Talk:The Dark Knight Rises

Minor spelling error

Hello :)

Just spotted a minor spelling error here: "Alfred is unable to accep Bruce's...". It should be accepT. Please change it, much thanks. I'll keep an eye out for more. I would edit it myself (it's not even a big deal) but the article is locked :/

Love that you guys updated this article today <3 Great work, keep it up!

Aurora, Colorado

The heading currently says Aurora, Canada which is incorrect as it actually took place in the state of Colorado

Lazarus Pit

In The Dark Knight Rises, the prison is not referred to as a Lazarus Pit. I tried to remove the link to Lazarus Pit from the Bane in other media article but was reverted. Now I see a similar link in this article. What do others think? GoingBatty (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. The prison is obviously a reference to Pena Duro, the prison Bane was born inside in the comics. It was not referred to as anything more than "The Pit" in the film and was in no way similar to the Lazarus Pits of the comics. 74.136.202.25 (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. If the prison was a reference to Pena Duro, not only should the chant be in Spanish (which it's not, it is in Arabic) then Talia would not be the one who escapes it; it would be Bane. If you need further proof, Ra's al Ghul appeared there talking more about immortality. All the connections are drawn to the Lazarus Pit. Osh33m (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the chant in the film, though reported to be Moroccan Arabic, is not Moroccan Arabic or standard Arabic. Moroccan Arabic is called Darija and the chant is not Darija. Moroccan friends of mine laughed when I told them that the chant is supposed to Moroccan Arabic. The word for Rise in Arabic and Moroccan Arabic (Darija) is entirely different. It has been suggested that the pronunciation of the chant was corrupted by English speakers. (Abe) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.215.164 (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing directly calls it the Lazarus Pit, or Pena Duro. There has been no reliable source confirming that, so neither should be mentioned. We're not here to try and interpret some intentional or imaginary reference to the comic books. We're here to report on what was actually shown.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the tumbler should not be linked to the batmobile, the bat should not be linked to to the batwing, john daggett should not be linked to roland daggett, and the batpod should not be linked to the batcycle because none of these are referred to the batmobile/batwing/roland/batcycle in any of the films. do not take this the wrong way but it is not a matter of intentional or imaginary references, it is a matter of common sense.

bruce wayne is brought to this... pit, an underground jail where the inmates are speaking in arabic, the language that translates ra's al ghul's name to head of the demon. it is not just any random jail cell, and not just anyone brought bruce there, it was the league of shadows, and it seems like not many others in the outside world know about this prison, except for the league. Farhadpersia (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely different. The Tumbler has been identified by Nolan and the designer as their interpretation of the Batmobile. "The Pit" has not been identified as anything other than a prison. That is the difference. You're stretching your interpretation and assumptions into references that have not been verified or even insinuated by anyone that made the film. As far as "in film" goes, more than the League of Shadows knows about this prison. If you listened to the story, the King whose daughter that Ra's was in love with used that prison as punishment. The "League" did not come to the prison till after Ra's child escaped. So, they were the "only" people to know about the prison. Even Alfred relayed a story about the prison to Bruce. So it isn't some hidden prison. Either way, nothing in the film says that it is the Lazarus Pit or Pena Duro. No one from the film has identified it as such in interviews either. Thus, linking it to either of those places would be considered original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What about the foreign language the prisoners speak and the chant? One last thing too, if the prison is indeed referred to as "the pit" instead of a no name random foreign jail then I think that is enough to link it to the Lazarus PIT. Farhadpersia (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a leap to say that because the prisoners speak a language, which is not actually identified in the film, that Ra's speaks that it must be the Lazarus Pit. Given that the history in the film shows that Ra's was there from the beginning, it makes sense that they would speak a language that he does. It is inappropriate to pipe a link like an easter egg based on original research. They call it "The Pit" because it is a giant pit. The Lazarus Pit is not an actual pit, it's a pool. Even if Nolan was just playing on the name "Pit", it would still be inappropriate to link it to the Lazarus Pit because that would give the reader the impression that they are one in the same in the film. Nothing in the film (or outside of the film) has indicated that they are actually the same beyond a shared name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is with merit, but I think the connections here are more obvious and less original research. Yes the actual language is not identified, but it should be clear to everyone by now that it is Moroccan. Additionally, articles about that mention the Pit have even regarded it as the Lazarus Pit, without drawing doubts or skepticism. That should mean something. As well, I understand that this Pit is not somewhere that Ra's went to rejuvenate himself, but the wiki article even calls this Pit a "revised conception" of the Lazarus pit. Farhadpersia (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

To everyone? I did not know that. I don't speak it and would not recognize it if I heard it again. I imagine that the average reader would not know what it was either. We cannot cite ourselves as verification for what we're arguing. What you are trying to do is create a synthesis. You're taking 2 points and trying to claim that when together they create a 3rd point. In this case, you're taking information from the comics and adding that to the use of the word "Pit" and your perception of the language spoken in the film and drawing the conclusion that Bruce and Bane were actually at the Lazarus Pit. Synthesis is good for thesis papers, but as far as Wiki is concerned (if you read the article I linked) it's a form of original research. This isn't like saying the Earth is round, or that 3+3=6, neither of which we need a source for. If the average reader could not draw the logical conclusion that you came to, then it's original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, to everyone, or anyone who doesn't know and is still wondering. Yes, perhaps the average reader would not know, but that's why we have wikipedia and its sources, no? Anyways, I'll try to break down all the evidence one more time, and then I would request that we vote on this.

-It is known simply as "The Pit."

-Talia is the one who is born in it and escapes it, not Bane.

-The League of Shadows is what brought Bruce to the Pit in the first place.

-The League also seems to be the only thing from the outside world that knows the Pit's location.

-Not to mention, when Bruce was first in the Pit, he was there as a paraplegic but in 5 months when he leaves he is fully "healed," albeit not supernaturally.

-In the comics, Talia's mother died in a Lazarus Pit. I am told that in the film, Talia says her mother died in the Pit.

-Lastly, let's first agree that the Pit is, a significant setting for the film. Yes? In that case, are we to believe that Chris Nolan included this Pit in the film completely out of his own original creation, or could all the points that I mentioned mean that the setting was inspired by the Lazarus Pit?

Farhadpersia (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is known as the "The Pit". As far as the comics go, Talia was not born there. The League takes Bruce there on Bane's orders, and Bane is there when Bruce is dropped off. That does not imply that the League knows where it is, just that Bane knows where it is. The same is true for Ra's. The flashback shows that Ra's knows where it is (which we know because he was originally supposed to be sentenced to the prison), not that the League itself knows. As for "no one from the outside world", we know from the film that the prison was used regularly by the King of that land, so obviously someone other than Ra's, Talia, Bane, and the League members at present knew about the prison. It's even stated in the film that it is "Bane's Prison now". You're leaping with the Bruce being "fully healed" analogy. He was there for 5 months, had to have his back reset, and then had to physically train himself back into shape. He also was not a "paraplegic". Having a broken back and being paralyzed are not the same thing. Trust me, I know from personal experience. I have never heard that Talia's mother died in the Pit in the comics. That is news to me, as her death has been multiple things but none that I'm aware of include the Pit. Do I think that Nolan probably used the name "The Pit" as a reference to the Lazarus Pit, most likely. Is there actual verifiable sources that say that it was his intention to do more than just use a portion of the name (as opposed to the prison actually being his version of the Lazarus Pit)? No, there are no sources. Wikipedia's purpose is to report what we can verify, not what we can make up our own conclusions to. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research/thesis paper. Without sources stating that it was supposed to be the Lazarus Pit, including links to it would be original research no matter how obvious it is to you or me or anyone else for that matter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether you realize it or not, we do agree, because I am not trying to say The Pit literally = a Lazarus Pit, but rather that it's been inspired by and is a reference to it. And that's all it says as a link, on the lazarus pit wiki. I wasn't trying to say Talia was born in the Pit in the comics, but highlighting the fact that in the film she, the daughter of Ra's al Ghul is the one born in the prison, not Bane. And I trust what you said about the broken back. You said Talia's mother dying in the Pit in the comics is news to you, so here is a link to that page from Vengeance of Bane. Can we make that vote on this now? Farhadpersia (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is that it's synthesis and original research. If you can cite a reliable source that says the above, then we can include it in the article. Otherwise, thank you for your original research, but we can't include it in the article. DonQuixote (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well okay, I can't argue with you there except to say that "original research" seems more credible to me than others put it out to be because it looks very useful. I'm not the only one in the world making these connections, and I'm sure there are a good number of others and that is saying something. Anyways, that page from Vengeance of Bane is not evidence enough? BIGNOLE said it was news to him/her. Farhadpersia (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's evidence enough for me, but not enough for wikipedia. The purpose of wikipedia is to collate what reliable sources have to say on the subject, not what we, the editors, have to say. DonQuixote (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I never understood why other editors say this. If it is evidence enough for you, me, and possibly anyone else who looks at and analyzes all the data, then it should be enough for Wikipedia. It is we, the people who use encyclopedias, wikipedia being the most convenient of them all. And it is we, the editors that can put the link directly on Wikipedia, saving the trouble of other readers who may start to make these connections. So I still think the subject merits a vote. Farhadpersia (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Providing direct links like that is the goal of a generic webpage. Wikipedia's goal is to collate what reliable sources have to say. Just look at at line right below the edit box that says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." DonQuixote (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have already pointed out that there are reliable articles that mention the Pit that have even regarded it as the Lazarus Pit, without drawing doubts or skepticism. Farhadpersia (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This will be the last I will say on the subject because I feel like we're going in circles. Seeing at the film never calls it the "Lazarus Pit", unless someone connected (not some loley key grip) to the film states that it was Nolan's version of the Lazarus Pit, then it would be original research no matter how you slice it. If you read the policy on original research, you'll see that what you're asking to do falls directly in line with it. That said, if anything I'm surprised you're not arguing that "The Pit" is actually a combiation of Pena Duro and the Lazarus Pit, given that it actually shares histories with both. Now, don't take this as my argument to state such a thing in the article, I'm merely talking out loud. Without reliable sources from the people that worked on the film, we cannot link to the Lazarus Pit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@Farhadpersia: Then you should have no problem citing the reliable articles. Please cite them so that we can include it here. DonQuixote (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@BIGNOLE yes indeed we are going in circles and that is why I am asking for the third time that we vote on this. I do not care if this is "original research," perhaps wikipedia is simply not up to date with the times then. Because you admit that this is evidence enough for you, and so have countless others. And whoever does not know about the connections who try to draw up upon will undoubtedly find them. So the fact that wikipedia does not include this tidbit makes it fall behind. counter progessive, counter productive.

@DonQuixote here and here. Farhadpersia (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The first article is a little weak, so we might need more articles like it. However, the second article doesn't say anything about the Lazarus Pit. Find more articles like, or better than, the first one, and we'll be on the right track. DonQuixote (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes okay, here's another article.

With all due respect DonQuixote, the dogmatism towards wikipedia's guidelines is seriously hindering its progress. I like wikipedia and I want to continue contributing like the way I have, but I don't think everything has to come straight from the horse's mouth in order to make it verifiable. I'll let the Batmobile slide since BIGNOLE debunked it, but not the rest. Did Nolan ever actually come out and say that that the batpod is the batcycle? That the bat is the batwing? That john daggett is roland daggett? That the league of shadows is the league of assassins? No. So why are all of these wiki articles linked to one another? Or could it be that Nolan found it unnecessary, since viewers of the films could come to those conclusions themselves...? Uh oh, does that sound like original research? Then I guess original research is what it takes sometimes to explain what is inevitably present.

Please do not say that the cases I have mentioned are different, because they aren't. You know it, I know it. Those links, as well as the Pit/Lazarus Pit connection, have all been drawn from observation from reviewers of the films, like I have shown you, and "original researchers" like myself, and dozens of others. So we're not waiting for Nolan to come out and say that the Pit is a reference to the Lazarus Pit. He left enough tracks in the film to draw that conclusion. So please, without further ado, however it is that we vote on these things, can we do it now? Farhadpersia (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That article is a little weak too. Still need more sources (or a better source) before we can honestly add it.

Anyway, it's not about "dogmatism" or the "horse's mouth", rather it's about trying to avoid publishing original ideas in an encyclopedia. The guidelines are there to summarise this. An encyclopedia is not a place to get new ideas from. Yes, Nolan probably did leave enough tracks in the film to draw conclusions, but it's not an encyclopedia's place to draw conclusions. And wikipedia, for all its faults, is trying to be an encyclopedia.

Finally, I concur that the bat probably isn't the batwing and john daggett probably isn't roland daggett and these probably need to cite reliable sources too. DonQuixote (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what else you want; what makes those articles weak besides your good word? And I didn't just mention the Batwing and Roland Daggett, I also mentioned the Batcycle and the League of Assassins. They're believed to be the Batpod and the League of Shadows in the same manner that the Pit is believed to be the Lazarus Pit. Are you going to say they need citations too?

By the way, if Nolan made the Pit out to be a completely "original idea" like you said, then we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. The fact that Nolan trailed the Pit out with these references is the isthmus of the link.

The quickest, most efficient way to resolve this is a vote, my fellow editor. Farhadpersia (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

They're "weak" in that they just make off-hand comments and I wouldn't stake my reputation on just those two articles. As for the batpod, I admit that "it's a motorcycle" is a weak argument so I'm not going to defend it that much. As for the League, if I remember correctly, there was an article on how the film makers changed it from Assassins to Shadows for thematic reason, but I won't defend that one until I can find the article.

Anyway, "Nolan trailed the Pit out with these references is the isthmus of the link" is your analysis and interpretation, which is original research. Thanks for that, but wikipedia is not a place to publish your personal observations. Please cite a reliable source that verifies this or publish your original observation in a reliable source so that we can cite you.

And as for a "vote", use WP:RFC. DonQuixote (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not just my analysis. And you don't have to go and try to debunk the rest of the links I mentioned. It was not my intention to make you go and do more work than you have to. I just wanted you to see my point, and you do, don't you?

The Pit as the Lazarus Pit in DKR has been and will continue to be all over the internet, so it's time wikipedia gets up to date. As I stated before, we can agree that the Pit is a significant setting in the film. Yes? So before I continue any further, let me show you this. It's a screenshot of what describes the Pit's role in the film. What is so wrong with that? It's informative, and in no way a misdirection. If there's one thing Nolan has always said about these films, it's that he wants to ground them in reality, and that's what the first sentence of the section says, a "revised conception" of the Lazarus Pit. And we agree that the Pit is a significant setting in the film? So if there is going to be any tidbit about the Pit on wikipedia, it's there.

I'm also quite confused about the WP:RFC. I'm just not sure how to go about it. If you could instruct me? Farhadpersia (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Lazarus Pit (or Pits) of the comics are restorative chemical pools that Ra's uses for their abilities to heal those at death's door. There were no such pools in the movie, so I think linking to Lazarus Pit would be misleading. The prison is a significant setting in the film, and referring to those characters who rise out of "The Pit" is important. If you have a source stating Nolan was inspired by the Lazarus Pit and/or Peña Dura and/or Santa Prisca (DC Comics), and what elements of each he chose for the movie and why, that would be great to put in the Development section of the article. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

GoingBatty, our argument is not that the Pit is a literal interpretation of the Lazarus Pit but rather a reimagination of it. here's another article illustrating what we mean. Farhadpersia (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The Sports Hero article is interesting and entertaining, but it appears to be just fan speculation written before the movie was released. It doesn't appear to be a reliable source explaining what is actually in the film, or the thought process used by the filmmakers to create the film. GoingBatty (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, it appears that consensus is pointing in favor of not including the link because of a lack of verifiable sources that actually identify "The Pit" as any form of reference to "The Lazarus Pit".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus of the few of us on wikipedia maybe, but not the sovereignty of the internet. As much as anyone tries to deny it, the Pit most closely fits in with the Lazarus Pit in Nolan's realistic version of the Batman lore, not at all with Pena Duro, and I've already explained why. When viewers of the film search "Lazarus Pit in DKR" or even just "Pit in DKR" they will immediately be brought to all the things that I have been trying to tell you. So do you mean to tell me that when they come to wikipedia and see that there's nothing on it in the Lazarus Pit wiki article film section, they will think to themselves, " Oh this all just has to be false now because wikipedia has nothing on it even though the rest of the internet says so " ? I'm telling you fellow editors, it's time for wikipedia to be up to date, and I'm not just talking about DKR. Farhadpersia (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Are any of those sites reliable sources that we could add to the article? GoingBatty (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately my fellow editor, that is subjective. The sources are reliable to me, but not to others. Farhadpersia (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources may be helpful. Besides The Sports Hero article, care to share any other sources that you have found? GoingBatty (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, GoingBatty, the three articles I've posted here are the only ones I have found. But we have established that the Pit is a significant setting in the film and deserves a tidbit on wikipedia, so if this paragraph will not be an inclusion in the Lazarus Pit article, then where will it be placed? Farhadpersia (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the inclusion of that paragraph in the Lazarus Pit article. Saying "the Pit" of the film has restorative powers that healed Bruce's back (but not Bane's face) is just speculation. There was a scene in the film that showed (via movie fiction logic) how another inmate helped fix Bruce's back. GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well GoingBatty, you didn't answer my question. We agree that the Pit is a significant setting for the film and deserves a tidbit on wikipedia but you don't believe that it belongs in the Lazarus Pit article. So I ask again, where then? Farhadpersia (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere, its a film location. Don't indulge this anymore, it isn't a Lazarus pit, its a prison designed to mimic Batman's fall into the well on the Wayne estate as a child. Don't waste your time continuing to pursue this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

GoingBatty already agreed that the Pit is a significant setting and deserves a tidbit on wikipedia. More importantly, I was asking GoingBatty, not you. Don't presume to tell me what to do with my time. It's quite clear you did not read much of anything I wrote, so I'll repeat. I have not been saying that that the Pit=the Lazarus Pit, but rather Nolan's re-imagining of it in his grounded reality, much like how this paragraph calls it "a revised conception" which is anything but misleading. Additionally, you calling this location "a design to mimic Batman's fall into the well on the Wayne estate as a child" is just as much original research as all the information pointing to the Pit being a reference to the Lazarus Pit. Farhadpersia (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How is saying that it is Nolan's reimagining of a Lazarus Pit NOT saying it is a Lazarus Pit? And yes it is original research. Which is why it does not belong here or in the Lazarus Pit article. My confusion is in how this discussion has managed to go on so long and take up so much space. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying Nolan's take on the Pit is not the Lazarus Pit is because like I said, Nolan likes to ground all aspects of these films in reality. So just like how he didn't actually make Ra's al Ghul immortal (but alluded to it by having Ra's discuss immortality in BB and DKR), he did not actually make the Pit the literal Lazarus Pit pool of rejuvenation (but alluded to it by first, calling it the "Pit" and second, by having Bruce enter it with a broken back and leaving it fully healed and third, having the inmates chant and speak in a language that is Ra's al Ghul's native tongue and fourth, having Ra's appear in the Pit discussing immortality and fifth, showing Talia's mother die in the Pit just like how she died in a Lazarus Pit in the comics). And I'll say again, GoingBatty has agreed that the Pit is a significant setting in the film and deserves a tidbit on wikipedia. But since we have not come to a consensus as to where this paragraph belongs, it is the reason why "this discussion has managed to go on so long and take up so much space." I hope I cleared up that confusion for you. Farhadpersia (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis above. But it still falls under original research. Please publish it in a reliable source so that we can cite you in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, but as I have explained to others before in this discussion, if the Pit being the Lazarus Pit is original research, then so are the following:

-The League of Shadows as the League of Assassins

-The Batpod as the Batcycle

-The Bat as the Batwing

-John Daggett as Roland Daggett

Nolan never had to come out and say that this was that and etc., the reviewers and observers of the film deduced it for themselves, much like how we have deduced the fact that the Pit is Nolan's take on the Lazarus Pit. But that seems like what you are asking for; Nolan to come out and say that the Pit was his re-imagining of the Lazarus Pit. Well, he never did that for all those other examples, so why are they linked to one another on wikipedia? Farhadpersia (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting those. Feel free to mark them with {{citation needed}} or just edit out the original research that you spotted. DonQuixote (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome again, but you're missing the point. Which is, I do not think Nolan is going to come out and confirm every unconfirmed thing about these films just for the sake of credibility to them. Perhaps he feels that he left enough trails in the films for viewers to figure things out themselves (...does that come down to original research?).

I find that these links are noteworthy, and that the Pit is in line with them. I do not care if it falls under the category of "original research" but I do care about wikipedia, and I am here to help. However, the dogmatism to the guidelines is hindering its progress. Sometimes "original research" is what it takes to get the job done. I just think that since the very nature of wikipedia and its vulnerability to opinions and vandalism that "original research" has been tagged with such a bad reputation. Farhadpersia (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And you're missing the point that an encyclopedia is not a publisher of original thought. Yes, original research is great and all, but there are appropriate places to publish them. This isn't one of them. If you want your original observations mentioned here, please publish them in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not missing anything. I addressed that point by saying I do not to care, but I do care about wikipedia and it needs some changing. And here we go with another full circle of this "publisher of original thought." Must I mention again that the League of Shadows as the League of Assassins, John Daggett as Roland Daggett, the Batpod as the Batcycle, and the Bat as the Batwing fall right in line with the Pit as the Lazarus Pit since it did not come straight from the horse's mouth which seems like what you are asking for (i.e. Nolan never directly pointed these out)? So if those examples have links to one another on wikipedia, then so should the Pit as the Lazarus Pit. I'll continue on again by saying that GoingBatty admitted that the Pit is a significant setting in the film and deserves a tidbit on wikipedia, and I believe the most logical place to put it is where it already is, this paragraph. Farhadpersia (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Farhad, this is the same exact line of editing you're making on the Bane articles. You've had editor after editor explain policy to you, and yet still, you're right and everyone else is wrong. Amazing how far you've come after less than a week here.--Williamsburgland (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

William, I am not the only one who is right, because if you look up, DonQuixote did in fact say that the evidence I showed him/her is enough for him/her, but not enough for wikipedia. I reply by telling how I feel about the policy, and Wikipedia. What does the Bane article have to do with this? I was the one who created the Bane in other media article, explained my reasoning of the film section, and I thought we came to consensus/compromise about that. Farhadpersia (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(edict conflict) Yes, those things are original research. Don't compound the problem by adding more original research. Feel free to mark them as original research or edit them so as to eliminate original research. And, yes, Nolan probably won't directly say all this stuff, but that's irrelevant to the point. The point is that you're saying all this stuff. We'll gladly accept your original research as long as you publish it in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

DonQuixote, my fellow editor, can you not see that I do not find those links to be a problem but mere evidence on wikipedia itself that original research has some merit? And no, it is not irrelevant to the point, because my point is all those links including the Pit as the Lazarus Pit have enough evidence for the viewer to identify the connections. The point is, I am not the onlt one saying all this stuff, because the rest of the internet also is, so wikipedia should as well. You should gladly accept my original research, since you have gladly accepted the research of those other links for years. We are on the same side here, we are both trying to improve wikipedia, no? Farhadpersia (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Any consensus on the matter is entirely imagined on your part. You didn't discuss anything on the matter; you ignored my objections, reverted my edits and moved an entire section to a new article without discussion. Your entire argument, here and elsewhere, is that since something already exists on wikipedia you can add more of it. There are misspellings, so feel free to make up your own words. Again, once you've lost interest in the project and moved on I'll clean up the mess you've made. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry then, I guess that huge paragraph I wrote to you on that dispute page was invisible to you, because it was a response to the objections and reverts you were making. My reasoning for moving an entire section was because it was said that that article was becoming too long. And what makes you think I wrote that entire section? Because I didn't, and I didn't make any mess or lose interest in any project. You've nothing to clean up, but I'm still willing to hear what you have to say. Farhadpersia (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

League of Assassins = League of Shadows: A group of highly trained individuals led by Ra's al Ghul to advance his goals of destroying modern civilization.

Batcycle = Batpod: It's a motorcycle Batman rides when the Batmobile/Tumbler can't get the job done.

Roland Dagett = John Dagett: A corrupt businessman, rival to Bruce Wayne's company, who isn't above using criminal means to get his way.

Batwing = The Bat: Flying vehicle Batman uses for greater mobility that is seemingly part plane and part helicopter.

Lazarus Pit/Pena Duro = The Pit: Both characters (Bane and Talia) had their respective mothers killed in their respective Pits once upon a time. Both characters from the Nolan films are born and raised here. Batman is sent here to heal from his injuries. Bane is in control of the facility after taking his freedom from it, also receiving his trademark drugs while incarcerated.

Just a few connections for the very obvious ones and a two-sided argument for The Pit. As before, I support The Pit as Pena Duro, as it simply shares more similarities to it over the Lazarus. It's probable that Nolan used both to create The Pit, but if we were forced to nail down a single location it is most like, it would obviously be Pena Duro: It is an actual prison, Bane is in control of it after the original warden/ruler of it was taken from power, it relates to his interactions with Batman, and there was only one person famed to ever escape from it (ignore who it was and just take in that point by itself).

Also, just arguing pro-tip to everyone: Saying something a lot doesn't make it right. Just because lots of other places say The Pit is the Lazarus doesn't mean we should just give in and go with the crowd. There's at least an equal amount who think the opposite. 74.136.202.25 (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree because like I have said time and time again that the Pit has little to nothing to do with Pena Duro other than the fact that Bane was incarcerated there at one point in time. Never in the film is it said that his mother was there with him and died, so Talia is the one who is born and raised there with her mother dying in the Pit. And a lot of other places say that:

"League of Assassins = League of Shadows: A group of highly trained individuals led by Ra's al Ghul to advance his goals of destroying modern civilization.

Batcycle = Batpod: It's a motorcycle Batman rides when the Batmobile/Tumbler can't get the job done.

Roland Dagett = John Dagett: A corrupt businessman, rival to Bruce Wayne's company, who isn't above using criminal means to get his way.

Batwing = The Bat: Flying vehicle Batman uses for greater mobility that is seemingly part plane and part helicopter."

But Nolan never did, and that's the same argument being used for not using all the evidence for the Pit as the Lazarus Pit. So if a lot of other places say all those other things including wikipedia, I don't see why wikipedia can't include the Pit as the Lazarus Pit. Farhadpersia (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Deadshot

Was Deadshot in The Dark Knight Rises? There is one character who works for the League of Shadows and is seen sniping at police officers with a chain of bullets across his chest. He later goes across the bridge to tell the army not to let anyone cross. I cannot seem to find any verifiable sources for this, and thus obviously cannot include it in the article. However, I was wondering if anyone else had the same thought and had perhaps researched it a little more thoroughly than I have. TempDog123 (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read IMDb posters mentioning this as well. Do you spotted any other similarities that might give a little more validity to this theory? Geeky Randy (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

More accurately, can you provide any reliable sources that verify this theory? DonQuixote (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What? As if it is going to be posted in this article? All editing has been blocked; not to mention, the article is still a pathetic mess even with Wikipedia's precious narrow-minded policies of notability and "reliable" sources. Have you even read the reception category in this article? Why is there a GameSpot review of this film that misuses the term "plot hole"? Reliable or not, no information is going to be added to the article for a while. This will be a nice little break from people cramming rules down our throats when we want to discuss unverified interpretations. Geeky Randy (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's going to be added if a reliable source is cited once the protection has been lifted (which is next week). And the Gamespot review will also be corrected as well. Also, as per discussing unverified interpretations, please remember that this is not a forum. DonQuixote (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the exact same thing. Maybe he was based on the Deadshot character, the same way Jen was based on the character of Holly Robinson (although some say Jen IS Holly Robinson; Jen is just her alter ego). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemyDavis (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2012 - RUsh limbaugh 'Accusing movie of promoting anti conservative agenda"

Rush Limbaugh did not make any accusation toward the movie creators' motives regarding a political agenda. He commented on some members of the political left that were using, or accused of using the name of the antagonist 'Bane' and linking it to 'Bain' capital. The current text suggests that Limbaugh directed this criticism toward the movie; he directed it toward Romney's political opposition.

24.206.101.140 (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide some reliable sources that say the above and we'll cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the transcript of the day in question. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/17/the_batman_campaign

Thanks for the transcript and your analysis of the transcript. Can you provide some reliable sources that verify your analysis so that we can avoid original research? DonQuixote (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, does it seem like the following is really subject to interpretation: "... You may think it's ridiculous, I'm just telling you this is the kind of stuff the Obama team is lining up. The kind of people who would draw this comparison are the kind of people that they are campaigning to. These are the kind of people that they are attempting to appeal to. " This is the final paragraph of the transcript on the Limbaugh site; I am curious as to where the sources are that lend support to the assertion in the original Wiki article that Limbaugh attacked the writers/producers/directors of the picture.

Additionally, your source citation 202 took an excerpt of the whole Limbaugh segment (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/17/the_batman_campaign) to promote the narrative that he attacked the movie for an Anti-Romney bent; but if one simply read the article beginning to end......or in this case, just read the end paragraph, it's more than clear that the target of Limbaugh's comments were political operatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.101.140 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your interpretation of the transcript. Please cite a reliable source that verifies your interpretation so that we can cite it. DonQuixote (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to make sure I have this right: You have the actual transcript from Rush Limbaugh's own site, written in the English language. The end paragraph states very clearly who is being referenced, yet you're acting like this is subject to interpretation? (Even your source [202] has in its own comments' section the readership is attacking the article's narrative.) What source do you require.......in addition to the actual, entire, printed transcript already in your hands....to best clarify this? Not to be offensive, but I can't believe you're being this obtuse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.9.10 (talk • contribs)

I read the same transcript that you did and got a completely different interpretation. Unfortunately, my interpretation is no better than your interpretation and so it won't make its way into this article. Please cite a reliable source that verifies your interpretation (and those of the above internet commentators) thereby making it much, much better than mine and citeable within this article.

Also, see the above/archived discussions about the Lazaraus Pit and Deadshot which deal with similar issues of WP:OR, WP:RS, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I declare shenanigans. Where's my broom? Limbaugh has stated he is friendly with the writers. And no, I'm not going to include a reference which ONE PERSON (DonQuixote) somehow has given him/her/itself uncontested power to veto. Let's play this game. What reliable source can you produce DonQuixote that proves Limbaugh criticized the writers and not the politicization of the film's story? 76.73.210.228 (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source that "Limbaugh is friendly with the writers".

Also, I haven't written anything about this topic, so I don't need to provide reliable sources. However, I did peruse the section in question and the sources seem reliable enough for me. If others disagree, then they have the option to question the reliability of the source.

Finally, the bottom line is that the above is your interpretation and your analysis. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original ideas. Please cite a reliable source that verifies your ideas, or publish them in a reliable source so that we can cite you. DonQuixote (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the above link to the full transcript could be included as a reference, in case readers wished to examine the full text themselves? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That could probably be put under "References" or "External links". DonQuixote (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This edit request is spot on. Rush is being misquoted in the article; here are sources that should instead be used to show that this correlation between Bane and Bain was coming from Democratic strategists before the movie was released: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/16/picket-obama-camp-miscasts-batman-characters-romne/ http://voices.yahoo.com/to-save-obama-democrats-pin-their-hopes-bane-11576118.html?cat=9 http://washingtonexaminer.com/romneys-new-foe-batmans-bane/article/2502274#.UCVJIPZlTMc http://backwardsboy.blogspot.com/2012/07/comic-creator-of-bain-calls-bs-on-dems.html

Please provide a reliable source that states that Limbaugh was misquoted.

Also, thanks for pointing out other people drawing conclusions about Bain/Bane. The article has been amended to reflect that. Feel free to provide any other reliable sources discussing this. DonQuixote (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning (seeing as this is the Talk section) that the several cited sources are not reliable sources, DonQuixote. Defending the integrity of Wikipedia is one thing; simply declaring that every source provided is somehow unreliable presents the appearance of abuse. For example, how do you define what constitutes a reliable source about quotations? Would not a reasonable person conclude that a transcript of the speech is proper quotation, for example? You seem to be fishing for someone to say (somehow authoritatively) "by the powers vested in me as a quotation understander, Limbaugh was clearly misquoted. I find for the misquoted!" and bang the gavel. Or are you traveling down the ol' meaning of what the word "is" is rabbit hole? What possible logic do you employ in this case? 68.47.23.59 (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Those sources don't say that he was misquoted, they just point out other people saying similar things and people's responses to them.

And yes, a transcript is a proper quotation, but him being misquoted is your interpretation. That falls under synthesis and POV. DonQuixote (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Trail left by Selina Kyle

I think the quote "Following a trail left by cat burglar Selina Kyle," should be removed. At no point in the movie does Selina leave a trail for Batman to follow. Infact, she takes Batman to Bane's lair herself, where he is trapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemyDavis (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be reworded, because I believe that the original intention was to say that the trail led to her, and then she led Batman to Bane. The way it reads, you're right, it's like the trail led to Bane.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Bignole. However at no point in the film do we see Batman following a trail TO Selina in the subway. We see Bruce Wayne asking Selina to meet with his "powerful friend" and then when the scene opens, we see Selina in her outfit waiting for Batman. Presumably they arranged for a place to meet, even if we didn't see it onscreen. Though my point still stands that Selina did not leave a trail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemyDavis (talk • contribs) 18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been removed anyway, but the "trail" would have been the tracking device on the necklace which led him to a location in the city. From there, he used the location to run a trace and picked up her criminal record, thus learning who she was. Then he went to her as Bruce Wayne, and later Batman. Either way, it's been removed so it doesn't matter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for August 4, 2012

Liam Neeson should be added to the opening paragraph as a returning cast member. Ra's al Ghul is arguably more of a significant returning character than Cillian Murphy's character, particularly in the context of his appearance.

Edit request on 7 August 2012

the gross should be changed to $732,335,094 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Aradhana/261585757269323 07:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You're using facebook as your source? --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request for August 7, 2012

In 6.2 Reception, second paragraph, last sentence, the quote should be

that "there was nothing remarkable about the acting."

instead of

"That there was nothing remarkable about the acting."

to accurately cite the source, which says, verbatim:

"There was nothing remarkable about the acting," said another academy member.

Thanks,

--Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done DonQuixote (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2012- Repeating request, previous attempt archived without response

In the first paragraph of the plot summary, it says "Gordon's speech falls into the hands of the villain Bane", but this is the first time the speech is mentioned. I think this could be address with an edit akin to: "Gordon feels guilty about the cover-up of Harvey Dent's crimes and writes a confession speech, but decides that the city is not ready to hear the truth." Argento Surfer (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've clarified it in the article. drewmunn (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2012

Box Office worldwide receipts has increased to $737,060,592 per information from http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batman3.htm Albertdadze (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Aurora shooting mention in header?

Do you think it is warranted to mention the aurora shooting in the header paragraph? There is already a sectional mention in the article, while it is a very significant event its mention seems a little disjointed with the rest of the header and its relevance to the film.Duhon (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

it should be removed entirely from the page as it has nothing to do with the film itself; and could damage the franchise and place a stigma on DC's future endeavors with the character (24.250.31.224 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

The event itself shouldn't be covered in depth but considering most analysts thing that it has impacted the film's box office takings, perhaps forever undermining its true financial potential, it needs mentioning.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits required

The plot summary could use a complete reworking. Information is presented out-of-sequence, and is missing major plot points. For example, the article states simply that Bane attacks the Stock Exchange and bankrupts Bruce Wayne, with absolutely no reference to the events that proceeded that (Selina Kyle stealing Wayne's fingerprints, which was a crucial element in the plan to ruin Wayne). It states that that Batman locates Bane by following the trail of Catwoman without providing the reader with any context for Catwoman's appearance in the film. Batman didn't follow the trail of Catwoman, rather he asked for her help to locate Bane, and she led him to Bane, and betrayed Batman. The plot as presented here is riddled with gaps too numerous to list, and is poorly written in general. For instance, "While following a lead in the abduction of a congressional representative, Gordon's speech falls into the hands of the villain Bane..." This implies that Gordon's speech was had somehow come to life and was following a lead in the abduction.

It may need a rewrite, however the guidelines of this site do not require events to be told in sequence and its only aim is to convey major events necessary for understanding in 700 words or less. So no, Kyle stealing hsi fingerprints are not particularly important and its definitely not required to understand that Bane attacks Wall Street and bankrupts Bruce Wayne. How he does it doesn't matter, noone is reading and questioning the logic of a supervillain attacking wall street and bankrupting someone. But we have conveyed that he does it. The purpose of the plot section is not to retell the film event for event. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of providing a plot section should be to provide a clear, concise account of the major events of the film. If sequence of events isn't important in achieving this, it may as well start with,"Batman attaches a cable from The Bat to a fusion bomb and flies it out over the harbor, where the bomb detonates, apparently killing Batman".Someone reading this plot summary as written would definitely have more questions than answers. As written, it's confusing, and in some instances, misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.164.4 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The sequence of events isn't important in the sense that we don't have to reproduce the interweaving plot threads. Yes, some of the minor details are out of sequence, but they're described in terms of the major plot points which are in sequence. DonQuixote (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Chris Ellis as priest

If you look at the TDKR online screenplay, Father Reilly is the one who oversees the orphans' home, and the guy who John Blake talks to in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoDaFoo (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 August 2012

Alternatively, politically conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, in response to news reports of forthcoming Democratic Party election strategy, alleged that the film was biased against 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney due to Bane's name being a homophone for Bain Capital, the financial service company Romney used to head.[200][201][202] Nstew49702 (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Clean Energy Project

The article is currently misleading with regards the clean energy project, but I'm unsure of how to change it and retain the necessary details whilst keeping it succinct. The energy project was Wayne's, not Tate's, but Tate provided much of the funding for it. My dilemma is that changing it to read "Wayne's clean energy project" removes the necessary information on Tate knowing of the project. Thanks drewmunn (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

John Blake ending

I think the end of the Plot section should say he becomes a new hero because the Batman legend is over. That's what it hints at with the tagline. Also, Gotham believes that Batman is dead. It would take away from the identity of Batman. Sean (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)