Talk:Batman: The Killing Joke

Batman: The Killing Joke has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 5, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Batman: The Killing Joke article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Comics: United States / DC Comics / Batman GA‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by United States comics work group.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.
	This article is supported by Batman work group.

Barbara Gordon…

Didn’t she retire as batgirl shortly before, not due to, the events in this story (hence why she was picked to be shot; it wouldn’t affect her as much as other characters)? Can anyone with a more comprehensive way of checking comic timelines confirm this as true or false..? Ayries (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut from Brian Bolland page

I've just cut the below from the Brian Bolland page as it belongs here. is there anything that needs to be merged into this article that isn't already present?

The Killing Joke, published in 1988, details a possible (now almost entirely assumed as canonical) origin story for the villain The Joker, as being a failed stand-up comedian. The story also delves deep into the interaction between the Batman, Commissioner James Gordon, and Gordon's daughter Barbara (formerly Batgirl, now known as the technological genius Oracle). The finer points of the Joker/Batman dichotomy, and how each are on the brink between madness and sanity is ably explored, and the ending has become a slight point of contention over the off-panel happenings, with some fans suggesting that the Batman murders the Joker.

quercus robur 19:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't an analysis of the joke be that batman was the first guy who easily crossed over the gap to sanity, and then tried to convince the joker to cross in an irrational manner (rehab)? They are both trying to convince the other to join their way of thinking, but the fact that they started in an insane asylum led me to believe they are escaping from insanity. Rm999 02:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wsa suprised to see that there was no mention of the oft quoted reading of the book that the Joker actually raped Barbara Gordon and may in fact have raped Jim Gordon too. When asked about this reading of the comic Alan Moore allegedly said (to some UK comicbook creator friends of mine) that he fully accept that reading but wouldn't be drawn on if he intended it to be in there... when pushed further he apparently said that as far as he was concerned the Joker did rape her but not in any of the 3 orifices one would imagine... he always thought the Joker used the wound... remind me never to visit Alan Moore's head... All that aside I don't think I know anyone over the age of 25 who have read the book and not assumed that a rape took place - which in turn makes the whole book all the more horrific. I believe this reading was also mentioned as fact in a wizard-style magazine 'hero' that profiled various supervillians. Can anyone find a reference for this or similar? AlanD

"Themes" and original research

I just flagged the "Themes" section for Original Research. It is completely unsourced (the article has no references), and reads like it's just someone's interpretation made into a quasi-essay. Cheers --DarthBinky 02:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing this, I diligently set out to Google Books to find some printed material. Luckily, the first two results were gold (query: "Batman 'Killing Joke'" -- 55 hits total). Unfortunately, they were for the "Critical reception" section instead. More tomorrow. --zenohockey 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any followup to this? If not, I think it'd be more appropriate to remove the section, well-written as it may be. Bhamv 10:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the 'well-written', because I think I started that section a few years ago. I can't really claim credit for most of the better parts that have no doubt come since. I can verify that it was not sourced, I just made most of that stuff up, although I think a lot of it is obvious if you read it. Nonetheless, I guess we have to respect the wikipedia policy, so feel free to remove it.Tristanreid (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There actually does look to be much more on Google Books than when I checked two years ago. I'll go through it again shortly. --zenohockey (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There. Problem solved. --zenohockey (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Nicely done. Tristanreid (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolland redux

I just added some material from Brian Bolland's introduction to TKJ in the Alan Moore trade paperback, about the origins of the story and Bolland's opinion of the finished book.

mention on the season 1 finale of "the batman"

During the confrontation scene between Batman and Clayface, Clayface talks about how anyone can be turned mad by having one bad day. To me this seemed a direct reference to this comic book, ayone have any thoughts on whether it should be mentioned on this page?--Dr_P 17:03 25/10/06

Plot Summary

Unnamed Editor: I chose to remove the "(possibly indicating that he does not want to return to sanity)" from the second-to-last sentence, as it is an unverified speculation without any source

Anonymous: Changed the last sentence of the plot summary to reflect the ambiguity of the final frames. It is uncertain if the laugther is coming only from Batman, as was previously claimed. The actual panal shows no word bubbles, and the text of the laughter is not connected to either figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.30.98.6 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception and legacy clean-up

That section seems a bit disorganized. The thing with Barbara Gordon getting shot and it's impact is mentioned twice. The sections regarding the two movies are separated. It should be rearranged so it isn't repetitive and flows better. --76.103.226.21 (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 15:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Oneiros (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Ending

Can we change this ending a bit? The final frames are intentionally ambiguous. The reader can't tell if the Joker is laughing alone, Batman is lauging alone, if both are laughing, if Batman is placing his hand on the Joker's shoulder or grabbing his throat, etc. The purpose of the ending is to be unclear. Our current summary makes it look cut-and-dry. --74.95.86.182 (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not ambiguous. Both are shown laughing. Nightscream (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridic. The fact that BOlland told Morrison what the ending was supposed to be means that is the canon ending. Why was it removed. At very least it belongs in as part of the speculation on the ending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.181.242 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Moore's script is clear. The two are laughing until the police arrive. It is not ambiguous. Just because Grant Morrison says something does not make it so. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And unless Morrison is lying about Bolland telling him that the original intent was to have Batman kill the Joker at roughly 2:15 in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wQ2x0OKBjU then it seems at odds with what was supposedly in the script. And there is nothing to suggest that the released version of the script wasn't modified or even flat out faked because it only popped up in tumblr. I find it a little bit easier to believe Morrison and what he said Bolland told him then a script that popped up on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.181.242 (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the recording you linked, Morrison only says that Bolland hinted. Morrison's interpretation of a hint is not confirmation of anything. It's his opinion. He's not a primary source. A hint is not proof. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, has this conversation been sorted out? It seems that someone has simply deleted the second to last paragraph, while neglecting to rewrite the plot summery.--74.69.108.90 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- I removed the 'snaps his neck' since it widely considered ambiguous at best (even Morrison admits that). More importantly, the links following the last sentence of the plot summary don't support the speculation that Bats killed the Joker...one of them even denies it outright. --Stevehim (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joker modelled after Jaz Coleman?

Jaz Coleman, the vocalist of Killing Joke, has mentioned in interviews that the appearance/characteristics of the Joker in this comic book have been modelled after his physical appearance and stage persona. Is there validity to this and if yes, should it be included in the article? --NeuroCatalyst (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joker (and his appearance and characteristics) was invented in 1940, and the modern incarnation (homicidal maniac and all that) have been cemented since 1973. Jaz Coleman was born in 1960, and his band didn't release its first album until 1980. If he's honestly made this claim, he's an imbecile. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Steve[reply]

Almost a year later I coincidentally stumbled across one of the interviews I mentioned again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfaIDGfzKo0&feature=related around the 10 minute mark Jaz talks about the Joker connection --NeuroCatalyst (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 17:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there - I'll tackle this one! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Generally good, but there are grammar problems here and there; for instance "(a.k.a. Batgirl)" should be "(aka Batgirl)" or excised altogether. Similarly, in that same paragraph there is a single solitary bracket. The nominator should give the article a good read through to ensure that these are all dealt with.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section should offer an overview of the entire article; thus we should have a brief synopsis of the story's plot in the first paragraph, mention of its influence on cinematic depictions of Batman, etc. Also in the lede, we should probably include the date of DC Universe: The Stories of Alan Moore. ~~Further in the article, the "Critical reception and legacy" could perhaps do with a further sub-section title to encompass Moore and Bolland's response and subsequent views on the work.~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Again, generally good, although some books are referenced without mention of the relevant page, while other references could certainly do with being more detailed, i.e. "Batman: The Killing Joke review, Grovel". Although not a prerequisite for passing GAN, it would be a good idea if these weblinks were archived, lest they become dead links.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	~~Quite a bit of this article is simply not referenced; worst of all, the entire "No Joke" section lacks references.~~
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~Given that sections are un-referenced, it is possible that they constitute original research.~~
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	~~Generally fine, although both images are pushed next to each other and on the left-hand side of the article; thus, they should be re-distributed throughout the article to produce a better aesthetic.~~
	7. Overall assessment.	As it currently stands, there are too many problems to allow it to pass GAN. However, many of the problems can be fixed without too much effort, so I will refrain from failing/passing it for a while, allowing the nominator the chance to make the necessary changes. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Right, it looks like Bulls123 has fixed the various problems. I am both happy and very pleased to pass this important article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references and fixed the pics. I'm still having trouble finding references for the section "In other media", but I'll keep looking.Bulls123 (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bulls123, keep me informed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes

Hey, I've made some fixes on the article.

The lead has already been added, and a year has been put beside DC Universe: The Stories of Alan Moore.
Sections like the "No Joke", "In other media", and others have been given references and citations, and the Grovel review and book reference has also been fixed.
The TV series subsection on the other hand, I couldn't find any web citations, so all I could do was link it to "List of The Batman episodes".
A sub section has also been added in "Critical reception and legacy".

If there are more problems just tell me and I'll try to fix it. The weblink archiving on the other hand, that I don't know how to do. But I'll try my best to do it.Bulls123 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]