Talk:Batman

An event in this article is a January 12 selected anniversary

---

Page needs more citations

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

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

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

I should probably not have removed the tags in sections such as "Supporting characters" and "Batcave", but in some of the other sections ("Costume", and the intro to "Skills, abilities, and resources", to name a few), the case is different. The article's syntax changed quite a lot for the better through its last FA-review and in the time between then and now. While those changes were occuring, many of the editors who were adding the bulk of comments now tagged were among the same adding the Daniels, Pearson, Jones, etc. refs. So it seems most of the other editors just assumed any uncited sentence from a paragraph which contained a ref later on came from those guys. I wished I owned more of those books so I could make sure in all cases. While I can't understand how can "Batman's costume incorporates the imagery of a bat in order to frighten criminals" can be considered not surmisable from the bibliography, I do agree that there's some problems in some of the sections tagged, but they're problems having to do with a bit original research here and there and unnecessary references to miniscule events in minuscule stories, despite the nice syntax. Maybe there's simply no need for the article to say Batman's is "peerless" in matters of intellect, and therefore no need for a source. Could a major article re-write be what's needed? --Ace ETP (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Which are you suggesting: {{rewrite}} or {{underconstruction}}? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, I was delayed in getting here. I know its a necessary evil, but I really hate when we use specific issues to reference material. I know that several books have been published that cover the discussion of Batman's publication history and whatnot, and DV tends to keep a pretty good rolling db on this sort of stuff.

Regarding the surmisable, I am fortunate enough to know people in mainland China and other places in Asia who have never heard of Batman, and aren't aware of the various things that I asked for citation on. When Bruce decided that the bat was a symbol that be used to frighten criminals is something that could be cited. I would go so far as to suggest that the classic three-panel comic image of Bruce asking the question/bat flying through the french doors/Bruce deciding how bats will work on the "cowardly, criminal lot" might express this perfectly (note that this remains the same despite the evolution of Bruce's fear of bats, a la Legends). This is a link to the panels in question

I should point out that I despise OR and synthesis - common knowledge and common sense aren't. We must approach these articles as if they were being read by absolute beginners to the subject matter (and not simpletons or children).

Lastly, rewrites are always a good thing. It takes the good parts of the previous versions and sifts out the outdated or outmoded preconceptions of the earlier material. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If you despise OR so much, why did you revert my deletion of User:Djfspence's contribution and your innapropiate addition of the descriptor "ridiculous" to describe the 60's television series? Both those edits can't be defended with the arguments you're using towards the inclusion of the tags. One side of an argument should NEVER use the fact that the discussion is ongoing as a justification to revert edits which responded to concerns outside the scope of the argument (in this case, a troublesome edit by a third party threatening to make an edit conflict even worse, and the addition of a personal opinion about something). As for your question, Seeshomaru, I'm leaning towards {{rewrite}}, but the particular advantages and disadvantages of both proposed procedures should be evaluated before making a decision. --Ace ETP (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, it is because what I hate more than OR is the lack of discussion, Ace. Granted, what I should have done is remove campy and instead of ridiculous and substituted banal (the more accessible definition of campy), and I will do so at the end of the discussion.

As well, Djfspence's contribution was sourced, like 90% of the material here - via a comic. That it seemed to specifically explore the Batman/Bruce dichotomy seemed in an interesting way seemed a positive contribution, not a "troublesome edit". I think that discussion should have occurred, and my revert of that edit was meant to inspire that dialogue (as per WP:BRD). As it prompted your posting here, it would seem to have worked. Why do you feel the contribution wasn't needed? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Page needs more citations - arbitrary break 1

• I've pulled some of these tags, they seem to ask for citations on things which fall under sparkling writing rather than facts which actually need verifying. I think some of the ones remaining are also a little over-sensitive. Hiding T 09:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed, and I have reverted some of them. Usually, we do not remove a citation unless we put a citation in its place, it isn't called for (in the case of - as you called it - "sparkling writing"), or discussion consensus as to how the facts are so common and/or well-known that citation exists literally everywhere.

These are the cn tag removals I reverted:

• "He is regarded as one of the DC Universe's greatest detectives{" - I feel this to be a rather extraordinary claim, and as such needs not only citation, but a rather extraordinary one, as well. We cannot make that claim, someone else that we can cite needs to make that claim.

• "The costumes' colors are traditionally..." - traditionally according to who, exactly? Granted, this might be an example of flowery prose (I think it's okay, personally), but until the text is rewritten, we are left with an unsupported statement of implied preference through the use of the word traditional - ie, the use of other colors is unusual?

• "A yellow ellipse around the bat logo on the character's chest was added in 1964" - while a fact tag should have been used, the date the ellipse was added (as well as the not-yet-added reason as to why it was added, which I've always wanted to know) needs citation.

• "Batman keeps most of his field equipment in a signature piece of apparel, a utility belt" - (itals used for identification) As in the "greatest detective" reference above, that this is Batman's most notable piece of equipment is at best, a matter of opinion. Without citation, equally legitimate arguments could be made for the bat-eared cowl, the scalloped cape or gloves or even the Batmobile.

• "The origin of the signal varies, depending on the continuity and medium" - The origin of the Bat-Signal should be expanded upon, as well as how (and perhaps, if possible, why) such an innocuous thing needs constant reinterpretation. I should have marked this with an expansion tag, but could not find one that was statement-specific. My apologies for any resultant confusion.

I think that the addition of these citations would only improve the article, and would request that the tags not be reverted without further discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Okay. The word signature doesn't mean most notable, so if that's the only reason you've added it, I think we can remove that one. I'm unclear on what you want cited regarding the yellow ellipse. If you want information that is not in the article cited, you don't add a citation tag, but rather an expansion one. But that information is better added to another article. The information within the article is already cited to Les Daniels' book. There is a citation to it at the end of the sentence. If you wish to know more, you should read that book. That's how an encyclopedia works, it directs you to further reference works, it is not the ultimate compendium but an overall summary. The reason you have stated for adding back the tag on the greatest detective makes no sense to me. I'm not claiming anything. As to the origin of the bat-signal, this isn't the article to explore the different stories surrounding it. That would be best discussed in an article on the Bat-signal. Have you watched the different media and noted that the origin stories are different? If not, you cannot dispute the citation. You can only dispute a citation if you have verified it does not represent the source. You add a citation needed tag when no citation is present. As I have explained, the citation exists in the text, it is citing the various media. Hiding T 09:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Unrelated point, it's not me who refers to it as sparkling writing. That used to be what the Brilliant prose process called for. The brilliant prose process is now the FA process. I notice that the word sparkling is no longer used, although the desired standard is still high, being that "prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard." Hiding T 10:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My mistake, it used to be "sparkling prose". Hiding T 10:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, could you be troubled to utilize the normal indenting style? It makes separating your comments from your specific bullet points (and the bullet points I, as another editor made immediately above); not everything you say is a bullet point.

Secondly, I am a little confused by the tone of your response. You don't need to bring any condescension here. Perhaps we have slightly different impressions of what the Wikipedia encyclopedia is supposed to be; at the very least, you clearly are mistaken about my level of understanding of it.

Of course, WP is not a compendium in the way you are thinking, but it is supposed to be a concise treatment of the subject matter.It is not an overall summary - that is the definition of the Lead, not the article. Does that mean it should be a fan-crufty clutter of non-essential crap? No. But it will be the go-to article on the subject - or at least that should be our intent. That's the reason we cite everything that requires it. If folk want to explore the matter, they know where to do so. If they want to write branch articles of a particular facet of the Batman, the citation serves as launching point for that sub-article research.

But those questions which are likely to be asked by the reader - readers who are unfamiliar with the Daniels book, or who might not have as exhaustive a knowledge of All Things Batman as you appear to possess - should be addressed within the parent article. Why did the Batman logo come into existence? Why was it later removed? Simply saying that a fact is referenced 'earlier in the article' is not sufficient. If a fact that comes up needs citation, it doesn't need it at some point earlier, it needs it there.

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

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

Hiya, Wesley - seen you around the playground before, but never got a real chance to say howdy. So, howdy. :)

For the most part, I agree with you on your comments about the re-write of the article, as well as the need for sources outside the comic issue. If secondary sources are available, of 'course we should go for them, but as is often the case with comic books, sources from books not composed of newsprint or composed mainly of artboxes is hard to find. As well, sometimes, it's helpful to know when certain turning points occurred in a comic book (the death of Gwen Stacy, Bane breaking the Batman's back, the death of Captain America, and the pivotal (seeming) death of Bucky). :Often, knowing what issues these events occurred in is as important to the user as is the postscript analyses of these events. I've been reading Batman off and on since I could read as a child, and I've always wondered why the yellow ellipse was adopted and later why it was dropped. Now, the grown-up in me understands that these changes took place under the writing or artwork of different folk, who interpreted the Bat this way or that, and I suppose that (if cited) is an excellent way to iterate that in the article. The kid in me, the person wonders how Batman develops all those wonderful gadgets and whatnot needs to be satisfied, too. I don't think that meeting these not-entirely-unrelated needs is all that hard to do.

The batsignal thing is the tip of the issue, in many ways. Aside from the essentially in-universe method of describing events, there must exist somewhere a citable description of why the origin of this seemingly innocuous invention has changed time and again. I get that the origin of the Batman is going to change, as our understanding of the human psyche expands; I just think that we need to provide citable evidence of this occurring as a phenomena, and not just as a changing of the guard at DC, or the zany Batman stories of the 50's and 60's, where he has a red costume for dealing with lava monsters from the UnderBelly (or whatever).

I hope some of what I mentioned makes sense. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I noticed. A pretty nice job of it, too. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to my colleagues for the good work on the article and the great discussion on this page. Just wanted to say. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Batman v Bruce Wayne.

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

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

Hey ZnK. The reason I reverted the addition was that the content was a product of synthesis (ie. you adding an interpretation/summation/evaluation of the Batman/Bruce Wayne 'dualism'). We can't do that without references that speak specifically to that evaluation. What would be a better fit is if we find an external (meaning outside the comic book) source speaking as to the duality and shift in perception/execution of this duality. I understand why this might be difficult, but comic series - esp. long-running ones like Batman - are breeding grounds for retconned information and viewpoints. This is why its always better to try and find more static information speaking as to what was going on. I think that blogs and podcasts by the creators in these instances are frequently allowed (as they are in Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica are good examples of such). Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Can we get hold of Doug Moench, or Denny O'Neil? They would provide an external source, some evidence. O'Neil would be very easy to do, he writes a weekly column, but other than perhaps asking these people and then citing the results there is nothing other than the run of books themselves that I can give as a reference. If the books themselves are substantial then I can quote the narrative where Batman suggests he needs a balance in his duality.Zero no Kamen (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Batmobile

I read the article and it came up as really curious that after the article's tone goes to state that the camp phase of the character ended in the 1980's, then goes off to portray the 1960's version of the car in the section "Equipment". Furthermore, when it was added to serve as an illustration of the vehicle the article was referring to with the machine guns, it was taken down with the comment "we cannot have 2 pictures for the same section". First off, who says we can't? and second, why stick with the 60's car instead of any of the other sources or iterations the car has gone through? - we could stay with any, or all, better yet, we should settle to stay with the most current version appearing in the comics. Bruce_Kenobi April 24th 2008 13:05 GMT-5

I would tend to agree with you that the statement about only 1 picture per section is a bit draconian, considering the large number of FA and GA articles that fail that unique assessment (Ronald Reagan and 300 immediately come to mind, since I've worked on both of those FA articles). That being said, the temptation to add images that are decorative instead of informative can be almost overwhelming at times. You should always ask yourself whether the image you are adding helps explain something the text alone simply cannot. For example, this image from 300 compares the imagery from the source graphic novel by Frank Miller to that which was recreated in film. This image illustrates better than mere text that the film was an extraordinarily faithful adaptation of the source material.

I think the reason that the comic representations weren't useful is that a) they are copywritten images, and b) they don't illustrate anything other than coolness. Now, if you to add an image of the Batmobile from the Bale-Batman series, you could justify that. If you could find supplemental citation as to how the production team developed the idea of the Batmobile, you could certainly add that. Even better would be citation about how the production team moved away from the sleek looks of the actually-crafted vehicle from the 60's series and the computer-generated vehicle from the pre-Bale films. Frankly, that would be awesome. Hope that addresses some of your questions. Please feel free to ask any others. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation from written, and "official" sources as to the direction the batmobile took in the Bale-Batman movies is something that can be done, as well as another image from "the tumbler" as it is coloquially refferred. The thing is if we can stay with the newest batmobile and take down the 60's era one for the aforementioned reasons. Bruce_Kenobi 15:20, April 24th 2008 GMT-5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.24.210.1 (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it could be discussed, but I personally think that the notability - in immediate identification of the auto with the Batman for 1-2 generations of tv-watching kids is apparent. The "Tumbler", less so. A side-by-side comparison can be made, but I think the 60's Lincoln Futura is something that should remain. If you are having trouble finding a good starting point, try Batmobile. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Biography

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

Batman's Abilities

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

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

Similarity to Jason Voorhees?

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

First, Batman doesn't kill people (at least not with any regularity). Second, this isn't the place to discuss hypothetical symbolisms. If you're talking about improving the article, great, but without a literary analysis it would be original research for us to say anything of the sort. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 00:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Where else can I go to do this then? There is no other place to turn to. Fusion7 (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A good place to talk about this might be 4chan.org/co/. Wikipedia is not the place for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.154.20 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that 4chan is a "a good place" for much of anything, unless maybe the comics section is MUCH more intelligent than the rest of that cesspool of Internet stupidity.