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 January 2007 and December 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/Archive08. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Hiding T 09:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed a debate on this page about whether the batman article ought to include information about the portrayel of the batman character as found in media other than the comic book in this article. There is at least one person who was arguing that this page was solely about the Bataman charcter in comics. if that is the case then this article does NOT belong at Batman' but at Batman (comicbook character). Understand that a VERY large number of people are familair with batman ONLY because of the movies and/or animated series. If the characters of Batman in those media are so different that having a shared base information article with links to medium-specific information pages is not possible, then the page Batman should be a disabmib page linking to complete independent articles fulling describing batman in each medium. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.254.241.199 ( talk) 06:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree to some extent. The headings and subheadings do not make it clear that this page refers mainly to the comic book version. If it's going to be about him, it should be clearer. Ccm043 16:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Most material about the character has come from comic books. A gx7 06:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Movies and TV shows come and go. Their internal canon is temporary. The Batman character's ongoing history is in comics. Even when retcons get introduced, they have an ongoing history that remains tied together. Beyond the changes exists some form of ongoing continuity. Doczilla 06:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the very first line on the article is This article is about the comic book character. For other uses, see Batman (disambiguation). Literacy. Not just for kids! :) -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 18:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Science Fiction aspects post "New Look". Although it is true that most science fiction aspects were jettisoned after the New Look started (in particular, aliens, weird transformations and monsters) there were some sci-fi themes still. Batman #165 features The Man Who Left the Human Race about a mutant, and the Outsider series included some obvious science-fiction elements. Brainster 07:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no page for the franchise as a whole. There is a page for the character Batman, there is a page for the Batman comic series, there is a page for the animated series and movie series, but I can't find a page for the franchise as a whole.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.107.160 ( talk • contribs)

This article is that. The rest are sub-articles. I don't know what else you might mean by franchise. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 06:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

BatmanYTB

Ok, I'd like to know what is considered Spam links. The Website Batmanytb.com is used as refrences for several articles including the Batplane and Batboat, however it is condered a spam link on the main Batman feature. The site is an archive full of history. The link is in no way promoting the site. It is there for the same purpose of the following site.

Don Markstein's Toonopedia: Batman - This site is one page about the Golden Age Batman

Aaron Severson's The Golden Age Batman Chronology

The Earth-One Index: Batman - This site is a few of the Golden Age comics summerized.

Netage.org: "Batman: The Masks of the Gods" by Michael A. Rizzotti

Batmantrades.com Chronological list of Batman comic book compilations - This site is nothing more than a site full of Amazon links.

Just wanted to say that I've been using this website as a personal reference for a while now and while it does contain amazon links, it's also the most accurate and complete (and easy to use) reference of its kind that I've found. I've found it via several batman-related discussion boards so I've definitely seen lots of other people that use it and find it valuable as well. 68.48.82.132 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The site has details on everything from Action Figures to Comics. So, before removing the link, please let us know why it is considered Spam. In fact, on the main Superman Supermanhomepage.com, is listed, it's a fan site site. Please look over the sites before you delete them. - Chris 02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Beyond

Hi Chris. The primary issue here is that you, as the proprietor of Batmanytb, are adding your own webpage to this encyclopedia article. No matter how topical your website, this is spam, which is verboten here as a conflict of interest. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that only the most high-quality, encyclopedic and most worthy of note links should be in the external links section of Wikipedia articles, as Wikipedia is not a driectory or an indiscriminate collection of information. I myself would not include several of the links you listed.

Being a fansite is only one problem regarding promoting your site here. As you know, there are fansites, then there are fansites, and then there are fansites. There's the scummy ones no one wants to look at, there are the high-quality ones (such as yours) which are great contributions to the internet, and there are ones (such as Aaron Severson's) that are very informative and professional -- these are not only relevant to the topic of the article, but are also relevant to the tone and purpose of an encyclopedia. I am of the opinion that only the last kind of fansite should be included on Wikipedia. ~CS 01:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely.-- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say thank you for replying. I was unaware that site owners could not add links to their own site, and for that I am sorry. I'm problem is that, while yes, we are a fan site, our History section goes far beyond what any of the other sites have. Our Comics archive is one of the largest, and to be honest, we have one of the most detailed sites out there. No, if it's just a problem of being a "fan site" then that falls into another problem altogether. But, like I said above, we are used has a refrence for several articles. And I didn't do that. In fact, I haven't added hardly any of the links, except for the main Batman feature. My complaint is mostly, that if my site is going to be removed, then others on this feature and on other features, (not just Batman related) need to be removed. Or maybe a link to the history page would be more informative? I am not trying to "promote" the website, (I usally get about 5 to 10 hits a day from Wikipedia, so I'm not in it for the hits) I just want it to be there as a resource. Anyway, I'm rambled on. Thanks again. Chris 01:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the double post, I removed my site because I do not want to be blocked for spam. Chris 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you guys agree that the high quality fansites should remain linked, why was Batman: YTB deleted again? With all due respect, Aaron Severson's site is very cluttered, primitively designed, and, in my opinion, no better than BYTB. So what's the decision? 205.221.67.193 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This really ticks me off. Non BYTB are adding the link, then Ace ETP deletes it, calls it link spam, then Dwanyewest adds it, and Ace deletes it again. And can't even comment on on it here. Personally, I thknk he has something again my site. Chris 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely that it's a personal vendetta. After a link has been hotly debated, or reverted, there tends to be a knee-jerk reaction to it for a while. Also remember, since ANYONE can make an account and ANYONE can edit this page, we have no way of knowing if that 'non BYTB' person is actually a non or not :) Also, take a look at what CS2 said. Your site falls into the middle realm of high-quality, but just shy of professional. My suggestion is to let someone else raise the topic in a little while, but to take a break and step out for now. I'll mention to Ace that we're chatting about it here, but he's under no obligation to talk. If he ends up going against what's decided here, then it'd be something to stink about. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 01:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea I'm done, I mean, the only PROFESSIONAL site out there is the official. I love BOF, It's a great site, and the best out there for new regarding Batman films, however it's not a professional site. It's a little nerve racking when other articles have sites listed that suck, and Batman can't have any sites because they aren't "professional" But, thats it. Thanks for the insight! Chris 02:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's your site, though, right? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify -- I used the word "professional" as a descriptor to indicate a grade of sophistication, learnedness, and informativeness above and beyond the average. It was not my intention that the word be used to infer the webmasters need be career professionals involved in maintaining their pages for financial reasons. ~CS 04:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Beyond, let me apologise if my edits have given you the impression that I had some sort of vendetta against your site. I had no idea that a discussion regarding its inclusion in the External Links section was ongoing until recently, when User:Ipstenu contacted me. That being said, I kept removing the link to your fansite because I felt it was inappropiate that it was listed in the same section as DC's official Batman website, and Batman-On-Film (which is probably the only Batman fan site that has ever been mentioned in a Time Warner press release). I removed links to other sites (of admittedly lesser quality) for the same reason. -- Ace ETP 02:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can understand, and I can apperacate you keeping the links page clean from poor fan sites. I don't for my site, but, I can't do anything about that. Your only doing what your supose to do. I do wish the otehr DC characters pages were taken care of like this. Everyone except for Batman has all kinds of links to Fan sites and poorly done sites. Maybe they can learn from you guys! Chris 08:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. I said I was done, but this as kinda for lack of better words, ticked me off. Dark Knight is the premire FAN site. It is no more different than BatmanYTB. His site was mentioned on a few TV Series, ok, my site was mentioned in the NY Times, Wizard, and a few others. I am considered Media to Warner Brothers, yet my site is on the edge? I mean, BYTB actually goes into great deatil about the history of Batman, Bios, Comics, Toys. I am REALLY confused. Acording to this: Links normally To Be Advoided My site matches maybe #1, otherwise NONE of those. I understand, it's a conflict of intrest, so thats why I won't add my site, but I do think it shuold be listed as a resource. I'm only bringing this up again because there are only a couple of quialty Batman sites out there, and when you have a resource, it should be used. Chris 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I say on this last night. Beyond (or Chris, whatever you prefer), the issue we had with your link was that you added it. And then we said it would be best to step back, and let someone else bring it up. This is a little opposite of what happened with Pbfurlong. Someone else added it, he didn't know the rules, readded it, found out the rules, deleted it and then asked here what was up. I know it looks really similar, but it is different. And in the shades of grey, insanity lies. Anyway. Is your site quality? I think it's good. Is it notable? It's on page 3 of a google search of 'batman', which isn't the be-all and end-all, but my gut feeling is that a page 1 google link is best. I'm biased, I admit this, and if another editor wants to argue it, I tend not to hold by it as Moses' law :) Now. I'm more than willing to add your link if we can prove some notability :) Can you share links of those articles, or copies if they're offline? I was unable to find any. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 13:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Rolling back Xphermg - The reason being is that this account has only served to add this link all over the site. I'm seriously tempted to checkuser, though Chris was much more polite and understanding about this matter. Xphermg, you are spamming because your edits are all adding a link. This becomes link-spam, well intentioned or not. I suggest you stop trying to add and *ytb* links and instead suggest it on the talk pages. -- Ipstenu ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Darknight.ca

So a long time ago, someone put in a link to my website ( The Dark Knight) in the links section. I have no idea who did it, or when (I haven't bothered to go through the immense edit history to find out). The someone took it out, then someone put it back, and so on and so forth. One day I was here, noticed it was gone, and added it myself. Is this a problem? My site is not a commercial site, it is quite encyclopedic, and has been in the top three to six links returned by Google on a search for "Batman" for years. My site has appeared on television a few times, has been reviewed by over 20 magazines (back in those days), and so on. Should my site not be allowed to have a link here? It's not just a directory or an attempt to get referrals from Amazon? And, should it matter whether I add or delete the link to the page myself? And why is someone constantly removing it without noting in the edit summary why they are removing it? I'd appreciate any feedback that more experienced Wikipedians could provide. -- Pbfurlong 12:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that someone took my newest link off today with the edit summary of "Google Ads site." So I'm not allowed to help pay for my Internet connection with small text ads, be one of the top Batman sites on the web, and be linked to be Wikipedia? Please reference the rule about this for me -- Pbfurlong 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're not supposed to add links to your own site. That's a conflict of interest. You can read more detail here. Anyway, give it more than a day for people to weigh in, please :) A quick google shows me that your site is the first hit on the second page ... which makes adding it in a little hazy. I'm fine with it being there. Does any other editor want to weigh in? -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being there, too. If your site has been covered so much, provide me with some references, and I will look at creating an article for it.-- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ipstenu's right. You shouldn't add links to your own site. Mentioning here, as Pbfurlong has, is appropriate. I'm adding the link. So far, the only people to weight in are "fine" with it. We'll see what happens. Doczilla 05:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I wasn't the person who originally added it to the page - I just found out about it when my web log analyzer showed me that there was a link and that hundreds of people were using it a month. I don't think I'm quite vain enough to want an article about my site though! -- Pbfurlong 16:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Pbfurlong, please update darknight.ca! Seriously! It's just stupid to let such a potentially awesome Batman site rot because of inactivity.

DCDP

apologies for the IP log ill go get a username after this :). just wanted to note some of the above reasons that made darknight.da link contraversial may apply to this 'dc database project' link? just wanted to highlight the issue in the above context without making a potentially alarmist new edit post. 202.59.16.106 04:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)hmm...needanamewhenisignup...

I had to go look up http://dcdatabase.wikia.com to find this project database. And I think that since this is such a massive project, the link to it should be off the DC Comics, or DC Universe pages, otherwise it'll be a million links and that would be construed of as spam. The most appropriate place for a DC Database is the main DC page. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 13:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Must you mar Batman with this needless part about Gays? He is obviously NOT a gay character since he wasn't created to be. There for it is pathetic speculation you don't need. Does anyone agree or disagree with me on this? Legolad3451 17:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Legolad3451

FAs need to be comprehensive and neutral in nature. Wiki-newbie 17:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It also stops being 'speculation' when it's published outside Wikipedia. The fact that a book makes a hoopla about it means that it deserves mentioned. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 18:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been debated over and over again. This is an unavoidable part of the history of Batman. Please look through the talk archives for extensive debate about why this needs to be here. Nobody's claiming Batman is gay. Simnel 19:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody except Frederick Wertham, and possibly Joel Schumacher. And George Clooney, with tongue in cheek. ;)— Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, Mr. Rowe, I'm afraid that is just misleading. There are many editors of this Wikipedia article who are saying Batman is gay. here here and here, for starters. ~CS 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny! -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 07:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And true. I stand corrected. :^) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Legolad is of course right that we shouldn't be speculating. But we're not. The point, which we've addressed many times and will have to address again, is that historically the speculation by people like Wertham influenced history itself. No, the character's not not not not gay. Wertham's speculation, however, altered the way DC Comics and others did business. (Admittedly, the Clooney quote did not shape the history of anything.) Doczilla 07:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If we know that Batman's not gay (which anyone with half a brain does), and that Werham's idiotic claims are the sole reason for this controversey, why does the Homosexual Interpretations section need to be so extensive? It's as if people tried to find any information or speculation they possibly could on this which gives a much bigger effect than the reality of it. I imagine people have come across this article and started seriously considering whether or not Batman is truly gay due to how unnecessarily lengthy it is. 205.221.67.193 16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish it weren't here because it made me question myself, and I'm not sure I like what I found. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Refraining from gay jokes ... as a serious answer however, if reading the section on homosexuality makes you re-consider your own interpretations of various superheros, then we have done the correct thing as an encyclopedia. In order to not give precedence one view over another, and thus color everyone's thoughts on a matter, we must, as responsible writers, take all possible truths into consideration. We done good :)
All that said, just as Batman's Love Interests have taken off into their own page, it may be appropriate to move the brunt of the homosexuality section to it's own article, name it 'Homosexual Interpretations in Comics', and include some of the discussion about Robin (which I think is on the Robin page), as well as any that has been done on Wonder Woman and Superman, just to name a few. -- Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 01:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that whoever did the Homosexual part is quite intrested in the matter of Homosexuality, he of course wants to speculate on batman, so why not put it in wiki? It needs to be taken out. Legolad3451 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Legolad

What specific parts of this section to you regard as speculation? ~CS 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How about "The fact that the original Robin costume is made up of tiny green shorts and pixie boots also lead to some homosexual suggestions"? Conor 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem is that the this section is the fourth largest section in the article, evidently more worthy of note than the Bibliography, Other Media, Skills and Abilities, etc. I plan on shrotening the section unless someone convinces me why not to. One must consider that most of what's referenced here is from a book by a VERY questionably homophobic social commentator (who claimed that Wonderwoman had to be a lesbian due to her strength) and the actor and director that are generally regarded (as they have admitted) to have almost killed the Batman franchise (in a film where, if memory serves, he has relations with a woman). No significant evidence seems to be found in any canonical media for these claims. Wouldn't something along these lines be more suitable: "Psychologist Frederic Wertham claimed in his book Seduction of the Innocent that Batman and Robin were engaged in a homosexual relationship. Although no significant evidence exists in any medium to support this claim - no writer of the Batman comics series has stated he had invisaged the characters as homosexual and Bruce Wayne has had numerous heterosexual relationships since the inception of the comic - a small number of commentators have continued to claim it the case. Most cite features such as the extravegant costumes of the costumes in the 1950's versions of the characters, their lifestyle and the decor of Wayne Manor. Others have pointed to supposed innuendo present in comic book dialogue. Regardless of the truth of their claims, several writers have admited to taking steps to make the characters seem more heterosexual." Wouldn't this, or something like it, with appropriate links and references, be more suitable? At the very least, the George Clooney comments, as well as the middle illustration should probably be deleted. Am I being completely unreasonable here? Thanks. Conor 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality has nothing to do with the Batman character. The idea that an entire section dedicated to the subject is included in the character's wikipedia entry based solely on the comments of one individual is extremely concerning, even disgusting. I am in hopes that the sophomoric section will be removed in due time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.230.35 ( talk) -I agree with removing this section. You can't be serious having something like that here

You people just can't accept WP:NPOV can't you? Alientraveller 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea that Batman is homosexual is hardly a neutral point of view. In fact, it is the farthest thing from a neutral point of view. Besides being absolutely wrong, this is completely besides the point in question.

What place does sexual preference concerning a fictional character have in an encyclopedic entry? None, I would argue. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.230.35 ( talk • contribs)

As stated numerous times above, Wikipedia is not saying Batman is gay. Wikipedia is simply reporting that a notable third party source (in this case that dude who wrote that book, as well as other commentators) have said Batman is gay. This is notable, and both sides of the argument are presented, thereby making it a neutral point of view.

On the contrary, ignoring these significant third-party commentators in some sort of misguided attempt to protect Batman's image would actually be the POV-pushing move. -- Jaysweet 20:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of the issue altogether negates and nullifies any insistence that the point of view is "neutral". Speculation leads to accusation. Accusation leads to incrimination. Incrimination is hardly neutral. I could not even begin to see how this is being regarded as "a misguided attempt to protect Batman's image". On the contrary indeed! -- I merely seek the best interests of neutrality. Why even bring up the argument of "image"? It seems neutrality is not of the best interest after all.

Also I do not agree with the idea of a "notable" third party source being relevant. The only person who believes that certain third party source to be "notable" is the one who applied the term. What if Bob's cousin's twice removed uncle-in-law's dog said that Batman is homo/hetero -- does that too warrant notice? A ridiculous analogy, but almost equally as ridiculous as the enforcement of fictious "policies" that these articles are supposedly supposed to adhere to.

Alas, 'tis a shame for this section of the page to remain. It goes against everything the idea of neutrality stands for.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.230.35 ( talk • contribs)

Reading these comments - and this section is by far the largest part of this talk page - convinces me that some people have very strong feelings about homosexuality and Batman. I think the section in the article is well written. Nowhere does it claim that Batman is homosexual; in fact it ends with strong arguments to the contrary. What it does discuss is speculation by some critics and works produced by some artists. It is not a question of neutrality, because it is just stating that some people have some interpretations when reading Batman. Believing that homosexuality is evil, or wrong, or shouldn't be discussed - that is not a neutral position, especially when words like 'obviously' or 'absolutely' are used. So, why shouldn't an encyclopedic description of a popular artwork include a section on interpretation of that art? For example, the Jet Li movie "Hero" could be interpreted as Chinese propaganda. The Simpsons TV show has been both criticised and praised for depictions of Christianity. Aren't both of those issues relevant to the history of those pieces of entertainment? Keep this section in the article, trim it back a bit, and move on to more important issues. Targetonmyback 03:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of claims about homosexual interpretations in many action heroes, but that doesn't mean we start creating sections in each Wiki entry to satisfy some perverted minds. From the early productions to the new cartoon shows, it clearly depicts Batman as a hetrosexual. To create something out of nothing is not only against Wikipedia's principles, but it totally goes against the idea of neutrality. I vote for this section to reduced to a single sentence or removed entirely.-- Jbanning22 05:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I restored the section (which was removed in its entirety) because consensus has been in favor of it. Additionally, it's a topic that's been heavily acknowledged in pop culture and academic literature. Even the offical DC book about Batman (written by Les Daniels and used as the primary source of this article) discusses it. WesleyDodds 08:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

On neutrality: Fact - Batman is a fictional superhero. Fact - Batman is in a series of popular comics. If I place facts like these in an encyclopedia, are neutral? Yes, I think they are. Fact - A lot of different people read Batman comics. Fact - Some people have analysed the comics and written books or articles about various themes, such as heroism, violence, crime, identity, family etc. Fact - Some artists have used the Batman image in their own artworks. This includes websites, crayon sketches, fan films, homemade book covers, homemade comics, paintings, whatever they like. I think writing down the above statements is still neutral. Fact - Some people have written books and articles where they discuss Batman and sexuality. Other people have used pictures of Batman in art that depicts sexual acts. How is writing down this statement suddenly not neutral? It is reporting some facts about the way that some people read Batman, and some artists use the Batman image. Is it because homosexuality is 'perverted' Is saying that homosexuality is 'perverted' a neutral statement? As for homosexual interpretations of comics, I haven't seen many others. (Although I have seen a few homosexual comic characters, and several heterosexual ones, and a lot of comics where there is no sex at all.) But, that's what makes the fact that people have this interpretation of Batman interesting and worth recording in this encyclopedia. There are actually writers and artists who have written actual books and made actual art using this view. Targetonmyback 07:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ya' know, alot of the people who will search for batman on wiki will be little kids. I think that we should take out this section. Maybe somebody can put it in the "Gay" article instead... Oh, and the reason robin is in the whole "little tights and pixie boots" is you have to remember that it was created a while ago, in a much more innocent society/status quo. Runewaker 18:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Runewaker

Whether or not "little kids" may or may not be searching Wikipedia is immaterial. The policy WP:CENSOR is very clear about that. The only question is whether the content is encyclopedic or not, and I think there is consensus that it is. -- Jaysweet 18:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaysweet makes an incontrovertible point -- one the primary tenets of Wikipeida, in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that "Wikipedia is not censored".

On the second note, regarding relevance to the topic, I would say that given the historical influence of Wertham's book and related writings, and the work of pop-culture and gender-studies scholars to the present, that it would be unencyclopedic to avoid mention of homosexual interpretation by academia. -- Tenebrae 05:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this section in the talk page discussing Batman's sexual preference is the longest one proves once and for all that it's a topic very much in many people's minds. So the article section stays. -- Quoth nevermore 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Now this is interesting... i havent visited htis page in a while, and it is considerably different. Namely, a lot of information about Batman is gone, and the 'homosexuality' section has increased significantly. I have no problem with this section in general, but there are concerns. In terms of 'relevance', this section is large, and other arguably more relevant and noteworthy sections arent here anymore. The article seems to be getting shortened everywhere but here. It is one thing to acknowledge the character has attracted associations with homosexuality from a very campy (yes, much loved, hilarious) 60's show that has coloured the general public's expectations of the character for years. BUT to the average comic reader - to those immersed in the world where this character came from, exists now, etc, this is clearly not a 'true' reading of the character. There has been no real academic discourse of this topic, save the homophobic ramblings of the unfortunate man described in the article. Appealing to quotations my Miller, etc, that may or may not be in jest, are hardly evidence. It does point out that writers of the character have flirted with the idea, and that sexuality has been an underlying theme in the series. So why does it take such a great space to illustrate that; 1. there was a crackpot in the 50's who said a lot of nutty things, as was typical then, about not only Batman but many other elements of popular culture (yes, i have actually read some of his work, you may not have). 2. there was a campy tone to the TV series. 3. some writers have been influenced by this although stating there is any evidence of this in the work - the writing itself, would be false. and IMPORTANTLY - 4. he has thus become a bit of a 'poster boy' within homosexual culture. That would certainly be more accurate than the ridiculous re-write of the paragraph i see today, which presents some sort of pseudo-scientific essay of why he is a homosexual character, and reads very little like an encyclopaedia. The section in question, i htink, should stay. but could feasibly be no longer than a paragraph really. It is a passing mention amongst lots more information abotu Batman. I dont write an essay on why the latest Nolan film is better than Burton's version, for example. But if i did it would be deleted. So why not this? Really, we see this kind of factual relativism amongst conservatives and 'bad feminists' (there are heaps of good ones) too often for the homosexual community to have a bash at it as well. Facts vs feelings people. Apologies re the anon post - will log in later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.16.106 ( talk) 03:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Can you quote where in the article it states he is a homosexual character? Ta. Hiding T 09:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That "essay" is a paragraph that discusses the whole "Is Batman gay" debate. A discussion and overview of the debate is perfectly legitimate within the confines of Wikipedia. Anakinjmt ( talk) 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether the following is legitimate is questionable; "Homosexual interpretations have been part of the academic study of Batman since psychologist Fredric Wertham asserted in Seduction of the Innocent that his research confirmed "Batman stories are psychologically homosexual".

This would not only read better but sound less like an 'essay' along the lines of;

"Homosexual interpretations have been part of the academic study of Batman since psychologist Fredric Wertham asserted in "Seduction of the Innocent" that "Batman stories are psychologically homosexual". He claimed that "The Batman type of story may stimulate children to homosexual fantasies, of the nature of which they may be unconscious".

The phrase, 'his research confirmed' should be deleted and is pretty ridiculous. This sound awfully absolute, and could not be perceived as balanced.

Even more balanced would be if that paragraph were preceded with;

"There has been some controversy over various sexual interpretations made regarding the content of Batman comics."

This, i think, is extremely generous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.16.106 ( talk) 00:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to edit the article accordingly. Hiding T 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the Comics Project talk page about the appropriateness of "Historical" and "Modern" in the superherobox. CovenantD 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless of the entire gay debate - why is a picture depecting two men in separate beds used as supporting of the sexuality debate? 206.248.157.246 ( talk) 16:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am just bringing this up. I love the Jim Lee photo of Batman. But it has been up for ages. I notice it sits juxtaposed in reverse to Jim Lee's artwork of Superman on the Superman page. Would it be too much to ask for a vote on whether the artwork should be changed? Jim Lee is a fantastic artist, but he does'nt have artistic license on Batman does he?? I think there are other representations of the character by other artists that are just as good. -- Hokgwai 23:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any photographs by Jim Lee on this page. However, I like the drawing by him that's in the infobox. It doesn't get much more basic-portrait-of-the-character than this. If you feel like there should be a change, perhaps it would be better to raise examples of what images would be more appropriate? ~CS 23:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a perfect picture for the article and shouldn't be changed because it's "old". If it ain't broke, don't fix it! -- Maestro25 03:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never thought it was a fitting picture. Look at it next to the Superman picture. They're too similar. These characters' bodies should differ more than that. Batman shouldn't be standing in almost the same pose as Superman. Posing them so similarly fails to capture the differences in their personalities. Doczilla 03:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends. They're often paired up so it's appropriate from a neutral manner. Alientraveller 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Batman and Robin get paired up too. That doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be built and positioned in ways that fail to distinguish them adequately. In fact, the pairings should stress where they differ physically. Doczilla 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the similar stances emphasise the differences in personality, just personally. ~ Switch ( ✉ ✍ ☺) 01:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the EXACT reason on why they have similar poses in those comic covers. They were designed to create one image if you place them side by side.-- Hndsmepete 00:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There are piles of Batman depictions that probably illustrate him better as a creepy, intimidating, frightening creature of the night; however, it is part of a set with the Jim Lee drawing of Superman which leads off that article. We ought to discard them together if we discard either and try to find better art for both. It wouldn't be difficult. Argentarthropod 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Without it being requested, I've decided to semi-protect the article. Scanning over the history, I see very few contributions from anonymous editors that were not quickly reverted. I suspect that this page is a magnet for abuse, and unless the regular contributors to this page enjoy reverting bad edits, I don't see much point in unprotecting it. However, if anyone has an objection to the semi-protection, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll remove it. -- Samuel Wantman 03:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bravo, and I applaud you! Half the Comics Project needs exactly this kind of semi-protection. Way to be pro-active! -- Tenebrae 05:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about half... but I'd agree that we have several : ) - Superman, for example : ) - jc37 09:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the Comics project (I've never been a fan of comics), so I don't know which articles need semi-protection. If you leave a list on my talk page, I'll take a look at them. I'll look at Superman right now. -- Samuel Wantman 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This needs semi-protection. Out of all the articles on my watchlist, this one is the most frequently vandalized. Doczilla 05:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of things wrong with the article that would be remedied by quick edits were the semiprotection removed. First, when mention is made that in 'Batman: The Killing Joke', the Joker shot and crippled Barbara Gordon, it doesn't say that she was Batgirl. Yes, if the reader clicks on her name, he'll be taken to the article on her, where he'll see that she was Batgirl, but everyone might not do that. Adding a few words to that effect if the semiprotection were lifted would be easy. Second, it is stated that at one point a yellow oval was added to the Batman's costume to emphasize the bat-shape on his chest, but no mention is made of the fact that the oval was removed sometime in the 1990s (since I'm not a Batfan I can't pin the date down). Again, this would be a quick fix without the semiprotection. Sam does state above that he'll remove the semiprotection on request, but he made the same offer on the 'Superman' article and has not honored it after I told him that I was unable to make one small grammar edit there even though I was signed in while attempting to do so. I can't edit here either even though I am signed in. He referred me to your technical-problems page. I don't insist on making the edits myself; I merely wish they'd get made. Argentarthropod 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Forget what I said above above; sorry for wasting your time. I figured out what to click on and fixed the problems I saw. Argentarthropod 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to Batman Unmasked: Analyzing a Cultural Icon by Will Brooker or Super Heroes: A Modern Mythology (Studies in Popular Culture) by Richard Reynolds? I've just heard about these and they would be good references, but my university library doesn't have either book. WesleyDodds 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There may be an interlibrary loan at your library that allows you to check out books from other libraries. I know a library in my Missouri network carries it. Ccm043 02:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Battymobile

The article says, "the first bat-themed vehicle in #31 (September 1939)". Now, I realize websites aren't the most reliable source, but this site says the first "official" Batmobile was a red convertible based on a 1936 Cord, & first appeared in Detective 48 (2/41). Who's right? Trekphiler 21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The first bat-themed vehicle was the Batgyro, which shows up in issue 31 and is referred to by name by Batman. The Batmobile (either red sedan or blue car with battering ram) came later. WesleyDodds 21:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Batgyro? Never heard of it. I will, tho, accept it as fitting the definition. Maybe a mention of the first Batmobile is appropriate (if I missed it...)? Trekphiler 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Autogyros were big in 1930s fiction; the Batgryo was quickly replaced by the Batplane. Check out a Batman archives or Batman Chronicles Vol. 1 if you want to see Batman use bat-gadgets for the first time (as well as shoot vampires). WesleyDodds 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

ttp://batmanytb.com/ has again become a contentious addition to the Batman page. My rational for removing it was two fold. First, User talk:Xphermg made a series of edits to pages from Wonder Woman to Huntress and to Justice Society of America, all adding links to batmanytb or dcuytb. While I feel that the edits were in good faith (that is 'hey look at this cool site!') the sheer number of additions, coupled with his constant reverting without discussion, made me feel this was falling under link-spam, and we maybe should take a step back. I reverted his edits, mentioned this on his talk page, and alerted Doczilla, who I'd noticed was also reverting him. Secondly, as was pointed out on his talk page, and supported by comments by Xphermg, the site is a store, and serves as an Amazon Store Front. This makes adding it a little weird to me. Since this has started to cross over into multiple pages, I've also copied this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics -- Ipstenu ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering the substantial debate on Batman and Robin's homosexuality, I'm surprised that that section doesn't mention SNL's satire of the duo with The Ambiguously Gay Duo. It is mentioned in that article but not here. I think it should be noted. 216.146.94.235 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's original research. Therefore, it should not be mentioned. Ccm043 02:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Other articles address Bat-spoofs and parodies. Doczilla 09:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Batman #404? Really? Does DC consider that to be his first appearance? Why the post-CoIE re-introduction as opposed to any other? He's clearly the Batman who was in the Justice League in the 1960s. If it's because of an argument that the post-CoIE Batman doesn't have quite the same history, that doesn't explain why we pick Batman #404 rather than his first appearance after Zero Hour changed his history or after New Earth formed. The Superman article marks his debut in Action Comics #1 even though CoIE changed the Man of Steel's history far more drasticially than the Crisis affected Batman's. Doczilla 09:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Now it's gone. Doczilla 09:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see any real reason to include the first modern appearance. Essentially, he's still the same character. The Robin article only includes the first Robin's appearance, not every subsequent one. Ccm043 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the fictional character articles provide the age or age range of the character. This seems to be a notable piece of information that is missing from the article. I suggest: "In mainstream stories, Batman is usually depicted as being in the prime of his adulthood, suggesting an age range of late twenties to early forties." A gx7 03:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No. To say "suggesting" exerts POV, a subjective interpretation of what has been suggested. We are not supposed to make readers' inferences for them. Even that would be original research unless you can provide specific issues in which he is ever stated to be of any age group. I remember in the 70s when Superman and Batman were both specifically stated to be 29 (barely under 30), but even that can't be cited because that was too many readings ago for me to be able to direct anybody to an issue where that was stated. Superheroes aren't "most" fictional characters. Once they're adults, almost none of them have stated ages. Doczilla 05:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The only necessary thing to say about Batman's age is that he is an adult when he becomes Batman. The character's history has changed so much that it would be silly to stick to any age (plus the stories take place over a number of years). WesleyDodds 04:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Doc and Wesley on this one.-- Tenebrae 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that batmans fictional character history should be expanded and put in a seperate page much like the character history of Spiderman. Batmans history has been simplified too much and could do with this extra information. Scary monkey35 22:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I did create a Fictional history of Batman article recently. I just found out WesleyDodds deleted it without any discussion. A gx7 07:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:Be bold. I saw no reason for it to be a separate article, and what was there was insubstantial, so I redirected it. WesleyDodds 08:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It was insubstantial because it was a stub. If you see no reason for it to be a separate article, why not go redirect the Fictional History of Spider-Man article. I'm sure the guys who worked on it will appreciate it. A gx7 09:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Understand it was nothing personal. But consider that stubs should be merged whenever possible. It's hard to rationalize a separate article for a topic that fits well enough in the main article. More importantly, the character history of Batman works differently than that of Spider-Man. Virtually everything you read in Amazing Spider-Man is still canon. However, Batman's history has been subject to revision on numerous occasions, to the poitn where only the broad strokes are notable. On top of all that real-world notability applies; we don't need to detail everything that ever happened in Batman comics, just those that are relevant to someone wanting to learn about and study the character. WesleyDodds 09:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about Spider-Man continuity, but haven't there been some revisions there too? If the continuity of Batman is that inconsistent relative to Spider-Man, I suppose it would make the article difficult to assemble. I just thought it would be useful to chronicle the major storylines in Batman canon to give an up-to-date account of what shapes the modern character's identity. A gx7 10:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it right to put that a film make a very good huge success giving priority then? Like It´s been done with Burton´s 89? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ek79 ( talk • contribs)

It's only in two sentences, which is deserved being the start of the film series. Alientraveller 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter. We do this with all of them or no one. Are you giving priority because you are a Burton fan? I just uptaded Batman Begins, batman writers quotes, but you edit again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ek79 ( talk • contribs)

This article isn't about Batman Begins, even if it's considered the most faithful adaptation to date. What this is about is Batman: the 1989 film was the start of the film series. And please read WP:AFG if you mouth off that I'm a Burton fan, which I am. Alientraveller 19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

So what? If is a article about Batman, why are you with this terrible argument of "start of the film series", the only film with pic... It is ok for you, but not for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ek79 ( talk • contribs)

Look, it was the start of the film franchise. If Batman Begins was the first big-budget live action Batman film, it'd have a picture here. But it wasn't. Batman was. Frankly, I found your edits necessary of reversion: removing a picture and information without explanation before cutting and pasting stuff from the Batman Begins article. Alientraveller 19:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not fair wih Burton, Schumacher or Nolan. I´m going to "third opinion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ek79 ( talk • contribs)

Cool. And sign your comments please. Alientraveller 19:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just some observations based on the full section:

• The material should be serving as a condensed version of the "Batman in popular media" article. Which it currently does.
• In that respect the items included need to be short, generally relying on the most notable aspects. That is both the most notable aspects of the individual items and of the section. Adding things like non-notable box office or ratings for one argues for inclusion for all. That is more information than the section needs or warrants. The "top grossing for the year" and (paraphrase) "within the top 10 all time" are notable points.
• Images have to follow the same logic: few and notable. And chronological to follow the section format. There isn't room here for all the actors/treatments the character has had. Keaton is more notable than Bale, he also preceded the `90s animated look.

- J Greb 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I do not agreed. Notable points just for one production is not notable at all. No argue about the TAS being important. Ek79 20:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at this way: Batman (1989) has two specific points: top grossing film of 1989 (unique and very import position) and placed as on of the the top 10 all time top grossers (9 other films share this distinction). Do any of the other four feature length, theatrically released films have comparable points attached to them?

If the grossing position by year is included for those four, considering that is a unique condition as well, does that really say anything notable about the films? "Top" or "#1" does, that says "This is what the industry takes note of." #5 may have that, #25 much less likely, #250 won't. And this is without going into having to add information to show how an upper/mid placing in one year compares to the others. That entire process does not belong in this article, in "Batman in popular media" maybe, but not here. - J Greb 21:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As you said, all this belongs in the "Batman in popular media". Batman´s 89 included information. Not in here. Ek79 21:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Batman 89 section is not overly long or overly detailed to need more trimming. It's a short informative peice that tells you where else to go. -- Ipstenu ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Section?! This is the place for all general Batman movies. So: "Batman returned to movie theatres in 1989, with director Tim Burton's Batman starring Michael Keaton." Just this. Ek79 22:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. It's also worth noting that the 1989 film revived a moribund interest, thus paving the way for virtually all that has come since. (Yes, I am aware that Frank Miller predates the film, but the film brought mainstream interest outside of comics.) As has been noted, the important thing is a link to the particular article. Girolamo Savonarola 01:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

When I was improving the "In other media" section a month or so ago, going through reference material it became quite clear to me that the 1966 TV series and the 1989 Keaton film are the most notable adaptations of Batman, in terms ranging from success to influence on the comics to cultural ubiquity. Everything else pales in impact and notability. WesleyDodds 03:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely some mention should be made about Lew Moxon in the Golden Age section. Chill was not working alone, he was hired to kill the Waynes becuase of something Thomas Wayne did whilst dressed as a bat-man.

Same in the silver age actually.

It's quite interesting to note that since the silver age Batman is one of the few 'super heroes' which it has been overtly suggested suffers from severe mental issues relating to his double life.

For example, in The Untold Legend of the Batman I seem to recall he started suffering from a split personality, and the Bruce Wayne side of his persona was actually trying to kill him(self).

Leading up to Knightfall, the post-crisis Batman has something of a mental breakdown, which leads him to contacting Shondra Kinsolving.

Following the 'Bruce Wayne: Murderer' story, Batman again seems to be suffering from some sort of breakdown - as he states himself (to Oracle); "I had been coming apart inside since your father was shot."

The word paranoia is used a lot in present DCU texts discussing Batman.

Not sure whether there's a case for a section on 'The Mental Condition of Bruce Wayne' - but if we do have to suffer the blooin' 'homosexual interpretations' on the main Batman page then why not? (please, can't this be piped away somewhere? Its nothing to do with Batman as a character, its got everything to do with the way a vocal minority of crackpots have chosen to interpret things.)

The idea that Batman/Bruce Wayne is anything less than perfect won't fly on this page. The protectors of this page won't allow anything that suggests he is perfectly moral and making unquestionable decisions. I feel that they don't understand the moral and philosophical complexities of comic book characters. They wouldn't even let me mention that some of the villians in his universe are morally ambiguous -- Catwoman, for example, even became a "superhero". Poison Ivy accuses Wayne Enterprises of being environmentally unsound. When Lex Luthor controls the media and acts as an arms dealer he is a villain, when Wayne does it he is a hero. The Joker is crazy, Batman is sane. There is no gray area in any of this as far as the fans who police this page are concerned. Batman is the best. Their hero. Good luck trying to add any sort of even the most basic balance. -- Nihilozero 08:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Batman is a fictional character who acts as the protagonist in his stories. Academic studies of the character have dealt with him in this regard. That's where we're coming from when editing this page, not from the perspective of "Batman is the best". WesleyDodds 08:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I was not aware of these academic studies (perhaps we could get some citations?) but that doesn't change the fact that he is a flawed character whose flaws can't be mentioned on this page. A true look at the character in academic literary terms would acknowledge his moral (and/or psychological)weaknesses. -- Nihilozero 12:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The academic studies are already cited in the article. WesleyDodds 08:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, after following up on the one citation that claimed to have something to do with literary criticism, I found this telling comment: "And, in recent years, Batman has been, once again, re-interpreted by his fans..." And that's the problem... re-interpreted by his FANS. Everyone "knows" that Batman is supposed to be good, he fights bad guys and what not, but it doesn't seem to me that many are actually excercising critical thought and questioning what the character does in the comic books. He is a weapons manufacturer and arms dealer, he owns toxic corporations such as petroleum refineries and chemical plants (which have been ethically challenged by his foes, namely Poison Ivy), he runs the biggest newspaper and other media to put a positive spin on his actions. And when Lex Luthor does these things they are called into question. He is a vigilante around whom others have died. Many of the villains in Batman were created due to their connection with Wayne Enterprises. Etc. At least some of those items listed above should be seen as morally dubious (at best) if not outright villainous. I mean, if you can mention that Tony Stark is an arms dealer and an alcoholic (and that he may have came down on the authoritarian side of Marvel's Civil War series), then why is Batman/BruceWayne beyond reproach? I mean are you seriously suggesting that he is beyond reproach completely and doesn't have any personality flaws? Hell, some editors (fans no doubt) have even taken out information about how some of the villains he has fought eventually became heroes. It's like they don't even want people to know that people he fought later did good things. Seriously... some fair and balanced critical thought would be nice sometimes. -- 70.226.131.28 12:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your Iron Man example, there's nothing inherently villainous about being an alcoholic. And if Batman being an alcoholic was integral to his character, you bet it would be mentioned here. And I don't get these examples: "He is a weapons manufacturer and arms dealer, he owns toxic corporations such as petroleum refineries and chemical plants (which have been ethically challenged by his foes, namely Poison Ivy), he runs the biggest newspaper and other media to put a positive spin on his actions." Has Bruce Wayne been predominantly an arms manufacturer in over sixty years of stories? In how many versions of Batman's history is he taken to task by Poison Ivy for pollution (It certainly wasn't that way in the 1960s). Moreover, is Bruce Wayne intentionally polluting in the first place? Since when does he run "the biggest newspaper and other media to put a positive spin on his actions"? I don't remember ever reading that. Certainly Wayne Enterprises having any connection to Batman villains isn't a major point of consistency; I can only really think of two movies that have villains who have worked for the company. More importantly, have any of these points been addressed by reliable, reputable sources? You assert "At least some of those items listed above should be seen as morally dubious (at best) if not outright villainous." But they aren't because no one is really thinking about these rather superficial and inconsistent details. Basiclaly, being a jerk (which Batman has been on occasion, particularly since the late 1980s) doesn't make a character "dubious" or "villainous". Hell, Sherlock Holmes and James Bond can be a bunch of gits sometimes. WesleyDodds 04:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is some information I got about the inspiration behind batman, and the book I got it from

According to DC comics by Les Daniels Batman mans creator was primarly inspired by the amounts of money the creators of Superman were making.

As editor Vin Sullivan recalls . . . . . . When Kane, who says he was making "about forty dollars a week doing little fill-ins," heard about the soaring incomes of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, he decided at once to abandon humor and create a costumed hero. "For that kind of money," he told Sullivan, "you'll have one on monday."

DC Comics by Les Daniels Page 32

He recieved SOME help in his creation of Batman from Bill Finger.

Other inspirations included machanicle wings from a machine designed by Leonardo da Vinci. The Mark of Zorro provided "a masked man battling evil with extravagant displays of acrobatics" as well as the idea for the hero to be a playboy by day and avenger by night.

The bat costume came from the villain in The Bat Whispers. Further ispirations came from other horror films of the era.

Bill finger made some suggestions that were followed.

The machine winges were dropped in favor of a scalloped cape, leaving Batman's eyes white, and naming the alter ego Bruce Wayne. This was based on Bob Kane's name since he had based the characters appearance on his own.

Around six months latter they thought about making the origin story for him. Kane suggested an orphan to invoke sympathy for him, and it was agreed that there was nothing more traumatic for a kid then seeing you parents murdered right before you.

It also mentions that a favorite film of the batman staff was the movie Citizen Kane, which shares a similar plot with their comic book.

I hope someone put this information in thearticle much better then I have presented it. I have given you books name and auther as referance material. Have fun. Corrupt one 02:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of that is already cited in the article. Thanks anyway. WesleyDodds 08:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct colors of Batman's suit should be written as "black or blue, and grey". In many stories, Batman's costume is black and grey, such as Year One.

It's generally blue and grey, and was explicitly and consistently only blue and grey for over forty years. WesleyDodds 08:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that the Joker was the villain in Batman issue #1? Contrary to this however, I saw in this comic book collection called "The Greatest Batman Stories ever told, Vol 2" printed in the 1980s that the villain in Batman issue #1 was Hugo Strange and the monster men. Now I know that Hugo Strange is considered the first ever reoccuring Batman villain, but again, I thought it was the Joker and Catwoman who appeared in Batman issue #1? Is the book wrong or am I incorrect? Can someone explain? Cheers, Spawn Man 04:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind - explained on another page... Spawn Man 07:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed this pursuant to Wikipedia disallowing links to other wikis, such as the Marvel Database Project and this, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples: "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." Also, regarding this specific outside database, please see User talk:JamieHari#DC Database link at Batman -- Tenebrae 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

If there is no full article about Batman movies here, please change this into a section redirect. Nobody typing movies in plural would expect a full article or disambiguation pages with few titles while there are many more out there. (I mean if they were looking for a particular movie series, if they typed genre like action and horror movie, they would in fact expect an article about these genres in general) So please change the redirect. TheBlazikenMaster 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks to WallyCuddeford for fixing the redirect. TheBlazikenMaster 22:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you know what I mean, cause I have not idea how to call those "chapters" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.107.174 ( talk) 16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For a locked page this article still needs a lot of work. There are just too many factual errors. To focus on their correction, I have broken them down thusly: 1. Frank Miller is not the one who returned the Dark Knight to his "roots". That credit rightfully belongs to

 A.Julius Schwartz (as the final phase of his "new look" campaign that began in 1965)
 B. Neal Adams (who first started depicting Bats as more scary-looking in the Brave and the Bold comic. In Batman: the
     Complete History, Adams mentioned he was inspired by Christopher Lee's enormous cape in the Hammer Dracula films.
 C.Artist\Writer\Editor Frank Robbins who got rid of Robin, moved Bruce Wayne out of the suburbs and focused on crime
   stories. Denny O'neil only expanded and some say improved on what Robbins actually started. Ditto Englehart.
 D. Artist Irv Novick who officially (as opposed to "stylistically" gave Bats back his original wing like cape...

When Miller proposed the Dark Knight scenario Batman was 15 years into his Dark Knight revival. The success of Miller's trade paperback with the mainsteam readers who had quit comics, did remind them of Batman's dark origins...

2. The article insinuates that Bill Finger knew that Robin would increase sales. FALSE. Finger only wanted to have Batman talk to someone instead of using "thought bubbles" all the time. It was Bob Kane's idea to make the sidekick a young boy.(All of Finger's future sidekicks would be adult men or women.) The editors who knew Kane have commented that he hoped Robin would increase sales. Kane himself admitted that he loved the Dick Tracy comic strip and he probably noted Junior's popularity (Which was HUGE! Parents even objected to the dangers Junior was exposed to!) Although Kane acknowledged no boy sidekicks existed before Robin and Junior, he never admitted that one influenced the other...

3. Finger and company didn't have a problem with bylines. They wanted a pension and (I think) it was Finger in particular who was concerned about reprint royalties.

These are what I noticed upon the first reading. I have only scratched the surface. Bernard ferrell 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cites? Alientraveller 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That was fast! I can't footnote right now but the sources are: "Batman the Complete History" and "Outre", a pop magazine that interviewed Neal Adams. He started the big cape thing in Brave and the Bold. For Robin comment: "Batman: the Complete History" and Les Daniels' "History of the DC Universe" as well as Bob Kane's "Batman and Me" For the Finger,Binder, etc revolt: "History of the DC Universe". I can't remember where I read the comment concerning Finger and reprint royalties. I'll try to find it. Frank Robbins and the Dark Knight: The story appeared in Batman: 218 or 219 but it was reprinted in BATMAN: FROM THE 30S TO THE 70s. It was called "One Bullet Too Many". It started with Dick Grayson's graduation from high school and departure from Wayne Manor. Robbins had Bruce say it was time to streamline his operations and he then moved to the center of the city. He initially only brought along his costume but later writers gave him an urban batcave underneath the Wayne Foundation Bldge. (as seen in the latest cartoon THE BATMAN.) In the very same story, artist Irv Novick shows Bruce holding up the costume which indeed has a longer cape that appears more winglike. The final stage was done later by Adams who restored the horn-like ears Bob Kane originally gave Batman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernard ferrell ( talk • contribs)

If you can find those, it'd be much appreciated to keep improving the article. Alientraveller 16:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Addressing points by Bernard ferrell:

1. The thing is the lead section (first few paragraphs of the article) are intended to summarize the (rather sizable) article. If you can find a way to rewrite the lead that would be helpful. Nonetheless all the information you listed in the affixed list could not fit in the lead. The "Publication history" section of the article addresses the changes in tone more in depth. By the way, Batman the Complete History gives credit to the overhauling of Batman in the late 1960s to O'Neil and Adams, and focuses on their innovations, even if Robbins did have a hand in it.

I just rewrote the lead. It should be more accurate now, but it still needs a little fleshing out. WesleyDodds 10:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

2. I don't see any insinuation in the lines "Robin was introduced based on Finger's suggestion Batman needed a "Watson" with whom Batman could talk. Sales nearly doubled, despite Kane's preference for a solo Batman, and it sparked a proliferation of "kid sidekicks." Both are cited facts. Finger thought Batman needed someone to talk to, and sales doubled because of Robin's introduction. There's nothing there about Finger thinking it would increase sales in the first place. Rather, the first sentence verfies your point.

3. The information about Finger and bylines was there before I started editing the page, so I haven't reviewed some of the references cited there. I'll have to check it out. WesleyDodds 10:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

it's a pity neither Mary Roberts Rinehart nor Roland West's The Bat are mentionned....... kernitou talk 13:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

They're mentioned at Bob Kane, where it's more appropriate. -- Tenebrae 16:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of inspirations for Batman, but only the most relevant ones are mentioned for clarity and flow. WesleyDodds 01:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because "Complete History" gives the "credt" for the return of the "Dark Knight" to Oneil\Adams doesn't discount the fact that his statement (whatever it is ) is inaccurate. O'neil\Adams were, unquestionably, there for "the long haul", but it was Robbins\Novick who got the ball rolling. Oh, for research purposes, "One Bullet, Too Many" was re-printed again in the relatively recent "BATMAN IN THE SIXTIES" trade-paperback. In that volume, DC Comics clearly gives Robbins\Novick the "credit" for leading the march toward The Batman's overhaul... The Batmaniac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.88.179 ( talk) 19:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In the bigger picture, the work of O'Neil and Adams defined the era. The sources acknowledge other people contributed during the decade (which is cited), but ultimately it is considered the "O'Neil/Adams" era in the public eye, and with good reason. WesleyDodds 08:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Because of the prominence of this article beyond WPC, and because of the nature and number of recent changes involving at least four editors, I'd like to call for a Request for Comment from other editors. Please note that User:WesleyDodds and I, in particular, have worked together on articles previously and that we have great respect for each other's work. I find Wesley a solid and responsible editor who very much improves WPC articles, and enjoy seeing his work

Two issues I can identify, though my colleagues may see others: Some of the PH subheads are long and repetitive. For example, if it says "The fifties and early sixties" do we also need to say "(1950-1963)"? Why not one or the other? The second issue is whether to include the sentence or two about the Englehart/Rogers run in the 1970s, which was a big deal at the time, historically helped set the stage for Miller, and influenced or were adapted into two other media, as cited by a credible journalistic source and not a fan site.

Thanks. Looking forward to other editors' comments.-- Tenebrae 17:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

For consistency's sake I'd also change The Dark Knight Returns and modern Batman (1986-present) to The Dark Knight Returns and modern Batman, The Dark Knight Returns and onwards, or something similar. Return to dark roots, though awkward, does echo the lead just above the ToC. - J Greb 17:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you say about the headers - there is no need to be comprehensive in the section headers and a more prose version seems better as does "1950-1963" mean the start of 1950 to the end of 1963? If not then you'd start getting months and then days creeping in and we don't need it. However we should maintain consistency - in the most recent edits on them these changes happened:

• Early years (1939-1949) -> Early years
• The fifties and early sixties (1950-1963) -> 1950-1963

Which is not ideal - I'd say stick to the prose and avoid dropping in years as the more specific definition of the specific "era" can be better done in the main body of the text. ( Emperor 17:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

I support these changes per all reasons said above. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 20:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, I agree with the changes, however, I do have one caveat and expressed it when I worked with others on the Kane and Finger pages: if the goal is to provide accurate information, then fan favoritism should have no role in editing. If someone has zero to 90% knowledge about Batman or Spider-Man or whomever, one should feel a certain level of confidence that the information Wiki provides is reasonably accurate. For example, I agree that O'neil\Adams defined The Batman's 70s adventures but they were not the ones who started the revamp, this is just a fact that cannot be disputed. One can single out Englehart\Rogers for their popularity but in truth, they didn't contribute anything new that O'neil\Adams or Robbins\Novick hadn't already produced. (I am one of the few who wasn't impressed by their efforts. Rogers' art was flawless but the scripts came across as unimaginative and "Too Marvel": sacrificing the current story at hand, for the sake of a lame sub-plot involving Vicky Vale, I mean, Silver St. Cloud!) But my opinion doesn't ignore their popularity and influence, both good and bad, which is a historical fact. "Popular Opinion" once believed the world was flat! Let's stick to the facts. The Batmaniac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernard ferrell ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying you are "one of the few who wasn't impressed by their efforts" means, conversely, that most people were, in fact, impressed. You speak of accuracy; we can all agree.

Removing our subjective likes, dislikes, being impressed or not impressed, with O'Neil/Adams or Robbins/Novick or Englehart/Rogers, the objective fact — as documented by many sources, both footnoted here already and others that could be added as redundancies if we wish — is that these teams were major and significant creative teams in the Batman comics. Significant contributors do need to be included in any comprehensive article on the subject. In fact, Jim Aparo probably needs to be mentioned as well in the text, particularly in that his work is historically significant enough to warrant an image.-- Tenebrae 04:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The Englehart\Rogers run was notable regardless of our subjective tastes. Regardless of whether some of us can look at those stories now and see how E & R did anything different, they were a big deal at the time and have indeed been influential enough that people are still talking about them to this day (especially the Joker fish). Their run is definitely notable in Batman's history. (If you compare the Rogers art to the best of Kane's early work, you might see what Rogers recaptured that other artists hadn't.) Doczilla 04:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

When I was a kid, Adams made me want to read so I could find out why the Batman comic books looked so different from anything I'd come to expect from the Adam West TV show and cartoons, and then when I could read, Aparo's art defined the comic book Batman for me more than Denny O'Neil's or Bob Haney's stories did. Consider how many years that man spent drawing Batman, and at a pace of exactly one page a day. ( Paul Levitz told me that Aparo drew exactly one page a day, no matter how simple or complex the page was.) If someone wants to cite a specific story drawn by Aparo, "A Death in the Family" might be a good choice. Doczilla 08:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In looking over the 4 date-related section, I think that the last two should be broken up into smaller sections. Too many themes under one header. The "Camp" of '66 deserves it's own section, for example. And the era between "camp" and "TDKR" is rather compressed as well (especially since it covers nearly 20 years). - jc37 08:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree.

On another matter, we appear to have resolved the two RfC issues. Unless anyone objects in the next few days, I'll move it to "resolved" on the WPC Notice Board. -- Tenebrae 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Retitled "the fities and early sixties". Listing the years covered in each section is helpful, and used regularly in article headings; I use it all the time on music articles. On the subject of Engelhart/Rogers/etc., my tain of thought is that this article focuses on Batman, not the creators who worked on Batman or merely Batman in comics. This is an overview of the character, and in the greater context there's no need to mention certain creators, regardless of how much we like them. I love Jim Aparo's art, but it's not imperative that he's mentioned in this article. Additionally I must point out that the current source for Engelhart/Rogers disrupts other sourced material. Currently the page says:

While the work of O'Neil and Adams was popular with fans, the acclaim did little to help declining sales; the same held true with a similarly acclaimed run by writer Steve Englehart and penciler Marshall Rogers in Detective Comics #471-476 (Aug. 1977 - April 1978), which went on to influence the 1989 movie Batman and be adapted for the 1990s animated series. Regardless, circulation continued to drop through the 1970s and 1980s, hitting an all-time low in 1985.

The problem with the line "the acclaim did little to help declining sales; the same held true with a similarly acclaimed run by . . ." is that the Boichel essay verifies the first part of the sentence, but neither source verifies the latter part. The way it's written makes the reader think the Englehart/Rogers run also "did little to help declining sale", which the Boichel source does not explicitly say and the SciFi Wire source does not address at all. And then it's followed up by a sentence starting with "Regardless . . .", which is just plain awkward. My concern here is more with the fact that the sources are misused and misrepresented rather than that Englehart and Rogers are included in the section (I do maintain they don't necessarily need to be mentioned in this article, but we could work them in if need be).

I'm also against further subdividing of sections. It's rather unnecessary when the sections as they are consist of only a few paragraphs. The sectiosn cover broad areas because if they were divided they would become insubstantial sections. WesleyDodds 11:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed the lenghty headers/subheaders used that's almost becoming a sentence. I personally see some redundancies in it. If we're gonna use words such as Golden Age, do we really have to indicate the covered years? Can't we just choose one from the other? I also noticed the section Adaptation in other media. If we find a Batman character in mugs or bags, etc., doesnt it mean the character is already "adapted"? Or cant we just use "In other media"? It's self-explanatory that the character has been adapted, its just a matter of "where", whether in movie, TV, cartoons, etc.

I also noticed the 2 major headers, first is "Publication History" with 4 subsections (early years, post golden age, new look, and dark knight returns), the second main header is "Fictional character history" (golden, silver, modern batman). I personally feel that we can just merge these 2 under one main header, separated by paragraphs, under "Publication and character history" where the "early years of "Publication History" can be combined with "golden" of "Fictional character history" separated only by paragraph, so on and so forth with the rest as they both corresponds from each other †Bloodpack† 16:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Adaptations in other Media" vs. "In other media". Apply the first rule of editing: Omit needless words. "In other media" follows that rule. Doczilla 17:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Doczilla and Bloodpack on length of subheads: Omit needless words. Also "In other media" is WPC MOS.

Given the length of this article, I'd advocate keep the subsections under PH & "Fictional charater biography" (as WPC MOS gives), to help break up long blocks of text.

Finally, I'd like to ask WesleyDodds, whom I respect as an editor, to please not unilaterally make edits regarding topics seeking consensus under RfC. Thanks. -- Tenebrae 18:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the last part. I got home late last night, edited the page, and then thought in a tired state, "Maybe I should go to the talk page . . ." WesleyDodds 03:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The dates covered in the publication section are not self-evident to readers unfamiliar with Batman or comics, thus their implementation in the headers. If either the titles or the dates had to go I'd rather keep the latter, but both can be used (take a look at The Smashing Pumpkins, one of the Featured Articles I've written, for one example, or for a slightly different example, see Ronald Reagan). Also, the "Post-Golden Age" header was just an off-the-cuff title I came up withuntil someone could think of something better. WesleyDodds 04:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking the dates would necessarily be part of each section's text, since the PH is written real-world. Alternately, the dates could be the subhead. I'm just thinking it's overkill and overlong to have both the era name and the dates in the subhead. (Also, if I may, Wikipedia discussions seem to frown on using the construction that "I did it this way on this article, so that makes it OK to do it that way here". I've seen admins and others point out many times that using another Wikipedia article as an example of something doesn't really work since we can find examples of anything in the vast expanses.)

The headings section of the MOS is silent on length of subheads, but the "Wording" section's guidelines do suggest pithiness. -- Tenebrae 14:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if someone can address my question below, "Why?" as it is also part of our RfC, thanks! †Bloodpack† 19:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I want to bring up something that's bothering me, and that is the changing of sourced material. For example, DKR is in fact referred to as a "seminal" work by Les Daniels on the exact page cited. The Guardian article uses "artefact" instead of '"artifact" because it's a British newspaper that uses British spelling. Also, there's no need to cite both the quotes by Alan Grant and Devin Grayson with two different footnotes that provide the same reference; a citation is only needed at the end of the material being referenced. Please keep this in mind when editing. WesleyDodds 04:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw where 'seminal' because 'touchstone' or some such. IN both bases, I'd recommend keeping them as quotes, thus using exactly what the books stated, including spelling. If it's a cited quotation, the reader can assume, properly, that it's taken as written, thus, quoted. 'correcting' a quote to our way of reading is tacky. I've seen it done in scattered instances, but if/when I realize its' been done, I find it a way of presuming to 'know more' than the writer, thus insulting them by 'correcting' them. If they eed such correction, why quote them? Especially in a case of known spelling variances, english/british, this is just plain bad form. Luckily, this is a small thing and can be moved beyond easily. ThuranX 05:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely aware of "not" re-wording a person's own statement as in all quotations. I've stumbled upon the word (artefact) when I was scrolling/reading down the whole Batman article. Perhaps a "nowiki" code should be placed within it indicating not to change the word as others would probably fall fool for correcting it (i.e. Lupin's spellcheck) †Bloodpack† 16:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd concur with Bloodpack's idea to add a commented-out note is a good one to avoid future confusion. Note: While the guidelines do state that we should pick a form (UK or American English) for spellings and be consistent throughout the article, I'm sure that doesn't refer to changing spellings in direct quotes. My AP Stylebook is unfortunately packed away at the moment; does anyone have one available to see its take on the subject of verbatim quotes? -- Tenebrae 14:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

and should the SOURCES section be called REFERENCES? †Bloodpack† 21:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. WP:CITE doesn't list "Sources" as a subhead. It should be "Footnotes", "References", "External links". Just to be on the safe side, since it's such a high-profile article, why don't we wait a couple days for any additional comments on this. -- Tenebrae 03:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't "superhero" imply "super" powers? Batman has none. He has a lot of skills, intelligence, and a catalogue full of useful gadgets, but even Apache Chief has more actual super powers than Batman. He's not a superhero, he's just a vigilante with powerful friends. ROG 19 19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See definition of Superhero †Bloodpack† 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Every source calls him a superhero. It's not for us to decide otherwise. If some definition doesn't fit Batman, of all characters, that definition has to get rewritten. Doczilla 18:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it the name of List of Batman comics is named See also? How do we define the usage of this? (See also) †Bloodpack† 12:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Because there's no reason to create a subsection for it. Various Batman comics are discussed in the publication and character history sections; creating another subsection devoted to the titles themselves is unnecessary and redundant. But since there is no other appropriate place to insert the link, it is placed in a "See also" section per guidelines. WesleyDodds 03:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's called redundancy for having a "Main article: List of Batman comics" under Bibliography, even if other Batman titles have already been discussed/mentioned in other parts of the Batman article, unless these titles youre saying that are mentioned in the publication and character history sections HAVE a complete/comprehensive coverage, meaning the complete title listings per se, the dates, classification, etc. And that is why it's called "main" which means for a reader to have a full reference/comprehension of these titles, they need to see this "Main article: List of Batman comics" article †Bloodpack† 14:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As one "who was there", I can testify that declining sales had little to do with who was on a particular book but more with the vanishing "Spin-O-Racks". Fewer adults (thanks to Mr.Whertham,television and paperbacks) were reading comic books and some kids would steal them so many of the dealers I talked to back then just thought carrying comics was a pain in the "backside". Comic shops began taking off after 1977 but flourished in the 80s. If the description of a "super-hero" is a guy or gal who dresses up in long underwear to fight crime instead of wearing a simple mask like The Crimson Avenger or The Spirit, then The Dark Knight is a super-hero! Also, due to Bob Kane's (and others) blatant disregard for the laws of physics, sometimes having Batman knock out three guys with one punch, that sounds pretty "super" to me! Also, this article lumps Siegel and Shuster's argument with Finger's. Finger never wanted to own any part of Batman or his supporting cast. That was Siegel and Shuster who felt Superman was stolen from them. There was some validity to their argument. True, in newspaper strips, creators sold their characters to the syndicates but they could negotiate for a percentage of subscription rates (a nice hunk of change in those days) and a piece of the merchandising. I don't think Siegel and Shuster were ever told this before they signed with Vince Sullivan nor if an eqivalent was offered regarding comic books. As for Finger, some people try to put words into Finger's mouth regarding creator ownership of Batman. It's just too clear-cut. Finger was hired to do a job, to write. Period. If he himself wanted a piece of ownership with Mr.Kane, he should have negotiated this with Kane at the beginning. Furthermore, after leaving Kane, Finger could have walked into Mr. Ellsworth's office and said "I've got an idea for a character that will Kick Butt all over Kane's goofy Batman!" For whatever reason, he chose not to do this, end of story. What the facts are is this: Finger wanted a pension which he felt was due him for all of the writing he did on Batman, Superman, Seven Soldiers of Victory etc. I still haven't found the source regarding reprint royalties so it's possible that I confused him with another writer but I'll keep searching. Finally, Oh, Tenebrae, stop "outing" me. I gotta protect my secret identity from dastardly criminals... The Batmaniac —Preceding comment was added at 17:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing would be great, and I'll help you insert the cites, as I have before; glad to lend a hand.

To Bernard and others: We should excise any material in our posts on this page that aren't related to improving the article. In the post above, I think it'd be good for him to delete from "Finally, I never had..." on down. That's fan-forum talk, which Wiki specifically disallows on these pages. (And since the Foundation is the one paying for server space, I can't see how we can argue with it!) -- Tenebrae 17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I got so bogged down with this 70s Batman stuff I missed this whole "Gay Batman" controversy! I vote to retain the section on homosexual issues involving ol' Pointy-Ears! Thanks to Wertham there's just no way you can avoid the issue and it is still an ongoing concern with DC and the general public. Contrary to popular belief but the "Golden Age" was not an era of innocence. Any fan of Film Noir can tell you that the stabbings, gun-play, lynchings,rapes (which were implied but never shown) and scaldings that you see in that genre were 100 times worse in reality. Having said that what we do know is that Bob Kane liked the ladies so it's doubtful that he would create a gay Batman. When he and Robinson got together and designed Robin's costume they had no idea of the implications. Many young boys wore knee pants and camped out etc. It took a Freudian like Wertham and any other arm-chair psychologist to misinterpret Bruce and Dick's relationship.(As E. Nelson Bridewell pointed out in "Batman From the 30s to the 70s,their first names became part of the American language due to Wertham's charges. Uh, before the 50s, a "Dick" was slang for a detective...not a private part. And "Bruce" didn't have an effeminate connotation.) Also, I think I was watching CSI when one character said to the other that they were like Batman and Robin, to which the other character replied "But every one knows that Batman and Robin were gay!" So there's no way to avoid it from a historical perspective and it should be addressed. Someone can go into detail on a more appropriate page. Don't you miss it when all you had to worry about when you mentioned Batman was someone automatically singing the theme song to the Adam West show? As for the information on Bill Finger and pensions, the info can be found in "60 Years of DC Comics" by Les Daniels.The source for newspaper strip policy is that very useful tome, The Comics Before 1945 by Brian Walker. Bernard ferrell 14:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize that this is a former featured article, and as such this may not be received well, but is it possible to trim down the Batman in popular media section? It just seems a little long to me, considering we have an entire article focusing on it. Anakinjmt 03:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still a featured article. Alientraveller 08:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, when I say "former featured article" I mean it was formerly the featured article of the day. I'm still wondering if it's possible to trim the section I mentioned above. Anakinjmt 12:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The prose size is only 45k, which isn't too bad for a featured article. Also, from an encyclopedic point of view, I'd argue that's quite an important section on the page, and that perhaps we should consider instead splitting off the Skills, abilities, and resources section if any need to go. Hiding Talk 14:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Taking another look at it, I guess it's not too bad. It does seem to be about the same length as other subsections, although do we really need these sentence in the main article?

In 1988, two actors dressed as Batman and Robin appeared on British TV as part of an advertising campaign for Austin Rover's Metro range. The advert was very Batman-themed, with the Metro being used as a substitute for the Batmobile in an ultimately successful pursuit of the Penguin. [1]

It seems to me to be something more for the Batman in other media page, and not really something on the Batman page, especially considering for the most part, the other media section is pretty linear, and then it jumps back in time, not to mention is a pretty minor example of Batman in other media. Is everyone okay with me just removing those sentences and sticking them in the other media article if they're not already there? Anakinjmt 16:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, that was a non-notable and recent addition. Alientraveller 16:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I thought so. I see you've already gone ahead and removed it from the section, so I guess this topic is closed. Anakinjmt 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I was working on a reworked version of the "Skills, resources, and abilities" section on a temppage of mine that cut it down to about three paragraphs. WesleyDodds 02:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not bad. Are you going to post it over at some point? Hiding Talk 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be a stickler for details, but Kane never acknowledged Finger as the "Co-creator" of Batman. He said Finger's participation was "crucial" and sometimes expressed regret, but he never considered Bill a "co-creator" worthy of a "Co-Creator" byline. From a business perspective, to have done so was a potential fallacy. Basically,in those days (and now, in some circles) if a cartoonist hired a writer (which is how writers got into the comics strip business in the first place) the writer was considered an un-credited assistant, right alongside any inkers or letterers the cartoonist might have employed. Plain and simple. The Siegel and Shuster as well as Simon and Kirby partnerships, were the anomalies back then, not the rule. When Kane, his father and their lawyer cemented Kane's byline in place (because giving anyone credit in comic BOOKS, was nearly impossible), Finger was then a DC employee and no longer even remotely in the picture. Kane and William Marston's "creator" bylines are not in place because DC was "nice", but because of strict negotiation. Finger and H.G.Peter(Wonder Woman's first artist and designer of her costume) now receive bylines on re-printed material but definitely not "Co-Creator" status. What I wonder about is whether or not their families receive reprint royalties. I think it was a concern of Finger but I still haven't found the quote so I cannot state it as a fact. Bernard ferrell 16:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't say he did. It says "Kane himself, however, in later years willingly acknowledged Finger's contributions to the character while also insisting on his own role.[4]"

If Kane is quoted otherwise in the article, please point it out. Thanks.-- Tenebrae 02:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Finger, like Shuster, Siegel, and some other creators during and after the Golden Age of Comic Books, would resent National's denying him the money and credit he felt was owed for his creations."

Here is where the article tries to link Finger with Siegel and Shuster. Although I admit I don't have much data on Mr.Binder but the little I have read indicates that like Finger, he understood he wasn't entitled to own any of the characters he might have "co-created" or contributed. I'm pretty sure Finger understood likewise. It doesn't matter if it was comics or film or animation, the majority of writers understood back then (and today) that you don't own "your" characters. Only if you're a novelist or in many cases, a playrite (unless you sell the play to a house lock,stock and barrel) do you have any real control over your characters.The evidence shows that Finger and Binder were trying to get insurance and pensions. Siegel and Shuster's beef with National was totally different.

By implication the article sounds like Finger resented being cheated out of Batman which he never stated. The source of the above comment, again, sounds like someone is trying to put words into Finger's mouth. My contention has always been that if he could create a strong rogue's gallery for Kane's Batman, he was more than capable of creating villains for his own creation. He chose to do neither (although one can make an argument for Wildcat.) The evidence shows that Finger was always trying to leave the comics industry behind him, which he did periodically and eventually.

Bernard ferrell 16:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages must adhere to the same policies and guidelines as article pages. The rambling comments above represent disallowed original-research speculation, and are filled with assumptions, leaps of logic based on interpreted "implication" and "evidence", POV "contention"s and other material that belongs on a personal fan page or a forum and not in a concrete discussion of upgrading the article, for which Wikipedia Talk pages are designed. I regret my bluntness, but the above is part of a pattern with this well-meaning but opinionated contributor. It also does not provide the supposed Kane quote to which he'd previously alluded. -- Tenebrae 17:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "ramble" as you put it, but I was very specific. If you can find a quote where Mr. Finger "resented National's denying him credit for his creations", please show it to us.

Now, if you are in the publishing industry as you claim, then you know that co-ownership and a co-creator byline has to be discussed and negotiated in advance. Even as we speak, writers in Hollywood are on strike, not for any ownership issues (which they don't deserve, for reasons I mentioned above) but for a piece of the download fees and DVD sales. This is the nearest equivalent to "reprint roylaties" that are important in comics. Now, I could quote whole sections from various books proving that cartoonists were the ones who brought writers into the comics industry in the first place but let me try to summarize it. Generally, artists were part of the newspaper staff to perform various duties. Among which, the occasional humourous cartoon like the ones we see in the New Yorker. If the editor felt the drawing needed something more, like a funny caption, he or she would write it themself or ask the artist to come up with something. The staff writers were reserved for more important stuff like writing news-stories, articles and columns. From this humble beginning is where the modern comics strip would evolve, mostly due to comics great Bud Fisher. Cartoonists became very powerful while comic strip writers were considered secondary, because most cartoonists could write their own material. Some artists, like Kane, chose to hire writers. We don't know if Kane paid Finger anything extra for any suggestions he might have made but the truth is Kane didn't owe Finger anything other than his fee. This is the very real fact that some choose to ignore whenever they try to say "Kane screwed Finger".

Getting back to the above statement I objected to, I suspect its source is that despicable "Men of Twomorrow". In that volume, the wrtier did his fair share of "speculating", "interpreting" and pontificating based on his beliefs, not facts which is why I don't consider it a historical document.

Fact: Bill Finger never said anything negative anywhere about Bob Kane nor did he ever express any outrage about not owning Batman or anything he co-created with Kane or anyone else.

Fact: Kane always negotiated with DC alone. None of his staff had any say about his comic strip. He accepted suggestions (which was smart) but he had the final say on everything. Batman, Catwoman and anything else he created or co-created--was his.

Fact: Finger never published anything before meeting Kane. Ergo, Kane gave Finger his first writing job.

Fact: Finger wrote for other comic book publishers, and rarely received a byline. His last work for DC Comics was the ironically titled story, "Too Many Batmen" 1965 ) He ended his career writing for television (The New Adventures of Superman cartoon 1969 and the Adam West Batman show 1967) in addition to writing T.V. commercials. The fact that he continuously tried to write for media other than comics is hard evidence based on his career path, not "speculation" nor "leaps in logic".

I do propose a solution: Substitute the words "...his writing" in place of "...his creations" and that makes sense but it still doesn't qualify as "factual" because, as I stated above, Finger never walked around griping about not getting "credit". He was a professional. A slow one, but a professional, nonetheless. Bernard ferrell 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, Bernard, and thanks for the kind words on my talk page. Be assured, we keep each other "on the up and up"!

As you suggest, it's always better to be neutral in the eye of conflicting accounts, and to just give both (or all) with no editorializing. I have to say again that Gerald Jones spent a couple of years working on Men of Tomorrow, which received rave reviews by knowledgeable critics in authoritative sources like The New York Times, so it's a credible source. Many people spoke to him who knew Finger and Kane, some of them on background only. We have to remember: What people say in public, knowing their job might be on the line, is one thing. What they say privately, which friends and family might someday relate to a reporter when the person becomes historically notable, may be something different, and perhaps even more valid and truthful. Jones does give very detailed descriptions, in the many pages of endnotes, as to where he got his information.

But in any case, as you say, it never hurts to keep going through these articles with a fine-tooth comb and weed out unconfirmable claims or passed-along, secondhand information. I, for one, will go through this article and the Kane, Finger and Robinson articles again, as I hope my fellow editors will. Good Wiki'ing to you, Bernard! (May I call you Bernie>)-- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've added a Jerry Robinson quote which better imparts the Siegel and Shuster comparison, and allows us access to Finger's thoughts as well as events and actions of the time through Robinson's recollections, and grounds it in a published source. Hiding Talk 18:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Any *comments* on the allegedly-soon-to-happen death of Bruce Wayne in the comics..?

The qualifiers in the question are answer enough. It's rumor, period. Rumor doesn't go into the articles. - J Greb ( talk) 00:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum. This is the talk page to discuss ways to make the article better. If you want to discuss the latest comic book storylines, go to a comic book forum. Anakinjmt ( talk) 00:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Relax Anakinjmt, I was just asking. Thanks for the reply, J Greb Authrom ( talk) 16:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it says right up at the top that this is not a forum, and I normally don't have patience for people that can't read the top of the page. Anakinjmt ( talk) 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why there's a separate section called "Sources" in addition to "References"? There's no "Sources" given as a section heading at WP:CITE#Section headings, and the guidelines there give only these: "Footnotes" (or "Notes"), "References" (a separate section according to Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Notes and Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#References), and "External links/Further reading.

There's nothing called "Sources" in any of these guidelines/policy pages. And having both "Sources" and "References" -- I'm not sure what the difference is. They sound the same to me, but because they're in two different sections, that seems to suggest they're different somehow. But "Sources" isn't one of the guideline's subheads, so shouldn't they all go under "References"? -- 69.22.254.111 ( talk) 14:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• It got changed a couple of days ago, I don't think it's a big deal myself so I didn't change it back. Hiding Talk 16:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to finish up on things. There is a good reason why "Third party testimony" is inadmissable in a court of law. Because it is subjective and definitely unverifiable, especially if one of the prominent parties may be dead. Otherwise, I could say that actually it was my great-grandfather who created Batman! I could say that my grandfather mowed the Kane family's lawn and he told Bob Kane "Birdman is good but how about a Batman?" To me that's just as absurd as the shenanigans and inferences Gerry Jones used. I'll bet all the critics who praised his book didn't know squat about comics and took his word for it.

As for Jerry Robinson, well, as I pointed out before, if you compare interviews in Alter Ego, The Comics Journal and Comics Interview, his testimony changes in small ways in all three of them! However, he is consistent on the big stuff, most importantly, what he did while he worked with Kane and what he didn't do.In the Journal he said that it (the Batman comic strip) "should have been a co-creator thing" of words to that effect. I contrast this with his statement in the same article. "I thought I was part of a Batman team, but Kane didn't see it that way!" The unemployment lines are filled with people who forget who is the boss.

Finally, after 1965, Finger no longer worked in comics. If he had a gripe with Kane or anyone, he had ample space in his Steranko interview. Of course, Mr. Steranko could chime in and say he encouraged Bill to be positive but then here we would go again! To be honest, from what I've read in the Steranko article, Bill was very confident about his role in "The Batman"strip's development and didn't give a hint of bitterness.

Oh, Tenebrae, I will accept Bernard, The Batmaniac or Rex. "Bernie" is for Barney Fife! DOH! Bernard ferrell ( talk) 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Lucky we're not in a court of law. Wikipedia simply summarises sources and presents them to the reader without bias so that the reader can make up their own mind. We can never know if Bill Finger was bitter or not, and that isn't our intention. We can show Finger expressed his bitterness or lack thereof, if a source to that effect is ever discovered, but that is separate from knowing his state of mind. As you say, all we have are the recollections of two men, both potentially with positions to protect, and at the end of the day it is in keeping with our policies that the views are treated equally and neutrally. Hiding Talk 17:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand but as I discussed with Tenebrae, sources can be biased. Such as Robinson attributed Robin to Kane and himself. (Which Finger acknowledged in Steranko.) But then changed his story when he began promoting The Bill Finger Award. Bernard ferrell

• All sources are biased. That's why we cite them, we let the reader decide. Hiding Talk 19:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as the sources cited are acknowledged and counter-references given, then I agree. It's just that when I first discovered the wiki-site in a search for information on Misters Kane and Finger for an article I was writing, I noticed that the Finger site was blatantly pro-Finger and Kane's decidedly Anti-Bob. Besides this, both profiles were rife with errors which is why I joined in to help where I could. With all of us working together using whatever libraries are available, I think we finally managed to put together something informative,accurate and neutral. Bernard ferrell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.252.235 ( talk) 16:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The page definitely is looks better and is more balanced but as for Robinson's quote, again, he can criticize if he wishes but I refer to my previous statement about "Whos the boss". From a business perspective, Kane did nothing wrong. He had no idea how long Finger was going to be with him (which would prove to be only about 2 years)and when he, his father and their lawyer cemented Kane's byline in place, Finger was working for DC Comics. Also, nothing prevented Finger from walking into the DC offices with his own proposals for new characters or super-heroes. Robinson knows this because it's in his Journal interview, in which he refers to Kane's father as "overprotective". That would prove to be smart business. In Comics Interview, Kane said he felt "bad" about it because as in the Kane quote you included, Bill's career wasn't a profitable as some other writers(Which is why most writers don't write full time). I'll try to post some Kane quotes( and others if it will help, but except for the Robinson quote, the site looks okay to me. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"The trouble wiht being a "ghost" writer or artist is that you must remain rather anonymously without "credit". However, if one wants the "credit", then one has to cease being a "ghost" or follower and become a leader or innovator."

Bob Kane- "An open letter to Batmania" aka The Bob Kane Letter, reprinted in ALTER EGO #3

"In those days it was like, one artist and he had his name over it (the comic strip)--the policy of DC in the comic books was, if you can't write it, obtain other writers, but their names would never appear on the comic book in the finished version. So Bill never asked me for it (the byline) and I never volunteered--I guess my ego at that time. And I felt badly, really, when he(Finger) died."

Kane- "Citizen Kane", Comics Interview Super Special: Batman, Real Origins of The Dark Knight

To my mind, Robinson's "I'll never forgive Bob Kane..." statement, impassioned though it may be, is uninformative and wrong headed and cannot go unanswered. As proof of its misleading nature and as an answer to its context, particularly directed at the Wiki-editor who obviously agrees with it by including it, the statement is rebutted by Robinson himself: Finger was in "...Kane's employ." There was no "share-share-alike" agreement as with Siegel and Shuster. And in Kane's case in particular, we are not talking about a simple byline but there was money involved. Why? Because of Kane's negotiations not because DC was being nice. The idea that Kane was supposed to "share" anything with any staff member other than their fee; to "take care" of a former employee long after he or she has left their employ is simply unrealistic. Also, once Finger left Kane, he could have created and submitted his own proposal for a super-hero to DC Comics. He could have even asked Robinson to draw it for him. I am sure Robinson knows this which sometimes makes me wonder if Mr. Kane wasn't the only one who was suffering from "survivor's guilt".

While it does make for interesting copy, again, Robinson's statement cannot go unaddressed on the site. It should be removed or one of the above quotes should be placed in "rebuttal". Bernard ferrell ( talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't add it because I agree with it, and kindly assume good faith. I added it because it's a reliable source, and for balance per WP:NPOV. You seem to be having an issue with trying to represent the truth, which is admirable but not Wikipedia's goal. We're trying to reflect sources and represent all sides without bias. With respect, Kane can't answer Robinson, since Kane died before Robinson's statement, and it isn't your place to do so. You seem to be inserting your own personal opinion into this debate. I've also got hold of a copy of Sixty years of the world's greatest comic book heroes which seems to indicate that the Batman character wasn't bought until the first Batman story was submitted, i.e. after Finger had written it. It's not clear from that source if Finger was in Kane's employ at the time or a collaborator. It appears all the sources are very muddy or unclear or at best biased, so it is unclear to me how you speak with such certainty as to what happened. As to what Finger could and didn't do, I am unsure why on the one hand you state we shouldn't speculate and yet on the other you speculate and from that speculation attempt to base assertions. Who knows why anything happened the way it did? We don't, and it doesn't matter. We simply report on the sources. Thanks, Hiding T 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• To be perfectly honest, you indicate you are writing an article. I think then it is best if you write and publish that article, and then perhaps we can source it in this one. Let us not forget an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, and this one does not publish original research. Hiding T 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Also, up above, you write "From a business perspective, Kane did nothing wrong." You again seem to be having issues with the purpose of Wikipedia. We aren't here to judge if Kane was right or wrong, or to adopt a perspective. If you have a source which would state that Kane did nothing wrong, we can discuss that. If you have a source which states Kane had survivor's guilt, we can discuss that, and similarly Robinson. If your only issue is that this article indicates Jerry Robinson stated that he can't forgive Kane for something, unfortunately that is a verifiable fact and is attributed, substantiated and represents fairly and without bias a significant view. Hope that helps. Hiding T 21:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've expanded the article, and added both your suggested quotes as well as other useful material. Hope that helps. Hiding T 22:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comic After 1945 (source is on Kane page) and any good art history book that talks about,in depth, artists and assistants. The problematic thing about American cartoonists is they are sheepish about admitting they use assistants. Al Capp wasn't and you can check out any autobios or Frazetta (a former Capp assistant) also read Manga Manga where the Creator of Golgo 13 admits some of his scripts are outsourced. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm well aware that cartoonists used assistants. I'm also well aware that there is no real sourcing as to the truth of what occurred in this instance, to pretend otherwise is pointless, and not in keeping with WP:NPOV. It is a fact that there are differing viewpoints of what happened, and as such we should represent all competing views in balance. Hiding T 13:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure of the relevance of your comments. Hiding T 13:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the sources above, I also recommend "A Message To Garcia" a booklet on management by Elbert Hubbard. The relevance of the sources is that Kane has been villified for not "sharing the glory" of Batman with Finger. The only other source I might mention is the Declaration of Independence which states that we have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. In short, it was Bob Kane's studio and he had the right to run it as he saw fit, including giving or not giving "credit" to whomever he wanted. If anyone had a problem with that, the solution was simple: don't work for Bob Kane. There never has nor ever been any "villain" or "hero" in this. However, the reason I so vociferously, yet politely, discussed this is because some editors tried to "selectively" quote sources that only told half the story and skewed the info toward the negative, especially on the Kane page.

In conclusion, there are many reasons why Kane was right not to give Finger a full partnership. Commitment and deadline issues just to start. However, personally, I prefer to remember Mr.Finger for the great stories he did with Kane and others throughout his career and choose not to dwell on how well or badly he may have managed it.

As for Mr. Brubaker who was inexplicably mentioned on the Batman page, I've heard similar obnoxious comments from another young "gentleman" about Jack Kirby. Well, both Finger and Kirby both managed to do exemplary work during the "Great Depression" that still entertains us today. Brubaker's remark has no place on the same page nor even in the same room as Finger's. If he doesn't want to be "Fingered" and wants to have his name all over the place, again, the solution is simple: Don't work for Bob Kane, Todd McFarlane, Dave Sim nor Marvel and DC comics. Let Brubaker, or whomever, do the hard work and publish his own comics. Hey, Tenebrae, at least I was relevant this time. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 18:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This really is WP:SOAP that should not be here. You believe Kane was right to deny credit, others believe otherwise, including Kane himself in his later days. The article gives a balanced perspective with primary-source quotes and historian citations. With all respect to your bringing important topics and some resources to light, for which I've thanked you many times, you are treating this page as your personal blog. That's really not what it's for. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Tenebrae. Brubaker's comment is worthy of note because it highlights the relevancy of Finger's situation today. More and more people are getting credit for characters they create during their tenure on a comic book, in no part to the awareness of Bill Finger's situation. As Tenebrae points out, and I have pointed out before, Wikipedia isn't a place for original research or for opining. You are perfectly entitled to your views, however, trying to push those views in Wikipedia is against policy. You now seem to be synthesising a vast number of sources in attempt to prove Kane was right. This is not the right venue for such a project, please try and get your research published somewhere else, and then it can be considered for suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. As to your advice for Ed Brubaker, you may be best addressing it to him c/o Marvel Comics. This is not a forum. I suggest we turn our attention to the article rather than your view of Bob Kane. Hiding T 09:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Recently had some editting dialogue w/ WikiProject James Bond and it occurred to be that the Dark Knight would be a good candidate for a project, due to his extensive publication history, and his appearances thru a plethora of media. Would the be any interest by others in the wiki community? - 66.109.248.114 ( talk) 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

We had a WikiProject Batman. I should know. I started it. It just never caught on, though, and died out, eventually to be merged into something else. Doczilla ( talk) 02:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking myself about having a WikiProject Batman, and I've even made a brief list of what articles would be part of the project, and I've got 128 articles on my list so far. I'd definitely take part in it if there was one created. Anakinjmt ( talk) 02:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the recent trend, perhaps a workgroup might be a better idea? Hiding T 09:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to know how this went before should check the edit history at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Batman. Notice that after a year of not much of anything, WikiProject Batman only recently got turned into a redirect to a work group. Doczilla ( talk) 10:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this sould be added to the external links, it's a how to web site that teach people how to be like people. It's neat, this one is about batman. How to be like batman

All criticism duly noted and accepted and the following relates strictly to the page and its development. I still feel Brubaker's snide remark has no place. Whatever jargon made by contemporary "insiders" has no place and is uninformative.To me, it shows a lack of respect these individuals have for their predecessors-- people who sweat blood to produce "work-for-hire" material. These new guys are producing "work-for-hire" material as well, so how can they say they are being "Fingered"? Because they are working on someone else's project? And getting paid far more than Finger probably did? We shouldn't lend legitimacy to Brubaker's or anyone else's "Fingered" or "Kirbyed" comments. Neither should Kane be attacked or villified by any Wiki contributers for realizing from day one that comics are a commercial art and a business nor held responsible for another man's life.The failure to accept this fact, probably speaks volumes as to why Brubaker's comment was retained.

Suggestion,To sum up the Kane\Finger relationship credit issue, one need only say "Because Kane never gave Finger a full-partnership, Kane is the only one officially acknowledged by DC Comics as Batman's creator". That's it. No emotion,unbiased,simple and factual.

IF anyone doubts as to whether or not Kane was "right" not to give Finger a partnership, I refer them to back issues of the Jack Kirby Collector and Joe Simon's autobio in which he describes how Kirby unintentionally made it difficult for him to regain control over Captain America. Finally, my research is precisely that--research and my "opinions" (and no, it's not my personal blog) are formed based on that research. But I will definitely restrict the pontificating. Bernard ferrell

How to be like Batman? I like that! First ya need deductive reasoning, a really cool computer and the coolest set of wheels this side of an Astin Martin! And Tenebrae, don't you say anything about "obssession"!-- The Batmaniac —Preceding comment was added at 18:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, from watching Batman episodes, I would consider the grappling hook as a weapon or equipment even though it doesn't have the word "bat" in it. So could the editors please add it in the article?

SuperVan ( talk) 07:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

According to BusinessWeek, Batman is listed as one of the top ten most intelligent fictional characters in American comics. Smartest Superheroes Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk) 09:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And your point would be...what? Anakinjmt ( talk) 15:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to concur, especially since it looks like you spammed the link across the 10 article talks. - J Greb ( talk) 15:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems this has turned into a mini-edit war, which is what i wanted to avoid by adding to the talk page first before adding it to the article itself. Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk) 00:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Doczilla has a problem with it. I see that for his edit summaries, he says "wealth is more objectional." I would argue that's his opinion, and, assuming BusinessWeek is a reliable source, I see no reason for it not to be included in the article. Anakinjmt ( talk) 00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the more important objection which wouldn't fit into the edit summary: Forbes defines wealth all the time. Business Week is not a source on intelligence. I would sooner support removing both the wealth list and the intelligence list rather than include a mention of the arbitrary intelligence list. Doczilla ( talk) 01:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Two reverts do not equal any kind of "mini-edit war". Doczilla ( talk) 01:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if you took that as a peronal attack. That wasn't what I was trying to imply. Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk) 02:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Forbes list is certainly notable. Why shouldn't it be notable? Anakinjmt ( talk) 01:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be? This article doesn't have the ability to mention every instance where Batman has been cited in the mainstream media. We've got to show some discrimination in what we add and where. Hiding T 01:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, if Batman was mentioned in Wizard magazine (as I'm sure happens all the time, as the magazine specializes in comics) it wouldn't be worth mentioning. Forbes, on the other hand, specializes in finance, including listings of rich (actual) people. This makes the Forbes article both notable and credible, and in addition wealth is a defining aspect of Batman, whereas it could be argued that most comics characters are intelligent as expected of the "hero" or "villain" character role. Doczilla brings up another good point that BusinessWeek does not define intelligence as Forbes defines wealth. Having thought about it, I'll support inclusion of the Forbes article but not the BusinessWeek one. -- Pentasyllabic ( talk) 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the argument whether or not BusinessWeek is a verifiable source? Am I understanding correctly? Anakinjmt ( talk) 02:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable source isn't the issue. Even if you think the listing is not just trivia, it's an inappropriate source. Business Week has nothing to do with psychometrics. Vogue = great source on fashion; bad source on rodeo champions. Guns & Ammo = great source on guns and, well, ammo; bad source on gardening tips. Business Week knows business, not I. Q. assessment. Doczilla ( talk) 04:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC) P. S. And I question whether either Forbes or Business Week is any kind of source whatsoever for judging comic book characters. Doczilla ( talk) 04:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(retab) They're not just judging comic book characters, but the top 15 fictional characters. Daddy Warbucks, Lucius Malfoy, and Richie Rich are all on the list. Bruce Wayne just happens to be on that list as well. If they're a verifiable source, I don't see a reason why it can't be in. It's not up to us to determine whether a source has a credibility on a certain issue; if it's a verifiable source, our opinion on what they think of something is irrelevant. Anakinjmt ( talk) 12:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, may be BusinessWeek is a notable magazine, but Im afraid they don't really specialize in comicbook-related topics so Im wondering where'd they based that kind of finding (?) Perhaps, inclusion of the info would be enough in the "other media" section †Bloodpack† 14:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. Anakinjmt ( talk) 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

...because that magazine is part of the media wherein Batman was mentioned †Bloodpack† 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not judges of intelligence. They are not judges of comic book characters. They are not judges of fictional characters in general.

It is a list of superheroes. [2] For them to list no one but the high profile characters exposes the brutal superficiality of their knowledge of the kind of characters they claim to be rating. Doczilla ( talk) 02:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it really up to use to decide if a reliable source is a judge of something? I don't think it is. Sorry, Doc, but it honestly sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's not up to use to determine if a reliable source has authority on something. Anakinjmt ( talk) 02:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do judge the appropriateness of sources around here. Doczilla ( talk) 03:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to state where in the policy that is said? Anakinjmt ( talk) 03:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." Any source. Always. Also: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." Doczilla ( talk) 06:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

perhaps as a compromise, both the Forbes and BusinessWeek references could mention that they are not authorities on comic books? Something along the lines of:

Media outlets have often used the character in trivial/comprehensive surveys: Forbes Magazine estimated Bruce Wayne to be the 7th-richest fictional character with his $6.8 billion fortune. ^[1] and According to BusinessWeek, Batman is listed as one of the top ten most intelligent superheroes appearing in American comics. ^[2] Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk) 06:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Fair enough. BusinessWeek probably should not go in. I personally don't have a problem if it's in, but w/e. Forbes however should most definitely be in, as they have authority in financial business. Anakinjmt ( talk) 14:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Didn't see above. That would work with me Bookkeeper. Anakinjmt ( talk) 14:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Aight, although I agreed for the inclusion of BusinessWeek in the article (being a reputable newsmagazine organization, and not just a tabloid), the current placement of the citation is improper!. It's placed within the sentence "Rather than simply outfighting his opponents, Batman often uses cunning and planning to outwit them ^[75]" Was that their reason why BusinessWeek included Batman? Like I said, a chip mention within the "Other media" section would be enough, althoug I feel it's more like a trivia to me †Bloodpack† 14:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: In all fairness to Doczilla, I clearly understand his arguments. BusinessWeek is not a bunch of psychologists that could determine the intelligence of Batman or any other people. Heck, how can you study/examine/treat or render a prognosis to a fictional being? But still, BusinessWeek is notable. I see other companies (like toy companies for example) adapted Batman to their products (liek mugs, lunchboxes, etc.). They don't specialize in the whole comicdom or Batmandom but still these firms are mentioned within the article. Just a thought again †Bloodpack† 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I added both references to the Cultural Impact section of the article. Is this more acceptable? Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk) 08:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Anakinjmt ( talk) 11:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about the statement "Sales reaching an all-time low in 1985." Is this statement based on actual sales numbers? Again, as "one who was there", I vividly recall that during that time period, Batman was under Denny O'neil's editorship and BATMAN and DETECTIVE COMICS were following a consistent storyline,essentially making Bats' adventures "Bi-weekly". (I know this because I never missed an issue.) This model was used several years later with Superman and Spider-Man's books in the early 90s so the approach had to be successful on some level. Also, I remember that before Dark Knight came out, DC introduced the comic BATMAN AND THE OUTSIDERS. This points to the fact that somebody obviously thought he was "bankable"! Indeed, the Caped Crusader finished consistently in the Top 3 as "Favorite Character" in the Comic Buyer's Guide Fan Awards (always ranked with Wolverine,Spidey or the flavor of the year). With all this, I can't believe the sales on Bats' books were as horrible as the statement implies. The Batmaniac —Preceding comment was added at 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's a sourced statement. You'd have to work out who added it and query them as to what the source says, or check in the source. Your own personal experience, memory or opinion have no bearing here. Hiding T 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The only "personal experience" I mentioned was the fact that I never missed an issue. However, it is a fact that BATMAN AND THE OUTSIDERS was introduced during this time period as well as that Batman appeared "bi-weekly". My question was the validity of the source.

This goes back to the origin of "The Bob Kane Letter". If one reads it in it's entirety as well as the follow-up article that was reprinted in a later issue of Alter Ego, Kane wasn't attacking Finger, per se, but what Jerry Bails had implied Finger was saying in his unresearched "Finger In Every Plot" article. As a devout "pseudo-professional" historian, I am interested in facts, not opinions. I clearly distinguished between what was my memory and what DC produced which includes Dick Giordano's "Meanwhile" columns. The Batmaniac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.252.234 ( talk) 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The facts are sourced and speak for themselves. Anakinjmt ( talk) 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to check out this source. From personal experience I have learned to check and double check. It might be valid or it could be "hot-air" like Freddie Wertham. But I still find it hard to believe sales were lower in 1985 than they were in 1964. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 16:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've sourced most of the article, so if there are any questions about sources, ask me. The sources does say "all-time low", and it's been verified elsewhere that New Teen Titans aside, DC's sales around 1985 pre-"Crisis" were abysmal. Recently I saw a comics chart from 1984 posted on a blog here and many top tier DC character comics did not even make the top 100. This is pre-O'Neil, mind (in response to the first poster). Sales definitely improved by the time of O'Neil's editorship. Also keep in mind that sales overall for comics have been steadily decreasing since the Golden Age. WesleyDodds ( talk) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

AHA! If the Amazing Heroes Top 100 chart is accurate, then BATMAN AND THE OUTSIDERS #13 was ranked No. 27 while BATMAN #374 came in at No. 48. Although, DC's overall sales may have been down, our resident Caped Crusader cracked the Top 50 not once, but TWICE even before DARK KNIGHT hit the stands. I knew something ddn't sound right about Bats' sales being low--I was there! Many kudos to WesleyDodds! Hey, do they call ya "Sandy" for short?

I don't have the Batman Archives edition but between Greatest Batman Stories Ever Told,Steranko and DC's own Kane career notes, the first story in which Jerry Robinson flew solo (entirely Kane-less) was 1943's "Knaves Of Thievery", the first team-up of The Joker and The Penguin (in Steranko it's mis-named "Brothers In Crime".) Now how's that for a non-sequitor? Bernard ferrell ( talk) 19:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading and re-reading Robinson's quote about "Finger's resentment" and it just doesn't add up based on Finger's own actions. He never (as far as my research reveals) submitted his own proposal for a super-hero without Kane's involvement. If anyone had the ability, it was Finger. Nor did he try to promote Wildcat with the same ferocity as Kane did Batman which leads me to suspect Bill didn't co-own that character either. If it was all about bylines, then yes, he did receive them from All-American but not from some of the other companies for which he wrote. I think Robinson was expressing his own opinion about Kane and Finger instead of "revealing" Finger's thoughts. I won't edit it out since it is merely Robinson's opinion and stated as such. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)