Talk:Batman/Archive 5

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Batman's Origins?

message: I don't think this belong here, and it think it lowers the article's quality. --Chris Griswold 13:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: hey, i wanna know -- who has 'em? --Ghetteaux 13:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joke Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Modern debut 

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Plus, it's redundant and largely redundant. --Chris Griswold 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the wrong tense. (The above was an error but was too funny to fix.)--Chris Griswold 21:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article removal candidates

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Plus, it's redundant and largely redundant. --Chris Griswold 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the wrong tense. (The above was an error but was too funny to fix.)--Chris Griswold 21:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution of the character

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Got rid of

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Remove

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Batman page 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (Stalker!) Just kidding. --Chris Griswold 20:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher York 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Make that 12 now. --Chris Griswold 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That would be ideal.  I encourage everyone to do this. Tag any issues you can't identify with --Chris Griswold 23:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitive stories 

message: 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)
thread_title:  There is another robin! 

message: The images lacks fair use rationales. This is a requirement for a featured article. Please fix this. --Maitch 11:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please explain what you mean? --Chris Griswold 12:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  CS's Long response, with sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why are we including the Clooney quote?