Talk:Batman

Gay

SO I read through the archives. It appears that everyone is in agreement that the section is not necessary. Some people state that they don't have a problem with it but think its over weighted. I agree its over weighted considering that currently the paragraph is twice the size of the paragraph about batman equipment (go ahead and laugh). The weapons and tools batman uses are far more important then if the writers tried to imply he is gay. No one of significance has expressed the views. The whole paragraph is about the writers, not the character they created. Its one writer or reader talking about another writer or reader. To step away what if some writer came forward and said that Wonder women was w hermaphrodite. Surely someone could find some manly pose or statement, one might find a picture with a large atoms apple. Why would we give that writers view any importance? If people are talking about it they have never talked to me about it. Just leave it in the shadows. Don't bring down or alter the whole characters because some writer after the fact wants some attention or wants to push some agenda. I think there are 2 real options either shorten the section to a paragraph or 2 or simply delete it all together. Since it has been discussed to much already lets just put it to a vote.Mantion (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well...

• This isn't a fan page, it is an entry oin a general use encyclopedia.
• In-story minutia - the Bat-equipment for example - should be given less weight than real world context.
• The section in question is sourced, and does deal directly with the real world context of the character.
• And "It appears that everyone is in agreement that the section is not necessary." is a bit of a skew. Vocal, rabid fans are in agreement - the reliable, verifialbe sources aren't.

- J Greb (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also point out that Wikipedia doesn't use voting, it uses consensus. In this case consensus, despite what you seem to have seen in the archives, is in favour of the homosexual interpretation section remaining. There are a wide range of reliable sources discussing the notion of homosexuality in the Batman texts, and that is reflected in this article. End of story. Euchrid (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Relevant, reliably sourced, stays put. Simple as. Does Tinky Winky get this same level of homophobic pandering? GRAPPLE X 06:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

08/11/2012- Prove you resources as to why this is an entire section. Could it be because it is election year? You are showing a complete bias and I would like to see your stats and resources showing that most people are in favor for the Homosexual section ion this page. Why would I want my 8 yr old daughter to research batman on here only for to ask my what does homosexual mean? Has it ever been written for fact in the comics that batman was gay? No! Even when you used Grant Morrison's quotes, you only used the portion that said it was gay, not the portion that said it was a gay concept. You have even exaggerated Grant's role in Batman, he was in DC Comics since 2006. The big question is, "Why is this even up for discussion"? If you are going to write a homosexual interpretation, you should write a Heterosexual interpretation. I am going to request that this page loses it semi-protected status, after all, you do not work for DC comics any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfrf101 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for minors or morals. And in this case, the homosexual interpretation had significant impact on American comics, so your argument can't stand on that ground either. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Batman or Bruce Wayne's homosexuality is never mentioned in the comics. No interpretation of Batman (TV, video games, etc.) other than the comics has never even hinted at. The only basis for a four paragraph section on homosexuality is a couple of homophores saying he is gay, and a couple who know what they are talking about saying he isn't. There is more speculation for Justin Bieber or One Direction being gay than there is Batman, and it is never mentioned! I think we need to stop writing entire sections based on a few people's interpretation of one Batman frame out of millions.72.74.136.49 (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to the topic of Batman, the opinions of people like Burt Ward or Grant Morrison are very notable. Whether they are correct or not is not the point. Euchrid (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you have a point, there opinion does count. But still, it is arguable that the title of the section should not be "Homosexuality of Batman," but "Sexuality of Batman," Because the title implies a heterocentric view. If it is going to be kept, it should come from a standpoint of "he might be gay, he might be straight," not "he might be gay." If we really want to be technical, the section should also include Batman frames showing heterosexuality, and, if they exist, asexuality and bisexuality, and discuss all of those possibilities.72.74.136.49 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, the Homosexual interpretations of Batman are the only ones that generated any interest or controversy. AFIK Batman has never had any coverage regarding that he may be heterosexual.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Just plain wrong. There have been many articles about Batman's love life, specifically about women in his life, and even discussions about this in TV specials like Batman Unmasked: The Psychology of the Dark Knight. The only part you got right is that they don't discuss if he "may be heterosexual." No, they don't discuss it in that way because it's not even in question. They simply discuss his intimate relationships with women. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My IP has changed so I am the same person that posted earlier. I was not saying that no one has ever mentioned heterosexual relationships that Batman had but simply the fact he has not generated interest on the grounds that he is heterosexual. The homosexual coverage is not a not coverage or analysis on canon relationships but concerns that he was homosexual and how that was corrupting youth. It also was a major focus of a book that was influential in the creation of the comic code. To clarify when I said coverage I actually meant criticism which I don't think applies to him being heterosexual.--174.93.164.125 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2012

Correct spelling of "principle" to "principal" in "principle antagonists" under "The New 52 Relaunch" section of the "Batman" entry. Ljz201 (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Done - nice catch! Euchrid (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Cultural Impact

The fourth sentence of this section states:

In addition, media outlets have often used the character in trivial and comprehensive surveys — Forbes magazine estimated Bruce Wayne to be the 9th-richest fictional character with his $5.8 billion fortune, several places after Iron Man, who is at 6.^[127]

But in the cited source, Forbes Magazine "The Forbes Fictional 15" Bruce Wayne is listed as the 8th richest fictional character, and Tony Stark at 5th. 6th and 9th richest point instead toward Richie Rich, and Forrest Gump respectively. Also note that it is the civilian personas (i.e. Stark and Wayne) who are wealthy, rather than their hero counterparts (i.e. Iron Man and Batman); as listed in the cited article. The sentence should be edited to reflect this as well.

Proposed change to:

In addition, media outlets have often used the character in trivial and comprehensive surveys — Forbes magazine estimated Bruce Wayne to be the 8th-richest fictional character with his $5.8 billion fortune, several places after Tony Stark, who is at 5th.^[127]

Edit :: I realized just after posting this request...

Proposed change based on 2012 Forbes Fictional 15 list rather than cited 2008 referred by the current statement. Retrieved 2012-Aug-09 from http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2012/fictional-15-12/fictional-15.html 70.75.89.120 (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm completely confused now. Mdann52 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Fourth sentence of Cultual Impact (four minor edits): change 9th to eighth; change 6 to fifth; change "Iron Man" to "Tony Stark"; update reference 127 to current data at the website cited above. I hope that clears up the confusion. 70.75.89.120 (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Noom _talk ^stalk 15:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Homosexual Section

Really? What would warrant a entire section to this? 08/11/2012- Prove your resources as to why this is an entire section. Could it be because it is election year? You are showing a complete bias and I would like to see your stats and resources showing that most people are in favor for the Homosexual section ion this page. Why would I want my 8 yr old daughter to research batman on here only for to ask my what does homosexual mean? Has it ever been written for fact in the comics that batman was gay? No! Even when you used Grant Morrison's quotes, you only used the portion that said it was gay, not the portion that said it was a gay concept. You have even exaggerated Grant's role in Batman, he was in DC Comics since 2006. The big question is, "Why is this even up for discussion"? If you are going to write a homosexual interpretation, you should write a Heterosexual interpretation. I am going to request that this page loses it semi-protected status, after all, you do not work for DC comics any way.

Rfrf101 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)rfrf101

"Could it be because it is election year?" - Yeah, we just added it as soon as campaigning began in US. The section is cited to reliable sources and the number of reliable sources available t use for it speaks volumes to its weight and necessity. Just because you're uncomfortable reading comics about a man in a cape and hood who might maybe according to some critics be gay doesn't mean we should disregard a valid and non-fringe field of critical study on the subject. Maybe you should just explain to your daughter (who, by the way, should not be reading a website with uncensored content unsupervised, so you really only have yourself to blame) that some folk are born gay and Batman might be one of them. GRAPPLE X 22:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The big question is indeed why this is up for discussion. Again. The sources are all verifiable and reliable, all the statements accurately reflect statements made by notable people. You're going to need a much better case that "I want to pretend to my daughter that homosexuality doesn't exist". Euchrid (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, you need to provide why there is a whole section dedicated to this unless you are homosexual trying to support a cause. Where is the heterosexual section?...case and point. This will continue to be a discussion until you come up with something better than " The sources are all verifiable and reliable, all the statements accurately reflect statements made by notable people". You have already violated Wikipedia with a half quotation from Grant without providing all of the information pertaining that statement. Trust me, I will make sure that this article semi-protection status is dismissed. Just because you are comfortable with spreading propaganda under the disguise of dialogue, edit it. You have yet to thoroughly explain why this is a section. Again, you do not work for DC comics and your agenda is very clear. Where is the hetero section? What are we supposed to be critically studying? It would have been more appropriate to have a label "Batman in Pop culture" or perhaps modern views of Batman but no, your ever so clear intentions are showing. Time to escalate this issue to higher powers.Rfrf101 (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)rfrf101

The existence of a wealth of reliable sources on the matter is why the section exists; the absolute dearth of "hetero Batman" academia would also explain the infeasibility of your proposed countersection. Simple as. There's no "gay cabal" with an agenda, although their agenda would probably be a bit more fabulous than a wiki article on a nocturnal sadist. GRAPPLE X 05:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Grapple is correct. There is no question that Fred Wertham's treatise would not have appeared were it not for (what I feel is strongly misinterpreted as) homoerotic subext within the comics themselves. Also worth noting SotI was one of the cofactors behind the adoption of the Comics Code Authority. Stop seeing politics where there is none. We do not censor for minors or morals. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Weak argument and your answer still doesn't answer the basic questions. As I said before, you do NOT work for DC Comics. You are in violation. This article will lose it semi protection status. Rfrf101 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)rfrf101

Please explain, at length, why it matters who does and doesn't work for DC Comics. GRAPPLE X 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about Northstar,Hulkling,Batwoman, Green Lantern or Archie Comics who are visibly gay and the comics have reflected. As a matter of fact, is there not a entire page already dedicated to "Homosexuality in Batman Series"? I am not going to explain in any length the obviousness of why one do not work for DC comics when you can't even give thorough responses back to the real questions. Get Real. I have probably watching and reading comics before you were born. This page will lose semi-protection status and it is about time. Propaganda : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. Subliminal. My dialogue has ended and I will take the necessary steps to make sure that this page become editable to the public again. It is clear you do not know what you are doing. Rfrf101 (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)rfrf101

On you go, then, let's see what bile and libel can accomplish. GRAPPLE X 18:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We see what bile and libel has done for this page, it created an entire section without full and proper quotations in the context it was put in and propaganda. That is plagiarism.

User:rfrf101, I'm not sure what you mean my plagiarism. Do you believe that part of the article is copied from another, copyrighted source? Could you explain which one, please? I would also suggest, since I can see that you're a new user, that you take a moment to ensure that you understand the Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and verifiability. More experienced editors may wish to correct me on this, but it is my understanding that these two policies form the cornerstone of the guidelines on what is and is not appropriate to include in an article.Euchrid (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You're completely correct, Euchrid, and rfrf101 is a man who won't change his mind or the subject just from what I'm reading.

rfrf101, again, we are not censored for minors or morals. This means we do not conform to any one belief system's worldview, and while we do take measures to not show blatant pornography (by American standards) we will not refuse to disseminate information that is reinforced by reliable sources that have been properly cited, even if it would cause offense. Any arguments you make have to bear in mind this section is cited quite strongly and won't be edited just to appease your manufactured moral outrage that would make Mary Whitehouse or Patricia Pulling turn over in their graves. It's also worth noting that if someone here is working for DC Comics, they would have already disclosed this information - hiding things has a history of biting editors in the ass. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all while the section is a bit big IMO for the subject matter it is not up to me how much is to go into this article. The fact of the matter is that they have many reliable sources. And it is also really important to remember that whether or not we agree with it is invalid. Technically this is a fictional character and we will never truely know the official creators opinion on Batman's sexual orientation. As for your comment as to why there is a not a heterosexual section, there are a few reasons. 1) Heterocentrism makes it so that heterosexuality is the assumed or "default" sexual orientation in our head until someone says otherwise. 2) Going off of 1 that would would mean that the only purpose of a heterosexuality section would be to discredit the homosexuality section. However creating a heterosexuality section would be fine as long as you could source it. After all a heterosexual interpretation would also be as valid as the homosexual one. So remember a few things. A) The homosexuality section is valid and sourced B) The heterosexuality section would be a response in opposition to the homosexuality section and would need sources to back it up and even if you get them that will not take the homosexuality section down just allow you to add the rebuttal.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted sections...this needs to change.

I think this is one of the many inherent weaknesses with Wikipedia. I keep seeing one editor claim that removing the homosexuality section is POV pushing, but I would argue that including that section is POV pushing and giving undue weight to, let's face it, a stupid and almost childish subject. Interpreting the Batman series as homosexual in nature is POV. There is nothing of substance to support these claims. The section itself really has nothing to do with Batman and mostly has to do with moral panic and a few people's opinions on Batman, so I'm not even sure why it's included in this article.

On a side note, Grant Morrison's reasoning is particularly ridiculous. A man being more devoted to his job/duty/cause than your typical pleasures, such as women, is a common theme in fiction. This theme has never been about implying homosexuality, it has been about implying devotion to a cause. Besides this, the assumption that not being interested in women automatically makes you a homosexual is equally ridiculous. Asexuals exist, as do people too devoted to their work to be in a relationship. I could go on and punch any number of holes in the incredibly shallow reasoning, but it's not really important.

By this standard, ANYONE discussing ANYTHING about Batman could warrant inclusion in this article...regardless of its frivolous nature or unfounded claims. If enough people discuss and make interpretations that Batman is a pedophile, will that also be included in the article? A shoe sniffer? Where do you draw the line for what garbage you include? All it takes is some fool to write a book and for people to talk about it, and then it's encyclopedia worthy? Again, a weakness in this format. "The Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln" is a prime example of this weakness. One idiot writes a book with his offhand interpretations, some people blog about the book, and suddenly it is bulletproof behind the notability standard...and has an entire article of its own despite the fact that it's completely dubious and based on hearsay. Ridiculous.

People are aware that differing opinions and interpretations exist for any given character or person. Even if these subjects become widespread topics of discussion, they really AREN'T notable or relevant for direct inclusion in an article about 99% of the time. These sections never give deeper insight into the article's subject. They pretty much always serve to push a viewpoint, agenda, or to have the subject in question become more ubiquitous.

You can go ahead and cite a bunch of Wikipedia rules that state that you are, in fact, obeying all the rules by including this section in this article. I really don't care about that, because we all know this section is stupid and that the rules that allow tabloid-esque sections like this to be included are stupid. We also know that one of the only reasons that this section is even still here is because it's related to homosexuality, and removing any section or article related to homosexuality is automatically seen as homophobic no matter how ridiculous its inclusion is.

There needs to be a change in the way Wikipedia handles gossip or opinion pieces like this. It simply is not worthy of being in an Encyclopedia. BeardedScholar (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that you could easily have read this talk page in the time it took you to come out with this wall of text, I'm going to be blunt. Read WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and then come back. If you can't understand after that why this section is not going to be removed any time soon, then find another website. GRAPPLE X 04:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the wonderful stock response citing Wikipedia rules that I expected despite the fact that I said I don't care about that. Thanks. But yes, I suppose I should just leave instead of trying to reason with people who hide behind their rules instead of acknowledging the weaknesses that these very rules are producing in articles on Wikipedia. Oh well. Bye. BeardedScholar (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out; thanks. GRAPPLE X 04:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, catty. BeardedScholar (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Bearded Scholar. Again, this is why Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia because there is no way a scholarly encyclopedia would have this. Hey but you so have a right to edit it even if Grapple on a Apple reverses it; he or she does not own the article. Very good argument!Rfrf101 (talk) 07:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)rfrf101

Bonus points for claiming to know more about Batman than the character's principle writer of the last six years. Euchrid (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Afraid I'll have to dock you some points for not only for an appeal to authority fallacy, but I also never claimed to know more about Batman than the writer. I said his reasoning was terrible. And it is. Let's look over the exact quote, shall we?

"Obviously as a fictional character he’s intended to be heterosexual, but the basis of the whole concept is utterly gay. I think that’s why people like it. All these women fancy him and they all wear fetish clothes and jump around rooftops to get to him. He doesn’t care—he’s more interested in hanging out with the old guy and the kid."

I think it's funny that anyone would even defend a statement this stupid. It's about as bad as saying that having friends of the same sex is gay, or that anyone who ever turns down a relationship due to other commitments like work is gay. But hey, since this guy is the writer, I guess I can't question his lame logic. Using this exact same kind of lame logic, Al Bundy is gay because he's frequently uninterested in sex with Peggy and more interested in hanging out with his male friends. Married with Children is totally a gay show. BeardedScholar (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

See, unless Michael Moye and Ron Leavitt want to back you up on that, it's apples and oranges. But maybe wikipedia's no place to be discussing oranges, I mean, Jesus, that's just lame fruits. GRAPPLE X 08:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok. A) This whole argument is about an interpretation NOT a known fact. Nobody is saying that we can prove Batman or Robin or Alfred or anyone else is gay. We are saying that this is an interpretation that many people have. If you can truely find several reliable sources that interpret the Batman story to be a metaphor for "shoe-sniffing" as Beard Scholar said or implying that Batman might have been a shoe sniffer then feel free to add it. Also feel free to add sources that go in opposition to the homosexual interpretation. It will not allow you to take the homosexual section down but will allow you to source your interpretation and prehaps feel better if that is what you truely want. Anyway happy editing.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In point of fact, there ARE several quotes in the homosexual interpretations section from people saying that Batman isn't gay. It's a contentious issue and the aim is to include all sides - I say 'all' because there are far more than two. The fact is that nowhere in that section, or the whole Homosexuality in the Batman franchise article, states that Batman is gay. What it says is that notable people have SAID that he might be gay, or that there might be a homosexual subtext to some of his stories, or that some Batman stories hold special relevance to the LGBT community. At the end of the day, I added the Morrison quote not because I agree with it (I'm pretty ambivalent on whether it's true, to be honest) but because it's NOTABLE. There is no truth in Wikipedia, only notability and verifiability. Euchrid (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the pedophile or shoe sniffer suggestion mentioned earlier it absolutely should be included if it is something has attracted attention from fans, creators, and academics for decades. It should also be mentioned if it was a subject of a book that played a major role in establishing a code of censorship that plagued the comic industry for years. In the end this is not garbage and not as you claim a simply a case of one idiot that happened to write a book.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on this issue but in my opinion we should definitely talk about homosexuality in Batman because it's very important. Batman's brought a lot of homosexual information to the surface and then stuff in the section is okay. What I'm concerned with is the actual section. Do we need to have an at the ready section talking about it? This has nothing to do with the fact it's about homosexuality but in most pages sections have more then one point and these seems more like a subsection to me. But whatever. Bubblington (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

i think wee need a new picture for this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Batman_Lee.png Batman has now since more than a year a new costume!!! 87.78.99.160 (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)--

Generally, "Hey new costume" isn't a reason to change the image. More so when it skew to ignore 70+ years of a more or less stable design.

- J Greb (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Keeping every superhero's image up to date with their most recent incarnation would be time consuming and ultimately pointless recentism. Consensus is that the image should be the look most commonly associated with the character, not the most current. Post New 52, these things have never been so far apart. Euchrid (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If not in the infobox, a new picture of the costume should go somewhere72.74.136.49 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Death of the Family

Maybe we should make an article about the Death of the Family arc. What do you say? --Leader Vladimir (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that that would be a touch premature. There's, what, one issue out so far? I don't think that it's feasible or desirable to cover every Batman story every, and a story arc's notability can really be established until after it's completed. Euchrid (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Batgirl

Shouldn't the last paragraph of Suporting characters be changed (Other supporting characters in the Batman's world include former Batgirl Barbara Gordon....) because Barbara is currently back in the batgirl role and it has been re established that she has been the only one. So she is no longer Former — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattythebassman (talk • contribs) 02:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

DoneEuchrid (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Finger or Fox?

I thought Gardner Fox wrote Batman's origin in Detective #33? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.3.155 (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

They're both credited, from memoryEuchrid (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Dick Grayson

Dick Grayson is the Batman for a short amount of time while Bruce Wayne is supposedly dead. Shouldn't he be included under the alter ego section?72.74.136.49 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

So have Jean-Paul Valley, Terry McGuinness and Damian Wayne, at one time or another. Bruce Wayne is the person most commonly assocaited with Batman, though, so I think it's appropriate for only him to be listed. The infobox displays the core elements of the character, not brief and rapidly reversed changes. Euchrid (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I know. However, regardless of their length of time as Batman, they are still notable and should be put in the infobox. If it needs to be more noticable that the main guy is Bruce Wayne, then fine, make his name bold like the other pages on DC Comics do with the main guy. Regardless of how short their time is as Batman, they are still Batman. Zimri was king for only seven days, but he is noted as king with all of the others. We should treat the short-term Batmen the same way.72.74.136.49 (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

'who' vs 'that' in the lede

Rather than an edit war, can we please have a discussion about whether Batman should be referred to as 'who' or 'that' in the lede? My reasoning for the former is simply that it seems to be the precedent - I've looked over several significant articles about fictional characters, such as Sherlock Holmes, Superman and Robin Hood, and none of them use 'that'. If there's a policy or guideline that I'm unaware of, though, I'm happy to have it pointed out. Thanks. Euchrid (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any guideline that says to use "that" over who, there's also the fact that various categories and lists use the word who, "fictional characters who...". WP:WAF lists many "exemplary" articles that use "who" - however, a lot of them use "he" or the character's name instead. I think that should would solve the issue.|| Tako (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Before you make me go hunting for some old and extensive discussions among WikiProject Comics members, let me point out something that WP:WAF emphasizes: "Exemplary aspects of real-world perspective include...Description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative." Batman is not a living person. Batman is a fictional character that does not exist as a "who" in the real world. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, notice that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics treats a character as a thing ("it") when listing information appropriate for the opening paragraph. Specifically see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(comics)#Characters_2. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't say explicitly to use "it" or "that" and doesn't say not to use "personal words". The character might not be a "who" - but the gender of the character is still male - and therefore "he" should work fine - as in the various exemplar articles. Have you considered the fact that the "it" example in the MOS Comics is used a gender-neutral word? || Tako (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. We've had these discussions at incredible length. Those examples are not the entire basis of what I'm saying. I just hoped it might settle things instead of me having to hunt this stuff down. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when so many character articles use the personal pronoun (add Wonder Woman, Spiderman and Wolverine (comics) to those mentioned above) and none use 'it', I don't see how it can't be true that there's a significant consensus to not use that style. I'd imagine that those pages, along with Superman and Batman, would be the most-visited comic book character pages, and hence the ones most in line with consensus. Again, I'm perfectly happy to be shown a policy or guideline which says otherwise, but from my (admittedly limited) scan of pages to compare with, it would seem that if there were such a policy, most of them would be incorrect. Euchrid (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a strong supporter of the WP:WAF guideline, but I don't think it suggests we should grammatically treat fictional characters as inanimate objects; that's just not how English works. That interpretation would lead to truly absurd text: "It fights an assortment of villains assisted by its crime-fighting partner, Robin." Of course not. The only reason that sounds less glaringly wrong is because it is increasingly common to use that when referring to people, however, doing so is still widely considered an error, and should be avoided.--Trystan (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I should note that, while I obviously prefer the more grammatically correct (in my opinion) 'who', I think that the current lede's use of 'appearing' to get around it is perfectly fine. I would have no objection to leaving it as is. Compromise is good :) Euchrid (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Batman's most defining characteristic"

The article says Batman's most defining characteristic is his refusal to kill. There is no citation for this. As I think many people would consider his most defining characteristic to be his lack of superpowers, this should probably be changed or at least require some sore of citation. --64.129.32.18 (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)