This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 2006 and January 2007.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Batman/Archive07. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see him using his zipline/grappling hook thing all the time in the shows (whenever he needs to scale a building or falls out of one), but it's not mentioned at all in this article. I would put it in, but I don't know what its name is.

In the Batman TAS (the animated series) Batman is revealed to be an expert ventriloquist. He learrned his skills from Zatanna and is revealed in the episode "Read my Lips" of the animated series.

-G

I'm going to add another ability, "Photographic memory". It was made apparent in episode "Avatar", season two of Batmans TAS. Only looking at a scroll for a split second, Bruce had memorized the map on the scroll and was able to reach his destination.

Batman is seen as a criminal by the likes of Poison Ivy because of the negative effects brought about by Wayne Enterprises. The Joker, Two-Face, The Penguin, and others were created by being exposed to Wayne Chemicals. Wayne Enterprises sells weapons to the US military and can thus be seen as a war profiteer. Since Batman exists in a universe much like the real one you cannot expect his Wayne Oil division to be environmentally sound. So there it is -- Comic book characters are often more dynmaic than just "good" or "bad" -- "hero" -- or "villain". In fact, philosophically, Batman and Green Arrow have ideological arguments since Batman is pro-oligarchy and The Green Arrow takes the side of the working man. If you must delete the reality of the edit, at least create a new section for it such as Criticism of Batman's moral character by his foes and other heroes".

That is why I'm okay with this being under its own heading. Why do you keep on adding it to the intro? Gdo01 20:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've now added a new section between "Batman Villains" and "Homosexual Interpretations".

I was not the one who put in this line but it seems relevant as one of his weaknesses: "In Superman/Batman #8-13, he is willing to do whatever is "necessary" to destroy evil, including destroying an entire world of inhabitants." Furthermore... I think Wayne Enterprises HAVE caused much harm by the super-villains they've created such as The Joker, Clayface, etc. In the movie "Batman Begins" Bruce Wayne is thrown in prison for stealing food -- whcih is even more condemnation of his corporate culture. Poison Ivy is also very critical of the environmental devesttion caused by Wayne Enterprises (which is rather directly guided by Bruce Wayne).

To my knowledge none of the Clayfaces were formed due to Wayne Enterprises. The closest one was a former S.T.A.R. Labs employee. The chemical plant in which Joker was "formed" has never been linked to Wayne Enterprises. Bruce was thrown in jail in Batman Begins because he was stealing in order to live like a criminal so he could learn to hi understand them. This has nothing to do with his supposed "villainny." Other than that all you have is the word of Poison Ivy which you have not cited. What comic book page is her critique from? Gdo01 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Several Clayfaces exist but at least one, Basil Karlo (in an episode of "The Batman" entitled Clayfaces), broke into Wayne Industries, then he steals and drinks a sample of the Clayface mutagen. As for the Joker it is temporarily unconfirmed whether or not it was actually a Wayne Chemicals vat which the Joker (previously known as the Red Hood) was pushed into by Batman - but it was in Gotham where Wayne Enterprises is heavily entrenched as the number one industrial employer (and Wayne Chemicals is a branch of Wayne Industries). One origin has the Joker as an employee of a chemical plant (like Wayne Chemicals) and this would be just another Wayne Enterprises employee to turn into a super-villian (like Mr.Freeze, Edward Nigma, Poison Ivy, etc.) And the crime illustrated in the film is not that he stole food but that he (Bruce Wayne) retained so much wealth while others where starving and thrown in prison for crimesl like stealing food. Poison Ivy as an extreme environmentalist faults several of Wayne Enterprises divisions most popularly in the Batman&Robin movie. In any case, mining and oil drilling and refining are environemtnally destructive activities which Wayne Enterprises are involved. Furthermore it is confirmed that Wayne Enterprises is in the business of manufacturing and distributing hi-tech weapons (which is also of dubious moral character).

So much of what you assert is speculation and POV; the owner of the chemical company, the "crime" illustrated in the film, the enviromental practices of Wayne Oil, the "dubious moral character" of producing weapons. CovenantD 22:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, the mutagen Basil Rathbone ate was being used by Wayne Enterprises to cure the original Clayface. Every example you are trying to use is either a conjecture, which we cannot use, or based on your viewing of a children's cartoon. Stop pushing your viewpoint; it violates WP:NPOV and is against consensus. Do not add this section again without first discussing it here or it will be considered vandalism. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 04:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Being called a hero after acting as judge, jury, and executioner is also POV (moreso as I see it). The Environmental consequences in the DC world (which is very much like the real world) are likely to be similiar -- and HAVE IN FACT BEEN CITED by the militant environmentalist Poison Ivy. Manufacturing and distributing hi-tech weapons IS UNDOUBTEDLY of dubious moral character. He's an arms dealer for goodness sake! Similiar crimes by Lex Luthor through Lexcorp. are not so easily dismissed and ignored -- they make make Lex Luthor a villain! So the onus of POV seems to fall on those who claim it's criminal for one and not for the other because one is a "super-villian" and the other is a "super-hero."

I must emphasis that we're talking about a fictional character. NPOV concerns people's concepts of the character, ie. the homosexuality debate. Not the character's antagonists grievances against him. They're written to hate him. WesleyDodds 22:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but since he and his universe are being talked about extensively to encompass all the facts involved with them -- all the facts should be presented. I think it's funny how you accept the homosexuality debate because that is a concept people have of him but you don't except him as an oligarchic elitist protecting his own interests (because no one apparently conceives of him as such?).

That's because we have references for the homosexuality debate. Without reference your "oligarchic elitist" interpretation is original research and does not warrant a place in this article. WesleyDodds 00:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

OK... so Poison Ivy and the Joker both stating in the Batman Universe why the believe Batman and Wayne Enterprises to be villainous is not a credible source for a topic heading (near the homosexuality debate at the bottom of the page) and Wayne Enterprises can be called green and environmentnally sound despite (again depite Poison Ivy's points to the contrary) but these claims can not be edited out or countered by any sort of balance? Idealogical differences with other heroes can not even be used to secure this topics creation? The creation of other criminals is not a valid complaint against Wayn Enterprises (which must be presented as green and heroic)? Arms manufacturing and distribution can not be called morally dubious even though many verifiable people feel otherwise and it is actually one of the reasons that undoubtedly makes Lex Luthor a criminal? Why can only good things be said about Batman, Bruce Wayne, and Wayne Enterprises -- despite what people in and out of the fictional universe believe? I would appreciate it if each of these points was addressed (rather than pushed aside and dismissed out of hand) so that I can work towards keeping the section entitled "Batman as a villian" between the Batman villains section and the Homosexuality debate (which I see is now being dismantled as well). Nihilozero 18:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"While changing morals have made the issue less important today, popular culture and a number of artists continue to play off the homosexual connotation of the Batman-Robin relationship against the wishes of the publisher. ^[1] One notable example occurred in 2000, when DC Comics refused to allow permission for the reprinting of four panels (from Batman issues 79, 92, 105 and 139) to illustrate Christopher York's paper All in the family: Homophobia and Batman Comics in the 1950s ^[2] Another happened in the summer of 2005, when painter Mark Chamberlain displayed a number of watercolors depicting both Batman and Robin in suggestive poses. DC threatened both artist and gallery with legal action if they did not cease selling the works and demanded all remaining art, as well as any profits derived from them. ^[3]"

You see how that paragraph has numbers. Those are citations. You have not provided any paper, comic book, or book in general that shows that your interpretation is widespread and well known. Also see WP:CITE for more info. Gdo01 19:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have provided movie sources (which are allowed in the discussion elsewhere and in articles about other characters). They may need to be technically edited but the sources I did provide are real. What I am dealing with here is that only good things can be said about the "hero" despite contrary opinions from within the universe. And then good things are allowed to be said on the Wayne Enterprises page (like about the sound environmental practices) even though characters I cited (who and in which media souce) completely contradicted the wholesome goodness of Wayne Enterprises. As for such things like manufacturing hi-tech mlitary weaopons and distributing them, you can pretend that no one finds that morally dubious, but presumably that is the sort of thing that maks Lex Luthor a villain -- but because it's Batman and Wayne Enterprises it's ok (despite cited criticism from within and outside the univers). In the interest of thorough balance you would think that someone here would look at Batman imprtially and tell me what criticism of him I would be able to use from within his ficticious and from without (and I have indeed cited if you'll merely look in this discussion even). Nihilozero 19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually a tag has been placed on Wayne Enterprises asking editors to cite their sources since the article apparantly has none. Anyway, saying that because their info is uncited yours doesn't have to be cited hardly helps the acceptance of your interpretation. Second of all, many will say that the movies cannot and should not be used as sources unless the info in the movies are corroborated or derived from the official comics so at best you could put your info under Batman in other media. And last, you should try researching your interpretation. If you can find someone credible out there that has seen the same interpretations of characters and practices that you have, you would indeed have a source. Gdo01 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a complete red herring you've created here in the form of a straw man. I did not, in any way, suggest that my edits do not need to be cited since the greenwashing pro-Wayne side didn't cite theirs. I cited Poison Ivy (who is a militant environmentalist in the comic) from the movie Batman&Robin as having criticized Wayne Enterprises destructive corporate practices. This criticsm was not allowed and my editing out the greenwashing portion was restored on the Wayne Enterprises page. This is only one minor point but I think it illustrates the problem as a whole very nicely. Only nice things are allowed to be said about the "hero" Batman and any criticism or contrary views will be edited out. Nihilozero 19:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been a few days and I replaced the Batman as villain section with several citations including one from someone who outed him as a corporate criminal guilty of insider trading. It may need to be cleaned up but several sources are cited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihilzero ( talk • contribs)

Wow. I'm really struggling with assuming good intentions here. Steven Fisher 21:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. Despite characters within his own fictional universe (including other heroes) drawing attention to his less than heoic activities, he is still only allowed to be presented, unquestionably, as a one-diminesional heroic character. Those things he does wrong are dismissed even when other characters are known as villains for for doing the same things. It's really about cultural indoctrination but wiki is supposed to present facts and not cultural bias. If you look at the history of the "Batman/Bruce Wayne as a villian" section you will see that it is heavily cited from comic books, the movies, the animated series, and others. In the interest of fairness and balance the section should be allowed to stay. In fact, others should help me restore it and keep it on the page even if they are a fan of Batman. Nihilozero 20:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant yours, actually. I find it really difficult to believe that someone actually thinks this section is relevant, accurate, or even of sufficient interest to include in this article. Steven Fisher 21:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well... you're obviously wrong. It's relevant because it deals with the complex character of "the Batman" about whom this page is written. It's certainly accurate as my citations prove. And who are you to determine what anyone elses interests are? Just because you are a fan of the pop culture presentation of Batman does not mean that comic book characters aren't complex characters who sometimes transcend the common ideas of good and evil. Nihilozero 23:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the LARGE number of people who have reverted that "Batman as villain" section gives an indication of other people's interests? See list at bottom of this page for some specific problems you just keep repeating. Doczilla 01:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In reply to the unsigned message Nihilozero left anonymously on my talk page: At the bottom of this page, there is an entire list of things wrong with the "Batman as villain" section. I don't give a damn if he's a hero or a villain, but that's a poorly written section drawing on inappropriate sources. This is not "what other editors are for" as you put it. Conscientious editors do not create messes for other people to clean up. And conscientious editors sign their posts on other people's talk pages. Wryspy 05:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I see what you wrote above telling someone else they were "obviously wrong." Obviously not. If it were so obvious, then you wouldn't have all these people correcting you. Wryspy 05:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking majority and popular opinion for fact -- which it is not. And the "obviously wrong" was in response to a particular point about anyONE. You people very often do not seem to care about accuracy, details or specifics. Maybe it's just when your hero is in question but perhaps you should recuse yourself if you can't be an impartial judge. Or maybe you're just taking issue with this because you see others have? I've dealt with the early complaints -- particularly in regard to citations and original research. I'll note that at least one editor, gdo01, has stated that the section would be ok. I take this editor as being impartial while most of the rest seem like fanboys. Nihilozero 06:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are now seeing what your POV is. You don't seem to actually be interested in working with other editors who are taking the time to discuss the issue at hand with you. Your behavior is appalling. As for your accusations of disinterest in accuracy, that is exactly why your contribution is being question; it's not accurate and it's not verifiable. Do not insult those who disagree with you. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 07:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How can ALL my heavily cited edits not be accurate or verifiable? You are not giving me any slack here! Has he ever been guilty of any sort of crime ever? Has anyone ever pointed out those crimes inside and outside of Batman's ficitonal universe? Your position seems to be that Batman is a hero period. But modern comic book characters are often complex with their criminal dark sides. I can admit that Batman has saved the day more than once -- but that does not mean I will only point out those times and omit from mention any of his crimes. Nihilozero 15:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your text is riddled with POV problems. Shall I remove those? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know my latest edit was riddled with cited fact but the entire section still gets removed. So, in answer to your question -- NO! I'd prefer if you did not remove my latest edits because I have fixed problemd with them and now am dealing with biased POV from the fans of Batman. Nihilozero 14:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at this:

• "In the movie "Batman&Robin" Poison Ivy (a militant environmetnalist) gives a monologue about the destructive practices of Wayne Enterprises."

Other media depiction, and the argument is being made by an insane supervillain. Her gripe is also specifically with Wayne Enterprises. it's not like Bruce Wayne ordered them to destroy the environment.

• "In a piece called "Bruce Wayne, Insider Trader?" Loren Steffy outs Bruce Wayne as a corporate criminal much like Lex Luthor. http://blogs.chron.com/lorensteffy/2005/06/ "

Fan interpretation on a blog. Not a credible source.

• "In issue #650 of Batman, the title character decides to kill the Red Hood in order to protect the Joker."

Context please. Just because he decides to kill someone to protect a villain doesn't mean he is one.

• "In Batman: The Animated Series (in the episode "Beware the Creeper"), the joker recalls how Batman intentionally pushed him into the chemicals which caused his discoloration. Other characters like Clayface (in an episode of "The Batman" entitled Clayfaces) were created by coming into contact with Wayne Chemical's products or were former employees of Wayne Enterprises (such as, Mr.Freeze and Edward Nigmna).

Once again, other media. Once again, having a gripe with Wayne Enterprises does not = Bruce Wayne is a villain

• "In the story arc of the "Batman/Superman" comic book entitled "Public Enemies," Batman steps aside to allow Superman to kill the president."

Alternate timeline that was fixed. WesleyDodds 03:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being a little more specific than most but here's why I think each point is valid:

• this segment is about Batman in general and other media representations are mentioned in the article. And the characters in all of the media forms are representing the character of Batman (w/Wayne, batmobile, etc.). As for Poison Ivy... even if she is an insane criminal (which is arguably a non-neutral POV) -- her complaints against Wayne and Wayne Enterprises are still metioned and it is hardly a stretch (even without Poison Ivy's cited testimony) to think that Wayne Oil and Wayne Chemicals are green a environmentally sound operations (as they are called in the Wayne Enterprises page). As head of the Corporation Bruce Wayne is responsible for the actions of Wayne Enterprises just as Lex Luthor is responsible for Lexcorp.
• The cited blog was not a fan site it was simply an article by someone who broke down the crimes he observed Bruce Wayne Committing in the film Batman Begins (which should be a valid source for information about Batman).
• His decision to kill the Red Hood is pure vigilanteism. And it goes against even his own claimed moral code.
• Other media is elsewhere and should be allowed in describing Batman's character. And as stated, when his corporation is involved in so many industries and whne villians continuously are borne out of the labs (in one way or another) Wayne Enterprises and ultimately Bruce Wayne must be held responsible.
• Here we are talking about comic books specifically, but you act is if this one doesn't count any more because of the Crisis series. But it did happen in the comic book and it was Batman and people still have those issues in which he is guilty of treason. As everyone knows, the crises never stop and any or all of the timelines could be ultimately real anyway. Nihilozero 04:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• This article is about the comic book character. When Daredevil killed a criminal in his movie, that did not make him a killer in the comic books. The movie's Ra's Al Ghul is not the same character as the comic book Ra's Al Ghul. I heard Denny O'Neill, creator of the character and writer of the Batman Begins novelization, say so himself. Batman in not a real person. You know that. Comic book Batman does not have to equal movie Batman in character.
• We can't build an article that covers every single thing anyone has ever mentioned in its history.
• "hardly a stretch" is not good enough for Wikipedia. Read WP:NOT thoroughly. Read WP:CMC/EG thoroughly.
• He didn't kill the Red Hood. Even if your interpretation of the character's intention were correct, a thought does not a criminal make. Doczilla 04:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need it to be organized in this way, with everything in subcategories? -- Chris Griswold 04:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I lean towards yes. I consider it 'organized' ;) Though I think the Supporting characters can be hacked down. It has it's own article, after all. A stubish section pointing to the main article would suffice. No? -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 15:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the entire article? I am referring to the "see also" section, which has been changed in the way it is organized to give subheadings to individual links. -- Chris Griswold 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got some concerns about the recently added "Timeline of Batman".

1. I'm not sure whether such a "timeline" of a fictional character (especially one whose history has been subject to as many revisions as Batman's) is encyclopedic.
2. I'm also worried that it might be original research. It reads like something out of one of the Secret Files and Origins issues, but updated post-OYL.
3. It applies only to the current comics version of the character, while the rest of the entry refers to past versions and versions in other media. We all know that comics continuity is subject to constant revision according to editoral whim, and if DC is sticking to the interpretation that Batman began his career "10 years ago" it will also be subject to compression of more and more events in that ten years.

While my fanboy side always likes these fictional chronologies, I don't think they really belong at Wikipedia — but I'd like to hear other opinions before I remove somebody's hard work. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a section or an article? -- Chris Griswold 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a section, but you removed it when you reverted other unsourced statements here. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Right. Yeah, that edit had a ton of Team Kane content, trying to lessen Finger's work. But that timeline thing was completely unnecessary. -- Chris Griswold 08:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is unsourced, but then again, it might be true, right? Batman began at 24 (in Year One), then the remainder of that first year and Year Two follows into the Long Halloween. Batman Begins confirms this by showing him leaving at 17 or 18 and training for seven years, ending the film as 25 year old Batman becomes the guardian of Gotham. By the time Alberto Falcone is revealed to be Holiday, Batman must be around 26. Dark Victory is between year two and the early parts of Year Three. Dick Grayson was 12 when Batman took him in and trained him as Robin. By that point, Batman was 25 or 26 and into his third year of crime-fighting. Flash foward five years later in time, Dick leaves the role of Robin and becomes Nightwing, Jason Todd comes in as Robin and dies within the year. Shortly afterwards, enter 13-year old Tim Drake, and Knightfall begins with Batman nearly dying. A year later, No Man's Land takes place, when Tim is 14 going on 15. Batman: Hush takes place, with Jack Drake's death, the return of Jason Todd, and Tim turns 16 shortly before the Infinite Crisis. After the Battle of Metropolis, jump ahead one year later in time, Batman is 34/35, Tim is 17, and Dick is around 21/22. Besides, Batman is only early to mid thirties, so Batman began around ten years ago.

I think all this happened over a course of ten years, since they don't want Batman to age anywhere closer to 40. Plus, you want proof of Batman's age, check the website [1]. In the FAQS section, it confirms that he is around 34, giving he studied martial arts at 14 for six years, then returned to Gotham in his early twenties as Batman. Let's review now: Batman is NOT nearing 40, and the Ra's Al Ghul eternal youth story arc is coming up. Believe me, Bat-fans won't be worrying about him aging after this upcoming story. -- Jonathan.Bruce 12:34 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In current DC Comics, it has been 13 years since Superman and Batman emerged. -- Chris Griswold 22:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides which, the "facts" of any continuously published comic book character's chronology are, of necessity, going to be malleable and selectively followed, according to the editorial needs of the moment. If DC Comics pronounces tomorrow that Batman is 30, or 35, or 40, then everything else will be adjusted to accomodate the current editorial position. While it's fun for fans to come up with this sort of timeline, by its very nature and the fact that the comic is continuously advancing in time, such a timeline can never be definitive or encyclopedic.

Furthermore, the "proof" you're providing is questionable at best: I think the site you're linking to is just a fan site, with a fan's suppositions. Reasonable they may be, but they're still suppositions. And it's also odd to try to consolidate comics continuity with film continuity: the two are simply different narrative strands. (Were Thomas and Martha Wayne killed leaving The Mark of Zorro or Die Fledermaus? Was Joe Chill killed on Carmine Falcone's orders, or by his own henchmen, or by the Reaper? And so forth.)

Finally, this is a pretty insignificant matter to get so upset about as to write in ALL CAPS (which gives the impression that you're yelling at your fellow editors). Please remain civil. Thanks. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My proof comes from a Happy Meal box I just made. -- Chris Griswold 01:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Batman Begins had the Infinite Crisis (in a way) changed continuity to have Joe Chill arrested after the Waynes' murder and (supposedly) killed later. I mean, now the movie franchise is closer to the comics than ever before. The Joker as the one who killed Bruce's parents? Yes, that was a nice plot twist in Burton's film, but the fact that Batman never really confronted his parents' murder is something for which he can never get over. In Begins, all the immature, conflicted 18-year old Wayne wants at first is revenge, but after Chill dies, he realizes he wasted ten years of his life plotting of how to get Chill in vengeance. Then he goes to Europe for seven years and comes back as Batman. By the way, I wasn't spazzing out at you back there earlier. I apologize for any inconvience.

In addition, several writers and editors of Batman have agreed in the past that they will not try to age the character in any way (Frank Miller broke this rule, but Dark Knight Returns and Dark Knight Strikes Again are Elseworlds canon and not mainstream continuity). Look at Spider-Man, he's married to MJ and he's only early to mid twenties. He was 16 when he got his powers and not much has passed since then. The One Year Later storyline is the furthest Batman will be aging to 40. He's only 34-36 as of now, and if they feel he's getting old, the writers will just retcon any little detail. Come on, they've always done this, such as the Spoiler from dying thanks to Leslie Thompkins witholding treatment to "torture and pain from Black Mask," according to sources after Infinite Crisis. By the way, they should clear up this little dangling plot thread. Should they bring Dr. Thompkins back and have Batman forgive her? Will she expose who he is if he threatens to have her arrested? What was the real cause of death? Hopefully, this will be explained later on.

Anyways, look at Superman in Dark Knight Returns. He doesn't even look older, he looks like a thirty-something year old man in his prime. Supes will always be in his thirties, and same with Batman. So Chris Griswold, if you say that Batman has been around for 13 years, he must have been started around in his early twenties like 22 or 23, he must be 36, according to you. However, the whole team at DC Comics interprets Batman in his thirties, so that's about the jist of it.

Wait, Chris, how did you get your answers off a home-made Happy Meal box? -- Jonathan.Bruce 12:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. You should try it. It's really rewarding when you find out what the toy surprise is. I'm being silly. Anyway, you may enjoy Timeline of the DC Universe -- Chris Griswold 04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Should this really replace the "See Also" section? Should it be so large and unplesant-looking? Should it be located at {{ The Batman}} instead of {{ Batman}}? Find out next week, same bat-time, same bat-channel. -- Chris Griswold 00:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your attempt at levity is as feeble as your attempt as self-sacrifice. However, I agree that it could use some corrections. (Cancelled projects? Poor POV attempt to list all the "notible" villains?) Still, all and all it's good. Obviously someone approved it and made it, so if you have a serious problem, it'd probably be better discussed at Wikipedia:templates for deletion. Just be careful not to let the green-eyed monster cloud your judgment. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your support. Unfortunately, the current edits are making it a bigger mess. ThuranX 18:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way you could reply to me once without coming off as rude? You've already been warned about your incivility. It's been taken care of. -- Chris Griswold 18:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a quote, Chris. "Self-Sacrifice"? C'mon, man, lighten up. If I wanted to insult you, I'd do it in person.

Hmm. Well, it could always be worse, X. Good luck with it to both of you. I'm kinda busy at the moment. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice! -- Chris Griswold 00:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please follow this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes to join in on the discussion . -- Basique 12:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Adam West appears as Batman in all manner of things, especially voice work in animation.

The 1966 movie was a direct spin-off of the on-going series.

As such the relationship between the show is significant.

The connection between West and the role (in this case) isn't.

Duggy 1138 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with keeping it as 20th Century Fox? Other than not being super-descriptive, I'll grant you, it's accurate. Maybe 20th Century Fox/TV Series Spin-Off? -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 15:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A some stage I had "TV Spin-Off"(20th Century Fox), which I liked & felt was descriptive (initially, I admit, I removed Fox entirely, but in the spirit of co-operation I made a change to my view when it was reverted.

However, that isn't the issue here. The issue is that another party changed it to "Adam West as Batman" as part of a series of additions that fell apart, which, as stated previously is, I feel incorrect.

Duggy 1138 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made the change I had previously made again. Not to start a fight. Just to show the point from which this little battle started. I don't expect this to be the final answer, just a stepping stone.

Duggy 1138 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoever started the "Batman is not a superhero as a result of his lack of super-powers. His resourcefulness, insight, and years of rigorous training hardly make up for the absence of any special abilities" changes, please knock it off. Thank you.-- Cnjartist 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be 66.67.123.190. I put mention on his talk page. Anotehr round of it and I say treat as a vandal. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 21:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It was also reverted back to that version by Mhking earlier today as well.-- Cnjartist 21:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

While I don't agree with it, there are many who believe that no-powers means not a superhero. Batman is the character that both camps fight over. I think the superhero page needs to note that not all superheroes have powers, and some wording here alluding to it would be nice, but would choke up the introduction.

Duggy 1138 00:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Superhero article itself says that it doesn't have to mean superpowers. Also, try not to delete other people's comments. I put Cnjartists's back in. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 00:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure what happened with the other comment. Clearly, I'm still not watching things clear enough.

The superhero article implies it. I've added a line making it explicit, and will let the normal editing process fix/remove/replace it as sees fit.

Duggy 1138 01:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

After all that fuss yesterday, looking at the "See Also" section I think it need a major re-edit. We the two subsections combined to make it more workable.

I'm going to make the changes just to see how it looks, hoping not to be called a vandal in the process, and perfectly happy to see it be reverted back imediately.

Duggy 1138 05:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the see also section is getting a little too extensive, particularly since editors are wroking to fix the {{ Batman}} template, which will not doubt be re-added to the article.:--  Chris Griswold |  talk |  contribs  11:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it's all TV & film it may as well be in the other media article.

Duggy 1138 11:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'which article?' bit hits that weird zone, though. A Batman article should cover everything related to Batman (not in great detail, but that's why God invented daughter articles, eh? ;) ). A consise and solid summary of both Batman's comic history and film history would be appropriate, and as for the See Also, well, that template ChrisGriswold talks about would cover that. One hopes. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 13:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

One does hope. :--  Chris Griswold |  talk |  contribs 

How come their no talk of it? i think it should be meantion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supermike ( talk • contribs) 22:39, August 19, 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. This is about the character who originated in comic books but has since appeared in various other mediums with the same name, abilities, and general world. Unfortunately that would taint the pristine view of Batman that some of the fans who edit this page have. As it is they will not allow events that occurred in other timelines to be mentioned or any criticism of Batman by characters in the movies (even if this is consistent with characters in the comic book). Nihilozero 05:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I like kittens. They say "meow meow meow". Do you like kitten, Nihilozero? I love you.-- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 08:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess this joke never gets old for you as you've apparently used it before. It's very witty. Wow. Ha. Anyway... you never really addressed the point I was making which WAS and IS: The Batman page is about the character BATMAN who originated in comic books but has since appeared in other media with the same characteristics. Therefore... the other media representations of Batman OUGHT to be allowed as a source for information about the character on that characters page. Kittens. You're a funny guy. Did you think of that all by yourself? Nihilozero 06:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Addressing your point: Batman is not a single entity. Batman the comic book character does not equal Batman the character from BTAS who does not equal the Batman from Super Friends. Each animated Batman is based on Batman the comic book character, but is not the same character. Differences can happen. The fact that Daredevil killed some bad guys in the Daredevil movie does not make the comic book character a killer. Denny O'Neil explicitly stated explicitly that the Ras al Ghul in Batman Begins was not the same character as the Ras he created in the comic book, although he thought the movie Ras was a great character too. A comic book depiction of George W. Bush saying nuke the Avengers does not mean that George W. Bush ever said to nuke the Avengers. The character basis does not equal the character, despite overwhelmingly obvious overlap. Doczilla 06:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Batman Beyond is already mentioned in the Other Media section, Nihilzero. Beyond a mention of the series and its relation to Batman there's no reason to go into detail about it (being one of many, many inerpretations of Batman in other media, and certainly not the only prominent depiction of the character's future *coughdarkknightreturnscough*). That's for the Batman Beyond page itself. WesleyDodds 09:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that "in-universe" meant "DC Universe". What I was referring to was odd sentences like "Batman's first intercompany crossover is with Marvel's Hulk." This sentence is really about the publishing history of the character, not his fictional history, and so should be in the past tense. Fiction exists in the "eternal present", but the publication of a specific comic book is an event at a fixed point in history, and so should be in the past tense: Batman's first intercompany crossover was with Marvel's Hulk, and in that story the two fight the Joker and the Shaper of Worlds. It's a bit difficult, since the paragraph shifts back and forth between speaking about the character as a property (real-world, past tense) and within a fictional context ("in-universe", present tense). Perhaps the "crossovers" section should be rewritten more thoroughly to put it all in an out-of-universe perspective? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. I just cheanged the first sentence and it was fine. -- Chris Griswold ( ☏) 03:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think that the first sentence needs to say "was"; fiction exists in the eternal present, but a comic published in 1981 exists in the past. Insofar as we're discussing the encounters between the characters, present tense is correct, but if we're discussing a publishing event, it's in the past. Does that make sense? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That first sentence is s not a point worth to arguing about. I feel that the work still is the comics still is the first Batman crossover ever published because it still exists now. If, however, you feel that it should be past tense, I concede to you. -- Chris Griswold ( ☏) 05:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Unsurprisingly, the body count eventually published Batman stories is quite high"

Grammar seems a bit odd here - any suggestions?

I'm removing it entirely -- not only is there a grammar problem, I can't figure out what it's supposed to mean, it doesn't fit in the section it has been put under and (perhaps incidentally) the conjunction is POV. ~CS 04:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think my point was mis-understood. I'm not saying that Kate/Batwoman isn't alive and well OYL, and I'm not saying she's not in the JLA. I'm saying that until she shows up in the comic pages, not the cover, her 'status' is speculative. That cover also has Supergirl and Green Arrow, neither of whom are likely to be in the new JLA at this moment in time. She has the potential to be in the new JLA, but until it's confirmed in the pages of the comic, it's speculation. Probable speculation. Likely speculation. Speculation I happen to agree with. But that doesn't make it not speculation. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Also: as an encyclopedia, it is important that this entry maintain critical distance and only contain complete, verifiable information. Extrapolating from the cover of an yet-to-be-published book is not encyclopedic. Additionally, the appropriateness of the page needs to be considered. This is not the Batwoman page, nor the Batman Supporting Characters page. It's the Batman page, and fan speculation about JLA or Batwoman aren't topical here.

The issue has nothing to do with whether Batwoman will be in the JLA or whatever other post-52 plans are for her -- it's about what is appropriate for this encyclopedia page. ~CS 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is not a single photo of Bruce Wayne in the entire article. Shouldn't one be included?

yes.there should be a photo of bruce- Demon laffy 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What's Batman without Bruce Wayne? There should be a picture of Bruce.- SSJ Gokan 20:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If you do so, might I suggest a *drawing* from a comic and not a *photo*? Pictures of actors playing Bruce Wayne just don't look like anything but the actor wearing a tux, and there isn't anything about a photo of an actor that would improve the article. ~CS 02:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are correct -- Energman 21:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be a section covering the "family" like bat group. How his sidekicks represent sons and/or daughters. Or Alfred as his father. Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.131.51 ( talk • contribs)

We already have that under supporting characters, which also points to Batman supporting characters. Please sign your posts in the future (with ~~~~) -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 17:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T REVERT IT WITHOUT REASON. I added a few sentences about the "Bat God" interpretation of Batmans character. As the currently popular interpretation of the characters abilities I think it at least deserves a mention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.31.244.93 ( talk • contribs) .

I have reverted it because it is original research. Please do not add it back unless you can cite a reliable source for this interpretation. Thanks, Gwernol 01:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna take this out because at this point it seems very speculative. Because this is part of an ongoing storyline, there is no way of knowing if this character is indeed going to be a "Supporting character" or not. A published comic isn't even cited, but rather a solicitation. Besides, there is a separate article for that very topic and if it belongs anywhere it's there. CovenantD 02:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 07:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a much better reason to get rid of it than your last. I concur.

Duggy 1138 08:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason there is no content about Damian in the artical is because he isn't a very prominant character and so far has only appeared in the Batman and Son storyline. -- MastertagUSA 15:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

While it remains possible to view these actions as a means by which Batman is deluding himself about his own homosexuality, any interpretation of Batman and Robin's sexual orientation as gay or straight is ultimately subjective.'

Huh?!? This is at the end of a section that includes nearly every creator denying it, and listing examples of relationships. How is this conclusion reached? -- Steven Fisher 17:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a neutrality attempt. I think we should simply say Batman is generally not intended to be a gay character. Wiki-newbie 17:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It was an NPOV attempt, after a lot of vandalism. The 'conclusion' is reached by accepting the fact that some people want to read into the HoYay! and allowing that they're welcome to so do. Maybe Batman's sexuality is, as intended by most authors, predominantly heterosexual. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 18:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as I recall it was a leftover from revert wars. I agree that the original statement is inappropriate, but I do think a conclusion of some sort should remain. Perhaps As intended by most authors, Batman's sexuality is predominantly heterosexual. Homosexual readings of the texts are a product of non-canonical reader interpretations.? Actually, I think that's pretty good for the time being. I'm going to put it in in place of the (awful) text that was struck earlier, while we discuss it futher here. ~CS 19:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The second sentence is redundant and confuses the issue. You've already stated the authorial intent, so homosexuality in the characters is already indicated to be the result of reader response. Explicitly saying this sounds like the article is tring to say someting else - like, "this reading is obviously wrong", a POV and very contestable claim. "Canonical" is a fanboy phrase, and should be avoided wherever possible in encyclopaedic articles - what's worse, the Batwoman and Bat-Girl introduced to establish Batman and Robin as hterosexual characters an cited in the section, are not canon in the current DC universe (and the currently canon Batwoman is a lesbian)! It's especially bad when married with concepts of authorial intent is such a blanket way. The general consensus in academic circles is that reader response is more important than authorial intent; and also that all readings are biased (and it's no more biased to flatly ignore the authorial intent of Batman writers than it is to accept that intent). Few reader responses are unlikely to be based on every Batman story ever written, nor can we assume that the balance of authorial intent or textual evidence applies to every potrayal of a character which is written by so many different authors in different versions: Heterosexuality is not an archetypal facet of Batman's character, as it is in the case of, say, Superman because of the importance of his relationship with Lois Lane to any narrative of Superman, or James Bond because of the utilisation of women as his singular pleasure and weakness. (This could lead one to wonder why Batman's relationships, even his two marriages, have become an integral part of the Batman mythos.) Mentioning things like canon and reader interpretations opens up a whole can of worms. In an encyclopaedic article, I think no more needs to be said than the summation of the authorial intent as you've given it, and the second sentence should be ditched. 172.143.75.115 05:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly better than what was there before. The only problem is it still smells vaguely like political correctness. The truth of the matter is that homosexual readings are likely the result of personal bias, not just unusual interpretations. Not sure how to say this in a reasonable way, though. CS's text is good, though. -- 14:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Since we're striving for a neutral POV, you're gonna end up with a little PC-ness in these situations. We can't just say 'Stupid people who think they know better are sure that Batman and Robin are banging. The rest of us roll our eyes.' after all. And I'd say it's a politic answer. PC implies we're being vague for the sake of not offending peolpe, when we're more being understanted for the sake of making this read more like an encyclopedia than a blog. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 18:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder, though, if it really is encyclopedic to put this much on such a stupid topic in the main article to begin with. Yes, I know stupid doesn't mean non-encyclopedic; I think I'm just rambling now. :) -- Steven Fisher 02:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is stupid people who don't actually know the characters. Bruce is a notorious ladies man, & Dick was banging Kory , who is the least boy-like character in the DC universe! (Yeh, I can just hear the homophiles--they're bisexual, they're in denial...) And Kirk & Spock, & Bert & Ernie , are gay, too... Jeez... Maybe there is a gay agenda: convince all stupid people everybody's gay.... Trekphiler 06:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that's just stupid. CovenantD 06:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, remember that episode in which Bert and Spock do it? Hot stuff. Pon farr and felt. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 08:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs to do anything more than document the incident involving Wetham and paranoia that DC was somehow trying to turn impressionable American youth gay, and DC's response to that, and something on the continuing issue (the reference to the two recent cases of DC refusing the use of pictures shows it's still alive and DC is still touchy about it, which is relevant to the article). Robin's costume is largely irrelevant, and the quotes from Alan Grant and George Clooney are ultimately just personal opinions. However, as this debates going, I'd say that it's been taken far too literally. A homosexual reading of Batman would not necessarily be that the character is gay within the fictional world of the story, but that the story is about homosexualiy on a thematic or allegorical level. We've only seen explicitly gay X-Men in the past few years and most of the X-Men characters were clearly intended to be heterosexual. However, the reading of the X-Men story as being an allegory about homosexuality is fairly widespread and dates from the very start of the series. It's not a particularly wild leap to wonder if Batman, a story written in the 1930s-1950s about a man leading a double life, has a gay subtext. I personally wouldn't read it that way, but it's a perfectly valid reading and one common to a lot of stories from the period with that element of duality and hidden identities. 172.143.75.115 06:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote to this:

"The decision was controversial at first but proved a major sales success (not surprisingly, since the audience, then as now, is overwhelmingly young and male), but also led to a number of "boy wonders" in other superhero comics (most famously Bucky in Captain America and Rick Jones, who became entwined with Captain Mar-Vell, a redefined "sidekick")."

It's a bit off-point, but if we accept Bats was first, a bit of context isn't out of line, I don't think. K? Trekphiler 06:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It was reverted because it was uncited POV and extremely incorrect in terms of the current comics readership. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓)

Then read Daniels DC Comics & take out "now". The rest is true. Trekphiler 09:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I added this:

"(Credit, or blame, for the "bat" prefix goes to Bill Finger, though clearly the TV writers went overboard for effect.)"

Daniels credits Finger. Trekphiler 09:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The article says:

"Huntress' willingness to kill makes her alliance with Batman uneasy."

Now, maybe I don't get it amid all the retconning, but, given Bats' early history, I don't see the problem...& I'd add that fact, except for all the retconning... Trekphiler 10:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)\

As I think about it, it's more likely the CCA that's the problem... Trekphiler 10:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this warrant having its own article? -- Robocoder ( t| c) 10:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1. It's just a list. It's better than a category. 2. It was created as an alternative to listing eight different people under Creators in the Batman template. If anyone other than Kane and Finger get named on the template, editors will add and delete other names endlessly. Right now, obviously, the notable creators list is just stub. It will need to be fleshed out and properly cited to justify its existence in the long run. Doczilla 17:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Chris Griswold seems to have such a beef with my "style" in this

"The decision was controversial at first but proved a major sales success (not surprisingly, since the audience was overwhelmingly young and male), but also led to a number of "boy wonders" in other superhero comics (most famously Bucky in Captain America and Rick Jones, who became entwined with Captain Mar-Vell, a redefined "sidekick")."

I invite him, or anyone else, to fix it, rather than changing what I said. ( Chris Griswold will, I hope, notice, I do not abbreviate.) Trekphiler 09:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited it down to what is potentially usable, but I've never had to insert five {{ fact}} tags into one sentence before. Was the decision controversial? Was it a major sales success? Do we know for certain that Robin's introduction led to other young male sidekicks? Is Bucky's intro specifically attributable to Robin? Was the word "sidekick" redefined? Answer those questions, and that information is fine. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not as forgiving as Chris - I've removed all of the uncited bits. If this is true, then find the citations to back it up. CovenantD 17:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You might have tried explaining to begin with. I didn't say it was controversial; that was in there to begin with. Daniels' DC Comics says it was a sales success (as I think I said, & as I believe the original says). I don't attribute Bucky to Robin, just an example, but I'd bet it was connected, since there were a plague of "boy sidekicks" (& the article originally said there were others). And Rick Jones was more than just a sidekick, unlike Robin (or when he was with Cap & the Hulk): without Rick, Mar-Vell couldn't function, which is what I meant. Still think it should be reverted? Trekphiler 03:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous individual who keeps re-inserting this material about Batman as villain repeatedly does so, making the same errors again and again, including but not limited to these issues:

• Article is about the comic book, not the movies. (The only time the movies are named in this article is when they are part of the changing trend in how the character is depicted historically. Specific movie events are not mentioned.)
• Article is about the comic book, not the animated series.
• Errors in history stated as fact (e.g., mention of specific villains whose origins were, in fact, never shown to be connected to Wayne).
• Inserted material about one character "outing" him is unclear due to strong in-universe perspective that people who have not read that specific story are unlikely to follow.
• Inserted material about non-notable stories from the character's history.
• POV: Saying that the Batman tried to kill the Red Hood to save the Joker is inserting your own interpretation. Others will not see it that way.
• POV: "clear case of treason" Let the actions speak for themselves. Refrain from such interpretation.
• Spelling.
• Wikipedia style re: italicization.
• Wikipedia style re: how to insert a reference.
• Wikipedia style re: sentences.

Notice how many different editors have been reverting/fixing this. Doczilla 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is about BATMAN. He originated in the comic books but he has since moved to other media and, like other characters on other pages, those sources of information are valid -- so your first bullet point is invalidated (along with your second about the animated series).

• The origin of Clayface was cited and the Joker's statement about his origin was cited as well. Bullet point number three is thus invalid as well.
• Bullet point four proves that he didn't even examine the cited link.
• Specifically where did I insert "material from non-notable stories about the characters history"? I would be glad to correct any mistakes I may have made as I have done up until now and continue to do.
• The POV instance you sight is not POV at all. In the cited issue Batman made a decision to kill.
• Allowing Superman to kill the president may not be a clear case of treason. I'll grant you this point.
• Spelling and misplaced links should be easily hand by any of the thousands of editors. Sorry if it's a bit sloppy but t's not much worse than much else and I think your just nitpicking because you are a fan of the "heroic" Batman and you are upset that his character has been balance by an appropriate segment.

As for the anonymity... I'm new and sometimes I forget to sign in. The points remain valid in any case as anonymous authors ARE allowed to contribute to edits. Nihilozero 05:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You really need to read Wikipedia policy and get to know it before taking on an edit war like this. You need to find out what it says about telling other people what their motives are. Doczilla 06:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of taking a crack at revamping this. It's arranged oddly; the creation of the character is the first thing mentioned, but then there's a "Character origins" section below "Evolution of the character". Also, the "Evolution of the character" section seems somewhat redundant with the fictional biography. I can take time out to work on this tomorrow (I've got my copy of Batman: The Complete History handy after letting it collect dust on my bookshelf for over a year), so if anyone has any issues or wants to help out, let's hear it. WesleyDodds 10:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

True, I always feel Publishing History should really service the Character Biography, although certainly DKR should be mentioned given it's impact, canon or not. Wiki-newbie 11:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

They're meant to complement each other. The Pub. hist would give a piece of info detailing a creator's run on the title using real-world terms such as impact, sales, quality etc. The biography would say what happened to Batman in that run. Jamdav86

Good job on whoever's reorganised it! Wiki-newbie 17:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That was Wesley. Good work man! -- Jamdav86 09:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is an older Featured Article and may not cut today's standards. Needs work in inline referencing department, maybe suffers from recentism too. Solid article though, hits the bases. Hiding Talk 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need the bit about crossover appearances on this page? WesleyDodds 06:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we not need it? It's part of Batman's popularity, the number of times he's been crossed over. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 14:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should be more specific. I meant do we need that section in this article, when a list of crossovers is provided in List of Batman comics. WesleyDodds 14:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a neat clean-up. Considering it's not canon, we don't have to be too specific with the stories. Wiki-newbie 15:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Aaaah. I see what you mean, WesleyDodds. And nicely done, Wiki-newbie! -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly think it should be noted in the article that he's known as the "Caped Crusader", and the "Dark Knight Detective". I don't care where, though I prefer the infobox. The trouble is that we should differentiate between these nom de plumes, and the true aliases of Matches Mallone, and Sir Hemmingford Gray. Btw, regarding the latter: I believe it's "Lord" (while it also may be "Sir"). This was the alias he used while recouperating in England (of an actual Lord who had been gone for some time in Africa) during Knightquest: the Search (which eventually resolved the Shondra Kinsolving sub-plots). - jc37 04:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

SHB data ideally should only be pulled from the article, and conversely, everything in the SHB ought to be mentioned in the article. These can be added very simply to the history section.-- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 06:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Didn't it used to be in the lead section a while back? WesleyDodds 01:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[ [2]]

I thought he is 6'3" and 240lbs.?

I thought he was the width of a sheet of standard comics paper. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

While I wouldn't doubt it, does anyone have verification that Batman has a photographic memory? I don't believe I've ever read that he does (in a canon comic, anyway), but he does certainly have a good memory for detail. - Switch ^t 09:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but there's a link to Kal-L at top of the Golden Age section of the Superman article. Why shouldn't there be a link to the analogous character in the same place in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A gx7 ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not even sure E2 Bats needs his own page, looking at how small it is... -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it's small, and it contains information that isn't in this article. There's almost 20 years of publication history that could be added to it. Surely this warrants an article with a link from this one?-- A gx7 03:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the divergence of the mainstream Batman and what came to be known as the Earth-Two is so profound (retirement, marriage, daughter, Police Commissioner, death, America vs. The Justice Society), I can see the point in having a separate article. It's important to make the distinction as to when the E-2 version was officially deemed a separate individual and only document that distinct character's publication history. CovenantD 03:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the E-2 version is a separate character. Given that the E-2 versions of Superman and Wonder Woman are distinct and different characters, especially given that they met their modern incarnations in Infinite Crisis, then it follows that E-2's Batman is also a separate character. Windmillchaser 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright good, then I'll put a "See also" link to the Batman of Earth-Two article at the top of the Golden Age section.-- A gx7 11:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

...and someone's removed it again, for some reason. Can I ask why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A gx7 ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

It wasn't removed -- it was moved down to the Silver Age where, AFAIC, it belongs. "Earth-2" is a retroactive creation of the Silver Age and chonologically doesn't belong in the Golden Age. It's important for encyclopedia articles such as this to be concerned with clear publication history. ~CS 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of un-needed pages, I changed Bruce Wayne to redirect here for a couple reasons. First, all the information is in this article. There's no big psyche split between Bruce and Batman. Bruce is Batman. Always has been, always will be (52 be damned!). While almost everyone can agree that Clark and Superman are almost separate identities from each other, this can't be said of Bruce/Batman, and we should keep the information together. I don't feel it's a logical split, so I'm being bold and reverting :) -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this decision. Any pertinent information about Bruce Wayne can be worked into this article -- the redirected article was merely a fictional character biography (not publication history or cultral impact) which I do not believe appropriate for an encyclopedia. ~CS 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes - Per nom -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 23:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Skills and abilities of Batman, intergrate what little content from that page is not already in the Batman article, but do not create a seperate "skills and abilities" section, as this is easily explained succinctly at the begining of the article. ~CS 00:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean this section? -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 00:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well... Yeah, I guess I was pretty unclear. I'm just saying that the kool skillz article in question should not be tacked into the maturely written Batman article. It's little more than a list, and an inane one at that. ~CS 18:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Wiki-newbie 21:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge MastertagUSA 15:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Windmillchaser 04:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--Yes, at present the article is incomplete and doesn't complement this article. However the Batman article lacks examples of feats performed by the character, and couldn't include them because of space. A Skills and Abilities article provides room for citing demonstrations of the character's almost caricatured gifts. Surely a topic of interest, considering Batman is easily the most gifted human being in the DC Universe? And by the way, why are so many people saying simply "merge" without explaining their reasons? Wikipedia is not a democracy.-- A gx7 03:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Semi-merge. Integrate what little content is unique. Delete most of it. Doczilla 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge A separate article for this is unnecessary. This information can be fit into a concise paragraph within the main Batman article. -- GentlemanGhost 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Yeah, I agree with bringing in the details that are not mentioned (like his fluency in various languages), into the main article. They will probably fit under the "Skills, Resources, and Abilities" section or so. That article is too small right now, like a stub almost; if it gets bigger later, we can recreate the page. -- Shadowolf 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - However not due to the sheep mentality of "merge" without reason. The creator of the article said this should be merged [3] - so slam dunk. NetK 06:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect - It's basically a list of in-universe character stats. Not to mention that in decades of publishing history Batman's skills and abilites have not been consistent and have been prone to revamp (such as with Superman). WesleyDodds 13:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge The Dragon of Life 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or expand it SSJ 5 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't say the articles should be merged, that was an unsigned comment from another user. I haven't changed my mind that these articles should be seperate (I think the character's skills and abilities not being consistent throughout history is a reason that they should'nt comprise a short paragraph in this article) but I'm surprised it hasn't been merged already considering everyone has been unanimously against me on this for like a month at least. If everyone wants to merge them, go ahead and do it. We can't always have our way. I just thought, as a Splittist[ [4]], there was no harm in having a brief mention of the topic in the main article and a seperate article that was more specific and thourough.-- A gx7 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the Batman article is way too big and some of it needs to be farmed out.

Duggy 1138 09:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand -- Lasttan 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The remark about "While it remains possible, through deconstruction and re-interpretation, to view these actions as a means by which Batman is deluding himself about his own homosexuality," seems a touch ridiculous, as, with that sort of prefacing, we could add such a rationale, not to mention awkward and possibly original research, to nearly any article that may include some ambiguous relationship between two males. That this occurs on a featured article without any [insofar as I can see] justification is somewhat strange. russ. 08:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that the remark is pretty much explaining what the entire book, Seduction of the Innocent, did. It took the normal Batlife and said went 'ergo he's gay!'. The first sentance of that paragraph says 'Bruce/Batman likes the chicks.' Second says 'But someone could read it as self-delusional actions of a closet homosexual.' and also 'And if you do read it that way, remember the authors say they didn't intend for Bats to be a fairy.' I agree it's not the greatest closing statement, but it sums up the entire hootinanny. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 15:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The homosexual interpretations "debate" spans 8 paragraphs with 3 images? I am sorry am I naive? Am I missing something? When I first saw it I thought it was a vandalism joke. As is cited by many ceators, Batman is not written as gay. Every incarnation that I have ever read or viewed of Batman, from comics, cartoons, TV shows and movies, I have never interpreted the character to be gay, as cited Batman has been presented to be heterosexual. How does an anti-canon argument such as this justify so much discussion and space in the article? There may as well be big unique sections about Batman's influence on furry fandom or the theme of insomnia in Batman. Such topics which have so little relevance to what should been presented about Batman, they have about as much place in the article as the homosexual interpretations. This article is for facts about the Batman character, not the place for presenting debate or presenting arguments, pro or anti, on what is an irrelevant issue to what Batman is about.

It makes about as much sense as if there were a section about Batman promoting stalking, or Batman being a mysogynist. This section should be removed - if mention of homosexual debate is necessary, it is summed up in the two sentences "Batman's sexuality has been intended by most authors to be predominantly heterosexual. Homosexual readings of the texts are the product of non-canonical reader interpretations.". It could go in a section right next to "Batman's diet has been intended by most authors to not be vegetarian. Vegetarian readings of the texts are the product of non-canonical reader interpretations.". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.146.183.145 ( talk) 00:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC).