Talk:Batman/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 2006 and July2006.

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

Please add new archivals to Talk:Batman/Archive06. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Scarecrow's edits

Does the Scarecrow knows Batman's true identity? I got that form an article here, somewhere on wikipedia.--T-man, the wise 07:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I started a Christopher York article, if he is such a great author he should have an article, so that we can finally know how is he such a good reference.--T-man, the wise 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Bio of B:TAS Batman???--T-man, the wise 10:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's anywhere, it should be at the bottom of this article. --Chris Griswold 10:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. The article is all Summary style. You can add or remove info from the sections here to meet your taste. This way we can help this article be more organized and at the same time more informative through sub-articles.

We still need to decide how are we going to expand and connect the Animated Series Batman to this article.--T-man, the wise 05:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if the Scarecrow knows Batman's identity, but "T-man, the Wise Scarecrow" should know that this is a featured article on Wikipedia, and that very few people will look kindly on its being sliced up into several incomplete articles. I'm not with you on the Batman (animated) entry, and I'm completely against these separate Silver Age and Golden Age entries you've been concocting. --Chris Griswold 06:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As am I also not with T-Man on this, and I imagine most editors are outraged. I have reversed T-Man's unilateral and nonconsensual changes pending further discussion. T-Man, please refrain from your changes until everyone agrees with them. This article was been featured in the past, and I don;t see what has changed since then to warrant the "slice and dice" method rather than a well-drafted cohesive article on this icon of comicdom. Dyslexic agnostic 07:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You are as always being synic, since you were the person that encouraged the summarization of the Superman article. And everyone can gothere and confirm it. Even more easy, everyone should read above, you started a section on this talk page proposing the very same thing. Why would you want that format on Superman but not in Batman?Are we supposed to believe you changed your mind and you are now not a "minimalist". Again check Summary style. I won't revert soon but I won't go back to previous versions. I won't be very active next week, so if you want, you (I'm talking to anyone) can propose and apply other solutions. You are right the article be easyly readable as a whole, but there such near-infinite amount of pieces of pop cult info around the Batman mythos, that it can't be covered by one single article.

For starters, when you say Batman, you're talkin about a number of versions of the same character but with diferent stories and features. There is a modern Batman, a golden age Batman, silver-bronze Age Batman, an Adam West Batman, a Paul Dini Batman, a Frank Miller Batman and on and on. Who are you to say golden age Batman fans don't deserve a full article on the character? That Batman had different creators, story, modus operandi, enemies, gadjets and context. Another Batman, another Batcave, another Batmobile, he even used to kill. You are telling me that you want to stuff that in this very page? what happens when you complete all the versions? or are you telling me Silver age batman fans don't get to have complete info about him? You see why I'm doing this. I can negociate, but I won't back off. You have to come up with a win-win solution. Sure this article was featured, yeah, but England was once the most powerful empire of the world. Things change, you can't rest, you have to keep up!!--T-man, the wise 10:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: Hey everyone! this is DA backing me on the size issue, he recently backed grisworld only to bother me as usual:

Moving on to new and more important things... Superman is now 35kb, while Batman is 49 kb. Further ideas on reduction? Dyslexic agnostic 08:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This proof of his weird behavior can be found on the archive 03 of this talk page. This was actually an spontaneous proposal he made.--T-man, the wise 10:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We have to look at how notable something is. And the current Batman article encapsulates most of that. We have descriptions of Batman in various eras and incarnations, and because it is all in one article, we can easily compare and contrast. For details worthy of more dissection, there are other articles, such as Gotham City and [Enemies of Batman]].

As for something I said about Superman, please point me to what you are talking about, because I honestly have no idea. --Chris Griswold 10:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't say anythig about Superman, just check it out, that's the format I'm following. The ironic thing is that its current format DA's idea and my work months ago when he was kind of a coherent editor. (An annoying mindless one track mind nazi eraser calling himself minimalist, one could say, but at least he was coherent then).--T-man, the wise 11:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, what was the point of this link WP:NOT you put? How is it related to this discussion? And BTW, I'm responsible for about 30% of the current format of Enemies of Batman. Friends of Batman should be as symilar to that article as the Batman article should be to Superman. this should be a 35k article.--T-man, the wise 11:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone tag me out. --Chris Griswold 11:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely there's not enough striking difference between characters for there to be articles about the Golden Age Batman, Silver Age Batman, Modern Batman, Animated Batman, what have you. They're all the same basic character, with the same basic back history and the same basic characteristics - namely, Bruce Wayne sees his parents get shot, dresses up as a Bat and fights crime. Things like the Dini Batman, Adam West Batman, blah-blah are just variations on a theme - significant variations, granted, worthy of note, but then that's why there's special sections on this page to cover them all. So it's a big page - if it's a big topic (as Batman arguably is), and it's well-written and detailed, that hardly matters. Besides, after looking through the page, all of the differences between versions are largely accounted for in this article; whether or not, say, Golden Age Batman fans deserve a space devoted entirely to the Golden Age Batman is supremely irrelevant if the article on the Golden Age Batman isn't going to be significantly notable or different to the current article on Batman - which it isn't, not really. I might as well say that all my work on Wikipedia means that I deserve an evening with Rachel Weisz, but just because I say I deserve doesn't mean it's going to happen or even should happen.

Plus, the fact that this was a featured article means that it's already of a high standard, meaning that a lot of people have put a lot of work into it to make it worthy of recogition - and those people are going to get justifiably narky if someone comes along and starts arbitrarily chopping things up without any kind of discussion or input from anyone else. Especially if those changes aren't really all that necessary.--Joseph Q Publique 14:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Face it, T-man, your edits don't have consensus. CovenantD 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that "T-man" is fairly young and still working on his writing skills -- and does not appear to be a native-english speaker -- so I encourage everyone to have a certain amount patience as he continues to gain experience at editing Wikipedia.

That said: I concur with the sentiments above. The recent edits to Batman and Batman: The Animated Series, as well as the creation of the redundent Batman (animated) article, have not improved the material. The material concerned with continuity sounds fanish, and innaproriate for a mature article. Additionally, I oppose any changes that strip down the material in a manner that creates lists or overly-segmented subheadings (such as the "friends" and "tools" sections in B:tAS) that disrupt the flow of the prose in the articles. These articles should be sophisticated, not fanish or read like RPG stats. ~CS 17:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish it were that easy, CS. However if you look at the talk page for List of Justice League episodes, you'll see that he has totally ignored other editors on a decision just like this one. At this point I'm more concerned with the way he makes unilateral decisions that he already knows don't have support rather than talk it out and find consensus. CovenantD 18:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion we don't need separate articles. Wiki articles focus on fictional characters in both story and real world terms, so an overview of the character's evolution should remain in the main page. However, the focus should be on the current canonical version above all, so for example we shouldn't have a listing of all his relatives in every single iteration of the character. WesleyDodds 22:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Check other superhero articles and then come back and read Batman again. Notice how by adding so much non-cannonical material, you dont get a flowing biography. As it is right now, you read 2 outdated versions before you get to the modern version. If you want to know what's going on with current Batman, you have to ignore about 40% of the article. And then, you have a humongous section talking about speculations of him being gay. If you are a comediant that's gold, and it's a great thing it exists, info should never be eliminated, but that's another article. An article about a detail of Batman, a detail about how there is a history of comparisons between gay people and Batman style of life, pointing how easy is it to find them similar.

So you wanted a bio and you got, a killer Batman that got married to Catwoman, had a daughter and got killed at 50 by Hugo Strange; a lame one that chased Killer Moth in the museum of the world's biggest bug-traps and insecticides, even during working hours along with Alfred, Bat-mite, Ace, Robin, Batwoman, her niece Batgirl, Several uncles and aunts and a Chief O'Hara; a Bat-fruit sodomizing Robin; and finally some sections about the current one you wanted under the tittle "Modern Batman".

I say we define current batman, with his current powers, equipment and characters as a solid thing, then we gather the non-cannonical sections in a single one, something like "Batman over the Years", introducing readers to the concept of different continuities, diferent ages, conception of the character and the Crisis on the Infinite Earths.

About the Batman: TAS changes. It was the same concept there. There was a lot of sections with random info (forbiden character, especial characters, etc) about production details and no info detailing what the series is about. There was no Batman bio there. Again check other heroes, there is always a regular bio and then a mini bio about the animated version (John Stewart, Hawkgirl, Flash, Darkseid, etc). How come, if batman is the main DCAU character he has no animated bio!!!!!!!!!! that's stupid. It's a DUHHHHH thing to change. I agree, that bio can be later merged, but where? Here? where is already to crowded and editors don't care much for that version. Or maybe in the Batman TAS page? Then again, it's a page about a show, not about a character.

It maybe confuses you the fact that my changes are rather raw, but I already spend too much time here, and this is a comunity work. I view other editors as a team, I won't built a castle alone, design is my thing, and it's all about shape. This is an article about what? We have a size to respect. Not because of memory space, but because it must be easy to read. We must avoid crowding the reader with info, and at the same time make sure Wikipedia has all the info there can be. The Batman article is a directory containing several files, including one called Batman.--T-man, the wise 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be a "flowing biography" -- this is an encyclpedia, not a fansite. Batman's a fictional character, and therefore the approach the article(s) should take is an acedemic and historical one. The issue of canon isn't of service to the article -- the "different" batmen that you're catagorizing are fluid changes in the character over time, not strict events that can be attributed to oneanother. I agree that limited biographical information is an important part to such an article, but I do not think it should be the driving force behind it. These are articles about the characters, not summeries of all their stories.

But the most important issue (and I believe what most of us are concerned about) is that the article read like an article. Not a list to other articles. The article as it stands had featured article status -- and it was well deserved as a comprehensive history of the character. Improvements to featured articles are always welcome, but removing massive amounts of information without discussing it on the talk page first is a huge breach of etiquette.

As a final, unrelated, note: please do not belittle the opinions of others by refering to changes as "DUHHHHH" or accuse them of being confused. It does little to propel a mature discussion. I assure you, everyone else is giving the design thought as well. ~CS 01:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Batman's Origins?

As CS said above, "Batman's a fictional character, and therefore the approach the article(s) should take is an academic and historical one." With that in mind, why do I not see any section on the influences and origins that led to Batman, e.g., Zorro, The Shadow, etc.?

Isn't it way more important to discuss how Batman is an old kind of hero that predates superheroes, and how he was based on the noirish pulp fiction of the '20s and '30s, than it is to list trivial information on alternate-universe Batmen? --69.177.118.70 16:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Because no one has written it yet. You appear to be knowledgeable; you are more than welcome to add it. --Chris Griswold 03:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know some of the story, anyway. I'll get a section started; I'm sure others will have lots to add (or correct). I'll also have to refresh my memory with my reference book at home at some point, so the key words for now are "rough draft". --Iritscen 13:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nicely started, Iritscen! -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, the IP post above was me before I registered, but you probably guessed that. All right, the initial version is up.

Possible issues:

• Some may think the "influences of influences" paragraph is stretching things a little, but I thought it was interesting and worth mentioning. Of course, this article is already pretty huge, so I'll leave it up to others whether they want to "abridge" my work at all.
• I worried that this section (I placed it second because it seemed to fit there, before the article delves into his fictional biography and all that) overlapped with the end of the previous section, where it talks about characters similar to Batman from the same time period. But that part seems to be focusing on supposed plagiarism, and how it's probably just parallel evolution, not on what characters actually influenced Batman's character, so I think my section is okay being separate from that one. Certainly, one could merge the material under the Character Origins heading, discussing supposed influences versus more definite ones, but I think that would be confusing. Any thoughts on that are welcome, though. --Iritscen 14:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points. The top section I tried to move before to History of Batman but that got reverted. Personally, I think that making it a short couple PGs with a main link to the history would help separate the myth behind the bat from the man who is the bat, as well as helping the space issues. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Silver Age sci-fi paragraph

I still find these two sentences to be confusing: "It is retroactively established within the pages the 2006 limited series Infinite Crisis (after a character from the pre-1964 era is transferred to a re-created Earth-Two) that the pre-1964 Silver Age stories happen on Earth-Two, despite the fact that the year 1964 was well into the Silver Age (and therefore years after the supposed retirement of the Earth-Two Batman), and that the characters and creative concepts which remain post-1964 aren't given new origin stories."

1. Which character is transferred? 2. Why does this happen? 3. Why does this tell us that the sci-fi adventures took place on Earth-Two? 4. How does Infinite Crisis establish that the characters aren't given new origin stories? 5. Why does it need to do so?

"The characters also seem to recall their pre-1964 adventures, and the version of Batman which is established as living on Earth-One has been having adventures with Superman, the Justice League of America, and other heroes since well before 1964."

1. Is this supposed to reflect on the current Batman? 2. The Crises have integrated these events and memories so that we can assume they make sense. 3. What's this "well before 1964" business? --Chris Griswold 00:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ipstenu, you beat me to that comment...I provide more information below yours for context. --Ace ETP 04:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I blame SuperBoy-Prime. No, seriously. I think it's trying to say 'Since per-1964/Silver Age characters were transported to Earth-2 during the recreaction of the Multiverse in Infinite Crisis, it has been established that Earth-2 was their home earth. This is, however contradictory as Batman of Earth-1 has many memories of events that take place in the Silver Age, and has been noted to have had adventures with Superman, the Justice League of America, and other heroes since well before the end of the Silver Age.' In essence, Bats is sort of straddling both pre and post crisis 'rules'. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that all those wacky pre-1964 sci-fi Batman stories with Bat-Mite, Batwoman, Ace the Bat-Hound and Bat-Girl have been reatroactively established as having happened on Earth-Two (where Golden Age stories take place), despite having been published in the Silver Age. This was made clear when Bette Kane - currently known as Flamebird, and known in the pre-1964 era as Bat-Girl - is transferred to Earth-Two along with all Golden Age heroes when Alex Luthor recreates it in Infinite Crisis #4. Additionally, I have a reference book which DC published in 2004 called "Batman: The Ultimate Guide To The Dark Knight" which, while mostly concentrating on Batman's Modern Age and canonical Silver Age exploits (with almost no references to the pre-1964 era!), has short sections at the end about Golden Age Batman stories, non-canonical Silver Age stories, Frank Miller "Dark Knight" stories, and Elseworld stories. Despite the non-canonical Silver Age stories section mentioning how the Silver Age is usually held to have started on 1956, all "silly" characters from the sci-fi pre-1964 era (Batwoman, Bat-Mite, Bat-Girl, Ace the Bat-Hound and several alien invaders) have their profiles in the Golden Age stories section. My comment on how the characters which remain post-1964 (Batman, Dick Grayson, James Gordon, and all virtually non-silly supporting characters and villains associated more closely with detective fiction than sci-fi) aren't given new origin stories and seem to recall their pre-1964 adventures has nothing to with Infinite Crisis. After Barry Allen and Hal Jordan were introduced in the early Silver Age as more down-to-earth versions of The Flash and Green Lantern, DC wished to revamp Aquaman, Green Arrow, Wonder Woman, Superman and Batman as well (unlike the original Flash and Green Lantern, DC kept publishing those five characters in the interim between the Golden and Silver Ages). So around 1958, all of those characters had been significantly altered (e.g.: Aquaman was now half-Atlantean rather than human who could breathe underwater due to genetic engineering, and now Superman had Krypto, the citizens of Kandor and Supergirl as supporting characters), and we were introduced to new versions of heroes which would be considered as living on Earth-One after the establishment of the Multiverse. However, Batman didn't receive a makeover until 1964, and unlike the case of say, Aquaman or Green Arrow, he didn't react to his classic foes as if it was the first time he had seen them when they first re-appeared in the post-1964 era. Also, in that period after the 1956/58 general revamps but before Batman's 1964 revamp, Batman was heavily featured in the pages of "World's Finest" and "Justice League of America" with several other heroes, raising some confusion. DC's current stance seems to be that the Earth-One's Batman first solo adventure was published in 1964, and any instance within the pages of post-1956/58 but pre-1964 issues of "World's Finest" or "Justice League of America" in which Batman acts the way he did in the sci-fi stories should be regarded as apocryphal. I hope you understand now what I meant, and now you can perhaps what put I wrote in a more comprehensible manner. --Ace ETP 04:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, folks - let's not bamboozle and confuse ourselves.

One thing we first need to realize is that the Crisis on Infinite Earths was an historic fraud perpetrated on DC fandom - a ludicrous, quite tasteless, poorly written, poorly conceived "answer" to problems that did not exist.

We can take what writers of this travesty claimed, and what following authors who mistakenly refused to realize that Crisis was a bad accident claimed -

and then we can look at the historical record.

Go ahead and argue with me about what is and is not "canonical". I don't care.

When DC comics destroyed the canon that I had enjoyed and read for two and a half whole entire \ decades prior to "Crisis", I stopped reading anything related to the new universe that rejected my treasured memories, destroyed my favorite tales and in essence was a statement by the new DC that me, and older fans like me, could all go to Hades and read something else.

Whatever the new DC may now claim, the timeline was well established prior to "Crisis".

The first, original Batwoman was introduced in July 1956. In 1964, Schwartz stopped using her - but this VERY SAME CHARACTER popped up again to team up with Earth 1's Barbara Gordon and she was executed by the League of Assassins on Earth-1 in 1979. She even appeared in JLA.

She therefore was NOT of Earth-2, but of Earth-1. If she has been retroactively assigned to Earth-2, this in no way changes the fact that she had appeared on Earth-1 prior to Crisis, and died on Earth-1 prior to Crisis. So, go ahead - tell me she's of Earth-2. I'll tell you to poop in your shoes.

There was a Batwoman of Earth-2 prior to Crisis, but that Batwoman never knew the Bronze Tiger. She surely was older than Earth-1's Batwoman, but her tales were not chronicled until after that Earth's Batman married that Earth's Catwoman. We first saw this Earth-2 Batwoman in a Brave and the Bold comic from 1982 ("Interlude on Earth-2"). She was teamed with Earth-2's Robin, who continued as Robin after the death of Earth-2's Batman, and also the Starman. Earth-1's Batman was transported there by Hugo Strange's manipulation of Starman's star-wand. Of HER history, we know little beyond how she donned costume prior to the wedding of Earth-2 Batman and Earth-2 Catwoman to foil a plot by the Earth-2 Scarecrow.

The mushroom-induced Bat-Mite appeared during the transcript of some writer's deranged drug trip in May 1959. Schwartz wisely stopped using this character, too - but again THIS VERY SAME CHARACTER Mr. Mxyzptlk in World's Finest comic strips in 1965 and 1967. Note the spelling - this was on Earth-1.

The first and original Batgirl, introduced in 1961, was the niece of the first and original Batwoman, and therefore must have been of Earth-1. Reinforcing her Earth-1 origins, she later appeared in the tales of Teen Titans West. The Robin with whom she flirted was a boy - not a grown man such as he who teamed with the Huntress on Earth-2 against Earth-2's Joker.

When I was a DC comics fan, established canon was that Earth-2's Batman retired before the Bathound was introduced.

Of course, as I noted, DC flipped all of us older fans the bird and unfortunately was NOT bankrupted as a result. More's the pity.

Now we have had, for twenty years, a DC universe that is telling me that all my favorite characters never existed and all of my favorite tales never happened. Even worse, it's telling me the brilliant new tales (well, new then and over twenty years old now) penned by Roy Thomas never happened - a cardinal sin. I never shall understand why Roy played such a lusty role erasing the beautifully scripted storylines he had just created.

None of this changes the facts about Batwoman's role in the Batman series. She, Batman and Robin were battling Earth-1 villains: Clayface, the Catman, Earth-1's Lex Luthor, Killer Moth and the Firefly. In World's Finest, 1957, Batwoman was involved in a story that made mention of "Jor-El"

Batwoman's obvious Earth-1 affiliation was decidedly made clear in Batman Family #17, published in 1978.

The Huntress, Helena Wayne of Earth-2, traveled to Earth-1 and interviewed Earth-1's Batman while seeking the counsel of established super-heroines. Earth-1's Batman referred her to Earth-1's Batwoman.

So, there you go folks - DC can try to put the genie back in the bottle, but these stories were written and people like me read them.

Atheism?

Currently, Batman is listed as a fictional atheist, along with several others. Personally, I don't care in either regard, but I'm concerned with the lack of any proof or statements to support the position. --AWF

Nothing I've read seems to indicate he's an athiest. This guy has met The Spectre, after all (and yes, I'm well aware Mister Terrific is an atheist). WesleyDodds 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I vaguely recall seeing him portrayed both ways(You're either Christian, or you're not, SUCKA), but the "my parents are in heaven, and I'm going to Hell" aspect seems much more familiar. I think Gotham County Line may have commented on his beliefs. --Chris Griswold 08:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, he has met super dudes like that angel that joined the league for a while, Etrigan, the Spectre, and many others. After that I don't think its a matter of faith for Batman, he just know there is a celestial order, because he happens to know some of the celestial beings. That kind of thoughts always cross my mind when I read comics involving Greek gods a and celestial beings, in DC Universe, you just know there is a god---Zauriel!! I think that's the name of the angel. I mean with angels and demons in the public eye you don't keed faith you just know.--T-man, the wise 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Something definitive either way needs to be found, or the category should go. There's no reason why Bats can't share Mr. Terrific's perspective and be an atheist, but it shouldn't be assumed without evidence. CovenantD 20:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Batman.html --DrBat 20:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

While I don't have an opinion one way or the other on Batman, I do have to say that I wouldn't consider www.adherents.com to be a definitive source on religious affiliation any more than I would trust gayleague.com to be the final word on sexual orientation. CovenantD 01:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But they are a great source of information on the hottest nightclubs. --Chris Griswold 02:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Adherents.com can only be a secondary source concerning comic book characters. Look for evidence in the comics for primary sources. If it doesn't exist, Batman's out of the category. Kaijan 02:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So long as we're not saying 'He believes in hell so he must be <insert religion>' I think that's fair. You can say you're going to hell without actually beilving it, but in this case, I think we need more proof that Bats is an atheiest (negative proof proves nothing). -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think relegion is more an application of faith, whereas Bruce takes certain things as fact. he doesnt have to be a Christian and have faith that there is an afterlife; he knows this for certain. My thoughts are, when you carry such definable knowledge of subjects, certain componants of faith and certianly relegious dogma become totally irrelevant. Therefore it would be a mis-service to label Bruce in terms of any relegious or anti-relegious methodology. Violet Grey 15:11, 8 June 2006

Batman is very clearly and definitely an aetheist -- and he is aware that he knows people who have risen from the dead, has fought alongside both angels and demons, etc. Unfortunately I don't have my comic collection handy; obviously it's not something DC crows about very often, as shouting that the most popular comic character in America doesn't follow the consensus religion isn't a way to boost sales. I'll keep my eye open for issue #s though so I can cite an actual reference. Simnel 20:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a pretty avid Batman fan, and I'm open to seeing evidence toward this (heck, I'm an atheist myself). But the closest thing I've read that points toward Batman being truly an atheist is in Dective Comics #574. Robin (at the time, Jason Todd) is injured, and Batman must rush him to Dr. Thompkins. As Batman waits for the results of Robin's condition, Thompkin's asks Batman if he preys, to which he simply replies "No."

Batman's interaction with the DC Universe as a whole would seem to interfere with the idea that Batman's an atheist simply because of the supernatural elements he must deal with. But when he's strict to the city of Gotham, or the Batman realm, I could much more easily perceive him as an atheist; I just don't see enough evidence to announce this as factual. It could also depend on who's writing the story at the time. Religion rings deeply with those involved in it, and someone who was raised Catholic could have a hard time officially portraying Batman as an atheist. One writer may have him make references to "heaven" while the other keeps him very logic and scientific in his approach.

Nevertheless, it's an interesting topic, so keep us posted on anything you come up with. -- Caleson 1 July 2006

Ted Knight is an atheist despite knowing the Spectre and Dr. Fate. So's Michael Holt. "He knows angels" isn't the best argument for this. --Chris Griswold 08:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why www.adherents.com seems to have been automatically dismissed, the pictures and referances certainly seem to be food for thought and an unbaised article. Their suggestion seems to be that Batman is variously presented as some sort of Christian or an atheist, his personal convictions upon to reflection and change like any other person. Not really the viewpoint of a website that would be "pushing" religion. Considering the varying ways Batman has been portrayed, from stating he sees no reason to believe in god in year 2, to miller's depictions of Batman as a Catholic, I'd suggest that the article NOT make mention of his religion, as it's too far subjective to be appropite for wikipedia. --Impulse 18:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Joke Section

I don't think this belong here, and it think it lowers the article's quality. --Chris Griswold 13:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it unnessicarily adds to the length of an already long page. Make a Batman and Robin Jokes page if you must, but they're not really that notable once you're out of grammar school (my gran excluded). -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This user added the "Flatman and Ribbin" joke to maybe three articles yesterday, including steamroller and its own individual, quicly-deleted article. That is dedication to kind of comedy. --Chris Griswold 13:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Persistance I'll give'm ;) But as a joke on it's own, Flatman and Ribbon doesn't stand alone. S'why I said make a Jokes (plural) page for Batman Jokes. But come up with more than three first. Maybe a Superhero jokes page would be even better. After all, who has steel balls? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

hey, i wanna know -- who has 'em? --Ghetteaux 13:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Modern debut

The article assumes that the modern interpretation of Batman began with "Year One". Thing is, it didn't. The Post-Crisis Batman's adventures began with Batman #401, and even then he made a prior appearence in the Man of Steel miniseries. So what should we do? WesleyDodds 05:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Listing the first issue of Year One is more appropiate. It doesn't matter which was the first issue that came out after the merging of the Earths of the original Crisis. The story from #401 was clearly not intended to be part of Batman's new origin (remember, Superman ran for EIGHT MONTHS after the Crisis before John Byrne came in). Also, you might want to take this into account: since every single Earth-One story is technically part of the current's Batman career unless there's reference to a specific event deemed uncanonical by the Crisis, shouldn't 1964's Detective Comics #327 be the modern Batman's first appearance? If you look at hero profiles in many popular fansites such as DC Cosmic Teams, when regarding characters who were published in the interim between the Golden and Silver Ages, such as Aquaman or Green Arrow, they usually list their first Golden Age appearance as "Historical" and their first appearance after being revamped in the Silver Age as "Modern" (for both the shift came around 1959, when Aquaman was changed from a scientifically augmented Human to a Half-Atlantean, and when Green Arrow was given the whole billionare-loses-fortune-and-ends-up-on-a-deserted island origin which made him a little bit less bland and generic). They don't seem to list the Post-Crisis stories which changed their origins as their first appearances, since the Silver Age tales still remain largely canonical even if Aquaman is fully Atlantean rather than a hybrid, or the conditions in which Oliver Queen ended up on the island are different. --Ace ETP 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Where to put this?

I removed the following section from 'Supporting characters' and I think it should go back in but I don't know where. Help?

Batman is often portrayed as the complete moral focus of the DC Universe, even moreso than their staple character of Superman. Although his tactics are viewed by some as barbaric, he is always the one to see the greater good in a situation, and always deduces the most just outcome. He does not let personal bias or friendship impede his rigid understanding of right and wrong. Batman's response to longtime friend Dr. Leslie Thompkins's decision to withhold medical treatment from Stephanie Brown, the fourth Robin, and allow her to die seems to substantiate this claim. Because Batman maintains a strict rule of never taking a life, he sees Thompkins as "nothing more than another murderer in my criminal database," and threatens to have her medical license revoked should she return to the United States.

It's useful information but it felt like more than just a toss in supporting chars -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 00:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How about here? Batman#Persona CovenantD 00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do people keep removing this? It's relevant information. If you take anything, make it the beginning of this, but keep the description of Spoiler's death in! CmdrClow 08:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's being removed because it is the author's personal interprutation of the character, and does not maintain critical distance. "Batman is [...] the complete moral fucus of the DC Universe," and "[...] does not let personal bias or frendship impede his rigid understanding of right and wrong" violate Wikipedia's No original research and Neutral point of view policies. An encyclopedia is not the place for inturpretive analysis. As far as the last few sentences, they are plot points best left for the Leslie Thompkins and Spoiler (comics) articles. ~CS 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The last points show a portion of the Dark Knight persona that he only maintains as Batman, not Bruce Wayne. The original portion I agree is out of place, but describing his stance on right and wrong and how nothing interferes with it is relevant. CmdrClow 00:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've re added the portion discussing his stance on right and wrong and it's substantiation. Please do not remove it again. CmdrClow 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry -- I've removed it (for the first time, IIRC, past efforts were by others). While I think your sentiments are correct, I don't think that this paragraph works at all. "his rigid understanding of right and wrong" is just too much of a personal reflection on the material. Batman comics do not tend to be moralizing, and I don't think that a reader's interpretation of morality belongs in the article -- espectially when it's such a strong issue *of interpretation*. The material is easily read the other way: Batman is taking the crime very personally, and reacting as such. I think the (huge spoiler) plot points are too wordy, and belong in differnt articles.

I'd encourage a re-write from scratch -- certainly some language about being "stern" and "uncompromising" is appropriate, and avoids the tacky issue of morality. If the rewrite incudes information on the Thompkins affair, I think it should be trimmed down to something about evidence in "Batman's handling of Leslie Thompkins' role in 'War Games'" or "Thompkins' revelations about Spoiler's death." Keep it short and sweet, and avoid anything close to plot summery. ~CS 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Clooney's Batman Gay

I made an edit because after viewing the Barbara Walters interview, I think it can be clearly seen that Clooney was joking about the Batman being gay after being asked if he would play a gay cowboy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx3IjSXOt8c&search=barbara%20walters So I changed it from Clooney "said" to Clooney "joked". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hokgwai (talk • contribs) .

Good work, cowboy! --Chris Griswold 08:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's your interpretation of the interview. I'm changing it back to the NPOV 'said.' CovenantD 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

He did say it jokingly. It's hardly an opinion to state that he was being humorous and lighthearted; he simply was. In fact, I deleted the piece entirely because there's really no relevance. It's causing people to misinterpret it and take it too concrete, as I've seen on my message board. --Caleson 13 June 2006

OK, don't say he was joking; was he laughing? You can say he was laughing. --Chris Griswold 13:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't laughing, he didn't have a huge grin on his face, and anybody can check it out for themself - the link to the video clip is in the article (it's the last 30 seconds or so of the interview). I think it's important because if nothing else it shows a knowledge of the issues surrounding Batman's sexuality. CovenantD 14:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, Clooney was saying it in a very lighthearted and humorous matter. It's really not something to be taken as so concrete and serious. He did not mean to portray a homosexual character; he just ended up making it that way and it's simply a humorous and somewhat regretful retrospect for him. He has stated on several occassions that he was "a big fan" as a kid, so you can honestly imagine him truly attempting to play a homosexual Batman? Neither Clooney, Kilmer, nor O'Donnel were actually trying to play homosexuals; they all have relationships with, and kiss, women for crying out loud. And as I said, this is obviously causing a lot of misinterpretation by fans. If you refuse to leave the piece out, I would just like to at least edit it a bit with a words like "allegidly." That's not asking a lot, and I'm just trying to be reasonable. When you see enough of Clooney's interviews, you know when not to take him so seriously as to report it to the world as a bold, serious statement. --Caleson 13 June 2006

Did he indicate he was joking in any other way? Did he make a humorous blow job gesture? These details might helpt. --Chris Griswold 18:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be glib. If we look at the difference in Clooney's demeanor when he is talking about his investigative trip to Dafar (which was undeniably serious) and his comment about how he played Batman (to which Barbara Walters responded to with laughter, because she knew he was joking after asking him a serious question about Brokeback Mountain), I think we can all see that Clooney was not making a serious comment about his portrayal of Batman. Barbara Walters asked him a direct question (joking or not) "George, is Batman gay?" To which he responded, "No, but I made him gay." With all due respect, I am changing it back to "Clooney joked --User:Hokgwai 8:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the additional information in the topic now. Thank you, Hokgwai! In all honest, the entire Homosexual interpretations piece belongs in the article for Seduction of the Innocent or the nutty doctor that proclaimed it in the first place. We know Batman is and never was intended to be homosexual, but for some reason, we seem to have people who are obsessed with proving otherwise.

--User:Caleson 1 July 2006

Have you seen Clooney make jokes? He rarely laughs or smiles when kidding around. Doczilla 05:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

As per the Batman FARC, I have tried to deal with the Trivia section. I ended up deleting most of it, but was able to keep the bit about the source of Bruce Wayne's name; however, I think that the item about Forbes Mag's comparison of Bruce Wayne's wealth is interesting. Unfortunately, I do not know where it should go. --Chris Griswold 17:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I put it under the Bruce Wayne subsection. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am really happy to see the changes that are taking place. The combination of several sections under "The return of Jason Todd" is brilliant. Not sure why it hasn't been done before. --Chris Griswold 18:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What about combining Infinite Crisis and 52's sections into one? They're both very short, and pretty much the point of 52 is 'a world without Batman' so we shouldn't expect to see him... -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Infinite Crisis is the catalyst for his departure. --Chris Griswold 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of the character

Could someone explain where the section evolution of the character has gone from either this article or History of Batman? It's purportedly merged back here but I can't seem to find it. Hiding Talk 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh. Looks like Covenant D didn't bring it over. I pulled it back over. That said, I still think it should go to it's own page, as we're at 65k again and there's only so much you can trim down. I'm going to tackle the supporting characters again, since we've cleaned up the Batman Family page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Plus, it's redundant and largely redundant. --Chris Griswold 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And in the wrong tense. (The above was an error but was too funny to fix.)--Chris Griswold 21:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Present tense, people

With all of the new edits going on, a lot of people are incorrectly changing the tense. When it comes to the story elements, you should write those in present tense. Yes, "four teenagers serve as Robin" is correct. This is a work of fiction. --Chris Griswold 21:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I get that, but it came off sounding like 'four at the same time' and we all know that's not correct. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ipstenu. When talking about stories that span over the course of years, it is confusing to speak of each one in the present tense. Also, because of the serial format of the Batman stories (and most comics in general), the passage of time within the fiction is important. There is a present and a past in the Batman mythos, and for this reason I think past tense is acceptable when present tense would be confusing. We need clarity over "proper" grammar.--rrmonroe 18:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The clarity comes into play when it is clear that these are fictional events and not real ones. I can pick up a comic tomorrow and read Bane breaking Batman's back, and it's present to me. These are the reasons we write about fiction in this way. It's Wikipedia policy, and it has already been discussed on the WikiProject's talk page; take it up there if you have to. But if we're going to hold on to FA status for this article, we need to write properly. --Chris Griswold 02:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but I do think there is a big difference in the clarity of the statements "Bane breaks Batman's back" and "Four teenagers serve as Robin." The first is a plot summary and should be in the present tense, but the second is a statement on the Batman mythos and should recognize the passage of time. If someone unfamiliar with Batman were to read that four teenagers serve as Robin, regardless of them knowing that Batman is fiction, they will become confused. Even explaining that Dick Grayson isn't Robin anymore can be a hassle sometimes. So, while the policy is to talk about fiction in present tense, as it should be, I think there has to be some flexiblity, for the sake of clarity, when talking outside of plot summary. Writing properly is all in vain if people can't understand the meaning.--rrmonroe 12:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, rrmonroe. I restored some of the very odd-sounding present tense usage to past tense. -- JHunterJ 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fictional history can use the past tense, according to WP:1SP (see, for example, Middle_earth#History). I looked for the Comic Project's guide to the contrary, but couldn't find it, and nothing in the FARC mentioned tense. In any event, if you must change it to the present tense, you should word it so that it is not awkward-sounding, instead of requesting others to fix your fixes. -- JHunterJ 12:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay! English-major hat on! Chris Griswold is absolutely, 100% correct that works of fiction should be written about in the present tense. The conceit is that a work of fiction is not intended to relate past events, but unfolds as we are reading. Even when the author makes a creative decision to write in the past tense (It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, It was the summer of 1923) for the reader, the events are still taking place as we read. The question here is the relationship between the reader and the text: the relationship is immediate, not vicarious. We're writing about works of literature which are perpetually present, not about real people or events that actually took place in the past.

That said, the serial nature of comics adds a difficult element to this: because the events of the story take place over so much time -- both in the reader's world and in the internal continuity of the stories -- sometimes the present tense is imperfect for expressing ideas accurately. The best way to handle this is to write around the problem -- as I see Ipstenu has taken a stab at in the questionable sentence. Since this sentence is still unclear, I've given a try to write around the problem from a different approach. My sentence is also imperfect, however, and it may be necessary to return the sentence to its original past-tense form if no satisfactory write-around is found. While I would object strongly to revising the majority of the article to past-tense, I believe the English language is pliable in this regard, and we can skirt rules in instances where it makes the sentence more clear. ~CS 19:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Batman isn't a novel, play, or other "work of fiction". The specific comic book Detective Comics #1 is, but the Batman character isn't, and the entry here is about the work-spanning character not about a particular work of fiction. The literary present is not "absolutely, 100%" applicable to such a character. -- JHunterJ 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree -- if we were talking about a body of work (Shakespeare) or another serial character (Sherlock Holmes) the same rules apply.

CS42, I think your idea and mine are coming from opposite directions ;) Out of curiosity, what did you feel mine made unclear? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mostly because of the way it designates Drake as the "Forth Robin" when he's actually both the 3rd and the 5th... It was intrinsic to your wording, but with the genesis that JHunterJ and ChrisG's newest edits provide -- I think we can just eliminate the line alltogether... ~CS 21:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Batman's Age As Of Now (One Year Later)

Everybody accepts that Batman went overseas at either 12 or 13 and studied martial arts for nearly twelve years, until his return to Gotham. That would make him 24 or 25, if we can rely on Frank Miller and Batman: Year One as the official early Batman adventures. Batman: The Long Halloween takes place a few months after that, prior to the events of Batman: Dark Victory. During Dark Victory, a 26 year old Batman takes in 12 year old Dick Grayson and trains him as Robin for about five years.

Then, at 17, Dick leaves the mantle of Robin and becomes Nightwing. Jason Todd, about 14 or 15, becomes the next Robin and dies within the year (Batman says in one Batman that Jason died after nine months of being Robin, this is after the reboot and the Crisis On Infinite Earths. This would leave Batman at about 31. Now, shortly afterwards, 12-year old Tim Drake takes up the role of Robin, and a year or two later, Batman: No Man's Land happens over the course of a year. Another year later, Tim is now 15, Bruce is now 33, the Batman: Hush story arc begins over the course of a few months.

During the new part of the year, the Infinite Crisis happens, the Battle of Metropolis results in Superboy's death, and Jason Todd, now 18 or 19, comes back as the Red Hood. Fast foward one year later, Batman is now 34 or 35 (just about right), Tim Drake is around 16 to 17, and Dick Grayson is now about 21-23. It all adds up.

Overall, Batman is definitely early to mid thirties, and that's the oldest he'll get! Look at Superman, he has always been aged around 30, and he'll never get older! The movies Superman: The Movie and Superman Returns prove this by showing him in his late twenties, just around that right age. Psst, I heard that a later One Year Later story is gonna have Batman and Robin get doused in some youth restorative of Ra's al Ghul's, bringing them back five years younger. Tim, around 17, would probably become 11 or 12, and Batman would be brought back to his late twenties! Thank goodness for the slowing of aging, or Batman would be walking around with a cane! --Jonathan.Bruce 07:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Batman's height and weight

I didn't see this mentioned in the article, so thought I'd throw it out there. In one of the Justice League episodes (I believe in the "Wild Cards" episode) it shows a brief display of Batman's height at 6'3" and weight at 240 lbs. Have fun. --Alsayid 06:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wheeeee! --Chris Griswold 08:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the spirit! Let out a hearty Comic Book Guy cheer! :-) --Alsayid 07:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What's a "comic book"? --Chris Griswold 08:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In the comics, Batman is listed as standing at 6'2" and weighing 210 lbs.

Got rid of

I have just got rid of the whole paragraph talking about him being gay. I don't care if I get blocked from editing. I just don't think it's fair that the second main DC hero is being ruined like this.--Mr.Nobody 19:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Mr.Nobody

Interesting language. Interesting also that you're unconcerned with consensus here. The section has been discussed, and the decision was made to keep it, on the grounds of its historical relevance. If you can't respect that, then we don't need your contributions. -Smahoney 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

All historical interpretations of Batman are valid. And you seem to be discarding the Homosexual Interpretations section without even reading it, since you fail to note that it ends with the conclusion that Batman is heterosexual. --Ace ETP 20:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove

On the thing that talks about Batman being gay why don't you just remove some?

Batman, both as a superhero and in his identity as Bruce Wayne, has been portrayed throughout his years in comics and other media as not only heterosexual, but also as having enjoyed a high number of romantic and/or sexual relationships with women, and his encounters with his female adversaries have also occasionally used sexual tension to add to the narrative. While it remains possible, through deconstruction and re-interpretation, to view these actions as a means by which Batman is deluding himself about his own homosexuality, the gay interpretation of Batman and Robin is ultimately subjective and not intended by creators in most contexts.

Or add a little more than what's above^^^^

Don't agree with me? If not then oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.210.87 (talk • contribs) 15:48, June 13, 2006

You're not even addressing what's contained in the text. If you want to modify what is in the article, it only makes sense for you to actually read what is there currently. -Smahoney 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with Smahoney. We need to put some sort of permanent tag about that section in the talk page in order to make some people stop rushing to erase a well-written and well-reasearched part of the article, which they wrongly perceive to be an insult to Batman, even when it concludes those interpretations are mostly subjective and farfetched. --Ace ETP 20:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a note in hidden text, as suggested. I hope that it deters some wrong-headed editors from removing this again and again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Josiah. We needed something like that, and hidden text in the article's source is much less awkward-looking than a tag in the talk page. --Ace ETP 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Batman page

What's up with the The Batman page? Everything's like gone! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.37.71.145 (talk • contribs) .

Eh? No it's all there. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 21:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Too Long?

Does anyone else think this article is a bit lengthy? It's listed as one that needs to be condensed, and I have to agree. After all, this is meant to be a wiki. character article, not "the definite analysis of Batman and all things Batman." Anyone of the same mind? And if so, any ideas on what can go? Bhissong 16:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)bhissong

It seems like it recently got longer, including a lot of uncited behind the scenes stuff. --Chris Griswold 22:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Christopher York

I proposed the article on Christopher York for deletion (see WP:BIO), and was asked by the creator to annouce that fact on this talk page since he is mentioned in the section on homosexual interpretations of Batman. I think it makes perfect sense for the referecne to his paper to remain here but for his own article to be deleted, but if anyone disagrees I won't worry about it. Eluchil404 02:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with a deletion of the Christopher York article, given his lack of notability, but the reference to him in [Batman]] can surely continue to remain in place. Good work Elichil! - Dyslexic agnostic 07:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

(Stalker!) Just kidding. --Chris Griswold 20:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for protection

I don't think ALL new or unregistered users should be blocked from editing this page, but seeing as how this article seems to suffer new acts of vandalism everyday, I propose we vote to determine if we should continue to allow new and unregistered users to edit it. We just succeeded in keeping Batman as a featured article. We can't let everybody's work go to waste. --Ace ETP 21:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Random acts of vandalism are to be expected. The article probably won't be sprotected unless heavy, continous vandalism is taking place. Joelito (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Every day? Seems a small exaggeration. Heck, the Robin page had more cruft cleanup than this one yesterday. I think this is a pretty low vandal page, all told. I counted 7 vandalism in the last 100 edits. That's pretty small, IMO. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like there has not been quite as much vandalism on this page as usual, but it has been pretty constant in the past. I count at least nine acts of vandalism in the past 100 edits, though, and with the history of vandalism, I agree that the protection might be a good idea. --Chris Griswold 23:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Make that 12 now. --Chris Griswold 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitive stories

I'm wondering whether it's feasible to have a section where a list of definitive Batman stories can be shown. I realise that "definitive" is a very subjective term, but I think it would be useful to have a few key stories that would show how the character was developed over 60 years from Bob Kane's original creation to the current version. This runs the risk of people putting in their favourite Batman story as a "definitive" story, but I think it's worth the risk. The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One are the two automatic choices, but since these were written iin the 80s, I'd like to see a more representative selection across 60 years. Let me know if this is workable or not. --D'Olivier 19:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, now I see the section "Evolution of the character", which works just as well. Can we put a section referencing the individual issues, or sets of issues used in this section? --D'Olivier 19:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be ideal. I encourage everyone to do this. Tag any issues you can't identify with {{issue}}--Chris Griswold 23:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Status of 'sons'

Batman 654 labels Grayson as his ward (and skips over Jason). Should we switch it here? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought he adopted both of them. Hasn't Jason called Dick brother recently? --Chris Griswold 23:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but the ish of Batman that just came out ends with Bats telling Tim that since the laws have changed and he can't make Tim his ward, like he did with Dick, that he wants to adopt Tim (and since that ended with a hug, and knowing what the next storyline is, I'm not leaning towards Tim being adopted yet...). Jason's also kind of insane ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, Tim had a father - he doesn't need Bruce to be his ward or his adopted father.--82.41.82.183 12:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You missed Jack Drake getting killed by Capt'n Boomerang, then. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that Drake killed Boomerang as well. The truly amazing thing is that he did it while still in a coma. --Chris Griswold 18:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, that didn't happened drake shot first at cap boomerang, then when he fell he threw his boomerang killing drake. it's in identity crisis. chapter five father's day--Brian Boru is awesome 23:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone apparently didn't get the joke.--Wakefencer 00:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be one of the first unexpected changes from Infinite Crisis. That and the new origin for Martian Manhunter's aversion to fire. --Chris Griswold 06:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too. Brave new world, indeed! ;) Okay, Dick changed to legal ward. Now to figure out how to reverse word that (legal guardian?) for Dick's page! -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

When did this happen? I thought Bruce had offically adopted Dick a few years ago?--Wakefencer

Batman #654. All the changes I expected didn't happen, and now these are starting to appear. --Chris Griswold 17:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue. Dick Grayson was officially adopted as Bruce Wayne's son in Batman: Gotham Knights 21 [1], years after he quit being Robin and became Nightwing, and I don't recall that issue being retconned in any way. It is perfectly feasible to have both Dick and Tim as sons of Bruce.--D'Olivier 23:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

D'Olivier, as of Batman 654 (the issue that came out Wednesday June 28), Batman clearly states Dick was his ward, so ... welcome to Post Crisis Redux ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what, though? Does it say that he never adopted Dick? Because at Tim's age, Dick always had been his ward; he was only adopted years later, when he was an adult.--Chris Griswold 23:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. --D'Olivier 09:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Dick was my ward. Legally. It gave him security. I think you should have that too. However ... The laws have changed. I can't adopt you as my ward. For you to have the security I feel you deserve ... ... I'd have to adopt you as my son." (emphasis the comic, not me) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the Crisis has changed anything about Dick's status as Bruce's adopted son. An inconsistency such as the one we're discussing should be attributed to a writer screw-up not to have any long-lasting effects rather than an intentional retcon. What D'Olivier says is true, Dick Grayson seems to have been officially adopted when he was an adult. Bruce Wayne referencing originally adopting Dick as a ward shouldn't conflict with that, specially when it seems that Dick's adoption from "Batman: Gotham Knights" # 21 was written into the story as a response to storylines from earlier comics in which Dick reacted angrily when he found out that, unlike him, Jason Todd had been adopted as soon as he moved in with Bruce. I'm sure the scene from "Batman" #654 was just meant to illustrate that Bruce thinks Tim is special enough to not have to go through a "legal ward phase" (in fact, there are a lot of scenes in "Face The Face" in which Bruce says how much more potential that Dick does he think Tim has). It seems strange to have Dick as the only Robin not listed as an adopted son when he's the only one who really has had a father-son relationship with Batman (and what's the difference, really? I'm sure many nations in the world don't have a separate legal definition for "legal guardian" and "adoptive parent"). I vote in favor of keeping it as "adopted son". --Ace ETP 04:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. There have been a bunch of continuity errors already, and ORacle just called her team the "Birds of Prey" in Blue Beetle, even though Gail Simone made it clear that's not the team's name in a recent issue. DC is fallible. --Chris Griswold 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me too. Though ... anyone else think that adopting all three Robins isn't a bad idea for Bruce? I mean... dude. "He adopted three teenagers, all with black hair. I wonder if they're Robin." Good job ;) Of course, Tim may never get adopted what with the Son of the Bat storyline coming up -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, about that...we might have too put Ibn Al Xu'ffasch among the mainstream continuity relatives as soon as the first issue of the "Son of the Bat" arc comes out, since the story in which Xu'ffasch was was conceived is getting a new printing immediately before, hinting that the whole thing with Batman and Talia having a illegitimate child together is being brought back into continuity. The only potential child of Batman posing problems is Helena (Catwoman's baby). If Bruce turns out to be her father, although some people will try to list her as separate from Earth-Two's Helena Wayne due to the latter being dead, it's pretty clear we shouldn't do that, since we don't list, for example, Earth-Two's Dick Grayson as a separate entity from the mainstream Dick Grayson, despite their difference of status. Another problem is under what name we should list her. Even if both Earth-Two's Helena Wayne and baby Helena are daughters of their respective universes' versions of the same couple, they still have different legal names (Earth-Two: Helena WAYNE. New Earth: Helena DUBROVNA). Should we avoid the whole last name problem by going with "Helena (daughter)"? --Ace ETP 22:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a couple months before that crops up. We don't find out Helena's dad until Catwoman #59 (September). I'm guessing Bruce isn't the father, but if he is, I think Helena Dubrovna (daughter) would work well. Still will catch the eye, but unless we have to split up Helena (pre/post ciris), I saw we avoid it ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think what Bruce is referring to is the fact that he didn't adopt Dick while he was a minor. He only adopted Dick a few years ago after Dick was well into his thirties. Now, however, Tim has to be adopted, since the legal ward idea apparently doesn't exist. I don't think the remark negates Dick's adoption, it just reinforces the fact that it did not happen until he was well into his 20s.--Wakefencer

Jason is probably legally dead in the United States, which is probably why Batman makes no mention of him as his ward or son. Jason is also kind of the black sheep of the Bat family. CmdrClow 10:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There is another robin!

I'm new new new, but the other night I read a Batman comic in which the new robin is female, a 12 year old girl named some asexual name that has a 't' sound in it. (I need to get my hands back on the book...) I just wanted to draw attention to it, until I can sign in with the info, if others have it on their fingers more readily

You mean Stephanie? The teenaged mother is already in the article. --Chris Griswold 05:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

The images lacks fair use rationales. This is a requirement for a featured article. Please fix this. --Maitch 11:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you mean? --Chris Griswold 12:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed all the images currently used in this article, and found that almost all of them include fair use rationale. I've added clarifications where nessicary. There is only one that I find dubious: Image:Batman 1989 1992 02.jpg claims to be public domain, but I am unsure if this is true. We may have to find a fair-use publicity photo of Keaton to replace it. ~CS 16:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, if anyone can identify where this image originates, I wouldn't mind seeing it put back into the article. ~CS 16:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Bill Finger

Please justify the inclusion of Bill Finger as a "creator". Bob Kane created Batman and it was brought to Bill Finger to develop. It even says this right in the article. Finger is important to the Batman character as we know it, but he did not co-create him.Rhindle The Red 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The real question is this: Why do you think he shouldn't be listed as a co-creator? The first two paragraphs of the Publication History of the article lists enough contributions to the character for him to be, in substance, a co-creator. He created the Bruce Wayne name, made significant alterations to the costume as part of the creative process, and actually wrote the first few stories! --D'Olivier 16:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Rhindle wants it to be removed from the article; because a nunber of us want it to remain, Rhindle must convinces us to remove it. --Chris Griswold 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Kane created concept drawings, Finger developed the character. Every history I'm familiar with -- including Les Daniels' book -- is clear on how much of a colaborative effort it was. The Wikipedia article itself is clear on this, including the controversy over Finger's ommittion in the byline. ~CS 18:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, the only reason Kane is generally the only one credited is because it was in his contract, back at a time when many artists and writers didn't have the rights to their characters or recieve royalties.--Wakefencer 19:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about what you want, it's about the truth. Finger has never been recognized as co-creator of Batman. Bob Kane was always quick to give him credit for helping develop the idea, but Batman has always been solely credited to Kane. That's because Batman existed from the moment Kane created him and brought him in for consideration. That the publisher did not feel it was ready for public consumption doesn't change the fact that once Kane drew Batman, Batman existed. And the concept of Batman remains close to what Kane originally conceived. As things like Batman Beyond have proved (not to mention the dozens of "Elseworlds" stories), Batman can exist without Bruce Wayne, et. al. The work that Finger did on the strip (though vital to its success) is comparable to the work done on Dick Tracy by the editor of the Chicago Tribune (whose name escapes me). He changed much of Chester Gould's original ideas and even named the character. (He would have been Plainclothes Tracy.) Finger's contribution is important and should be noted and honored, but the character existed before Finger ever touched him.Rhindle The Red 20:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Finger did much more than that, Rhindle. Even if Batman can work as a character without being Bruce Wayne, this article is about Bruce Wayne as Batman, and Finger's creation of the man behind the mask and his backstory should warrant him a creator credit in this page. It doen't matter if it was Kane by himself the one who did the drawing from which Finger later developed a character, because every single character in existence is consciously or subconcsiouly already based on an pre-existing archetype. There's always going to be an earlier concept in which people base their creations. But if we are to take the creators of the earlier concepts into account as the only people worth crediting, then not even Kane can be listed as the creator of Batman. We'd have to put the creators of Zorro and Spring Heeled Jack. But that wouldn't be right. For example: the creators listed in the Tim Drake article are the people who developed Tim Drake's first appearance, not the people who developed the first Robin 70 years ago, and the creators listed in the article for the Marvel character Gladiator (who is based on Superman) are the people who developed Gladiator's first appearance, not Siegel and Shuster. Kane's contribution to Batman (the character dressing up as a bat) is arguably less pertinent to the way the public perceives the character than Finger's contribution (the character being a man who wants justice for his city after witnessing the murder of his parents. Think about it: All Batmen from Elseworlds or Batman Beyond stories are pretty much motivated by that, even in the few cases in which they aren't alternate Bruce Waynes or even people who dress up like bats). Besides, it was Bill Finger who suggested Kane that the character should be a "Bat-man" with a cowl rather than a "birdman" with a domino mask, so Finger is also partially responsible for the character's graphic design besides being fully responsible for the creation of the character's backstory, something which is hardly ever mentioned at all. All Kane ever did was have the initiative to draw a flying costumed man and show it to Finger. Let's list them both and be done with it--Ace ETP 21:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

He has been credited as a creator of Batman, just not by DC Comics - because they don't have to. And we are under no obligation to abide by DC Comics' editorial or PR decrees. --Chris Griswold 22:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You see, it's this kind of quote that disturbs me: "All Kane ever did was have the initiative to draw a flying costumed man and show it to Finger." This vastly oversimplifies the contribution of the man recognized as Batman's creator. It puts the stamp of fanboyish POV on the whole thing, as if you feel you're righting some great wrong. I'm not going to fight over this, but it's this kind of editorializing in what should be a straightofrward data field that compromises the objectivity of the Wikipedia.Rhindle The Red 14:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due resepect, you are the one editorializing this issue. There's enough third-party information out there that's referenced in the article and can be pulled up in a Google search to indicate a collaborative process between the two to create the character. Bob Kane provided the seed of an idea, and the look, Bill Finger fleshed it out and added character traits. We're still waiting on your defence as to why Bill Finger should be taken off. --D'Olivier 18:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one stating something that goes against the generally accepted idea. (And by that I mean in the general public, not comics fans "in the know".) It is well known that Kane created the character before giving it to Finger. Finger himself often stated that the character existed before he was given it. I am not denying that he had a strong hand in developing the character and defining him as he would come to be known. But as an employee of Kane's (which he was), who had an existing character given to him to develop, I don't see how anyone can claim he "co-created" it. By the rules of existing copyright law, for instance, the character existed as soon as Kane came up with it. Finger's later additions (pre-publication or not) are just that: additions. Kane created the character, Finger developed it.Rhindle The Red 18:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Other than DC Comics-sponsored and -created information, where do you find the idea that Bob kane is the sole creator to be "generally accepted?" We are not bound by copyright law or PR; and actually, the character isn't copyrighted until it sees print. --Chris Griswold 19:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not correct. Copyright currently exists from the moment of creation, not publication. Your statement used to be true, but is no longer.Rhindle The Red 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, really? You just blew my mind! --Chris Griswold 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rhindle, where are you getting the copyright info from? What you say contradicts what the wiki entry on copyright is for an idea and a character, in the section Copyright Law and Limitations:

"Copyright law provides protection to expressions of ideas but not to the idea itself. For instance, if an individual came up with a unique idea drawing from his own personal experience, then he would not be able to protect it under copyright law at that moment. However, if they were to incorporate that idea into a treatment, then it would be an expression of that idea which would be deserving of copyright protection."[2]--D'Olivier 16:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Although, characters can be copyrighted if part of a literary or visual work." The limitations it then goes on to describe pertain to literary works, not visual, as Kane's original drawing would be. As for the "time of creation" aspect, straight from the current US copyright law: "In General. — Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death." As I stated, this was not the case when Kane created Batman, but it is now. If I draw a new character (a visual work) and name it Sludgepuppyman, I immediately hold a copyright on it, regardless of publication.Rhindle The Red 04:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That definition seems flimsy to me (but if it's US law then that's that). You have to support that copyright, through publication that can be verified or dated. I'll stop here, though, the discussion on copyright (though very interesting to me) is going off topic.--D'Olivier 10:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

CS's Long response, with sources

Rhindle -- there is no need to accuse other Wikipedia editors of being "fanboyish" or intimating that they are not being truthful. I assure you that everyone involved is as concerned about article accuracy and truthfulness as you are. The issue of who deserves the credit for creating Batman is a longstanding one -- the issue here is that we're falling on different sides of the argument. You believe that the DC contracts and bylines accurately attribute who the creator was, others believe that the secondary sources which credit Finger as a primary collaborator prove that his role is important enough to warrant co-creator status.

I stress the word "collaborator" because your version credits Finger as an outsider brought into the project late. Ours stresses that Finger was Kane's ongoing collaborator on other projects before Batman, and Kane's contributions were still very, very rudimentary when Finger came on, and it was in the collaboration that the character was truly developed.

I believe that the scholarship agrees with our interpretation.

Les Daniel's Batman: The Complete History is the most thorough text still in publication. Daniels says they agreed to collaborate on comics well before developing Batman (p17), and that Kane and Finger had collaborated on development before Vin Sullivan saw Kane's sketches:

"What Sullivan missed was the process in which first Bob Kane and then Bill Finger ransacked their 
  memories for ideas from the past that they could incorporate into a comic book hero" (p18).

Daniels goes on to explain that Finger was not only a writer on the early publications, but was also there for the initial visual development of Kane's sketches, making contributions to those sketches that were just as vital as Kane's. "This was the figure of Batman that was presented for editor Vin Sullivan's approval, which it promptly received" (p22-23). It is only then that Daniels goes on to talk about Finger's authorship of the early Batman texts -- well after is involvement had already started.

You are correct that DC saw Finger as Kane's employee, but this appears to be largely due to the nature of DC's contractual perceptions, and not their creative process. Kane "had made his deal with DC Comics on his own" writes Daniels (p31), and "'I always felt rather badly that I never gave him a byline," said Kane recently, "He was the unsung hero.'" (p31).

Will Booker's Batman Unmasked: Analyzing a cultural icon concurs with this analysis:

"Kane has, of course, a strong claim to have 'created' Batman in his early sketches, with the proviso 
 that many of his ideas were derivative and were in any case refined by Bill Finger before the 
  character was presented to DC's editors." (p.51)(my emphasis).

Broker also writes:

Finally, with all due credit to Kane, Batman's creator, it is misleading to state that he "learned 
 successfully to share his creation with many other artists." Kane consistently played down the 
 contributions of his art assistant, Jerry Robinson, the writer Gardner Fox, and most crucially, 
  Batman's co-creator Bill Finger [...] without whom the character would never have become the cultural 
 icon he is today." (p.310) (my emphasis).

I would also like to put forth Rick Marschall's forward to Batman Archives: Volume 1:

"There was Bob Kane [...] and Bill Finger [...] the two of whom had been collaborating on comic-book 
 features during the dawning of the Golden Age.  Kane produced the art -- crude, halting, 
 humorously inclined, but art nevertheless; and Finger wrote the scripts."(p4) (again, my emphasis).

Despite the official statements by DC (the controversy over byline credits in their contracts is covered in our article) I believe that scholars and historians on the matter are clear that Batman's creation is clearly a collaborative effort.~CS 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I never said that I felt the writers were fanboyish or untrue except for that one comment, which I still believe is. Secondly, I understand why you and others choose to interpret the situation the way you do, but to my mind all the things you've posted indicate the opposite. Note your regular use of the term "develop". This is quite natural, because that is where Finger comes in, during the development of the character, not the creation. Will Booker's first quote particularly argues against your view, although he also decides on a different conclusion. After the creation of the character (regardless of who else had seen it), Kane brought it to Finger. That much is clear and no one seems to dispute it. The question is whether significant alterations to a character can qualify someone for co-creator status. The issue of the byline is irrelevant as it is a separate issue. Finger certainly wrote the stories and it's unfortunate that he didn't get credit for it, but that does not directly point to the question of Batman's creation. We are simply going to disagree on this, but I have a more direct definition in mind when the word "creator" is used.Rhindle The Red 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I do want to point out (in case it's not clear) that I mean no ill will towards anyone. I just feel strongly about this.Rhindle The Red 14:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rhindle, I'm personally not offended at my comments being labeled as "fanboyish", but I'd like to know exactly why you think it is perfectly acceptable for you to feel strongly about something and wanting this article to reflect that, but it is holier-than-thou nerd behaviour for me to feel the same way? I was at no point disrespectful to you in my comments, so if you truly believed your evidence sufficed to prove your point, why did you bother referring to me with perjorative terms, and acussing me of editorializing and feeling I was "righting some great wrong"? I wonder, what exactly did you feel you were doing when you altered the article, if you feel as strongly as you claim about Kane being the sole credited creator? --Ace ETP 22:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said anything about anyone being "holier than thou". I specifically said that a comment like "All Kane ever did was have the initiative to draw a flying costumed man and show it to Finger." seems to me to reflect a fanboyish attitude. It seems that way to me because it is so strident and dismissive in its language. I have tried to keep my comments about Finger respectful of what he did, but that comment shows (to me, at least) a lack of respect for Kane. As for the "righting some great wrong" line, if you read most articles on Finger and Batman, the tone of "righting a great wrong" emerges. (I know, that's kind of the point of them.) I guess it reads to me like that kind of comment betrays a lack of objectivity. I have no vested interest in Kane, nor any animosity towards Finger. I just see the creator credit as being very specific (the character is created when it is first created and not after later development) and Finger as not qualifying.Rhindle The Red 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the position that myself and others have does not disagree with your definition of creator -- we disagree with the idea that Finger does not qualify. Finger's contribution was immediate and colabrative development, not later development. ~CS 19:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But it's clearly later. The issue is how much later. Finger has said that the character existed before he got hold of it. How does that not make his involvement "later"?Rhindle The Red 14:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If Bill Finger's involvement in the development of the character happened before the first appearance of the character in any media, then that would count. Plus all the points listed above by the other contributors above showing significant alteration to the original idea.--D'Olivier 16:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what publication has to do with anything. The character either existed before Finger was involved or it didn't. Virtually every source says it did.Rhindle The Red 04:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Publication is relevant becuase it is a record of the character's 1st appearance in its final form, the final product of weeks or months of defining, refining and changing what a character looks like, his motivations, etc. Of course, other elements are added as the years go by, but that first appearance in public sets the tone.--D'Olivier 10:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are we including the Clooney quote?

George Clooney made that statement as a joke after Barbara Walters asked him if he would ever play a gay cowboy. The paragraph that was in place was completely out of context and is in no way relevant to this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.104.11 (talk • contribs) .

We should present the information and the reference and let the reader decide. CovenantD 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this paragraph sticks out akwardly, and I'm not certain the context and source are worthy of critical analysis. However -- it is a perfectly acceptable example of homosexual interpretations surfacing in popular culture, and should not be dismissed (or deleted) off-of hand. ~CS 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That was just a tongue-in-cheek statement anyways, since Bruce dated Julie Madison and fantasized about Poison Ivy. Last I checked, they weren't boys. --CmdrClow 10:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)