Talk:Batman/Archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between November 2005 and December 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Batman/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Dyslexic agnostic 07:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Article length

I agree with the tag that this article is way too long now. Although I think most of this can be remedied by makign the text more conscise in certain areas, especially in descriptions of links to other articles. A similar problem exists with the Superman article. WesleyDodds 17:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not to split it into Batman (comics) and Batman (character) parts? Samohyl Jan 03:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that would be best, because it's largely two sides of the same coin. Probably creating seperate articles for things like Batman in other media or Batman bibliography would be better. WesleyDodds 03:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

DA's reductions

Well, I have taken the liberty of reducing the "love interests" and "character parts", by creating Supporting characters of Batman (just like previously Enemies of Batman was created. The important names still appear with wikis to most of their own articles, so all relevant content is still only a click away. I do agree with hiving off the Batman in Other Media and Batman Bibliography into another section. Dyslexic agnostic 10:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done the same for Batman in other media... I think we are getting close to the size we want for this page (I have reduced it by a third in length, and gone from 84 kb to 57 Kb). Dyslexic agnostic 11:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Further creation of Batman (bibliography) gets us to 53 kb; therefore, I have removed the "verylong" tag (although there is certainly more fat to be trimmed, especially under costume, equipment, etc.). I, however, think I will leave that to others more capable than myself ;-) Dyslexic agnostic 08:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Batcave revisions done. This brings us to 50 kb. Dyslexic agnostic 20:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thought... putting "Batman parodies/references" into the Batman in other media subtopic (with a brief comment left behind to entice readers to seek more detail in the subtopic) would free up substantial space. Comments? Dyslexic agnostic 08:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Now 46 kb. Dyslexic agnostic 23:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, the "crossovers" section is too long and (imho) unnecessary). Comments? Dyslexic agnostic 20:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Been trying to revert some of the vandalism on the page (along with some rewriting to show a more NPOV). If article size is a problem, maybe deleting the rather extensive "Costume" section material pertaining to Azrael (and sticking it on his page, if needed) would help free up a bit more space? (Also pondering splitting the "evolution of the concept" section into Golden Age, Silver Age & Modern Age subsections a la the Superman page's such sections, though not sure if others would think this is a good idea or not and/or if it'd make the page size too big,though perhaps some material from a few other sections could be folded in if applicable to save space...). Anthony Dean 00:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There's definitely a great deal of redundant material on the page. Would it make sense to add a 'Batman: Important Storylines' page, and basically clear everything about Year One, Killing Joke, etc except a one-line synopsis out? Simnel 23:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Batman too long still?

Lesfer put the "very long" notice back up. I just reduced Batman from 84 kb to 45 kb... What more should I do? Dyslexic agnostic 23:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

(I suggest absorbing the Costume section into the Batsuit article)

Assorted stuff

Bill Finger gets no "official credit" for Bats? He named Bruce Wayne, suggested the scalloped cape & "whiteout" eyes, & conceived the Batcave. (He also went a bit batty naming "bat-things," it's true...) Also, any comment on Bats' rel to Rorschach? I mean, it's been suggested Bats is the real guy, & Bruce is the disguise; as he says in JLI, "Underneath, I'm hideous." (OK, he could've been joking, but--Bats, joking?) BTW, I'm N a fan, so I'm N qualified to xam the ish, just raising it. (For the record, his worst enemy? JLI; "I should never come out in the daytime.") Trekphiler 16:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Evolution of the Concept

Made some changes to the Evolution of the Concept section, specifically the last four paragraphs. Tightened up the prose in the year one paragraph, also talked a little bit more about WHY it was significant. Seemed strange to me to have a grocery list of other stories set in the year one era, but I'm new here and didn't want to delete anyone else's stuff. Same thing with the next paragraph -- it said 'Killing Joke is contriversial', then totally skipped over the contriversal part. I'm not particularly happy with the text though. Made similar revisions to the Jason Todd paragraph. -Simnel

Simnel, thanks for the changes. However, this section needs a major trim. The lengthy considerations of DKR, Batman: Year One and the Killing Joke are unnecessary given that each has its own article, and it takes away from the Batman article to dealve so deeply in these stories. A one or two liner about each should suffice, and the "good" parts of what is now there moved to their respective subarticles. Just my opinion, but no time to do it right now. Batman, after reduction from 84 kb to 45 kb, is slowly growing again, whereas it should probably be sitting at 30 kb max. Dyslexic agnostic 19:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Batman: The Killing Joke... "Rape"?

"There is a strong -- and relatively explicitly shown -- suggestion that the Joker does this, in part, by showing Gordon pictures of his daughter being crippled and raped (Evolution of the concept)."

I have a little bit of beef with this line: I went and re-read the graphic novel and no rape was obvious. Now, I understand that perhaps showing that would be too harsh for any writer of any graphic novel to do, but I do still greatly doubt that the Joker had raped Barbara Gordon, but rather undressed her and put her in provocative positions (please take into account that some serial killers don't rape their victims, but wait until their dead, take a picture, and masturbate over their bodies).

The whole point was to turn James Gordon nutty, Barbara was just as a means of getting that response.

Also, this is the Joker we're talking about: his sexuality is very much in question because he seems asexual, shown by his lack of sexual interest in Harley Quinn, or any other woman (or man for that matter), as well as his non-sexual crimes (he goes for no particular gender, and it is only thin speculation that he has raped).

Whether his lack of sexuality is because of his obsession with the Batman, his battle with insanity, his possible surpression of homosexuality (which I doubt), or perhaps he is asexual, the idea that the Joker rapes is very unfitting to his character. He might put a person in a place where there is a high chance that person can be raped, but I doubt he'd do it himself.

Agreed, there was no real evidence of it occuring, and Im sure Barbara would have mentioned it by now if it did.--DrBat 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Bruce N. Wayne

I just noticed that the "N." was correctly removed from "Bruce N. Wayne" on the article. I'm not sure who originally put the "N." in the name, but I thought I should point out for posterity's sake that "Bruce N. Wayne" is a private detective cousin of Bruce Wayne after whom Batman's secret identity was named, but the Batman Bruce Wayne's middle initial—if any actually exists—has never been revealed. His full name—until a middle name or middle initial is "revealed" in the comics—should be simply "Bruce Wayne" without the N. Kaijan 05:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Batman's Intelligence/IQ

Bruce’s IQ being at least 230 seems pretty unrealistic. While I understand Bats is most certainly a genius, plus being a fictional character that certain liberties may be taken, it seems like this figure (possibly from Wizard) is the result of exaggerated fandom. (Anyone who’s been to Batman fan message boards knows that some of his militant fanboys find him completely infallible and unable to be defeated) While I’m a huge Batman fan, I dislike it when his abilities are inflated. Wizard has been known to print inaccurate figures regarding heroes, and would like to see something close to being “official” regarding his intelligence. However, I would like to see what the rest of the WikiProject Comics community thinks before taking action in the article. (If anyone would like to talk to me about talk page policy, please feel free, as this is my first time posting in one.) Thanks. Arcanum7Arcanum7Arcanum7

You did perfectly fine using the talk page. I think it's a good idea to simply state that Batman is of genius intelligence. The whole IQ bit, despite the controversy of IQ accuracy in the real world, is impossible to pin down unless stated by the creator. Ereinion 01:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think his IQ is at the top of human potential, but remember, the thing about batman is that he uses 90% of his brain unlike most people, so that'd exponenciate his potential. He is like a Sam Beckett from Quantum Leap, only usising most of his braing, most of the time and he'd be like 38, so he has like 22 yaeasr of genial thinking plus like 16 improving the art of full potential, so he also have experience at being a genius at full potencial, and the is almost like a computer, thus. And this is not a new concept, read Sherlock holmes stories, the great detective is about the same thing. But if you like human mistakes, im gonna solve 2 problems with one answer... he does make them! you see, like in this example, on top of mi mind: do you remember the Crime Doctor ep of B:TAS when he gets beaten by some stupid nurse? then there is another example of something completely the opposite, in the No Fear ep, when influenced by Scarecro's no fear gas he got just infront of an armed gang of like 5 thugs, and he started like dancing to avoid the bullets with no problem at all!! the only logical explanation (if you don't consider the first one poor writing) is that he is not perfect. he can suck! he can take Darkseid elite with a spoon, fool a hypnoticed superman with the aid of the last person you would imagine, like the penguin, a profetional skier, deadman or maybe b'wanna beast; discover that the president is an ilision created by dr. desteny, and then go back to gotham and broke his ribs fighting against some strong idiot hired by the Riddler...And that's because he is the best of the best but in the end...he's just human!! and that's why the stories keep captivating our attention!--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 08:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Scarecrow, are you a total geek, or do you just play one on TV? Don't say that thing about how most people only use x% of their brain... that's a fallacy. Dyslexic agnostic 09:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


Scarecrow -- that 90% thing, from DC comics, is about Deathstroke: The Terminator, not Batman. Oh, and Dyslexic? I AM a geek, and I don't play one on TV :-) Simnel 22:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The Batcave

Removed this line: The Batcave's utilities consist of unknown Wayne Tech technology along with Thangarian, Martian, Apokoliptan, and Kryptonian technology;"Plus the really scary crap Bruce invented" as Oliver Quenn, Green Arrow,said. Basically because, well, it's not true. The quote was made by Green Arrow during Identity Crisis about the security systems designed for the civilian homes of League members, NOT about the Batcave. Simnel 23:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Earth-Two

We must address the Earth-Two Batman history!!!!! Dyslexic agnostic 06:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In a really short link-section, please. that's barely more important than the type of bat gas batman uses for the batmobile. Remember if we can't write about the Penguins personality is not so logical to talk about a batman nobody of the very general public (i never heard suchthing abut the earth II batman before i started reading comics, but knew well the penguin, the joker, catwoman, the riddler and even the scarecrow (from later superfrinds ep, "the fear")--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 01:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to differ with you, the Earth-Two Batman is important, even more so given the current reconsideration of the DC Multiverse. This is a version of the Batman that married, had a child, and died, all very much part of DC continuity pre-Crisis. The fact that is predates you is not a reason not to include it. But I agree it would be SHORT, and pithy. I also have to state that I don't know enough to add it myself yet. Dyslexic agnostic 08:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your poin and you are right, due to what is going on on the DC contynuity right now, Earth to batman might be worth a cou... a page!!! witt the intro copied here!!--T for Trouble-maker 04:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved the Gay thing to the CCA article where it fits better

The gay thing is ofending to the hardcore fans of the original mythos. I'm gonna quote Seinfeld and go "not that there is anything wrong with it" but that opinion is sooo not cannonical that is out of place in a page lacking of space. But don't led that bull***t misslead you, the fact is that it's very incongruent to remove the villains and keep a hole bunch of info that fits way better with the "Comics Code Authority" article. So i decided to "be Bold" and take out the section and live a link in the "see also" section, where i think it fits better. I also think we should take out irrelevant stuff before taking out Joker or Bruce Wayne paragraphs that are so much more escential to the mythos.--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 20:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You tried, but someone reverted you. I have to say, I agree with you, this doesn't belong in the main article. Maybe I'll try it a different way. Dyslexic agnostic 08:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
That was me, sorry. I was RC Patrolling when your deletion of that large section popped up on the radar. You didn't do an edit summary, so I wasn't sure why you were deleting it, and therefore it was a possible case of vandalism. I did a quick check back through the Batman article history, and it looked like this section had been included for a long time. I also did a quick check here on the talk page, and saw nothing from you - so I reverted, with an explanation in the edit summary that I was doing so because it was an unexplained deletion.
So I didn't revert in opposition to your position here, and I won't attempt to revert you again.
Although, after reading this more in detail now, the section doesn't say Batman and Robin are gay. It mentions what seems to be a pretty significant event in comic history, all resulting from a overly homophobic reading of Batman in the 50's. I'm not sure why this would offend "hardcore fans", unless it offends them that someone was so stupid abou this way back then that it may have helped lead to someone crying for "Standards! Batman is Gay, and we have to stop it!" The text then goes on to mention the real fact that images of these heroes in homosexual settings have been used in popular art. It all seems worthy of mention to me.
I see you have already reverted it again. I won't revert it back, although I will say that it seems you might have waited for more than one person to agree with you before you once again removed a major chunk of text that's been in the article for a good while. I suspect someone else will put it back.
BTW, in the future, please leave a quick edit summary - I never would have reverted in the first place the other day (or had this further capture my attention) if I'd known why you were deleting. I see that you did post here on the talk page that day- but after you had already done the deletes, and after I had already reverted you. Talking about a major change in advance, along with the edit summaries, will make it a lot less likely that your changes get accidentally reverted as possible vandalism. --Krich (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

People, try to get this: Batman, Wilma, the Charlie Brown gal, Robin, the smurfs and all the rest of those poor characters are not gay!!!! if so and if you are a hard core pro gay dude, which, again, "not that there is anything wrong with it"; are the crappiest symbols you could choose!!!!!! they are not even out of the closed!! they are the lousiest gays ever they are not gay enough to be gay and they are not brave enough to be symbols!!!!! Even the gay teletubbie succks!!! you have Jack McFarlane, the dudes from Queer as folks and the ones from QEFSG, the bals dude from REM, Freddie Mercury, Mr. Garrison Mr. Hat and Mr. Slave, in comics you have the Authorithy supes and bats equivalents; Maggie Sawyer, and so on!!!! they are there and we all like them (i don't care much for the ones from QEFSGuy and i haven't seen queer as folk) stop bugging Batman, that one is ours. Batman is our Michael Stipe, our Elton, our Jack; don't mess with him, he has spent more time with different ladies on his bed than time training robin, our man's man, the imaginary dude we'd like to be like. don't spoil this one for us. it is not a gay movement thing what makes you try to make batman and robin gay is pure inner primal beast of morbidness instinc, it is not real... well i guess is also because is batman's funny issue and yes that's been a great source of jokes matterial, but you have the key word there: joke Material...is funny because it could look like they were a child molestor and a gay sidekick it's not like that at all. Robin is not even that popular, you don´t think about him when you mention batman. you have to remember him. catwoman and the joker are way more popular. If people like robin is because is a medium to visualize your inner boy besides batman and how cool would it be to fight along him, to get advise from de dude going out with selina,pamela,talia,lois,shondra,silver,vicky,jokers girlfriend (i wrote it that way to make a point), barbara (the comish's, his best bud's daughter), diana, a novice, chase, tom cruise's fiance, kim baysinger, michelle pfiefer, nicole kidman (aka tom's ex), no mentioin julie and lee and even zz gabor and so on and on; and you get to make your moves on gold skinned firestar, wondergirl, batgirl, huntress and even azrae's girl; and also get to share all his toys!!! if you think you are impressing anyone by puting you stupid, morbid psycho-crap in this page and every one is gonna think you know la lot... well think again, you don't know s***t!! you don't get the robin idea at all and you don't think like a true super heroe fan! you're missing the whole point! you are neither living the fantasy nor experiency what the writers make true fans experience!! i thus (if so) petty you, because if you don't have imagination, what the point of reading comics then??...--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 09:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, relax. This whole thing is beginning to sound like a rant in a comic book shop. Nothing wrong with that other that it does not belong in the back room of an encyclopedia project, and it introduces personal issues in what needs to be a neutral environment. First of all, on whether it is relevant or not, let's face it, the "gay" thing is part of the history, image, art, interpretation and controversy around these characters.
Second, your motivation for removing it is hugely suspect. You don't seriously expect to innocently claim "lack of space" when removing the single most controversial discussion in the article, while at the same time spouting such declarations as "The gay thing is ofending..." and "don't spoil this one for us." This is not and us-and-them issue, and don't make it into that because it is not fair - to put it very mildly. The "space" thing has been blown out of all proportion, you are not that far out of line, and the main consideration is readability. Right now the article is very readable, there is no need to fret any further on this account.
On a personal note, having been around as a consumer of comics back in the sixties, I too feel that things have become polluted, that innocence has been lost, and I am sad about that. But I lay the blame on Wertham and his ilk, who took an aspect of Batman that was mysterious and sometimes made us kids giggle, and made it into a dirty and dangerous ghoul. Not just Batman, we too have been dirtied by that.
Of course I have put the section back, and tried to polish and focus it a bit in the process. Haiduc 12:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is real, and it is reasonable to link it with batman, but not to dedicate a whole section to it while there isn no space for the joker, catwoman, the penguin or robin himself. It fits way better on the comics code authority article. especially since both issues afected batman an are completely real and valid but it doesn't come from the batman autentic writers or the mythos itself, it is just either an outside joke related to the batman or when seriouly taken pure morbid opinion, real, but not oficial.Is see also kind of information, not indispensable info. At trivia detail. Trivial. It doen't come from either batman authors, DC or time warner, it comes from comedians and the arcaic Comics Code Authority, where, again, it is right now. Fact that you didn't talk about. But lets move on.

I agree the space thing is about the article being readable, wikipedias help pages say so, but there are many articles that have been reduced due to people being paranoid aboit it, this one, the superman article and believe ornot hte justice league unlimited page -which is actually a short one... do you have any concrete info abut the lenght of an article as important as this one?? --T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 22:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC) (ps: i put your updated info in the CCA page. Good work, Haiduc)

T-man, that's the third time in 24 hours you have removed that material. It would be better if this could be discussed here in an attempt for consensus, rather than you just unilaterally removing the section. You may notice, as I have in reading further back on this page, that this material is already the result of long discussion. A compromise wording and a consensus for keeping this section was found - months ago.
I said I wouldn't revert your deletions again, but (as I correctly predicted before), I'll be very surprised if someone else doesn't replace the material very soon. Let's please discuss it further here before you attempt to remove it all again. Remember, you have already done this three times in the last day. Thanks --Krich (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. That makes two pro pedophilic Batman. That's sad according to what i wrote before. But, remember, it was not removed, but plased in what i thik the most accurate article for the info and not without the propper link here. I propose anohter concensus with this topic: where does that section belong: in the batman page or in the ACC page. I believe you wil find my proposal very fair, since it is not censoring but placing info in the right place. Remember, pealse try reading what's been happening with the superman page before and here in the disscussion pages so that you realize this is not about sensoreship. The other dude, has said ambiguos but still very respectable stuff abuot his own preferences, so that might be clouding visions... Diferently oriented people triing to change batmans orientations, just what i first predicted this was abuot (above). DC comics created The Authority for those prefferences, there you have a row model for different prefferences...And is not like that isn't enjoyable reading for everybody, as it just happens to be, actually--T for Trouble-maker 00:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

T-Man, distorting a position like that isn't cool - I haven't seen anyone yet who is remotely close to being "pro pedophilic Batman". The material in question was removed from this article - the article that is the topic of this discussion page, not the CCA article. By engaging in discussion, we are working toward a consensus now - my point earlier being that it should be a consideration while talking about it now that this ground has already been well travelled over by many others earlier this year, and a solid consensus (among quite a few more people) was forged. It seems kind of a waste of time to debate it all out again so soon after so much work and discussion has already occured on this very topic.
How some people read these interpretations into Batman may have helped bring on an Code that changed the entire industry for many years. Someone coming here to learn about Batman might want to know what an influence the comic, and this particular controversy, had on the whole comic business at that time.
Opinions vary, but other than perhaps a silly in-joke made by the writers here and there (perhaps), I don't see much to the gay interpretation myself. I think that some folks then (and now) were reading too much into it. But those perceptions help possibly create a huge response, and that is worth mentioning in this article, in my opinion.
Thanks, --Krich (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

our opinions are not that different, i'm not denniing it is a real bat issue, only not sure abuot addresing it here, instead of in the CCa article. my problem as im sick and tired of repeating is more with hyerarchy and sections and article size. What issues are more important to the batman mythos. To me it shoud me mannaged more as a super hero card only incredibly expanded (like if firestorm were incredibly famous and long in history):

  1. . Intro describing batman in our culture. (a sigle line -and no more, please. of the pedophilic issue wouldn't be so out of place)
  2. contemporary bio
  3. habilities & equipment
  4. related characters in contemporary mythos
  5. publication history and past issues
  6. other media
  7. tribia
  8. related issues
    1. . pedophilia & CCA... no, wait..CCA, cca issues & pedophilia
  9. see also
  10. inner links to related issues
  • the order of the seccitions are also hinting abuot the importance of what is each one addresing... again no robin, joker, cw, and penguin paragraphs...no bob kane, bill finger, sprang, schwarts, addams, o'neil paragraphs...but 6 about pedophilia...i say a paragraph for every one... in fact. i was not being fear. i´m going to rectify things.

... and its not like the article is so different from my ideal which i wouldnt impose in other way than taking the insulting wertham. who in my opinion should have been deal with by suing him for character slander. In the end there is a reason nobody cared about that asshole. That's right people, he is an asshole and you are promoting pedophilia in batman's character--T for Trouble-maker 01:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC) I wrote a introductory paragraph of the pedophilia issue as well as one of the Ambiguosly gay duo to cover both morbid views and comedy parodies. In this case due to the pointed missing info about more relevant stuff and the fact that the main articles are noth that bigger and proportionality is also logical... Besides i, you have to remember: 'Calling batman pedophilic is ofensive to its creators and true fans'... so the issue is woth addresing here, but not so much.--T for Trouble-maker 01:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You say that this should be addressed on the Comics Code Authority page, but it's a real part of Batman's literature. I've never heard of the CCA, but when I read a Batman comic, the gay thing jumps out at me. The effects of this reading on the rest of the universe of the comic as well as on the audience need to be documented where they are easily accessible. I look for info about Batman (and pomo readings of Batman) at the Batman article, not the CCA. Dave 05:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

ok done, are you happy, pappy?--T for Trouble-maker 03:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The article needs to incorporate minority viewpoints without giving them any more or less validity than other viewpoints, and there is an easily documentable and fairly common reading of Batman wherein he's gay. This information needs to be included for the article to be encyclopedic, whether certain readers find it offensive or not. Wikipedia is not in the business of censoring information. Dave 05:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)duuuuuuuuuuude, minority view points??? ok, reading is not one of you habilities, is it? there is no succh thing as batman stories and him being gay. i need you to read a couple o'things: i need you to read what the article you adding is sayin, i need you to read what i have been saying, i need you to read a new comic i've been readin for years: it's callesd Batman dunno if you ever heard of it, but is really cool, there is already a movie if u don't like that reading thing, it has drawings though; and finally i need you to read what you wrote i don't thig you are even familiar with it: anti-batpedophilia propaganda it's not it's not exactly progay, unless the minority you talk about is republican-anal retentive sick people.

In my responses to T-man, I've used the argument that this material should be included because of the historically significant events that grew out of a homophobic and somewhat hysterical reading of Batman. But Dave's additional point is well-founded - while I don't personally see much to the gay reading, I know that many do and have advanced arguments that are fairly well-known. I agree that the material should be included on these grounds as well.
I see the section has been re-added under a new section title - but T-man's re-worded section is also still included, making two references to this issue and two instances of the "Robin, what have I done to you?" image. One needs to go, obviously I think that the original is superior to T-man's revision. I also don't think the Ambigiously Gay Duo material is really relevant here. --Krich (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC) dude, your vertion. the two introductory articles--T for Trouble-maker 08:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It's important to realize that the issue isn't really 'Are Batman and Robin gay?' because I don't think that anyone has seriously considered that question in forty years. The issue is, 'is that question important enough to discuss in an encyclopedic article on Batman?' Considering how much effect that question had on the development of this character and comics in general, it is a disservice NOT to discuss it here.


I've reverted it back once more. T for Trouble-maker, your edits are filled with nonsensical malarkey, severely bringing down the quality of this article. This has been a FEATURED article, yet you continue to vandalise. The object is to bring the size of this article DOWN. For the love of God, just stop. Play with some other non-vital article, improve your skills and then, when you think you've got it down, come back and edit properly. - The Dragonmaster 05:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

you could put some sence into my words directly, the info is there and is good, put some shape into it if you don't like it. about the size, maybe you're the one that need the experience (it is not like is bad to be new), it's not about size in terms of memory space, it's in terms of readability, abuot not having large amounts of plane prose with no imafes, lists, tables, links (colour), sub-sections, etc. the sections i improved were lacking of qualiti and were totally plain, bald,insipid and lacking of info because of a missunderstood atempt to save space. --T for Trouble-maker 08:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Spawn?

In the Batman in other media section, it is suggested that Spawn is an Image riff on Batman. Shadowhawk, perhaps, but can anyone give a shred of proof (or even conjecture!) that Spawn takes anything from Batman other than a love of Gothic archetecture? Simnel 22:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I thoght your point was interesting. According to Scot McCloud and other authors, during the eighties grim angry violent anti heroes characters were the popular thing. We'd be talking about the same era of the Teenage mutant ninja turtles...not quite the happy mutants you probably remember from the cartoons; the kingpin-bullseye-elektra-frank miller Dare devil, which is not that different from spawn either; the return of the Dark knight, also by Frank Miller; Hob gobblin, Demo-gobblin, Venom and then Maximum Carnage; Rob Liefeld; x claremont; and then finall todd mcfarlane: te man who first gave pider positions to spiderman, created venom, draw part of batman:year two, where batman fights aganit crazy old timmer vigilante: the grim reaper... and finally him and jim lee created their own company, Image comics. So it is natural that anti-heroe spawn himself is a spawned result of all that context. So he does have batman infuence. It's sometimes called "taking elements" a common practice in literature.--T for Trouble-maker 02:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

While I thank you for trying, T, I'm pretty sure there's not a whole lot you can teach me about either literature or comic book history. Nothing you wrote suggests any kind of link between Spawn and Batman. What we're looking for here is some kind of direct link -- either some main thematic element I'm missing that Spawn takes from Batman, or a statement by McFarlane stating that Batman was a primary incluence on Spawn. Simnel 05:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

sorry, i tried though. i knew i could turn out that you know more than me. even if not, i've been a hardcore fan for 13 years, so for some i coud be a gurru and for some i could be a newby. i'm sorry, but if it is not through the author's experience, background, context and his major influences, i got nothing. The charcater is grim, which was a common thing in the 80's-early90's...have batman-esque looks, but he is an anti-heroe... so you are right altho similarities are obvious and just there, the missing thing is a mcfralane statement. kinda like the batman-the shadow or batman-superman's oppositething... no word on internet though...and thinking abuout, not even a guy more expereienced with comics than both of us together could answer, it'd gotta be from a mcfarlane linked source. I'm sorry i dissaponted you--T for Trouble-maker 08:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

and remember you need to quote that link to keep you statement in the batman in other media section. or else it coul be erased--T for Trouble-maker 22:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay -- I did a quick web search, and I couldn't find any reference showing McFarlane explicitly suggesting Batman was an inspiration for Spawn. I'm going to remove the suggestion that he was from the main page. Simnel 09:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

apologies

I apologize for being a dick. Although I swear I always work on the main page with good faith and love for the characters. The only thing I ask is that if you don’t like the info I add, don’t erase it, but put sense and quotes into my words, there is always several source for everything I write, and they are never hard to find (jlwatchtower, world’s finest, tv.com, the comics or episodes themselves, etc.). I have never erased info, if you think about it; so edit my info but don’t just censure me… I’m also a middle point fan.--T for Trouble-maker 21:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC) My point are this:

I have attempted to discuss with T-man the edits he wishes to make, and continually keeps making. I have refrained from reverting his previous reverts to his version, in the hope that he would eventually work with the rest of the editors here. That is looking very unlikely at this point. Continually reverting the article to a version that is completely contrary to the consensus that was reached in months past, and in the current debate, is not constructive. T-man, a few of your edits have a chance to make it to the page, but if you keep on packaging all of your changes in one group, including the highly controversial edits in the "homosexual interpretations" area, it is unliklely that anything is going to make it through. I doubt many have the time to dig through the very large volume of changes you make, to pick out the one or two that might fit in with the consensus of the rest of the editors.
T-man, please consider bowing to the consensus and backing off on the "homosexual interpretations" area. If you stop reverting against all other opinion, some of your ideas just might make it to the article.
Thanks, --Krich (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

i'm gonna hate myself for doing this, but in the middle point spitit...--T for Trouble-maker 21:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Check it out. I followed Hrich your advise. (according to myself, though)Keep in mind this observations (personal, of course, but since I realize my words usually occupy to much space in this page, so every point i need to make in the future to defend my pocition i'm gonna add it here in the list):

  1. the info is now not only on the batman page, but also on the CCA page
  2. wertham states batman is pedophylic
  3. that's his first statement to, THEN establish the Batman-Robin thing is view as a gay fantasy.
  4. the stuff the paragraph establishes is not progay, but totally anti-gay or homophobic. (so if I censured it i censured censoreship :) )
  5. neither kane, nor finger, schwartz, sprang, o'neil, timm, dini, burton, west, ward, o'donell, cloney, keaton, kilmer, conroy, wolfman, loeb, matzuda, or eny bat-writer, actor, editor, artist, producer director or true fan has ever intended batman to be gay.
  6. batman being pedophilic neither cannonical (to any version) nor contemporary
  7. other issues, like batman characters would need to be proportionaly bigger
  8. the consensus was done some time ago new one can be done

When i undo something i sometimes try to do it a litle diferent so that the people that disagrees like it... i suck for that why don't you try doing the same for me, maybe ou could be better for that. Thanks for the kinda second chance--T for Trouble-maker 22:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing the Homosexual interpretations section

Given Wikipedia:Verifiability I would ask that this text from the section Homosexual interpretations be sourced, please:

The outcry particularly affected Batman comics for a number of years; the characters of Bat-Girl and Batwoman were introduced to "prove" that Batman and Robin were not gay, and the stories took on a campier, lighter feel.
Despite Wertham and "The Code," the theme of ambiguous sexuality continued to be played upon by both the studios and the readers until the late sixties, when changing public morality necessitated an official split between Batman and any suggestion of sexuality with his young friend. Denny O'Neil separated the two heroes in 1969 by sending Dick Grayson to college, and female characters were eventually brought in as more "proper foils" to the main hero.
Despite the studio's efforts, popular culture and a number of artists continue to play off the homosexual connotation of their relationship. In summer of 2005, painter Mark Chamberlain displayed a number of watercolors depicting both Batman and Robin in suggestive poses. The studio threatened both the artist and the galleries with legal action if they did not cease selling the works, and also demanded that all remaining art as well as any profits be handed over as well.

Could someone also clarify who/what is meant by the term "studio" in the above text. Thanks in advance, Steve block talk 16:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Good points, Steve. The recent edit wars may be averted in the future with some verification of the above. Let me look... Dyslexic agnostic 17:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The “how abut having the info in the CCA article, where it fit’s better with a proper mega as-big-as-U-want introduction-link here?” issue was never answered... Anyways, the influence of Wertham can’t be denied, at least in my opinion. The O’Neil thing could loose credibility without a quote of him saying so. It is also common knowledge among Batman fans that Catwoman (the most famous Batman love interest) and Vicky Vale were there way before these events; and it's not like Batwoman, the Batgirls, Silver, Talia and Julie (not to mention all the bad Bat-girls created for the 60’s series) were not going to happen anyway. To me, Wertham’s influence was stronger with the violence issue due to the CCA.--T for Trouble-maker 18:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand a word you just said... and stop stalking me. Dyslexic agnostic 19:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Dammit, not in front of the others you dyslexic jerk, we're never going to gain our cred back if you keep doing this. I told you already, you moron, mark my errors and send it back to me, you whinning ass. hahaha. And stop copying me 4 X's-sake!!!--T for Trouble-maker 05:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Wha..? Dyslexic agnostic 06:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
hahahahahaha. just kidding. But seriously: (moved to next section)

--T for Trouble-maker 10:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Reduce the size? Proportionally bigger? What are you trying to say here, T-Man? Dyslexic agnostic 10:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Steve block's revisions to homosexual section

Well, I see you have tackled this section too... you kept all of my edits from this morning (yah!), but cut through the crap that was there before. But what about the pretty pictures, including the one I added of Bat-girl? Thoughts on the revisions? (Maybe I'll use the images on her page, or on the SOTI page...) [[User:Dyslexic agnostic|Dyslexic

Removals and rewriting

I have copyedited to remove any point of view and removed some unsourced comments. I also removed the images, since the text captions accompanying these images were most definitely point of view. Please do not add such captions to images unless they are quotes from a cited source, not an editor's own words. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources for guidance. (batman what have you dond indeed is from wizard--T for Trouble-maker 12:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

The caption to Image:Batman panel - Robin what have I done to you.jpg read The placement of Batman's reference to Robin at the end of a series of sexual innuendos renders what by itself would be a reasonable parental reaction into a comical punch line with homoerotic overtones. Unless this is a sourced quote it constitutes original research.

The caption to Image:Batgirlbettebatmite.jpg read Bat-girl introduced to prove Batman and Robin not gay. Which most definitely is point of view, and should not be presented as fact.

I also removed the following sections of text: Despite Wertham and "The Code," the theme of ambiguous sexuality continued to be played upon by both the studios and the readers until the late sixties, when changing public morality necessitated an official split between Batman and any suggestion of sexuality with his young friend. Denny O'Neil separated the two heroes in 1969 by sending Dick Grayson to college, and female characters were eventually brought in as more "proper foils" to the main hero.

This again seems to read as point of view, and since no source has been forthcoming I have removed it.

I removed the following line, The outcry particularly affected Batman comics for a number of years from the section which continues; the characters of Batwoman (in 1956) and Bat-Girl (in 1961) were introduced to "prove" that Batman and Robin were not gay, and the stories took on a campier, lighter feel. I can source the second statement, I cannot source the removed line.

I also rewrote this section, Their interpretation is seconded by Burt Ward, who, in his autobiographical Boy Wonder: My Life in Tights agrees that the characters could be interpreted as lovers, while the show's double entendres and lavish camp help make the case persuasive. to remove point of view assertions, presenting a more neutral and balanced version, Burt Ward has also remarked upon this possible interpretation, in his autobiographical Boy Wonder: My Life in Tights noting that the characters could be interpreted as lovers, with the show's double entendres and lavish camp also offering ambiguous interpretation..

I would also request a source for this text:Wertham became aware of this alternative reading through his conversations with fans of Batman in the fifties, who brought the comic book to his attention as an example of the idealization of a "homosexual lifestyle.", which I believe must be easy given the quotation in the last line. My understanding is that Wertham went looking for such readings, not that they were brought to his attention. Steve block talk 09:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)agnostic]] 09:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


Point taken on the caption language. I have restored the image minus the wording in the caption, retaining only the source identification of the image. This is a long-standing image, and illustrates the key point of the section (whether one agrees with the interpretation or not).
Steve, to answer your comment in the edit summary; making the argument for removing the image here on the talk page before make the deletions might keep a revert from happening so fast. I checked the talk page after seeing the image removed, and at that time, you hadn't written anything here yet. Thanks, --Krich (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair point. It took me a while to detail all my actions, but I'm sure you can understand that. I personally prefer to perform the edits and then detail them as it allows greater detailing and better explanation, and prevents me running into edit conflicts. I'll also add that I had asked for material in this section to be sourced and point out that we shouldn't automatically revert even if there is no discussion on the talk page. That ought to be where we start discussing the removal, no matter who starts the discussion. Steve block talk 11:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I was probably too quick on the revert. I don't know how much of this talk page you've had a chance to read through, but the image I replaced is one that's been in the article a long time (whereas the Batgirl image was just added in the last day). It's removal, as well as the removal of the accompanying text, has been the subject of a rather determined one-man campaign by another editor in the last week, and I likely jumped the gun in quickly reverting your removal of the image because of that situation.
And I understand what you are saying about doing your edits first. We all have our own editing styles, I was just pointing out that I had checked the talk page, and if I had read your explanation first, I'm sure I would have been less hasty in reverting the image. Thanks, --Krich (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


Steve, you might want to note that there has been a LOT of jackassery on this page, vandalism and edit wars aplenty, in the last few weeks. I personally didn't see anything from you when I checked my watchlist last night; tonight, I saw "Well, I asked for sourcing, didn't get anything so made changes." Don't be surprised if your stuff got reverted. That being said -- good show, while I don't agree with 100% of your changes, they all seem reasonable and well-thought out. Hopefully we'll get this article back to where it deserves to be a feature again. Simnel 23:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Replies

Point taken re the POV comments under the images. But I believe the Bat-girl image is suitable, with the captioon removed. Dyslexic agnostic 09:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And don't forget about the gayest issue of World's Finest ever...

Image:WorldsFinest289-02.0.jpg Image:WorldsFinest289-01.2.jpg Dyslexic agnostic 10:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but wouldn't you agree those panels are being quoted out of context, which again renders them point of view? I'd also say this section has more than enough images. I'm also unclear what the Batgirl image adds to the section. Steve block talk 10:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I think Dyslexic was making a joke about that panel, but perhaps not. I've seen it many times before, and it always make me laugh.
Dyslexic, I have to agree with Steve about the additional Batgirl image. To me, it weighs down the section a bit, and illustrates a smaller point from the text. It's a fun image, but perhaps one panel too many for this section. --Krich (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

For now I updated my points (and delated most of the old ones above to save space):

1. I found this on Bob Kane’s article, check it out: (Batman) was a breakout hit, but National sought to improve sales even further. Editors suggested that the character receive a youthful sidekick who the readers could use as an audience surrogate. Kane initially suggested an impish character named "Mercury", while Finger suggested a more down-to-earth character. The name "Robin" was suggested by Jerry Robinson after the then popular Errol Flynn movie "Robin Hood".--T for Trouble-maker 09:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


2. No Batman writer has ever been quoted saying "batman an robin are like a wish dream of two homosexuals living together". None of the batman writers of those times was either gay or particularly pro gay, why would they try to make them a gay fantasy?? Negligent words could slander them (characters and writers) as much as Wertham did. Bob Kane controlled with iron fist whatever happened to the bat-mythos in those times and he was no gay. And he isn't a famous pro-gay activist either. IF I MISTAKEN: we'd need a quote.


3. Wertham states batman "is pedophilic"(a offensive lie) to, then establish there is "Batman-Robin gay fantasy"(Translate this: “el que hambre tiene, pan piensa”); but "batman being pedophilic" is (or was) neither canonical nor contemporary: neither Kane, nor finger, Schwartz, sprang, O'neil, Wolfman, Loeb, Timm, Dini, Matzuda, Burton, west, ward, O’Donnell, Clooney, Keaton, Kilmer, Conroy, or any bat-writer, editor, artist, producer, director, actor or true fan. If the Dynamic duo looked gay (In my oppinion, they did), not that he or anyone intended it. Batman had plenty of girlfriends on the show. Wart as well as West enjoyed their big share of orgies. They both said so..
IF I MISTAKEN: we'd need a quote. My point: "batman being pedophilic" is nowhere near a canonical charcacteristic of the characteror even "kinda-near", therefore this is a minor issue for the article. The canonical issues are more important.


4.Also: It has been suggested that (Kathy and Betty Kane) were introduced partially in response to Fredric Wertham's allegations about the homosexual nature of the Dynamic Duo's relationship Ok, by whom?? IF I MISTAKEN: we'd need a quote.Kathy Kane was named after Bob Kane and she looked like his wife.


5. Keep in mind: Wertham stuff is not pro-gay, but totally anti-gay or homophobic. (so if I censured it, I censured censorship :) ) It is also not a contemporary issue...Well only for comedians.


6. There are sections like the characters and enemies sections that would need to be proportionally bigger than the Pedophilia section. The pedophilia and villains sections already have pages elsewhere. But all sections need a proper 2-3 paragraphs-at-least-long intro here... But let's leave that issue for another time, for this issues sake.


7. I suggest we reduce the size of the section to the words that can be proven. For starters, WHO said Batgirl I was a response to Wertham allegations(we need a quote)?? IF I MISTAKEN: we'd need a quote. Remember, the info bat-pedophila info is now not only on the batman page, but also on the CCA page.
--T for Trouble-maker 09:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC).


2. No Batman writer has ever been quoted saying "batman an robin are like a wish dream of two homosexuals living together".
Where in the text is this assertion made? Steve block talk 10:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


3. Wertham states batman "is pedophilic"(a offensive lie) to, then establish there is "Batman-Robin gay fantasy"(Translate this: “el que hambre tiene, pan piensa”); but "batman being pedophilic" is (or was) neither canonical nor contemporary
You miss the point. Wertham made the assertion, and it became a notable assertion. We must therefore present that assertion as neutrally as possible. I am currently attempting to insert balancing text to the article between discussing points here on this talk page. Steve block talk 10:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


6. There are sections like the characters and enemies sections that would need to be proportionally bigger than the Pedophilia section.
Not necessarily. Most sections have been spun out of this page as they are too large. At some point the same fate could befall this section, although I would suggest it is not too large yet. Steve block talk 10:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


7. WHO said Batgirl I was a response to Wertham allegations.
Christopher York did, in the reference cited in the article. Steve block talk 10:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I already edited my own 7 points as part of my answer, and I'll keep answearing that way to keep the discussion short. Where can i find the Christopher York quote? Copy-paste it, please. put the quote, don't just tell me about it...I'm pointing at the quotes we'd need to make, not saying that there are no quotes at all. I propose we all try to keep this short by updating our comments to answer each other.--T for Trouble-maker 11:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Please don't edit comments in such a way, they are a record of the discussion and also make it hard to follow the debate. As to a quote, we do not need to actually quote York, we can simply sum up and cite his paper. If someone wishes to dispute the summation and cite, they must likewise cite. Do you dispute the cite? Have you read the work? In it York looks at the impact of Wertham on Batman and Robin especially with regards "the impact it had on the way Batman was portrayed in the 1950s and early 1960s." as quoted in The Comics Journal 228. This work thus supports the assertion in the article. Steve block talk 11:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I ment in here. put the the freaking york quote in here, in the discussion page, please. The quote we need is not one satating how he thinks DC answered, but one of a DC writer saying that he created Betty and kathy kane to make batman and robin look less gay, duh! (sorry) If not we'd have to write: "it is belived by idiots like York, (an as with porbably nothing to do with DC-IF I MISTAKEN: we'd need a quote, of course) that BG and BW were created to make B&R look less gay" Then again selina and vicky were there way before Wertham or York. -- 12:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC) is this your york: [1]?? I searched ""Christopher York" batwoman" in google and nuthin' the dude is not famous... Paraphrasing Moore I think you're doing the "gull catcher dance", that schmock is not contemporary to kane or his editor, there is no way to tell if they created BW & BG because of Wertham... --T for Trouble-maker 13:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You are missing the point. We are not asserting that a DC creator said that he created Betty and kathy kane to make batman and robin look less gay. We are saying Christopher York asserted that part of the impetus behind their creation was in response to Wertham's attacks. As to whether York's article is notable or not, it has been cited in works on this point. You should probably note that York was defending Batman against scholarly suggestions of homoeroticism. Steve block talk 13:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You are missing the point (it's fun to say that, isn't it). I really belive so. And if the only one telling that stuff is that idiot, you have to especify it. You have to write something like: this is not official', just a dude called Christopher York, sayin so. Other way you are not making it clear if Bob Kane admitted he created BW & BG because of the Wertham ass. Your words are being negligent if you don't clarify it. (Also, my very personal prediction, by clarifying it, which you have the ethical obligation to do, you turn the BW &BG thing into a moot point. Readers are going to realice York is just some idiot and therefore, not gonna care about the BW & BG paragraph and they are gonna erese it...again, Gull catching dance-T-man) The whole BW & BG thing is a moot point, they were neither the first nor the last women in Batman mythos. Vicky vale was created just 6 years before the whole Wertham thing, and Selina 14. Barbara was created 10 years after W, and talia & silver also like 20. /14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC): Batman married catwoman in the 70's to have Huntress./ You are wasting our time with you York thing, dude. Let it go. It's over. Moot point The gull is gone, exotic dancer is gone, it's just a picture in your head (also from Moore that last one). Gone--T for Trouble-maker 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Your opinion of York is besides the point, and note York isn't the only one to have made these claims, K. Salminen made them in 1989, and Will Brooker made them in his book Batman Uumasked: Aanalysing A Cultural Icon. The article does not state that Bob Kane wrote them as such, and that these interpretations are on the part of the reader. The point is that this is a notable part of the Batman mythos, and should be treated in as balanced and neutral a way as possible. Steve block talk 13:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
...did you have to wait 'til now to show that?? are you just having fun mocking me?? Ok, so then you just haveto say its unofficial and from noncontemporary sourses. I won't erase it. It was just a prediction that somebody could. No more. It could also be a stupid prediction, it is just my opinion. But then again you have to answer to this point: there has always been a Bat-chick created every 8 years or so. Again, BW & BG: Moot point. Gull gone.--T for Trouble-maker 14:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes I had to wait until now. I'd only just discovered it myself through researching the issue. If you look at the article now it makes it clear that scholar's are making the claims and the quotes from two comic book writers make it clear such intepretations were not authorial voice. Steve block talk 14:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Now you've gone too far, block! No, just kidding, looks very good now. Well done. Dyslexic agnostic 16:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks ok to me. But the Bw & Bg is got to go.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBatman_Archive02_2941.html"