Talk:Batman/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 March 2005 and November 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/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Hiding talk 11:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Jason Todd as a relative

Was he ever legally adopted by Bruce? Apostrophe 05:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Unlike Dick Grayson, Jason Todd was legally adopted by Bruce Wayne as his son from the beginning. Dick was not legally adopted by Bruce until much later.

Actually, I think that only happened in the pre-crisis version (where Bruce even fought a bitter custody battle to adopt Jason. I'm not positive anything similar happended in the current continuity.--Talison 04:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

pre-Adam West tv series

There was also pre-Adam West tv series, in black and white.

You might be talking about a film serial that was played around 1949(?) I think. I have the whole block of episodes on VHS, so I might just have to drag out my VCR to get some info --Alan D
Quite possibly. It was 30 minute episodes which a Channel 4 showed every morning one summer years ago. The batmobile was an ordinary police car, and the exit from the batcave was a large unconvincing rock on the side of a dirt road, as far as I remember. -- Tarquin

Was the feature film "The Wild World of Batwoman" from 1966 too stupid to be listed here? The Catwoman movie is listed. Arctic.gnome

"Batwoman" is unrelated and I think I even read DC sued the makers. --Talison 04:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No brilliant info to add, just that a DVD is finally being released of this.

Robin encourages Homosexuality

Speaking as a gay man (and I know on behalf of others), could I say that Robin's legs, particularly when so ably portrayed by Chris O'Donnell, do indeed enourage homosexuality? Adam 04:24, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)


...I'm not even sure what to say to this. Robin is meant to be a young boy. Are you also a pedophile?

RPG stats

I removed the following from the article because I really don't think RPG stats belong in Wikipedia. Since large numbers of these "vital stats" sections have been added to various articles, I'm using Talk:Strength level (comics) to discuss this issue in general. Bryan 02:20, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Vital Statistics of Batman

  • Name: Bruce Wayne
  • Occupation: Philanthropist, crime fighter, scientist
  • Height: 6' 2"
  • Weight: 210 lbs.
  • Eyes: Blue
  • Hair: Black
    • Intelligence Level: Extraordinary Genius
    • Strength Level: Peak human
    • Endurance Level: Peak human (enhanced by body armor)
    • Speed Level: Peak human
    • Agility Level: Peak human
    • Stamina Level: Peak human
    • Reflexes Level: Peak human
  • Special Abilities: Aside from the abilities listed above, Batman is master of many forms of armed and unarmed combat, and probably the creator of his own style of fighting based on his vast experience and training. Batman is extremely knowledgeable of science both theoretical and applied.
  • Special Weapons and Paraphernalia: Too numerous too list. Essentially, Batman can obtain and use expertly any weapon or technological advancement.

Azrael's page

is there really no page on Azrael?? --Yak 17:58, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

It would appear not. Would you like to start one? --Paul A 03:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Public domain image

i do not think the picture is in the public domain.

It isn't; however, it's fair use. -- user:zanimum
I removed [[Image:Justice_league_batman.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|Batman appeared in ''Justice League'' and numerous other cartoons.]] because fair use claims need more than the words fair use, see Wikipedia:Fair_use -Wikibob | Talk 11:11, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)
If the cartoon image of Batman isn't permissible, then neither are the other images in the article. All of them are covered by current copyrights, after all. But rather than just say "fair use" or "not fair use", let's actually do what you suggest and apply the tests:
1) Purpose of the usage: educational and not-for-profit
2) Nature of the work: creative fiction
3) Proportion of original used: trivial (either a partial frame of a complete episode, or the cover of a complete magazine)
4) Affect on marketability of original: none
Test #2 works against it, but none of these tests are black/white deal breakers; they're factors that are taken into consideration in weighing cases. And the other three tests weigh pretty heavily in favor, as they do any time a scholar of art or literature writes about ___ and includes an example of ___ to illustrate what he's writing about. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but I'd put my money on a ruling of "fair use" for all of them. Tverbeek 13:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

pastiche-type characters

I was noticing -- the Superman article lists several pastiche-type characters, including Hyperion, Underdog, and so on, based on Superman. It would be nice to see something here, but I don't know of enough to warrant it. However, I know there are several Batman clones out there, including but not limited to: The Blue Falcon, Night Owl (Watchmen), Owlman (DC's Earth 3 villain), Nighthawk (Squadron Supreme), and I'm sure Image had to have one, but I never read their stuff because the chance of seeing Leifeld's terrible artwork was too high. -- user:Dodger

This is a good idea - Batman is one of the most frequently ripped-off characters in comics. Although Nite-Owl was actually intended as a Blue Beetle pastiche, IIRC. Lokicarbis 03:50, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Night Owl is a Blue Beetle takeoff. Rorschach is based on Bats, & has been called "Batman without the excuses. Trekphiler 20:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

it should be noted that both Ozymandias and Rorschach are derived from Bats, one being the relentless vigilante, and the other being the billionare playboy hero. Rorschach is also heavily based on The Question, another Batman-like DC hero.

Gotham as city in reality

The article states that [Gotham] is [New York]. I believe that [Metropolis] is [New York]; while however, [Gotham] is [Boston].

?alabio 07:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Ummmm... believe what you want, but Gotham ain't Boston. :)

You're welcome to provide actual evidence from the comics for your supposition, of course. Back up your belief with facts/data. Kaijan 08:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

DC has been careful to never draw connections between any of their fictional cities and real ones. In fact, New York has been specifically used as Wally West's home for a few years as Flash. I think the confusion about Gotham/New York comes from the fact that it's a not-uncommon nickname for that city, dating all the way back to when it was New Amsterdam. - Plutor 13:45, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
DC's longtime Batman Group Editor Dennis O'Neil at one point said something to the effect of Metropolis being New York by day, and Gotham being New York at night. In any case, New York is accurate. Snowspinner 14:37, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't think Dennis O'Neil's statement could realistically be taken as anything other than metaphor. On countless occasions, Metropolis and Gotham City are treated as distinct cities, sometimes as much as hundreds of miles apart. I would be loathe to make a claim that Gotham City was based on anything other than the stereotypical "dark and gritty city". - Plutor 15:28, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I've always taken it to mean that Gotham City and Metropolis are both based on New York - just on different aspects of New York. The fact that Gotham is one of the nicknames for New York does lend credence to this as well. Snowspinner 16:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Let me throw my two cents in here. Though I don't have an article to cite, I'm certain that since 'Crisis' that Gotham City is Located in the New Jersey/South Jersey area, possibly on the coast near Atlantic City (and its sister city Bludhaven [how do you add umlats?]) and that Metropolis is in the state of Maryland, not too far from Boston/Philaddlphia/Washington D.C. I believe this information is in the Atlas of the DC UniverseRunciblerabbit 22:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


Gotham may be a nickname for New York; However, it is supposed to have a Revolutionary War history (which New York City lacks); At one time, Metropolis was depicted as Manhattan and Gotham as Brooklyn separated by a bridge. Gotham City has a Philadelphia aspect to it as per artist Bernie Wrightson. And Boston is Wonder Woman's turf. - Sparky 07:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Gotham city is New York City at night and Metropolis is New York City at day time ! --Brown Shoes22 05:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The original Bat-man comics from 1939 strongly imply that Bat-man is a resident of New York City. See page 46 of Batman Archives Volume 1, 1990,DC Comics. The story is reprinted from Detective Comics September 1939 (No. 31), "Batman versus the Vampire (Part 1)". The first panel has the caption "Through the dark of a New York night..." The second panel also shows a famous pose of the early Batman with wings spread.

The classic comic Superman vs. Spiderman had a map of the East Coast of the United States which implied that Gotham City was New York, while Metropolis was (believe it or not) Philadelphia!

      • Gotham is mostly like Chicago, Metropolis is mostly like New York City... however, DC Comics uses fictional cities, Marvel uses the non-fictional. Unmaskedhero
        • Gotham is most assuredly NOT Chicago as references to Chicago have often been made in the comics, such as members of the Falcone family being from Chicago. 70.60.149.226



More trivia gleaned from Batman Archives Volume 1:

  • "Batman versus the Vampire" also introduces Batman's first two gadgets. One of them is, of course, the batarang (originally called the "baterang"). Can anyone guess what the other is? Hint: It's not the Batmobile.
OK... I give up... what IS the second of the first two gadgets?? Tom S.
  • Batman apparently carries an automatic pistol (p. 75, p. 92) but avoids using it on people.
  • Robin's weapon is a slingshot! See p. 152. Frank Miller did his homework; Robin aka Carrie Kelley in The Dark Knight Returns also uses a slingshot.

-- ?jmalin7 5:39, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Video Games

What about the several Batman video games?

--217.232.1.229 18:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

What about them? (That is to say, go ahead and add them.) Snowspinner 21:32, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Birds of Prey

I haven't see the show, so I can't say for sure - but shouldn't Birds_of_Prey rate a mention in the Television section? Lokicarbis 03:52, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Lack of Variety

Contains the word "camp" or a derivative at least three times. Takes away from the flow and poetry. I'd edit it, but I'm not yet sure how to go about it. Just a personal reminder.

YES! I just came here to say that. The original author must have just learnt the meaning of that word, as he used it 9 times. Please fix it, somebody.

Also in the movies section Batman & Robin doesn't have a director. Consistency in the list needed.

Removed from article:

In contraposition to Superman, whose superhero identity is a front over Clark Kent, who is the real character, Bruce Wayne is entirely a shallow front over the real personality, which is Batman.

For one thing, the relative realities of "Clark Kent" and "Superman" have varied over the years (when the character was created, for instance, "Clark Kent" was entirely a shallow front over Superman). For another, the relative realities of "Bruce Wayne" and "Batman" have likewise varied. For yet another, I would argue that in the cases of both Superman and Batman, the truth as it currently stands is that both the public superhero persona and the public less-heroic persona are situation-dependant fronts for the real person. --Paul A 06:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


You're right because saying that Bruce Wayne is just a front over Batman is quite disrespectful to the character and devoids him of any meaning. Batman exists because of Bruce Wayne's tragedy, which was losing his parents. Everytime he goes to that cemetery and pays them tribute he reinforce that. In fact, the "never forget" device has been used regularly in the comics.

Recently, in the pages of Superman, that very same question was laid about Superman/Clark & Batman/Bruce and which was the dominant personality in each one of them. Bruce himself stated "I'm Bruce Wayne!".

Psychology of Batman

This whole section was a whole lot of opinion and "original research" (i.e. an essay exploring the topic), not encyclopedic information. Tverbeek 15:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 16:24, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wait what?

The 60's TV show arsenal included such ridiculous "bat-" names as a bat-computer, bat-rope, bat-scanner, bat-radar, bat-handcuffs, bat-phone, bat-bat, bat-drinking water dispenser, bat-camera with polarized bat-filter, shark repellent bat-spray, bat-funnel and alphabet soup bat-container.

Is this for real?--Fito 03:43, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I believe so. I can personally recall several of the more ridiculous ones from memory; for instance, the bat-shark repellant spray is from Batman: The Movie. If anyone has a copy, Burt Ward's autobiography My Life in Tights has a complete list of all Bat-[suffix] terms from the entire series. -Sean Curtin 04:02, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the bat-shark repellant spray, is probably the most parodied bat-thing ever. But come on! A bat-drinking water dispenser? That seems a little hard to believe, even for Adam West's Batman. But, a bat-funnel doesn't sound completely unbelievable.
After a little research, I found this. Interestingly enough, there WAS a bat-funnel but no bat-drinking water dispenser.--Fito 06:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

In the Batman movie the Penguine is taken back to the Batcave while diguised as a Commadore. He asks for some water and Adam West says "The drinking water dispencer is clearly marked." It, in fact, is clearly marked just like everything in the Batcave. However it is not a "Bat-Drinking Water Dispencer" and none of the items in the cave seem to bear the Bat prefix.--Talison 04:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's the problem with portraying a website that anyone can edit as a serious reference -- because some of the folks editing that "reference" may themselves be relying on information found on a frickin' Tripod member's page. ("If it's on the internet, it must be true!") And this level of scholarship comprises a Featured Article...?
What do you suggest, then? Consulting the "Batcyclopedia"? Or maybe looking it up in a serious reference, like the Encyclopedia Britannica? But, of course, that doesn't even have an article on Batman, seeing that he's not a real person and all. Batman, Turkey, yes, Bob Kane, sure, Batman the comic book figure, no. (It does have an article on Superman, because he's this big cultural icon while Batman is a nobody—or something like that).
Go look up that autobiography mentioned earlier. Otherwise, stop complaining about how dubious the references are if you can't discredit them with anything more convincing then "it's a frickin' Tripod member's page". As long as we mention it comes from a frickin' Tripod member's page, I don't see the problem. "If it's on the Internet, it must be false" is just as bogus, you know. In fact, I consider a page of some die-hard Batman fanboy to be pretty believable, considering the time and effort likely spent on it. 82.92.119.11 3 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

Bill Finger?

From the article:

Most accounts suggest that he was co-created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger, but only Kane receives official credit for the character.

This is a serious allegation which I've never seen before, and it's both lazy and irresponsible to brush it off with, "Most accounts suggest..." Every comic, movie, novel, and TV show I've seen credits Bob Kane. If you have reason to believe someone named Bill Finger was involved, you have to back that up with specific, sourced information. Otherwise this is exactly the sort of anonymous, unfounded allegation that impeaches the credibility of Wikipedia.

I find it dubious that anyone who's read about the creation of the character doesn't know who Finger is or have some idea of why he's not given any credit by DC. At any rate, I hope the recent edits have sufficiently clarified that area. -Sean Curtin 03:27, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Finger's not credited because Kane struck a deal to be credited as the sole creator of Batman in perpetuity - SoM 15:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bob Kane clearly credits Bill Finger with his contributions in his autobiography "Batman & Me." He does state that only the creaters were ussually credited on the book and he had a mandatory bi-line. You must also remember that in those days they did not list the penciler, inker, leterer, colorist, or writer as seperate credits. They typically just credited the creater of the stip. Kane even mentions he was the only one credited on stories that he had no part in producing (For example, Bill Finger wrote and Jerry Robinson did the art.) Really just a difference in the buisness from then to now.--Talison 04:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

yeah! is more like a "who kept the rights" thing, from what i know but is comonly known that bill finger drew batman for the first time (unles bob kane did a not so famous raw sketch or something)--T for Trouble-maker 22:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Batman, The Batman...

This is an old chestnut, but which name is "official" or "his correct name", etc, needn't concern us here, what matters is the most common name. That's why this page is at Batman, and not The Batman, and it stands to reason that the article's first bold title should indeed correspond to the article title. Feel free to add as many caveats as desired as to originality, officialness, etc, of the "The Batman" name, but please bear in mind that convention. Alai 02:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Us"? Who, you and the mouse in your pocket? I disagree with your take. Don't like it? Bring it to third party for debate. But the characters name is "The Batman", he has just commonly become known as "Batman", and that should be noted.
Us, being the editors on this project. If you disagree with my "take", you might want to cite some appropriate policy or guideline that supports ypur position. I'd also like to see a citation that "The Batman" is his proper/official title; AFAIK, DC have flip-flopped on this any number of times. Alai 14:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
http://my.execpc.com/~icicle/Batman.jpg and http://www.onceuponadime.com/images/articles/detective27.jpg Detective Comics #27, The Batman's first appearance; http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/news_images/6170_16349_1.jpg Batman #1; note each reference to his name, not the comic, is to "The Batman".
Yes, and all modern-day comics use "Batman" and have for years - SoM 15:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right, but you can't go back and change history. The character was created as "The Batman". Just like a person being given one name at birth and then their nickname becoming what they are commonly referred to, the birthname still stands (William Jefferson Clinton is most often called "Bill Clinton", that doesn't make his real name obsolete). Also, the current cartoon is production is called "The Batman", the film that came out this week refers to the character as "The Batman", and many of the comics still refer to him as "The Batman", saying "all modern-day comics use 'Batman'" is wholly untrue.
206.201.180.226, could you please sign your talk page comments with ~~~~? Thanks. "Original" I don't dispute, but it's not exactly comparable to Detective Comics #27 being his birth certificate or anything. I'm fine with noting that it's "original", and that there are die-hard purists with a strong preference for that form, but anything more doesn't seem to me to stand up. Alai 17:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually he was originally called "The Bat-Man."--Talison 04:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
since the title was batman, it meant that 'the' was always optional. i think so especialy since batman was not conceived for the need of an oposite to jerry and joe's "the superman"(i'm making 2points, remember)--T for Trouble-maker 22:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

How the bat suit works

I just found this cool page on howstuffworks.com about the bat suit works:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/batsuit.htm

Maybe we can incorporate this somewhere on the page? I see the bat suit link is missing :) --Mayuresh Kadu (India) 08:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The HSW article is about the Batman Begins batsuit in specific. IF a link were created, it would need to be from THAT article. Tom S.

Ha ha ha...

....and I was just about to nominate this as a featured article, too, before I clicked here and realized it already was one. Good work to all involved. --FuriousFreddy 17:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Batman The Homosexual?

Now i have no problem with homosexuality, but i do have a problem with people trying to look for something that doesn't exist. this page is for discussion of batman, if you would like to discuss batman and the homosexual stigma, please discuss it in batman the tv series wikipedia entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_%28TV_series%29 since that is really the only place where it has been an issue. also i removed the image of batman and robin condom ad, since that is not actually batman and robin and in no way endorsed by dc comics.

I did initially remove the entries of batman's homosexuality, then i tried to reinclude it in a way that would not be offensive to anyone. after Haiduc reverted it, i thought i should try and accomodate this view, so i just made some changes and additions. nothing big. i would also like to discuss this further before any major changes be made.

--CaptainCrash

The "Batman-as-a-homosexual" was an issue before the TV series was ever aired. It was a notable issue in Seduction of the Innocent, as the article explains. That, and the issues relating to the TV seres, make it notable to leave in the article, especially since it is pointed out that DC never depicted him as a homosexual and maybe efforts to disassociate him from such a claim.--FuriousFreddy 22:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that, as should also be noted this was a man looking for reasons to ban or tame comic books, making a dark comic like batman appear to contain homosexual content would make a great argument. Batman was also one of the most popular comics out there, making this kind of claim would be damaging to it's reputation during this time period. This book contains no real proven arguments, just wild accusations. --CaptainCrash 23:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The fact that the accusations were made is quite notable, and so they should be mentioned in context. -Sean Curtin 01:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
They should not be mentioned. Batman was not gay. → JarlaxleArtemis 01:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
[Amazon Reviews] Most people who've read this book think it's bull shit. but that's aside the point, the main point of this section is batman's homosexual influence on society, when it should really be how this man's claims hurt the comic book industry for several decades. --CaptainCrash 01:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But this isn't about anyone's opinion. It's a fact that Frederic Wertham wrote his book and said what he said. It's a fact that Burt Ward wrote his book and said what he said. And it's a fact that Batman was never promoted as gay by DC Comics. All three facts are notable, and shuld be included for completion's sake. Just because some people do not like the fact does not mean it should be remove; that is what the concept of Wikipedia:NPOV is all about. --FuriousFreddy 03:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, we already came to an understanding on that issue, Haiduc has agreed to move this information to a more suitible heading/sub-heading since the information and importance of the subject does not justify it's own section. Although he may have his own reason for moving it. As I said, the information isn't what bothers me, it's the fact that the small subject with almost no chance of developing further, is given it's own sub-heading. I had no problem with how it was originally and just adding to that would have been fine. anyway that has been resolved. no need to argue it to death. --CaptainCrash 03:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Oh. Cool". --FuriousFreddy 14:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hold the phone. You say you "have no problem with how it was originally, yet you remove a free-use image and repalce it with a pitcure of the SOTI book? Not at all neutral editing. I'm going to put hte picture back (reguardless of whether you or I like it, the image illustrates a point of how Batman is percieved by a significant section of the populationm, and identifies itself as being underground. Please do not revert. --FuriousFreddy 16:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you had read my comment you would have known i replaced the image because it was out of place, the whole section reads more like it's about the book and how it affected comic books then homosexuality. the picture of the book that damaged comics seems to be worth the space rather than a homosexual picture involving batman and robin. as well as the book is a larger topic of interest then how gay people perceive batman and robin, if that is your only argument, we should have a vote on which picture stays and which one goes. --CaptainCrash 16:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I read your comment, and didn't get that interpretation from it. It seems you just don't want the picture there because you have an issue with Batman being depicted as a homosexual. I'd say if the other editors decide that this picture (from the Wikipedia Commons) doesn't belong in the article, then just leave the section without a picture. A picture of the cover of Seducton of the Innocent does not belong here; it belongs at Seduction of the Innocent. --FuriousFreddy 17:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I really feel that the book belongs because of its effects on comics as a whole, but if we can't come to an agreement then I guess I can settle on no picture, but I wish you would re-consider your stance on the use of that picture. --CaptainCrash 17:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, would you care to explain why you removed that Ganymede thing? "Too opinionated" -- exactly what there was opinion, if it's a matter-of-fact description of Batman and Robin being fairly popular figures in gay culture and that they've become objects of study. Is that an opinion? "Not factual enough" -- well, uh, how was it not factual? Are you saying that Vittorio Lingiardi did not postulate that the elationship of Batman with Robin echoes one of the most ancient metaphors of male love? (It's true that it may be Lingiardi's opinion, but since it is clearly presented as such, there's absolutely no POV problem here.)
And Crash, in my opinion -- since Freddy asked for one from other editors -- you're wrong here. A picture of the cover of Seduction of the Innocent is a hell of a lot less appropriate here than the other one.
Uh, you guys want a suggestion? Try and cool off a little here, because this is starting to look like an edit war in the making here, and that always gets nasty. Talk it over here first instead of constantly making changes and reverting them. -- Captain Disdain 17:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since the homoerotic element in Batman graphics and plot has been a topic of discussion for over half a century I do not see why it should be kept out of the article. The questions of whether he "was" or "wasn't" is not one that takes into consideration the complexities of a dramatic persona, or of Batman's and Robin's evolution over the years. The obligatory protestations about his non-homosexuality read like bigotry and do not belong here, or anywhere. Haiduc 02:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You must obviously be looking for bigotry in that case, and I hope you are not claiming my bigotry in order to quell my protests. I am the first person to tell people to be more open minded, and if someone attempts to insult me by calling me 'gay' or a 'fag', I just laugh, and ask why I should be offended. This is not a case of my not liking homosexuals; this is a case of a sub-section not belonging in an encyclopaedic context. The section should be focusing on how the book “Seduction of the Innocent” has affected the comic industry; you are not being barred from commenting on the homosexual stigma on batman and robin. It just does not require the whole section, it was fine how it was originally and you seem to find the need to make it more of an important topic. --CaptainCrash 02:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Would you care to elaborate on the meaning of "homosexual stigma?" Haiduc 02:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well due to the show, people thought Batman and Robin were. for lack of a better word an "item", that's what i mean by stigma. it stuck with them. even now people make jokes about it. hence my suggestion of moving this topic over to the television series.

Edit: Dictionary.com

Stigma
      5:A mark of shame or discredit.

--CaptainCrash 02:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not want to press further what is obviously a sore point, nor to suggest that the heterosexual stigma is better or worse than the homosexual one. If you object to the "Homosexual interpretations" subheader I would be agreeable to removing it. The content, I assume, is not being disputed. Moving the material to another article is inappropriate since the sexuality discussion far predates the tv serial. Haiduc 02:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's a very fair Compromise and I appreciate your understanding. I guess you may place the content where ever you see fit. I really have no opposition to the information being displayed; just the amount of importance that such a small topic is being given, especially since there is very little chance of it being expanded. Thanks again. --CaptainCrash 02:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The irony here is that the material belong under the "Love interests" subheader you have just created. Either that, or in a section "Batman in popular culture" without any such subheaders. What do you think? Haiduc 02:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Heh, go ahead and place it under love interests. lol. Just make sure it's clear that there wasn't such a claim in any of the DC continuities and there's no problem. Although you'd probably have to edit it since it doesn't actually discuss Batman and Robin having any kind of relationship aside from mentor and sidekick. If you can get some examples from the Comics or from the TV Series' aside from the clothing they wore, then you can go for it. The last Paragraph is really the only one that fits, but it could use some additional information.--CaptainCrash 03:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also 'Slanderous' might have been too harsh a word, but I got that impression from Amazon Reviews where most people felt this whole book was a joke and an insult to the comics/comic characters mentioned, and hurtful to the industry. I choose the word because some people felt that the original claim that Batman was homosexual was intended as derogatory to Batman and Robin, and homosexuality was considered offensive at the time, from the time period it was claimed that is understandable. Also, never did I claim that being homosexual was bad, and I don't appreciate people reading into things that don't exist. If you have a problem with my editing do not claim that it's because of some anti-gay agenda. It may actually be because I saw that an edit was justified. You may contact me, if you have a problem with my edit, and we can discuss it.

edit. Also I didn't even mention it, Batman being a quadroon would almost definetly be considered slanderous if the claim was made during the 50's. But that's not part of the discussion. you can go ahead and include it if you'd like. just don't devote a sub-section unless there is enough information and importance on the subject to justify it. --CaptainCrash 03:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Where has it ever been stated that Batwoman and Batgirl were introduced to prove Batman and Robin wern't gay? Superman and Wonder Woman also recieved an extensive "family" of characters after the code and all of DC was made lighter, campier, and more family friendly. Seems like it was just standard practice in the 50s. Also, every interview I have ever read states Dennis O'Neil seperated Batman and Robin to get back to darker stories about a more driven Dark Knight. Do you know of a source that states they were seperated to debug the gay theory? I've no doubt that the idea exists that they may be gay. Although I don't see it myself I understand where people get it from and don't argue with it being mentioned in this article. However these facts I mention seem unproven, and much of the section is simply POV. --Talison 08:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"Seems like it was just standard practice?" Ever thought about WHY that became standard practice? Here's a hint: Fredric Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, and congressional hearings all had something to do with it. Nobody's suggesting that there weren't other, story reasons for all of these things to happen... but that particular era of comics history, and specifically BATMAN in that era, played a huge role in the direction comics would take for at least the next twenty years or so. It's entirely possible we're still feeling the repercussions today. Ignoring it would be like ignorning the Adam West TV show -- sure, we WISH it wasn't there, but it was, it was important, so it gets addressed. -Simnel

Reorganization/That Whole Gay Thing

I think much of the "this is gay stuff/no it isn't/he's bonkin' Robin/no he isn't" thing is of historical significance and not an insignificant part of popular culture, and frankly, to not address the issue at all stinks of intellectual dishonesty at its best and historical revisionism or homophobia at its worst. I want to stress that I'm not making any accusations here, I'm just making a point that it should be addressed and not addressing it is going to look like someone's embarrassed to talk about it, because it's a pretty well-known issue precisely because Wertham and others have made such a big deal out of it, and because it had consequences that altered the character and how the character was perceived. I should stress that this is not just some small fringe thing; it's something a lot of people who're not necessarily comics readers might be interested in.

That said, I think the article's getting to be too damn huge as it is and could really use some chopping up into smaller sections. It strikes me that this particular thing could well be turned into an article of its own; it could be dealt with more depth there without worrying about how it would impact on the main Batman article's readability. Another section that could well benefit from a similar treatment is "Batman in Popular Culture".

Thus, the main Batman article would just include the information about Batman and his history in the context of the comics, but the other articles (or perhaps one larger article that could incorporate both of the sections I mention above) would include more information about how Batman has been represented and perceived outside the traditional format.

Comments? Ideas? Suggestions? Hit me. -- Captain Disdain 13:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment, idea, and suggestion: put the header back. It makes no sense without the header. I know that some Batman fans don't want their hero depicted as having "the ghey", but it is a fact that an author wrote a (admitedly scandalous) book which made such a claim, and that the book had a significant effect on the comic itself (adding Bat-Girl). Also, I don't know about a seperate article for it. Seems like the kind of thing Wikipedia:VFD would eat alive. --FuriousFreddy 14:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, it'd get through VfD just fine, trust me. Fact is, right now this article is getting to be really huge (see Wikipedia: Article size) -- at 42K, it's a lot bigger than it should be. More importantly, a lot of it isn't really so much about Batman himself as it is about how Batman has been portrayed and perceived in various circles. Batman is tremendously popular character -- hell, everyone knows who he is regardless of whether they know the details or if they're fans, but he's really recognizable. (If he wasn't, this whole discussion about homosexuality in the Batman context wouldn't be such a big thing.) -- Captain Disdain 16:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've seen this same sort of issue, though, with Adult themes in Scooby-Doo, which went through VfD with a merge consensus, but yet is constantly yanked back in and out of the main Scooby-Doo article. --FuriousFreddy 17:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, Scooby-Doo and Batman are kind of different. Also, Scooby-Doo is not hugely oversized -- this article is. And also note that this would not be another article about Batman as such, but rather a presentation of the cultural impact and significance of Batman. That's very different from basically listing a bunch of details from the source material, which is pretty much all that "Adult themes in Scooby-Doo" is. (I'm not debating the merits of that particular article; just pointing out the vital difference.) -- Captain Disdain 17:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't have a problem with it. It should be a fine idea (and a very reasonable compromise).--FuriousFreddy 17:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, tell you what, I'll work the stuff here into that new article soonish; once I've got the basics down, we can work on it and see how it comes out -- if it seems workable, we can do the switcheroo. It's not like there's any hurry here. -- Captain Disdain 18:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I for one like this idea, but not "Batman in Popular Culture" maybe Heroes in Popular Culture. it's obvious from what's been posted in 'Batman' that there isn't enough information to justify a sub-section, but adding a few more heroes into the mix and talking about everything in one article would be great, then we can write a bit about it and post a link over there. --CaptainCrash 15:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. "Batman in Popular Culture" was not the proposed title of the new article; it's an already existing section in the current Batman article that I propose could very well be moved to the new article -- again, the point would be that this main article would deal with Batman in the comic book context, and the other article could deal with Batman's status in popular culture and how he is perceived (and was perceived in the past) by various groups outside the people who actually read the comic books. Batman alone can easily support such an article, no problem -- hell, the whole TV series/movie/video game whatever thing we have on the main article now alone could would be enough in itself. Again, the article really is getting to be too big, and it's not going to get any shorter without some kind of a operation. Also, again, while I think that dealing with Wertham and the (perceived) homosexual imagery and all that should be done, since they're notable topics, it's really bogging down the main article and hurting its readability. That's why I think creating a separate article that would help. -- Captain Disdain 16:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, I understood. It was just the first thing I posted when I woke up. So it's probably a bit off the mark. Anyway I do understand and I still agree with your suggestion. --CaptainCrash 16:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to relight the gay controversy... Or not. Recall Bats (& Robin) was created at a time when most comics fans were subadolescent boys. Was it kinky for C.A. to have Bucky as a sidekick? (OK, putting the kid in deadly danger is pretty sick, but that's a whole 'nother Wertham.) How many fans "stared adoringly" at Bats? What % were (are) gay? Doesn't this aspect (the kid fans, not the adoring stares) deserve some mention? Trekphiler 16:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal of no more edits to "homosexuality" section

This is getting out of hand. User:CaptainCrash continues to remove factual information from the article, including reference ot an actual book about the subject. I propse that we cease editing on this section until re reach an actual compromise to whether or not we want to present factual information here, present the information in a seperate article (which will most likely get sen ot VfD and merged back here), or delete the information and violate the rule on Wikipedia:NPOV. --FuriousFreddy 17:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, agreed -- I already commented on this above and proposed the same thing. (I think a part of the problem here may be that a lot of this stuff, while relevant and important, is kind of getting squeezed in. That's pretty much why I proposed splitting this section of the article off, along with the other media stuff.) -- Captain Disdain 17:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
...but CaptainCrash keep editing the section, reguardless, taking out things here and there. There's not much of an issue in removing the mention of the Lingiardi book, but you don't seem to think that anyone will notice you removing the blurb about Batman and Robin continuing to be popular figures in gay culture, which has been in the article for months beforehand [1]. That is POV editing, and it needs to be resolved before I contact an admin or file a request for comment. --FuriousFreddy 17:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(Hah! Caught that edit. Got the two of us confused for a sec, huh? =)) Yeah, but he's agreed to talk about it, so it seems like a good start to me. -- Captain Disdain 17:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's a great start (aorry about the mix up. I've been seeing nothing but Captains all weekend, while editing the Captain Marvel (DC Comics) article and nominating it as an featured article candidate. --FuriousFreddy 18:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Okay. That's fine with me. Is there anyway to lock it until an agreement has been reached? --CaptainCrash 17:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We can contact a moderator to do it. Is there a way of seeing which ones are immediately available? Also, I think the section should be reverted to however it appeared a week (or even a month) ago--before this became an issue. --FuriousFreddy 17:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, as far as this goes:

rv to my change: yes it's in a book, news flash! Books contain author’s opinions. Factual info is held for encyclopaedias opinions and ideas are allowed to be in books. Provide factual info then rv

...the opinions of noted, published scholars are notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. At the very least, remove mention of the book but keep the blurb about gay culture the way it was months beforehand. --FuriousFreddy 17:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


fair enough. i'll repost it, as well as look into the author. --CaptainCrash 17:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I said above, I agree 100% with Freddy here. That was factual information -- if that's what the book says (I'm going to presume that it is, having not read it) and it is clearly presented as a noted researcher's point of view, not an universal fact (and I know that's how it was presented), there's absolutely no POV conflict here. There's no grounds for removing it. Crash, I have to say that your insistence of removing any mention of homosexuality in this article is starting to seem suspiciously like a conscious agenda to oppose any edits that would in any way link Batman to homosexuality. I mean, none of these edits have suggested that the characters are gay; just that they have been perceived to be gay or representative of gay relationships. -- Captain Disdain 17:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Having read a portion of the book, via Amazon.com. I have come to the conclusion that Vittorio Lingiardi's reasoning for why Batman and Robin are homosexual are no better than Fredric Wertham's. He uses simple idea's to try and portray the duo as homosexual such as linking Robin to homosexuality by following a string of Pseudo-Logic Robin->Pecker->Dick (as well as Grayson, Dick). He also uses Robin's Respect for his mentor and his desire to live up to the challenge of being the hero that Batman is. He also especially seems to enjoy a scene where Robin is lying on a bed in the manor, wounded. Attempting to use that to further his proposal, it’s all very weak and I stand by my decision of removing it from the article. --CaptainCrash 18:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, let's just leave it out. Also, let's leave the picture out as well, since it seems to be a touchy issue. But, again, let's leave the picture of the book in its own article and not here. --FuriousFreddy 18:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am very happy with this agreement and it doesn't look like there is anything left for me to dispute, it touches on factual problems without overstating their importance. If no one else touches it I promise to leave it alone as well. I also appreciate everyone’s civility throughout this dispute; it made it really easy to get everything solved. --CaptainCrash 18:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You stand by your decision of removing it from the article? You do realize that that means that you are imposing your POV on it? If you feel that his theories are crap, that's fine. But that's not the point; the point is whether or not they are notable enough to be worth a mention. If Lingiardi is a scholar respected by his peers (or famous or notorious enough, for that matter), it's good enough and what he says is worth a mention. (I'm not personally familiar with him, but Vittorio Lingiardi gets enough Google hits to suggest that he's not exactly a nobody.) You don't have to agree with his views, and I again point out that they were not presented as solid facts; they were presented as his views. It is important to understand this distinction and its implications. -- Captain Disdain 18:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's possible to be famous without respect, and I didn't exactly find a ton of fans of his when I tried to look up his credibility. I also did not mean to give the impression of imposing my POV I was just trying to keep the important factual data in and remove the less credible information. If he has won any valuable awards for his work, the topic can be discussed again, but it doesn't seem right to include the opinion of someone which no one has every really heard of, from a book hardly anyone has read when his ideas are questionable at best. --CaptainCrash 18:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, you've just pretty much described the majority of books on psychology. They aren't exactly bestsellers. Neither are researchers in the field exactly snowed under by groupies. -- Captain Disdain 18:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But putting that information back in would suggest the author has at least some credibility, and unless we can come to a conclusion about that, from what I understand it wouldn't follow the Wikipedia:NPOV. Unless we can come to an agreement about the credibility of the author and or book involved, I think we shouldn't touch it. --CaptainCrash 19:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, from what I can tell from Google, the guy's a professor at the faculty of psychology of the University of Rome, the author and/or editor of several books, and apparently not an unfamiliar face in the field of gay and lesbian psychology. Why wouldn't he have at least some credibility? If he's working and teaching in the field, and is a published author, surely that's worth something? Also, I don't think his book -- though I can't say for sure, as I haven't read all of it, just the sample at Amazon -- suggests that Batman and Robin are gay but, rather, it draws parallels between their relationship and traditional and mythic portrayals of male-male relationships. Which is not the same thing at all.
In fact, to quote from the sample: "Against these insinuations by Wertham, one can take another sort of psychological attitude by acknowledging that, as imaginary characters, the secret relationship between Bruce and Dick may be whatever the reader may wish to read into it: Robin can be Batman's ward (the official version), his son (a benign interpretation), or his lover (a forbidden fantasy)." It's obvious that he's talking about interpretations and the fantasy aspects of the Batman/Robin relationship, not claiming that Batman and Robin are actually engaged in a homosexual relationship. I repeat: contrary to your claim above, he does not attempt to portray the duo as homosexual. And frankly, any in-depth analysis of this book's take on Batman -- or Lingiardi's agenda on that front -- based on this sample is a joke. We only get five pages of the first (obviously introductory) chapter, and perhaps one page of that material deals with Batman and Robin. We can, however, tell that in this sample at least, he doesn't make any silly claims. (Frankly, I would have to say that your representation of the subject material above is, uh, somewhat different from how it actually reads in the sample.) -- Captain Disdain 20:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll agree that if he's the professor of psychology at the University of Rome, he might have some credibility, but psychology itself is a touchy subject. Some of the most world renowned psychologists have been proven wrong over the years. Most notably Dr. Freud, I'm sorry I don't have a source for that. I read it a while ago at my school library. So I'm not very willing to trust psychologists’ theories very easily, and finally he did make some poorly founded claims, such as I said above. He does say it can be read another way, but the emphasis is on the homosexual relationship, it is after all a book about homosexuality. --CaptainCrash 20:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Uh. At this point, I'm forced to conclude that either you do not understand what I'm saying, which may be a result of lack of clarity on my part, or your bias is showing. I'm leaning towards the latter, based on your own comments: yes, it is a book about homosexuality. And fittingly enough, this section of the article deals with Batman and Robin's (perceived) homosexual relationship. So what's the problem? That Professor Lingiardi might be proven wrong? But, see, he's not making a lot in the way of claims here, he's simply, in the sample, pointing out that the relationship between Batman and Robin can be seen as a homosexual relationship, even though the official stance is that it is not one, and that it lends itself to certain fantasies. Or are you saying that no publication that addresses the sexual fantasies or implications or interpretations related to Batman and Robin should ever be considered credible? But more importantly, even if he is proven wrong in the future, that's not the issue, because we're simply stating that Professor Lingiardi says this and that. It's not like he's making wild proclamations about the human psyche and our underlying mental processes here, but if it turns out that he is somehow massively wrong, so what? At that point, the article will be amended. It's not our job to decide whether a single researcher is right or wrong, let alone prove that in the article. We're simply reporting that a reputable researcher, in this case Professor Lingiardi, said x in publication y. Anything beyond that would get pretty close to original research. I say this again: nothing in this violates NPOV. (Furthermore, what he's saying in this (presumably introductory) chapter is really, really tame stuff. This is pretty damn close to standard psych text stuff; it just isn't controversial, and it is not a claim that Batman and Robin are doin' the nasty in the comics. Honestly, I would go so far as to say that if you continue to insist that it is, you're seriously risking your credibility as a non-biased participant here.) -- Captain Disdain 21:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It just seems that we already have a few "This Person Thinks That" in the article, if you want to add another be my guest. I just don't think it's needed. I am still unsure about his credibility, but that's my distrust of him for whatever reason and I should not have let it enter this discussion it was my mistake. I must not have understood what you were saying before, but you have made that clear. as for the NPOV, that was when we weren't sure about his credibility, and posting a quote of his would suggest he is atleast somewhat credible, discovering that he is a professor of psychology at the University of Rome has proven me wrong about that. I'm going to stick with what i've said so far. we don't need it, especially since we have the quote from Burt Ward and Wertham, but if you all agree on adding to it then go ahead. just don't question my motives for my arguments, especially if you're just playing some kind of Homophobia card to get me to back down. aside from that, if I really had a problem with the homosexuality aspect I would be arguing against the recent addition of "Batdude and Throbbin" not everyone who disagrees with you has a phobia or a hatred of something they might actually be arguing on what they believe to be well founded points, and I would thank everyone to stop bringing in Anti-Gay accusations. It doesn't really help your argument.--CaptainCrash 21:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, when you insist that a piece of text claims that Batman and Robin are in a homosexual relationship when the text itself makes it blatantly clear that they are not and that it is discussing fantasies and interpretations, it's kind of hard to assume that you are not in any way biased. Still, no offense intended, and also, thank you for taking the trouble to talk about this like a civil person. I like to think that Wikipedia tends to be pretty good about that kind of stuff, but all too often people just refuse to discuss matters at all. Appreciate the effort. I think we're done here -- Freddy, I think you can do your thang now, yeah? (Uh, I should also add that there may well be some other arguments against including that part in the article, though I can't see any -- it's just that the author's lack of credibility or POV problems aren't among them. So, y'know, if you come up with something that seems important to you, please don't hesitate to bring it up.) -- Captain Disdain 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't say blatantly clear when he, himself points out allusions in Dick Grayson's name and Robin (Robin, Pecker, Dick) and how it's not just a coincidence. as well as how creatures of the air flutter about in their very names. --CaptainCrash 21:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"...as imaginary characters, the secret relationship between Bruce and Dick may be whatever the reader may wish to read into it: Robin can be Batman's ward (the official version), his son (a benign interpretation), or his lover (a forbidden fantasy)." How is this not a blatantly clear statement that officially Robin is Batman's ward and that any sexual relationship between them is a fantasy? (It's, uh, kind of the very point he's making there.) -- Captain Disdain 22:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You mean the little blurb for liabilities sake? DC made it clear that they don't want Batman and Robin represented that way and if he takes note of it, atleast a tiny bit in one paragraph then completely ignores that fact he can say whatever he wants without the fear of legal action. --CaptainCrash 00:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Uh, if you're suggesting that DC would sue an Italian professor over a psychology text that doesn't say anything nobody has ever said before unless he points out DC's official position -- never mind that the very point he's making in the first place is about the fantasy element... okay. Look, if you really believe that he's saying that Batman and Robin really are presented as being in a homosexual relationship -- that they're really gay characters -- I think that about wraps up this conversation. That's, uh -- I'm kind of at a lack of words here. I can't imagine why it's such an issue for you and I can't understand why you would insist on believing that. You do realize that he's talking about myths, symbols, fantasies and parallels here, not analyzing Batman in the context of the Batman comics for the sake of making a case for Batman being gay? I mean, no offense, but have you ever read a psych text before? Are you familiar with the field at all? You seem to think that this is some kind of outlandish or controversial material. It's not. -- Captain Disdain 08:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let me know when you want this page protected, if that's still necessary, although you guys seem to be doing a quite admirable job of working this out through dialogue. Much better than the elvis fanatics, at any rate. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry my work has created so much chaos, but let's clear a couple of things up. It is absurd to claim that Batman "is" this or that, or to "defend" him. All I am doing is documenting one particular aspect of people's takes on this character, their readings of meaning and feeling into the story line, and the way that has played through cultures and subcultures. I am keeping to material that is written by serious scholars. Which brings me to my second point. It borders on comical for some of the contributors here to presume to pass judgement on the validity of recognized academics or entire branches of science. If you are going participate in the building of an encyclopeadia you will have to set aside your own opinions and do some serious study of existing science. If you block other users who are reporting on ongoing scholarly study because it runs against your personal opinions then you are simply catering to your personal comfort, which is not what this game is about. Prove me wrong, bring counterarguments from serious people, but don't censor me. It is my intent to create a short critical section - with appropriate illustrations - exploring a side to Batman's culturalization that was and is very important to a great many people, both young and old. I agreed here to integrate my work into an existing sub-section, as a gesture of collegiality. I did not agree to have my work subject to censorship. I grew up under communism, I have had enough of that. Haiduc 01:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


By pure coincidence and for interest, Paul Varnell's take: [2]. Exploding Boy 02:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I have not heard of Paul Varnell either, but I appreciate how he point's out some of the logical fallacies I've been thinking about, such as why Wertham did not talk about any of the non-gay batman fans and why it didn't affect them. --CaptainCrash 02:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, for the record, I don't think anyone here is in any way defending Wertham -- hell, the guy's head was lodged firmly somewhere between fanaticism and outright crackpottery, an area that is colloquially known as "his own ass". But he was a notable figure and he had an impact. It's not Wikipedia's mission to give people the correct opinions, but to inform them of all notable opinions and views out there. This article, for example, is most definitely not the place to point out Wertham's logical fallacies in detail -- that should happen in articles devoted to Wertham or his works, and even then only so far as events, society or other scholars have proven him wrong; anything beyond that again borders on original research, which is a big no-no. Also, I really want to make it clear that I fully support Haiduc in this matter; he's very much in the right here and I think that removing his perfectly reasonable edits has been the wrong thing to do. Now, I'm not in a good position to guess at the motivations behind those removals without inviting the kind of debate that gets real personal real quick (though I have to point out that insiting that writing about the character's considerable cultural significance and influence in homosexual culture and imagery is the same thing as claiming that Batman is gay doesn't exactly suggest that anyone making such a claim is perfectly comfortable with the subject matter at hand, particularly as what Haiduc wrote was completely true, relevant and expressed in a neutral fashion). I am, however, in a great position to say that the removals were misguided. -- Captain Disdain 15:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's very pathetic that something that started out innocent was wrenched into something perverse. Ereinion 18:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Batman in popular culture section

I searched the topics noted in this section and it has come to my attention that every topic in that section has already been addressed in wikipedia in as much detail given in the section itself, it seems redundant. Such as Fredric Wertham's opinion on the sexuality of Batman and Robin, but Especially the paragraph containing "Batman is known as being..." which is not only partially out of place, but mostly redundant with information given in this very article! This whole section should be revamped to provide some kind of usefulness or it should be removed. It might be constructive to relocate the information in this section to other sub-sections which better fit the information given, and perhaps the information could be cut down to not be redundant but to also provide the user with the information and a link to the article on the subject, So they do not lose access to the information, but it no longer clutters up an article with redundancy. I thought since this would be such a big change, I should bring it to the attention to all the editors of this article before I touch anything. --CaptainCrash 06:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, uh, that's kind of what I was talking about above. That Reorganization thing, remember? Splitting a whole bunch of that stuff off and reworking it into a different article about how Batman has been portrayed and perceived beyond the context of comics and comics readers? -- Captain Disdain 08:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have not gone over this article with a fine-tooth comb so I cannot speak to how to reorganize it, but as far as size I do not think it is overly big, and as far as what to split off, I definitely think that the cultural aspects, including the appeal of the duo to pro- and anti-gay polemicists, need to be clearly included in their own section. Should that section grow too big, then the bulk of the material could be split off into specialty articles as long as a solid synopsis of a paragraph or so was left behind, as we do in many other articles here. Haiduc 11:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, as I noted earlier (see discussion above) the article itself is already at about 42K, which is too big. Clearly something needs to be separated into its own article; this section, along with with "Batman in Other Media", seems like the best option. (I'm not saying that these section aren't important; quite the contrary, I think they're very important. Luckily, their nature is such that they can also stand on their own if presented properly and in the right context (ie. not "stuff about Batman", which is what this article is about, but rather "stuff about how Batman has been portrayed to and perceived by people outside the fandom"). I'm working on a version of that right now. -- Captain Disdain 15:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well Haiduc has done an excellent job of looking up some of his points, why don't we take them and imporve other articles. Such as Burt Wards, which I 'think' doesn't mention his comment about the sexuality at all, or Wertham's which just lightly touches the subject of Batman and Robin. just my two cents --CaptainCrash 16:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. As for splitting the article up, I'll second taking the "Other media" section out, after leaving some kind of summary here. As for the "Popular culture" material, as far as I can see the only reason for removing it from the article is to satisfy the desire of a couple of editors to sanitize the article by removing any discussion of gender bending of the Batman figure. I think we would be doing a disservice to our readers if we were to jump on the heterosexualization bandwagon, as well as politicizing and infantilizing what should be a comprehensive discussion of this figure in this culture. The section absolutely belongs in the article, as was obvious to everyone until I started developing the subsection on homoerotic interpretations.
I confess to being a bit of a novice in this field, and I am only beginning to explore all the ramifications of others' homoerotic interpretations, but I have been fascinated to find out that a major American TV chain had a series of episodes sending up B&R on precisely this theme (The Ambiguously Gay Duo) and in a 1989 Batman comic one of the characters (the Joker, if I am not mistaken) specifically accuses Batman of "pederasty." To say nothing about the elephant in our very living room, that 1940 cover reproduced in the article, in which the heroes are swinging through the air, focused not on their risky journey or on other dangers at hand, but staring rapturously at each other. Any critical analysis worth its salt would jump on that with both feet. So, far from there being little more to say on this topic, as postulated by a user the other day, there seems to be no limit of material that is relevant and illuminates a strong tradition of homoerotic interpretation dating back almost to the very beginning of the series. It may well be that this topic alone will merit its own article, but again not as part of a campaign of "ethnic cleansing" of the main article. I followed the link provided by Captain Disdain to the covention on article size, and would like to highlight a very important and relevant sentence: In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary.
A couple of final points: the sentence that "modern readers find homoerotic interpretations preposterous and outrageous" (or however it is worded) is pure homophobia and left as such is nothing but a soapbox for a few outraged users. And the section on his love interests needs to be prefaced by something indicating that these ladies were introduced in large part to put to rest gossip about his sexual leanings. The section makes him out as some kind of Lothario, instead of the wounded, tortured, lonely man he really "is." Haiduc 23:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with a note being entered in the love interests section, maybe something saying "Initially Batman's Love Interests were a way to show that the character is infact heterosexual, specfically his relationship with Batwoman, but since then accusations have mostly dropped he's been treated like a regular DC hero with occasional women in his life, such as the Green Lantern's Interest in Hawkgirl and Vixen in the Justice League animated series.", but a little more thought put into it, i'm assuming you've read the comic's and seen the television series, Bruce Wayne is depicted as a playboy, but his alter-ego Batman is also interested in women, mostly tough women who can handle themselves, which can be seen in his taste of superheroines, such as catwoman, wonder woman and zatanna. also I still think this paragraph "Batman is known as being..." is redundant of the section on evolution of the concept and supporting characters so I think that should be thrown out, especially since it's belonging in the Pop Culture section is questionable. The mention of the Porno seems thrown in to add controversey, maybe Haiduc could place it somewhere else in the section to make it fit better, it seems odd just trailing at the end. Also Burt Ward's comments about having sex with fan's in costumes, which he made in his autobiography, are conspicuously absent. Maybe a small sentance regarding that could be added. This could show that the section is not just about Batman's Homosexual interpretations and might keep people open minded about the section as a whole. Also on the not of the "modern readers find..", I think the sentance just needs a bit of reworking, that is if you are talking about this one "Most current comic book readers regard Wertham's accusations, particularly those about Batman being gay, as utterly baseless as well as slanderous." Remove the end of it "as well as slanderous", that was mine, it's accurate but probably breaks the NPOV. I thought it was removed before but someone re-inserted it. Most people do find this accusation baseless though, and think that most of the people who agree with it are looking to deep into things.
i modified that a bit so if something doesn't make sense just point it out and ill tell you what point i was trying to convey. --CaptainCrash 23:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Slanderous"? C'mon, that's just... I mean, Batman is a fictional character; you can't slander him, and furthermore, why would the claim that someone is gay be slanderous -- unless you consider being gay a bad thing, of course? Really, I don't think there's any need to comment on Wertham's theories beyond that; it's enough to tell people how they affected Batman. Public reaction to Wertham and how he is currently seen isn't a Batman issue; it's a Wertham issue -- and thus something that should be dealt with in Wertham's own article. That whole sentence is pretty bad and, I agree with Haiduc, something that certainly seems like homophobia regardless of its author's motivations. -- Captain Disdain 00:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I know, at the time of writing the book, most people would have considered it slanderous. that was what i was thinking about when i wrote it. It's not nice to say but there weren't alot of fans of homosexuality in the 50's, but fans of Batman today probably don't think of it as slanderous but they do find the accusations baseless. that's why i approve the removal of that part. i thought it was actually removed but apparently someone put it back in. --CaptainCrash 01:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Uh, no. I doubt they'd consider it slanderous, because you cannot slander a fictional character. They might consider it offensive (well, a lot of people did) or false (it was false), but slanderous it ain't. From a legal point of view, fictional characters don't have reputations that can be ruined by slander. That's why using the word in that context in an article is a bad idea. -- Captain Disdain 01:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that according to the law you couldn't slander a fictional character. Then yes, it was a poor choice of words. Offensive fits much better then anything I guess, you can go ahead and change it. unless we are revamping the whole section then you could just remove it until then. --CaptainCrash 01:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Haiduc, please let me assure you that I am in no way interested in sanitizing the article. I don't have a problem with there being a short mention of the subject (along with other subjects such as the movies, TV series, video games, the huge popularity of the campy Adam West TV version, etc.) here, with a link to a more detailed treatment of the subject. It's just that this article is a whopper. It's huge. It's not a real pleasure to read; by the time people get to the part about Batman's cultural significance, they're exhausted. Let me make this clear: I'm not at all interested in whether the subject matter at hand is controversial; I'm simply interested in the readability of the article. I'm not looking to hide anything. Again, the idea would be to have two articles: one about Batman, ie. a description of the character and his history almost purely in the context of the comics, and another about Batman's cultural significance. That's the only way of doing it I can think of that would actually make both articles capable of standing on their own. I find the idea of any kind of "ethnic cleansing" distasteful at best and am most emphatically not attempting to sweep the matter under the carpet, as it were -- this is not a "they can have their equal rights as long as they do it over there where they don't bother anyone" situation, I promise. Hell, to ensure that both articles can be easily found (since I consider both of them to be important), I wouldn't object to the "Batman" page being a disambiguation page where people can pick whether they're interested in reading about the character himself or about his place in popular culture. That way there'd be no risk of the other article being hidden and out of sight. (That might not be an acceptable solution to the rest of Wikipedia at large, but I wouldn't object to it. Oh, and a fairly similar solution would be to have a "This article is about Batman in the context of comic books; to read about Batman's role in popular culture, see X" note right in the very beginning of the article -- that's an accepted practice in Wikipedia and would ensure very high visibility for the topic.) -- Captain Disdain 00:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I always just assumed we'd link to this secondary article. It wouldn't be very fair to Haiduc if we just moved his portion and didn't tell anyone. no one would know where to look. we should place a small blurb, maybe 2-3 sentances, maybe in evolution of the concept since the accusations affect his evolution, or in the television series where the issue was the most apparent. --CaptainCrash 01:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that splitting the section about Batman's cultural influence and keeping the character history stuff here is a little bit backwards. "If you want to know about Batman's continuity, see Batman; if you want to know why Batman is important in pop culture, see Batman in popular culture." Makes very little sense to me. -Sean Curtin 05:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I do think that the article, as it is, is getting to be kind of unmanageable and, more importantly, pretty unpleasant to read. There's that huge chunk of character history, and another huge chunk of publication history, and then we get into the controversy and the movies and whatnot... I do believe that stuff to be relevant, but when it's all thrown in together, it doesn't work very well, and when the article is as big as it is, I'm skeptical as to whether all of the information can be included without sacrificing readability... and it's worth noting that as Batman continues to be a tremendously popular character, the page is only going to get bigger and bigger. Also, personally, I'd love to see a more in-depth treatment of Batman's cultural significance, but doing one in the context of this article isn't very appealing simply because it's so unwieldy as it is... but as I said before, it's just an idea; I'm certainly not going to start hacking away at random here or anything; that's why I brought it up here before. If you have any suggestions or ideas as to how this problem could be solved, I'm all ears. (Also, do you (and others) agree that the article has these problems, or is it perhaps just me? I mean, I realize that that is also a possibility.) -- Captain Disdain 10:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You said before that you had worked on a test article to see how it would work? is it up somewhere, where we can see it? --CaptainCrash 16:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not yet, really. You're gonna have to wait a little, actually; I'm getting out of town today and won't be back until next week -- but I haven't by any means abandoned the idea. -- Captain Disdain 11:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vetting materials on homoerotic interpretations

I have come across a curious image

Unidentified comic book panel
Unidentified comic book panel

and I would be grateful for any help people could provide in identifying the comic book and the date of publication. By the way, I have also re-organized the article, pending any splitting, so as to make it more readable. Haiduc 00:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I like how you've edited it, cleaned it up a bit it's alot better. i hope you don't mind but i removed that one paragraph that doesn't seem to be on popculture at all just a summary of evolution of concept and of supporting characters. if you do mind you can put it back it just didn't seem to fit, also i have seen that picture before and i'm trying to look up what issue/comic it's from, looks like JLA. --CaptainCrash 01:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I found it "The original issue was Justice League of America #44. Published in 1966.", i'll let you edit that in how you want. It's also worth notting that most people feel it's a normal way for a parent/guardian to react. --CaptainCrash 01:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Edit, I also found this http://forums.comicbookresources.com/attachment.php?s=f2b6fe869e77b5ed0dd48dacf8131b9a&attachmentid=6581 heh
Thank you!! That's pretty remarkable, how you found that. As for the paragraph you edited out, I am not sure what to say. You are probably right that it does not fit in pop culture - I did not notice it before but now I see your point. On the other hand it seems to be interesting material that could go into another section. Up to you. The cover with Robin tackling that bad guy is delightful, and just that. Haiduc 02:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS I would like to have some image buttressing the argument that these figures have been interpreted as homoerotic. Any thoughts?
I edited it out because most of it was already in evolution of the concept and supporting characters, but i appreciate you coming here before doing anything about it. if you find something unique in that paragraph then you should go ahead and place it where ever you feel it fits best. Also i would suggest looking at the campy tv show for anything you could use regarding the point about the interpretations of their sexuality, that's going to be the place where most people are convinced. also early comics, where the writers for the most part didn't notice some of the jokes, like that picture up there. if you want i could take a look around for pictures from the show, because everything after that was done a little extra heterosexual just to fight off the criticism, and i guess my final note would be you really don't want to just take any pictures of batman and robin in any homosexual posses. to best prove your point you want to take as much as you can right from DC. --CaptainCrash 02:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
edit, also you should point out the actual interpretation of the pictures you use and then the homosexual interpretations just to show where he's actually coming from and where people got their idea's from, like that picture up there you could say that usually people interpret it as Batman's Concern over his adopted son, but the most obvious interpretation is that he has feelings for robin like the other heroes care about their female companions, and you can also note that the writing had alot to do with misinterpretation of their relationship, sorry if im going on a bit about this, i know it's mostly your section so i am going to let you write it how you want.


Image:Cfig340.jpg, there's an image i found from the show that you could use. --CaptainCrash 02:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, that would work as an example of how the TV show spoofed their relationship, but we should have something reflecting the readership's interpretation. There is a bunch of pretty crude stuff out there that would be inappropriate here, but a couple of gentler scenes, such as this or that kiss that I posted a while back. Opinions? Haiduc 12:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, i tried thinking of something today but i couldn't. I'm just posting this so you know i'm thinking about it. I'll tell you if i get any ideas. --CaptainCrash 18:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

In order to present this aspect of Batman culture it seems necessary to have:
1. An example of suggestive art (and I would prefer the panel identified by CaptainCrash above, since we are mainly talking about the comic book medium), and
2. An example of "ousider" art - such as the kiss I originally posted or the Chamberlain kiss picture, showing how readers have taken this suggested aspect of Batman and expanded on it. Also, mention should be made of the studio's efforts to distance Batman from Robin as a reflection of societal changes in which men fooling around with boys went from amusing peccadillo to major crime.

other references and appearences

i think it might be a significant edit to add in some of batman's other appearances. for instance, i think it would be an excellent idea to include mention of the multiple batman cameo appearences on Scooby Doo (or was it "scooby doo and friends?"), and the show Batman Beyond (which unfortunately is how most children today know batman). I feel that this artical focuses too heavily on the comic books, and doesnt offer a fair share of information for the predominantly TV/Movie fans of batman. --Whiteknight 03:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Batman and superman

the relationship between batman and superman is mentioned several times in this artical, but is never truely explained. i worry that the topic of their relationship is too narrow a topic to warrant another page, but perhaps a short blurb on this artical to describe why in some media they are perfectly friendly, and in other media, they have more of an uneasy truce. i also think it might be worth disscussing in more depth how batman's lack of "super powers" works to his advantage and disadvantage in super hero groups such as Justice League. --Whiteknight 04:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I like both you're ideas but we are kind of stressed on space, we have to cut back on some of the topics we already have. If you really want to go ahead with some of those ideas make new articles and we can link to them from this one. --CaptainCrash 04:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Relationship between Batman and Superman? Like Batman and Robin it appears that these two were quite gay. Image:WorldsFinest289-02.0.jpg Image:WorldsFinest289-01.2.jpg Is there any doubt? This should go into the main article immediately. Dyslexic agnostic 19:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

yeah! you are so right! you Are dyslexic!--T for Trouble-maker 10:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Batman's Utility Belt

i made a page about his belt, Batman's Utility belt. i linked to it in this article where it mentions the belt, and im posting this in here, if anyone has anything to contribute to it feel free. --CaptainCrash 05:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not at all certain that Batman's utility belt needs a page of its own (especially since the various gadgets and devices on it always change). Can't we just summarize and include the information here? --FuriousFreddy 16:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wanted to but this section is already too big as it is we can't add anyting else here till we delete stuff we don't need. --CaptainCrash 18:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comic Panel

Panel from Justice League of America #44
Panel from Justice League of America #44

It is taken out of context and being spun as a homosexual reference. I will continue to delete it if I see it. Liek I said earlier, if Superman saved Jimmy Olsen, that doesn't mean that it's possible evidence of a homosexual relationship, it's simply evidence of contact between two men. I have NO PROBLEM with the additions of the homosexual Batman ideas on this page, but taking panels out of context is too much.AriGold 15:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

True, though the panel is pretty funny, it's not encyclopedic out of context. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think the point of the panel is that it is exactly images like these that lead to the Batman-as-gay image, not, if this is one of the concerns going on here, as evidence that Batman is gay. Yeah, its taken out of context, and yeah, its being given a double meaning that likely wasn't intended (though wow, its not at all hard to see that double meaning there). But here's the deal as I see it. Most likely none of the writers meant to make Batman look gay. Nonetheless, people see panels like that and say, "wow! Hey, Batman and Robin - what's the deal there?" We've got a whole section with quotes and references talking about just that phenomenon. It makes sense to add an image if that image helps to explain what they're seeing, how they're seeing it, and why they come to the conclusions they come to. It doesn't make sense to add an image if that image is being used to encourage readers to come to the same conclusions these psychologists, theorists, etc. have come to. Getting readers to come to one or another conclusion isn't our business here. Explaining terms, events, icons, etc. is, and if an image can help us do that it should remain. -Seth Mahoney

There is a major problem when people who are not writers and have not studied the art take it upon themselves to pass judgement on the mechanics of writing. This particular piece is not "taken out of context." It creates its own context. It does not "prove that Batman is gay" or a pederast. It simply shows the writers having fun with that allusion and with the readers' expectations. The mechanisms (and I use that word advisedly, since good writing is part art and part mechanics) used here are as old as the world, and still used daily by stand-up comics everywhere. Thus the sense that it is "pretty funny," as a user mentioned above, is not an accident of fate that the "naive" writers "unintentionally" brought about for us "savvy" readers to laugh at, but rather a carefully wrought mechanism carefully constructed by very savvy writers to elicit a particular reaction from a (sometimes) naive readership in order to give them what they paid for and to keep them coming back, since this - besides being art and science - is also commerce. The reason you don't see this anymore (except out of the mouths of bad guys, like the Joker) is that public morality has changed and this instead of bring the buyers back would drive them away. So, self-appointed Mrs. Grundy's would do well to read a couple of basic books on the writer's trade (Lajos Egri's works are a good place to begin) before attempting literary criticism by the seat of the pants, to put it politely. Haiduc 11:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
You may have more experience in writing than me, though I bet I could give you a run for your money if we compared works published, but more importantly I am quite confident that I have have studied the art of comic books and the history of them far more than you (going on 20+ years of serious study). I have researched the panel you keep insisting to include and nowhere have I found any evidence of "the writers having fun with that allusion", rather I suggest you are making that assumption because you want it to be so. Prove me wrong by showing me definitive proof that it was the writers' (Gardner Fox) intention to make such a joke and I will stop removing the panel. Short of that, it is simply your opinion and not a fact and I will continue to remove it. Note: I will not accept Wertham Was Right! by Mark Evanier as proof. Also, don't feel the need to "put it politely" when it comes to having a discussion with me. I'll be the first to tell you that I think your acting like a cocksucker with an agenda here, rather than an unbiased writer. AriGold 20:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
You write? My apologies for suggesting you were ignorant of basic writing techniques, then. On the other hand, the worse for you for not acknowledging what is clear to any writer. As for agenda, it must be nice not to have one.
Several people now (including your own invitee) have disagreed with you about this panel, but you keep on deleting it, threatening to continue undoing others' work, and substituting force for reason both in your tone and in your actions. Are you willing to try to find some middle ground by working up some explanatory text to go along with and further contexualize the panel? Haiduc 11:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, then might I ask that you stop deleting the line I added about Werthem's other attacks on the comic book world?
Gladly. 23:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)(sig bombed)Haiduc 00:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I was asked by AriGold to comment here as someone new to the issue/neutral. My opinion is that if you are going to admit references to the Batman/Robin gay relationship, this panel is perfectly illustrative of the kind of comments that have given him such a reputation and, as such, it belongs in the article (as clearly supporting evidence). →Raul654 21:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all whether the writers intended this to be a subtle joke or if they accidentally created the double entendre—in either case you can easily argue that it contributes to the Batman-is-gay image without ever veering into the realm of speculation. This panel has long been a source of snickering on the matter; Wikipedia isn't making that up on the spot. Of course we don't know what the writers' intent was, barring like, you know, evidence, rather than original research. So we shouldn't offer any opinion on that either way (my personal opinion is that the writer(s) knew perfectly well what they were doing here, but that's just how I think about it). I notice that the caption to the image is silent on that matter, so what's the problem here? 82.92.119.11 22:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have some serious problems with the caption being used.

The placement of Batman's reference to Robin at the end of a series of sexual innuendoes renders what by itself would be a reasonable parental reaction into a comical punch line with homoerotic overtones.

First of all, the previous comments really aren't a string of sexual innuendos. It just shows each of the main character being concerned about the person they care about most, I have a hard time seeing how you find sexual innuendo in that. The joke in this case seems to be mostly unintentional, it's been a www.superdickery.com reference as well and my understanding was that it was from a much older issue, trying to claim intent on the part of the author seems to be a bit much. Including the picture as a reference to some of the jokes or claims made about Batman is one thing, but the caption implies that this interpretation is the correct or intended one.--BigCow 02:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

That comic panel has a humorous twist to it, but I think all this foofaraw on whether Batman, a fictional character, was "gay" is ridiculous. A fictional character is gay only if he has been portrayed as such in the authorized fiction. Batman has not been portrayed as gay, but he has on the other hand been shown in heterosexual relationships, both in the comics and on-screen. So Batman is intended to be a heterosexual character. Case closed, in my opinion. Decius 08:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Decius about Batman, Robin has also been portrayed only in heterosexual relationships such as the ones with batgirl and starfire so Robin is not gay either.Dick Grayson

Batman the violent avenger

User DrachenFyre restored the following text, which I had deleted:

"Initially, the "Bat-Man" was a violent avenger who carried a pistol and left his foes dead more often than not (similar to The Punisher)."

This statement is false or misleading as given. I looked at the earliest 11 stories (the ones preceding the debut of Robin) in my copy of Batman Archives #1.

In these stories, Batman did not carry or use a pistol except for one time when he was fighting vampires and needed a silver bullet.

It may be literally true that he left his foes more often dead than not (an exact count is hard--how do you count him fighting the same guy twice?), but when stated that way it's misleading. When Batman killed his foes it was in such ways as him hitting someone and the guy falling out a window, or into a tank of acid, or onto a sword, or such. Except for the vampires, who are monsters and not human beings, Batman notably does *not* shoot villains, say "I'm going to kill you" (except one time, when he left the guy alive!), choke people to death, chop their heads off, or otherwise show any evidence that he directly intends to kill anyone. He is certainly not like the Punisher, who does intentionally kill people.

There is an urban legend that Batman commonly carried a gun and intentionally killed people. It arose in the decades following the Golden Age, when it was impossible for most fans to get the original stories and prove the urban legend false. Now that those early stories have been reprinted, there is no reason for this falsehood to persist.

I'm deleting the text again. Please don't restore it unless you can support your claim. Ken Arromdee 14:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


I just looked again and he has a gun in the splash page of #35. However, this splash page isn't part of the story and he has no gun in the story itself. Ken Arromdee 23:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Additional reading

  • The Untold legend of the Batman, three part mini-series. To be add to the list. Batman's origins and history pre Frank Miller.--Brown Shoes22 14:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Age of Batman

Batmans Age is one long time unsolved question which I finnaly found a comparative new answer to: In "Death & the Maidens #1" Bruce remembers his parents murder happend exactly 25 years before. This is disproportional accurate I think. And "Superman & Batman Secret Files & Origins 2003" states, that Bruce was 10 (not 8, as said in the article) while that happened. (He was 8, everyone knows that.--A_gx7)
<BR> This only leaves two questions:
1. How much time passed since Death & the Maidens in DCU
2. Is there information, being newer than the sources named above proving or disproving this?

Image

I know why my edit was reverted the first time (some of the bottom text was cut off), but I made sure that didnt happen the second time. What's so wrong with switching the Lee images, as the other one has a better focus on him (as opposed to the 608 cover, which shows him from the side)? --DrBat 12:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Lee image is fine as is. If you reference both the Superman and Wonder Woman pages, you'll see that their images are also profile images. Perhaps it is an underlying sign by dedicated comic fans to have the DC Trinity in similar poses? Whilst your other image is perfectly acceptable, the Lee image just seems to "fit". - DrachenFyre 17:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Other Media: Batman Beyond

Does anyone else feel it is important to diclose that Terry McGuinness, Batman of the Future, is, genetically speaking, Bruce's son as revealed in the Justice League League Unlimited 3rd (or 5th depending how you count) season finale "Epilouge"?RandallFlagg 20:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate in the "other media" section under "television". Certainly worth mentioning for its high plot significance. Ereinion 03:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Extraneous links

I don't really see a reason to have a link to a diffrent page almost every other word. So I'm going to edit them out unless they have something to do with the Batman mythos in someway. Whispering 21:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC) disambiguation link repair (You can help!)