Talk:Ra's al Ghul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Batman Begins[edit]

Shouldn't the article point out that all the characters who name themselves Ra's al Ghul within Batman Begins are Ra's al Ghul. Within the context of the movie (No super-powers/lazarus pits) its made pretty clear that Ra's al Ghul is an immortal idea rather than an immortal man, and so when each of the members of the league of shadows identifies themselves as Ra's al Ghul they are not lying or imposters. Seeing as this is kind of an essential plot point that leads to Bruce Wayne committing to becoming an undefeatable idea on the plane home.

Anyone agree that this should be changed? - anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bruce: Ra's al Ghul is dead. I saw him die.
Ducard says: Or is Ra's al Ghul immortal? Are his ideas supernatural?
Then Bruce says: Or cheap parlor tricks to conceal your true identity, Ra's?
The multiple Ra's thing is revealed as a trick to throw people off, not a reflection of reality. ArtistScientist (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The portrayal of Ra's by both Watanabe and Neeson was how Nolan decided to allude to Ra's' immortality as is typically shown in the comics/other depictions. Because he didn't get into the Lazarus pits or anything like that, this was his way of showing the long lifespan of Ra's and his immortality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmilne32 (talkcontribs) 18:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Malhar Naik aka Ice Man[edit]

Um... who? Where was this mentioned? - anon

I can find zero references to this character. Unless someone can verify his existence I'm going to assume he was made up by the person that put it in the wiki - who only seems to have contributed that one time.D1Puck1T 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

FALSE! I specifically remember this character from the comics. He is villainous to the extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


Six long paragraphs about a minor comic-book character ... and somebody thinks it's a STUB?!?!? egad ... DavidWBrooks 21:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, he's anything but minor; he's quite arguably the second most important Batman villain after the Joker. But yes, the stub notice should go. —Lowellian (talk) 22:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Name of article[edit]

Should the name of the article be changed to Ra's Al Ghul? Kent Wang 14:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

The name of the article should be "Ra's al Ghul"; while it has traditionally been difficult to tell the capitalization because of the tendency of comic books to use ALL CAPS in lettering, in Batman: Hush, which didn't use ALL CAPS, the capitalization "Ra's al Ghul", with "al" being lowercase, was used. —Lowellian (talk) 22:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


I'm sure that Death and the Maidens was an Elseworlds... User:

I'm equally sure that it wasn't. Considering how heavily it was advertised, I'm sure I would have noticed if it was. --Paul A 08:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, it wasn't an Elseworlds, though no doubt fans of Ra's al Ghul wish it was. Do I detect sarcasm in the above comment by the anon? :) No matter, with comic book deaths being as they are and Ra's al Ghul appearing the Batman movie, no doubt the character will be back soon. —Lowellian (talk) 04:05, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Huge Batman Begins spoiler[edit]

I think more should be done to hide the huge spoiler re: Batman Begins. Maybe that fact shouldn't even be there. --feitclub 06:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, if you read the IMDB forum for Batman Begins, there are some people who were puzzled by the Ra's al Ghul character. Some weren't sure that Ducard truly is Ra's. User:Dionyseus
Well, it's now clearly marked as a spoiler, so that should settle the issue. —Lowellian (talk) 21:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
yeah certainly should be there, the current setup with spoiler tag is fine Boneyard 29 June 2005 15:14 (UTC)

Was it really a "peasant" that Wayne had to kill for the initiation? If I remember correctly, there was a chain around the guy's neck with a badge on it, like an undercover cop. 23:31, July 15, 2005 (EST)


Am I the only one who has always thought the name is also a pun, if you read it in a certain way, on the word Rascal? Was this intended by the creators? Rrose Selavy (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The animated series says "RAYSH ahl Ghoul", Batman Begins says "RAHS ahl Ghoul" (pardon my IPA). What would the proper Arabic be? We could add a footnote to the article with this information. 3 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

Can't say for sure, but in Batman Beyond, Terry McGinnis initially says "RAHS" until Talia corrects him, saying that it should be "RAYSH". She also says it's a "common mistake". -- Supermorff 13:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The correct Arabic pronounciation is Ra-us, though Ras is close enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ken Watanabe was not a decoy in the comic Ra's al Ghul is literally immortal but in the film Ra's al Ghul is immortal in the sense that he has become an idea so Liam Neeson has taken on the idea of Ra's al Ghul.---

Year One[edit]

Is anyone going to add info on the Ra's al Ghul Year One mini? --DrBat 19:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Surprisingly, Year One contains a glaring mistake in its introduction. It states it was Talia who killed her father, and not Nyssa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Lazarus pit[edit]

The article mentions the Lazarus pit several times, but there is no explanation. --Moyet 20:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Is that really necessary, though? I've often been a little bit peeved when an article gives out an explaination for something when that something already has an article of its own--and it's linked right there, no less... Onslaught Six 09:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't write an article under the expectation that people will follow links. Every article should stand on its own to some extent. (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration for Ra's Al Ghul, obviously Fu Manchu[edit]

He has been described as a "James Bond"-style villain, created as a response to the popularity of James Bond during the 70's, and to give Batman a more epic scope and enemy.

<interjection: The 1969 James Bond film "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" had a criminal mastermind called Draco who wanted Bond to marry his daughter Tracy (Countess Teresa). There is also a prominent ski chase in it, the first of many famed ski chases in the Bond films. In BATMAN #232, published in 1971, scripter Denny O'Neil has a criminal mastermind called Ra's al Ghul who wanted Batman to marry his daughter Talia. In BATMAN #244, published in 1972, there is a prominent ski chase in it prior to the conclusion. "Easy Rider" and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" were the two highest grossing films of 1969, and Denny O'Neil borrowed from the former in his GREEN LANTERN/GREEN ARROW series with two heroes crossing the country to 'search for the real America' and the latter's influence upon his BATMAN scripts has already been stated. end of interjection>

Inspiration for Ra's Al Ghul......let's see...he is from Asia, he runs a secret criminal organization, he has lived for centuries, and his daughter is a prominent character. Well, it seems to me that Fu Manchu is who Denny O'Neil had in mind when he created Ra's Al Ghul. Considering that Marvel's Master of Kung Fu with Fu Manchu started not longer after Ra's debuted, it does seem to coincidental.

By the way, considering the comic book Ra's Al Ghul is a light-skinned Arab, I see no reason why the movie Ra's Al Ghul can't also possibly be Arabic.

___ Cast an unmistakably Arabic actor as a terrorist leader? That would be a grave sin against the religion of political correctness, would it not? Rearden Metal 21:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC) who's the master of kung fu? i can't find his page anywhere, what marvel character is he? Can you show me the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Shang-Chi. ThuranX (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Check out the 1963 "The Pink Panther" film and you'll see Princess Dala and her manservant Saloud who are visual precedents for Talia al Ghul and Ra's al Ghul. No one has EVER noted this before! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

While it would have been difficult to cast an Arabic actor as a terrorist in Batman Begins, the film dealt with his heritage by creating a very reductionist depiction of the non-western world: why did they pick a Japanese actor to predate Liam Neeson? Why was the temple Bhutanese, but filled with ninjas who practiced a romani marital art? There were ways to depict him as non-western without creating a different type of orientalist stereotype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmilne32 (talkcontribs) 18:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


Someone should mention the "Contagion" and "Legacy" arcs in the article, as they're the storylines where Ra's al Ghul really ascends to supervillain status. They happened around 1996-1998. Ra's released a virus that wiped out about three quarters of the world's population. Batman would proceed to protect the cities that still contained humans (Gotham, Calcutta, Edinburgh, etc) against Ra's further terrorist attacks. Azrael and the Cult of St. Dumas also play a large part in the beginning of the arc. -Voievod 22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. However, I don't have the issues in front of me this very moment so others may want to expand my synopsis or cite specific issue numbers/dates. -Rajah1 4:40, July 14, 2006

Appropriateness of 'Fictional Assasins' category?[edit]

While Ra's employs assasins, and is in fact the leader of a League of assasins, it seems somewhat inappropriate to list him as an assasin himself. That's like calling Fu Manchu a ninja, or Emperor Palpatine a stormtrooper.


agreed. ThuranX 22:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How he deduced it[edit]

Talia in an earlier tale had seen the Earth-1 Batman unmasked, so she knew his true face. Ghul concluded that to operate as the Batman would require much wealth. Ghul started eliminating suspects. He began investigating into who bought the materials for the weapons and paraphenalia required to operate as the Batman. When confronted with this, the Earth-1 Batman was surprised nobody had thought of this years ago and took steps to plug the hole. Enda80 10:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Enda80

Influence on writers of Ra's al ghul[edit]

( 14:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)) hi, guys the original guy from history under whose lineage Ra's al ghul seem to continue is named hasan bin saba or this guy is mentioned in the Marcopolo stories.

My Cleanup[edit]

I cleaned up the article from top to bottom and organized it better. I also added some links, pictures and more information in the Appearances in Other Media section. Also added to See Also section.

Overall, great. I have two issues:
  • I'd like to see the 'First Appearance' cover image higher up than the 'Daughters' section.
  • The 'Insanity' subsection of Abilities sounds far too speculative in comparison to the rest of the rewrite.
Otherwise, an impressive rewrite! ThuranX 03:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For the first issue, the cover is only there as it goes with Batman, I thought of replacing it with another but didn't think I mess with it. May do it now since you brought it up.

As for the second issue, the insanity section was just to touch on the possible side effects he may have had with so much over use of something that makes a person temporarily insane upon using it. I mean he has used it probably hundreds of times and it can be safe to say the over use has probably effected his mind to some extent, as after all it did enhance his physical abilities due to its over use. Phunbot 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No no, you misunderstand. I mean, move the image physically up the page. In terms of layout.
Even though I've seen numerous references in the comics to the temporary post-dip insanity, i've yet to see anyhting substantive regarding lasting effects. find an issue or storyline to reference, and it's golden. ThuranX 03:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No misunderstanding, I just didn't want to mess with the pic is all but I did find a cool pic so I replaced that one but I did move it in the superbox as that seems a good place for it. Also added two more pics, one of which was already on the page but I moved its location and replaced it with a better version. And the pic of the JLA, I think it is associated to the Tower of Babel story line but even if its not it still goes good with the part of the article its with. Phunbot 04:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Some More Changes[edit]

Changed up the superbox a bit and I made the pic a little smaller as the superbox be to big for the article to look good. Plus I got rid of the Insanity? section as there isn't anything to substantial to warrant it and switched the Agenda and Abilities sections positions as his abilities should go first. Phunbot 04:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, looks good overall, good job. I recommend lettiing it rise like bread and cook for 24-48 hours, to see how the other editors think is it. ThuranX 04:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol, well thanks for the comments. Today I just saw it when seeing what needs to be done in the WikiProject Comics and thought I give it a nice sprucing up. Also I got rid of the assassin tag and of course a few others I think didn't belong, like one of them was a superhero tag. Don't know how that got in there.

Check out my other stuff if you want. I just started editing wiki about a week or so but I think I made some nice improvements so far. Phunbot 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Doczilla reverted the edits by Phunbot. I have reverted Doc, because I think that Phun's edits are overall quite good. Spelling errors can be fixed, and the new format is not particularly bad, the additional images are generally useful, though at least one cover image might be unneeded, and in general, I think the page is better for it. I'd prefer to see some discussion back here before we wind up in a revert war. ThuranX 12:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I edited it I didn't do any major changes like ThuranX said. All I did really was move things around to make it more presentable and rewrite some sections to give them more depth and incite. (Those sections were Abilities and Appearances in Other Media) Beyond that I just added pictures and which is the one that should be removed ThuranX? Also if I did misspell some things, my bad course when I did clean the article up I did do major corrections spelling wise. In the end I don't think anything I did would warrant a "revert war" as I just did a clean up with some contributions mainly in the Appearances in Other Media section. Phunbot 19:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure we need that cover to Batman:Ra's Al Ghul... I hope to hear from Doczilla what objections he has to the new page... I'm sure that he'll either take a longer look, or come through with some solid info, as he's a solid, reliable editor. ThuranX 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll even acknowledge that I originally made a mistake. Phunbot had so many superficial errors that I didn't look carefully enough to see that he/she hadn't gutted something as it appeared to me. An image insertion simply caused that portion to be positioned elsewhere in the edit comparison in a way that made it seem the material had been gutted when it was really just lower on the page. Doczilla 07:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ratings Change?[edit]

With my changes should the ratings tags on the top of this page be changed now or should it have some more info for that to happen? Phunbot 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Leave the ratings tags alone, ask someone else to review for tag changes. ThuranX 12:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits in Appearance in Other Media section[edit]

Well, I just added more info to that section as a result to watching the actual episodes listed so if anyone like to question my input there they can however I have facts to back up my contributions. I am just saying this in case someone decides to revert the article back to how it was before my clean up and contributions so they know at least the Appearance in Other Media section is on the level so if they change the article back they can leave that section as it is. Phunbot 02:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Um, don't know why you reverted it as I edited it for good reason. So I will go over all my edits to show you why they are there.

The Superman section first:

  • First I removed "end the constant need to rejuvenate his body with the Lazarus Pits as well as" as after watching the episode it was revealed the Lazarus Pits no longer effected him and to save his life he did the whole thing with Superman, so that is why I removed that.
  • Second I removed the process being temporary and being reversed as after watching the episode I saw it wasn't reversed and Superman just gained his power back for an unknown reason.
  • Third I added Batman into the description as he was paramount in preventing Ra's from getting all of Superman's power therefore killing him and I added Ra's using his power recklessly as that caused him and his daughter to apparently fall to there death which caused the fight to end so I think that be worth noting in the description. And I questioned the longevity of Ra's new power as Superman's power returned to him putting in question if the effects of the process that gave him the power was permanent.

Now for Batman Beyond, I added "of" before Terry McGinnis because its better sentence structure and I added "the resulting" before explosion so people understand that he died in the explosion of the machine because without that clarification they don't know what caused the explosion, they can assume it was the machine but I like my edits to be clear as possible sense of ownership with this page. Please read that essay and return here. Work to build consensus. I must admit that your recent edits and behaviors are off-putting, and leave me with an awkward feeling regarding my attempts to assist you, despite your protestations of being new to wikipedia. ThuranX 04:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a sense of ownership but when I see someone take away key information that properly explains the part I edited then ya I am going to revert it back. As for your reversions being taken in a good faith way, ya when I saw you edit them I had good faith until I saw the gutting of key things that properly explain what was being explained. And yes I understand descriptions should be short but also I do think they should properly describe what there for. Also me needing to let others work on the articles, ya obviously but that doesn't mean I am going put half the stuff I know down and hope someone fills the rest in. What I am going to do is put the best info down at the time that I have, I really never imagined I be scolded on here for giving too much good information but ah well. And also I have watched the episodes I have described so who better to give info on them so why should I not contribute as much as possible rather than do what you want and let anyone rip it apart regardless of there knowledge on the subject. Point is when I contribute, I do just that. I don't half a** it, I do it the best I can. This means I contribute all I can at the time and I am thorough about it. Don't get me wrong I understand you can't be super detailed but I do think you can at least put the extra effort in so when someone stumbles across an article even if they know nothing about the article's subject they leave with a good understanding of the subject. So if for example they see an episode description I think it be necessary to be detailed enough that it feels like they watched a nice best of clip of the show. I mean hey I could be super simple with my stuff and be like "Superman is captured by Ra's and he takes his life force but then falls to his apparent death" -- Ya that explains what happens in the episode but it's so simple a person leaves the article like "Ok, so that happen but why did he fall to his death, how did he steal the life force of Superman, why did he do it" and I could go on. Simply put my goal when contributing is to leave passerby's of the articles to leave with as few questions as possible while at the same time not feeling like they just left a lecture being told needless info that's more hot air than actual substance.

P.S. I did notice you didn't revert it back from my changes which at least shows me that you understood the changes and that they belonged so thanks for that at least. Course Doczilla changed it even after I explained that the process wasn't reversed, well I'll be back to reverting it since you all like to change it even though I have actual facts to back my statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phunbot (talkcontribs)

Read the edit summaries. Many of the edits have to do with basic writing style.
Regarding your thoughts such as "Why did he fall?", I understand what you're saying, but an encyclopedic description of one character's history is not a collection of episode synopses. You can post information like that elsewhere. This isn't an episode guide. This is not supposed to leave them feeling like they watched the clip. An encyclopedia entry is not intended to be a substitute for reading/watching/viewing the original material. People can read episode guides elsewhere. Why he fell is irrelevant to understanding the character's life.
Also, several of the edits I just made had nothing to do with your contributions. Doczilla 06:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So let me gets this straight, a person almost dying is irrelevant to there life, that's an interesting thought. And the majority of your edits did have to do with my contributions. Phunbot 06:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

He has almost died a gazillion times. And yes, the majority did. I only pointed out that they weren't all about you. Please consider these edits carefully. Maybe it's hard to see, but ThuranX actually stood up for you. When a fellow editor who has faith that you mean well and have the potential to make great contributions asks that I help show you how things are done around here, that's not an attack. It's just editing and teaching by making one edit at a time, explaining them as I go along. Doczilla 06:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
And why did you bring this to my talk page? We're discussing one article. The conversation goes here. That's more beneficial to all future contributors to the article. Doczilla 07:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX brought it to your talk page, why can't I. Besides I mainly did it so you notice things as you obviously ignored this talk page to some extent or else you wouldn't of put down that the process was reversed as I said it wasn't reversed in this talk page after reviewing the episode. So there is the reason I brought it to your talk page. Phunbot 07:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

All ThuranX did on my page was to ask me to look at this page again. He couldn't very well post a note like that over here and expect me to see it when I had not posted on this talk page. When you posted on my talk page, however, was after I'd started posting here. Doczilla 07:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. This tangent has distracted from the point of this discussion, which is the quality of the edits. I apologize for bringing it up. Doczilla 07:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Episode summaries[edit]

Unless a specific citation for the inexplicability of superman's power return can be given, it's obvious to most viewers, and a reasonable use of Common sense, to assume that as Ra's lost his possession of superman's powers due to the interruption of the process, an superman's simultaneous reclamation of said powers, that yes, in fact, the transsfer was reversed by disruption the process. that's what doczilla and my version relates to the reader. ThuranX 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Need a citation huh, how about the fact that at the same time Superman's power came back Ra's al Ghul still had the power boost and didn't turn back into frail old man. Well, there you go. That's what you wanted. Though the citation doesn't not explain why he gains his powers it does show Ra's doesn't lose his debunking your whole reversal thing which is the basis of your whole stance on this which you didn't even create, I did. And ya I may have said there was a reversal initially but after watching the episode I amended my edit because unlike you I can admit and correct my mistakes. And of course me doing so is what caused this whole edit problem to consume all my time and yours up here.

Plus he didn't lose the power when the process was stopped before completion, he just didn't absorb all of Superman's power. Because when the process is stopped he battles with Batman, punching through rock like its paper beating Batman with ease. The only reason he doesn't kill both him and Superman is to rescue his daughter which causes you know what, you know that thing you don't like to tell the readers because it add like a few extra words ooo.

As for the readers, where does it say the process was interrupted in your edit in the article. In my edit it is clearly said but no where in yours is it shown so short of the readers watching the episode they will never know it was interrupted which is the problem with your simplistic descriptions. By your description all readers know is that the transfer is completely successful which I might add if that was true, Superman would of died as his complete life force being sucked from his body would kill him of course. Other than that we know the process was reversed course while you stand by this heavily you never say why its reversed except here days after the fact when it doesn't matter. And do I need to go into how you don't even explain to these readers why Ra's al Ghul and his daughter apparently die in the episode, once again you being simplistic is a fault of yours.

What I love is how my description is barely bigger than yours and yet I give the readers so much more concise information yet I am the wrong one in this even though I have watched the episode, have the episode on my computer and provide only facts and no speculation like you.

Well, I just proved your edit is flawed and wrong. Do you need more info before you deflate your ego and admit your wrong? If so just ask and I will as I have facts, not speculation backing me up. Phunbot 05:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ownage, how sweet it is![edit]

Forget the above statements and just concentrate on this as what I am about to say will unequivocally show I am right.

Before you asked for citations on why Superman's power returned, the above statement didn't exactly give that but I just remembered something from the episode that shows explicit moments to explain why Superman's power comes back.

In the episode Talia uses the power of the staff to drain the energy out of Superman knocking him out to allow her to capture him showing that the staff drains energy. Later in the chamber meant to do the transferring of his energy into Ra's al Ghul, Superman manages to gain enough energy back to use his powers to get free however Talia once again uses the staff to subdue him. So simply put at the end of the show Superman gains his power back because it's just a matter of time before he recovers from the staffs effects. So there you go a citation that shows why he got his powers back, no reversal bs at all.

Its good to be right and if you want to challenge my statement I will give you the links to the episode and you can see it for yourself. Goodbye this discussion is over, I am going to now edit the article part appropriately with this new info. If you edit it again, that is on you but you been proven wrong so why keep on showing your wrong.

Phunbot 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Occam's razor[edit]

The source of this dispute over the animated series section seems to be some trivial detail in the plot summary of the episodes Ra's al Ghul appears in. Is there a reason we've devoted three paragraphs to the single episode of the Superman series in which Ra's appears?

Since the reason seems to be "the fannish tendency to confuse stories with information," I've omitted the overdetailed plot summary entirely, due to the lack of a need for detailed plot summary of every single work the character appears in (something discussed in WP:FICT and WP:WAF). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Even better. Thanks. I've been trying to guide Phunbot in better ways to wikiedit, but lately, he's been resistant to guidance. this works even better. ThuranX 12:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Head of the Demon[edit]

Is it just me, or is the section on Head of the Demon way too long? I feel it practically borders on copyright infringement. Ccm043 13:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculousness of 'citations needed' nonsense[edit]

Denny has been saying Ra's was Moriarty-level arch-nemesis updated to appear as a "James Bond"-style villain since before 1975. I remember him stating such at Harlan Ellison's Ten Tuesdays Down a Rabbit Hole, the UCLA Extension science fiction class that year. - Sparky (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your memory is not an encyclopedia source. I personally heard Denny say that in a conference call earlier this year. My phone call is not a source either. If he has said it so many times, finding a source should not be difficult. It certainly is not nonsense because most of the planet has never heard him say that. Doczilla (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Resurrection plot section[edit]

the Resurrection of Ra's plot section is overly long and needs a serious stripping down. ThuranX (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of illustration[edit]

As Neal Adams has pointed out on numerous occasions, the key to the character's sinister appearance is his lack of eyebrows. Perhaps the illustration should reflect his comic book appearance, and not one created for the animated series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done - poorly referenced so I bumped it down to a C (although Start wouldn't be inappropriate either as it is a low C). (Emperor (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC))


The article currently says that Ra's' name was pronounced Rayshe in the DCAU to avoid making him seem one ethnicity over the other. I don't know of any official source that states this. Additionally if you search Ra's it will take you to the Arabic sound Resh which sounds phonetically enough like Rayshe to be acceptable. What I'm trying to say is that it seems to me, uneducated as I may be, that Rayshe is more similar to the correct pronunciation. Does anybody know what the real story is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an answer to that question, but I have another question related to pronunciation. For years, I thought that "Ra's" was pronounced like the possessive of "Ra" -- that is, I thought this character in some sense belonged to (or maybe worked for) someone named Ra. Given what apostrophe-S usually means in English, this seems like an easy mistake to make. So I'd like to add a note about it to this article, but I don't have a source talking about his name or its pronunciation (and specifically about the possessive issue). Anyone have such a source? I suppose it's reasonably clear, given the info already in the article about what his name means, that it's not a possessive, but I think it could be made clearer. --Elysdir (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the character's creator, it is pronounced 'Raysh' (;read=1079&expand=1) although a better source is needed. Esc861 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:News-batbegins1-1.jpg[edit]

The image File:News-batbegins1-1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


The note in the "Origin" section quotes al Ghul as saying "I appear to be a vigorous fifty. I am actually a very vigorous four hundred and forty-eight...or is it four hundred and fifty-three? I lost count during the Black Plague. No matter." Unfortunately, the Black Plague went through Europe on its main "grand tour" in the middle of the 14th century. Unless the comic in question is set in America's colonial period, he'd have to be at least 700 years old. Someone please add a well-thought note to that effect? Since I don't read any comics anywhere near this direction, I'd not like to intrude on the wiki. (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


obviously no one working on this article knew any Arabic. I added the right pronunciation for ra's al ghul but there seems to be something wrong with the picture which says that he returns in the form of his own son, Dusan al Ghul: the arabic script after the name Dusan al Ghul would in a roughly transliterated form be al-shabah al-abid. this does mean the white ghost but it is not dusan al ghul (دوسان الغول‎) which in turn seems to have no real arabic meaning at all, although i am not sure about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medizinball (talkcontribs) 23:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is this pronunciation? Has it been removed from the page? If so, why? I think this info would be useful, especially since the movie has been accused of using the wrong pronunciation. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


Seriously, You're going to spoil the entire story of Arkham City in an page about Ra's without ANY warning? most of it isn't even relevant. (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER. Doniago (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Conflict resolution[edit]

First of all, nobody answered my last question.

Second of all, I grouped the categories in the order of how they were most relevant to the character.

Thirdly, the so called commentary as it has been termed, was an explanation for what I was doing. I am under the impression, it is desirable to give an explanation for edits, so that others can understand what is happening with the article's development.

Jdogno5 (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding grouping the categories: While it is good to put them into a structure to ease navigation, it should not be based on editorial opinion. Alphabetizing them works, and does tend to pull like categories together. "Relevance to the character" can often be in the eye of the editor which can come across as POV pushing.
Attaching categories can also be an exercise in original research when an editor brings their assumptions or inferences along. This is more true when categories are added that are not supported by the article. For example, "Since he is described as a martial artist and has underlings that are described as 'ninjas', he must be one also and should be in the the category Fictional ninjas."
Lastly, categorizing by trivia tends to be frowned on. An in passing reference to his getting a medical degree long, long ago really doesn't justify adding Fictional doctors.
- J Greb (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

is article really claiming "Ra's Al Ghul" --> "Dracula"?[edit]

Am I reading this article correctly as saying that the name "Dracula" is, in real life, derived from "Ra's Al Ghul"? That's pretty obviously not right... more to the point, it would contradict Vlad the Impaler#Name and House of Drăculești. Can anyone elaborate on what the source cited in this article really says? --Allen (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed this material that is obviously wrong despite being sourced. I haven't looked up the source book, but if it claims what this material said it does then it is not reliable on this matter. Below is what I removed. --Allen (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Upon historical research, O'Neil learned that the name Ra's Al Ghul (pronounced Raysh-Al-Ghoul) was the original name of a killer in the Middle East whose head was said could turn into a lion/tiger. This led to people calling him 'ghouls head', the literal translation of "Ra's Al Ghul", or head of the demon. The persona of Ra's Al Ghul later migrated to Europe where his name "Raysh-Al-Ghoul" then morphed into "Drake The Ghoul." Drake The Ghoul became a vicious despot rumored to drink blood out of a chalice during rituals and was known to spike heads of his slain opponents on spears as he gained power and acquired a fortress or castle. The name "Drake The Ghoul" transformed into "Dray Ghoula" or "Dray kula", and finally "Dracula".[1] With this in mind, O'Neil decided to name his villain Ra's Al Ghul to give DC the "real" Dracula under the use of his original name.

I'm looking at the book right in front of me and this stuff isn't in it. It's a first edition, maybe it's in a later edition but not the one I have. I'm removing it until someone offers a real explanation. Easyjusteasy (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ra's al Ghul effects in the Dark Knight[edit]

Ra's al Ghul does not make an appearance in the Dark Knight, but his effects are definitely felt, seen, and spoken about. For this reason, I do not see the need to remove the two or three lines I wrote (and backed up with sources) about Ra's al Ghul's influences in Dark Knight. It's only a few lines, why is it so necessary to remove it? It is more helpful for the reader trying to find insight on the flow of storytelling for Nolan's Batman trilogy.Osh33m (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider YouTube to generally be a good source (though there are exceptions), and would likely consider your additions more worthwhile if another source were available. I believe your mention of "a premise taught to him by Ra's" is synthesis unless the links you provided specifically mention that. Another reason I have for opposing this addition is the simple fact that Ra's is never explicitly mentioned in the film.
All this being said, I'm certainly willing to take into consideration the opinions of other editors on this matter. DonIago (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I never understood the notion of youtube to NOT be a good source... videos literally SHOW you the proof you are looking for. And as I was explaining before about the flow of storytelling, it was edtablished that Ra's was a mentor to Bruce and that he agreed with Ra's' sentiments about criminals before realizing he wante to destroy Gotham. That basically explains why Bruce believed "criminals aren't complicated..." until he was matched with his greatest adversary. Nonetheless, youtube videos are good sources, unless the video does not show you the proof you need, but mine did. Osh33m (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I also forgot to mention, Ra's is talked about in the novelization of the dark knight. Osh33m (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Videos can also be difficult to authenticate and often are posted to YT in violation of copyright law. You may wish to read WP:YT for more information. Everything you're talking about with regards to Ra's and Bruce is original research and quite possibly also trivia; I'd like to see a third-party source that discusses what you're bringing up here.
In any event, as there is still no consensus to include your material, and likely will not be until other editors have contributed to this discussion, I am reverting to the last stable version of the article. Please stop re-adding your material until there is a consensus to include it. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Really? That is what is constituted as original research? If that is the case, original research deserves more credit than it is given. It is as simple as watching film and listening to what the characters are saying, and what is happening. With this logic, plot summaries of every film wikipedia is also original research, because it requires wiki users to... watch the film, listen to what the characters are saying, and what is happening. So there should not be any plot summaries on wikipedia since it requires the same method of attaining information as does "original research."
If youtube videos are uploaded with copyright law they get deleted eventually, so that's not our problem. I would not be wasting my time here if I didn't think those simple 3 lines I added on this page were not useful to someone trying to find inquiries on Nolan's Batman trilogy. You also ignored my statement of Ra's al Ghul being mentioned in the novelization of the Dark Knight. You're welcome.Osh33m (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Plot summaries are not original research as long as they discuss explicitly what is shown in the film and do not touch on any interpretation. For instance, if Ra's isn't mentioned in TDK than it is arguably OR to assume that Wayne Manor is still damaged from Batman Begins; an argument could be made that it was repaired and then damaged in a later incident.
We've been discussing the film, not the novelization of the film. If something appears in the novelization but not the film itself, it should be made explicitly clear that that is the case. Your additions mentioned the film, not the novelization thereof.
It seems clear that we're in disagreement about this; it may be best to wait until another editor offers their opinion on the matter. DonIago (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


What is Ra's al Ghul's religion?--Splashen (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ p.132 Tales of the Dark Knight, Batmans first fifty years by Mark Cota Vaz, DC comics 1989