Talk:Cassandra Cain/Archive 1

Archive 1

Main image

It is likely that if an image from the current "Robin" arc were used as the main image here, it would prove unpopular with many users. Accurate though the image may be for her current situation, it's not a situation many of her fans are happy about, and it would likely be reverted (as it has been in the past). Cass is no longer Batgirl, however, so the main image of her in that costume is not appropriate either. I've scanned in the final image from her own series - after she has stopped being Batgirl, but not yet exactly what we're seeing in Robin. I can understand why people might not prefer it, but I think it's a fair compromise. I'm not deleting the old image either, to be on the safe side.D1Puck1T 19:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good choice for now. The current storyline and interpretation of the character isn't necessarily representative in the long run.Bjones 16:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GirlnamedCain.jpg or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GirlnamedCain.png ? I can understand why people would want the text cropped off, but without the text it almost feels like that could be any girl a trenchcoat.D1Puck1T 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You people shouldn't give into immature little whiners. Whether or not the change is permanent, it's current. Trying to keep it out of the article is no more than bias. ACS (Wikipedian) 02:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's in the article. It's just not the main image.--DrBat 13:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The main image being used is also "current", i.e. Cassandra out of uniform - just an image of her out of uniform from a less controversial story. The "immature little whiners" by the way, are mainly her hard core fans, the folks you'd expect to be checking and working on the page the most. Not offering a compromise when one's available is just being stubborn.D1Puck1T 14:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Save Cass" blog

I've added a link to the blog Save Cass, which is starting a grassroots effort to convince DC Comics to change the villainous direction of Cassandra Cain. Would it be considered too "self-promoting" to be on the page? Either way, for now I'm going to be be bold and post it. --Kuronekoyama 18:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for campaigns, rumors, gossip or fan gatherings. This is an encyclopedia. Please, keep that to message boards and other fan-related sites. Thank you.

--Colossus34 18:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Should probably take care of that link to Hal's Emerald Advancement Team on Hal Jordan's page too, then. --Kuronekoyama 20:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Slam! I am alright with keeping the savecass.com blog; I incorporated it and two other sites as references to the fact that this seems not to be a well-received character change. This is not my opnion; this is the opinion of many online fans. I'm just backing that statement up with citations. This is an important part of the character's publishing history and to remove it does the article and the reader a disservice. --Chris Griswold 21:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. From the Wikipedia guide to External links: Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard. CovenantD 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to think I'm being fair and impartial, not letting my liking of Cassandra color my judgement. But I think the links are acceptable, provided they're being used as they currently are, as sources for the statement that there's a negative response.D1Puck1T 23:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you reconcile that with the External links guide that I pasted in above? CovenantD 21:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I do believe that savecass.com would be considered one of the "exceptions", as I do believe there is a close relation to this article and savecass.com (at least as much as Hal's Emerald Advancement Team is related to Hal's page). Wikipedia does allow for reporting on fan reactions, I would see this primarily as a case of citing sources. The other sources cited, however, should probably be replaced with the likes of [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], etc. Although honestly, it would probably be best to wait for more reactions to Robin 151 before adding anything anything of that nature. D1Puck1T 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

D1Puck regardless of whether your a fan or not, per the rules of Wikipedia that CovenantD graciously reposted, Wikipedia is not a place for fan campaigns, rumors, gossip etc and there are no exceptions. colossus34 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay so maybe there's one exception. Okay, two exceptions. Three exceptions. Okay so maybe there are five... eight... twelve exceptions, eight of which are on one page. Point being, SaveCass.com is not "closely related" to Cassandra Cain, right?

...right?

Look, in the interests of full disclosure I am one of the posters on this blog. I thought I was very gracious and understanding in pointing out possible problems with the link posting in my original comment. Had somebody taken it off because it's self-promoting or a vanity link, I could have understood that. But there is no argument to be made why D1Puck1T's compromise violates any Wikipedia guidelines.

And please don't pretend there are "no exceptions." If I had more than twenty minutes, I could find hundreds. --Kuronekoyama 18:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of the blog link, its one persons opinion, and there aren't supposed to be links to fansites.--Wakefencer

I have a compromise suggestion, we add a small paragraph describing the fan reaction, like we have on many, many other articles, then retain the link ONLY as a reference. Jack Cain 18:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad examples are not a reason to emulate. If you can find a Wikireason why these should be allowed, then let us know. Otherwise I'm just going to assume that all the exceptions are mistakes that have been allowed to remain. 19:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Start looking for articles about Cassandra Cain fan reactions, people. We know it's out there, and it should be a part of this article, but we need acceptable sources. --Chris Griswold 06:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he intended it to be rascist, though it certainly came out that way. I can see what he means though. The Big Two, DC and Marvel, do a very poor job in seriously creating and supporting minority Superheroes. Asian characters are usually relegated to comically stereotyped assassins/villians, or very minor superheroes, usually with a martial arts gimmick. For DC, the last big Asian Superheroines, Dr. Light and Katana quickly faded into obscurity. Marvel's Mantis had some potential, but she was quickly pushed to the wayside as well. I hope that this recent thing with Cassandra is quickly retconned or otherwise fixed. (Maybe it'll be an evil twin or clone!) Even if she stays an assassin or doesn't go back to being Batgirl, I just hope they keep the strong silent, kicking but characterization, rather than the recent "chatty cathy" characterization, that looks like she came out of a bad Jackie Chan movie.--Wakefencer 15:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was this removed when no obvious consensus was reached? Is there an NPOV issue occurring in those who edited it out? The emotional posts present, as well as a lack of change in articles cited by other posters that also cite blogs (thereby implying they cared only about blog-use in this particular case, and thus are acting in an emotional and editorial way) suggests to me there could be...

Citing it not as a source as a scholarly article, but as a socio-phenomenon, an example of what is being described, is a legitimate use of the link. I question whether it's necessary, but also question the point of saying that there was a 'fan-reaction' when no fans are referred to. It seems inherently contradictory, and thus I'd propose that citing it as an example of fan based criticism is legitimate use.

I quote from earlier: "Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard." An or statement is not an and statement, meaning one of the statement parts must be true. It can be of either high standard (which this is not) or closely related to the website-- which I'd certainly argue a 'fan-reaction' is. Would one not, when citing criticisms of a certain politician, not provide a link to a blog dedicated to that particular criticism? This seems a non-issue to me. Please re-open discussion.--AltonBrownFTW 07:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the discussion and removal is almost six months old indicates a form of consensus. This article is not about the SaveCass website, nor is it any more closely related than any other blog about the character. And the example you use, of a blog about a politician, wouldn't pass muster either if the blogger weren't notable in some way. CovenantD 02:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's obviously not true, and this particular section is out of date. Again, I advise that they be merged. Please refer to other Save Cass blog section amd join the discussion based on the merits of arguments. Thanks AltonBrownFTW 02:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad - I didn't see the newer discussion (although your post above helped to misdirect me). CovenantD 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad too, confused the heck out of me. I still don't understand why there are -two- talks for this subject. I think this one should be archived, but I don't know how to do that. If you do, would you mind doing such? AltonBrownFTW 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent

She and Tim then eventually engaged in a final battle where she maintained the upperhand.

This account of the battle is inconsistent with the account published on Tim Drake. Someone familiar with the story (which I'm not) needs to fix one or both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cribcage (talk • contribs)

Well, for starters, I wrote the original updated summaries for both. One can hold their own whilst another maintains the upperhand in a fight. Open your mind a bit. Cassandra did not dominate Tim, but from what I saw, he wasn't winning. That's not inconsist. It's a change in prospective. Each article shouldn't just be a rehash of the other. Also, sign your comments. Tends to make you look like less of a- Oh. I'm being told I can't say that. Ah well. ACS (Wikipedian) 19:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What Ace said is essentially the case. Tim was surviving against Cass (considerably longer than anyone since Shiva), but Cass still looked like the superior fighter.D1Puck1T 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Pucky. ACS (Wikipedian) 18:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression she was toying with him and could of beaten him at anytime. But she wanted to convince him to join her "cause", whatever that may be. Tangen

Spoilers for upcoming stories

Remember, information for upcoming stories (such as what teams she will be in) should not be put in the article, which reflects her "current" situation. If you have an interview, or similar, stating future events, it's okay to reference it, but not in the main article, and be sure to have a spoiler tag.D1Puck1T 04:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That could be worded differently. I believe what you mean is not to acknowledge data from interviewers and press conferences as status quo. However, her status as "Batgirl" is a "spoiler" as well? At no point did she reclaim her title in the comics. So, why, exactly, are we making an exception in this case? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. If you think it should be changed back from Batgirl, that would probably be fair. At the same time, however, I don't believe she ever officially gave up the name and title. Since the last panel of the last issue had her walking around without the costume and said she was no longer the following the path of Batman, a lot of people assumed she had given the name up. However she still got called Batgirl in the Robin OYL story, even if she was out of uniform. I could see either way being fair - if you feel it's a spoiler to be using the Batgirl title, I have no problem with it being reverted to Cassandra Cain until the Titans East story (or the upcoming Supergirl story, whichever is appropriate). And yes, what I meant is that it's too early to be putting her as being associated with Titans East, or in that category, and let's keep spoilers to clearly marked sections.D1Puck1T 19:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was actually going the other way. The picture's the real spoiler. You make a good point about the name, but I guess it's like Ralph Dibny. I'll get on it. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, like Ralph should be, anyway. Renee Montoya is probably a better example. Anyway, I also changed the alliance color. She's more on par with the punisher and Jason Todd in recent months. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is not done now, the "Character name" section should eventually be reverted to "Batgirl", just as the Tim Drake and Dick Grayson pages have Robin and Nightwing in that section. Looking at the solicit for Supergirl 12, I feel a little bit more strongly (although I'm still not going to push either way) that Cassandra is still considered Batgirl. "It's Supergirl vs. the League of Assassins and Batgirl" the solicit states, with no indication that anyone should be surprised that Cassandra is Batgirl. Although at the end of the final issue things seemed to be moving in the direction of her giving up the name and costume, it's never been explicitly stated that she did any such thing - we just assumed that was what would happen. While I believe differently now, however, it's true that I only got thinking this way after reading solicits, so I suppose it could be a spoiler. I don't believe either way would be wrong at the moment.D1Puck1T 06:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I very much hope you're right, but I think that, at least given the information as it stands now ("...a girl named cain" & her Robin appearance), "Cassandra Cain" fits more appropriately than "Batgirl." The instant she's in the black & the yellow we can all have a race to be the first to "put things to right," but sadly until then the Titans East thing happens, she's the head of the League & thats all.mordicai. 10:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For now let's keep the article as is. Most reactions I've seen to the promo cover have been surprised that she's in the suit. So reverting to the image of her in costume is probably semi-spoilery. 3 months isn't a long time to wait.D1Puck1T 01:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Puck. Also, a single solicitation and image are hardly grounds to change information relating to established continuity. When Cassandra reclaims the Batgirl mantle in-story, we can change the data (properly and) occuringly. I really don't care about spoilers, it's just not wise to act solely on a solicitation, no matter how "accurate" or "obvious" its assertions may seem. Plus, it'd be something of a double-standardizing slap in the face to comics project policies. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Narrative hyperbole about characters

The qoute from so-called experts does not belong in an encylopdia entry, as it is not a fact just the opinion of some character. For example, the Ten-Eyed Man, who Batman and the narrator called "the most dangerous man alive", is not grounds to suddenly enter that into his encylopida entry just becuase Batman thinks he is. It's just an opinion not a a citable source. The same goes for entries on Anakin Skywalker or other charcters who have been labeled by others as "the most powerfull jedi who ever lived" or "moving like lighting" etc etc...this is all nice and daddy in the context of the story but is not a valid entry to wiki.User:75.19.43.67

This is not hyperbole. As I stated before: "Hyperbole is exaggeration like 'I nearly died laughing'. This is in-universe experts using analaogies (not exaggerating) and is the only 'expert' description of her skills." I believe that, in the story's universe, we can assume a government team with all sorts of fancy computers and scientific lingo, that study people for a living in order to gauge their abilities, is a reasonable source of information on a character's skills. These are not "some character," these are characters specifically created by the author (who created Cassandra, and wrote a very large amount of her stories) as a means of addressing what exactly her skills are. Moreover, there is a sizable difference between a narrator's statement such as "the most dangerous man alive", which can clearly be disputed, and having a scene explaining that none of her individual abilities seem superhuman, but that experts could be confused by seeing her utilize several of those skills at once. This is, I believe, the clearest statement we've recieved from Kelley Puckett as to what exactly her skills are - no individual skill is outside of a normal person's abilities, but her training gave her the ability to do it all at once, which is what sets her apart.D1Puck1T 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confused. These are just one characters opinion's on Cass' ablities. Opinions are not encylopedic only facts. Once again, I'd say Batman is just as reliable to gauge someone's abilities but just because he called Ten-eyed Man "the most dangerous person on earth" that doesn't make it encylopedic. We go by straight fact---ie what Cass's training is: to read people's body language. That's encylopdic, that's a fact. Narrative hyperbole or so called "experts" is not.User:75.19.43.67

Did you read the issue in question, by any chance? --DrBat 18:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you here, 75.19.3.67. Bringing up the Ten-eyed Man point again just goes to show which super-villain is really at work here: The Straw Man. Batman calling Ten-eyed Man "the most dangerous person on earth" is clearly hyperbole. A clinical assessment of Batgirl's ability is not. The two are not the same, & arguing about one doesn't help clear up the other issue. More to the point, however, is that Batgirl (or Cassandra Cain, if you must) clearly IS at the pinacle of several human attributes. Thus, using an "in story" source to confirm & explain this is useful information to have in the article. -mordicai. 19:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Doubt it, DrBat. The guy's more of a Babs fan. Well, actually, when referring to someone with bias against Cassandra Cain, I guess that's putting mildly. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have the whole 73 issue run but that is a mute and irrelevant point. If we are going to start letting other character's opinion's and assessments of other characters populate wiki then its no longer an encyclopedia. What we do here is post FACTS not narrative hyperbole or so called "experts" assessments. We go by straight fact---i.e. what Cass's training is: to read people's body language. That's encyclopedic, that's a fact--that we can post on the page.User:75.19.43.67

Do you realize how hypocritical it is to be lecturing us on Wikipedia policy when you won't even register? Seriously...it's hippo-sized hypocrisy, man.

As for this issue, I gotta say you're being closed/small minded. This isn't Booster Gold calling Supernova an ass, but this all already been explained to you, repeatly. Let me just say this, even this little "rule" you're trying to enforce has to have exceptions. There are several exceptions to general rules. Can you at least try to comprehend that FACT? >.> ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets steer clear of an argumentative tone if we can, & remember that you don't have to be a registered user for your opinion to count. No need to get heated up-- keep in mind that we are discussing a comic book ninja, after all. -mordicai. 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I have a little problem with you saying that there's a rule against "Narrative Hyperbole" on wiki. After doing a google search, that term seems to be a neologism with 57 unique hits, mostly arguments on comic book forums about who would win if two characters fought. That said, there is a difference between an encyclopedic article on a piece of fiction (or a fictional character) and an article on non-fiction. If Prof. Farnsworth of Futurama gives his expert opinion that the cast is de-aging because time-altering chronitons have become stuck to their DNA, then yes, it can be put in an article, opinion or not. Moreover, while it wouldn't be a good idea to say that the Ten-Eyed Man is the most dangerous man in the world, it would be just fine to say that the narrator (or Batman, whatever) said he was in the story. The narrator (or Batman) may look silly as a result, but it does convey that however ridiculous the character might be, he was at least intended by the writer to be a serious threat. Here we're not stating that Cass can break concrete with her head while etc. etc. What the article says is that a fictional expert didn't believe test results that said she had no meta-gene, and he gave an example letting the people he was talking to (and the reader) know what it was he thought she was doing that wasn't possible for a normal human. An encyclopedic fact is something taken from a reliable source. Here we have a reliable source (a comic) from which we can take the encyclopedic fact that a bunch of fictional scientists said some stuff.D1Puck1T 01:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, ACS but there aren't exceptions to rules on wiki and I just looked up and saw that a similar argument came up on this page about linking fansites in wiki and people were asking for an "exception to the rule". Look, if you can find a Wikireason why it should be allowed, then let us know. Otherwise I'm just going to assume that all or any exceptions are mistakes that have been allowed to remain and need to be removed. As for D1Puck I understand your argument but you have to realize that if we are going to start letting other character's opinion's and assessments of other characters populate wiki then its no longer an encyclopedia. What we do here is post FACTS not so called "experts" assessments. We go by straight fact. "Superman shoots lazers from his eyes. Batman learned 127 martial arts. Batgirl reads body movement etc".User:75.19.43.67

Your baseline assumption is fundementally flawed. When analysising canon facts, there are two sources: dialogue and visuals. Visuals override dialogue when using objective analysis. Dialogue is usually only taken into consideration when the person in question actually knows what they are talking about (IE: A paleontologist talking about an extinct animals bone structure). Visuals, however, trump it. If a character says something that is contradicted by events or visuals, we can conclude that character was in error. If the character is actually shown performing the feat, then there is no question that the feat has been accomplished in one form or another (IE: A Star Destroyer's turbolaser vaporizing an asteroid in The Empire Strikes Back). So, either find instances that countradict the dialogue, state that there is no visual confirmation of these feats (with citation), or some other method to either prove that it actually IS "hyperbole" as you claim, or that it is contradicted somehow. Put up or shut up time, kids. Majin Gojira 11:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For a fresh point of view, let me point something out. If Cassandra Cain was a REAL PERSON, & she was examined by trained professionals to judge the scope of her ability? That study would be valid information in the Wikipedia article on the (hypotetically real) Cassandra Cain article. It should be cited, as the issue number is here, but that data would be useful information to have. Which I think is a good benchmark over-all; is the information useful?

Furthermore, I just don't understand what the controversy here is. If this information was disputed, that would be one thing. Does anyone disagree with the statement that Cassandra Cain is NOT a metahuman? Or that she can accomplish a number of feats at the human physical peak? & that that is impressive? That most people can't, you know, be a bat-ninja? -mordicai. 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• With regards the statement Sorry, ACS but there aren't exceptions to rules on wiki I point User:75.19.43.67 to Ignore all rules. Hiding Talk 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That said, I dispute the very idea that there is a rule to ignore. As I said above with my Farnsworth example, the rules that you apply to "opinions" in non-fiction articles are irrelevant to articles on fiction. If someone just says something aloud, and isn't being recorded by a reliable source, you generally shouldn't be putting it in wikipedia. In fiction the person is in a a reliable source! It doesn't matter that he's not getting his opinion published in a fictional scientific journal, when it comes to comics a scientist showing up and saying something is usually close to being the word of God.D1Puck1T 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)