Jump to content

Talk:Batman/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 13

About the homossexual interpretation by Fredric Wertham

He said "Batman stories are psychologically homosexual" and "The Batman type of story may stimulate children to homosexual fantasies, of the nature of which they may be unconscious" and "Only someone ignorant of the fundamentals of psychiatry and of the psychopathology of sex can fail to realize a subtle atmosphere of homoeroticism which pervades the adventures of the mature 'Batman' and his young friend 'Robin'". I think children are ignorant of the fundamentals of psychiatry.Normally a children would interpretate even a very subtle homossexual relationship in a comics as friendship or maybe in the case of Batman and Robin as brotherhood or maybe a father-son relationship.

This just seems like someone WANTING it to be a gay relationship. It doesn't really seem to belong any more than someone calling Fred and Barny secretly gay in the Flintstones' article. If Fredric Wertham wants more gay characters he should write them instead of making shit up about someone else's characters.
Up to a point you would be right. The problem was, a lot of people took Wertham seriously and ultimately what he said led to the banning of a wide number of comics across the world. So it would be kind of like making similar comments about the Flintstones, only if it meant that the television industry was radically changed because of it. Hiding T 10:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The so called controversy is tiresome. Can someone edit: Such homosexual interpretations continue to attract attention. One notable example and change it to: Such controversial debates continue. One notable example.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.17.200.2 (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism where a person's personal attributes, unacceptable or unwanted thoughts, and/or emotions are ascribed onto another person or people. According to Wade, Tavris (2000) projection occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else. An example of such simple behavior would be: blame for failure, making an excuse for your own faults by projecting the cause of said failure onto someone else, hence blaming them and not accepting the reality of the failure. One would argue that you are projecting the threatening feelings. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. The issue is not whether the homosexual interpretation is product of the character but of the viewer. It seems that it would be helpful to include the concept of psychological projection as part of the title of this subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.17.200.2 (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the last two entries: Since when has the "academic community" cared what Wertham said???? Any attempt to bring Batman or any comic into an academic arguement would have diminished the credibility of the speaker....Wertham was never great in any academic circle....So the statement that homosexual interpretation has been "part of the academic study of Batman since psychologist Fredric Wertham asserted in 1954 Seduction of the Innocent" is both pretentious and misleading....Such "interpretations" are only "projections" of a few who unfortunately are preoccupied with things that interests only themselves and who continue to present the same misleading arguments. A Google/scholar search of "Wertham and Batman" only brings up 360 some articles....a similar search of just Batman brings up over 26,000 articles???? This idea that it has been a part of the academic community is an exageration and should be edited out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.44.166.66 (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


I've waited for years for the "interpretation" section to be removed. To date, nobody has provided a logical reason as to why this still exists. If you were to pick up a legitimate encyclopedia, you would never find a section such as this one.

I am not offended by the content, but third-party interpretations are hardly encyclopedia material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.237.36 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If people are so quick to remove this section, then can somebody explain why panels like this exist? I would like a serious answer to this question. (Also, it seems like this should be the new picture to use in the bottom section.) SineSwiper (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's wikipedia's policy to not allow original research (which is kind of a loose term).. So, if you see a panel and go "ahh, that's homosexually tinged", it's not enough for most wikipedia editors. However, if you can find an actual book written by someone (or something online - but probably not a blog) that explores the homosexuality of batman, and make sure to use ref tags to reference it, then I'm pretty sure no one will delete that section again. (FYI I never deleted it)... Does that make sense? (I don't mean does the policy make sense, I mean do you get what I'm saying peoples' problems are with it?) Luminifer (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The homosexual discussion doesn't really belong here. It's basically a few person's -opinion- that Batman has homosexual undertones. Well, you know everyone has an opinion about everything. It doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.222.63 (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Also what about the panels? Honestly, isn't this exactly the kind of stereotyping that is the cause of so much prejudice? Someone looks at something and goes "that's gay". Did the author, writer, creator, artist say it was gay? Or are you just calling it gay, cause it fits into your view of what "gay" is?

To be perfectly honest, what's depicted are the kind of innocent (and unintended) things you do when you DON'T realize there's another point of view out there. The creators were just making a playful "kids story", that not for one second would they have considered the sexual undertones. The intended audience was not adults, so there is NO sexual undertone at all. When and adult looks at it, and tries to apply a sexual connotation, all they're really doing is distorting the original presentation into meaning something it was never intended to mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.222.63 (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Partners

How about mentioning Batgirl, Knightwing etc in the Partners section. Not only just Robin.

Suggested Addition

Batmans sucks donkey nuts and eats monkey tits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.30.121.23 (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was reading the articale, and i noticed that it says the location of the Batcave is unknown, but it is said at points in the story that it is placed on an island on the outskirts of Gotham, near the important Arkham Aylum.--->[1] But as of now, this profile cannot edit the page, being semi-protected. Would someone please insert this under the 'Batcave' portion of the articale, and reference it to that link? Thank you. --Pentazemin (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your reference is the Arkham Asylum page, which by itself doesn't mention exactly what you posit. The "real" Batcave is under Wayne Manor, which is "in the suburbs". Arkham Asylum, for most of its history, was also portrayed as "in the suburbs", but not necessarily near Wayne Manor. Later sources and non-canonical versions of Arkham (like "Batman Begins") are on islands. But the Batcave (and Wayne Manor) has never been on an island in canon. In any case, this is info that should be directed at the Batcave article, if it can be backed up by a source. It doesn't add appreciably to the readability of a Batman article.Alparrott (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that in the 1950's-1960's section it refers to Superman #76 as "The Mightiest Team in the World", but in actuality it was titled "The Mightiest Team on Earth" as seen in the following link http://www.comicvine.com/superman-the-mightiest-team-on-earth/37-120155/ Also, in the "Adaptations in other Media", it states, "The Dark Knight also pays homage to the comic Batman by making the characters eyes white during a minor scene in the movie." It should say, "The animated series Batman," not, "The comic Batman." JohnKnee317 (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Page needs more citations

just out of curiosity, does anyone know the name of the comic in which batman kicked the jla's butts just to prove that he could? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.24.211 (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's called JLA: Tower of Babel by Mark Waid, Batman doesn't 'kick the JLA's butts' Ra's Al Ghul does using plans Batman fabricated in case the JLA ever went rogue and needed to be stopped. It's JLA collection #7, if you want to go buy it.Zero no Kamen (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne on this edit. How do we know that the bibliography covers these? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I should probably not have removed the tags in sections such as "Supporting characters" and "Batcave", but in some of the other sections ("Costume", and the intro to "Skills, abilities, and resources", to name a few), the case is different. The article's syntax changed quite a lot for the better through its last FA-review and in the time between then and now. While those changes were occuring, many of the editors who were adding the bulk of comments now tagged were among the same adding the Daniels, Pearson, Jones, etc. refs. So it seems most of the other editors just assumed any uncited sentence from a paragraph which contained a ref later on came from those guys. I wished I owned more of those books so I could make sure in all cases. While I can't understand how can "Batman's costume incorporates the imagery of a bat in order to frighten criminals" can be considered not surmisable from the bibliography, I do agree that there's some problems in some of the sections tagged, but they're problems having to do with a bit original research here and there and unnecessary references to miniscule events in minuscule stories, despite the nice syntax. Maybe there's simply no need for the article to say Batman's is "peerless" in matters of intellect, and therefore no need for a source. Could a major article re-write be what's needed? --Ace ETP (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Which are you suggesting: {{rewrite}} or {{underconstruction}}? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Sorry, I was delayed in getting here. I know its a necessary evil, but I really hate when we use specific issues to reference material. I know that several books have been published that cover the discussion of Batman's publication history and whatnot, and DV tends to keep a pretty good rolling db on this sort of stuff.
Regarding the surmisable, I am fortunate enough to know people in mainland China and other places in Asia who have never heard of Batman, and aren't aware of the various things that I asked for citation on. When Bruce decided that the bat was a symbol that be used to frighten criminals is something that could be cited. I would go so far as to suggest that the classic three-panel comic image of Bruce asking the question/bat flying through the french doors/Bruce deciding how bats will work on the "cowardly, criminal lot" might express this perfectly (note that this remains the same despite the evolution of Bruce's fear of bats, a la Legends). This is a link to the panels in question
I should point out that I despise OR and synthesis - common knowledge and common sense aren't. We must approach these articles as if they were being read by absolute beginners to the subject matter (and not simpletons or children).
Lastly, rewrites are always a good thing. It takes the good parts of the previous versions and sifts out the outdated or outmoded preconceptions of the earlier material. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If you despise OR so much, why did you revert my deletion of User:Djfspence's contribution and your innapropiate addition of the descriptor "ridiculous" to describe the 60's television series? Both those edits can't be defended with the arguments you're using towards the inclusion of the tags. One side of an argument should NEVER use the fact that the discussion is ongoing as a justification to revert edits which responded to concerns outside the scope of the argument (in this case, a troublesome edit by a third party threatening to make an edit conflict even worse, and the addition of a personal opinion about something). As for your question, Seeshomaru, I'm leaning towards {{rewrite}}, but the particular advantages and disadvantages of both proposed procedures should be evaluated before making a decision. --Ace ETP (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In answer to your first question, it is because what I hate more than OR is the lack of discussion, Ace. Granted, what I should have done is remove campy and instead of ridiculous and substituted banal (the more accessible definition of campy), and I will do so at the end of the discussion.
As well, Djfspence's contribution was sourced, like 90% of the material here - via a comic. That it seemed to specifically explore the Batman/Bruce dichotomy seemed in an interesting way seemed a positive contribution, not a "troublesome edit". I think that discussion should have occurred, and my revert of that edit was meant to inspire that dialogue (as per WP:BRD). As it prompted your posting here, it would seem to have worked. Why do you feel the contribution wasn't needed? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made an edit to the bruce wayne section, segregating the basic Bruce Wayne premises into one para, and the comparisons to superman into the other. ThuranX (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Page needs more citations - arbitrary break 1

  • I've pulled some of these tags, they seem to ask for citations on things which fall under sparkling writing rather than facts which actually need verifying. I think some of the ones remaining are also a little over-sensitive. Hiding T 09:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed, and I have reverted some of them. Usually, we do not remove a citation unless we put a citation in its place, it isn't called for (in the case of - as you called it - "sparkling writing"), or discussion consensus as to how the facts are so common and/or well-known that citation exists literally everywhere.
These are the cn tag removals I reverted:
  • "The costumes' colors are traditionally..." - traditionally according to who, exactly? Granted, this might be an example of flowery prose (I think it's okay, personally), but until the text is rewritten, we are left with an unsupported statement of implied preference through the use of the word traditional - ie, the use of other colors is unusual?
  • "The origin of the signal varies, depending on the continuity and medium" - The origin of the Bat-Signal should be expanded upon, as well as how (and perhaps, if possible, why) such an innocuous thing needs constant reinterpretation. I should have marked this with an expansion tag, but could not find one that was statement-specific. My apologies for any resultant confusion.
I think that the addition of these citations would only improve the article, and would request that the tags not be reverted without further discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay. The word signature doesn't mean most notable, so if that's the only reason you've added it, I think we can remove that one. I'm unclear on what you want cited regarding the yellow ellipse. If you want information that is not in the article cited, you don't add a citation tag, but rather an expansion one. But that information is better added to another article. The information within the article is already cited to Les Daniels' book. There is a citation to it at the end of the sentence. If you wish to know more, you should read that book. That's how an encyclopedia works, it directs you to further reference works, it is not the ultimate compendium but an overall summary. The reason you have stated for adding back the tag on the greatest detective makes no sense to me. I'm not claiming anything. As to the origin of the bat-signal, this isn't the article to explore the different stories surrounding it. That would be best discussed in an article on the Bat-signal. Have you watched the different media and noted that the origin stories are different? If not, you cannot dispute the citation. You can only dispute a citation if you have verified it does not represent the source. You add a citation needed tag when no citation is present. As I have explained, the citation exists in the text, it is citing the various media. Hiding T 09:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Unrelated point, it's not me who refers to it as sparkling writing. That used to be what the Brilliant prose process called for. The brilliant prose process is now the FA process. I notice that the word sparkling is no longer used, although the desired standard is still high, being that "prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard." Hiding T 10:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • My mistake, it used to be "sparkling prose". Hiding T 10:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, could you be troubled to utilize the normal indenting style? It makes separating your comments from your specific bullet points (and the bullet points I, as another editor made immediately above); not everything you say is a bullet point.
Secondly, I am a little confused by the tone of your response. You don't need to bring any condescension here. Perhaps we have slightly different impressions of what the Wikipedia encyclopedia is supposed to be; at the very least, you clearly are mistaken about my level of understanding of it.
Of course, WP is not a compendium in the way you are thinking, but it is supposed to be a concise treatment of the subject matter.It is not an overall summary - that is the definition of the Lead, not the article. Does that mean it should be a fan-crufty clutter of non-essential crap? No. But it will be the go-to article on the subject - or at least that should be our intent. That's the reason we cite everything that requires it. If folk want to explore the matter, they know where to do so. If they want to write branch articles of a particular facet of the Batman, the citation serves as launching point for that sub-article research.
But those questions which are likely to be asked by the reader - readers who are unfamiliar with the Daniels book, or who might not have as exhaustive a knowledge of All Things Batman as you appear to possess - should be addressed within the parent article. Why did the Batman logo come into existence? Why was it later removed? Simply saying that a fact is referenced 'earlier in the article' is not sufficient. If a fact that comes up needs citation, it doesn't need it at some point earlier, it needs it there.

That being said, most of your added citations appear to be helpful, though the ones in th costume section - which added my name in the reference (what the hell was that about?) were pretty useless. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, a while ago I did some heavy work on this article, rewriting much of the prose and incoporating most of the references now included. My intention was to avert another Feature Article Review; after writing some Featured Articles myself, I came to the conclusion that the Batman article at that time (poorly written in places, marred with fancruft, only cited with about 18 footnotes, many of them to issues instead of reliable secondary sources) did not fit the criteria. I had finished work on most of the article when a couple of editing debates came up that soured me on working on it, even though I had put so much work into it. The places were citations are requested are virtually all in spots I planned to rewrite before I stopped working on the article. I'm not sure I want to start working on it again, but I want to stress that when rewriting and sourcing the section, rely on the best secondary sources, ie. the Daniels book, Wright, various peer-reviewed academic essay. Think "what does a person who knows nothing about Batman need to know?" For one, they certainly don't need an explanation of the Bat-signal beyond "the police use it to ask for Batman's help". I was actually planning to remove the separate Bat-signal section and just work a one-sentence mention of it in somewhere appropriate. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Wesley - seen you around the playground before, but never got a real chance to say howdy. So, howdy. :)
For the most part, I agree with you on your comments about the re-write of the article, as well as the need for sources outside the comic issue. If secondary sources are available, of course we should go for them, but as is often the case with comic books, sources from books not composed of newsprint or composed mainly of artboxes is hard to find. As well, sometimes, it's helpful to know when certain turning points occurred in a comic book (the death of Gwen Stacy, Bane breaking the Batman's back, the death of Captain America, and the pivotal (seeming) death of Bucky).
Often, knowing what issues these events occurred in is as important to the user as is the postscript analyses of these events. I've been reading Batman off and on since I could read as a child, and I've always wondered why the yellow ellipse was adopted and later why it was dropped. Now, the grown-up in me understands that these changes took place under the writing or artwork of different folk, who interpreted the Bat this way or that, and I suppose that (if cited) is an excellent way to iterate that in the article. The kid in me, the person wonders how Batman develops all those wonderful gadgets and whatnot needs to be satisfied, too. I don't think that meeting these not-entirely-unrelated needs is all that hard to do.
The batsignal thing is the tip of the issue, in many ways. Aside from the essentially in-universe method of describing events, there must exist somewhere a citable description of why the origin of this seemingly innocuous invention has changed time and again. I get that the origin of the Batman is going to change, as our understanding of the human psyche expands; I just think that we need to provide citable evidence of this occurring as a phenomena, and not just as a changing of the guard at DC, or the zany Batman stories of the 50's and 60's, where he has a red costume for dealing with lava monsters from the UnderBelly (or whatever).
I hope some of what I mentioned makes sense. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to source and rewrite bits of the article. Hiding T 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed. A pretty nice job of it, too. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Kudos to my colleagues for the good work on the article and the great discussion on this page. Just wanted to say. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
wanted to bring attention to the original sketches/artist of Batman: http://www.originalbatman.com/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahhn (talk • contribs) 23:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman v Bruce Wayne.

I recall an interview with Bale (or possibly Nolan) that said that the Batman Begins portrayal wasn't Batman/Bruce Wayne but rather Batman/Bruce Wayne/Millionaire-Playboy-Bruce-Wayne. I can't find the ref again, of course, but will keep look... unless someone else knows it. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the constant deletion of my Balance, Bruce Wayne/Batman argument? It is a perfectly valid point, If you read Batman 515 you'll notice he talks abut keeping a balance between Bruce Wayne and Batman, knowing who Batman is but not knowing who Bruce Wayne is. Again in Batman 542 he talks about keeping a balance in the narrative, Bruce Wayne must be the one to save Batman from the point of obsession and Batman must be the one to save Bruce Wayne from complete self-absorbtion. I'm perfectly willing to talk out any disputes we may have over the issue. Zero no Kamen (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey ZnK. The reason I reverted the addition was that the content was a product of synthesis (ie. you adding an interpretation/summation/evaluation of the Batman/Bruce Wayne 'dualism'). We can't do that without references that speak specifically to that evaluation. What would be a better fit is if we find an external (meaning outside the comic book) source speaking as to the duality and shift in perception/execution of this duality. I understand why this might be difficult, but comic series - esp. long-running ones like Batman - are breeding grounds for retconned information and viewpoints. This is why its always better to try and find more static information speaking as to what was going on. I think that blogs and podcasts by the creators in these instances are frequently allowed (as they are in Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica are good examples of such). Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. Can we get hold of Doug Moench, or Denny O'Neil? They would provide an external source, some evidence. O'Neil would be very easy to do, he writes a weekly column, but other than perhaps asking these people and then citing the results there is nothing other than the run of books themselves that I can give as a reference. If the books themselves are substantial then I can quote the narrative where Batman suggests he needs a balance in his duality.Zero no Kamen (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Batman's Height

Is there any official listing on Batman's height. I know that he is very tall in the comics but the actors that have portrayed him in film are average sized. My guess is that he is around 6' 6" judgeing by the comic books of course.

- - Yes, there is: http://www.dcuguide.com/who.php?name=batman [1](a transcription of the old DC Who's Who) lists him as 6'2" and 210 lbs. Generally, Who's Who is seen as canonical, much like the OHOTMU is for Marvel. Alparrott (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Batmobile

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 stay with the most current version appearing in the comics. Bruce_Kenobi April 24th 2008 13:05 GMT-5

I would tend to agree with you that the statement about only 1 picture per section is a bit draconian, considering the large number of FA and GA articles that fail that unique assessment (Ronald Reagan and 300 immediately come to mind, since I've worked on both of those FA articles). That being said, the temptation to add images that are decorative instead of informative can be almost overwhelming at times. You should always ask yourself whether the image you are adding helps explain something the text alone simply cannot. For example, this image from 300 compares the imagery from the source graphic novel by Frank Miller to that which was recreated in film. This image illustrates better than mere text that the film was an extraordinarily faithful adaptation of the source material.
I think the reason that the comic representations weren't useful is that a) they are copywritten images, and b) they don't illustrate anything other than coolness. Now, if you to add an image of the Batmobile from the Bale-Batman series, you could justify that. If you could find supplemental citation as to how the production team developed the idea of the Batmobile, you could certainly add that. Even better would be citation about how the production team moved away from the sleek looks of the actually-crafted vehicle from the 60's series and the computer-generated vehicle from the pre-Bale films. Frankly, that would be awesome. Hope that addresses some of your questions. Please feel free to ask any others. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Citation from written, and "official" sources as to the direction the batmobile took in the Bale-Batman movies is something that can be done, as well as another image from "the tumbler" as it is coloquially refferred. The thing is if we can stay with the newest batmobile and take down the 60's era one for the aforementioned reasons. Bruce_Kenobi 15:20, April 24th 2008 GMT-5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.24.210.1 (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess it could be discussed, but I personally think that the notability - in immediate identification of the auto with the Batman for 1-2 generations of tv-watching kids is apparent. The "Tumbler", less so. A side-by-side comparison can be made, but I think the 60's Lincoln Futura is something that should remain. If you are having trouble finding a good starting point, try Batmobile. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Fictional Biography

I think it'd be quite an accomplishment if we could make a seperate fictional biography page so that the one here can be truncated and the detail added in on a seperate page with headings to make it easier to find arcs, like Spidey has. Tony2Times (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is the point to be of this fictional biography? To recreate him from our own ideas? Or to remake this same articale, even though this is a fictional character to begin with? --Pentazemin (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Batman's Abilities

Should it be mentioned that Batman is the only being (Superman survived it, Wonderwoman deflected it with ther bracelets) to successfully evade Darkseid's Omega Beam (effect)? This happened in JLU episode 5x13'Destroyer', so I'm not sure if people believe this canonical? Myself0101 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No. 1. What happens in the cartoon is not canon to all other media. 2. Batman has been the only person to do many, many different things, too many to mention. 3. It's not one of his defining qualities. Doczilla STOMP! 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In many of the movies and games of Batman he has been shown to use unknown means (which tend to look like fear or torture) to gain information that no one else has the skill to get from many criminals and eniemies, Does anyone know exactly what he does? and if he uses this ability in the comics then its canon with his abilities so why isn't it noted down somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.173.165 (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Similarity to Jason Voorhees?

In someways, couldn't batman be described as the protagonist version of Jason Voorhees? Both are shadowy figures with a dark past, and both lack any supernatural powers other than shear strength. Both are dark and reclusive, showing little emotion or mercy for their enemies, and both are often portrayed as effectively invincible. The only difference is that Batman kills those who are threats to the city, while Jason kills those who tread on the grounds of the camp where he died. Fusion7 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

First, Batman doesn't kill people (at least not with any regularity). Second, this isn't the place to discuss hypothetical symbolisms. If you're talking about improving the article, great, but without a literary analysis it would be original research for us to say anything of the sort. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 00:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Where else can I go to do this then? There is no other place to turn to. Fusion7 (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
A good place to talk about this might be 4chan.org/co/. Wikipedia is not the place for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.154.20 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that 4chan is a "a good place" for much of anything, unless maybe the comics section is MUCH more intelligent than the rest of that cesspool of Internet stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.146 (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I do see some similarities. Especially in Frank Miller's "Return of the Dark Knight". He was shot,stabbed, and beat with a wrench and yet managed to survive and recover.

What a random thing to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.77.248 (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that you are right with the similarities but it doesn't belong in this article. In all reality you can actually find similarities and diffrences between most things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imavapmpire (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Batman as a villain revisited

In light of the events which take place in the new movie (The Dark Knight), I've decided to attempt again to add this section. There is mounting evidence that this is justified and I will here provide a couple of links making the case. Spoiler Alert! The Dark Knight is an Unmasked Bush Apologist here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Spoiler-Alert---The-Dark-K-by-Ray-Louis-080718-217.html AND “Batman Begins”: Bruce Wayne, Defendant here: http://overlawyered.com/2005/06/batman-begins-bruce-wayne-defendant/

From the previous discussions of the deleted section (Batman as a Villain)... "How can ALL my heavily cited edits not be accurate or verifiable? You are not giving me any slack here! Has he ever been guilty of any sort of crime ever? Has anyone ever pointed out those crimes inside and outside of Batman's fictional universe? Your position seems to be that Batman is a hero period. But modern comic book characters are often complex with their criminal dark sides. I can admit that Batman has saved the day more than once -- but that does not mean I will only point out those times and omit from mention any of his crimes." --Nihilozero (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism should go to the film's article, not the actual comics character. Alientraveller (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This article draws on characteristics from various media elsewhere in the page and such characteristics should not just be acceptable if they are generally considered good traits. In any case... Batman tortures in various forms of the media so that characteristic should have a place here. --Nihilozero (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If vague notions of Batman's homosexuality can be explored, then cited questions about his criminal behavior should be allowed -- at least for discussion. That obvious fans of the character are deleting the fact that he uses torture tactics is destroying the comprehensive credibility of this page. --Nihilozero (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The torture aspect deserves a mention (a mention), in the context that this is occasional in longssome media portrays. In the several thousand Batman stories told in comics, animation, live-action, TV/film, prose, etc., his use of torture is at best a single-digit percentage of his tactics, probably less. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The question is where it is notable. It seems to me that torturing is at least as mentionable as intimidation. Torturing is a skill and since Batman is remarkably successful with it, it should be listed next to escape artistry. And finally... it is noteworthy that Batman uses illegal tactics to fight crime. The latter point being rather oxymoronic and atypically heroic to say the least -- especially when a tactic as morally dubious as torture is used. And it seems to me that how often he does something is not as important as how defining and well known the trait is. If someone only launched a nuclear bomb once, that would be notable even though rare -- but Batman is a known torturer from various forms of media and this tactic deserves mention (at least in passing at a few points in the article). This is especially true since a "Batman as Villain" section is not allowed despite being accused of villainy by characters in his universe as well as by those who have analyzed the (cited) content and also determined this to be the case. As I've said... this merits at least as much attention as the "Homosexual interpretations" section which I have no problem with. --Nihilozero (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Whereas most of the other notable skills and attributes are easily cited (escape artistry, detective skills, disguise, etc.), torture has yet to be cited. I think you will find that this is because most instances of "torture" take place offpanel, where they are open to interpretation. Also, as I stated elsewhere - in raising the torture issue, an argument must be made that it is notable across the entire publication history of the character, and all media interpretations. If you're only referring to the Frank Miller version of the character (non-canonical), for example, then the argument of Batman as torture expert doesn't really bear up as a defining character trait the way such traits as his athleticism or intelligence do (because they tend to be shared by all versions of the character). Alparrott (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Batman dosen't really torture per se, as interrogation would be a better way to descibe it; torture would rather be considered sadistic or a sort of punishment by a nuetral point of view; he dosen't hurt criminals for personal amusement, but for useful information, illegal as it may be. --Pentazemin (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2¢... -ish...

Nihilozero has raised something fairly valid — the character (topic of this article) has a core element from inception to present of fitting the mold of a "villain". This isn't just an aspect of one film or a lone comic book arc, its something multiple comic book writers have commented on.

As section pointing up those inteview and link critical commentary isn't out of line. But...

  1. WP:NPOV needs to be followed. Such a section should be minimized or sensationalized.
  2. Secondary sources: The section would need to be based on interviews, reviews, and critical commentary. Not just just a listing of the laws the character has broken or the moraly questionalbe acts he's done.

- J Greb (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Others in the past have shared your acceptance of this balancing section to serve balance and clarification of the character. Nevertheless, fans remove the section no matter how well it may have been cited in the past. I could try to reformulate it, but I want to make sure that it would withstand most scrutiny. The links at the top of this section partially serve the purpose, as have previously cited quotes from characters within the comics and movies. I would like to see the commentary from the writers and wouldn't mind using a section on my user page as a sandbox for a new section. If no one wants to recreate the section themselves, I would welcome relevant material posted on my user page. Eventually I might get around to posting that section but critics and defenders of the section come and go with more or less involvement at times and I want to make a section which will stand the test of time.

--Nihilozero (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nihilozero wrote: "it is noteworthy that Batman uses illegal tactics to fight crime." Indeed. But that doesn't make him a villain, merely a vigilante. Which is surely both a more accurate term and one less likely to cause people to baulk at the inclusion.
Added to which, there's obviously a fine line between terms such as "torture," "menace," "coercion" and "intimidation." The word 'Torture' (wrongly) implies in many minds the extraction of a false confession - Batman intends to extract the truth to save lives. That opens up a number of philosophical arguments (one vs. many; how far is too far, etc.) but doesn't automatically connote villainy. ntnon (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I am going to offer a compromise since, particularly in light of the new movie, several people obviously do not see Batman as much of a here -- to say this. Instead of "villain" (which is somewhat appropriate) how about a "Batman as a Criminal" section? I know not everyone sees him this way, but a sizable portion of the public does -- especially now that his abhorrent tactics have been highlighted in the Dark Knight. So, in addition to all the critical commentary, all the "villains" from the comic books and movies could have a section to have their in-universe perceptions highlighted. All of Wayne Enterprises questionable activities could be shown with balanced criticism, and Bruce Wayne/Batman could have his vigilante tactics (of torture, intrusive surveillance, etc.) duly noted. I think this is fair and necessary to balance all the glossed-over character flaws of Batman. --Nihilozero (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that "Batman as a Vigilante" would be a better title than "Batman as a Criminal". If the section is even needed at all. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Duggy 1138 on both counts (including the "if even needed") Note: If this goes through, remember that Wiki subhead MOS is that only the first word and proper nouns are capped. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem with "vigilante" is that it doesn't express that characters in his universe (as well a people in ours) feel that he is a criminal (in spite of and in addition to the fact that he is a vigilante), if not an outright villain. So this section can be supported by quotes from fictional characters, criminal acts noted in the various media forms, and critical evaluations and reviews (including at least one youtube video). I understand that most people see Batman as a hero (super-hero even), but a sizable number see him as more of a criminal villain -- and this should be noted for balance (as the "homosexual interpretations" section is allowed with similar criteria -- and I dare say that more people question his criminality rather than his sexuality). --Nihilozero (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Having read the various Batman books for going on three decades, and the many many stories published between 1938 and now, I'm going to point out - the criminal aspect of Batman would only be applicable to certain interpretations of the character (the earliest and most recent ones, to be specific). For most of his publication career, Batman was a duly appointed and deputized agent of the Gotham City Police Department by order of Commissioner Gordon. Any discussion of Batman's criminality would have to take that into account. Alparrott (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The status of a vigilante is subjective. Some people see the vigilante as a hero, some as an anti-hero, some as a criminal and some, even as a villain. And this can vary from vigilante to vigilante (in JLA/Avengers Batman saw Punisher as a villain, and often does with other Gotham vigilantes while accepting those he sanctions as heroes.)
This applies in our universe about real vigilantes and about comic book vigilantes. It applies in the DCU and most of the other media versions.
"Batman as vigilante" covers all four views of his actions, and decribes the type of criminal acts involved. To use "Criminal" or "Villain" priviledges one or two views over the rest.
Plus, all of Batman's criminal behaviour is vigilantism. What criminal acts is Batman commiting that aren't part of his vigilantism? Duggy 1138 (talk)
If we're defining vigilantism as simply the unsanctioned apprehension of criminals, then his 'criminal' behavior runs the gamut from breaking and entering (numerous occasions), assault and battery (same), traffic violations of every shape and size (same), reckless endangerment, disturbing the peace, child endangerment.. the list goes on and on. Technically, without any proof that he possesses either a valid drivers' or pilot's license (I tend to think Batman himself has never applied for either) he is driving and flying unlicensed as well. None of this, of course, tends to deter the Batman's image as a viable comic fantasy hero, any more than Superman's insistence on not registering flight plans with the FAA does... IMHO. Alparrott (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Citizen's arrest is a legal way that anyone can apprehend criminals. Vigilantism is a catch all term for illegal behaviour related to unsanctioned chasing of criminals. If I go around shooting known drug dealers in the head, I'm a murder and a vigilante. If I also rob banks that is a criminal act which isn't part of my vigilante behaviour. Batman's B&E, Assault & Battery, traffic violations, etc, are all part of his vigilante behaviour. Some people will see these things as OK, because they are part of him solving crime, others will see any vigilante behaviour as criminal. Which takes us back to the original point... what criminal behaviour that Batman is involved in isn't cover by "Batman as Vigilante"? Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
And now we're back to whether or not Batman was actually a vigilante for the balance of his publication history - which he wasn't. He was arguably a deputized agent of the law in his two most culturally impacting incarnations - the comics (from Batman #7, Nov 1941, till "Batman: Year One" and "DKR") and the 60's TV show. Whether or not you prefer the character in those incarnations is beside the point. So could we have a balancing section - "Batman as lawman"? Or, to save space and preserve NPOV, how about one section, say, "Batman's relationship with the law" or a similar topic, presenting both sides fairly and equitably? Alparrott (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you recommend any sources beyond the comics themselves on which to base the section? Or notable issues which specifically reference this position? For instance when he was deputised? Otherwise it will be a fairly short section. Hiding T 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Beyond the quoted issue above, he was both described as such and described himself as such in the 60's show and in the movie; he and Robin are invited to observe an electric-chair execution in Detective #210; in at least one version of the character he succeeded Jim Gordon as police commissioner (Earth-Two - see All-Star Comics #66)); those are just a few examples in the comics. Also, Fleischer's Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes Vol. 1 is a pretty comprehensive source on Batman's publication history up to the late 1970's - it's been quite a while since I leafed through a copy but I remember with confidence Batman's status as a deputized GCPD member being mentioned. Alparrott (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Typo in the page

The third sentence of cultural impact contains a typo pertaining to the word artifact. Currently it is spelled artefact, if someone would please correct.

In the "Enemies" section, the phrase "Many of Batman's foes seam to be..." should be corrected to "Many of Batman's foes seem to be..."

-If you see a typo, go ahead and change it yourself.Thunderflame (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be noted IMHO

The persona of Bruce Wayne isn't considered a complete waste. As Wayne, he fired a bunch of people who disagreed with the 'quake-proof the Gotham buildings' plan he had. Lots42 (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bat-Embargo

The keywords "Bat-Embargo" redirects here, but this page makes no mention of the said restriction on characters. Shouldn't there be a section explaining that if that term will take a curious searcher here? DanMat6288 (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Skills Matched by Blue Beetle (And maybe others)

I recently read the DC Wiki's article on Blue Beetle. It mentioned that his inventive skill matched Batman. So I was thinking off putting in something like "Ted Kord matches Bruce's inventive and scientific skills." I don't have a clue how to cite it, assuming the other wiki entry IS a valid source. --ArtifexCrastinus (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that an entry on another wiki (or even wikipedia itself) isn't a valid source. I'm pretty sure it's the old uni assignment thing of always citing the original source. If the BB entry is cited, use that as your source, if it isn't cited, I'd add a citation needed tag to that claim.
As to the need for the line, I'm not sure it is necessary. It's a "Ho'od Win" over inventiveness and science... and the article doesn't need that. "Oliver Green matches Bruce's weapon skills", "Shiva matches Bruce's Martial Arts skills", etc, etc. So I see the line as meaningless
Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

why can´t i edit here?

i´ve made the edits i needed to get ten in the sandbox but still i can´t edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leavesslaves (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Teetotalism

I think it's notable to mention that, at least in the current revision of Bruce Wayne's character, he's a teetotaler. I remember seeing his name in older revisions of the list of teetotalers (back when it still included fictional characters) and just thought that was neat, since I'm not aware of any other major super heroes who can be identified as such. I also found this listed on the DC Database wiki's page on "New Earth" Bruce Wayne. I must confess that I haven't done a lot of digging into this subject, and some have pointed out to me that this trait might be somewhat inconsistent over the years with different "versions" of Batman appearing, but I would still argue that it's a defining trait of Bruce Wayne. So I tried to edit this article twice now, both times having it reverted by another user who has the opinion that it's not notable. I strongly disagree, hence posting here. So where do I go from here? Do others users chime in, or do I need to make some kind of request for arbitration? --Soapergem (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Goodness knows. Notability is inherently subjective, but I would tend to agree. It's a reasonably important trait that Bruce Wayne projects the image of a party-goer who likes a good time, and yet he manages to swing it that he doesn't drink. Even in The Dark Knight, that is shown (which was great), so... I don't see why a sourced comment on his teetotal status can't be mentioned here. ntnon (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Batman movie versions

We should add a section on representations of Batman in different animated and non-animated films and tv shows. Such as simple facts that in Justice League Unlimited Batman's ears are longer and thinner and Robin doesn't exist. Arthritix (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Better suited here, in any case. ntnon (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Citing nolan's influence

Aside from WesleyDodds, does anyone think that it's scandalous to include Christopher Nolan in the lead section for a recent surge in popularity for Batman? -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. I say go for it. --Soapergem (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I say wait, to avoid recentism. Hiding T 10:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Secret Identity

Isn't Batman Bruce Wayne's secret identity? It doesn't make much sense to say that Bruce Wayne is Batman's secret identity, since Wayne is the actual individual who become Batman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.136.127 (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Good point. I guess the thing is it is a matter of perspective: the article is about Batman, and so in that context Bruce Wayne is the secret identity. After all, The Batman is a fictional construct whose primacy is established over that of Bruce Wayne's; Batman was created first, Bruce Wayne was established afterwards. Hiding T 10:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You did make a valid point, but bruce since having become batman has only served as a way for batman to protect his loved ones. So Batman is thus the truer form of the two —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerkhb5 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Batman R.I.P.

Are we waiting for this story to conclude before we make mention of it in Batman's article? --CmdrClow (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes... it's easier to compress the entire arc down to 2 or 3 lines (remember, there's an article on the arc for a reason) instead of re-writing them and re-compressing as the issues hit the stand. - J Greb (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Isn't there a better picture of Batman that could be used? With his tight schedule I can't see him taking the time to do a posedown atop some weird sculpture. 70.54.127.91 (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You sure are funny. :( DCEdwards1966 03:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It is a pretty stupid, exceedingly cheesy drawing. That skintight suit, the pansy bodybuilder physique, the obvious posing (why not an action shot?). They can't do better than this? 70.54.124.147 (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, is this a serious question? Because I honestly cannot tell. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by Jcbutler

I do not agree with Jcbutler's edits, which go against the very teachings of WP:CMC/X. Care to explain? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, against the very teachings of WP:CMC/X. I had no idea this was so serious! But actually, I was merely reverting a total revert of some of my previous edits by another user. If there is something specific you are objecting to, let's discuss it and fix it. Friends? --Jcbutler (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure. What exactly is it that you don't agree with? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping you would tell me what you found objectionable about my edits. I know WesleyDodds thinks I use unsightly paragraphs, but I've been making an effort to improve the quality of the writing in this article. Now seriously, read the first sentence out loud and tell me what you think...

Batman (originally referred to as the Bat-Man and still referred to at times as the Batman) is a fictional comic book superhero co-created by artist Bob Kane and writer Bill Finger (although only Kane receives official credit), appearing in publications by DC Comics.

That sentence is about as clunky as they get. My edits broke it up into smaller, neater sentences. But apparently, the emerging consensus is that I'm totally wrong, so you tell me... --Jcbutler (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta go with Sesshomaru here. The way it is now is not only more descriptive but more...not sure I know exactly what wording to use here, but I guess it's just worded better (I like "Creation" instead of "Origins" because I think of an origin as an in-universe thing when the section is the outside-universe creation of Batman, and the homosexuality thing sounds better than simply "sexuality" as it's more precise. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the word is 'concise', Anakinjmt. Stuff that we read isn;t always meant to be read aloud. An encyclopedia is not Dr. Seuss. However, I think using sexuality is better to use than homosexuality. There are jackasses out there (like Joel Schumacher, May He Rot In Hell) who see only homosexuality, while there are others who see him as asexual or unable to enter fully into any sexual relationships. Sexuality offers an entré into both discussions, whereas homosexuality is confining. like anatomically-correct rubber suits. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think "concise" is the word I was looking for, thanks. I wasn't aware of people seeing Batman as asexual. However, as the phrase in question is in the section titled "Homosexual interpretations", I'm in favor of leaving it as "homosexual." If we had any sources with info about him being asexual or unable to enter fully into any sexual relationships, then I'd say change it to make it more open, but as it stands now, "homosexuality" would fit better. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think using the more generalized "Sexuality" would be more encyclopedic, as it address the subject of his sexuality, ie, comments suggesting his homosexuality in contradiction of the norm. I guess I do feel somewhat strongly about this. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you talking about changing the header name to "Sexuality"? That might not be a bad idea, although I will say again I'd feel better about it if we had some info about this "asexual Batman" that you mentioned. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem with either creation or homosexuality, though creationism would be another matter. But you guys have to admit that I was right about "1950s and 1960s". I mean, come on... --Jcbutler (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I didn't like anything you did. I asked you earlier what specifically you didn't agree with so that we could touch base on that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well, I didn't see you adding "s" to decade spans. I don't have a problem with that. Anakinjmt (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Heh heh, I believe that I understand where this article is coming from much better now. That said, I will leave my S as my lasting contribution and bid you farewell. --Jcbutler (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
(Not to rain on a parade, but unless I am mistaken, a diffferent jc restored the "s" to the header : ) - jc37 07:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is about batman that he was The hero And he was a great man. And i hope my Article has to be true........ 




       love Anna...... fggffg

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.110.26 (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

PLease?

Yes, batman i am a huge fan and i would like to see more or your sidekick in shows, no offence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosker34 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dead Pages?

Found this Chief_Miles_O'Hara under WP:DEP...Does anyone know if this character is "factual"? If so, please add a link from this article...167.234.12.79 (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Matches" Malone

Several articles have Wikified references to "Matches" Malone, but they all redirect to this, the Batman article. This article does, eventually, explain that this is Bruce's underworld alter-ego, but the reader would basically have to read most of this long-ish article to find out. Furthermore, I think "Matches" might be interesting enough for an article of his own. I barely remember anything about how he does that. Does he wear makeup? A face mask? Anything clever he does to disguise himself? Does Bruce Wayne do accents? Is "Matches" Irish? Has there ever been "The Definitive 'Matches' Malone Story"? I think if we don't do a whole article on Matches, he should at least have his very own section in this article, so at least the URL can end in "/#Matches_Malone" or whatever, and the redirects can go straight to that.

--63.25.97.52 (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

JUST FOUND THIS LINK...

Silent Shadow of the Bat-Man #1 - Retro 1920s Dark Knight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_bjAhynSrY

Is this the first filmed appearance of Batman? I know many people think the 1943 serial is, but Silent films come before that. 75.186.111.99 (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with that is that Batman was created in 1936. The movie is either made to look earlier than the 40's serial, or post-dates the creation of the character. Also killing the authenticity is the inclusion of the Joker, who dodn't appear until 1940, well after talkies were all the rage. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Dmoz2

Template:Dmoz2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Qazin (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

organizational changes

This page is a FA, and at a time it might have been one. I don't really want to go though the hassile of renomination, but it seems like there could be changes:

1. The fictional character history almost completely leaves out the animated and film versions of him. admittedly this is difficult, but id almost say spin this off as a separate article, and expand the characterization section.

2. the alternative media section could also be spun off, or divided into multiple sections.

3. I am not sure if the publication history itself should be first. Admittedly comics are batman's original media, but the batman i was raised on was on the animated and film versionsl this a guess, but since comics aren't nearly as popular as they used to be, the majority of the 21st century audience might think of "batman" more on the films rather than the publication. I am pretty sure the 500 million dollar box office grossing of The Dark knight film shows that more ppl watched that film than read All Star Batman and Robin. maybe the other media section should not be at the end, but merged into a broad history section. the comic book publication history then could be moved to its own page. Oldag07 (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(The) Batman

This might seem to be just a bit pinicky, but surely the title of this article should be 'The Batman', as opposed to simply 'Batman'. Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Burma (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Batman end?

Just woke up and read this?. Is this true?. It says his fate will be sealed on 26 November. Is this true that a new batman will rise or is this the end of batman?.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

While something should probably be added to the article about this, it is unlikely that Bruce Wayne will actually die. Much like the Death of Superman (and every other high profile superhero) we will probably see a few months of stories dealing with this before the status quo is restored (see Status Quo is God at the TV Tropes Wiki) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides, no-one dies permanently in Comic Books, save for Uncle Ben. MightyKombat (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

We are not a news outlet: there is NO intelligent, encyclopedic reason for us to report this until we have multiple, reliable and incontrovertible citation as to the situation. We will not be used as part of the hype. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC) (who less-than-fondly recalls the brouhaha over the death of Captain America with utter loathing)

I've summarised multiple, reliable and incontrovertible sources as to the situation. Hiding T 05:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I've seen them. They aren't reliable, and they aren't incontrovertible. Allow me to ask a single, incisive question: what do we lose by waiting and being sure? What we have right now is hype and marleting. Period. I've read the comic in question. Until someone picks up Bruce Wayne's decapitated head from the wreckage of the helicopter, the man is not dead. Until we hear from his lips that he is done being Batman, we will not - under any circumstances - make that speculative and lemming-like leap o' faith. We are an encyclopedia, my friend. As smart as we all think we are, too many times before have we ALL been taken by a plot twist. I am not convinced that we (or more to the point, you) aren't getting gaslighted by folk who's stated purpose is to create interesting, intelligent and unpredictable stories.
Until we have reliable sourcing - say, from CNN, for example - we don't toss out our own fanciful notions of plot. Sorry for the perceived harsh, but let's not get lazy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
They are reliable, and what they say is incontrovertible. Wikipedia will do as wikipedia does. As smart as we think we are, I'd be entertained to hear anything from the lips of a fictional character. I'm not interested in what you think of me, because that has no bearing on anything at all. Let's just summarise the sources and let the dust settle. The world changes every day. The situation is adequately presented, all points of view are documented and we at least acknowledge the facts such as they are. For an encyclopedia, who could ask for anything more? Oh and the incisive question is answered by WP:NPOV: verifiability, not truth. We do not have to be sure of the truth, we have to be sure our summary represents sources through verification. You are right, let's not get lazy in our thinking here. Hiding T 21:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of unverifiable material

I have removed the following text: though officially, DC states that Morrison was "exaggerating". This material is sourced to this news item, which makes it quite clear that there was no official comment made: "DC Comics were refusing to offer on-the-record guidance". The only quote which mentions the death may be exaggerated is recorded in the article as opinion from "sources close to the firm", and is not an official statement from DC. Since this misrepresents the source I have removed it. I have also restored a quote which is reliably sourced and verifiable as existing within the pages of the newspaper through the link provided. Am unclear on what grounds the reliability of the source is being challenged. We are recording that The Metro quote an insider, which is utilising primary and secondary sourcing per WP:PSTS. Hiding T 21:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

LEGO Batman

Would someone who can edit the page please remove this sentence under the Bruce Wayne section?

"In LEGO Batman, players can play as Bruce Wayne as well as Batman.[88]"

It's irrelevant to Bruce Wayne as a character/alter ego to Batman and is a blatant shill for the LEGO Batman video game. It also falls under the "trivia" classification which Wikipedia discourages.

Jmelenson (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Batman Characters

Batman
Mad Hatter
Robin
The Monk
Nightwing
Ventrilequist and Scarface
Batgirl
Mr.Freeze
Alfred
Harley Quinn
Joker
Killer Croc
Bane
Killer Moth
Poison Ivy
Clayface
Catwoman
Ra's Al Gual
Penguin
Riddler
Hush
Two-Face
Man-Bat
Scarecrow
Lady Shiva
Firefly
Arrakhat
Orca
Mr.Zsasz
Lady Vic
Black Mask 
Spellbinder
King Snake
Maxie Zeus 
Simon Hurt
King Kraken
Damian Wayne/Al Ghul
Talia Al Ghul
Carmine Falcone
Bat-mite
The three ghosts of batman
Merlyn
The Batman of ZUR-EN-ARRH—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.200.198 (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Or

Nanana

Is this whole na na na na stuff some sick joke? Just wanted to know, this entry makes little encyclopedical sense right now. I'd personally revert it, if my stutus allowed it. --Godai (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, what are you talking about, Godai? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This, generally: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Batman&diff=257970054&oldid=257966722 Already undid, luckily --Godai (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Aliases?

Shouldn't The Dark Knight, The Great Detective, and The Caped Crusader be in his list of aliases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.207.61 (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think so. --Rendevous46 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
No... when the template was set up it was decided that nicknames shouldn't be included. And that's all thos really are. - J Greb (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. Nicknames are not aliases. Doczilla STOMP! 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Did he ever have aliases besides Matches Malone? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any that he has used with notable frequency. Doczilla STOMP! 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Death

Batman was killed by Darkseid's Omega Beam in Final Crisis #6. It should also be noted that Batman actually killed Darkseid as well by firing a god-bullet at him. http://www.wizarduniverse.com/011409batmandead.html 12.37.71.162 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Batman is not dead, the body of Bruce Wayne has been destroyed, however he is still alive somewhere. Someone should really add this it seems important.--ZODtheReaper (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The process of turning a live body into a corpse is called death. Reincarnation (or preincarnation in this case) in some other form still means the one in question died. Doczilla STOMP! 05:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

But the Omega Beam does not kill. ZODtheReaper (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened here is that Batman broke his rule, became evil, so had to "kill" himself. At least, in the story, it's implied that Batman's gone into hiding, if you read closely. Morrison said that Bruce Wayne isn't necessarily gone, so it doesn't quite work out as Bruce being dead. Therefore, Batman is not dead. We'll have to wait until summer to see for sure, because that is the release of the next comic book in that particular series in our Batman sub-universe within DCU. The Joker's Woman[BlackPearl14•contribs!] 02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think DC writers need to stop watching English/American soaps for plot ideas. I am quite done with the recent spate of tripe and Smell-the-Fart acting. Its a poor reaction of Marvel's Death of Cap America/Civil War storyline. Sorry, accidentally bumped against my Dismay-o-Meter, turning it on for a moment. ;) Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a trifle annoying. I really think that "ending" Batman is stupid and shouldn't be done. The legacy lives.... The Joker's Woman[BlackPearl14•contribs!] 01:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

well you'll be glad to know batman isn't ending, bruce wayne is temporarily lost due to serious mental insufficiencies e.g his mind being blasted through some kind of quantam soulwarp. Yet this is Bruce Wayne, he is the mohammad ali of comic capers, so due to that most true of truths he will return either as batman or maybe just as a wise prophey type figure with a name like "THE BAT" but this is just what I want, well I'd prefer just to see Bruce wayne as Batman, but issue #666 tells us that is quite unlikely or was that a dream, please tell me if you have any knowledge on the matter :)but for now Bruce Wayne's mind RIP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocheshred (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh... well, whatever, it's bound to show up next comic issue. Besides you're rephrasing what I said :) Haha, #666, huh? What an ironic number... Lady de Lioncourt[BlackPearl14•contribs!] 03:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with a statement

I am concerned with the following statement, found near the end of the Modern Batman subsection:

Although the presence of his corpse would seem to contradict that he would be alive,
at the conclusion of Final Crisis it is suggested that Batman has been sent to the distant past,
as a man in the Batman uniform watches the passing of Anthro.[2]

This seems to be synthesis; citing the comic doesn't give us license to offer our interpretations on what the events are, which is being implied by the musing "it is suggested". Am I missing something here? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Grant Morrison clearly stated that it was intended to be Batman at the end of Final Crisis #7. I took out all the "appearance" and "suggested" language from this section and included a citation of the interview (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).

January 12 Selected anniversary?

This article's talk page indicates that there is an event in it that is a January 12 Selected Anniversary. I do not see anything in the article but since I am not familiar with the topic I will not edit it. Could someone please verify? meshach (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Batman book

An interesting book which might be of some use in developing some content, but I don't know where or how much. Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul edited by William Irwin, Mark D. White, and Robert Arp. ISBN 978-0-470-27030-1, published by John Wiley & Sons in 2008. It is basically a collection of essays regarding Batman and how the characters related to philosophical issues. It's kind of, well, weird, but might have some material which might be usable. I'm not particularly sure where, though. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Time for a Bruce Wayne article?

While Morrison says that the fate of Bruce Wayne may be addressed, he has confirmed that "this is the end of Bruce Wayne as Batman." (http://comicbookresources.com:8080/?page=article&id=16024) In anticipation of a Bruce Wayneless future of Batman, I suggest that it will soon be time to have a Batman article, a Dick Grayson article, and a Bruce Wayne article. While the Batman article would still be about the Batman persona, information that pertains specifically to Bruce Wayne would only be in a subsection, as would info about Dick Greyson. May sound drastic, and I imagine this won't be implemented right away, but sooner or later this article will have to reflect this historic change. A gx7 (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to Morrison and his narrative intentions, this is not the end of Bruce Wayne as Batman. First of all, in the culture-at-large (that is, the people who don't follow the twists and turns of the DC Universe), Batman is still Bruce Wayne. When the sequel to The Dark Knight is made, Christian Bale will still be playing Bruce Wayne and Batman. Batman: The Brave and the Bold is not going to portray the Batman as anyone other than Bruce Wayne. Heck, even some DCU titles, such as Batman/Superman, will continue to show Wayne as Batman. The character of Batman originated in the DC Universe, but culturally he's much bigger than that, and an introduction to the character shouldn't get bogged down in details of current comics storylines.
Second, anyone with any knowledge of how comic book stories work knows that although Dick Grayson may remain as Batman in the main DCU books for a while, possibly even for a few years, eventually Bruce Wayne will be back in the cape and cowl. It's just like the "Death of Superman" in the '90s, or for that matter "Knightfall" — we'll get some variations on the theme for a while, but eventually the classic version of the character will return, for merchandising reasons if nothing else. Morrison may be writing as if this is the end of Bruce Wayne as Batman, but in publishing terms it won't be.
Third, the main focus of the article should be on the character as he has appeared in 99% of Batman stories, and not give undue weight to recent developments. It's appropriate to mention the current status with Dick as Batman later in the article, but I don't think it's necessary to split Bruce Wayne from Batman. In an overview of the 70-year history of Batman, Batman is Bruce Wayne and the current DC Universe storyline isn't that relevant. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The first point is very, very solid - The Bruce (Batman) Wayne character has not been barred from being the focus of new stories or uses.
The second... making statements on what will or won't be in the comics in 2010, 2011, or later is crystal balling. Wayne may be back by Christmas this year, or not until the Aztec doomsday, or never. Lets deal with what we have, not with what may be.
The third one is also very, very good, especially since this is an FA. Yes, what happens today should be included, but balanced appropriately.
Some other things to think about.
  • Right now we've got very, very few articles that separate the comic book character's alter egos (Superman/Clark Kent is the only one I can think of ATM) or separate the comic book character from the character in other media (and I mean articles that goes as deep as the primary... most of the IOM articles are little better than lists). There hasn't been a big need to split this article up prior to "R.I.P.", and nothing has really changed because of it.
  • MoS for naming articles is to always default to the most likely search term. In this case the most likely thing being looked for with "Batman" is this article. The Comics project MoS on naming kicks in when a dab is needed - that is if 2 or more search terms are equally likely to point to an article or 2 or more articles are equally likely to be the target of a search term.
  • Standing practice is that material relating to a specific character stays on that character's article. So the material relating to Dick as Batman goes into Dick Grayson, not here.
- J Greb (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Standing practice would actually dictate that material related to Dick as Batman should go on both, as this is the Batman article, not the Bruce Wayne article.68.172.215.137 (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Dick Grayson in lead

Related to the subject above, another editor has added mention of Dick Grayson as Batman in the article's lead. As I discuss above and here, I don't think that's necessary or appropriate; but since two editors now have added it, I suppose it should be discussed. I've argued my perspective; what do others think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be added. I'm not sure for how long they intend for Dick Grayson to be Batman, but when you read a DC comic with Batman from now on, it's Dick Grayson, not Bruce Wayne. That needs to be mentioned. Remember this is the "Batman" page, not the "Bruce Wayne" page. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
It should not be added. We are not in a hurry here, and I am getting mighty tired of folk thinking Wikipedia has to be the first ones with the news. Do we have solid - and I mean, abso-friggin-lutely diamond-hard citation? And no, comic book issues don't work for this situation. Without it, it should not be in. Stop being bamboozled and led by the nose. Await the story's ending, and stop trying to Sherlock it out, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes -- it should, and to respond to your other comments -- 1. Wikipedia would be decidedly not the first with the story, as we're about a month or so into it, and 2. The story has already ended. Bruce Wayne is dead (or, at the very least, extremely far away and not in this time/universe), and Newsarama has been doing interviews and articles about it for weeks (here are your diamond hard citations, directly from the mouths of the writer/artist/CEO of DC):
Poll: http://www.newsarama.com/comics/090604-dynamic-duo-poll.html
Interview with Grant Morrison (writer): http://www.newsarama.com/comics/060904-Grant-Batman.html
Thorough review of Batman & Robin #1: http://www.newsarama.com/comics/060903-BSE-BRobin.html
Interview with Frank Quitely (artist): http://www.newsarama.com/comics/060903-Quitely.html
7-pages of issue 1: http://www.newsarama.com/php/multimedia/album.php?aid=28430
Interview with Dan Didio (EIC): http://www.newsarama.com/comics/050928-DiDio20.html
Each of which explicitly state that Dick Grayson is the new Batman, and that that will remain for at least an entire year.Cody.schatzle (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Image issues

- J Greb (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Splitting article into Batman & Bruce Wayne

Bruce Wayne is dead. Dick Grayson is now taking the role of Batman. I think there is a good case here for splitting this article into Bruce Wayne and Batman. There are plenty of precedents for this, including Green Lantern, Blue Beetle and Robin (comics). These articles are about the superhero, with separate articles dealing with the individuals themselves.

Some people would argue that this is unnecessary. That Bruce Wayne is so culturally associated with Batman and/or that Batman will someday rise from the dead. With regards to the first point, there is no reason cultural opinion should override the apparent intentions of the company that owns the character (or vice versa). As to the theory that Bruce Wayne will be revived, that raises serious "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" issues.

Opinions?--122.109.145.31 (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A few quick ones...
  • Not all mantels get sloughed off that was. See Captain America for an example.
  • Guessing at the intentions of DC is its own for of crystal balling.
  • Frankly, splitting would leave Batman mostly an empty set index.
- J Greb (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For once in my life I agree with J Greb. Oh and Greb on Battle for the Cowl I put down some links. --Schmeater (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead, it might be a feasible idea to split the main Batman article into Batman (comics) for the comic book history and leave the main article for everything else. Just a thought, but there's a great deal of information for Batman without taking his comic book history into account. --CmdrClow (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Bruce Wayne should be separated into an independant article. With initiation of Dick Grayson into the Batman persona this will be the 3rd (5th if you count the recent Jason Todd and Tim Drake takings of the mantle) time that Batman has been inhabited by someone other than Bruce Wayne for a period of a few issues. I count Jean-Paul Valley and now Dick Grayson for the second time stepping into the cape. For clarities sake of timelining the characters of Batman and Bruce Wayne the articles should be divided. Swrogue (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Wayne is not dead. DC is not even pretending that Bruce won't resume the Batman identity at some point. Splitting the article off would serve no strong purpose and would indeed leave this article something of a link-riddled husk. Do not split. Doczilla STOMP! 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Splitting will not work Dick Grayson has his own page with his own history as Batman. Currently Grant Morrison stated that this is not like the Winter Soldier story in Captain America, Bruce is going to come back one way or another. If Bruce Wayne was gone, why would shows still be featuring him and why would they make a third movie. In fact why are they makeing the movie Arkham. That stars Bruce not Dick. Because Bruce is not gone why don't you merge the two articles if this is going to keep on happening. --Schmeater (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article just because of the current storyline in the DCU titles would be recentism. In a larger cultural context, Batman is Bruce Wayne, and will continue to be. Frankly, for the purposes of a general encylcopedia, DC's editorial intentions for the current storyline are far less important than the way the character is regarded in the culture at large. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Batman and Bruce Wayne are identified as one and the same thing.Splitting Bruce Wayne and Batman would leave Batman a hollow article.It would be better if the same article has a larger section on Bruce Wayne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.136.44 (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that discussion is winding down on this, and that concensus is moving towards a no split, but I wanted to place on the record that Captain America is a great illustration why not to split in situations like this. Steven Rogers for all extents and purposes was dead, and there was discussion to rename the article. Clearly, Steve Rogers is returning as Cap and such a move would have been pointless. This is a clear case of both common names and common sense to keep the page as is and not split. -00:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharp962 (talk • contribs)

Fictional ninja

Should the Batman be labeled a skilled ninja? (JoeLoeb (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)) 

yes  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.144.233 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No. The article doesn't even make note of anything like that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Batman is NOT exclusively Bruce Wayne

As the article is about Batman, and being that Batman is not exclusivley Bruce Wayne, Dick Grayson should also be added to the infobox as an alter ego of Batman.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.94.76 (talk) 19:09, June 23, 2009 (UTC)

All things considered, no... the article infobox is fine as is. - J Greb (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This topic has come up before over Green Goblin and the consensus was to keep it focused on the main character.
However, I have suggested starting an article on the Batman alias, Batman (set index), as we did with Green Goblin (set index) and Captain America (set index). I suspect I should get something on this rolling. (Emperor (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
OK I went ahead and did it. It'll need more work but I've sketched out the outline. Also Azrael (comics) might need work, see here. (Emperor (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
Why is it stated on Batman's infobox that his Alter Ego is Bane? (09:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
No changes to the infobox please. Bruce does not exactly quit being Batman. Uthanc (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the person currently acting as Batman is not Bruce Wayne. Grayson should be in the infobox. We cannot crystal ball the future of the character, even when it seems obvious to us. In the absence of citation otherwise, we go with that which has been cited: Dick Grayson is currently Batman. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
And the most reasonable search target is Wayne. Sorry, there is a reason that some of the comic book characters - this one, Spider-Man, Green Goblin, Captain America, Wonder Woman, etc - don't have multiple characters listed in the infoboxes or the titles dabbed (and looking at that list, each would have at least 3 characters listed). The set index is a good solution. - J Greb (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed - this situation is common enough that we have had to thrash this problem out before within the Comics Project and this is the best solution - Bruce Wayne is overwhelmingly associated with the alias Batman, so the top slot should be an article on him. We'll keep an eye on the issue and I wouldn't mind adding a link to the set index in the hatnote (we don't really need the redirect one as everything is dealt with on the disambiguation page). The fact that Grayson is the current batman is clearly noted in the lead so I think we have pretty much covered our bases.
It is worth noting that this isn't the first time other characters have adopted the Batman alias, in fact this isn't the first time Dick Grayson has been Batman, if we were going to add him to the infobox we'd have done so already. (Emperor (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
I know that. And if it weren't for that, i would likely argue more fervently for a listing in the infobox. However, I think that we need to set some sort of time limit for how long we are going to consider Wayne the dude behind the mask. I mean, how long before Rogers comes back to resume the shield? How long was Supes dead? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Rogers - July
With Superman - how were the 4 replacements called in the comics?
And it isn't necessarily a "time" thing. As Emperor points out it's a "most likely search" thing.
- J Greb (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Batman's death ultimately took place"

How do we phrase this better? He left a skeleton but he's still alive in prehistoric times; in his own time he's believed dead, but the reader knows otherwise. What if we put quotation marks on "death"? Uthanc (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Which Batman?

I'm noticing the back and forth regarding Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson, and I think we need to discuss the matter some. While it seems readily apparent (at least to me) that Bruce is not dead but somewhere/somewhen else, the character isn't gone forever, and will never resume the role. Added to the prolific body of Bruce's Batman still making money for DC in other mags, it seems equally clear that he will be back when this latest marketing stunt is done (or the chumps at DC realize they are essentially playing with their futures, whichever happens first).
That said, we don't have a crystal ball that tells us this. What the sources have said, and what those in charge of the character have explicitly stated is that Dick Grayson assumes the role. Period, as in it is not an interpretation. Grayson is the Bat.
The infobox and Lede should reflect that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Dick Grayson material belongs at Dick Grayson. The Rotation of the cowl should be covered at Batman (set index) (and yes, Alternate versions of Batman#Modern continuity depictions should likely get folded into the SI). Leaving this to cover one specific character, which is also the most likely topic that a search for "Batman" would be for. - J Greb (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
And isn't this just taking another run at Batman is NOT exclusively Bruce Wayne? - J Greb (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
See, I thought that, too - at first. However, we are not talking about who has assumed the role for a short time; we are talking about the assumption of the role entirely. As far as Grayson knows (and DC isn't telling), he's Batman now. Other people have filled in for Bruce in the past (like Valley, Strange or even Alfred), but Grayson is taking over the family business. Grayson is Batman now, according to every notable source put forth from within DC and without. We do not get to gainsay that - any more than I could gainsay the discussion that noted the citations about Bruce Wayne's/Batman's death (and remember what joyous fun that was?). Our opinion isn't citable. The references guide our edits, not the other way around.
Therefore, the material about Grayson belongs here (keeping the Robin/Nightwing material separate but linked). And I agree that it should also be in the set index (not the most intuitive name, btw), but think that the set index should be folded into the alternate versions article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that your "therefor" is really tentable. If I understand your premise there are two problems:
  1. It assumes that Grayson will be "playing the role" not "making it his own".
  2. It puts the entire general structure of articles on characters in fiction on its head. Essentially making the article about the costumed identity. If that is the case, then the article on Grayson should be disassembled into the Robin and Nightwing articles. And the same done with Tim Drake, Jason Todd, and so on.
Right now the MoS, or SOP, for the articles on the characters is just that, the article focuses on the character with set indexes used as hubs for the "code names". The thought being that it is preferable to cover a character in full in one article instead of forcing a reader to jump fram a section in one article to a section in another one. It's less trouble for the reader and it allows for a more consistent presentation. The indexes do suffer in that the history of the "code name" isn't as fleshed out as the character histories, but they are designed primarily as pointers, giving a lead style synopsis of the characters that have used the code name and providing links to the full articles on the characters.
And a last thought... If we are to start cramming the Grayson material in here, what shall we loose or move to a different article or articles? Keep in mind this article is sitting at around twice the suggest length for easy loading. The more that is dumped in, the more it really needs to be split up.- J Greb (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you are overthinking this, J. We have articles on Grayson, Bruce Wayne, Hal Jordan, etc. because those fictional characters have as much an interesting life without the mask as with it - 'ere we'd not have articles on them. I am not sure I suggested we do any "cramming" or "dumping" of Grayson material in here, any more than I was suggesting that you "exterminate" or "turn a blind eye" at any reference that includes Grayson. Mischaracterizing each other's intent isn;t going to serve us well here. The terrain has changed. Wayne is no longer Batman. That is incontrovertible. If it changes, then we change the article accordingly. Was anyone of the opinion that Wikipedia articles were static?
You are somewhat correct about my premise, which I find not only tenable but citable:
  • Morrison has explicitly stated that Grayson will be "playing the role"', as he'd much rather be Nightwing...(but) "knows Batman is more important than Nightwing in the long run and, quite simply, he doesn’t want anyone tarnishing the legacy of Batman - especially not Jason Todd".(1). There is no equivocation from Morrison as to who Batman is; it's Grayson. As for making the role his own, Morrison went further in an interview with IGN wherein he describes the dynamic between the new Batman (boldening mine) and the new Robin:
"When I started out I had that in mind, and I thought we'd finally prove that nobody else could be Batman. But I do believe certain aspects of RIP were about how nobody but this guy could be Batman. I think with this, it's fun to start by seeing what happens when someone else tries. Sometimes it goes wrong, and sometimes it goes really well. Some of the things these guys are doing are things that Bruce Wayne would never have thought to do." (2)
  • As I noted earlier, this isn't a call to deconstruct all of the 'secret identities' articles out there, though the majority have already incorporated the identity into the costumed identity article (Stever Rogers/Captain America, Peter Parker/Spider-Man, etc.) With respect, the set indices assists the articles in making sense of the multiple folk playing the capes, but it doesn't replace the need for the article to be present the current, cited information. It is our job as editors to present the current, cited information - that is what causes less trouble/confusion for the reader. Consistent information means the information is consistent with sources, not consistent with what we knew as children.
Clearly, I think you are seeing the addition of Grayson as far more of a problem than I see it actually being. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I think I was reading more into what you're proposing than I should have. Sorry about that.
I think the problems I'm having boil down to:
  • In general, we've avoided redundant articles. By that I mean we've split articles that articles that are overly long but left minimal information behind. So we have a brief overview of Drake on Robin (comics) but as Tim Drake was updated and expanded up to Battle for the Cowl, that information wasn't duplicate in both articles. The result of this is that we don't have a Bruce Wayne article that housed the information specific to that character - up until "RIP" this article served that purpose.
  • "Current" can be a loaded term. Yes, what's happening now in the comics should be noted, but it should not be given undue weight. Adding in the Grayson material, especially promoting it over the "old stuff" does feel like undue weight is being given to the "hot news".
  • Over all, we've done a pretty poor job with presenting the characters as a whole. Batman is an exception, an effort has been made to not glossed over the entirety of the use and evolution of the character in comics in favour of "current continuity". The Grayson section does feel like a step away from that.
- J Greb (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
J, allow me to address your points as you've made them. To begin with, I am not talking about a great deal of redundancy, though - as has been the case in many other related articles throughout the wiki - some is necessary. I think we are talking about the matter of degree that we explain Grayson's role as the current Batman. That it needs to be proportionally measured is reasonable; that we need fear its inclusion as bloat and undue weight is not.
I have not suggested that we drum out Wayne's Batman in favor of Grayson's, or even that Grayson's is of equal value. That bears restating, as it wasn't from my earlier post: we are not talking about turning this into a 'Wayne Vs. Grayson' debate about Batman. That would be an exercise in futility and frustration, and better suited to a fan forum. The issue before us is that we have multiple, reliable citations that note Grayson as the successor of the costumed identity.
I recall a similar issue some months ago where we were discussing the death of Batman during the RIP storyline. We had citations explicitly noting that death was happening. I also recall that my calls for a larger view - that this was a marketing ploy (which were, in fact, proven accurate) - were dismissed as crystal-balling. It didn't matter that it was indeed a clear marketing ploy to sell more issues and more magazines. The statements speaking to the death of Bruce Wayne/Batman were included, defended as they were by citation. I am asking that we provide equitable treatment to this issue as well. Bruce Wayne might return to the role, but for now, Dick Grayson is the current Batman. So sayeth the citations.
I will provide a self-reverted diff shortly to note, in broad strokes what I am suggesting. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
So, does that illustrate what I am suggesting? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay...
For the most part it does seem to be minor tweaking. The point I'd have conern with though is the infobox edit. - J Greb (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've instituted the changes I've discussed, save for the infobox addition of Grayson, pending the outcome of this conversation. Could you please explain your concern, J? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(de-dent)

It feels like a definite move away from keeping the article focused on the single character.
The changes to the body text all fall into "After the character (Wayne) was killed/written out, these in-story ramifications happened." That's very reasonable, needed even.
Adding a second character to the infobox though... That's moving to "This article is following the cowl", I'm not sure that's a good idea. - J Greb (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, that of recentism. However, in most instances of recentism, we are dealing with a fluid situation. Here, we are not. We have a great many reliable sources that list Grayson as the new Batman so, until Wayne finds Dorothy's ruby slippers or learns to time travel, Grayson is Batman.As for it being permanent, remember that we cannot crystal ball the outcome. We wrote that Batman was to die because the citations said so (and over my protestations, I'll add), and this situation is no different.
Additionally, there is precedent for listing successive fictional characters portraying the same superhero in the infobox. Green Lantern, Hawkman, Robin and Doctor Fate are but a few. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Recentism is part of it. But it is more the opening it up to add in more than "Wayne is/was followed by Grayson."
And, yes there are precedents for extended hub articles. Most of the articles in Category:Set index pop fit that bill. But they are still just overviews that point to the specific character articles. That type of precedent though would be to expand the set index, not necessarily adding a character here.
Doctor Fate and Blue Beetle are cases where only a few (Fate) or all but one (BB) of the characters support their own articles. Though, following those examples would see the full list of the Batmen added to this article, not picking and choosing.
- J Greb (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
We aren;t talking about the set index, J; I know you are overwhelmingly in favor of it as a mechanism to note the changes, but the main article needs to reflect those changes as well. I don't see how we can avoid noting Grayson in the role. One thing setting a precedent here is that the previous portrayals didn't initiate a new book to note the transition. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Wayne Is Batman They're just taking him off for a little to make money he'll be back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.89.68 (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


I'm impressed with the restraaint the two of you have shown in this discussion--you're actually making an effort to understand each other. It's refreshing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.168.220 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Which Bat)

Look how they recognized everyone who was the flash. Why not dot the same here? It would satify everyone. Would it not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_(comics) -P.O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.140.195 (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean things like Robin (comics), Batgirl, and Nightwing, the articles that are set up in a fashion similar to Batman (set index)? - J Greb (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The Dick Grayson Batman is canon. The name Batman is now like Green Lantern or the Flash in that it refers to more than one character. I realise there have been others to call themselves Batman but I think there's a difference between a temporary fill in and a replacement (for example Helena isn't considered one of the main Batgirls and Didio says Stephanie Brown doesn't count as a Robin). It may depend on how long he's Batman for. Going by Morrison's comments that Bruce is finished as Batman and the fact that a new ongoing series was launched for Dick and Damian, I think Grayson is set to stay in the role for a while yet. I think it's a matter of time before the article is changed in this way, but how much time I'm not sure. ArtistScientist (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth ... "Morrison's comments that finished" for now as Batman. I would tend to dissent in the current proposal, as there is a greater context thru surrounding mediums for multiple Flashes and Lanterns, but that is not supported the same for Batmen. -Sharp962 (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC).
That's part of where I'm at as well.
There is also a bit of "context in article creation". Part of the reason that Robin (comics), as an example, is the way it is comes from when it was created. When the article was created, the most recognized characters to use "Robin" was under another, highly recognized name and the current "Robin" wasn't the subject of most of the history of the character. So we got three article. The situation with Batman isn't to that point yet. And even if it were, the stronger case would be to move this article to Batman (Bruce Wayne) and the set index here.
Then there is also WP:NAME. The nutshell there is that an article should use the most easily recognizable title and that the most likely looked for subject use that title. In this case "Batman" is the simplest title, hands down. Right now, the dab page list 43 articles where "Batman" would be the simplest title or redirect. Of those, without dab phrases, 25 would be identically named. The most likely search was, and still is, for the Bruce Wayne Batman. And it is unlikely that it will change. Under that, this is the article on the Bruce Wayne character, changing the infobox to add other characters in does not make any sense.
Couple of last thoughts. First off, if one of the Flashes or Green Lanterns were the most likely search, those articles would likely need a second look. None of those characters though is the most likely search. Second, Robin (comics) and Batgirl do have character that may be the most likely search. But nether of those characters are being featured exclusively under those names.A situation that doesn't really apply here since Wayne is "dead" nut just operation under a new alias.
- J Greb (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"A return to the dark roots"

Some back and forth seems to be emerging from a change in the Lede paragraph discussing different efforts "to return the character to his dark roots," An editor keeps adding Timm's Batman kids series of the 1990's. I've ended up removing it twice, as it isn't part of that movement towards darkness, imo. The children' show isn't cited as such. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the article for Batman:TAS and apparently on the audio commentary for "On Leather Wings" Timm talks about the gritty noir influence of the Burton films. ArtistScientist (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A little back and forth

I've been removing as it pops up the following information:

Grayson is more affable with the Gotham City Police Department (which has stated "This new Batman is working for us"[3]), having been a police officer at one point himself. He is more overt in tackling crime, choosing not to disable security cameras[3] and never ceasing to talk during fights[3]. Grayson's acrobatic background also makes him more inclined to high-flying maneuvers[3][4]1.

This most recent offering was from the anon 121.91.168.220. The previous time this exact edit was offered was a series (2, 3) of cumulative edits by anon 119.12.112.219. Now, I must admit, between these two versions I asked for citations, and the second version does seem to cite the comic books wherein these instances occur. However, there is an evaluative, or deductive reasoning required to string these different facts together like pearls - all of which violates our synthesis policy. I've removed it now for the second time. I think we cannot re-add it unless a reliable source makes these connections for us. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Finger

It looks as if there's been a bit of an edit war over whether or not to include Bill Finger as uncredited co-creator of Batman in the infobox. My feeling is that since the article has substantial cited material describing Finger's contributions to the creation of Batman, it's appropriate for the infobox to reflect that. I haven't looked through the article history to see how long Finger has been listed, but since there was some back-and-forth I figured it was worth discussing here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree that based on the many cites within the article, Finger should be listed as the article currently does, as "(uncredited)", and that perhaps we should footnote the (uncredited) to explain it. Hiding T 17:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I copied a citation from the Bill Finger article which looks good; however, I don't have the book in question and can't verify that it says what is claimed in Bill Finger. If anyone here has Ron Goulart's Comic Book Encyclopedia, it would be great if we had a page number for where Goulart describes Batman as the "creation of artist Bob Kane and writer Bill Finger". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Batman/Bruce Wayne secret ID

4 times Batman/Bruce Wayne Secret Id almost exposed on 1960's Batman: Egghead used his super-intellect to reason that only a millionaire could afford crime fighting gadgets-and of the three millionaires of Gotham City one has a French accent and one is a southpaw-leaving only Bruce Wayne. Batman/Wayne tricks Egghead into disbelieving his own reasoning. The only other villian to deduce Batman's identity is King Tut-once by placing a tracking bug on the Batmobile and the other time by accidently mining a tunnel into the Batcave-but Batman manages to defeat King Tut each time-once by pubilcly discrediting him and the other by tricking him into causing amenisa on himself.) Ironicaly two of the series regular supervillians came close to Batman's real Identity:

  • Joker almost found out Batman's true identity when he accidently came across the secret passage to the Batcave and slides down a Batpole but Alfred Pennyworth saved the day by pushing a emergency button that causes the Batpole cusion to slide up!! Joker is so terrified going up and down, that he never realizes he slides down to the Batcave}.
  • Penguin tricked Batman into bring a bugged penguin umbrella into the Batcave so he could plan crimes using Batman's knowledge!! Unlike King Tut, Penguin never used the bug as a tracking device in order to deduce Batman's Identity.} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Although never stated directly it is implied that Commissioner Gordon knows who Batman is-but won't tell! In a epsiode of Batgirl , her secret identity is accidently revealed to Alfred Pennyworth; although Alfred doesn't give his name logically a smart person such as Barbara Gordon could figure out who Alfred is-and thus realize who Batman and Robin really are. Ironically in the Animated Series a grief stricken Commissioner Gordon confronts Batman/Bruce Wayne after the "death" of Batgirl {he had checked Barbara computer on Batman}. In a ironic double epsiode Batman and Robin and Green Hornet and KAto each wonder who the secret identites of their crime fighting rivals are! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Er... are you suggesting something that you think should be added to the article? Remember, talk pages are not a forum for discussion of the article's subject. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to agree. You just kind of started stating weird facts for no reason.67.109.178.2 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Preference Is Not Encyclopedic Material

Sexual Preference Is Not Encyclopedic Material —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.238.33 (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Seduction of the Innocent, academic interest and creator responses are, in fact encyclopedic material.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
But is the speculation notable? Dale Thompson and many others criticize Cornerstone Festival for various reasons, but that's not notable. (Not saying this is criticism). 98.198.83.12 (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Werther's accusations were the foundation for the CCA, one of the single greatest legally enforced censorship systems in the history of the US. They're incredibly notable to the history of comics, and bcause they are build on Batman and Robin, incredibly notable here. ThuranX (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You might be overstatting it a bit, Thuran, but I'll with keeping it for now. The Werthem accusations have certainly refused to die completely. Though now they've morphed into something most people just consider to be a joke (inspired by "funny" and easily misinterpreted panels [a la Superdickery]). Those films directed by Schumacher probably didn't help matters, either. What I don't get is this: if Robin is a kid (in most stories) and Bruce is supposedly f---ing him, wouldn't that make him a child molester? There's so much emphasis on the "gay" thing, people forget that such relationship would probably be pedophilic (and, arguably, incestuous) on its face. Now that, even 50 years after Seduction, is just SICK. (and, you know, not very funny.) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Considering that the the issue's history has had a good amount of press coverage, I'd say that to an extent it's encyclopedic. Not sure if this can be done, but if possible, make it more about the actual debate of his sexual orientation rather than about Batman's sexual orientation. In other words, don't make it about "Is Batman gay?" but rather about the people and arguments that he is gay vs. he isn't. Anakinjmt (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Relationships

Unless someone can give a good reason why, I think there should be a section on Batmans romantic encounters. It is a rather important part of the overarching storyline, and its worthwhile to mention the other characters involved in that capacity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinlong (talk • contribs) 04:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's trivial. There's been little to no authoritative writing on the matter, excepting those cases where it refers to the amping up of his 'playboy lifestyle' as a contrast to the pre-werther era, and to distance from Werther's ideas. There's little about the 'long term love of X Y or Z(atanna)' for example. ThuranX (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Present information

There is a lot of info in this article that seems to have been selected through favouritism. For example, why is one of Batman's alter egos listed as "Matches Mallone"? It's specific to a very particular era which is not the present and it's not basic to the mythology. Similarly, why are Nightwing and Batgirl still listed as Batman's allies? I suspect the childhood memories of this article's editors may be playing a part in the selection of information, rather than what is canon and what is not. ArtistScientist (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • You make some good points. However, Wikipedia is built through the ability of anyone to edit and through that using a consensus model. We also do not allow original research or adopt a point of view, therefore, unless someone has defined a canon for Batman, we cannot create such a thing. We can simply iterate what reliable sources tell us. We are a tertiary encyclopedia rather than a definitive guide to canon, and our articles tend to reflect most of those facts. With regards favouritism, I am unsure whether I understand your point, since any perceived canon is simply another form of favouritism, albeit one with a fancy name. Hiding T 15:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Well what I meant by canon wasn't in any subjective sense, but simply the way it currently is in the main DCU. I think people have got too used to certain institutions in the mythos. Even if the criterion for this type of information wasn't what is present but rather what are essential aspects of the mythology, then it becomes more dubious. That's the reason why I think if we can't cite that a certain thing is a basic staple of Batman, then we should go with the way it is in the present. Is that more clear now? ArtistScientist (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Not really, since it is very much a subjective viewpoint as to "what currently is" in the DCU, and it is also a subjective viewpoint that the situation as it stands right now is more important than the situation as it stood yesterday or at any other point in the historical record. On Wikipedia we are not interested in advertising or advising on the make-up of a comic book universe, we are interested in informing readers as to the historical record of topics. Coming back to your initial point, it's worth bearing in mind that your opinion of the merit of the alias "Matches Mallone" is a subjective one, and your attempt to remove the alias could also be put down to favouritism and a desire to protect your current memories. But this is Wikipedia, so we don;t discuss things at that sort of level. We just try and work out what's best for the encyclopedia, which means working out how to treat a topic so that we convey a neutral summary of reliable sources. Should "Matches Mallone" be in the infobox? I don't know, but it should be in the article somewhere. Hiding T 08:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
A quick search has pulled up a 2009 story by Brian K. Vaughan titled "Batman: False Faces" in which the alias is used. Is that not current enough? If we reduced this article to that which was only found in secondary sources, I think the consensus would be against it, personally. Hiding T 10:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It just sounds ad populum to me. Sure Matches Mallone should be mentioned in the sections pertaining to the Bruce Wayne incarnation of Batman, but then there's nothing but erroneous popular opinion that makes Bruce Wayne the current Batman. Or Nightwing an ally of Batman. That was a segment of history spanning 1984 to early 2009, but there's nothing that warrants depicting that situation as being the present one, as this article's lead does. It should be up to date like the lead of Robin (comics). An encyclopedia should be factual. All I'm arguing for is the facts. False Faces was actually 2008 as well, before Wayne was "killed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistScientist (talk • contribs) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing that this article represent the point of view of current continuity, rather than establish the historical record. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. The lead of this article does not mention Nightwing to my eye. Have you had a look at WP:RECENTISM, that may help explain some of the issues this article may at present be facing. What this article needs to do is balance the need to be up to date with the need to inform as many readers as possible. This article, per our policies, should not be edited to represent only the point of view of fans who wish to see it document the current storylines of the Batman comic book. This article has to document the concept of the "Batman" character, as it has appeared across numerous media, to a vast audience. Batman may well be Dick Grayson in some recently published comic books, and therefore Nightwing may not be an ally of that Batman, but in a greater number of comic books and even one major motion picture, Nightwing was an ally of Batman. Further than that, in the vast bulk of use, the Batman concept is tied to the notion that Bruce Wayne is Batman. In keeping with our policies on creating a neutral point of view, we cannot ignore that bulk in favour of recent events. We must instead craft an article which gives each facet due weight. I hope that explains. Hiding T 14:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand that the historical record needs to be established. But depicting Nightwing as an ally of Batman shows bias towards the last 25 of Batman's 70 year history. Nightwing didn't exist from 1939 to 1963, was a Superman character from 1963 to 1984 and again is separated from Batman in the present. So why should the focus be on the specific era of 1984-2009? ArtistScientist (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The focus isn't on 1984-2009. You haven't explained why the focus is on 1984-2009 simply because Nightwing is listed as an ally. If we accept that for say, 35% of the publication history of Batman comics, Nightwin has been regarded as an ally, I'd think the burden of proof would be on someone who wanted to state Nightwing is not an ally of Batman. I think the confusion stems from the fact that you may be immersing yourself in the fiction to the point that you are unable to differentiate from whatever fictional things happen to be happening in the comics right now and the fact that Batman is a fictional character who has a fictional ally called Nightwing. You may also not be aware that grammatically we write about fiction in something called the "literary present". This is because literary works, paintings, films, and other artistic creations are assumed to exist in an eternal present, so we describe them as if they exist in the present. We do not discuss them as having happened in the past, because they have not actually happened, given that they are not real. So if you happen to pick up any comic from the period when Nightwing is Batman's ally, you read the story and Nightwing is Batman's ally. It gets confusing when a time-line is enforced upon this eternal present. We have a manual of style which should help to explain all of this at WP:WAF, hope that helps. Hiding T 13:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If we accept that for say, 35% of the publication history of Batman comics, Nightwin has been regarded as an ally, I'd think the burden of proof would be on someone who wanted to state Nightwing is not an ally of Batman.
My problem isn't anything else you said, just this part. Nightwing being his ally shouldn't automatically override Nightwing not being his ally.
It's like saying in the Flash article that the Flash has a romantic interest named Iris West. It's not a consistent element of the mythology. You can say as a blanket statement (which is what the lead section is supposed to be) that he runs fast and wears lightning bolts because those are constant components of the Flash, and you can say Batman has a sidekick named Robin and a butler Alfred, but Nightwing was a Superman character for twenty-one years before he was a Batman character. Not as an enemy, but also not as an ally. The same thing applies in calling Catwoman an ally. It depends on the storyline. Sometimes it's an element of the continuity, other times it's not. Currently the article can easily give the impression that Dick Grayson is sometimes aided by Chris Kent, which shows there is a problem in the precision of the wording. I would be satisfied by the sentence "Batman operates in the fictional American Gotham City, assisted by various supporting characters including his main sidekick Robin, occasional assistance from the heroine Batgirl and in some versions the hero Nightwing." ArtistScientist (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
So why are we here then? Hiding T 16:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with the OP. The current article looks implicitly POV'd and fannish. Perhaps, regarding "partnerships"--because that's the term, and it's a lot more specific than "allies"--we could just have Robin--his only real, firmly establish partner--and maybe a "see above (Team affs.)" note. Then, add "World's Finest" to said affs, and that covers Supes. Anything else would be a stretch to put in the "partnership"--not "ally"--category. As for alias, I'd definitely suggest adding back various ones which were no doubt deleted while someone was off taking a whizz. Maybe use a strict citation only policy to keep it objective. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And the Dick thing

Also, why the heavy note about Dick? I understand he's subbing again, but is that really something we need to note in the "Characterization" area as well as the intro? I think we could stand to remove the former bit (at minimum),as it's basically just some quotes from Morrison. At the end of the day, Bruce'll be back, and we'll be (for the most part) ditching all the stuff about Dick, anyway. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we all assume that Bruce will be back, but it might not be so quickly. Could be several years, like with Captain America, or heck, could be longer, like Hal Jordan longer or even Barry Allen longer. At the end of the day, we simply don't know what DC has planned, although Blackest Night seems like a very possible way of bringing Bruce back, but that's pure speculation. And speaking of which, it's pure speculation that Bruce will return. As it is right now, Dick Grayson is Batman. It's not simply subbing like Valley did when Bane broke Bruce's back. Grayson has "permanently" (in terms of comics permanently) taken on the role of Batman. I will say that the section of Dick shouldn't seem to take space away from the rest of the article with Bruce as Batman. Anakinjmt (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hal and Barry--Allen, not Allan--are bad examples; I sure as hell don't consider Wally OR Kyle to have been "fill-ins". What I'm saying, with regards to Bruce, is simply that we shouldn't set the article in a way that's not unsustainable or unreflective of what's most likely going to happen. Still, I guess you (and others) are right about the 'pedia not being a crystal ball (even for the obvious). Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, oops. I thought I typed it Allen. I understand why pretty much everyone is expecting Bruce to return. He's been Batman for years. Batman, along with Superman and Wonder Woman, are the three of the five biggest DC characters who didn't get their series canceled at the end of the Golden Age and then relaunched with new people taking the mantle with brand new origin (the two that did would be Flash and Green Lantern). Having someone else be Green Lantern or Flash isn't as big of a deal, but with one of the Trinity (as they're sometimes called) being replaced by someone else IS a big deal. Purely in my opinion, as a huge fan of comics and Batman in particular, I am fully expecting Bruce to return to the mantle of the Bat. But we can't jump the gun and put those assumptions in the article. And, thing is, I don't think Hal and Barry are bad examples. Those two, along with the Trinity, were the 5 biggest DC superheroes of the Silver Age and were the ONLY titles that began the Silver Age. For now, we (meaning Wikipedia) should act as though Dick Grayson will now forever be Batman, while still keeping in mind that the article does primarily focus on Bruce. It's a very fine line to walk but I'm positive we can walk it. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Uh, dude, did I misread you or did you just say GL and Flash "didn't get their series canceled at the end of the Golden Age and then relaunched with new people taking the mantle"? That's EXACTLY what happened. Heck, GL and Flash wouldn't be the properties they are now if not for the Silver Age re-inventions (and, later, the Modern Age successions). Jay inspired Barry, who inspired Wally, and so on. The cloying, faux-Silver Age revert DC seems to be going for with Hal and Barry is a mixed bag, at best. I love the properties, but I'll never buy that any one character defines them. (Even B-list guys like Orin have a better claim to such status.) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
No, no, no. I was saying that out of the big 5 of DC, Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman are the ones who didn't get their series canceled at the end of the Golden Age, but that Green Lantern and Flash, the other two, did. Sorry, I thought I'd made that as clear as I could. Guess not. I'll fix it up above. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.dcuguide.com/who.php?name=batman
  2. ^ Grant Morrison (w). Final Crisis #7 (January 2009). DC Comics.
  3. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Judd Winick. 2009. Batman #688. was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grant Morrison. 2009. Batman and Robin #2. was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Batman/Archive_9&oldid=1144178651"