Talk:John Constantine/Archive 1

First appearance
I changed the first appearance from Saga of The Swamp Thing #25 to #37. I own copies of these issues of Swamp Thing. In issue #25 a manifestion of the devil calling himself Jason Blood appears. He resembles John Constantine a bit but is not him. His actual first appearance is in Swamp Thing #37. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.236.41 (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Censorship?

 * What's your source for changing "cunt" to "cur", 66.19.136.106? I see the former on Google, but not the latter. (Just asking to make sure this isn't an attempt at censorship.) -Silence 00:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed cur back to cunt. There is no source. --82.27.201.86 19:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

superpowers?
under film adaptation, the article points to constantine having superpowers in the movie. this seems inaccurate as he only had a unique grasp of the spirit realm to achieve his goals.
 * It's a superpower. Unlike the comic-book version, his ability to see the strange and unusual isn't due to self-teaching and awareness of the supernatural, it's a power granted to him after he was revived, post-suicide attempt. --Mister Six 11:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that's so; I watched the movie yesterday, watching it again today and Constantine insists he's been able to see what he sees since he was born. In fact his gift is the motivation for the suicide, not vice versa.Bombfish 01:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. But even then, it's as much a superpower as, say, the mutant powers that the X-Men have, or the abilities that Superman has. --Mister Six 12:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What is with the tattoos that he has in the movie. What do they do? When tries to put his fore arms together? [User: Cal]
 * It's never really explained. Just something to do with the exorcism. Or maybe he's a fan of the Power Rangers.
 * Presumably the tatoos are used to reveal what is hidden since that's exactly what they do. Also I would assume the tatoos he's covered in are a variety of spells, counterspells, and charms just like the ones the comic book version acquired while on the run from some nasty monsters made of human souls (Luykham, something or another?).RecentlyAnon 21:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Bisexuality
Constantine is bisexual; restored LGBT category link. --Mister Six 22:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Should he really be counted as bisexual? He only did those gay acts because he was possessed. 199.79.168.160 07:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

He was possessed on neither of the occasions that have featured in the series, and since he referred to himself having boyfriends in the past, one can assume he was not possessed then, either. But I suspect you knew that.--Just1Page 00:40, 06 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, he *was* possessed all of those times. It didn't say so in the original stories, but it's been retconned since then. Besides, Constantine is too much of a badass to like other guys, plus that would mean that despite all his efforts fighting demons he would still be going to hell. --199.79.168.160 09:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ (pun intended)! Did you actually read Hellblazer? Do you have any idea what it's about? Please stop sabotaging this information service with your petty prejudices. Perceive 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fact is, if you have sex with someone of the same gender as you, it's a mortal sin. It's not prejudice, it's official church doctrine. --199.79.168.160 06:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And that only matters to believers. While I respect anyone's right to have religious beliefs, it's hardly relevant nor interesting in this discussion. Furthermore, stating that someone is "too much of a badass to like other guys" is extremely prejudiced, biased, and uninformed. 80.217.51.146 (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're looking for Hellblazer's protagonist to conform to church doctrine? In fact, you insist he does contrary to what's in the books? I don't know if you're just a troll or a zealot of some kind, though the result seems to be the same. Further alterations will be considered vandalism and reported as such. Perceive 16:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Checking your history, you sure seem to care a lot about which comic book characters are considered gay. That makes you a very biased source. 199.79.168.160 23:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Checking your comments on this page, you seem to be a homophobe. That makes you a very biased source.  (Whereas actually, having a lot of knowledge about a topic generally doesn't make you a biased source.)- Polo  te  t  00:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a homophobe in any way, shape, or form; I simply aim for the truth. You can't treat homosexuality as if it's on par with heterosexuality. 199.79.168.160 02:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can. And, in fact, I do.- Polo  te  t  16:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But they're NOT on par, it's a scientific fact. 199.79.168.160 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you are referring to. It's not "on par" with reproduction sex, because it's not, you know, reproductive. But only a little part of heterosexuality is, in practice, about reproduction. Homosexuality is "on par" with heterosexuality when it comes to feelings, attraction, bonding, genetis. That is a scientific fact, or at least, scientific research currently favors that view. You are very uninformed in these matters. 80.217.51.146 (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Constantine would be the last man I'd expect to conform to what the church wants. He's not very interested in God, just keeping himself alive.--Toffile 00:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but he also has some sense of morality and honor. Just because he's willing to do somewhat unscrupulous things like causing people's deaths with his recklessness, doesn't mean he'd be so indecent as to have sex with another man. 199.79.168.160 02:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Morality is subjective. Do not interject your views on morality with another's. (Even if he's fictional)--Toffile 16:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And please do not tell me you just referenced yourself with this edit. . Your IP belongs to Purchase.--Toffile 16:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did reference myself, am I not a valid source? And morality may be subjective, but some things are universal, I think no matter what religion or lack thereof a person believes in, civilized people can all agree that homosexuality is crossing the line. Constantine's killings, through action or inaction, may not be considered wrong from a certain point of view, but the same can't be said about his bisexuality. 199.79.168.160 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you're not a reputable source. Also, you have the misapprehension that you have the only viewpoint that belongs in the article. That's not true.--Toffile 02:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ok, I'm calling troll on this one.- Polo  te t  11:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to troll this article. I don't think that only my viewpoint belongs in it, as Toffile claims, but I don't think that my viewpoint should be completely disregarded, either. As it stands now, you refuse to even entertain the possibility that some fans believe that Constantine isn't really bi, even if it's worded in a way that makes it clear that this is just an opinion which hasn't been proven (or disproven for that matter). I think that at least that concept should be mentioned in some way or another, if not in the way that I added it in, then perhaps in a new section about the controversey over Constantine's sexuality or something like that. As it stands now, what you're doing isn't NPOV, you're completely ignoring the opinions of one side of the debate. 199.79.168.160 11:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine someone sincerely typing "civilized people can all agree that homosexuality is crossing the line," simply because I don't believe that you've never met anyone who wasn't a homophobe before. But just in case, hi, I like to think I'm a "civilized person" and while I'm not gay or bisexual myself, I feel that homosexuality and bisexuality are no different on a moral level from heterosexuality, and that a man having sex with a man is acting no more or less morally than a man having sex with a woman.  And a large majority of the people I know agree with me.  Beyond that, it is not POV to not include a claim some random person makes on the talk page in the article.  If I randomly develop a theory that Superman is actually gay and his relationships with Lois Lane and other women have just been a coverup, I don't get to put it in the Superman article without any sourcing, or just sourcing myself.  If it's really a significant opinion among Hellblazer fans, find a reliable source discussing it somewhere, and the we can talk.- Polo  te  t  23:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * When a valid source for such speculation can be found, feel free to include it. CovenantD 15:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Please don't feed the trolls. --Onias 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Im shocked at what a homophobe that guy is.88.108.123.97

I don't know about that link to the bisexual page...it doesn't really have much on it aside from the 'under construction' sign. Maybe we should put it back once the page is done, but until that time it doesn't really have much of anything to offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.4.225 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 2 May 2006


 * I want to throw in another argument into the discussion: The issue in which John Constantine was supposedly established to be bi-sexual was a non-canonic storyline written by an author called "John Smith", which makes me doubt the justification of this argument. Another argument concerning his bi-sexuality relates to a time when Constantine seduced a male in order to perform a large-scale con. This implies he had another intention than sexual pleasure with his actions. Anyone agree, that this doesn't make him a declared bi-sexual? It's basic logic. -Godot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.137.180 (talk • contribs)
 * John Smith is a bona fide writer. According to this site, the letters page of the issue in question says, "for the continuity-minded among you... this issue takes place between issues #40 and #41, before Constantine met Kit."  What's the evidence of it being non-canonical?--Nalvage 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument for it being non-canonical is, that this remained the sole Hellblazer issue written and the fact, that it was not referred to afterwards as far as my knowledge goes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.133.137.180 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Canonicity is subjective, but I don't think the number of other issues written by the same writer, or whether the events were referred to again, is any barometer of canonicity. What percentage of any given comic book series is a one-off and/or goes unreferred to later? For example, in issue 42, Constantine has a Guinness; that pint is never referred to again. Does that mean he didn't drink it? Jack Garfield 07:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Constantine is a fictional and complex character, why not- "In issue 51 of Hellblazer ("Counting to Ten"), John reveals that he's had "the occasional boyfriend", whilst in issues 170-174 ("Ashes and Dust in the City of Angels" 1-5), he has a homosexual relationship with billionaire Stanley Manor, albeit as part of an elaborate revenge scheme." (Lifted from "LGBT comic book characters")? not alot of words and objective. My first post- if anyone agrees and edits it, thanks in advance.--Philipgraves7 03:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As before, Constantine IS stated as having had relationships with men and a sexual relationship is shown "on screen". Much as homophobes may hate it, Constantine is bisexual. Restored all the excised parts about this aspect of his character. Again. --Mister Six 21:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Gay League page which pops up in the External Links section is under construction. Consequently, I've removed the link. This is not an attempt to rewrite the character's sexual orientation; the content of the linked page is irrelevant (or it would be, if it had any). I just don't think it's appropriate to include unfinished web pages in the External Links section. If the page is ever completed, I'll happily restore the link myself. In the meantime, anyone thinking of restoring the link is encouraged to actually visit the page and see for themselves. Jack Garfield 07:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the IP guy, but you all are not bringing any more taste or intelligence to this discussion by flinging the words "homophobe", "bias" and "troll" in all directions. And he did have a point at the start of the dicussion when he said he would go to hell according to Christianity, which is one of the few religions that feature hell, the others of which also take the same stance on homosexuality as Christianity. I used to think Wikipedia was a source of intelligent conversation, not a website where people go to argue with eachother. --65.87.242.28 (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst some of the comments in this section are pretty shocking, but I don't think it's time for this conversation to be drawn to a close: we've resolved the issue of whether JC is bisexual and any other discussion isn't suitable for a wiki talk page. I'm tempted to delete this section, but I'm not sure on the etiquette of that, so in the mean time can anybody reading this please not post rebuttals to ignorant comments made some two years ago? JonStrines (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Relatives
I cut out a chunk of relatives. I'm sorry, but most of the people weren't relative. I kept most of the close relations, sans the demonspawn who were only in one arc. Nergal is not a relative. Yes, John knocked up his daughter, but that does not make him notable. There were others, but I may elminate Pyotr as well, since he was only in The Trench Coat Brigade. Joanna should stay, as she's been the focus of a miniseries, and appeared a few times in the Sandman.--Toffile 20:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Took out Pytor because he was even more obscure than some of the ones you cut out. Restored the kids because they were in two major arcs and two single issues, and Maria is still alive so she may return. --Mister Six 11:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The Zippo Lighter !
The Zippo Lighter John Constantine uses is it the some one. In all the coimcs ?--Brown Shoes22 06:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He had a recurring zippo lighter with a snake emblem in the Eddie Campbell books and at the start of the Paul Jenkins run, but he later gave it away to someone while in Abbadon. Since then, he's mostly used disposeable lighters. --82.27.204.166 12:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He gave the lighter to Robin Hood which he then used to his advantage to ask him where he'd go when he died.

appearances in other comics
I added a section for John's appearances in comics other than Hellblazer and The Swamp Thing, which wouldn't really fit in any existing sections, and wrote up some info on his Sandman appearance for it. It might be a bit excessive in terms of information for a one-issue appearance--if you think so, feel free to edit it down. I'll probably write up a bit on his role in The Books of Magic later.- Polo  te t  04:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the section that says John made regular appearances in the monthly The Books of Magic series - did he? He was in the miniseries, and there was the two-issue crossover series, but I've re-read up to Issue 50 so far and don't recall seeing him at all. I don't recall him appearing in Gross' run on the book either, but am willing to be corrected. A version of him was in The Books of Magick: Life During Wartime - is that what the section refers to? JonStrines (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm working my way through the BoM for the wiki article here so I'll tot up any Constantine appearances as I come across them. So far, the only one in the ongoing series I've found is a one page flashback in #6. JonStrines (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

black canary/green arrow wedding special
don't see him behind metamorpho... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.119.57 (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Alter Ego
I Dont understand how John Constantine's Alter Ego is John Constantine. Typo?
 * Possibly referring to either the Demon JC or an appearence early on while he was inside a house that was getting knocked down, he "appeared" to himself.

Astra..?
"With typical recklessness, John convinced the group and several occultist friends to try destroying the creature by summoning a demon of their own. Unfortunately, this demon was not under their control and, besides destroying the child's monster, it tormented John's friends and then took Astra herself to Hell - seemingly forever (she was rescued much later in Hellblazer #96). The incident left the group scattered and psychologically scarred."

Astra wasn't mentioned earlier as far as I saw. Who was she? --71.118.168.253 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Astra is the girl they were trying to save by summoning the demon. The whole passage is a little bit fucked, since, you know, the several occultist friends were also part of the group.-24.250.33.247 00:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Relationships?
I just finished reading Hellblazer up to issue 216 (first issue of empathy is the enemy for anyone keeping track) and I was wondering what everyone thought of a section (possibly in the form of a list) detailing Constantine's romantic relationships. Several of them, Kit, Stanley Manor and Elle the succubus (ok that's more sexual than romantic but you get my drift) have been very important parts of certain plot arcs. Plus the fact that John constantly loses (one way or another) the people he cares most about is a central feature of the series. What's everyone think? RecentlyAnon 21:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Constantine Tattoo.JPG
Image:Constantine Tattoo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Constantine ver2.jpg
Image:Constantine ver2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HellblazerCVR189.jpg
Image:HellblazerCVR189.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HB200.jpg
Image:HB200.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What did John trade his soul for?
There's been a paragraph added and removed in recent days regarding Lucifer's retirement, Azazel's imprisonment by dream, and what exactly John traded his soul to the three Lords of Hell for.

To explain: 1. Constantine did not trade his soul to Lucifer. The First of the Fallen is Satan/The Accuser/The First Being Created by God. He is not Lucifer in any way shape or form and the Constantine series makes it very clear that he was in Hell before Lucifer fell. So Lucifer's retirement does not affect the status of John's deal at all.

2. John traded his soul to the Lords of Hell because he's famous down there. They each wanted the prestige of having John Constantine in hell.

Also, I believe, the First realized he wasn't a fallen angel and was much more powerful than the other two Lords. He revoked John and he's deal but has (thus far) chosen not to kill Constantine.

Thanks so much for editing.

RecentlyAnon (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good re-edit. I think the original editor was wondering what the demons gave to John in exchange for his soul - there would have to be something, otherwise they'd get suspicious. You would have thought he would've asked to be cured and hoped that the three-way stalemate would prevent then claiming his soul - but since I don't think it was established in the story, it's not really something that can be put in the article. JonStrines (talk) 10:29, 27 May 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 Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done - it needs more references but a out-of-universe perspective on a lot of the Hellblazer run is missing (there is just a lot of plot). (Emperor (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Boyfriends
Edit war is starting up over this again: can somebody do a scan of the section of issue 51 where it mentions John's previous boyfriends? Or do we have a consensus of requesting semi-protection for the page? JonStrines (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reported this on the Edit War administrators page: I'm requesting semi-protect to try to stabilise this page with regards the bisexuality "issue". JonStrines (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, no one has uploaded a scan of issue #51 to Wikipedia, but the Hellblazer Index in the External links section has a scan of it, located here. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Right: I've added it to the page. Hopefully this will stop the sequence of edit and reversion the page has fallen into. Thanks for the find, GentlemanGhost. JonStrines (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks for uploading it. I was feeling too lazy to do so right at that moment. :-) GentlemanGhost (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I am totaly wrong but there is just a fraze "the odd boyfriend" (not boyfriends, and he uses - THE odd boyfriend) behind "Girlfriends and comma ". Is it possible that he is talking about himself as "the odd boyfriend" and "mistery man" who turns "bloke next door"? From what is said here (in Wikipedia) by people claiming he is bi-, it seems that he ads "girlfriends" to "the odd boyfriend" and then says "they have nasty habbit....". Is this the only way to understand his words? If he had a few boyfriends wouldn't he start with "girlfriends, boyfriends..."? I don't have problem with John (or any live person for that matter) being gay - I think it works and adds really good points in Hellblazer - but is this the "proof of proofs" that he is bi-? I was convinced that he is, but now (that you pointed to this proof as the biggest one) I have doubts. Still you have to love him (and I am a guy :). Also, English is not my first language so it could be that I am using different logic to the begining of sentance "Girlfriends, the odd boyfriend..." Cvele (not logged) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.136.211 (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you'd have to bend syntax quite hard to conclude that the sentence "Girlfriends, the odd boyfriend, they all leave me in the end" is actually saying "Girlfriends all leave me - the odd boyfriend - in the end", even before you take into account Constantine's seduction of another man for nefarious ends later in the series. JonStrines (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The story in itself is kind of suspicious, being a filler issue attributed to a writer named John Smith, who never wrote the series before or after.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Rupert Giles
Does anyone have any information on whether the Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV Series) character Giles was influenced by the comics character John Constantine, or if Giles influenced that character? There are just too many little coincidences to someone like me. They're both Englishmen with reasonable skill in magic (Constantine is much more powerful) but when looking at character histories they have a lot of similarities. Giles was shown to have played guitar in his youth and Constantine was in various punk bands. And more notably both were involved in a botched summoning of a demon in their youth that got friend(s) killed and later came to haunt them in a present day storyline. I'm more inclined to believe that Whedon might have used a little bit of that background when creating his own character but some sort of documentation would be nice. 99.240.146.252 (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, that's about as tenuous a case of literary influence as I've ever seen offered. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)