Jump to content

Talk:Batman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.193.222.63 (talk) at 15:11, 8 May 2009 (→‎About the homossexual interpretation by Fredric Wertham). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleBatman is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 7, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
June 10, 2006Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
Archive
Archives

About the homossexual interpretation by Fredric Wertham

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Unfortunately it's wikipedia's policy to not allow original research (which is kind of a loose term).. So, if you see a panel and go "ahh, that's homosexually tinged", it's not enough for most wikipedia editors. However, if you can find an actual book written by someone (or something online - but probably not a blog) that explores the homosexuality of batman, and make sure to use ref tags to reference it, then I'm pretty sure no one will delete that section again. (FYI I never deleted it)... Does that make sense? (I don't mean does the policy make sense, I mean do you get what I'm saying peoples' problems are with it?) Luminifer (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The homosexual discussion doesn't really belong here. It's basically a few person's -opinion- that Batman has homosexual undertones. Well, you know everyone has an opinion about everything. It doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia.

Partners

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

Suggested Addition

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
I noticed, and I have reverted some of them. Usually, we do not remove a citation unless we put a citation in its place, it isn't called for (in the case of - as you called it - "sparkling writing"), or discussion consensus as to how the facts are so common and/or well-known that citation exists literally everywhere.
These are the cn tag removals I reverted:
  • "The costumes' colors are traditionally..." - traditionally according to who, exactly? Granted, this might be an example of flowery prose (I think it's okay, personally), but until the text is rewritten, we are left with an unsupported statement of implied preference through the use of the word traditional - ie, the use of other colors is unusual?
  • "The origin of the signal varies, depending on the continuity and medium" - The origin of the Bat-Signal should be expanded upon, as well as how (and perhaps, if possible, why) such an innocuous thing needs constant reinterpretation. I should have marked this with an expansion tag, but could not find one that was statement-specific. My apologies for any resultant confusion.
I think that the addition of these citations would only improve the article, and would request that the tags not be reverted without further discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • My mistake, it used to be "sparkling prose". Hiding T 10:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I noticed. A pretty nice job of it, too. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
wanted to bring attention to the original sketches/artist of Batman: http://www.originalbatman.com/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahhn (talk • contribs) 23:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Batman's Height

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I seriously doubt that 4chan is a "a good place" for much of anything, unless maybe the comics section is MUCH more intelligent than the rest of that cesspool of Internet stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.146 (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Batman as a villain revisited

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

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

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

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

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

2¢... -ish...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Typo in the page

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

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

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

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

Should be noted IMHO

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

Bat-Embargo

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

Skills Matched by Blue Beetle (And maybe others)

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

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

why can´t i edit here?

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

Teetotalism

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

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

Batman movie versions

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

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

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

Citing nolan's influence

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

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

Secret Identity

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

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

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

Batman R.I.P.

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

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

Picture

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

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

Recent edits by Jcbutler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




       love Anna...... fggffg

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

PLease?

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

Dead Pages?

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

"Matches" Malone

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

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

JUST FOUND THIS LINK...

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

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

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

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

TfD nomination of Template:Dmoz2

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

organizational changes

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

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

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

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

(The) Batman

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

Batman end?

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of unverifiable material

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

LEGO Batman

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

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

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

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

List of Batman Characters

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

Or

Nanana

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

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

Aliases?

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

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

Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem with a statement

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

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

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

January 12 Selected anniversary?

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

  1. ^ http://www.dcuguide.com/who.php?name=batman
  2. ^ Grant Morrison (w). Final Crisis #7 (January 2009). DC Comics.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Batman&oldid=288687324"