected. What's ALSO verifiable is an identifiable someone, the accused's own attorney, publicly denied it, and the police then opted to NOT confirm any aprt of that aspect of the story. That part of the story is dead now, and thus there's no connection. Avoid recentism-based editing. If the trial and evidence supports inclusion, you can add it then, but as it now stands, CONSENSUS is against you. Picking your own hierarchy of Policy is absurd, by the way. We have multiple policies here. None of them actually apply, because the strength of the evidence that would bolster them is nearly non-existent. By your logic, Cher IS playing Catwoman, and Barack Obama is a Magic Negro Muslim, and all that needs to be an any article about Catwoman, Cher, Christopher Nolan, Batman movies, or in articles about Barack Obama, Magic, Negroes, and Islam. That's not how it works though. Consensus is that unfounded and denied rumors are removed, as are ridiculous statements that fade over time. The material stays out.ThuranX (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

First, do not sneak in more comments changing your comment after I reply. that's hardly any measure of the good faith you keep policing ME for. Don't be a hypocrite. Second , i take your newly added last statement to mean that all eight editor opposing the inclusion can go fly, because you simply, flat out, refuse to listen. Understood. That means there's nothing left but edit warring. I'd rather not, but since you're resigned to it, let's get started. ThuranX (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


Incorrect. Again. Do us both the kindness of not replying to me. You've shown yourself incapable of being civil to me, so you posting any comment to me is either going to be ignored or end up getting you blocked. Your logic is flawed, your examples are both reavealing about your own personality and your perception of the world, which I find to be rather ugly. I am not saying you cannot feel that way, but I'm not about to play your reindeer games. Confine your comments strictly to the edits, and stop attacking me. Please consider this your final warning.
No, that is not what I am saying. If you want to edit war, find someone else to play. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Knock it off already. there's nothing in the edits to comment on, ONLY the editor. You are ignoring eight people. EIGHT. If you were doing any actual talking here ,there might be something about the edits to respond to, but there isn't, because all you do is revert to your version, then threaten me with more warnings about civility and 3RR, but you never reply to the other seven editors who oppose the material here. I have asked you to do so repeatedly. You assert that CONSENSUS is not a policy. It is. Then you say 'but other policies beat it. Then you revert again, repeat.
It's this damned simple: Eight editors, having reviewed the section and citations, do not find it sufficiently relevant to this article to include it. Among the arguments are that an unsourced accusation isn't strong enough, that the attorney has flat out denied it, that the police have NOT confirmed the material supposedly anonymously attributed to them in the immediate aftermath of the matter, that the weight of the sources is AGAINST the accusation being true, and moer. Let's add another. The Joker doesn't have red hair. The killer is not in the goth subculture. The killer has pale skin, not painted white skin. That leaves us with a redheaded boy in makeup. That's not enough to warrant inclusion here. There aren't enough sources to support it, it's that simple. We've got one wire report with a supposedly anonymous cop saying HE is reminded of the Joker by the makeup. That's not 'He said he's the joker'. We've got newspaper reporters building on that ONE anonymous comment with 'he must be the joker because hes' not answering the cops politely'. That's crappy reporting, not the same as the police stating that 'his interview behavior is clearly the same sort as seen in Heath Ledger's performance.' We've got his attorney saying flat out 'The Joker stuff is untrue, and made by the media'. We've got the Police, after that statement ,refusing to confirm it, ore even discuss it. IN other words, the only reliable material is 'It's not true' and 'No comment'. EVERYTHING else is wild speculation, and Wikipedia doesn't repeat wild speculation in news articles, especially about living people, nice or naughty, because that runs headlong into BLP. This is the last time I feel like summarizing, yet again, the entire mess. I'll be pasting this over at your little report against me. And finally, I'm not at 3RR, but nice try to bluff. ThuranX (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, consensus doesn't outweigh the primary policies of RS, V and Note. Ever. Perhaps you missed that the previous half-dozen times I noted it. Since you aren't happy to hear it coming from me, start the RfC, and let a dozen other editors tell you. Until then, leave it be.

Here is the siplicity: you are edit-warring in a way that implies - indeed screams - ownership. You can claim that the statement is unsupported, and every single time you do so, you are wrong, and will be wrong. Your opinions - and lets be clear, that is precisely what you are expressing here - carry zero weight in Wikipedia. Your evaluation of a source seems content to toss the baby out with the bathwater, in favor of a protectionist point of view. Your claim of BLP crashed and burned. The claim of undue weight doesn't apply. Your sole argument appears to be I don't like it, which - as you might not be aware - is not an acceptable reasoning for removal. If you remove it again, I will file a complaint for edit-warring. Congratulations, you've created a self-fulfilling prophecy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Solution-discussion

ThuranX and Arcayne: I am certain that you are both acting in good faith, but the above discussion did not bring us any step closer to a solution. Can we agree that:

  • there should be a reference to the Dendermonde attack in the article (which is not necessarily the same as saying that there is a proven connection, but rather that several cited and established sources have suggested such a connection)
  • there should be no undue weight to this topic.

If we do (please state so clearly be "yes" or "no"), we actually do not have a problem, but then we just need to start generating solutions here (please keep policy discussions out of this subsection) until we find one that is satisfactory for everyone. One of my proposals (but please bring your own proposals to the table, or be critical to this one) is that we make a concise (!) influence and presence section that contains all notable and reliable real world references to the Joker, ranging from marketing dolls, references in notable films, crimes, popularity polls (eg. nr 1 villian in a top 100 list), etc. If we group these all together in a succinct way, such a section certainly deserves its right of existence and is no longer focused on one incident. Sijo Ripa (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree to that, Sijo. On a side note, thanks for bringing the discussion back into focus; it had wanted too far afield. Do you have a certain edit in mind, or are you thinking of garnering more input as to what else we should add? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No. We cannot include a spurious section based on unfounded speculation by unnamed sources now. If there comes, in time and with clear, attributed statements, support that this individual was acting with the intent of imitating the Joker, then we can. However, we really do not have that now. We have one comment by an officer which has not been repeated by the police since. We have a denial from the suspect's attorney which is on the public record. We don't even have a description which matches the Joker, were we to apply Ocmmon sense - We have a redhead with mascara, not a green haired guy in clown make up. We have nothing substantial to put in there, beyond 'One cop said that his personal opinion was a possible similarity between the killer and the Joker, a comparison denied by the Suspect's attorney and which the police refuse to comment on.' How does that merit inclusion? And I'm not the only editor who thinks so, I made a list of seven other editors who agree. How does ignoring them and including this farce represent any sort of compromise? This is a binary state situation. Either the material is in, or it is out. Eight editors have said out, one editor has said in. How is this even an issue? ThuranX (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC) For the record:At one point, a link was provided in the See Also section. that I was ok with. I am not ok with anything more.ThuranX (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Page protected for 3 days per an RfPP request. Let me know or request here if the dispute is resolved before then, and the page will be unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX, I would not put it as either in or out. I think most opposition, like my opposition, was against overdoing it (a whole section) or exaggerating the link (it is not proven, and indeed seems far-fetched). But if we visit this google news result site - [1] - we will find 1800 + 800 news matches for Belgium and Joker (referring to the Dendermonde incident), so we can say that media sources have found some ground of resemblance or comparison, which is of course not the same as police or the judicial system finding a link. So, do you see problem if we devote only two sentences to this incident in a whole new section which would include much more topics than just this incident: "When in early 2009 a man with red-dyed hair and black eye shadow killed two babies and a child minder in a nursery in Belgium, several media sources(ref,ref,ref,ref,ref) noted the resemblance between his appearance and method with that of The Joker. To date, police evidence is not suggesting that he was inspired by The Joker. (ref,ref,ref)" Of course, feel free to suggest other solutions or sentences. For me, a link in the see also section with a short explanatory note (one short sentence) is, like I said before, also fine (because this would give the article (1) a reference to the incident, and (2) would not give undue weight. Sijo Ripa (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No. It's irrelevant how many news sources reprint one Wire report with a completely false statement, we don't report false statements. It's like the two senatorial collapses during the Inaugural luncheon a week and a half ago. First they reported Sen. Byrd was dead, then minutes later, revised it to unconscious. Then a few minutes later, it was Kennedy, not Byrd, who was dead or unconcious. Finally we learned both had simply collapsed or fainted, and neither was dead. do our pages on those two gentlemen say 'they died, but moments later, got better'? No, only the Jesus Christ article might be saying that. Instead, our articles reported the more substantial facts, based on the better reports that aren't taken DURING the event, but those that were produced by reporters who can sit and sort the facts and present them calmly. In the 24hour news wars, there's more emphasis on report first, sort it out later. We aren't the news, and we try to avoid that sort of editing, for precisely this reason - it leads to facts being shoved in which are later either corrected as misleading, thoroughly discredited, or in this case, not mentioned. Most o the stories comparing him are based on those two early wire reports, as I already showed on one of the pages Arcayne tried adding this to, by showing identical wording in articles from papers in different countries. It's not about how many papers subscribe to AP or Reuters, and reprint the 'fact', it's about how many actual reporters file that information, and only one did. It grew from there. Because the media needs a 'hook', this has stuck, and later reports call him the Joker killer. It's the reporter's own speculation AFTER that initial comment that leads to the speculation that he's acting like the Joker, a reporter without police statements to that effect said that because he was playing with the cops during the interview, could he be trying to be like the Joker? And lots of papers carried that one reporter's personal supposition. Two guys trying to get the first filing aren't enough to base jack shit on. The cop who made the initial statement cannot be interviewed by other journalists for more info, he was never ID'd. It's not even an 'off the record' statement, its' an 'I overheard it' type thing. I've yet to see a report from days after the event in support of the Joker stuff. Everything from after that day discredits it. He is a redhead. He wore black makeup. He didn't wear white greasepaint. His Lawyer denies it. The police refuse to confirm or comment on the comparison. all the statements which can actually be verified by checking with who said it, says no Joker. In fact, after the Joker bit ,they shot for 'He's a goth'. and that failed too. I have stated over, and over. IF a news article with a named source from a reliable source says he was definitely trying to imitate the Joker, I'd accept it. It IS, contrary to Arcayne's reading of things, a BLP violation to report false rumors here just because they are published, even if they're published about nasty people society hates. Finally, I note your compromise completely ignores the Suspect's lawyer's denial, leaving us a highly unbalanced POV compromise, which cannot be corrected in a single sentence, unless we use 'In January 2009, a Man in Dendermonde attacked kids in a nusery, and while an initial anonymous report suggested one cop thought he might have possibly been imitating the Joker, the suspect's lawyer denied this, and the police refused to confirm the initial description.' which is so ridiculous tenuous in it's connection to this article that we're back at removing it entirely. Further, your 'compromise' is based on the assumption that this is about me vs. Arcayne. It's about Arcayne vs. 8 other editors. Why must we compromise in a way that ignores the opinions of so many on an issue so tenuously connected? Why are you, like Arcayne, completely ignoring consensus? ThuranX (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, the last part if your initial suggestion is to include a 'In Pop Culture' trivia section. that won't fly at asll with dozens of editors, and will be removed post-haste over and over, leading to another edit war. that's NOT going to be the way to solve this. ThuranX (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. You've called the report of a resemblance to the Joker is a "completely false statement". Care to explain how it is such? As well, maybe explain how the sources are all "speculative". Remember, we aren't a Crystal Ball. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, maybe you could cite where the police "refused to confirm" the witness account. You've used that specific phrasing enough times that it, of course, is a specific quote. While you are at it, cite where he didn't wear makeup. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
In point of fact, the police have NOT refused to confirm the witness statement; they have not repeated it; two very very different things. The attorney denied the characterization, which is noted in the statements that ThuranX is so frantic to keep out. Of course, theattorney is going to say that. Belgian law might be different than in the US, but I am not sure it includes the attorney stating 'oh, yeah, my client dresses up like a bad clown, and is uterly unhinged.' Please, a wee bit of sanity might be helpful here.
We have at least six sources - all from reliable sources and easily verifiable - that note the same thing, some even adding a picture of Ledger's Joker. It isn't speculation. Now, it is not our job to judge the reporters (thought ThuranX seems to feel it is); they have their editorial boards (one o fhe criteria for RS), and are a lot better at citing sources than we will ever be. We report what they say, and move on the material as it changes. We don't attempt to crystal ball what's going to happen. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Solutions - arbitrary clarity break

The issues I think that block a resolution is a misapprehension/misunderstanding of what these sources citing DeGelder as the Joker are. They have been called speculation, and there has been a considerable amount of energy expended on trying to distance a fictional character from a real-life crime. Our job is not to evaluate these claims. We aren't the news media, and we are not in a position to evaluate the product of a periodical deemed a reliable source; a reliable source's product is reliable as well. It is not speculation. They do not spring from the same wire service (at least, no one has presented anything approaching convincing evidence of such). The sources from which these reports spring are Reuters News Service. The Telegraph, CBS News, The National Post and CNN. All are reliable sources that have editorial boards and policies that exceed our own for inclusion. They do not engage in speculation.
In actuality, the comparison was made by at least one eyewitness. That is notable and undisputed. The police are being tight-lipped about the ongoing investigations (as there appears to be other murders linked this and plans for more), and the comparison to the Joker might be just that - a comparison by an eyewitness, and not the intent of De Gelder. He might have been imitating any one of a number of things, from Brandons Lee's The Crow, a member of the Insane Clown Posse or a simple ruse to get into a nursery school dressed as a clown. The point is, we do not know. In the absence of confirmation, we go on what we know rather than what we guesstimate, and what we know is in the news reports.
I think that this incident should be incorporated into the article, as the subject of numerous news stories explicitly making the comparison between a mass murderer and the subject of this article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne insists that in the absence of evidence, we promote speculation on numerous pages. IN the above articles, what is there is 'someone told someone else that their opinion was that he might look like the joker.' Layer upon layer of equivocation on top of speculation. I feel that such an unfounded level of reporting violates BLP, and lacks authority to make the claims Arcayne seeks to include. Seven other editors seem to have similar reservations, to be polite, objection, to be blunt, about including this material. I take the heat, because I bothered to use talk. However, Arcayne has never once chosen to address the issues of Consensus and BLP, other than to dismiss them as subordinate policies, not worth our attention. Because Arcayne has not bothered, at all to address any of this, I refuse to participate any further in this. He is thoroughly uninterested in anything but winning, and sees this as a competition. ThuranX (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that is inaccurate. I addressed the matter of BLP, specifically because you said it was such, and I checked with the noticeboard here to make sure. It isn't a BLP violation. Consensus is indeed a policy, just like RS, V, NOTE, etc. One policy doesn't outweigh all the others.
Lastly, this isn't a competition (and never has been): the goal here is to create a comprehensive overview of the subject. In this case, that subject includes crimes connected to it. We have solid - not speculative - references connected to it. This sub-section is an effort to convince some of the others that this information is appropriate for inclusion, and that the sources of the information are nowhere near as shaky as others would intimate that they are.
Again, it isn't about winning; anyone who is concentrating on winning is seeing the article and Wikipedia in precisely the wrong way. Its about creating good articles. That, and learning something new every day. If a person isn't here for that, perhaps this is not the place for that person. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You speak of the BLP report as closed in your favor, it's nowhere near that. Here is the most recent diff on the page; your edit, by coincidence:[2]. I'm amenable to waiting that out, but there's been nearly no outside input there, and we can wait for it. There is no urgency on this, we can wait for clear reports, and clear consensus. I've solicited input for m all other editors who removed the content; hopefully we'll hear from them. ThuranX (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
While that is usually considered canvassing, I think we would benefit from more input, and not just your opposition and my advocacy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
FFS... you've spent a week ignoring them, what else am I supposed to do? Go report me. I don't care about your tattling anymore, nor the subtle 'holier than thou' in commenting on how you're NOT going to this time. These are all people who are involved because I've been pointing to their actions as signs of consensus, and you've been overtly ignoring them. They have a right to be heard, since they already took action. ThuranX (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has no personal stake in it either way, my opinion is that it doesn't warrant a mention in the article. I mean, if the connection itself received a lot more attention with people saying that he was inspired by the Joker or the film's effect on people (instead of people just comparing the two because he had white makeup), then I'd be more in favor of it's inclusion.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood, but if that is the case, it likely wouldn't emerge until trial. The issue arose when police reported eyewitnesses describing the suspect thusly. Then the cops shut up about any details. Then the suspect's attorney stat that he is not imitating the Joker. Then its leaked that the suspect was wearing white face makeup with black eyeliner, all found in his backpack, along with a list of other nursery schools. We report what the newspapers say, and we don't adopt a Sherlock and Watson attitude. That isn't in our job description as editors. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
In the article for the murder/murderer as well, yes, but I'm still not convinced that it warrants such a lengthy mention in this article, especially when it's little more than speculation on both sides at this point. People have said he looks like Joker because he has white face paint on (although he really doesn't, if that picture in the Brisbane Times article below is in any indication), but I don't see why that's significant to the article about the character.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a solution we can all agree on: we add an explanatory note to the "Kim De Gelder" wikilink in the see also section. Once a link would be suggested or proven by an official instance like the police, it can be readded to the main body part of the article. Sijo Ripa (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I was never convinced that a full subsection was really necessary either, CyberGhostface. I didn't know where else to incorporate the information. I at first thought that the main issue regarding the info was where to add it, and was unprepared for an attack on the info itself, and I find the arguments dismissing it as speculative to be quite unconvincing. The way I see it, it isn't if De Gelder was actually imitating the Joker, it is that credible witness statements thought so, which is notable. That RS media outlets picked up the ball and ran with it (for better or worse) is what makes it worthy of inclusion. We do not evaluate whether the news is true - the litmus for inclusion here is "verifiability, not truth". Additionally, we'd be crystal-balling whether it was or not, which is rather one of the reasons we have that guideline and policy. Other, citable folk have noted the connection, and it isn't up to us to question or try to sherlock out the truth. We simply cite the source and add the statement. Anything else is above our pay grade.
Wikipedia doesn't usually have articles for folk who are famous for a single event of murder. Articles for similar school murders in Dunblane Scotland, and in Russia specifically do not have articles for the murderers (though, the Russian incident did have subsidiary articles, as they were notable for something else). I am not opposed to an explanatory note, and a wikilink to the Dendermonde article, but I think it needs - for the purposes of the reader - to explain why it is even in the article. And there's the rub. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Correction, Arcayne: Prosecutor Du Four said that although black mascara had been found in De Gelder's backpack, it was not clear whether he was made up at the time of the knife attack as some witnesses have said. No white face makeup, no eyeliner(though most guys may not know the difference between mascara(eyelashes) and eyeliner(eyelids). No wearing white facepaint, or eyeliner. Now we have an official statement from BOTH sides stating that the initial anonymous witness statements aren't credible. Both defense and prosecution. ThuranX (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
That is a rather drastic interpretation of the sources that I find less than accurate. Look at the statement you quoted: "as some of the witnesses have said", which rather verifies what I said. Some people made the connextion. It isn't for us to judge the accuracy of those statements but to report them. , which rather makes my point. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Way to miss the entire fucking point, and see one tree, and miss the forest. As I've said, over and over, anonymous, unidentified unverifable witnesses aren't enough, and are trumped by clear refutations of the rumor in reliable sources by two identified sources, both of whom have far more authority to speak on the matters at hand. As such, there is no reason to include discredited rumors. And as for the hyperbolic nonsense that it's " a rather drastic interpretation of the sources" and "less than accurate", you're now actively saying the prosecutor knows less about this case than you do? Your hubris is over the moon, Arcayne. You need to walk away now, while we can both say you fought as a zealous editor, instead of an insane editor. The PROSECUTOR said it is NOT TRUE. How much interpretation does that need? ThuranX (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I've heard you every time, ThuranX. I've noted just as many times that you are incorrect. The sources aren't "anonymous, unidentified unverifable" folk. The folks having made these statements to police were witnesses. The media did not take their statements, but the police did. It was the police who released the information to the press. They are credible sources. We have to expect that the attorneys for the suspect are going to be doing damage control, playing down the bizarre aspect. I am specifically stating that I do not know more than the police, the prosecutor, the witnesses or the media who released the info. What needs to be said is that you don't either. You are evaluating the info's weight; that is not your job as an editor here. Unless you have a crystal ball that is able to foresee what the truth is, it might be more convenient to not suggest that you know more than the witnesses, the attorneys, the prosecutor, the police and the media. Quite frankly, you are clearly a smart person, but not a fortune-teller.
Again, the prosecutor is not saying that it is not true - the source you have provided says nothing of the sort, but of course, you are free to ask for a third party to evaluate the statements. I think that might be better than repeatedly attacking me. We disagree; try to keep your temper in check, please. If you cannot, feel free to take a break, and have some tea. I don't want to fight with you, but you are being far more unpleasant than you should. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you be more patronizing and condescending? Despite SAYING you've addressed issues of massive consensus against you, you have never done so. Instead, you simply point to the previous time you said you already did, then say you already did, then next time, you'll point to that statement. You dismissed all those editors as being wrong a few times, but that's not addressing it, it's insulting a lot of folks out of hand. Face facts: nine editors opposed the inclusion, the initial claims of anonymous sources and hysterical media have been discredited by named sources with access to the facts, and there is no reason to include this. You can keep handwaving and wikilawyering all you want, but the facts are simple. This material does not belong in the article, end of story.ThuranX (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not being patronizing; I am disagreeing with you, and showing you where you are mistaken. I am not calling you names, nor insulting you. If you feel I have not convinced you, fine. Walk away; you've made your point. Since you don't/won't/can't see reasoning, consider yourself excluded from the rest of my posts. You don't have to listen, and therefore don't have to feel "insulted" when I point out where you are misinterpreting sources. My efforts are aimed at enlightening the others who are maintaining a consensus based largely upon an incorrect skewing of the actual references. I get that you don't like me. Opinion noted. You can walk away now. Trust others to speak up with their concerns, please.
The "initial claims of anonymous sources and hysterical media" have not been discredited. A simple view of the sources notes that the choice of date (the anniversary of Heath Ledger's death) was in fact unconnected to the murders, but that was all that was proven to be a red herring. The facepaint is incontrovertible, except for one biased attorney trying like hell to protect his client from himself. The cops noted the comparison made by eyewitnesses. The media ran with it. We do not - I repeat, do not get to interpret the validity of material from reliable sources. They are called RS for that very reason. We are not RS, so our opinion as to the veracity of the info is unimportant. Verifiability, not truth is the criteria for inclusion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Arcayne: "The facepaint is incontrovertible, except for one biased attorney trying like hell to protect his client from himself."
The Prosecutor of the case: "Prosecutor ... although black mascara had been found in De Gelder's backpack, it was not clear whether he was made up at the time of the knife attack as some witnesses have said."
So the Prosecutor isn't reliable sourcing. Got it. that alone shows you are uninterested in anything but winning, though your complete dismissal of the consensus that this is not relevant material is already ample evidence of the same. I don't give a flying fuck if you consider yourself to be responding to me or not; any attempts to reintroduce the material without discussion here will be reverted, and considered acts of edit warring which I will report. You need to deal with nine editors here, and you are not. CyberGhostFace said he doesn't feel it's relevant. Your response to him was that Wikipedia doesn't even HAVE articles for this sort of case, and yet you're insistent that this particular one have an article and be written into multiple other articles. You had a chance at consensus, with the see also link, but never even bothered to address it, ignoring it completely. I have my suspicions about your actual motives here, and they have little to nothing to do with actually being motivated to include this material. I suggest you pack it in and move on. Consensus is this event, which is probably only barely worthy of an article of its own, given your own comparison, does not need linking into the Joker article. We have multiple citations stating the initial anonymous statements were untrue, an we have nine editors who feel this is irrelevant. Note that I am not preventing linking 'Joker' in the Dendermonde attack article. I am not even preventing a see also link in this article to that. However, I'm not interested in further compromise. ThuranX (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you seem a bit too upset by this exchange, and cannot seem to stop making personal attacks, despite repeated requests. I have already said that I am aware of your personal preference, and consider your interpretations largely inaccurate and at best misleading. Additionally, I have already freed you from the responsibility of having to respond any further. I am not trying to convince you - I am addressing the others. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
SO, at this point, your'e only responding to get the last word in, eh? ThuranX (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Solutions - arbitrary clarity break 2

Sorry to repeat what I said above, but the point is really not whether it is or isn't true that the murderer in that case had a personal identification with the fictional character, the point is, as I see it, that this has nothing to do with the fictional character HIM(IT)SELF. For this reason it should be deleted. I am not an expert on Wikipedia policy, but if that isn't the policy then the policy should be changed, because articles with sections like that are REALLY ANNOYING! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbunny (talk • contribs) 13:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, the route for changing policy is thattaway. I am sorry that you find some sections that deal with the more peripheral aspects to be annoying. The fact is, we do not interpret news stories, deciding whether or not we believe them. We aren't an appropriate filter. We can decide that something is a reliable source or not, or if something is neutrally presented, or is something can be verified as having been published, but one of our core policies, Verifiability, begins with the following:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material
added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should
provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material
may be removed."
It's okay that you aren't really familiar with the polices just yet - there are a lot of them. It's good that you are leaping in, but it helps to understand what you are leaping into. My problem isn't focused on the inclusion or exclusion of the murders in Belgium into the article. I take issue with folk trying to protect the article and wildly misinterpreting news sources that clearly connect one thing to another. Again, it doesn't have to be true; it has to be verifiable, and from a reliable source. I am fairly sure that if it turns out that the suspect didn't paint up like the Joker (or the Crow, or a member of the Insane Clown Posse or just a clown), some stubborn soul is going to pipe up saying 'I told you so'; again, they would be missing the entire point. Inclusion is about reliability, neutrality and verifiability; truth is excluded from that criteria because there is so little of it to be found, and many Wiki editors only think they know what the truth actually is. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
You two have WAY too much time on your hands. Maybe if you put your time and effort into something that honestly has a POINT you would not hae to place comments with curse words to feel like you are making a difference. Put the dang information in the see also and the details in the article about the murders. WHERE IT MATTERS. Not here in the Joker article where we want to read about the Joker. 208.242.14.185 (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I personally think that Arcayne's approach is quite constructive. He said he could agree with the wikilink with an explanatory note in the see also section. He did emphasise that according to him that is not the best solution and hopes to convince others. In the meantime, he can argue his point as much as he think is necessary. Besides, his point about verifiability, not reliability is correct. The only right rebuttal (and indeed my rebuttal) to him is (the subjective) "undue weight" guideline - a whole section devoted to one possibly inspired murderer is arguably exaggerated. But then again, he did say that he is open for other solutions as long as there is some clear mention of the Dendermonde killer. I agree that the talk page discussion about this issue has become a bit long-winded, but as long as the article is not affected by edit wars, it all does not matter. Sijo Ripa (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that wasn't what I had originally intended, Sijo, but I think that (to let things cool down a bit, as the heat is going to get someone blocked yet again)your suggestion might be the best way to proceed. It does need to be in there, with a brief explanation as to why it is connected. It doesn't require an entire section, and I've pretty much said that all along. I guess that got lost in all the hullaballoo. If it turns out that they are more connected than others want to believe, we will be adding more. Seeing as currently there is not a BLP, RS, V or NOTE issue, the improved info will likely easily overcome the CON issue. Even if one editor chooses to be contumacious about it. I am bending because the current consensus is there. It will be revisited. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the 'gonna get you blocked' threats need to stop. I'm sick and tired of these cheap intimidation techniques. If that's what you're reduced to, the results of this entire exercise are clear to all. Walk away, move on. The comment that your arguments so obviously trump consensus that you'll be back here shortly to' fix' it is ridiculously infantile. There are absolutely BLP issues here, and NOTE issues, as evidenced by the comments of other users here. Your arrogant dismissal of all arguments opposing YOUR opinion is a mockery of how things are supposed to work here, even outside of the fact that you're again showing your raging desire to see me blocked. ThuranX (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Who's talking to you? You don't want the threat of blocking bug you. Follow your own thrifty advice and "walk away, move on". I am certainly not going anywhere, so either act like a grownup and learn to live with those you disagree, or leave. The mudslinging has gone on enough; I don't care one tiny little bit about you - I never have, and the only person who apparently wants to see you blocked - is yourself. For all your nonsense over the past week of abuse, you've accused me of wanting you blocked, and yet, I have not filed a single request to have such done. I'd advise you to not take that as a sign of weakness; I simply don't have time to spend dealing with you; there are so many more deserving folk and articles (this being among them). Please stop. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
No, he actually did NOT agree to that, because, he opined that it needs to be explained WHY that see also is there, thus mandating the entire section. So he has NOT, in fact, offered any compromise at all. I have. Which is why I will not be engaging in anymore of this circular gaming the system. I'm just going to oppose it, flat out, over and over, because he's chosen to demand total inclusion over and over. I've got 7 other editors who concur with me on grounds of relevance and one who used to, but now seems to think a compromise is better because it will solve the impasse, not because it's what's warranted (that would be you, Sijo), he's got himself. With that much consensus that the material has failed to prove sufficient relevance, you'd think this is over. Arcayne alone is holding out. He has cherry picked policy to do so, ignoring WP:CONSENSUS, a policy, and WP:BLP, a policy, in favor of WP:V, the only policy which backs up his version. IN so doing, he's declared himself arbiter or policy, and made up a ranking system for policies. It's a fool's errand to attempt to deal with him anymore. I'm not Quixote, I can see the field of battle more clearly. ThuranX (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
My opinion - which can be traced back on this page - has been first for the inclusion, and afterwards for the inclusion but without undue weight (read: without a section devoted to it and preferably just one or two sentences in total). Perhaps, I misunderstood Arcayne, but this is what he said: "I am not opposed to an explanatory note, and a wikilink to the Dendermonde article, but I think it needs - for the purposes of the reader - to explain why it is even in the article. And there's the rub." Well, the "explanatory" note of course "explains" why it is there, that's why it's an "explanatory" note... Such a note would mention that the media compared the murderer with The Joker (one short sentence in the see also, following the wikilink). Sijo Ripa (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for misinterpreting your position, I took this as opposition on WP:UNDUE grounds. As for Arcayne's compromise abilities, were he truly interested inthe EL as compromise, this says otherwise, as he readded the section after the EL was there. ThuranX (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
No apologies are necessary, ThuranX! Anyone objects if I add the explanatory note to the see also section? Sijo Ripa (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
What were you thinking of adding? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, stop being an idiot. I don't need a PhD in wikipolicy to figure out that what goes into articles should have something to do with the subject of the article, on any plausible policy. This does not. Any more than my hypothetical example of describing the quirky habits of my pet cat on the page dealing with "cat". It would be deleted for irrelevance, as should be that reference. Anyway, given the rather awful nature of the events in question, which are documented in another article, can't you find any more constructive way to use your time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbunny (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to be blunt; you insult me again, and there will be consequences - believe it. If you cannot be pleasant, there's the door. Full stop.
Now that I've dispensed with that unpleasantness, let's address that part of your post that won't get you blocked. Your argument is flawed. We aren't talking about your habits of your pet cat - you aren't citable, and someone of note hasn't noted your exclamations regarding your pet's behavior. The police commented in a citable way about what a witness said, and it was carried by almost a dozen newspapers (and they still do). This translates into notability. You do not get to determine the validity or truth of the comparison; indeed you are prohibited from doing so (as your opinion as to the comparison isn't any more notable than you, as an editor in Wikipedia, are). We cite that which is presented to us; we do not get to rebuild the cow from the butcher shop. That is intrinsic to editing here, Fbunny.
Lastly, try very hard not to concern yourself with what I feel to be constructive. The event is indeed tragic, but we don't get to punk out on our policies just because some loser took a knife to some kids. keep your personal emotions out of the equation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no policy that says that you have to, should, or are justified in including in an article about one subject something on a totally different subject, thereby detracting from the usefulness of the article to the persons wishing information on the subject to which it ostensibly pertains. Your behavior, threats and unreasonableness in this regard, and your apparent belief that you are the Pope of Wikipedia policy, bear ample witness to the vacuity of your position, as I believe everyone else here well realizes. Such aggressive behavior and unwillingness to concede the point more than justifies the descriptive moniker which I attached to it. Fbunny (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Really? That's your response? Sigh. Perhaps you should read the discussion with a little bit less (and odd) righteous indignation, bunny. I've already conceded that consensus wins here, twice. I am saying that if it is revealed that DeGelder was impersonating the Joker, we will revisit this subject again. If you have a major issue with that, you might wish to read the relevant policy again. I do not concede the poor interpretation of policy here; I concede that the consensus doesn't want agree with the strength of the connection at this point. Period. Now, go off an edit something. The "Pope of WIkipedia" blesses your future endeavors. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You mean you will revisit it. Then we'll discuss it at that point, but my view would still be that it is beside the point here, unless you have a point to make about THE JOKER and not about the murderer. Also, my name is fbunny, not bunny. But thank you for conceding consensus Fbunny (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I actually included this connection on the Dendermonde Nursery Attack page, at least on the talk (can't remember now) where I believe it does belong. I suspect there is indeed a connection, I just don't think it belongs in THIS article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbunny (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

After skimming the discussion about this situation, I do not think that this topic deserves coverage in this article. First of all, while connections between the figure and the fictional character are verifiable through reliable sources, this does not in itself mean that we are compelled to include such information. Judgment calls have to be made about whether or not certain content is appropriate to include in an encyclopedic article. Considering how recent this event is, I hesitate to include mention of this at all. Inclusion in a "See also" section seems forced. It is a close enough of a fit, but again, it is too recent of an event to determine any long-lasting merit. I do not think that there needs to be a two-way road in this case; the event's article touches on this topic, but I do not see a compelling reason why this broader article needs to even touch on this event. That is my stance, if anyone is interested... if I am being redundant or have missed out on any particular details, pardon me, then. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Erik. I think almost everyone agrees with you, though some were prepared to go some way to accommodate Arcayne ( I can also accept that solution, but I prefer yours). Fbunny (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) As was apparent, I disagree with the idea that judgment calls should be made, as it implies that we are allowed to dismiss citable references from reliable sources because we don't like them; we are compelled to use them, as this is a neutral encyclopedia, not a biased fan forum. The recent nature of this matter is the only reason I have chosen to keep trying to convince folk that the info should be included (well, that and consensus, which I feel has been misled). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Arcayne, judgment calls are made all the time in editing Wikipedia. Determining whether or not a source is reliable, how to structure an article, and how to best balance opposing viewpoints. We try to be as neutral as humanly possible; there won't be such thing as pure objectivity. I am sure that there are many more things that we can say about the Joker than is what is currently highlighted in this article, but we have to discuss (as we're doing here) how to shape the article to be a good overview of the topic. So with this article, we make broad strokes in regard to the fictional characters. For example, the Joker undoubtedly has appeared in more storylines (such as the Hush storyline) than what this article presents, and his role in each appearance has probably been commented upon by someone out there. Another example are film genre articles. Take action film, for example. We are certainly not going to list every action film ever made in that genre article, even if they manage decent box office performance and higher-than-average critical acclaim. So out of all the details related to the Joker, we can perceive sub-topics, such as characteristics or appearances in other media. With an event like this, though, it is very much an outlier. As far as I know, there is not really a history of real-life Joker impersonators (or people reported to be), so we cannot make a sufficiently broad stroke with this event to warrant coverage in this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. If there was a history of impersonators, or even if there was a significant social debate (which doesn't mean one editor's idiosyncratic views) that this character had a negative role in inspiring violence that was unique to the character, then that might belong here. Actually, I only support the cross-reference because it is (or has recently been) in the news, so people might be looking for that other article or at least be interested to find it. This is the only rationale for the link that I can see, and once this information is outdated, the link should certainly be removed. Fbunny (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Notability doesn't expire. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a minor problem with that - was the event\topic truly notable when it was deemed to be so? It seems the NTEMP idea has been either ignored or refined in some ares, primarily withers of reality TV shows. Yes, it "notable" but so notable as to justify bio articles.
And there is also a nagging question: Is the inclusion because the event was indeed someone that patterned themselves after the Joker or the reporters assumed the connection. If it's the former, then it's likely that there will be grounds for the "see also". If its the latter and the link is all but dropped in the ongoing coverage it isn't notable for this article.
- J Greb (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed Fbunny (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
"Notability" is not an argument to have here at all. It only applies to article creation, and we already have an article about the situation. An article's content is shaped by consensus; WP:NOT states, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." That's where consensus comes in. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, I think you are wrong, Erik. Notability does not apply to article creation alone; it applies as a guideline article content inclusion as well. If an event receives significant media coverage, its notable - even if the information later turns out to be inaccurate. Richard Jewell was accused of being the Olympic Park bomber, and then the allegations were proven to be false, and he was completely exonerated. However, we still have an article on him, because the events surrounding the accusation were in themselves notable. We are not discussing in this case an "indiscriminate" addition of information; the suspect was in fact compared to the Joker by witnesses and expressed to the press during questioning. Other sources - each one of them reliable - verifiably picked up, ran through their own editorial boards and published the same information. We do not evaluate the veracity of the news sources - outside of providing balance for the information's use in the article. We don't get to evaluate the truth of the matter (and if so, I'd dearly love to see that policy, as I can list at least three other policies in counterpoint). Consensus is supposed to find the middle ground of the subject, which (in the absence of cited extreme information) most citable information is likely to be found. Consensus does not outweigh policy (again, if it does, point out the relevant policy; I've been unable to find it). Were it able to do so, groups of dedicated fanboys could argue the inclusion of personal opinion that OJ Simpson was totally connected to 9-11, despite citable evidence to the contrary. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Arcayne, WP:N starts out with this: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article." The entire notability guideline is completely focused on article creation. This guideline is exactly what permits the existence of Dendermonde nursery attack, for which I have no issue. But WP:N does not apply at all in shaping the article content. Here, we are talking about mentioning a singular event that appears too narrow to include in this article that is meant to be an overview of the fictional character. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Having also skimmed the discussion (after being pointed here from WT:N) I'm also going to say the incident isn't relevant enough to be mentioned here. The only relationship between the two is based on perceived similarities, and the consensus elsewhere is that these sort of indirect relations aren't worth mentioning. Nifboy (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Murdered Luthor

How come there's no mention of his killing of Alex in the main paragraph? He should be mentioned in Joker's victims, like the killing of Jason, Barbara's paralysis, and Sarah's murder?(JoeLoeb (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Because Joker's killed numerous people, including plenty of characters incidental to a single storyline. We've covered those with lasting effects on other major characters; the killing of the alternate Luthor is largely irrelevant to any other character. ThuranX (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Joker's name

Can someone explain to me why the real name field keeps being listed as unknown? While it is true that the Joker has never been named in the comics (at least, not that I am aware of), he has been named in other media, where 1989's Batman gives him one: Jack Napier. I believe the argument for keeping it out was something along the lines of it not having been in the comics, or whatnot. Now, before someone says 'the article is about the character in the comics only ', I'd point out that the film versions of the character (featured in the "In other media" section) are based upon the comic book character. As no other media has actually named the character, it would appear fairly notable that he was only named in this film. While I cannot cite it reliably (at least not reliably enough to my satisfaction), it wold appear that the name was given as an homage to Alan Napier, who portrayed Alfred in the 1960's camp series. Thoughts? Actually, I meant to say, polite thoughts, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned in the article, just not in the infobox. It's essentially the same thing as people wanting to add in "Thomas Hewitt" for Leatherface (from The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) as that was the name given in the remake, but wasn't present at all during the original film. One user said, "We cannot swap original and remake information to fill in 'blanks'. If the original didn't specify something then you cannot fill it in with remake information." It's two different continuities.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It is covered in the article, in the section on Joker in other media, including the name tribute. It's not in the infobox because in the comics, there's never been a name for him. This has been discussed at least twice on talk, and has months of regular editors reverting it out in the page history for the reasons mentioned. It's a long standing consensus. ThuranX (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
As ThuranX points out the standing consensus with this article has been to not put an alter ego into the infobox since a solid, uncontested one has never been given in the comics or by the people responsible for the comics in interviews. The upshot of why has always been that the comics, the primary focus of the article, are separate from the adaptations. Adding the "Napier" info in the IOM section is proper. The ID was created for specific reasons in that adaptation and version of the character - a version that only really affect 4 films. Putting it into the infobox or the lead is misleading. It heavily implies that "Jack Napier" is the alter ego of all versions of the character, which is not the case.
To be honest, there is an option that I've been contemplating with regard to this situation - adding a lower section o the infobox. Essentially a "Aspects changed for adaptations to other media" that would allow short, definitive changes to alter ego, aliases, partners, and/or powers to be indicated. Here for example the line -
Alter ego: Jack Napier (Batman (1989))
would be in that section.
- J Greb (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I would be amenable to the alter ego option offered by J Greb. To address the other comments, first remember that consensus is not static; it can change at any point. As well, I pointed out earlier that though the name of the article is named Joker (comic), the parenthetical is simply to distinguish between different uses of the word. What the parenthetical doesn't do is exclude material directly related to the subject that just so happens not to be part of a comic book or graphic novel. In other words, the article is about the subject in its entirety, not just a specific aspect of that character. If it was enough to carry the label DC on the film, it had to get some editorial approval from DC.
Does anyone know of a reliable citation that addresses the coining of the name Jack Napier as an homage to Alan Napier? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It is very true that consensus can change, but this touches on something that has been run directly on this article twice and is a general practice on almost all of the articles the Comics watches over - the primary scope/focus of the articles and the infoboxes. The articles are geared to the format of giving over the lion-share of focus to the material from comics - the publication history and the story/biography as per the comic book sources - then covering use or abuse of the topic in other media. And that later section tends to get hit real hard when the file size starts climbing or the focused pruners visit. That is why, at one point, the "In other media" section was a separate article - this article was exceptionally long and the material needed to be moved (as an aside, 51k is really dancing at the edge of the article needing to be split again). When the IOM was moved out, it strengthened the position that this article was about the principle version of the character.
The infoboxes also have this mentality built into them - "In-story information" is read as "Information from the stories in the comics". That becomes a nagging point when something is done in a film, game, TV show, or whatever that doesn't fit/jibe with the comics. The Joker's real name is one example but there are also others - Rhino's ID, Doctor Doom's powers, Harvey Dent's aliases, things like that. The default has almost always been to limit the "In-story information" section of the 'box to the comics. (2nd aside... this also tends to drive me a bit buggy with categories as well since the character articles get catted by the comics and adaptations information. Gets odd but valid things like Blade (comics) being catted as both an American and a Briton...)
As far as "...had to get some editorial approval from DC."... that does not automatically make it valid for the overall topic. See LXG and LoEG for an example where the publisher signed off on something that cannot be said to be part of, or reconciled with, the source story. Yes, DC signed off on "Jack Napier" as the Joker and in place of Joe Chill for Burton's film. That doesn't mean that it should be presented as an over ID all for the character.
And just for clarity's sake, I've updated the infobox with the compromise I suggested...
- J Greb (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Position on the original issue: Jack Napier is not his alter ego any more than David Banner is the comic book Hulk's alter ego. Listing it as his alter ego even with the film notation would only create confusion. Doczilla STOMP! 04:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
How would it cause confusion? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Joker's aliases

On a related noted, under notable aliases, are we listing them in alphabetical order (as they have historically been used), or some other order? I always thought the first alias that was used was Red Hood. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

hrm...
The only thing that I've see as "decided" about the notable aliases is that it shouldn't include "nicknames". With the examples always being things like "Battling Bowman" (Green Arrow), "Webhead" (Spider-Man), or "Darknight Detective" (Batman). (That makes me wonder if "Clown Prince of Crime" should stay...)
As far as the order... I'd think the publication order would be preferred, if it is clear. And it may wind up with cites being needed in this case since the only one I'm familiar with a point of first use is the "Red Hood". "Jack" is a safe guess at "post 1989", but the rest... no idea when they were coined for/used by the character. - J Greb (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
As some of these monikers might be hard to tie down, why don't we list them in alphabetical order, first by "title" and then by alias? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
He was given a name in the Dark Night, but I can't remember it. Does anyone remember it?86.46.198.198 (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
If you're referring to the Heath Ledger version, I don't think he had a real name.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
That is correct. He has no other name in The Dark Knight film. Doczilla STOMP! 03:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
With the aliases... I'd be tempted to run it as:
Red Hood
Clem Rusty, Jack, Joseph
"Joe" Kerr, Mr. Rekoj
Separate the costumes, which are relatively easy to track and sort in publication order, from the "plain cloths" which aren't. - J Greb (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a reasonable organization to me - avoids titles, keeps it to the big points. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Listing known aliases is fine, although frankly a source should be cited for each -- as a reference, not as a parenthetical title/date taking up space in the infobox or article's main text. Doczilla STOMP! 04:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree 'Zilla, but what is to keep it from becoming a crufty mess over ordering within an infobox? I've seen that sort of devolution before, in the Doctor Who articles. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
If a character uses numerous aliases in the course of his history, then notability criteria are called for. A recurring alias probably qualifies like Matches Malone for Batman. Otherwise, objective criteria would be difficult to come up with for choosing one alias above the many others. If someone wants to make the case for one specific alias, it can be worth discussing. On this basis, I think Mr. Rekoj will have to be removed because I believe it was used only once. Doczilla STOMP! 09:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lunatic

Even though I gave a reason for removing the word lunatic, Sesshomaru has reverted it without giving any reason. I have a problem with the word. It is outdated and facile; rather than give an idea of the character's core traits, at best it describes how the other characters see the Joker. It's no more appropriate for an encyclopedia to refer to a character as crazy or stupid. Any objections to this? A gx7 (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how "lunatic" is inaccurate. That terminology suits him better than, say, "loony" or "madman". Don't you agree? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
My Oxford dictionary gives the same definition for lunatic and madman. Loony is just an abbreviation. Lunatic, specifically, means "moonstruck". In the more generalised modern sense it just means mentally ill or foolish, which is dismissive of any user who is trying to gain an understanding of the character. The article shouldn't use words that don't have legitimate meaning. Emperor A_gx7
Respectfully, I would submit that using a dictionary, taking the literal (and quite likely obsolete) definition of words is never a good idea. Yes, lunatic as a word is related to the moon (ergo the first part of the word: 'luna'). The application of that word in general and specific conversations doesn't imply that the target is suffering from a moon-related mental illness (aside from Selenophobia - fear of the Moon, and not the singer), any more than lupus is an illness that turns one into a wolf. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
While I find your point about the etymology of lupus valid, lupus describes a real medical condition. Lunatic is neither a clinical nor legal term. Even "insane" has applications only to legal rulings and can't be used to describe the character because the term means different things to different poeple. It's a value judgement and a peacock term to call mental illness when no illness is specified. I just don't think it's very enlightened.A gx7 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The Joker is a very strange character and I've noticed there are differing points of view of how he is defined. The statement is in need of external sources. A gx7 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the link to Antisocial Personality Disorder because it was original research. Also, I've replaced the unbusinesslike word "lunatic" with more formal language. "Sadistic sense of humour" also needs an official source to verify it (it could be argued that the character doesn't show the insecurity of a sadist). A gx7 (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A gx7, replacing words which you believe are "unbusinesslike" with your own bias doesn't help the situation. ATP, resort to {{fact}} tagging if you're not going to substitute anything with sources. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think lunatic fits the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia? Can you imagine it being used to describe a real person in a Wikipedia article? The only reason this article is not being subjected to the same scrutiny is because it's The Joker. A meaningless and colloquial word like this would not be considered acceptable in an academic context. The words I used weren't biased. The article already states that his identity is unknown, so he is "enigmatic". "Bizarre" is only a formal version of the psychological alienness that "lunatic" apparently tried to convey. If not that then the article should at least not pretend that a psychological condition for the character has been established. Labelling the character with Antipersonal Personality Disorder is hugely contentious, yet the citation needed tag I added was removed. I understand The Dark Knight blu-ray had a feature with real psychologists discussing the Joker. That's the sort of thing we should be going by. A gx7 (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ledger fans demand retirement of the Joker.

Perhaps this petition & site, which is incredibly insulting to people who do not think that Ledger was 'all that,' deserves a place on this page. It did make CNN News. Thankfuly Warner Brothers holds petitions with equal reguards to mailed-in scripts from amature writers. http://www.theultimatejoker.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about it. A gx7 (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone doesn't agree that it should be there. I think the petition is ridiculous, but it's hard to argue that it isn't relevant and notable as it was covered by CNN. A gx7 (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This might be because it hasn't affected DC in any way, and that there are several petitions out there asking for the same thing. This is just one of several, and CNN covering it doesn't really change that fact. Just my two cents on the matter. The Joker's Woman[BlackPearl14•contribs!] 05:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Similarities between performances

I'm removing the qualification "Despite the performances having many similarities, including facial ticks and maniacal laughter" as per NPOV. The person who wrote it is trying to add their own defence of Jack Nicholson's performance. I don't know what facial ticks they're talking about (and I just saw the movie a week or two ago) but regardless, it isn't Wikipedia's place to include suggestions on how similar the performances are.A gx7 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

good call. ThuranX (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Brian Azzarello's Joker

It's a fairly new graphic novel, but it's licensed and promoted by DC, which therefore makes it canon. It does contribute a little bit, like how he has control over Gotham, and the other criminals' perspectives and views on him. Should we incorporate a little bit on that in the article, or even the fact that it was made? The Joker's Woman[BlackPearl14•contribs!] 03:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We're avoiding a holistic listing of his appearances and titles. Find some critical reaction, AND proof that it's a canon piece, and we can see about inclusion. Canon means it's a recognized part of the in-universe history of the 'new earth/ earth one' Joker. ThuranX (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
All right, that was the primary reason for my asking here instead of just automatically entering it in the article :) I remember how confusing it was when people did that with Pirates of the Caribbean articles. We'll wait and see for reception. The Joker's Woman[BlackPearl14•contribs!] 05:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Aniamted name

Currently the article says that Jack Napier may have been an alias. What episodes imply that? I've seen two episodes that state that that is his real name. In "Dreams in Darkness", and Arkam Asylum doctor says "Jack Napier, Pamela Isley and Harvey Dent, or as you like to call them, the Joker, Poison Ivy, and Two-Face", and in "Joker's Wild", a police record reads "Jack Napier aka the Joker". Emperor001 (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Never minds. Just saw it on an episode. Emperor001 (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Animated personality

I don't know about the comics, but the animated series portrays his as very vain, won't let anyone else kill Batman, a relationship with Harley, and personality traits. Should these be included somewhere or should a separate article for the animated Joker be created. Emperor001 (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No separate article should be created, because there's one Joker, but several different versions of him. The Joker’s general personality has been described in the article, featuring information you’ve shared. If you see examples that show that what you’ve put up here isn’t in the article, please do share and we can see if it’s important to put in. Thanks! The Joker's Woman[BlackPearl14•contribs!] 03:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
For one thing, I don't see anything mentioning the Joker's vanity. In the animated series, he is shown as so vain, that he will not let anyone else kill Batman, even Harley Quinn who once even had the oppurtunity. Also, some comic characters (such as Wolverine) do have separate articles to describe the differnt versions. Emperor001 (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
So what? That's one minor aspect of his personality, inconsistent over the duration of the series, emphasized by some writers and not others, like many aspects of the persona. Find some WP:RS and we can worry about it. ThuranX (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. If you find something major about his vanity... vanity has nothing to do with him not wanting to kill the Batman, that would be a result of his fixative obsession. The Joker's Woman[BlackPearl14•contribs!] 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: "won't let anyone else kill Batman" That's nothing new. That was established in the comics decades ago. Doczilla STOMP! 00:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup. The Joker's Woman[BlackPearl14•contribs!] 23:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Revision by Grant Morrison & Tony Daniel."

What he started in Arkham Asylum with the homosexual implications & supersanity, he finished in Batman 663, giving the Joker a new darker personality, a visual makeover from face to costume, remoiving his need for henchmen, & severing his ties with Harley Quinn. He now has a forked tongue, a permanently dialated eye, a bullet scar on his forehead, all of which according to Tony Daniel are permanent. Notibly, while John Van Fleet made the first design for this new Joker, Tony Daniel went as far as to model him after a combination of Ziggy Stardust & actualy making him look like Conrad Veidt, plus adding a new nickname "the thin white duke of death." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Batman Forever.

An editor seems intent on adding that Jack Napier appears in Batman forever, but is, apparently incorrectly, only called 'The Shooter'. He also wishes to add that the mugging seems different than the scene as showed in Batman. I find that IMDb is not a sufficient source to support his conclusion. I also think that if he wants to include that the scenes are different, then it follows that the shooter may be different as well; the directors changed, and Schumaker may have had some reason to not use Napier, one perhaps as simple as not having to pay Jack Nicholson to appear, or one more involved, like establishing a new origin to build upon. Either way, it's not Napier, and there's not enough material to support it.ThuranX (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We are past three weeks since I put this section up. Since then, I've tried talking on his talk page, he hasn't replied anywhere, and he persists in editing against consensus, without reliable citation, and so on. Is it worth pursuing this to the admins? ThuranX (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I warned the user not that long ago and he replied to me saying that the info. he keeps adding "is true because it continues the saga Burton / Schumacher", which quite frankly I don't buy. If the user keeps re-adding it, yes, an admin. needs to be brought in to deal with this. Clearly, this user is violating WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:3RR, and so on. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The user recently added the content with what he described as a "heap" of references. However, as was mentioned to him on his user talk page (without reply from him), the references provided are not reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Character Bio

Shouldn't most of the stuff under character bio dealing with Golden Age, Silver Age and so forth be relocated to publication history? It makes more sense to put it there because it's not really his character bio, since none of it is canon anymore, but it is part of the publication history, and that section completely glosses over his two decades as a goofy clown, which is all the Golden Age/Silver Age stuff. TempDog (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything that happened in the Gold, Silver, & Bronxe age are out of continuity. Any part of continuity set in Ledgends of the Dark Knight has been trumped by Batman Confiential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No Smilex mention?

Smilex redirects to the Joker's article, but there's no mention of the stuff in the body of the article itself. Is this an oversight, or has it been removed intentionally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSWarren (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 July, 2009(UTC)

Unsure... and somewhat Symphathetic Origion.

I've noticed that some writers have treated Joker like a sad character (the failed commedian/wife and kids story, for instance). And there have been numerous tales of Joker's origon.I don't think there is enough details on these subjects. Also if someone can find out exactly what mental sickness' Joker has that would be great.96.250.97.95 (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

These stories would require critical examination from reliable sources in order for us to describe them as sympathetic. The article does mention that multiple telling have occurred, exact details of each aren't needed. The Joker's psychosis hasn't been defined, but sociopath and psychopath have been used numerous times. Hope that helps. ThuranX (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuity & canon contradictions.

You know how the Joker was depicted in Ledgends of the Dark Knight, which was supposed to be Batman's early years, & the new Batman Confidential, which is a revamp of the early years? I read somewhere on the Wiki that LotDK pertains to stuff that happens in Year One, but wasn't the universe Y1 takes place in destroyed in Crisis on Infinate Earths, making LotDK pertain to a parallel universe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7853011.stm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joker_(character)/Archive_3&oldid=1079704133"