I've read from several sources that in issue 676 of Batman, Grant Morrison is killing of Bruce Wayne and that it will be related to the Final Crisis storyline. Is there some reason this is not discussed in the article? Annoyed with fanboys ( talk) 05:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

He's writing "Batman RIP" the solits to which ask "Who will live? Who will die? Who will be Batman?" or such and will change Batman forever. From that, speculation is that Batman will die. But as far as I know that's all speculation. The answers could be "Everyone. No one. Bruce Wayne." But that too is speculation. We don't include speculation.

Duggy 1138 ( talk) 12:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

In the Wizard interview, Morrison says Batman isn't going to die. Something worse and irreversible will befall him. Doczilla _RAWR! 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

A fate worse than death? Umm... really? That's a brave move by DC.

Duggy 1138 ( talk) 11:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

DC cannot kill one of its most popular heroes. Not when there will big budget film about him in theaters. -- Have a nice day. Running 23:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Either I didn't notice this before or someone tampered with the Finger quote. It reads "I had an idea..." as if he had said this when Finger was actually quoting what Kane had said to him. This needs to be corrected.

Also, in my absence, I have learned a little about this Mr. Brubaker and would like to make a formal complaint to have his comments stricken from the page. My original argument against individuals currently working in the comic book field making snide remarks about their predecessors, have only been strengthened by what I have seen of the output spewed by these modern day "creators". When some of these individuals say they don't want to be "Fingered" (without any knowledge of the situation) or refer to Jack Kirby as "Jack the hack" or say that Kirby "...wasn't sh*t" it is absolutely disrespectful, sleazy and contributes nothing. For them to invoke Mr.Finger's name so that these spoiled, overly-paid individuals can get their own way, shouldn't be given a wiff of credibility by anyone who's trying to be informative instead of re-gurgitating gossip. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 18:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

What does your opinion of the quality of a person's work have to do with the quality of their comments?

Duggy 1138 ( talk) 12:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It's a given that as far as corporate comics are concerned, a new genearation of writers and artists will find themselves working on a concept. It is also a given that they will feel that what they produce is going to be better than that of their predecessors. What they produce can be judged and should be judged on its own merits. What is reprehensible is how some of the current crop of writers and artists view their predecessors and how some of them invoke their predecessors' names so that they may obtain some sort of advantage for themselves. To say "I don't want to be Fingered!" shows their ignorance. If they had worked back then and they walked up to a Bob Kane or an Al Capp and said something like that, they would have been out of a job and they know that, assuming they have any knowledge of comics history to begin with! They are being well-paid for material that may be "shocking" but in the grand scheme of things, looks pretty ephemeral to me and will be forgotten in ten years.

Invoking a Bill Finger or a Vinnie Colletta's name so these modern-day "idols" can do ridiculous things like Bane or giving Batman a spy sattelite, all the while screaming for "credit" on an assembly line just strikes me as absurd. By contrast, there is a series of ads on television by a talented animator who is apparently influenced by anime and\or the work of Josh Agle. But we don't see this individual's name anywhere in the commercial nor do we hear any whining about "credit".

We shouldn't give current comic book producers "credibility" by including their lame comments on an encyclopedic page that is supposed to provide information. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• Looking through the page history, the Finger quote wasn't tampered with so much as it was a good faith attempt to correct the quote based on a misunderstanding. Please try to assume good faith. As to the rest of your comments, I fail to see how they have any bearing on the article, and would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or discussion forum. This applies as much to the talk page as the article itself. Your opinions have no bearing on the article. We write to a neutral point of view, which means we do not ignore things we privately believe are absurd. You might want to consider instead contributing to Wikinfo, which treats every subject from a sympathetic view. They currently have no article on Bob Kane, something you might like to correct. User:Fred Bauder established the site, so you might want to talk to him about the site and becoming an editor. Hope that helps, Hiding T 20:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
• If the comment has credibility it has credibility. Adding it to this page won't give the person who said it credibility if it didn't have it already. The comment should be judged on the actual credibility of the comment, not on your personal opinions on the person making the comment.
  Duggy 1138 ( talk) 04:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I fail to understand why you don't get it. These modern day "wonders" use all sorts of sleazy jargon so they can get what they want. Instead of coming up with cogent arguments to negotiate deals, they will invoke previous creators as a means of obtaining what they want. It's immature and I question how does it provide information? It only perpetuates despicable stereotypes and misinformation about previous creators that we are contributing to. Saying he was "Fingered" doesn't say Bill Finger was a great writer, it suggests that he was robbed or stupid. He was neither and that is a fact. How one views a fact can be affected by one's opinion but a fact is a fact: It simply wasn't his comic strip. The same with Vince Colletta. These modern day "wonders" say they don't want anybody to do a "Vinnie Colletta" on their work. It doesn't say that he was a fast and reliable inker. It suggests that Colletta was a lousy one. He wasn't, if he had been, he wouldn't have gotten steady work. The objective of Wikipedia is supposed to be about providing information, not about spreading gossip or insider trash talking. If one wants to put "Fingered" or "do a Vinnie Colletta" on their own blog that is fine,but this is supposed to be about providing sincere well-researched, neutral information. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

"It's immature" - that's your opinion.

"I question how does it provide information?" - it provides information about how the situation is seen in the industry, both by at least one creator, and clearly, editors: if the comment has power, then the editors must see it that way as well.

"doesn't say Bill Finger was a great writer" - no, it doesn't have to. The comment isn't about his ability as a writer. Why would it need to?

If this was in the Bill Finger article, I can see the need to qualify the comment. Here, I can't see the need as it's about the situation and clearly about the modern industry view. Over and over you make it clear that it's the modern creators you don't like, not the comment itself.

Duggy 1138 ( talk) 06:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The idea of becoming an editor intrigues me as I have a huge library and have known a few people(friends of friends) who started out as assistants within the industry (but decided to go into other fields). However, if it demands a huge amount of time...Please leave info on my talk page or leave direction markers, thank you. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

IF one has the information, all of the information, about how "credit" is dispensed in the comic book field; and one also has sufficient knowledge to compare said field with the other areas of commercial art (where "credit" is the least of their concerns) and one is willing to write an article about these issues, then by all means, an individual should feel free to do so. It would clear up a lot for some people, including some of the people working in the comic book field! In my opinion (that nasty word again) some of these "professionals" know full well about these issues but choose to act like they don't, which relates to my comment about "immaturity".

As for why the "Fingered" comment doesn't have to do with Bill's being a great writer? That is my point. As a fan of Finger, it always irritated me that most articles or books I've read about him would start "Poor, Bill he never got this or that..." He and David Vern Reed are my two favorite Batman writers of all time and I find it disrespectful for Finger in particular to be spoken of in these terms, given the working relationship he had with Kane and the fact that it was Kane who gave Bill his start in the industry. My opinion. But for some "professionals" in the industry to invoke Finger's name, not in praise of his being a great writer but to achieve a personal gain just reveals they are not only being disingenuous in their arguments but act in a very unprofessional manner. For Wikipedia contributers to regurgitate their sleazy tactics as a means of providing information merely perpetuates a distorted picture of who Bill Finger was. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 17:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This article is not a venue for discussing how good or bad anyone is as a writer, it is about the Batman. Whether Finger, got, deserved or needed credit is needed, his quality as a writer isn't. You say that Finger wasn't ripped off by not receiving credit, well, that's fine, find a cite and add that information where appropiate, especially something in which he states his feelings.

It's true that what happened was seen, at the time as being OK, but these days it isn't, and the quote puts that in context. Therefore it is necessary, no matter what your opinions are about the quality of the work of the modern creators.

Duggy 1138 ( talk) 01:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, the issue of whether or not Finger "got ripped off" as you claim is a false one. I will assume you are new to this. In the Kane quotation, he tells you what the situation was regarding writers back then. Also I highly recommend THE COMICS BEFORE 1945 and ...SINCE 1945 by Brian Walker in which he describes the relationship of artists and the assistants they hire. Mr. Walker discusses it as it relates to comics but the "Studio Tradition" is a lo-ong one that may even date to pre-historic times. The most notable ones began with the "guild" system of the Middle Ages. In short, the artist was the boss of his or her studio and they gave out "credit" whenever and where-ever they wanted. The Kane\Finger relationship was an employer\employee relationship, not a partnership and those who are familiar with the issue understand this.(a simple example: Pick up any newspaper and see whose name is on any random comic strip. If the creator is still alive, there is only one name, not any of the assistants he or she might have hired. Or go to a clothing store and pick up an article of clothing. It will say "Tommy Hillfinger" or "Jaclyn Smith", not any of the many employees they have hired.) The tradition of consitently giving out "credit" in comic books began with editor Bill Gaines (who only credited artists) and editor Stan Lee (who as a writer\editor of Timely\Atlas, could give out credit to the writer, who, not-so-coincidentally, was usually himself. I don't know if he gave out bylines to other writers besides himself at Timely\Atlas, does anyone else know?

The "individuals" who ignore this or use this information in negotiating deals for themselves are at best, using Finger's or Colletta's name for their own gain. I wouldn't want my name used like that and If he were here, Finger wouldn't care for it either, hence my objection to the inclusion of it on an encyclopedic page. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply

As much as I think that my old colleague Bernard ferrell is doing a WP:SOAPBOX here that is highly POV and really has no place, I do think he's correct about Brubaker and the "Fingered" quote being highly tangential to the article Batman. If it belongs anywhere, it would be at Bill Finger. Here it's extraneous and off-topic. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The article makes it clear that at the time what happened was fine. The additional comment makes it clear that if it happened today it would be wrong. Until last month it was fine for companies not to pay residuals for stuff broadcast on the internet, today it is different. Last years the writers were being ripped off whether it was accepted practise or not. At the time Finger and others in his position may not have felt ripped off (or maybe they did but felt they couldn't do anything about it) but today it is different. If there is a feeling that the "at the time" isn't clear, then re-word it to clean it up.

Duggy 1138 ( talk) 02:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Unless we're planning to put the "Fingered" quote in every single article about a Bill Finger character or those of other early comics pioneers who were denied credit, there's no reason to put it in Batman and not in all those. This is not Batman-specific. It belongs in Bill Finger, not here. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 22:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

True, true. Any characters we should start with?

Duggy 1138 ( talk) 01:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I have to apologize in advance. Given the nature of print conversation, I'm unsure whether you're being sarcastic. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

OK. Are there any characters with an official "created by" credit that Bill Finger isn't on, but in actuality should be that we should be considering adding this disclaimer to?

And with other characters not related to Finger how are can we add the quote? I know that a lot of Stan Lee's colaboraters weren't credited, but I'm sure there are more relevant information in those cases.

Each page works on its own merits. If the quote needs to be in the Bill Finger article, then put it in that article. If other articles need an explanation that this quote helps, by all means add it. But because something happens here, doesn't mean it should happen everywhere. There are homosexual interpretations of most Superheroes, doesn't mean they all need a section just because this page does.

Duggy 1138 ( talk) 03:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• I think why it is relevant in this article and not in others is that it was the creation of Batman and the perceived treatment of Bill Finger that was seized upon as symptomatic of issues within the industry, to the point that Finger's name became associated with the situation. It was not the creation of any lesser character, nor was it any other creation. It was the way Finger's situation with regards Batman was perceived that initiated a huge debate about creators rights. It is valid in the article on Bill Finger. It is equally valid here, because it is about the creation of Batman and the impact that creation and the way the character was created has had on the industry at large over the years. Would we avoid discussing the copyright issues surrounding the Superman character in the Superman article, leaving it to the Siegel article? 84.92.54.229 ( talk) 13:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Finger wrote for Quality, Fawcett and Timely, and in the manner of the day did not get credit for the great bulk of that; All-American Pubs. seems to have been better about it.

This quote has a place in Bill Finger but not in Batman since (and to address 84.92.54.229's point) the facts of the credit issue are indeed discussed here — in depth, with quotes from direct eyewitness and participants, all placed in historical context. The Brubaker quote is outside of that discussion of historical fact, and is simply opinion about Finger (and not Batman specifically) coming from someone who did not know the participants, was not present in the industry during the events, and does not add anything to the facts other than some "Monday morning quarterback" opinion. A knowledgeable opinion by someone who was there would have encyclopedic weight.

I'm not sure that some snarky, latter-day comment by one person, who claims that a term is widespread without any supporting evidence in print, for example, has any encyclopedic weight. Wikipedia works on compromise and consensus, so I would agree with my colleague Bernard ferrell that this latter-day opinion quote is off-topic in Batman, and I suggest the compromise that it continue on in Bill Finger, where it least it refers directly to the topic. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I tend to agree - I think the general issue is worth addressing here with enough information for the general reader to get the idea, and the detail on the this is best in the Finger article (which it is). It is a rather throwaway comment and we don't want to include everything anyone in the comic industry has ever said on the matter, but it'll do for Bill Finger unless something better comes along. ( Emperor ( talk) 16:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)) reply

If you just give history, it doesn't give context. Maybe there's a better quote that can be used, but until we find one this gives the modern context - recognition that while what happened was OK and par-for-the-course-then, it's seen differently now, and is important enough at DC to be referenced in relation to these things. The quote is not about Bill Finger as Tenebrae has claimed over and over and over, it is about the situation and how it is seen now. The quote basically says: "This situation wouldn't happen today, and is specifically remembered" it doesn't say "Bill Finger was an idiot" not matter how much you want to hate Brubaker. I'm fine with a better quote that fills in the same blanks as the one we have, but removing it before we have a new quote is damaging to the encyclopedia.

Duggy 1138 ( talk) 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Keeping/Removing the quote during discussion

Removing it removes the context for those discussing it. New participants in the discussion need to know what is or isn't being removed before they can venture a valid opinion. Old participants can misremember or misstate things. It has to be there so we know exactly what we are debating. Also, If it is agreed to remove it later, it can easily be removed... but, if it is agreed to keep it, someone has to go back and find it. Duggy 1138 ( talk) 17:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

No, because at least three registered, longtime editors are against its inclusion; you are the only one being insistent about it. You also bring up an unfounded accusation on my talk page about my being "against Brubaker". I am not, and I have to wonder why someone other than Brubaker would say that.

The consensus is against having this tangential, WP:SOAPBOX quote that is, indeed, more about Brubaker than about Batman. Wikipedia works on consensus. If you want to elevate this to an RfC, then fine, we can do that. But when three registered editors are against this, and only you (and one anon IP who could be anyone) are for it, the consensus is to leave it out. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The Brubaker quote adds nothing. I like Brubaker a lot, but he wasn't there. He doesn't cite any sources. Even if he did, the quote is not useful. The quote is not about Batman. The article is about Batman.

If arguing to remove something when consensus says keep it, leave it in during discussion. When arguing to keep something when consensus says dump it, leave it out until you can make your case for inclusion, especially when one argument against inclusion is its questionable relevance. An extreme example: Let's say that same quote was in Bugs Bunny's article. Keep it out until you can persuade others to see its importance and relevance. Don't clutter the article when anybody who wants to see it in context can look back at its last appearance in the edit history. Doczilla _RAWR! 01:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't see Tenebrae and Emperor as a consensus. With your addition, OK, that's a consensus.

You're missing the point about Brubaker. He wasn't there, sure. But he was at DC when he made the quote, and thus it able to make a comment about DC at that time. It isn't about Brubaker at all. It isn't about Finger. And it isn't about Batman, really. It's about how DC sees the situation of Batman's creation. Which in a section on the Batman page called Creation is relevant.

If we were talking about something released on the internet last year and how the creator didn't get money for it, we'd reference the situation now - post strike - to explain why we talk about that at all.

Why do we care that Bill Finger wasn't created? Because he would be now. How do we know this? Because people working at DC mention Bill when they think they're not going to be credited.

But there does seem to be a consensus.

Duggy 1138 ( talk) 04:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I was also including User:Bernard ferrell. I did mention three registered editors. Just didn't want to be misconstrued. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 04:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Re: "It's about how DC sees the situation of Batman's creation." Ed isn't DC. His opinion is one guy's among way too many. His reference to how other people would understand a supposed term does not indicate that he's talking about DC as a company, DC contributors, or anybody in particular at all. (Maybe I should move this remark somewhere else on the page. It's not about the topic of this section even though it is a reply to a comment within it.) Doczilla _RAWR! 05:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The quote isn't about Ed. How many times must I say this? Ed is illustrating what the situation is at DC. His relevance or lack thereover is made clear: he was working there at the time, but he was just a writer. At the same time you can't say that we can only have an official comment from DC... for legal reasons they're not going to say "yeah, we ripped Finger off and probably owe him thousands".

As a creator, he is also in a position to comment on what current creators see as being fair. If, say, in 20 years the concept has become the person with the initiating idea gets all the credit, even if all they come up with the name and we have some future writer saying "this arrogant idea that everyone who makes a comment in a meeting needs creator credit..." we should use it to illustrate why Finger shouldn't be considered a creator. But now, he should, and this quote illustrates why.

Duggy 1138 ( talk) 05:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• User:Tenebrae said No, because at least three registered, longtime editors are against its inclusion. Please don't discount my opinion, thank you. Hiding T 10:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

"how can Brubaker be perceived as speaking for DC Comics as a whole?" He clearly isn't, but he is clearly commenting on the situation at DC. Specifically, that editors are aware that Finger was ripped off. Duggy 1138 ( talk) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Alientraveller, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Importance_scale. The comics project has created their own importance scale, different from the standard scale of whether the topic is important to an encyclopedia as a whole.

• Top :This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.

Batman definitely does not qualify.

• Mid :This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.

This seems more likely to me.

I'll change it back soon. GDallimore ( Talk) 11:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Addendum. The scale you were probably thinking of is this one Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic, which does apply to the film project, I see. GDallimore ( Talk) 11:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This might have been better placed on my talk page, but nevah mind! ;) I think a person would read this article first, and by contrast an article on the Golden/Silver/Copper/Plastic etc. ages of comic books would be more supportive of an article like this. I was thinking about the core list in the films wikiproject actually, where Citizen Kane and other individual classics are placed above broader topics like the history of cinema. Alientraveller ( talk) 11:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I put it here because it's about building consensus for the importance of this article. Probably the worst place to build consensus since anyone who's worked on this article will say "of coure it's important", but nevah mind :). Anyway, how can it possibly be said that "Batman forms the basis of all information for the comics project". The film project, as I say, uses different criteria so can't be compared. GDallimore ( Talk) 11:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

True, but let's think about this. A person would come to an encyclopedia and read about Batman first. They may only ever read this article with passing references to the Golden Age, Crisis on Infinite Earths etc. That's why I feel an article like Batman is more important, whereas those articles really just fill-in details. Likewise with Spider-Man; someone will understand he was important in ignoring those censors, although someone might not want to fully know about the Comics Code. Alientraveller ( talk) 11:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This article is a top level article for the comics project. The term project used at the assessment page refers to the Wikipedia project, not the comics project, as can be seen in the text preceding the scale which states "The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic" (my emphasis). 84.92.54.229 ( talk) 13:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Different WikiProjects use different priority scales. The link to each importance scale goes to the respective WikiProject's scale. For WikiProject Comics, Batman is a top priority. Doczilla _RAWR! 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I would encourage a reassessment of the film criteria as well. Batman is a fictional character that has appeared in film since 1943. Batman was the first film to gross over 100 million dollars in less than ten days, that film series to day has grossed well over 1 billion dollars. James Bond is rated by the Wikifilm Project as a top importance article, and it seem to me a character from similar genre with a longer film history and comparable gross revenue numbers and milestones would have a higher rating than mid-importance. - 66.109.248.114 ( talk) 23:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC). reply

Bill Finger credit

"how can Brubaker be perceived as speaking for DC Comics as a whole?" He clearly isn't, but he is clearly commenting on the situation at DC. Specifically, that editors are aware that Finger was ripped off. Duggy 1138

As Mr.Jaws used to say "I gotcha!", I suspected there was a bias here. I tried to show through the examples I gave, (which were obviously overlooked) is that Finger wasn't "ripped off" as you say. This is a half-truth perpetuated by writers who have a biased opinion but it really doesn't hold up when viewed in the context of other fields, especially other forms of commercial art; nor in comic strips\books for that era. The giving of "credit" is a courtesy, not a requirement or mandate unless otherwise specified by company policy.

Contemporary companies give "credit" but unbeknownst to them, many of the artists they commission to work on a project have assistants as well. Now, in 2008. Are they being "ripped off"? Is anyone who makes a suggestion or contribution to their employer without getting "credit" or compensation being "ripped off"? This isn't SOAP it's just simply common sense. Bernard ferrell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.65.234 ( talk) 16:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Got me? The whole thing is about whether Bill Finger deserves credit. Which he does. And the Brubaker quote shows that DC knows that.

Duggy 1138 ( talk) 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Bill Finger Credit Contd

The following quote deals specifically with comic-strip artists but the Studio System is still the same:

Dailies are typically completed six weeks before publication date...although schedules vary from artist to artist. The basic steps involved in creating each daily installment are writing, editing, pencilling inking, and lettering. The majority of cartoonists do all of these chores themselves when they are first getting started. As a feature begins to generate additional income, the creator might choose to hire assistants to perform one or more of these tasks. Most cartoonists have some form of help. -BRIAN WALKER, The COMICS SINCE 1945, P. 12- HARRY N. ABRAMS INC. 2002

Bob Kane had made his deal with DC Comics on his own, and Finger was merely Kane's employee. DC would eventually hire Finger to write scripts for Kane and other artists, but for most of his life he worked on Batman without credit. -LES DANIELS, BATMAN THE COMPLETE HISTORY, P.31- CHRONICLE BOOKS 1999

And while we can debate whether or not Kane was right to deny Finger a byline (according to Kane, Bill never asked for one), there is no question that Kane had THE right, both as a studio owner and as Finger's employer. That's not SOAP, as you call it, nor "opinion" but a simple fact.

As for whether or not Finger "deserves" credit. He's got it. Every time one of his stories is reprinted his name is right there. What I don't think he "deserves" is a byline next to Mr.Kane's. It wasn't his "right" because Kane negotiated that label with DC because it was his studio as it Mr.Daniels related in the above-mentioned quote. Kane was the boss and he never gave Finger an equal partnership. What I also think he "deserves" are reprint rights but I don't know if his heirs already receive them nor is it within my power to give them.

While we are on the subject, for those curious about the studio system I recommend ALTER EGO #75 which has an interview with Golden Age artist Marvin Levy who worked in a number of art studios. Another good book is the FAWCETT COMPANION which talks about Fawcett's policy regarding in-house creators and talks about the Jack Binder Shop. For a witty look at such a system there is also cartoonist PETER BAGGE's excellent limited series SWEATSHOP that should be available at any good comic book store. There is a Wiki page on "ghost writers" but it doesn't specifically deal with the Studio System as it pertains to comic production or advertising.

Finally,as for the "Fingered" comment being listed on the Finger page, I vote against it. There is already sufficient information as to why Finger didn't get a byline with Kane.

As I said, the comment shouldn't even be given any legitimacy or hint of dignity. It's an insulting weapon that Brubaker (and others) use for their own gain. If "Fingered" is listed on Bill's page, should we include the mention of other"insider" jargon\insults about a creator's longevity (i.e. the sleazy attacks on Jack Kirby when he returned to Marvel in the mid-70s?) Or the attacks on H.G.Peter for remaining on WONDER WOMAN long after Mr. Moulton passed away? Should that be on Mr.Peter's page? I don't think they are helpful or informative. Bernard ferrell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.252.235 ( talk) 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I agreed, as I have all along, that at the time *creation* credit belonged to Kane and Finger probably never asked. Small children probably never asked why they had to work in mines 200 years ago, but *today* that's seen as wrong.

The creation article talks a lot about the process and the hands involved. Kane and Finger both helped create the character. Kane has credit. Finger deserves acknowledgement for what he contributed. There are people like yourself who will always claim otherwise. The modern context however, allows us to show why we're acknowledging Finger's work, otherwise we should cut the very long section down to: "Batman created by Bob Kane."

If it wasn't an issue we wouldn't have various quotes by Kane about why he didn't give Finger credit.

Duggy 1138 ( talk) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

What I am saying is that Kane's "Created by Bob Kane" isn't "wrong". It's Kane's and he shrewdly negotiated it at a time when few people in comic BOOKS of the era chose to do so. To this day, Green Lantern doesn't carry a "Created by Mort Nodell" byline. Kane's heroes didn't work in comic books. He always admired the newspaper strip cartoonists and wanted to emulate them. That's it. People who go to a Wiki-site and look up "Batman" are probably interested in who was involved in the characters creation, namely, who worked with Kane to bring it into being. Official Disney Mickey Mouse info will always say "Created by Walt Disney". Those who go to the Wiki site will learn that Mr.Disney had help from his animation assistant, Ub Irwerks. That should be our goal, to inform and in effect, stay neutral. Not regurtitate "arguments" by those who are ill-informed or who may or may not have an agenda. Bernard ferrell —Preceding comment was added at 17:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• You correctly state that it is the goal to inform and stay neutral. That is precisely why we cannot do otherwise than summarise facts and opinions of reliable sources. We cannot make a judgement on whether they are ill-informed or have an agenda. Our agenda is to be agenda-less, not to pursue an agenda of determining what is ill-informed or who has an axe to grind. That is the work of the readers. Once again you are pointed to our policy on WP:NPOV. Please check your bias. 84.92.54.229 ( talk) 17:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah, but this gets to the heart of what I am saying about the "Fingered" comment. It is anything but non-biased. It is using Finger's name for someone's else's agenda. They are implying that Finger was treated unfairly. By this reasoning, anyone who works for Tommy Hillfinger who doesn't have their name listed on a piece of his product is being treated unfairly? That is my bias, I respect the right of any studio owner and how they choose to run it, whether Kane or anyone else. Bernard ferrell —Preceding comment was added at 18:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for enlightening us as to your particular bias. Unfortunately, as a neutral encyclopedia we cannot edit out the reliable sources which state categorically that Bill Finger was treated unfairly simply because we do not believe that to be the case. Our purpose is to present both sides of the argument and allow the reader to decide. Once again you are pointed to our policy on WP:NPOV. Hiding T 18:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Where do I start? You cannot pretend to speak for Wikipedians as a whole for the simple reason that anyone who lives in the "real world" clearly understands that at the end of the day, the word of "the boss" is the rule in any private company or studio. That is not being treated "unfairly" that is simply a fact. When Bill Finger was working for Kane, he understood he was not working for himself and wasn't even invited to join Kane in his negotiations with DC (please re-read the quote above from Mr.Daniels.) Assuming, like anyone else applying for a job, Finger discussed what he would be doing for Kane and whether or not he would get a byline, Finger had a choice to accept the job as offered, or continue doing whatever he was doing elsewhere. Once he accepted the job he accepted the "no byline" status. How is anyone being treated "unfairly" if they know ahead of time what to expect?

Including certain quotes over others is showing a bias and making a judgement. It isn't my place to say whether Kane was fair or unfair in the article and it shouldn't be Wiki's either. For this is supposed to be an encyclopedic page, not an editorial.I could very easily include quotes from management books on how to deal with troublesome employees to balance out Brubaker's "Fingered" comment. Or include the quote "Harvey Kurtzman forgot in whose house he was working" which is a similar but separate issue that points out how Bill Gaines chose to deal with what some would describe as a creative but rebellious individual. However, the problem for me is that I respect both Misters Kane and Finger and notice that Finger never expressed any anger towards Mr. Kane nor did Kane ever say that he had problems with Mr.Finger. In this respect, they both acted like professionals. The same cannot always be said about some of Finger's fans.

This is why I insist that we stay neutral. While some, so-called, professionals choose to insult Kane or Finger, whether directly or indirectly, with their oily comments; we should stay out of it. Finger, unfortunately, has a lot of negatives on his side and no one really points them out because they don't want to look like a "bad guy" but as it relates to Wikipedia, we should only provide information, not take a side, whether pro or con, through the manipulation of data; hence, their policy against fan-ism. Within the article,their is sufficient information that desribes why Finger didn't get a "Co-creator" byline. I would also add "...but he does get credit for his writing whenever his stories are re-printed". Bernard ferrell —Preceding comment was added at 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Once again I point you to the policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. You have stated your view many times now, which is that Bob Kane did nothing wrong. Unfortunately we cannot edit the article to that basis, since the sources on what happened and how that is perceived conflict with each other. We would be in breach of encyclopedic standards and our own principles and policies if we ignored or failed to represent those sources. As has been suggested in the past, please consider editing at Wikinfo if you wish to write articles from a sympathetic view. All the best, Hiding T 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You have not answered the general question: how is maintaining the "Fingered" comment a "neutral" point of view. The Robinson quote is borderline but I have never forcefully contested it because of his position on "creator rights". I just think he is wrong in this specific case. "Work for hire" is "work for hire" and he knows this. But Kane's "rebuttal" fully explains his position, which was (and still is) in step with many commercial art venues, including comic strips and some comic books (note: the so-called "credits" one sees in current comic books don't always include those assistants who might contribute a suggestion here or there.) I feel this is sufficient. Including Brubaker's sleazy comment, again, points to how he and his peers use a previous creator's name in an attempt at gaining an advantage for themselves, a practice that is actually looked down upon elsewhere, especially in the corporate world. The inclusion of this blatant insult directly toward Finger and indirectly toward Kane has no place on a "neutral" encyclopedic page. The exception to that would be an article devoted to slang but even that is pushing it. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• No Bernard, you haven't answered the general question. Should the reader read only what you believe, or should the reader be free to judge the issue for themselves? I want the reader to judge for themselves, a right enshrined in our policies, practices and principles. You insist on this talk page that your version is the correct one. You are at odds with our policy. We do not write articles so that they present what we personally believe to be true. I hope for once and for all that clarifies how Wikipedia works. Hiding T 17:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply

What I "beleive" is based on the facts of the situation as I have shown through the sources I have cited. Not my opinion. You, in particular, are free to grab any art history book or Mr. Walker's book, (which is mentioned above) to look up the facts as well.If you need further proof on how some studios operate, the TOM AND JERRY SPOTLIGHT COLLECTION has a documetary which reveals how the names of "Tom" and "Jerry" were selected. This demonstrates how one employer handled the suggestions provided by their staff. We don't know how Kane dealt with Finger and his contributions. True, he didn't get a byline, but did he get anything extra in his pay envelope? Vacations? We do know that after DC brought in Gardner Fox, Kane preferred Finger and lo', Finger was back. Other than this, we just don't know, so how can one say he was or wasn't treated fairly? Misters Robinson and Kane both speak about the two sides of the "Co-Creator" issue involved-- from their first-hand experience. I say let's just leave it at that.

My "opinion" only relates to the despicible "Fingered" nonsense. To that I say: 1. They have no right to use Finger's name that way. In their mind, Kane or anyone else, wouldn't "finger" them. Well, they would have been unemployed if they had mouthed off to a Kane, or especially, to an Al Capp. With the attitude behind the comment, I doubt they would have survived (and in the case of Finger's Post-Kane Studio career) thrived in spite of the Great Depression. 2. They are very lucky to not only get paid a lot of money for their writing but also,to live in an age where virtually everyone who works on a comic book assembly line, gets "credit". They have no right to use Finger or any of their predecessor's names in such a disrespectful manner. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 18:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

• Bernard, your points underline the misunderstanding you have of the way Wikipedia works. For starters, I have the Brian Walker books, but they are irrelevant because they do not speak about Kane and the way he worked with Finger, Robinson et al. What you are doing is making assumptions. I don't necessarily disagree with those assumptions, nor do I agree. They simply have no place in Wikipedia because they are unsourced assumptions. Unless we have reliable sources making those assumptions or stating how they perceived events to have occurred, we can't introduce those assumptions into the article because that's how we believed things happened. The Tom and Jerry stuff is valid in an article on Tom and Jerry, but no0t here. In earlier debates, you stated that Siegel and Shuster had no relevance here. Following the same logic, nor does Tom and Jerry.

• Now, as to your two points, they have absolutely no place in Wikipedia. They are simply irrelevant, because they are your personal opinion, and as I have repeatedly stated, personal opinion has no place on Wikipedia. I'd also point out that events contradict your second point. It appears Ed Brubaker has the right to talk as he has, whether you or I agree with that right or not. I don't particularly agree with your coloring of Brubaker's comments either. I don't think they insult anyone so much as make a germane point in discussions between creators and editors. Now you have very particular views, and that's fine, but please don't try to enforce those views on anyone. If you wish to see those views represented on Wikipedia, please get those views published in a reliable source so that we can give them the weight such publication would allow in Wikipedia articles. Until then, I must ask you to stop using Wikipedia as your personal soap box. How you feel about the events of the creation of Batman have no bearing here. Please respect Wikipedia policy and reconsider your postings in light of our policies and guidance. Thanks, Hiding T 10:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

While I have read the previous section, could I trouble someone to summarize what they feel the issue on point (and in contention) is? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Bernard wished the Brubaker quote removed. Other editors agreed, and it was removed. Beyond that, I myself am still trying to ascertain what the problem is. Hiding T 10:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Until he replies, what do you think the problem is? Never mind. I just read through it for a fourth time, and realize that it was a bit of crazy going on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I am pleased that the Brubaker quote was removed. Let's just move on. The page looks very fine but in the interest of accuracy I notice a slight error. Bill never or even intimated that he had created Batman. This is what led to that brief row between he and Kane and why Bill was so specific in Steranko. I don't remember the precise issue of Alter Ego in which this was discussed but what happened was that Bill attended a comic convention in which he said similar things in Steranko. If was reported by Biljo White (I think) who reported in Batmania that :"He (Finger) related to eager fans how he had received a phone call from Bob Kane announcing he had created a new character called "The Bat-Man" and would he (Bill) come over right away to discuss developing the new character further!" That's the gist of it, not the precise quote. However, after hearing Bill discuss his contributions and advice Jerry Bails wrote an article called "A Finger In Every Plot" which claimed Bill himself had created Batman when Bill said no such thing. Kane flipped out and wrote The Bob Kane Letter from which we quoted on the page. Oh, and if HIDING wishes to discuss\debate how Bob and Bill worked and why it's relevant with respect to newspaper cartoonists, we can talk about it on our respective talk pages or debate it on DCs website, not get in the way of the task at hand which is making an accurate and neutral article discussing Bats. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 16:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

While this is all entertaining, I am not seeing any citations to accompany it. Please rein in the soapboxing, as it isn't winning you any respect. pls. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

It would be helpful if some contributers would read my posts thoroughly before making kneejerk responses. I said Finger never claimed he created Batman. The phrase in the article should say something like: "Kane re-assereted his claims of having created the character..." I wasn't "soap boxing" but providing the info as to how this whole "controversy" got started and who was responsible. I just didn't have the paperwork with me at the time I made the post. It can be googled if my "claims" need to be verified or I can provide it at a later date. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 15:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, yes. Could I trouble you to point out something currently in the article you wish to discuss? If you wish to discus material that is there that you do not think should be there, provide citations refuting it. If you are discussing information that you think should be there, then provide citations indicating that it is noteworthy enough for inclusion. So far, you haven't done either. If you have arrived here, mistakenly thinking this was a fan forum or the "Argument Department" from a Monty Python skit, I am afraid you are in the wrong place. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Per this revert, I would submit that refusing to add new information (and citable info at that) that isn't really trivial because of the observation that it seems to "change every few years" isn't a great defense. If the info changes, so does the entry. That's rather the way it works here. As it stands, the info added noting the Batman's annual return to the spot where his parents were killed has been a firmly established part of the character bio since the late 70's; it has in fact driven many of the stories. The date is important because it coincides with the creation of the Batman's apparent opposite number, Wrath (#2). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You could make a case for the information about Batman visiting the alley on the anniversary of the murder being included in the article, but a detail like it happening on June 26 is something which varies so much it does not merit inclusion. An entry shouldn't change if continuity changes, comic book character articles are supposed to mention the publication history surrounging the published fiction. That's why we go over the several different fates Joe Chill has had per publishing era, for example. I don't think we want to get into details about a Frank Miller story stating the murder took place on March after a screening of The Mark of Zorro while Bruce was 8, but stories by different writers giving different dates, different ages for Bruce, and a different pre-murder activity. We should only mention general facts, so as not to allow current continuity to turn an article into a stagnant pool of recentism. Now about Wrath: he is a rather non-notable villain which has only made a couple of appearances. Just because he's been presented as a sort of anti-Batman doesn't mean that a storyline is important if it includes him, specially since he's barely mentioned in any scholarly work about comics to which we can attribute an observation. And please, next time you "rv as per talk" please wait a bit for other editors to notice something has been posted on the talk page, so a controversial contribution can be discussed before it is re-done unilaterally. -- Ace ETP ( talk) 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

With respect, I waited a day and reinstated the edit as there was no reply regarding my explanation. Silence is assent more often than not in Wikipedia. In Wiki time, a day is something on the order of a few days (in dog years, it's long past time to walk the pooch). As well, the date in question is cited and - due to the notability of what fictionally happened on that date, I think its pretty inclusive. I don;t seem to recall any date other than June 26th being offered in the entire publication history. You should feel welcome to point out where another date has been used, using citable references. I completely and utterly disagree that entries (about comic book subjects) should not change when continuity does; of course it does, with the subject being updated (ie, Batman's, Dr. Fate's or even Superman's evolving origin). That isn't recentism - its being encyclopedic about the alterations the subject has undergone. For that reason, I tend to agree with you regarding Wrath, even though is the citable work, he has been called something of an Anti-Batman.

I've since reverted the info back in, and perhaps you could be so good as to await the conclusion of our discussion before fussing with it again. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Again, I have no particular problem with the addition of the sentence about the murder's anniversary, but Batman Confidential #14 should be referenced properly, not as it is now with just the title between parentheses. And I still believe we should remove any reference to June 26. Just look here. I'm not suggesting a fan-made timeline can serve as a reliable source, but look at the notes on the part mentioning the Wayne's murder: DC has changed the murder's date every single time they refer to one. Either we mention all of them, or we mention none. The fact that June 26 is the date suggested most recently doesn't mean it's important. I would liken the situation to insisting the Superman article was changed to note that Jor-El has a beard just because he's been portrayed as having one for the first time since the Johns/Donner run began on Action Comics. -- Ace ETP ( talk) 21:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, so the anniversary thing isn't debated. Good - that's progress. :)

Thanks for providing a link to the fan-created database, Ace (even though it isn't citable, the references it uses are). As I searched though it, the date of June 26th appeared again there (Jun 26: Batman Special #1 1984, Batman #408 June, 1987). As it seems the common note, I am thinking that so long as we avoid a year (as the history shits ever so often to keep the characters current), we should be fine. I disagree with your assessment that it isn't important, or that it is comparable to the Jor-El weirdbeard thing. As for the citation, I haven't ever made a comic reference before. If I could trouble you to do that for me, I will look to see how you did so, so as to be informed next time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Finger never, ever claimed he created Batman. The line should say, "Kane re-asserted his claims at having created the character..." As one who is familiar with "the controversy", the best way to inform you of what happened and why Kane wrote THE BOB KANE LETTER is to show it to you. I hearby submit...

The Source of The Contoversy: The Following are selections from Bill Schelly's nostalgic article about the Batmania Fanzine:

"During the 1960s the cover was ripped off this myth...(That Kane did everything on Batman by himself-BF)and it became known that a whole platoon of writers and artists had toiled to produce those memorable tales, and no one had done more for the character of Batman than scripter Bill Finger. Therefore whenFinger joined in a panel discussion at the 1965 New York Comic Con, fans learned (most for the first time) how he had contributed."

"He (Finger) recalled to eager fans how he had received a phone call from Bob Kane announcing that he'd just drawn a new costumed hero called "The Bat-Man" and asking him to come over right away to help Kane further develop the character. Finger said he had come up with the name "Gotham City" and many other aspects of the strip...fans who attended this early comic con were fortunate, indeed, for Bill Finger didn't attend many fan gatherings."

"Finger's statements at this convention and in discussions with key fans like Tom Fagan, led fandom co-founder Jerry Bails to write a piece called "If the Truth Be Known, or, A FINGER IN EVERY PLOT!" Though it saw print in CAPA-ALPHA #12 SEPTEMBER 1965, it deserves summarizing here, because of its soon-to-come fallout in BATMANIA."

A FINGER IN EVERY PLOT began discussing Bill's Greewich Village studio and his numerous notes. One suchscrap of paper revealed that he had been playing with a list of names for "The Greatest Character Find of 1940" which we know would eventually be Robin. From Steranko we know that Kane and Robinson had already sketched and named the sidekick. What is noteworthy is that one of the names was WILDCAT. Mr. Schelly continued...

"The K-a article was probably the first anywhere to publicly state that "Bill is the man who first put words in the mouth of the Guardian of Gotham. By Finger's account, Jerry (Bails) went on,"The cowl and cape, the utility belt, and gauntlet, were all Bill's contribution to the dialogue that gave rise to the final form of Batman's famous costume"--along with the Joker and "all the other principals and supporting characters of the early strip; Robin, of course, but also Commissioner Gordon (who appeared in the first Batman story), Alfred, the Penguin, and the Catwoman, as well as the many unusual and sympathetic characters that made the early Batman so popular."

"When fans clamor for a return to the Days of Old when Batman was a mystery man who battled the underworld in action-packed human-interest yarns,"Jerry (Bails) said in conclusion, "they are clamoring-if truth be known- for the return of the Batman as created by Bill Finger!"

"This provocative article, which in retrospect seems almost to over-reach in places to make its point (e.g., artist Jerry Robinson is a third comics professional who has claimed to have created The Joker),sparked a fiery response from none other than Bob Kane himself."

Mr.Schelly is referring to THE BOB KANE LETTER

"Certainly, in the years that followed, Kane became more generous in his recognition of Finger's contribution than he was in this early letter. Therefore, the letter he wrote to Batmania in 1965 is reprinted here not to as an attempt to stir up an old controversy, especially in the light of his (then-BF) recent passing, but as a fascinating artifact of the time."

-The Previous notes, aside from mine, were printed in COMIC BOOK ARTIST vOL 2. #3-

Afterword: Concerning "A Finger In Every Plot", to say that it "...seems almost to over-reach in places..." is putting it mildly, to say the least, (in fact, I even challenge Mr. Schelly's statement that "no one did more than Finger..." for the simple reason that once Bill started working for DC and other media, he was only sporadically involved with Batman, while on the other hand, Kane was invoved in one way or another even up until his passing.) But "A Finger..." claimed that Bill created EVERYTHING and stops just short of saying he also discovered Penicillin!

I included these selections, mostly for the benefit of Wiki supervisors but also for young fans who may have heard or read several contradictory stories. As later scholars have proven, by looking at other sources besides comic books, that although Finger's involvement was pivotal, he certainly didn't create EVERYTHING in the Batman strip while Kane merely picked his nose! (Alfred, who was created by the writers of the first movie serial, is just one such example).

Nor did Bill ever claim he created BAtman, not in Steranko nor at that memorable comic book convention; indeed, in Steranko's "History..." he was very specific about some of his contributions, both for Batman and other series. Bernard ferrell ( talk) 19:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I read the article and it came up as really curious that after the article's tone goes to state that the camp phase of the character ended in the 1980's, then goes off to portray the 1960's version of the car in the section "Equipment". Furthermore, when it was added to serve as an illustration of the vehicle the article was referring to with the machine guns, it was taken down with the comment "we cannot have 2 pictures for the same section". First off, who says we can't? and second, why stick with the 60's car instead of any of the other sources or iterations the car has gone through? -we could stay with any, or all, better yet, we should settle to saty with the most current