Talk:Burt Ward

Bat Bulge Info

In Ward's autobiography, "Boy Wonder: My Life in Tights," he talks candidly about the fact that Legion of Decency complained to ABC about the size of the Boy Wonder's crotch bulge. The network even sent him to a doctor who gave him pills to make it smaller. (Hopefully, not permanently!) I'm surprised that there's nothing about that in this article, given the stir it caused upon the book's release.

Something Amiss

There's something amiss here . . . "with each other"? I question the integrity of this entry.

What exactally does the aurthor mean by misadventures?--StevenSaladshooter 17:26, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Formatting problem?

Any idea how to fix the formatting problem with the links to the PDF motions?

Dog-gone unsourceable: Gentle Giants

Attempts are being made to prevent accurate but neutral or negative information from being included

Burt Ward and his wife run a non-profit that is the subject of controversy. They recently lost a lawsuit in which they sued owners of websites that discussed the controversy. This lawsuit is important because of the implications for any unmoderated discussion boards or sites like Wikipedia, since it would have established precident showing that the owners of the sites were responsible for all content, and the information that was added regarding this appears completely factual and without unnecessary or unreasonably biased content. I checked the information that was removed and as best I can tell, after some effort, it is valid. The sites of which the owners were sued have been victims of repeated vandalism and disruption, which is why I checked this entry for accuracy and vandalism.

I am concerned that the intentions of the editor who removed the information were to prevent anything negative from being included and limit free speech themselves, which would be both dishonest and vandalism. If I am wrong about this, please make your intentions clear - lets avoid any silly editing spats, and if I misinterpreted the intentions of that editor, I apologize. I consider the less flattering information just as important as the positive information on his career, as is the case with any topic, especially public figures and historic events. --Bigdoglover 00:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your changes to the Burt Ward entry

I wanted to discuss your changes to the Burt Ward entry. I had just made a revision to an earlier version and you removed some sections. I am new to this and realized I had not signed in, so I created an account and went back to re-save so my changes would be signed, which is why I noticed your changes. I did leave an explanation on the talk page, but that was also not signed until just now (also a mistake due to ignorance of the system).

Rather than change your changes again, I'd like to discuss them.

I agree with some of them, but the part "on the grounds that the lawsuit was designed to chill their right to speak freely and petition government agencies about a matter of public interest." that you removed is, in my opinion, why the lawsuit is worthy of mention. Other than the biased word "chill" I think it is factual and important. While these may seem like small points, the case has some pretty big significance since they were suing, amoung others, the owners of unmoderated forums for the content other people had posted. That is just like suing the owners of Wikipedia for the edits you or I just made, a precident I am glad was not set.

Less importantly, I also think the words "with prejudice" are important and significant since they are the legal term for the way the case was resolved, though your version does remove some unnecessary redundancy and I do not dispute its accuracy.

However, I checked the page because I DO have an opinion on the issues the case brought up, which is how I found and I checked the page because other sites mentioning the lawsuit have been targets of heavy vandalism and disruption. I was making sure that was not happening here. Because of this (the fact that I am not a wholly unbiased editor) I wanted to talk to you about this and ask you to look over the changes while considering my points. I will defer to your decision on the matter since the last thing I want to do is engage in the behavior I am trying to prevent, even unintentionally. From the nature of your edits it seems pretty clear your intentions are to keep wikipedia accurate and unbiased and not to remove the negative but unbiased content. Hmm, just checked your user page (I did say I'm new to this, after all) - pretty clear you have wikipedia's best interests in mind.

I hope all that makes sense and my intentions are clear, and I would appreciate a response. Thank you

--Bigdoglover 01:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• While "with prejudice" is the legal term, it is easily mis-interpreted by the public, so it is better to simply state what the phrase means, than to use the phrase. As for "right to free speech", if I recall correctly, the defendants ran a website claiming that Burt Ward sold sick dogs. That is potentially slanderous. The judge's dismissal of the case does not imply that the defendants are right, or that their website's statements were true, just that Ward's company over-stepped its lawsuit. Regardless, the current form of the page is more neutral than it has been. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-25 01:32

I see your point about the possible misinterpretation and also the other phrase. Thank you for explaining your view - I think you are right that is is best left the way you had it to avoid people getting the wrong idea. The case details would belong in a seperate entry, were cases typical entries, which doesn't seem the case.

Another user, Zanimum, also with vastly more experience than I, has removed all these discussed changes. Once again I will defer to more the experienced. --Bigdoglover 16:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

New additions

Regarding the new additions by Zanimum-- these need to be well-sourced, especially for the big claims. I've found numerous articles from April-May 2003 ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), which agree with what is said about reports written against his dog shelter, but nothing about the reports being wrong in any way. I'm not saying your additions are wrong, just that they need to be sourced. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-25 17:34

Those articles are all from one of the parties involved in this situation. As they are involved, we should not use them as a source. Are there any outside source reporting on this situation? -- Zanimum 19:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As you added the content, I was hoping you knew. Where did you find the information that you added? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-25 19:59

The information was from PDFs on the GGNews website, from Ward's Demand for Jury. Honestly, I don't think we ever can have a perfectly factual article with the sources we have now. No news source has really followed this whole thing, besides the involved Press-Enterprise. Everyone else is getting second-hand info from them. Ward is acting on his family/company's behalf and best interests, and most everyone else caring is highly dog-minded, thus they might just be playing favourites. The only acceptible route I can see (as we can't just not talk about it) is to have Wikinews do an indepth investigation with Ward, the neighbour, the Committee, the people who charged Ward, the judge, etc. Do they really want to do that? Probably not. So we're stuck in a dead place where we can't do a thing. -- Zanimum 22:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Do those court papers have a decision from the judge, or just arguments from both sides? If all you have is arguments, the content should probably stay out of the article, or at least, the claims that the newspaper lied, that there is no creek nearby, etc. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-25 22:54

While omitting things entirely until we have resources is fine, an editorial choice, I fear people will complain that we're censoring things. -- Zanimum 21:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not censored content if the content is wrong. Without sources, how can we accept it as true? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-29 22:17

BASED ON THE ABOVE CONVERSATION, NO CONTENT RELATING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THESE COURT CASES SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE ARTICLE, UNTIL AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE IS FOUND. -- Zanimum 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand... you originally added the content... and now you're removing it and posting in bold caps that nobody should re-add it?? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-4 02:22

I'm removing it, because as you said, "Without sources, how can we accept it as true?" The previous content had sources, but none were independent. -- Zanimum 19:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No comment from opposition

I'm surprised at how much Mr. Ward's opposition has stepped away from this. I would honestly welcome their opinion on this comprimise. -- Zanimum 22:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempts are being made to prevent accurate but neutral or negative information from being included

The above heading is true, and the discussion above speaks to the fundamental principle involved in Mr. Ward's case. While I understand the concern about the purported one-sidedness, when one side has posted evidence in support of a true and verifiable account (i.e. that the case was dismissed as a "meritless SLAPP" intended to chill free speech), and other people have simply removed that information, it seems to me that the assessment of which side is being intellectualy dishonest is perhaps a distorted one. Mr. Ward lost his libel cases against the newspaper and against the individuals in the second suit because he sued them for making negative comments that he failed to prove were untrue, and he was forced to pay attorneys' fees for having filed a frivolous lawsuit to chill their truthful free speech on a matter of public interest. This is not a matter of debate, but a statement of fact based on the legal requirements necessary to win an anti-SLAPP motion. Unless Mr. Ward were to appeal the case and win on appeal, then there should be no controversy over the veracity of the statement that his suit was FOUND TO BE frivolous and in contravention of the First Amendment.

As to verifiability, it seems to me that providing reference to case numbers and judges should be sufficient when PDFs do not exist, although I would love to see more documents posted, rather than taken down, in this instance and on Wiki in general. As to "independent" sources such as newspapers, this is ultimately a small story, albiet one that involves a big principle, and most papers did not cover it.

A "smear" is different from a truthful statement about a controversy that invokes the First Amendment. I think that the interests of Wiki are better served by including more information rather than less.

If someone in Orange County were willing to go to the court and scan the judge's order, would that satisfy you?

-- James Madison

To only mention the SLAPP would take a situation out of context. Since the SLAPP is part of a longer happening, we must include details on everything in the case, if we are to include the SLAPP. Small story? Mr. Ward is a cultural icon, if only for one role. I'd take the National Enquirer or US Magazine as a proper source in this situation. Unless we have a full and accurate account of the whole first trial of Ward vs. the newspaper, nothing goes in. There's no use having an article that General Custer died at Little Big Horn, if we don't have anything about the Civil War before it. There's no reason to talk about grapefruit, if we don't know how they grow. -- Zanimum 11:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

More about the VFX company

It's probably worth mentioning that Ward's visual effects company, Boy Wonder VFX, has done effects for three films including Bulletproof Monk. (See [13] and [14]. --ChrisWinter 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

About Gentle Giants Rescue

I spent about an hour reading through the posts on gentlegiantsnews.com. They were almost universally negative. But since this is Barbara Laird's site, that is what you might expect.

Here's what I know: Burt and Tracy Ward tried to repossess from Laird a dog she adopted from them. It seems they wanted her to feed the dog only food from GGR. She refused, on the reasonable grounds that the contract did not specify that. Apparently Laird then began collecting opinions from others who had dealt with GGR and displaying them on her Web site. Many different users have posted, in many threads. I saw only two posts defending the Wards, and Laird had tried to debunk one of those -- on what seem to me dubious grounds. The complaints fell mainly into three groups: dogs the Wards said were healthy were not; the dogs were older than claimed; the GGR food was not well-suited for large adult dogs. There were a few complaints about the state of repair of the facility and the stench emanating from it, and one about a "bait and switch" operation. This is the site the Wards took legal action against, claiming defamation.

The Wards did have trouble with the city government in 2003 when their neighbors complained about noise and stench. AFAICT they have resolved those problems to the city's satisfaction since GGR has not been shut down.

What may be a contributing factor to GGR's problems is described here:
April 17, 2003
The Hollywood Reporter
"MGM's "Bulletproof Monk" encountered a number of postproduction complications, including the resignation of a co-founder and the artistic staff at Boy Wonder Visual Effects during production. Artists took their workstations with them, and walkouts were followed by a lawsuit involving claims of theft and misuse of corporate funds (HR 11/30/02). To keep the visual effects running -- and to prevent having to call on its completion bond through International Film Guarantors Inc. -- Boy Wonder founder Burt Ward was forced to divvy up shots to Blur Studios and Eyetronics, as well as invest hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money to keep his end of the production afloat."

It's not clear from this who was at fault. Also, since I found it on Laird's site, I can't be sure it wasn't doctored.

Finally, here is a link to a story about the dismissal of the defamation lawsuit:

http://www.pe.com/localnews/corona/stories/PE_News_Local_S_cward22.133a0443.html
Canine-rescue libel suit gets dismissed by judge
22 Feb 2006
by Julie Farren
The Riverside, CA Press-Enterprise

Perhaps all of this will help make clear how Wikipedia should describe the contentious matter. --ChrisWinter 00:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Report on Bulletproof Monk accurate

As shown here, the only thing changed is that the reporter's byline was omitted: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1867738

I might learn more if I had an account on HR. I'll investigate that; but I expect they'll want money -- which lets me out. I now see that the comments above are spot on: it's very hard to Google up any solid info on this matter. --ChrisWinter 00:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Links to external sites for and against Mr Ward

There is a battle (as well as complaints to the Wikimedia Foundation) whether Wikipedia should include such or such link supporting Mr Ward's current activities or demolishing them. Since some contend that the links against Mr Ward just libel him, and some others contend that links describing his activities would be unbalanced without criticism, then I removed all external links. David.Monniaux 19:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this temporary or permanent? I can see removing them until Legal sorts this out, but as a precedent I hope we're not just removing negative links every time somebody makes claims about them. —Chowbok ☠ 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The "anti-Gentle Giants" Web site is patently not a reliable source, and should not be linked to from Wikipedia - NPOV does not require that we allow fringe issues to take center stage on a Wikipedia biography of a living person. The site is not about Mr. Ward, anyway. FCYTravis 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Organization issues

This page is a biography of Mr. Ward, and not a compendium of everything a non-profit he founded may or may not have done. FCYTravis 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding his organization is very relevant to the article; it was featured in several newspapers, and it's not just a "non-profit he founded"—it's a shelter he personally runs. Just having positive references to the shelter with no reference to the controversy is not NPOV. I've worked to craft a fair explanation of both sides of the issue, and I'm going to restore those edits. —Chowbok ☠ 14:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please produce sources which support the idea that Mr. Ward was personally connected with the water quality issues. We do not mention every single OSHA violation a company gets on the CEO's biographical page. FCYTravis 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons?

I seem to recall Bart asking about Burt Ward at one point. My memory might be hazy. I know Adam West was on the show twice, and that Burt wasn't directly on the show, but I do recall them mentioning him once. Can anyone help verify that a bit better? - NemFX (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes... and Burt did appear as The Boy Wonder in one episode ("Large Marge"), in an episode of Batman that Bart and Milhouse watched. --The_Iconoclast (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Moving interview link here

I'm moving the Stephanie Miller interview link here because it should be used as a source. The external links section is a good size right now with the relevant links. momoricks 23:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• July 10, 2006 audio interview of Burt Ward by Stephanie Miller on The Stephanie Miller Show about his dog adoption services

MENSA membership

I recall a TV Guide article contemporary with or perhaps slightly after the original Batman series run which stated that Burt Ward was a MENSA member with a very high I.Q. (apparently around 200, as I recall) and a speed reader with a capability of around 40,000 wpm. However, I don't have a TV Guide archive like the one on Seinfeld, so I can't truly cite it for inclusion in the article. Does anyone else have this information? 75.201.174.147 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burt Ward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100918163346/http://burtwardlive.com/w_trivia.html to http://www.burtwardlive.com/w_trivia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Last Remaining Cast of Batman

Isn't Lee Meriwether still alive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs) 22:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

scooby doo meets batman

Burt ward and adam west were in a scooby doo cartoon movie. Nobody bothered to add it.

Scooby-Doo Meets Batman.

Majinsnake (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)