Talk:Joker (character)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Ledger" Poster Image

Would editors please stop adding this image to the page? It is not a genuine poster -- it's a fan mock-up, and the image being uploaded does not source the original artist. The image isn't even of Heath Ledger. It's a photo manipulation of this picture of Conrad Veidt. Thanks. ~CS 19:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And the recent image of Ledger is also not an actual image of his portrayal of the Joker. 71.247.35.225 02:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification: got a cite where Ledger, DC, or anyone official disavowed the image? The summary information on the image page indicates it was taken from Ledger's "official website" with link included.

If there's something hard that it's a fraud, the image needs to be yanked not just from the article, but from Wiki, period. - J Greb 07:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain THIS image [1] is actually legit, the viral marketing campaign (www.ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com) has been discussed in an article in the recent issue of Empire [2]. MarvinNi 09:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that this image has also been discussed in the recent edition of Empire magazine, who also make reference to the viral marketing campaign involving the website www.ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com. The image was removed quite recently leaving a hidden message stating "See you in December" once the full image had been discovered by visitors to the website. Would a disclaimer stating that "whilst yet to be confirmed, this is believed to be the first image of the joker as released in a recent viral marketing campaign" suffice? Either way, I doubt very much that the photo is mocked up from the one referenced above, the two look nothing alike for a start!172.143.8.81 17:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Batman Joker?

I have a very faint memory of a TV blurb that showed an old black-and-white movie scene in which a character had the same Joker grin, but not the hair or lips or dead-white skin. It was presented as an inspiration for the Joker in Batman. I have no idea what movie or what year, unfortunately. I do remember one thing: the grin (somewhat grotesquely) was supposed to have been a result of a sword or knife slash across the face that sliced the man's cheeks open, leaving his teeth permanently exposed in a wide grin. A2Kafir 23:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the first paragraph of this section of the article. CovenantD 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Image

I'd like to remind new editors to this page that there was a very recent discussion regarding what image should be used at the top of this page. While revisiting the issue is always open, please solicit the opinions of others who work on this page before changing the image. Thanks! ~CS 00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Appearances without Batman

I was wondering how many times Joker has appeared without Batman. It seems like fewer than 10 appearances. Also, when did he fight Swamp Thing? There is an image of Swamp Thing engulfing Arkham Asylum that is shown in the opening montage of The Return of Swamp Thing. It is not on the cover of any issue of the series that I could find browsing mycomishop.com, but is on the cover of a British hardcover that I have not been able to see inside because I have only seen it sealed in shrinkwrap. --Scottandrewhutchins 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Joker has appeared many, many times without Batman. I can name more than ten off the top of my head. For instance, his short-lived series in the 1970s offered a whole set of Batman-less stories. More recently, his Infinite Crisis scenes had nothing at all to do with Batman. Doczilla 02:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Heath Ledger

The citation given for this sentence:

Heath Ledger signed to play the Joker in July 2006, for director Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins sequel, The Dark Knight.Sci Fi Wire (April 9, 2007): "Is Two-Face in The Dark Knight?", by Ian Spelling

doesn't actually confirm Ledger: It hedges by saying he "reportedly" will play the Joker — but doesn't specify who or what reported this. If it's legit and not rumor, then this report should have given the source — Variety? Hollywood Reporter? Aside from the fact Sci FI Wire isn't exactly the AP, it's best to cite the actual initial source. The fact Sci Fi Wire says "reportedly" but doesn't say where they got it from is troublesome. -- Tenebrae 03:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Found an interview with Ledger about The Joker, and added the cite. All good. --Tenebrae 03:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Toxic Blood

I really believe that the mosquito that died right after feeding on the Joker's blood shows that the Joker's blood is toxic, and I believe that a significant item to place in the "powers" section. What other reason would a mosquito die from sucking blood? Please quit editting it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abaddon667 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Right. You believe it means the Joker's blood is toxic. Opinion is not allowed. Speculative interpretation is not consistent with Wikipedia style guidelines. I do appreciate the fact that you came here to express yourself regarding that reversion in the text. (And I've seen mosquitoes die right after biting someone before.) Doczilla 07:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There can be implied knowledge of certain things. Things can be "strongly suggested" without actually stating them. I think that is a higher level than an "opinion". Abaddon667

Unless you have a credible source like the writer saying it was meant to be implied or suggested, it is just your own inference that it was implied or suggested. That is your opinion. You yourself say that you "really believe" this. That's not what's required for encyclopedic entry. Sorry. Doczilla 09:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I took this as sign that Joker 'radiates death'. Perhaps it's only symbolic. The same issue mentions how Joker HAS built an immunity to poisons by ingesting his own, but it would be better to wait for further Morrison Joker issues to include 'toxic blood' on the page. 58.107.21.20 20:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)nep

Grant Morrison said that the mosquito was choking on tainted blood. Just because Morrison prefers to use metaphors does not mean that you should take it literally. And I don't mean "Tainted Blood". That is plain language that anyone should know. "Radiates Death" is a metaphor for "Tainted Blood".

Alternate versions

OK, this just seems weird that the article Alternate versions of The Joker is a short list and that section here is this huge, voluminous thing that according to Wikipedia guidelines should be spun off as its own article. Any thoughts? --Tenebrae 17:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the move of the sub-topic is odd. IT should not have been remerged, but I was loathe to undo it without some consensus. I'd support a reversion. ThuranX 02:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

When I first created the Alternate Versions of The Joker page, it contained the entire The Joker in Other Media section, including the theme park attraction (Check the history page). I have no idea why someone changed it the way they did (moving the lion's share of it back here), and I'm ticked off at whoever did it. Evernut 15:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Joker (1989 Batman character)

User:Metropolitan90 recently tried to put a merge notice on Joker (1989 Batman character). It was reverted by the main editor of the article, in a distinct show of ownership.

I support Metropolitan's suggestion of a merge. This article represents a content fork. It reads as a plot summary, which Wikipedia is not, with a great deal of WP:PEACOCK violations, WP:OR problems with peoples emotions and motivations, and lack of citation for casting rumors, to name the most obvious problems. Further, everything ELSE in the article was already available to readers at the proper article, Joker (comics), and the Batman (1989 film) article. As such, I fully concur, a merge back into the main article is in order.ThuranX 22:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have another idea for this: merge the relevant information into a "Jack Napier" section on a List of Batman film characters. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that would be a good idea, for a couple reasons: One, lists are getting less and less popular on Wikpedia, I've seen a few anti-list comments on AN/I over the last few months from admins. Two, I think such a list might inspire MORE of this sort of article, not less, with the list becoming a series of links to those bigger articles. ThuranX 04:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that last statement, the information on the lists should be relatively condensed. Expanding it can be seen a justifying the need for an article. And as ThuranX points out, when the information is condensed back down, new articles for "pertinent information" get created and linked in. - J Greb 18:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be mergedTheClownPrinceofCrime 18:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support The material should be here. If the result is an article that, by file size, needs a split, it should follow the Batman and Robin model -- move the entire "In other media" to a separate article. - J Greb 18:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Content forks are bad. --GentlemanGhost 18:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Joker (comics) is already 58k. Wikipedia:Summary style is used in most FAs in this manner to keep the main article from getting too big. And it's consistent with "Main article: Countdown (comic book)", "Main article: Alternate versions of The Joker", and "Main article: Bibliography of the Joker" already linked from this article. Sohelpme 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sohelpme, that is basically an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, so I doubt that helps. Further, Alternate versions recently dropped 20K, which was neatly folded back into this article. Biblio's little bettter than a list, and Countdown represents an Ongoing story arc, which is tangential to this topic, unlike your other two examples. ThuranX 03:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of additional things:

• The "Coundown" section, for the reason ThuranX cites, most likely should not be in this article. At this point, due to the structure and topic, the article cannot survive with a FCB with every appearance of the Joker in mentioned, much less given any sort of detaled discusion.
• The biblio has gone through one AfD that resulted in a "no consensus", so it could be revisited.
• I'm surprised the "In other media" didn't migrate with the alt versions. Since size is an issue here, and the IOM is a good chunk of data, it seems reasonable that it should have moved to act as an anchor for what is no just better than a list.

In that light, I'm modifying my previous position: I still support merging Joker (1989 Batman character). But instead of bringing the real world aspects (make-up, casting politics, screenwriter/director desires, etc) here, merge that, and the IOM from here into Alternate versions of The Joker. It would give that article more meat, and it would allow for similar real world points to be included in relationship to the television shows and the forth coming movie. - J Greb 06:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The IOM section was migrated BACK here, J Greb. I think they were lookng to compact this article, and collapse other pages back in. I guess they didn't finish the intended edits. I would accept your solution, but the article may need a title change, since a lot of the IOM shouldn't count as 'alternate versions'. Not sure a roller coaster does, for example. ThuranX 14:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but the two sections are a bit muddy at the moment, the inter-company crossovers are in the IOM when they could fit the Alt version. There is also the nagging bit that the exemplar uses "Other versions" and at least one editor has been going through articles to bring them in line with this. Television, movie, radio appearances, video games, and novels fall under the umbrella of "Other versions". That leaves the toys (LEGOs as well as action figures) and the coaster, which to be honest could be called "Licensed toys and advertising"

It may be that the second article should be moved to Joker in popular media, similar to the split made with Batman and Robin (comics). In any event, this would alleviate file size pressure on this article and allow room for expansion on how the character was treated when reinterpreted for the other versions. - J Greb 17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps a move to 'Other versions of the Joker', and expansions, including alternate storylines, other media, and licensing? ThuranX 19:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good way to move forward. - J Greb 07:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Nicholson particular impersonation is very notable and deserves its own article. Edit as you want the other articles, but you'll need to pass a VfD to delete that one.--BMF81 07:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BMF81, your statement that we should go edit other articles, but will have to directly fight YOU for the one under discussion, is a direct violation of WP:OWN. I suggest you moderate your tone in this discussion immediately. Thank you. ThuranX 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember you to assume good faith, avoid personal attacks and most of all don't say bullshit :) I didn't say you to not edit that article, I don't see why you're so hostile kid.. --BMF81 09:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing AGF in that matter is almost like a Godwin's Law violation. It seems that discussion here is in favor of merging the two, so I think in a couple more days, we'll be able to start that process. If you feel that there's some bigger reason to not do so, I suggest you post it here clearly, calmly and concisely, or seek other resolutions. ThuranX 11:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

The Joker (1989 Batman character) article has been nominated for deletion. --GentlemanGhost 19:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still new to all this, but couldn't the Joker 89 article be made into a Joker In the Movies or Live Action Article? Between the 60 series, Birds Of Prey, Batman 1989 and The Dark Knight that should be a pretty nice artcle. The comics page should stay comics. --Xphermg 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Killing Joke Image

I think that we should use the Brian Bolland picture of the Joker for the main slot its a very iconic and important moment in the Joker's history and one that is very recognized Here's the image, with no cover writing, here [[3]]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole435 (talk • contribs)

First, please use punctuation. Second, please see the archive for a lengthy discussion about just this issue, in which consensus was to NOT use the Bolland image, NOR the Ross. The Mahnke image was well argued decision, and not one that should be casually set aside, to stir it all up again. Third, please use ~~~~ to sign your comments, as you already know. Thank you. ThuranX 04:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus, the Killing Joke image does not meet requirements for the article's primary image. For one thing, much of his face is hidden behind hand and camera. Doczilla 04:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Links

I would like to add http://www.batmanytb.com/comics/titles/thejoker/index.php to the links section. The site gives Summeries, Cover images and everyone who was involved in creating each comics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xphermg (talk • contribs)

• No. It's a commercial site with ads and its own YTB store. Doczilla 06:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumor has it that the Joker's real name was Jack Napier.

Rumor has it that the Joker's real name was Jack Napier. Is this true? Or did somebody just make this up? AdamDeanHall 15:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It is in the movie but in the comics no.TheManWhoLaughs 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(vandlized reply, not actually BY TMWL) Yes his Real Name is Jack Napier, Jack Napier reveals his true identity as the Joker to the public and claims to fund Gotham Citie's 200th anivesary celebrations. By providing 20 million dollars in cash to the public, he attempts to bribe the public into believing that the Batman is the real Villain. Jack Napier becomes the Joker after he falls into a vat of Chemicals. A plastic sergan operates on him and says that the nerv's on his face were permanantly severed into a menacing smile.TheManWhoLaughs 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that's NOT the case. As the article makes clear in already answering this, Jack Napier's his name in the 1989 film. Since then, it's been mentioned int he comics, but inconclusively. ThuranX 11:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

i didnt write that. thats kinda weird. No his name is not Jack Napier its a alias. I wonder if someone is changing my posts.TheManWhoLaughs 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your original comment was restored, but the vandalous version retained for further use if IP continues such behaviors. ThuranX 20:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Countdown image

Its nothing to do with something being "ugly" the picture isnt that good. I think it should be this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jokerkillingjoke.png, because it actually captures joker. But the one with the camera sucks.TheManWhoLaughs 19:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We covered this, with YOU< before. Stop. ThuranX 20:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Me? What the hell did i do?TheManWhoLaughs 21:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ive got a better image of him. Its the cover to issue #50 of countdown. Im making it the main pic on the article. if you wanna argue about it do it here.BlueShrek 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy about it, because it jsut means we'll be changing images weekly, and Wikipedia is NOT a gallery. However, pending further comment, I have resized it to not be so obnoxiously huge on the page. ThuranX 18:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and I dont see why this pic cant stay the main image for a long time. ITs definetly better than the last one.BlueShrek 19:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We still don't have an image that meets the guidelines at WP:CMC/EG#Superhero_box_images. It's supposed to show at least three-quarters of a full-length view. The Mahnke picture doesn't meet that requirement either. The Mahnke isn't a frontal view. The Countdown picture has some other problems: Part of the face is shadowed, contrary to the SHB image guidelines. His hand is blocking part of his face. And the Jimmy Olsen paraphernalia is unrepresentative of the character's history. We still need a new picture that meets the guidelines. We've stuck with the Mahnke compromise for a while. BlueShrek is right that we need a new image. I think we should re-open the discussion and look for a replacement. Doczilla 19:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well i personally think that whyll it may not fit the code or whatever its a great image of him because he looks very insane. The Jimmy Olsen stuff isnt a big deal. And to be honest until you mentioned it I couldnt even tell his face had a shadow on it. Im open for a change but until we find a better one the one on here now is good.BlueShrek 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In lieu of a new one, I suggest we return tot he prior compromise until a new image can be found. Mahnke's lasted a whiel with consensus, and at least avoids the distractions of the Olsen content. I'd suggest some images posted back here for consideration, then we pick one and get an admin to delete the rest to avoid FU problems. ThuranX 21:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the picture is essentially just a placeholder until we get one that meets the guidelines, we need to stick with the one chosen via previous consensus for the sheer sake of peace. Doczilla 23:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The only one complaining is Thuranx. Change it back or i will.BlueShrek 02:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither pic fits the rules. Stick with the one a consensus agreed to, while hunting for one that follows the rules. Shoester 03:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

thuranx is not consensus.BlueShrek 04:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, but Shoester, Doczilla and I is consensus to use the OLD consensus until a NEW consensus is determined. ThuranX 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Blueshrek, Reverting my implementation of consensus for handling this and identifying it as vandalism, as you have done here is distinctly uncivil. Please revert yourself and constructively help us find a new good image. Thank you. ThuranX 04:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Blueshrek did not revert, so after waiting more than 15 minutes, I reverted. Both Shoester and myself left him messages on his talk about this, and given his rapid response to my first revert, it isn't hard to assume he's still monitoring his user page. I will not violate 3RR with any more reverts, but I do not appreciate this move against consensus and good faith. three editors agree we need to discuss a new image, but also agree not to provoke a slew of edits to change picture over and over, and want to wait, consider choices, then agree on one before adding it. As there is consensus against the countdown 50 image, reverts are no longer 'being Bold! but are against consensus, they are unwelcome. BlueShrek, it is clear you are a new user. Please use this entire Joker Image situation as a learning experience about how Wikipedians work together, rather than escalate to a conflict, which is likely to occur if you continue to act in a hostile manner. Thank you. ThuranX 04:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Jokermobile

Hey look what I found. http://comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/3696.asp They say that it is the Jokermobile that Heath Ledger will be riding in as the Joker in The Dark Knight film. Can anyone confirm that it is real or fake. Personally I think its crap but should we add it into the article somewhere on this page or the Dark Knight (film) page? ManofSTEEL2772

No. We're not sure of it. Even if we were, it's really not that important. We can't include pictures of everything. Doczilla 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Joker

There's more then one background for the Joker in the comics. If we're going to show the one as he's a chemical engineer, we should show his past as a criminal, a hitman.

That (in)famous smile...

We all know that the Joker gained his appearance from falling into a vat of chemicals, but have the comics ever explained how a mysterious chemical substance was able to stretch his mouth into a permanent smile? 76.184.12.173 03:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Joker didn't have permi-smile in the comics. That was Jack Nicholson's Joker. And in that film, I'm assuming because the nerves were severed and the surgeon simply moved his muscles to make a smile. Mcflytrap 20:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gravity would have worked against that; I assume the muscles were permanently contracted, and the motor nerves that would have pulled the smile down were severed. Or something.

Also various sources say that the Joker does have a permanent smile, even some pretty well-researched ones. I think some artists have interpreted him that way, while others have definitely drawn him without a smile on occasion. 202.81.18.30 07:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Joker Picture

I remember a few months back there was a realistic looking picture of the joker on this article that was quite relevant. I can't seem to find it no matter how far back I go so as to revive it. Does anyone know when that picture was from and whether or not there's a copy of it somewhere? Thanks. 1:14 AM 16/07/07 (EST)

You're probably thinking of the Alex Ross picture. It was probably deleted for a Fair Use issue, but it was long ago decided not to use that image on this page due to an overload of Ross images on comics pages, and the non-conventional outfit he wears in that image. ThuranX 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

New Joker Pic

We don't have any pics of Ledger's Joker...how about this one? [4] Mcflytrap 18:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I Think Mcflytrap is right. We now have an officially confirmed picture of the Joker in the Dark Knight and it should be included. I have tried to add this picture to the page, but have been unsuccessful in doing so. Does anyone know how to add this image to the page and right the appopriate comments for it. If you do could you please add it to the section dealing with the Dark Knight movie. annoynmous 02:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

First, we'd need a fully cited image license and FUR, and second, that's a lousy shot for actually illustrating the appearance, as it is a side view, and not a good one at that. I'd rather wait for a good fronatl, clear image to appear, perhaps publicity shots in a few months. Wikipedia is NOT a scooper site, we don't need ot be first. ThuranX 08:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this image is good. Sure it's from the side, but it's clear and it's official. I would have preferred the image that surfaced several months ago, but there was some question as whether it was official at the time. Sense the appearance of the joker in this image confirms that the earlier image was correct I wouldn't object to that one being placed there instead. However, I object to saying that wikipedia should wait until other images come along. The film has been in production now for several months and an image of what the joker looks like should be posted. When a better image comes along you can replace it, but I think people at wikipedia should be able to see what the Joker will look like when an image becomes available.

If you want to replace this image with older one than fine, but if not then the image should stay. annoynmous 11:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Are we in a race with SuperheroHype or Batman on Film? Our goal is to be encyclopedic and clear, not get things up simply because they are available. It's not a great image, and we should wait a bit for a good shot, not unlike the nicholson, although I fully expect the TDK shot to have more background and style. ThuranX 16:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, it is a good image. It's clear and you get a good look at what the Joker looks like. I don't look at it as a race between other sites, just that there are people who want to see what the Joker looks like and they shouldn't have to wait just because you personally don't like the image. I haven't heard any complaints from anyone else about the image. Why are there people at wikipedia who are so determined to make something so simple as this so difficult. Unless there is an issue with the copyright you have no justifiable reason to get rid of the image. annoynmous 02:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Lord Sinestro 02:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Countdown section...

Is just me or is everything in this section after the first 2 sentences blatant OR/fan spec trying to work out/justify the cannon time line? - J Greb 18:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

it's not just you, and it's gone now. ThuranX 22:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Irony

can it be noted, that one of the inspirations for Batman is the movie The Bat Whispers, where the Bat character is the antagonist while The Man Who Laughs, the main inspiration for Joker is a heroic vigalante? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.245.143 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? This article isn't about Batman. Doczilla 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Status and film.

As evidenced by recent edits attempting to put a Ledger Joker image into the infobox, the article can be expected to see increased activity up to the film release. I'd like to see if we can't get this article up to good or FA before the release, so that we've got an article whose content we can defend as meeting the quality standards for WP. There's enough out there about the creator controversies, lengthy history, armchair analysis of the character, impact on society via Wertham's writings, and on and on. I thihnk we could shave half the history down, increase the value of the publication history content, and then go into the real-world connections, a far more scholarly subject. Before I get into this in any manner, however, I'd like some feedback from the group, and assurances that I wouldn't be alone in this, as I have a kitchen to refloor, two tables to build, and a jewelry box to complete and finish. Perhaps brainstorming an order for the article here first, then splitting up sections? ThuranX 00:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't usually work on comics articles, but I can try to help out in improving the article. I imagine my fortitude would be research, as I may not have the best idea of how to present the article. I'm somewhat familiar with the Joker, but not to the extent of writing up prose based on his comic book appearances. I can track down thematic aspects of the Joker -- I think I saw some good The Killing Joke resources when researching Watchmen a while back. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

For the Joker in The Dark Knight Returns: "This Joker is not the cackling clown of earlier stories, but a monomaniacal psychopath, as dedicated to destruction as Batman is to preservation." from Dave Sim (1987-01-07). "Novel comics: The American comic book is growing up". St. Petersburg Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Let me know what I can look for. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"...in such recent D.C. narratives as last year's Killing Joke, which portrayed the Joker as Batman's doppelgänger." from Hilary de Vries (1989-02-05). "'Batman' Battles for Big Money". The New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

No mention of "doppelgänger" here or the article for The Killing Joke -- might be an aspect worth exploring. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"There is no better symbol for the direction comic books have taken than the devolution of the Joker from deranged prankster of the 1960's to the homicidal, sexually aberrant monster who beats Robin to a pulp in the enormously popular 1988 Batman series, published by DC comics and now collected in the book-size format under the title "A Death in the Family." Robin, betrayed to the Joker by his other, was ultimately blown to smithereens after DC readers, voting through a 900 hotline, gave their blessing to his savage demise. 'Readers feel that life is out of control,' explains Jenette Kahn, president and editor in chief at DC Comics. 'The Joker embodies the idea.'" from Joe Queenan (1989-04-30). "Drawing on the Dark Side". The New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I've also started a subpage at User:Erik/Joker -- there's a Chicago Sun-Times article that appears to detail the origin of the Joker a little more than what exists in the article. It's commented out under the respective section. Also, I'd suggest looking for headlines circa 1989 because I think that Burton's film drew close attention to the Batman universe. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Why So Serious? - The Many Faces of Joker —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination

Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA nominations process, any article with cleanup or expansion banners, such as the one currently in Other versions section, must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy the issues brought up by any such banners and remove them before choosing to renominate the article. Though a full review is not required, I will say that article is lacking in in-line citations. There huge sections without a single cite in them, and this is unacceptable when compared to the GA criteria. The only section topics that almost never require in-line cites are plot summaries and lead sections. If you feel this review was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky 01:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Death of the character not mentioned

Hello. This article is good, but contains no mention of the death the Joker in "The Dark Knight Returns", or indeed any mention of that book at all. Surely some mistake?

212.188.147.34 (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably under the elseworlds or alternate versions area, because that's not assured to be in this continuity. ThuranX (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuity, schmontinuity, "Dark Knight Returns" is probably the single most widely read Batman comic there is, and indeed for at least a few people I know it's the only Batman comic, for some even the only comic of any kind they've ever read, and in that extremely important and influential work, the Joker DIES, and this article doesn't mention it AT ALL. Which, as I say, is surely some mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.147.34 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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*