Talk:Batman/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Weird image of Bob Kane

What is this exactly? thumb|left|110px|

The file summary leaves me unclear as to where it came from. ArtistScientist (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Batman Creation

According to Book and Magazine Collector Monthly (no 246) Bob Kane got the idea of 'the Batman' over a weekend, inspired by Da Vinci's drawings of bats as well as the films listed and then called in his old schoolfried Bill Finger for help. It also states he would have been called a costumed adventurer, not a superhero, that had yet to be coined (obviously it is not worth replacing all references to the word superhero and changing it to costumed adventurer). Detective Comics #27 was edited by Vin Sullivan. 89.242.157.137 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Influences

I see influences such as the Shadow and Zorro named as inspirations for Batman (which quite obviously they were) but I believe there is another earlier influence which always seems to go unnoticed and which I believe should be mentioned and that is the similarities Batman has in both his original story and in most later film adaptations with Alexander Dumas’ the Count of Monte Cristo. Let me make my case.

Monte Cristo’s and Batman’s similarities.

1.The vow of revenge against the people who have wronged them and it is their primary motivation for what they do. The desire for Vengeance is mentioned in most Batman films in live action and animated forms. In the 1995 film Batman Forever it is stated that Batman believes revenge has become his whole life.

2.The dawning of a darker alter ego with unwavering convictions as to what they want to do. They both dress in black with capes.

3.They are both able to use an almost unlimited supply of money and resources towards their goals. They both also live in Mansions in large cities.

4.The use of allies/sidekicks. Batman has numerous people under him he can depend on for help and with similar goals to his. Alfred, Robin, Batgirl, Batwoman, Nightwing, and Lucius Fox. The Count of Monte Cristo had Luigi Vampa, Jacopo, Ali, Baptistin, Bertuccio, Benedetto and Princess Haydee all with their own helpful skills to assist him and with similar goals.

5.Detective skills. Monte Cristo and Batman both use intelligence and cunning to destroy their enemies.

6.Monte Cristo has an underground hideout/headquarters in a cave underneath the island of Monte Cristo which in some respects seems similar to the Batcave.

7.The training and refining of Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins (2005) by Ducard is also similar to the training Dantes receives from Abbe Faria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.27.26 (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Phantom

The Phantom's obvious influence on Batman needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article. It's obvious that Kane and/or Finger lifted Batman's white eyes with no pupils straight from Lee Falk's character, and such it needs to be recognized. It is detailly described in the Phantom article how Falk got the idea for his hero having no visible eyes behind his mask, and Batman, and countless other superheroes, took this straight from "The Ghost Who Walks". --Kit Walker (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Have you got a reliable source for the info? Hiding T 09:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are several reliable sources on how Falk came up with the idea of the white eyes from observing Greek busts, which usually did not have visible pupils. One of the best sources is an interview with Falk in the documentary "The Phantom: Comic Strip Crusader", which aired on A&E in 1996. I think it really warrants a brief mention in the Batman article under the "Creation" section if the likes of Doc Savage and The Shadow can get one simply by being "master sleuths and scientists"... It's obvious Batman as a character would look different if it wasn't for the Phantom. --Kit Walker (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This sounds very OR and soap boxy to me. Did Kane mention an influence in his autobiography? He'd acknowledged Zorro and the silent movie The Bat, to my knowledge, but I don't believe the Phantom. Should be easy enough to check if someone has a copy of the book. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bill Finger article offers what appears to be a reliable source for the Phantom's influence on Batman. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bill_Finger#cite_note-9 --Kit Walker (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess one could just port over that sentence with the attached cites as written. -- Tenebrae (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Split into two articles

As I was just at the fictional history of Dick Grayson page and it was nominated for deletion and the result was keep. Here this is Batman worlds finest he has a long history and I have a feeling we should split this article off into two articles.

Fictional History of Batman (Like the fictional history of Dick Grayson Page)

Batman (Includes all information except the biography which will be incorperated into the page above)

This is just a thought. --Schmeater (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that teh Dick Grayson article won;t be merged back, that seems to be a strong possibility, and a number of such articles have already been deleted this year so I think there's no clear consensus. I would advise against a split. This is a featured article. Hiding T 18:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, the fictional history section really doesn't seem that long. The only way it looks long is if you combine the publication history with it, and considering the fictional history and publication history are two completely different things, I really don't think it's an issue right now. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This underlines a problem with the article and it won't be fixed by splitting, as the split article would violate WP:WAF and be a prime target for deletion or cutting back and being merged back here in a different form.

The problem is that the FCB section isn't, or at least shouldn't be. As the introduction makes clear it is about his origin and the way his biography has been presented and changed. As such it is out-of-universe and a solid well-focused section. However, it should be called "origin" and trimmed down, as being called FCB seems to have led people to tag on in-universe elements (especially on the end, when it really should be reworded and added to PH, if at all). This is similar to Superman#Comic book character, which combines the origin and characterisation (which makes sense as the origin of Batman does partly help define his character). As it stands it could easily drag the article down and fail a FAR. I'd suggest hacking it right back and then renaming the section or reworking it with the characterisation section so it looks at his origin and characterisation. Just not a split. (Emperor (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

More than one Batman

Is there a listing for the 'other' sort of batman, namely an orderly in the British army? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobold123 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC) yeah a siptedrrte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.15.184 (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Batman" vs "The Batman"

The first words in the article are "The Batman", yet it's about the only time in the article the phrase is used to refer to the character. The most common way to refer to the character is by far "Batman". Like, 99.9% of the time this is what he's called. The opening should reflect this. Any opposing views? ArtistScientist (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• We tend to introduce alternate names straight away. That's just how it is done. It isn't any more of a deal than that and has nothing to do with percentages, it's just the way we do it, like, 99.9% of the time. It's like how we always expand an abbreviation on the first instance. It's the way you do it in an encycloipedia. It isn't done to give special prominence or anything, it's done to get it out of the way in the standard manner. have a read of a vast number of encyclopedic reference works and you'll see the same standard applies. The opening here should reflect Wikipedia:Lead section. Hope that helps. Hiding T 15:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Alternate names are introduced straight away with the standard name. I'm going to change it to the way it was a while ago. ArtistScientist (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, is it "the Batman" or "The Batman"? i.e., "I am the Batman" or "I am The Batman" --Gadflyr (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's "the Batman", although for The Batman (TV) it's "The Batman" but that's just for the show, and plus you couldn't have the show be "the Batman" because that's not proper English. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As I meant from my example, I was referring to it when used as a proper noun(s?) for the character, rather than a name of a series.--Gadflyr (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

When used as a proper noun, it is "the Batman," as the word "The" isn't exactly part of his title. As for "Batman" vs. "The Batman," either is correct, depending on how you look at it: If you think that 'Batman' is his alter ego's name, then you say "Batman" throughout. But if you accept that he is not named "Batman" and is simply modeled after a bat, then you must call him "The Batman" throughout the article (for grammar's sake, we'd say "the Batman," unless it was the beginning of a sentence). I hope that wasn't too confusing. JesterCountess^{[talk•contribs]} 03:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Kinda confusing, yes. If people call him "The Batman" as a title (it seems to go in and out of vogue with the writers, I'll admit), why isn't it part of his title? Why do you have to accept that he is not named "Batman"? Can't both names be valid? I'm not sure what you mean "for grammar's sake" if grammar would dictate the "The" would be capitalized if you accept "The Batman" is a name.--Gadflyr (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Batman" is a name, but "the Batman" is more of a title. He gets referred to as if it's both a name and a title. In terms of punctuation, "the" is only a determiner, not a keyword, so it's not capitalized. ArtistScientist (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Return of Bruce Wayne?

Perhaps someone who is more knowedgeable in the storyline might want to add this information at the end of the Modern Batman" section..?

"The World’s Greatest Detective is facing his toughest mystery.

Lost in the timestream, believed to be dead by his friends and enemies alike, Bruce Wayne must use every bit of intelligence, every ounce of strength and training he’s acquired over the years to find his way back to the city, and adopted family of vigilantes, he’d left behind.

Blasted by the mysterious and powerful Omega Effect in the pages of FINAL CRISIS during a deadly battle with the malevolent New God Darkseid, Bruce Wayne must battle back through the waves of time to reclaim what was his – his city, his life…his cowl?

From the kinetic and awe-inspiring imagination of writer Grant Morrison and an all-star cast of artists, including Chris Sprouse, who’ll handle art chores on the first issue, BATMAN: THE RETURN OF BRUCE WAYNE #1 (of 6) hits in April and will prove to be Bruce Wayne’s defining moment as a hero, and his toughest challenge yet."

Source: http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2009/12/09/dcu-in-2010-the-return-of-bruce-wayne-hits-in-april/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.229.163 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the simplest way woul be to indicate:

On December 9, 2009 DC announced that Bruce Wayne would be making his anticipated return in 2010. The storyline titled Return Of Bruce Wayne will consist of a six issue miniseries beginning in April of 2010. The series will follow Bruce Wayne in a journey through time, trying to find his way back to the present-day Gotham City he calls home.

The series will be written by Grant Morrison and feature a different artist on each issue. Morrison described the tales as: " Bruce Wayne's ultimate challenge — Batman vs. history itself!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaf2675 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

the name of Bruce' son is Damian - not Damien!!

please chance it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.93.81 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Batman's Abilities

After watching Batman and Superman Public Enemies, Batman's abilities should be super strength, speed, and agility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eupeyd (talk • contribs) 06:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How about no. Although, on separate occasions, he temporarily acquired several powers including Superman's. AltomareXD (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok when I find you I'll tell you what I really think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eupeyd (talk • contribs) 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha. What?!129.139.1.68 (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Golden Age Batman

I find it surprising that no one finds it worth mentioning that origionally Batman carried a gun and would kill people. Infact, Robin was created to give Batman a lighter tone. I feel that if the article is to even talk about the Golden Age Batman this should at least be mentioned (especially considering how in depth the article gets later on.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.65 (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Wayne!

Why is it that Superman and Clark Kent are separate articles, yet Bruce Wayne is merely a brief paragraph within the Batman page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.147.84 (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The secret is out! Superman and Clark Kent ARE actually different people! --Nihilozero (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Because you're too lazy to make a decent Bruce Wayne article? You think the Clark Kent article MAGICALLY appeared? If you want a bigger Bruce Wayne article, MAKE ONE.129.139.1.68 (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Abilitlies and Powers?

I wanted to know where that section is or if there is one. Most wiki pages for comic book heroes have their powers/abilities but it seems like this page doesn't. I may be on the wrong page but this seems like where all of Batman(Bruce Wayne's alter ego)'s information belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.81.250 (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

batman doesn't really have any powers.71.112.117.210 (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it have at least he is a martial artist? Even Catwoman has her abilities listed. 76.104.81.250 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Peak human potential isn't even mentioned there, and he's supposed to be the most profound fighter and athlete of his universe ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Peak human potential" and "martial arts" aren't powers or even abilities any more than Steven Hawking's understanding of space time is an ability.129.139.1.68 (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Bruno Diaz

No mention of the name Bruno Diaz? Bruce Wayne is only Batman's civilian identity in english language versions of Batman. In other languages Bruce Wayne is named Bruno Diaz. No idea why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.162.208 (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.167.125 (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually the man has reason. A bit of reference in te Trivia part could be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortex36 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Then add the other identities on the other language wiki pages.129.139.1.68 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor correction on Identity Crisis

Identity Crisis was 2002, not 2005 as it says in the Fictional character biography section under Modern Batman. It was 3 years before Infinite Crisis, which WAS 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.162.208 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Added picture

I don't have an account, but maybe someone can add this picture? Or a picture of the Azrael Batman? Since Dick Grayson's picture as Batman is on this page, maybe this one can be as well? It's a picture of Jean Paul Valley/Azrael as Batman, who becomes Batman after Bane breaks Bruce Wayne's back. Here's a picture: [[:Image:Det667.jpg|thumb|130px|left|Detective Comics #667 (1993). Art by Kelley Jones.]] (Here, this is the picture-- (File:Det667.jpg)) If not this picture, maybe another one with Azrael in his Batman costume. What does everyone think?71.194.114.35 (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

BILL NEVER CLAIMED HE CREATED THE BATMAN

The portion that reads "...Kane disputed Finger's claims at having created the character." is false. It should read something like: "...Kane disputed Jerry Bails' claims that Finger created the character."

Portions of this article are taken from an article from which I quoted and submitted to Wiki a few years ago. In it, I demonstrated that Bill Finger is not the one who was saying he created The Batman. It seems that Jerry Bails and some of his friends had met Finger at his studio after a comic book convention at which he had explained how he helped Kane refine his idea. Bails in turn wrote an article in BATMANIA in which he (not Bill) claimed that Bill "really" created Batman. This caused an uproar that led to Kane's furious response, parts of which are also quoted in this article. Eventually in Steranko's History of the Comics, Bill clarified his involvement (especially how he came up with the "Bruce Wayne" monniker), but even with this, Kane was still attacked by some "fans" who distorted things while some comic book insiders insulted Bill with the jargon about "...being Fingered".MARK VENTURE (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Character flaws?

Other characters have their character flaws mentioned -- for example Tony Stark is an alcoholic -- but people seem to think that Batman is beyond criticism. I personally find it hilarious, but why was the fact that he uses torture and intrusive surveillance in his fight against crime removed from this article?

Because torture and intrusive surveillance aren't character flaws.129.139.1.68 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The film The Dark Knight does explore the issues of torture and intrusive surveillance and if you have suitable articles or reviews discussing the issue you could highlight that story theme in that article. Those issues do not necessarily apply to all versions of Batman so it might be more difficult to justify including them here. -- Horkana (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use of image

I'm looking for an image to add to the article simple:Batman. I have already added the Batmobile image as it is the only image in this article that is Creative Commons licensed. It is difficult to know what "fair use" means, different editors have very different ideas. I would like to know what image or images would be the most fair so that the simple:Batman article could have at least one or two pictures of Batman. -- Horkana (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Batpod.jpg is another CC licensed image you could use there. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Really need at least one image of Batman himself though, don't want to overwhelm a small article with too many pictures of Batmans gadgets. I'm surprised the editors who are so very strict about images in other cases allowed so many images in this article especially since there to be two images of Batman by Jim Lee. I'd guess the infobox image is probably the safest bet but it is incredibly confusingly how inconsistently the standard of fair use is applied and I could really do with other opinions. I suppose I should work improve the description in article for readers who will be using versions of Wikipedia. -- Horkana (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Alter-ego(s)

Dick Grayson should be listed under Batman's alter-ego(s) in the infobox.

Limbero (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Batman

What the blue blazes is this section?! Talk about undue emphasis in an article. This section is made up of taking small offhand comments from a few people and blowing them all out of proportion. It should be deleted as it's got nothing to do with Batman and seems like some sort of homosexual obsession. JettaMann (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You could probably argue undue weight but surprisingly I do think this has come up a lot and there are people who see a gay subtext in all kinds of places (see also Kirk and Spock in Star Trek). If you want to push people to provide more citations to prove notability then do ask but I expect people will be able to find all kinds of sources. Undue weight might be reason to keep the section short but I do think there is reason enough for it to exist. Also it is kind of funny. -- Horkana (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I can understand giving it a mention but I don't think it works very well in the article. Perhaps it could be reduced to a smaller section or given it's own article that could be linked to. ZODtheReaper (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

People have accused Batman of having all sorts of different undertones, not simply homosexual ones. There's no reason for this section, and it conflicts with the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.9.146 (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the special section about this, since it has been a subject of conversation for decades now. With that said, I would like to see more of an emphasis in regard to the sillines of the allegation. None of the writers and artists that worked on Batman stories during the Forties and Fifties have given it any credence. AFAIAC, that should end the debate. jtmatbat (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Wayne - His Own Article?

Now that Bruce Wayne is no longer the Batman, and ergo not just a sercret identity, combined with the fact that Clark Kent is a different article to Superman, I think that Bruce Wayne deserves his own article. I thought about restoring [1], but I decided to get some conseus first. What does everyone think of the idea? At the very least I believe he deserves his own article, if not the old revision I linked to. Harry Blue5 (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although it seems like a lot of work. Perhaps we could just base it on the Clark Kent article? I think if you want to make it you should do it soon because when he inevitably becomes batman again people will be more likely to fight you on it.ZODtheReaper (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

While I would like to, I thought that if I just did it by myself, it could instantly be reverted, for good reason too. That's why I decided to get some support first or to see if someone could prove me wrong. After all, I'm not ALWAYS right. Just most of the time ;D Harry Blue5 (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Due to lack of objections, I am restoring the page. If anyone objects, they can just revert the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at what you put up, it needs a hell of a lost of sourcing. And the mulk of that is going to need to be showing that the two aspects should be treated as separate characters, more or less the reason for the Superman and Clark Kent articles. Lacking that, it gets folded back into here. - J Greb (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it now. ArtistScientist (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The biggest concerns are going to be not duplicating this article and not providing a plot dump page. - J Greb (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Wayne now has his own article and it's terrible. It's a story summary and saying who played him in movies. Should be re-merged.129.139.1.68 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wayne returning in Return of Bruce Wayne

The Intro says "Wayne will return as Batman in Batman: The Return of Bruce Wayne". This is unconfirmed. Although I'm sure he will return as Batman, we don't know that that will actually happen in this series. All we know is that Bruce Wayne will return to current time. Gonna re-word it unless somebody finds a source saying that he will become Batman again this soon. ZODtheReaper (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Damian Wayne

This article basically glosses over the notion of The Batman having a son. How/when did this happen? Essentially a non-canon story, where the Batman married Talia and she became pregnant, somehow wound up as canon. In the storyline Talia concluded that she would never be able to keep Batman, she faked a miscarriage, and the marriage was dissolved. Now however at least a part of this storyline is canon. This kind of back-and-forth disruption of the timeline, which seems based on whoever the writer/artist team is at the time, renders a coherent background of any character in any part of the DC Universe impossible and irrelevant.--143.250.2.10 (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Frankm.russo, 3 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Okay, look I just want to change one thing okay. But if it doesn't go the way you like it. Then, I won't do it again.

Frankm.russo (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC) That's it.

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Bill Finger's inspiration

Will Murray tracked down the Shadow novel Bill Finger used as inspiration for the first Batman story, "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate" in Detective Comics #27. It's "Partners of Peril" from 1936. I wonder if this should be added to the article? Thanks! Darci (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Darknight Detective

I see that my edit that stated that Batman was also known as the Darknight Detective has been changed, even though he was known as that throughout the Seventies and Eighties. I am requesting it be changed back, since a Google search will show that I am right. jtmatbat (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I decided to add it again in reedited form, since I have to admit that my previous effort was a little clunky. However, if the moderators decide to remove it once again, I won't post anything more on the subject.jtmatbat (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, leafing through a few comics from my youth, Batman was referred to as the Darknight Detective, not the Dark Knight Detective. Therefore, I have made the proper correction. jtmatbat (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

VasOling, that's the second time that you have removed my addition regarding the fact that Batman is known as the Darknight Detective. It would be nice if you would make your case here as to why it shouldn't be included. If I need to add a reference, I will do so. jtmatbat (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I just Googled this and I can find no reference to him being called The Darknight Detective that's not a spelling mistake. In what era of comics was he called The Darknight Detective rather than The Dark Knight Detective? ScottMorris1 (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2011

WHAT THE HELL IS UP WITH U THINKING BATMAN IS GAY

He is NOT gay, what the heck, he a been involved with so many chicks and bob kane never created him as gay. he is also the most sacrificial superhero and saved millions of heroes including supes himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.41.15 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We're not exactly saying he is. We're taking both sides of the story. It has been sort of common to speculate Batman of homosexuality probably with his relationship with Robin in the past. So that's probably why the section is there. I do believe the article mentioned what you said about Bob Kane mentioning that so calm down. This discussion might be better in the Homosexuality in the Batman franchise article though. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

He sure did love to slide down the bat-pole.129.139.1.68 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

not that there is anything wrong with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.42.202 (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

See also Homosexuality in Batman

This was brought up before but the bot pushed it to the archives. -- Horkana (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content

I notice that there are a large number of non-free images in this article, and, basically, I'm asking if the regular editors could review their use if possible- ensure that every image is required. Ideally, we should use as little non-free content as possible. I'm yet to look through it with a fine-toothed comb myself, but I am concerned there may be some unwarranted images. J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking over what is in place:

• Batman Lee.png - Works well for the infobox
• Detective Comics 27.jpg - Also worke well where it is and for what it is.
• Batman227.jpg - Doesn't work. If it's supposed to peovide an example of the late 60s/early70s revampted look of the character, it falls well short and essentially duplicates the reason for the infobox image.
• Dark knight returns.jpg - Does work to a degree since it is some what illustrating a major point in the section it's in.
• Detective-33-Bat.png - Works about as well. Though it is something the text can clearly convey.
• DetectiveComics327NewLook.jpg - Adds nothing beyond "We have a comic book cover here."
• Bane-breaks-Batman-497pg21.png - While it is pointed as a pivotal/important plot moment, like the Detective Comics 33 panel, this is something that can be conveyed in the text.
• Black Lantern Batman.jpg - Really doesn't seem to be needed here - "And the zombie-Batman looked like..."
• DC Batman.jpg - Duplicates the function of the infobox. And in a less engaging way.
• Dick Grayson as Batman.jpg - Also duplicates the infobox. And if we have to spell out that it's Grayson, which we have to, it is less useful than text making the point.
• USD205998.png - Is free to use IIUC.
• BatmanRobin.jpg - Is illustrative of the section it's in.
• Batmanfoes.jpg - Likewise.
• Batman keaton 89.jpg - Is appropriate within the context of the section.
• Batmananimated32.png - Likewise.
• Batbed.png - As much as the section is loathed, this is a dead on example of its content an the topic it covers.

So... of 16 images, 1 is free, 8 seem to be solid for fair use, 2 are border line, and 5 are just decoration.

- J Greb (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with many of your thoughts here. I have removed the five decorative uses, as well as the "borderline" uses- as you say, they are very much replaceable with text. This is a good start. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

See also http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Spotlight_cleanup_listing/Images#Batman

This was brought up at least once before but the bot pushed it to the archives. -- Horkana (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Pull quotes

I'd like to put forth a suggestion. In advancing the article on Anarky, I've long ago expunged any excessive images. In order to replace these, I've pulled together many useful quotes that elaborate upon a topic. I highly recommend the same be done here. In many instances, the quotes can be more interesting than images. How many depictions of Batman do you need, when they just take up space that could be reserved for a quote by Bob Kane or Dennis O'Neil commenting on the character's development and impact? --Cast (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Characterization: Bruce Wayne, Dick Grayson and Damian Wayne

I think we should at least mention Damian Wayne in this section because he has been referenced to becoming Batman after Bruce dies (he appeared as Batman in Batman #666 and #700, Superman/Batman #75, a vague reference in Teen Titans Vol. 3 #18, and DC One Million). JulezNossy (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I also think that it should mention something about terry mcginnis being batman (batman beyond) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.37.238 (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Atmamog, 24 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The main profile picture of Batman needs an update. The character of Bruce Wayne has undergone a new costume change after his recent return since the events of DC Comics' major event "Final Crisis". I am able to provide a sufficient picture in .jpg format if needed.

Atmamog (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now:It's not necessary that the picture represent the most current image/costume. However, I'm not a regular editor of comic-book pages, so more experienced editors may disagree. For now I'll mark this as complete, but feel free to continue discussing. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually replacing an image that represents the longstanding, generally accepted or recognized "look" of a comic book charcater is contrary to WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE. It also puts undue weight on the "new" look, a recent change to the character. - J Greb (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Batman Should Be Labeled As A Superhero

Batman was the first man to throw Superman off his feet without using kryponite or magic in the cartoon. Batman is able to dodge superhuman abilities at superhuman fast agility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyTheGod (talk • contribs) 12:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

He's been called a superhero in the lead for quite a while, and is used as an example at Superhero (along with Green Arrow and others) as an an example of superheroes without superpowers. So I don't understand the point of the above. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Dark Knight Returns Modern Batman

Just to say at the end of this section it is a bit misleading to say that Judd Winick returned to be Batman title. Yes this is true and deserves its place in the expanded section below or in the Batman (comic) page but the section where he is mentioned here only seems for defining moments. Winick came back for 3-4 issues and it was widely unremarkable at that. It would make sense to say batman was taken over by Tony Daniel for example whos run was much more notable and extensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.81.66.129 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A Small Error

"Batman's secret identity is Bruce Wayne" That is written in the article but it's not true. Bruce Wayne's secret identity is batman, not vice versa. It should be 'Batman's real name is Bruce Wayne' or something of the sort — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.80.183 (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Caped Crusader and other nicknames

You know and I know that Batman is called the Caped Crusader, the Dark Knight, etc. That's probably why no one's noticed till now that none of those names are cited. We're all going with the assumption of "everybody knows that" ... and we actually can't do that. those names seem to have been entered under the assumption of "common knowledge," which is disallowed — that's considered original research or non-cited POV.

Why is this important? Because one editor has been trying to add "the Darknight Detective" to that list, and is getting reverted. (Once by me, though that was because he was using a disallowed, non-RS source as citation.) Why is "Caped Crusader" allowed by "Darknight Detective" not? The only answer is POV ... in this case a sort of collective POV. But we actually do need to cite these things. Aside from general Wikipedia policy, it provides bright-line, objective justification for why one nickname is included and why another is not.

Certainly, with all the books written about Batman, we can find one or two RS cites each that refers to him as the Caped Crusader, etc. It shouldn't be hard. Otherwise, we really have no concrete, verifiable reason to include some nicknames but not others that are frequently used. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of it is that those are common names used to discribe or reference the character, in the comics and out. Another part is that Batman is one of the very, very few characters to have such terms - the others I can think of that non-comics readers would recognize as readdily are "Boy/Teen Wonder", "Man of Steel", "Webhead" and that's about it.

Citing when something like that passes into common usage by the general population os damn hard to do. We can cite the first useages - generaly primary sources though - and maybe a secondary source that reinforces the common useage of the terms, but that doesn't fix the second problem: how long a list do we present?

- J Greb (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly right. We need to use common sense while also providing, I'd say, a single citation each from some authoritative source that confirms beyond a shadow of a bat (ha!) that the term is indeed in common usage and not just fan opinion. That should hold the line.

I've got Les Daniels' big book DC Comics, plus Wright's Comic Book Nation. I'd bet we could find cites there for what we have. We would not, of course, need to footnote the lead so long as we mention the names, with cites, in the main body of the article. --Tenebrae (er talk:Tenebrae|talk) 01:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added citations to Michael Fleisher's 1976 Batman Encyclopedia. Hope that helps. There's actually an entie paragraph of nicknames for Batman listed. Mtminchi08 (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank Tenebrae for opening up this discussion and for Mtminchi08's help in this matter. It took a while, but the sobriquet "The Darknight Detective" finally gets its due here at Wikipedia :-).jtmatbat (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my bruthas ... now this is what I'm talkin' about with Wikipedia teamwork. Day-amm! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link for a Billboard article from March 5, 1966 which uses the term "Caped Crusader" "Zapp! Pow! Batman Enters Vending Scene"

Google Books now has many old magazines available online. There's a treasure trove of citations there! Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that the Caped Crusader name is apparently well known enough that it was the part of the title of one of the 80s Batman games, as shown on List_of_Batman_video_games. Aawood (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wayne merged w/ Batman

I think Bruce Wayne should be merged into this article of Batman because Bruce and Batman are one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.174.158 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe Dick Grayson replaced Bruce as Batman, permanently this time. However, comic books are known to go back and forth on killing people all the time, is Bruce back to being Batman again now? Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Batman is a persona adopted by several characters, including Dick Grayson and Azrael. While, yes, 99% of the time Batman is Bruce Wayne, the times when they aren't one and the same should be enough for them to be considered separable. GRAPPLE X 01:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest that only depends on how good the Bruce Wayne article. And when I look at it it I see more of a fan site. Variety is the only reliable source on it so far. 99% is good enough for me to know that's the most notable alter ego of Batman. And the Batman article could still mainly focus on him better than a seperate article. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Princetonian can work as a relable source too. So that's two reliable sources. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor point.

"In the original version of the story and the vast majority of retellings, Batman's secret identity is Bruce Wayne, an American millionaire"

Isn't Batman the secret identity of Bruce Wayne instead of Bruce Wayne being the secret identity of Batman? --80.60.87.138 (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That depends on whether you consider "Batman" or "Bruce Wayne" an "identity". At any rate, they're both "secret". Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

But while Batman has been many different people, this article mainly surrounds Bruce Wayne, it mentions Dick Grayson, what aboutt Azreal and Terry McGinnis from Batman Beyond? Imthiyaz84 (talk)

Batman Should Be Labeled As A Superhuman Instead Of Higher Ability

In Batman: Under The Red Hood, Batman was able to dodge a car easily! In the last episode of Justice League Unlimited, Batman impressed Darkseid by being the first being to ever dodge his death beam not even Superman can dodge it! Batman is able to dodge bullets and other impossible elements such as heat beam just like in Batman: Under The Red Hood. Batman with Robin in The Batman was able to beat a cyborg who had the powers of all the Justice League! Batman was able to survive a punch from an amazo in Batman The Red Hood. In Batman The Red Hood, Batman was able to escape buildings ready to blow and he didn't even need his bathanger to jump across building to building. In the comios he was able to survive being poisoned by Poison Ivy until she cured him. Superhuman means improved human and that is what Batman is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyTheGamer (talk • contribs) 20:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we're talking artistic license. There has been no indication I'm aware of in some 70+ years of Batman that he underwent any transformation or was otherwise given some technological or supernatural means to turn superhuman. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Batman just has some seriously good reflexes. If we stretch the limits of "superhuman" to include that, then I want Bear Grylls listed. GRAPPLE X 13:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well they have showned that Batman has evolved throughout the series and in Wikipedia of the examples of superhuman, one of their examples is evolution. Lets think about it, can the Green Arrow do all the things like Batman can, also how many normal men can dodge a car thrown at them? ````AnthonyTheGod

Again, artistic license. If the source material does not judge him to be superhuman, we cannot call him that without violating policies on opinion and original research. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If that is true about the artistic license then why are the 2000 century animators breaking Batman's character? In the 90s, he wasn't able to do all the things he can do now. Why are these cartoons of Batman nowadays make him look superhuman? AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)AnthonyTheGamer

See Wikipedia guidelines. This is not a forum. This isn't the place for that discussion. Sorry. Doczilla _STOMP! 13:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

To Doczilla you do realize that an internet forum is a discussion right? Where else am I going to find out why they are breaking Batman's artistic license, tell me? I understand but at least put on Batman's page why they keep evolving the character like on Superman's Wikipedia page. To Doczilla, I read the guidelines and you with the rest of Wikipedia editors are suppose to update any new events to Wikipedia's pages so then you are suppose to update if DC comics evolved Batman so answer the question that is part of your guidelines to "update". AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC) AnthonyTheGamer

Bluntly: This thread as started isn't an attempt to improve the article, it's an attempt to get a fan debate going. This is not the place for it, nor are any of the talk pages on Wikipedia. It can stop now. - J Greb (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why does Batman have superhuman abilities in the cartoon than the comic?

I know that all of you read the Batman comics but I don't think you watch the Batman cartoons. Somebody explain in the Batman page why he is able to do all of these non-human abilities? AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC) AnthonyTheGamer

Isn't this essentially the same discussion as that above? Aawood (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup. The game being played is very stale. - J Greb (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Batman (comics)

Can someone just labeled this way above title so someone will not get confused. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC) AnthonyTheGamer

If you mean the article, no. If not, try explaining what you mean. - J Greb (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This fella has a point. There is a Batman province in Turkey, the capital of which is also called Batman. Having the "(Comics)" part would help differentiate between the three (109.246.48.165 (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC))

The article says "This article is about the superhero character. For other uses, see Batman (disambiguation)." at the top. This links through to all other meanings of the term, including the Turkish province. --McGeddon (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a little niggle...

The quote from Bill Finger about naming Bruce Wayne appears twice in the article, in both the Publication History section and the Bruce Wayne subsection in Characterisation. While I can understand having either section state the information, I don't understand both of them using it. Additionally it's placed in 'Bruce Wayne' in a slightly clunky manner. Would somebody edit it out of that latter section? 82.37.246.236 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Darknight Detective

The "Darknight Detective" title is a nickname that was rarely used in the 80s, but is no longer used. As such, it does not belong in the lede, which is an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. This is not an important aspect. I suggest that if it is insisted that this title is in the article, that it is placed somewhere within the article itself as opposed to the lede. Placing it in the lede gives undue weight to a nickname that is hardly ever used, giving the impression that this is a commonly attributed nickname, when it is not. This is why I removed it from the lede, as it doesn't belong there, sourced or not. - SudoGhost 13:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The assertion that Batman wasn't referred to as the Darknight Detective during the '80s is flat-out wrong. I have enough of my old comics from that time (not to mention the '70s) to prove it. jtmatbatjtmatbat 14:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. I didn't assert that Batman wasn't referred to as such in the 80's. I said he rarely was. After the 80's (1989 to be exact), I'm not aware of any references to Batman as such. The fact that Batman hasn't been called that in over twenty years (and during the 80's, it wasn't an often used nickname for him) makes it a minor detail. Searching online for "Darknight Detective" turns up little, with no real reliable sources that could establish anything, so if it was a commonly used name for Batman, it doesn't seem to be well reflected on the internet. Minor details like that don't belong in the lede, which is a summary of the article's most importance aspects. - SudoGhost 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

2¢ - Along with the issues related to the lead section there is also a need to establish a context for the term when adding it within the remainder of the article. There should be something reliable that can be cited, on-line or off, for the writers or editorial creating, using, and re-using these types of terms for the character. And that would be worth looking into. - J Greb (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue with sentence in opening paragraph

In the opening paragraph it says Batman has appeared in "many of DC Comics' publications". A better wording would be Batman has appeared in publications by DC Comics or primarily in publications by DC Comics. - Chavando (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No Need

I see there to be no need for the homosexual section. It is citing a minor viewpoint and uses outdated references.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a genuine area of academic interest that forms a major part of the character's public perception. There isn't a need insofar as you believe that to be true, but you're wrong, so there's really not a case to be argued there.Zythe (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm grossly mistaken, but didn't the perception of Batman being possibly homosexual play some part in the Comics Code Authority being created? Again, this is what I'm led to believe, but if true, that alone makes the homosexuality aspect of the article relevant and necessary. Regardless of my possible misunderstanding of this, it is also something that is addressed in culture, so to ignore it would be inappropriate and unfair to readers, as it is an aspect that carries some weight. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and not liking it is no reason to remove it. Outside of censoring and not liking it, I can see no reason why it would be removed. - SudoGhost 11:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a sourced viewpoint and one that has been important enough in comics history. Even if it were to fall under WP:FRINGE, which it doesn't, it's still brief enough that it does not constitute undue weight given to a minority view. GRAPPLE X 14:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How can Batman be homosexual. if the character appears explicitly in relationships with women in comics? You can discuss at the most if he is bisexual.

--rafaelcastrocouto (talk) 18:34, 13 Jan 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.103.120.172 (talk)

There is an absolute need for a section on homosexual interpretations. As far as the character's sexuality, even if he himself is heterosexuals, Batman comics themselves can still be read as queer texts - ie of special relevance and interest to queer readers. Euchrid (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Love interests

There should be an added subcategory about the various love interests whom Bruce Wayne/Batman had throughout the decades. Perhaps even a subcategory of some of the children he had as well.--Splashen (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Super Powers

Batman does indeed have a super power. He's very very rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.10.40 (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Batman Beyond

Even though Terry McGinnis is Batman Beyond or Batman of the future, shouldn't he be under "partnerships" that is under his picture of Batman at the top? Superman and Batgirl and Robin are all under there. I understand that Nightwing isn't under there because they were never directly partners, but I believe Terry McGinnis or Batman Beyond should be, despite how far away he is in the timeline since superman and batgirl were not partners at the same time either.

that's actually true.Terry should be mentioned. But the article is locked so no go — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.183.130 (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Batman story featuring Batboy?

This question is aimed at the wikipage on Batman.

I seem to recall that in the Batman comic series (some time probably during the 1960's) I recall Robin querying Batman about whether a suitable name for him would be "Batboy" rather than Robin. I think that this led to a (one off) story of Batman recounting that there had previously been a Batboy (who I think died). I wonder if any other readers or contributors could make a comment on this.

Jpmct (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Jpmct

Even if the issue in question could be tracked down, ff every piece of Silver Age ephemera was considered canon, the article would become unmanagably long.Euchrid (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If it were to be added (and as Euchrid points out, that's not really that necessary), it probably would make more sense in the Robin (comics) or List of Batman supporting characters articles. GRAPPLE X 04:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Batboy didn't die, he got a job with the Gotham Yankees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Rocksteady games

How come no mentions of the Rocksteady games Arkham Asylum and Arkham City?

CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's in the franchise section, but you're right it should have a mention atleast07:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.183.130 (talk)

Added mentions of both games in the Other Media section. Euchrid (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The New 52

While reading I noticed this, " While many characters have their histories significantly altered to attract newer, younger readers, Batman's history remains mostly intact". While this is somewhat true I think it lacks information, alot of fans hate The New 52 because of the assumption that the comic franchise was created as a permanent change in the heroes lives. Batman may have a new comic going on right now, altered reality, but its a continuation of the Flashpoint series, and will ultimately end in 5-10 years depending on how the story goes, so Batman's reality will revert back to how it was pre- new 52, and I feel this should be re-written by someone who can talk better and added to the section about Batman in the new 52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1AndOnlyTheGoob (talk • contribs) 09:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"In 1989, the first issue of Legends of the Dark Knight, the first new solo Batman title in nearly fifty years, sold close to a million copies."

Should be moved and clarified: DKR is a solo title. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please ADD Nationality

batman is AN AMERICAN Hero Please ADD It's Nationality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We do not generally assign nationalities to fictional characters, at least not in the lead sentences. It's not an intrinsic factor of describing who/what the topic is. The fact that Batman was created by American writers/artists and published by an American comic company does not mean we need to lead of with "Batman is an American hero". --IllaZilla (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dates

In their adventures, what are the official dates of the Bruce Wayne's birth (day, number, year) and of the murder of his parents (day, number, year) ? IJKL (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comics generally use a floating timeline, so key events don't have a fixed date that would stretch this out. I believe Thomas and Martha were killed at a time which has been specified, though, but it escapes me at the moment. GRAPPLE X 12:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Fans and fan sites tend to speculate on the dates, and those sources are not considered reliable for Wikipedia. That said, IIRC:

• DC at one point assigned Batman's birthday to Feb 29. This was never really a plot point though.
• Most mentions of Bruce's age, if it is mentioned at all, at the time his parents were killed has been 8. But a gain, no date is given and rarely if ever is a "XX years ago" reference used.
• The Earth-Two Batman is more likely to have a full date of birth, but only due to being "locked" into the WWII era.Again, the year would be down to fan speculation since ages at locked dates - eg the bombing of Pearl Harbor - never show up.

- J Greb (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Show Batman's Strength And Agility Level

I saw Batman in Batman Arkham City pull off a swell shutter with his hands. I saw Batman dodge a car in Batman Under The Red Hood. The comics must have the answers just like it was shown on Captain America's power level on Wikipedia's article. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The article mentions Batman's martial arts and physical expertise constantly. Are you asking why he seems to be faster etc in some mediums than in others? The answer to that is that different creators interpret the character differently, and different mediums have different requirements. Euchrid (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Example, on Captain America's article it says he can lift up 1,200 pounds and run 60 MPH so what is Batman's level? AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, every version depicts it differently. Movies, video games, animation, comics, TV shows...they have all shown different levels of strength, agility, etc. I doubt that any of these sources have ever attempted to give a specific figure for any of these attributes, and if so, DC reboots so regularly that they would be non canon almost immediately.Euchrid (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Had a look at Captain America's article, and that information is sourced to a recent reliable source. If you can find one that gives similar information about Batman then that's all well and good, but just because one article does something doesn't automatically mean this one should too. GRAPPLE X 03:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. That sort of material could be added so long as it was made clear which version of the character it referred to.Euchrid (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, it would read better in terms of tone and usefulness to the layman if it didn't—a 1940s breakdown of Batman's physical abilities should be referred to as being from that time, not as referring to Earth-Two Batman, for example. But as long as any singular depiction like that is attributed to its specific source and not expected to count as a sweeping generalisation of the character's entire history, then by all means it should be included. GRAPPLE X 03:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. I was thinking of character version in terms of 'In the Arkham City video game...' rather than 'the Post-Crisis, pre-Zero Hour Earth One Batman' or other fan-specific terminology.Euchrid (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A few things guys:

• The source used with Captain America is comic published by Marvel. That isn't a reliable source, it's a primary source. Reliable in this case would be a secondary source published by a third party.
• Quantifying abilities or powers - can lift X lbs, run at Y m/sec, etc - means very, very little when dealing with these characters. Batman is as strong, fast, nimble, stealthy, etc as the writers need him to be for the purposes of their stories and still be Batman. Going to a guide published by DC, or a specific story published by DC, or game collateral they licensed is only valid as the later stories or uses of the character that contradict it.
• These are articles aimed at a general audience, not at the fans or the gamers. It is better to give the basics rather than cram in all the various stats, numbers, minutia, etc. He is a peak, all around athlete trained to "elite" levels. Easy enough. He has mastered many skills, among them are <fill in a reasonable length set of examples> and numerous forms of martial arts. Also easy enough.
• Going into detail on one specific version of the character - say the one used in the Arkham video games - skews the article even if that information can be sourced.

- J Greb (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In all versions, it shows that Batman trains in his bat cave so there has to be training level to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyTheGamer (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, "peak athlete" and "'elite' levels" are levels of training. The latter is a nice catch phrase for someone who could compete in international sporting events, which IIRC the comics have spelled at at times without internal contradiction. The pinning down of the character's limits to hard numbers is not needed.

- J Greb (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

AnthonyTheGamer, if you can find specific information that you want added, please suggest it here. If you're asking other people to do your research for you, that's not how Wikipedia works. Euchrid (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well J Greb, two of Batman's signature interrogation taunts is to hold a man by his leg over a building and hold a man by his neck in the air. They were both shown in the comics, television and video games. The men have to weigh over 100lbs. Superman's strength level is measured on the Wikipedia's article technically from DC comics; fact. To Euchrid, what is the point of Wikipedia then if people do not do the research for you?

AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

For YOU to do research, by which I mean reading primary and secondary sources (not original research) and add things that you think are worth adding. I think, though, that in this case consensus is pretty clearly against adding any specific numbers for Batman's physical prowess. Euchrid (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

To Euchrid, I am not using original research so here is a fact: In Justice League Unlimited Episode 13 "The Once and Future Thing, Part 2: Time, Warped", Batman actually held one of the Jokerz by the leg, over a roof with one hand. It should be added to Batman's power and abilities that he can pick up a man with one hand. Agreed? AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but in Year One, he gets jumped by a child. Should we add that he has a weakness to children? I mean it's not quite kryptonite (she does have a knife, but still, come on, he's mean to be the Batman) but it's as pertinent as any one singular example of his physical prowess. GRAPPLE X 18:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is getting into WP:OR territory. Anthony, please put the stock down. - J Greb (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The article already says "Batman has been repeatedly described as one of the greatest martial artists in the DC Universe", and lists his abilities as including "physical prowess, martial arts skills, an indomitable will, fear, and intimidation". Adding that he can lift a person, whether it's a 'fact' or not, seems like uneccessary detail to me.Euchrid (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Grapple X If it happened in the comics then we should add it. J Greb It is not original research because I got it from the primary source but are you telling me that you are going argue with DC comics who published Batman? Euchrid Wikipedia's policy is to update every article with new information from the primary source and that is what I am typing, from the primary source which is from DC comics. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Bluntly:

• WP:PRIMARY - "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." This does not mean every scrap of minutia from ever appearance of the character gets into the article.
• This is a general use article not a fan centric one. Discribing the character in an in-story context should be in general terms.
• Shtick, especially when it applies almost as a general trope for badass outdoor interrogation, does not need to be commented on.
• Interpreting shtick as an "ability or power" or trying to use it as an end-run to get a number of how much Batman can lift is OR.

- J Greb (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Now technically J Greb, WP:SOURCES says the word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (for example: the comic, cartoon, movie, book or video game), the creator of the work (for example, Bob Kane), and the publisher of the work (for example, DC Comics).Now arguing with what the publisher DC Comics who is publishing the character Batman, is against Wikipedia's WP:5P. DC Comics would order for their articles to be updated to their information and Wikipedia would have to do it which means there would be no WP:OR.AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikilawyering to get what you want doesn't go over well. Neither does bludgeoning a point or playing the system where consensus is against you.

Beyond that...

A "source" can be primary, secondary, or tertiary. WP:SOURCE deals with determining how reliable a source is. WP:PRIMARY deals with how far removed it is from the topic. Please do not misconstrue what they mean.

Primary sources are in a grey area for reliability, regardless of if it is coming from the comic (plot summary only), writer (self aggrandizement and self editing happen), or the publisher (product pushing or damage control). Secondary sources are supposed to be used to build the article and the real world context that is supposed to be the bulk of it. And those sources should be second party - written by others about the topic.

- J Greb (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Batman's Temporary Powers

In the television series, "The Batman" episode 59, production 507, episode name "Ring Toss", Batman temporarily has the Green Lantern's powers. Should be added because of primary source. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As I tried to explain to you on the Superman talkpage, it is neither feasible nor desirable to list everything these characters have ever done. Batman in particular has been consistently in print since 1939; listing everthing in the manner you seem to be asking for would make the article overlong, impenetrable and useless to the lay reader, not to mention being pure fancruft. Euchrid (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Same stick new horse?

1. Primary focus is the comics - where the character originated - not the spin-off media.
2. Again, this is an article for general use, not a fanpage or project.
3. Trivia such as "Batman wore a power ring" is not needed in a general overview of the topic.

- J Greb (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I think that DC Comics should know that Wikipedia is not updating their articles to their information. Also to J Greb why in the article is there a section called "other media" which doesn't claim to your spin-off media? Your primary focus of the article is comics, this article doesn't say Batman (comics).AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You know he wore a codpiece sometimes too. We should add that he wore a codpiece. You see how needless these additions would be? As for the primary focus being comics, that's because Batman in film is a wholly different article. GRAPPLE X 14:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that Wikipedia articles are not meant to be complete expositions of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Information being verifiable is not the only criteria, it must be treated with due weight. If reliable sources don't give weight to this detail, then it's undue to include it in the article. Especially because out of all the episodes of all the Batman related television programs, comics, and other media, you're referring to something that happened in a single episode; it would be undue to include this in the article, giving it more prominence than all of the other things that happened in the (what I suspect are) thousands of other combined comics, episodes, movies, etc. This isn't even a minor detail of what the Batman character is, it's a trivial mention, I don't see any reason to include it. - SudoGhost 14:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't take the baitEuchrid (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You are messaging to me that you won't update Batman's powers and abilities which actually happened in DC comics but you guys created a section and article about batman's homosexuality which is WP:NOR. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's supported by a number of reliable secondary sources and therefore isn't OR. Simple as. GRAPPLE X 00:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, WP:NOR applies to to unsourced research/analysis made by Wikipedia editors and not accurtly reporting on sourced analysis made by reliable third parties. The only case I could see for removal would be WP:WEIGHT but looking at the section in question this issue has gotten attention for several years meaning that trying to remove the info on that ground would likely also fail.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with 174. and Grapple. The relationship between Batman and Robin has been made note of and commented on ever since Fredric Wertham published Seduction of the Innocent in the 1950's. It's not original research for us to comment on something credible sources have picked up on and discussed, so long as we make it clear it's their opinion, not ours. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

J Greb Here is a primary source from the comics for you: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Batman:_In_Darkest_Knight Gachingy (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

SHDP - J Greb (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So... you still can't really point out the negative aspects of Batman on this page.

Batman is a fictional character and I've never really understood the tendency of the editors of this page to prevent his less admirable characteristics from being pointed out. I get it that fanboys are most likely to be the ones editing this page, but it's ridiculous nevertheless.

Here are some examples of what I'm talking about... You can't point out that Batman tortures people in his war on crime. You can't point out that he employs intrusive surveillance technology on the general public. You can't question his becoming a crime-boss in his own right under the persona of Matches Malone. Such things, and more, have happened in the Batman universe. I'm not gonna try to make any more edits along these lines in the main page, but do please note my displeasure with the lack of neutrality on this page. Batman is a billionaire fighting street crime while simultaneously engaged in white collar crime -- a critique other heroes (like Green Arrow & Anarky) have essentially pointed out. Nihilozero (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the important thing is having reliable sources backing up any statements, as opposed to original research on the subject. If you have reliable sources that can be used to improve the article, that would be helpful. - SudoGhost 17:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I second SudoGhost's point. I'm a pretty big Batman fan, but I would be perfectly happy to see these points raised, if there are sources to back them up. With the amount that's been written about Batman, I don't imagine that they would be hard to locate. I recall reading an article a while back which made the claim that Batman was a rich character who works to keep poor people in their place, for example. I don't agree with it, but that's no reason for it not to be mentioned.Euchrid (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012

This line is irrelevant. (However, the three sequels, Tim Burton's Batman Returns and director Joel Schumacher's Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, did not perform as well at the box office.)

They all grossed over 200,000,000 million dollars at the box office. They were planning another sequel with George Clooney, but cancelled it for creative reason's, not out of fear of it not making money. That has been said in many articles.

Holmes79 (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Batman: Earth One and Wayne of Gotham

Fellow Batman fans. I am requesting, if possible, of anyone to expand the article of the graphic novel, Batman: Earth One, and creating an article for Batman novel, Wayne of Gotham, written by Tracy Hickman. Haven't read the latter yet, until I go to the library and borrow it.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Would readers be able to “handle” info about the Aurora Shooting in this article?

I came to this main Wikipedia Batman article after the Aurora Shooting to see if I could find the main movie story line that the Aurora shooter may have been trying to follow in his head. Granted, he may have been trying to follow a comic book story line instead, but as one who has far more knowledge of Batman movies than of comics, I felt that perhaps he might have been trying to follow the story line of the movies and not the comics. At any rate, I inserted the movie section, and the info about the Aurora Shooting, into the "Cultural impact" section because I thought that they might be helpful to other readers, and because I thought that the Aurora Shootings did have some "Cultural impact". I would hope that in light of this line of reasoning, that you might please allow me to re-insert this info into the article. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really keen on it; I'm unconvinced it's directly related to the Batman character. At any rate, it seems an unusual inclusion to add a crime like this to an article on something apparently related to it—there's no school shootings discussed at Jock (athlete) or Secondary education in the United States, for example, nor is the content of violence against LGBT people mirrored on Book of Leviticus. In time, if the events are shown to be more related to Batman than one asshole's tenuous grasp on reality makes it out to be, then inclusion would be a good idea but for now I'm not convinced. GRAPPLE X 12:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We are now talking about the distinction between reality and fantasy. True, up until Holmes did his little spree at the movie screening, probably the only person who was aware of his fantasy was Holmes himself, and it certainly wouldn't have been worthy of reporting here. But once it became US national headline news, whether we like it or not, in the public's eye, there is now some kind of a link, simply because the press said there was, and I don't think we do anybody a service to pretend that there isn't a link in this article. There is now an ongoing effort on the part of many to figure out how this lunatic's mind arrived at this particular plan of action. He claimed that the Batman series had some role in it, so to try to "hide" information from our readers that might help to answer any questions they may have about whatever role the Batman series might have had in it (admittedly in Holmes' mind), seems to me to be counter to the spirit of free-flowing-generally-uncensored information that Wikipedia is meant to be about. At the very least, I would like to insert a link in the "Cultural impact" section cross-linking to the "Batman movies" article, and suggesting that more information about the Holmes/ Batman Screening Shooting might be available there. Scott P. (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

PS- Releases of Leviticus were not with-held because of LGBT violence, but some screenings of Batman were cancelled because of the shootings. The Batman story is admittedly a pure fiction, as was Holmes' own "narrative", at first. At least that is until Holmes stepped across the line into the real world. This shooting is obviously affecting how the public views the Batman narrative. It will probably increase the public's curiosity about what Batman is all about. I know that this incident is the only reason that I personally was drawn to read and then edit this article. I feel it is likely that many others will be coming to this article also in the days and weeks ahead, simply because of the Aurora incident. Why try to go against the news media, and the public's desire for information here? Why not at least allow us to link to something about this in the article? It seems to me that to try to edit this article as if this incident will not have any affect on the public's perception of Batman might be counterproductive. Why not use this article-space as a place to reduce any public misperceptions about this possible connection that might be out there between Holmes and the Batman narrative, rather than as a place that would only perpetuate them by keeping readers in the dark? Scott P. (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have just added two brief sentences to this effect in the Batman article. Scott P. (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

At this point the shooting should certainly not be mentioned because Wikipedia is not news. There is so much conflicting information right now that I would not even consider any of it reliable, let alone appropriate for inclusion in an article about a movie in an encyclopedia.--Taylornate (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

At this point the only connection between the killings and Batman is they took place at a Batman film. All the rest - that he was emulating the Joker, that he was dressed as Bane, that he was obsessed with Batman - is pure speculation based on deeply circumstantial evidence. Euchrid (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Since Scott P. assked for some comment on my talk page...
  1. Apparently, I'm not the only editor that thinks you were adding an unneeded speculative tangent to the article.
  2. As others have point out to you on the article talk page, Wikipedia is not a new site.
  3. Wikipedia also does not run on speculation or original research, so trying to add the same to other articles is likely to get shot down as well.
  4. As strange as it may seem, WP:BLP still covers the accused shooter - which trims down a lot of the tabloid bits.
  5. And the titling of this section is, at the least, poor.

- J Greb (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OK my friends, delete any reference to the Aurora shooting incident. Still, you might want to take a look at what other editors have already done at the Dark Knight Rises article. There in an article about this Batman movie, other editors have already felt it appropriate to add an entire section about this incident. I will revisit this question in a month or so here. Scott P. (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The article on Dark Knight Rises has a much narrower focus, and it's completely appropriate for the shootings to be mentioned. This article has a far broader scope, and as such things which are only tangentially connected are much less likely to be included. Euchrid (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that article is far more relevant. If this belonged anywhere else it would be the Joker article since the shooter directly associated himself with him and even there I doubt that is a strong enough association for inclusion.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That has been disputed.--Taylornate (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Gay

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

Well...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 27 July 2012

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

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

Cultural Impact

The fourth sentence of this section states:

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

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

Proposed change to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexual Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unwarranted sections...this needs to change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox image

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

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

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

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

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

Death of the Family

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

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

Batgirl

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

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

Finger or Fox?

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

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

Dick Grayson

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

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

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

'who' vs 'that' in the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Batman's most defining characteristic"

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

I agree that it's a pretty vague statement, and not particularly encyclopedic. I'd be happy to see it removed, perhaps replaced with "A significant element of the character is..." Euchrid (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation concerns

I'm not saying it is or is not a copyright violation, but I am suggesting that for legal reasons the copyright concerns should be discussed and cleared up before the text is reinserted into the article. Dougweller if you don't mind me asking, what is this edit infringing upon? - SudoGhost 10:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This is at ANI now with other examples of copyvio, but the text added a month ago "Although he has no superhuman powers, Batman's unstoppable determination and strength make him an extremely formidable opponent" can be found on a number of older websites, eg [2] and see this search.[3]. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I tried to find some reason why that wouldn't be a copyright violation, but I'm not seeing one. This article didn't include any of that text when this was apparently written, so it doesn't appear that the comicbookmovie.com article just took that content from Wikipedia. Lionhead99, it looks like that is a copyright violation and it looks like it most certainly was copy-pasted from somewhere but with very, very few changes (like changing "instill fear in others" to "infuse fear in others"). There may be a plausable explanation that I'm just not seeing, but do you have any explanation as to how that edit wouldn't be a copyright violation? If not, then the material should not be reinserted into the article per WP:COPYVIO. - SudoGhost 11:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If you follow the link to Batman s mother's page it states she is of Irish descent So that would make the character of Irish descent so can someone edit that in please? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Martha_Wayne

I am not sure if that is necessary, her article only briefly mentions that she was Irish Catholic and does not mention her Irish decent in the lead. Also, the fact that Batman has Irish roots is not an important aspect of his character.--70.49.82.84 (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Zero Year article

Should we make an article about Zero Year? It's the next major Batman event that re-tells Batman's first year in Gotham. Leader Vladimir (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Grant Morrison

Considering how much the work of Grant Morrison helped redefine the Batman franchise for DC Comics, I think a new section should be made for Grant Morrison's work in the publication history. Leader Vladimir (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Bruce Wayne vs. Clark Kent

This article implies that 'Batman' is Bruce Wayne's 'true persona' rather than his secret identity and contrasts this by saying that 'Superman' is Clark Kent's secret identity and that his super hero persona is his mask. This is entirely unfounded in the very origins of each character. Bruce Wayne is a human and he was born on earth and he was given the name and identity of 'Bruce Wayne' when he was born, He created Batman and a means to fight crime. Bruce Wayne trained himself and created this persona in which he wears a mask and a costume to fight evil. For Superman, the opposite is true. He was born to Jor-El and Laura on Krypton and he was given the name Kal-el...he is NOT human, no matter how much he may look like us. When Kal-el came to earth upon the destruction of Krypton, Jonathan and Martha Kent, not knowing who he was or where he came from, named him Clark and raised him as their own. Later on in his life Clark become aware of his TRUE IDENTITY as 'The Last Son of Krypton'. When Clark made the decision to use his abilities that he gains as Kryptonian in the light of earth's yellow sun, he is acknowledging his true nature. The Superman costume doesn't have a mask for that very reason...'Superman' is Kal-El in all his glory...Clark Kent with his glasses and non-confrontational personality is the mask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.27.223 (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Fredric Wertham

Apparently Fredric Wertham who is mentioned in the text was not a psychologist but a psychiatrist. AICrane (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Bob Kane

Bill Finger had no part in creating Batman, it was all Bob Kane. Bill Finger did not co-create, or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football1607 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Batman a psychiatrist or a psychologist?

Batman definitely keeps psychological profiles in his enemies and allies as seen in JLA:Tower of Babel; Batman should be listed as being nearly every profession; the first 2 star trek science officers would similarly be listed. Category:Fictional polymath does not exist nor do I think it should. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC),

This is the problem: You have identified things that convinced you that he is a psychiatrist. In your opinion, then, he is a psychiatrist. Wikipedia articles should not contain your opinions. We need a reliable source that calls him a psychiatrist. Without that, you cannot add that Batman is a psychiatrist, psychologist, polymath, standup comic, French chef, diplomat, circus clown, southpaw, card shark or anything else. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Psychiatrist/psychologist/psychological fiction/etc.

Reliable sources do not commonly and consistently define Batman as a psychiatrist, psychologist, lion tamer, film critic, bureaucrat, Grateful Dead fan, member of the mile high club, exterminator, scofflaw, etc. As such, we do not add categories describing him as being any of these, even if you are certain that he is. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Batman is one of the best known works of psychological fiction. Batman sends his enemies to Arkham Asylum more often than Black Gate prison, and most of them have mental problem, except maybe Penguin and Doctor Death. Numerous story line point out than an Arkham psychologist would diagnose Batman with some form of mental disorder; most commonly split personality disorder like several of his enemies. An episode of Batman beyond with SPell Binder basically establishes this in the DCAU, the name he calls himself in his head should be Bruce Wayne not Batman; yet that is what he calls himself in his head. Batman was not listed as a chemist which is a skill he uses to create antidotes to joker toxin, fear gas, and poison Ivy's rare plant poisons. Most Super hero's do not display as many skills as Batman; whose page needs to reflect being a rare complete fictional polymath. I think most people would describe Batman as having every skill high enough he could at least be employed at it, more often in the comics he's the worlds second best at everything. Is Doctor Black Jack a surgeon because in the manga he is the worlds most talented surgeon, who is unlicensed thus by some definitions not a surgeon? CensoredScribe (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A quick Ctrl+F through the article reveals no cited information whatsoever on its discussion as a corpus of psychological fiction. No source means no content; no content means no category. GRAPPLE X 18:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The page for Arkham Asylum mentions the words psychology and psychologist once each. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there an available weight of reliable sources discussing the Batman corpus as being psychological fiction, or are you just counting instances of related words here? GRAPPLE X 18:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not commonly and consistently define Batman as a psychiatrist, psychologist, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Super_hero.27s_and_villains_should_fall_under_several_categories_when_applicable - SummerPhD (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Batman an amateur detective or a detective? Is Batman even detective fiction?

Sherlock Holmes is listed as an amateur; and unlike Dick Greyson Batman is not a police officer. Should Batman be considered detective fiction? CensoredScribe (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Do reliable sources commonly and consistently define Batman as a toxicologist, a chemist or an amateur detective? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Do sources actually identify Batman as a professional detective? The detective fictional detective category page is supposed to consist of sub categories; it needs quite a bit of sub categorization right now. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Robin and Bluebird

Howdy all, I just added some quick info on Damian Wayne to the Robin section - I don't own the comics, so I used online media reports. I hope this is acceptable. I also put a couple of sentences about Bluebird/Harper Row, as well as a link to the Bluebird page I made earlier, into the Robin section. I was a little uncertain on this point, though. Bluebird is another young ward and sidekick to Batman, and thus effectively a sixth Robin. However, she's not actually called Robin at all. Should she have her own section, should she remain in the "Robin" section, or does she belong in the Batman article at all?

I'd really value your feedback. TI. Gracchus (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Batman's Origin Story

Unlike most superheroes, Batman was born out of tragedy.This was told in many ways.They were just walking home from a Zorro Movie and walk threw a dark alley. Some guy named Joe Chill shot Thomas and Martha Wayne.Bruce ran home.He Swearers to avenge his parents to fight evil.When he grows up, he travels across the world to be trained by an assassin named Ra Sha Ghul.But Ra Sha Ghul wants Bruce to be an executioner.Bruce says no and sets his house on fire.Bruce Only Saves Ra Sha Ghul from the burning building.He comes back to Gotham to work out.He wanted to build a lair out of the cave he fell in as a child.He wanted something to inspire his costume so he could strike fear in the hearts of villains.So he remembered his childhood fear of bats.(That's why he's Batman). His friend Lucius Fox builds him awesome weapons ,armour ,and be vehicles.The Scarecrow was scaring the shit out of people with his mask and fear gas.Eventually The Scarecrow ends up in Arkham.But then Bruce has a party at his house.Ra Sha Ghul and his goons crash the party and set Wayne Manor on fire.(First of all Bruce did it for good.Ghul just wanted him dead). Anyway Alfred helps Bruce up from the floor and sends him to the Batcave. Bruce turns into the Batman,Hunts Ghul down and he dies from a train.(Not Bruce). Then Commissioner Gordon thanks Batman and asks him to capture this so called Red Hood. And so that's how Batman was born. This story is all just in the movie "Batman Begins".

Are you suggesting something to be added to the article? Remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussions of the topic. The Talk Pages are for discussing improvements to the article. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)