Talk:Cassandra Cain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Archives

Talk:Cassandra Cain/Archive 1

[edit] Disturbing

User:75.19.43.67 that started the "narrative hyperbole" discussion is now User:70.38.10.21, and he wishes to put in a statement such as "In Robin #152, Batman states that he believes Cassandra is mentally disturbed and seems to bare no remorse for her change" based on this scene: http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/wikiscans/Robin152a.jpg http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p32/wikiscans/Robin152b.jpg

Don't get me wrong, I actually think there's plenty of evidence that she's being written as being plain loopy. I just think it's a stretch to look at that scene and then essentially put into the article "Batman's response is that he thinks she's crazy". The scene is mainly about him cheering Tim up, not talking about Cassandra. Given that I think this user has an axe to grind against the character, I suspect he's trying to add this not because he feels it's a good addition to the article, but because he's looking for things he thinks will "hurt" this fictional character.D1Puck1T 09:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can believe it. Still, this sounds like kind of a user/vandal thing. Issue warnings—final ones, if you already have—and consider asking for Admin help. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Actually I agree that the scene does indeed show that Batman regards Cassandra as crazy. The phrase is "that's just proof of how disturbed she is." He -does- outright -say- she is disturbed-- obviously not physically thus mentally. It can't be interpreted any other way. I agree the point of the scene was to alleviate Tim of his hysterics... But that doesn't negate the fact that Batman, who was her mentor and father figure, currently regards the character as disturbed. This is an important point, and shouldn't be neglected. I'm not going to make a change because the current consensus is that it's unacceptable, but please reconsider given my current argument. I'll register a handle later.--AltonBrownFTW 15:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While I am *NOT* a Cassandra/Batgirl fan, I actually believe this would give clout to the controversy argument SUPPORTING Cassandra. Prior to One Year Later, the relationship between Cain and Batman was so close the two seemed like blood relatives. For Bruce to completely wash his hands of her is unrealistic considering he has tolerated more from characters such as Catwoman, Huntress and Talia Al Ghul. It seems Batman would at least make an ATTEMPT to correct whatever has happened to her before dismissing her. If another image displaying Bruce's affection for Cass prior to OYL could be found i think it would make an interesting section in the article.Bookkeeperoftheoccult 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Savecass blog

It seems it needs to be pointed out again, but it is not considered acceptable practice to link to a blog on wiki, unless some other primary source has mentioned that blog by name. Since the Wizard article did not specifically name the savecass site, it is not acceptable to link to it. If a news outlet, such as CBR, silverbullet, or wizardworld mentions the site by name, then it's acceptable to link to it.D1Puck1T 09:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's also deceptive and inappropriate to, for example, link the word "websites". An ambiguous quote/mention should be left as such. Assuming a reference or inserting one is against policy. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked to make another comment, so I guess I might as well. Unnecessarily adding quotes from a single storyline to the character history seems quite pointless. However important they may seem to fans, these quotes are not famous and only as a redundant reiteration of the points already stated by none quoted text. Also, "websites" should not be capitalized. That's it, DrBat. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the quotes being added, I don't believe they add enough to the article to merit inclusion. I'd be willing to hear the reasoning, but there doesn't seem anything there that couldn't be summed up effectively without using quotes.D1Puck1T 23:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I never capitalized the word website. I just added the link (and btw, it's the only website made to protest the change to Cass).
I don't think the text was clear enough so I added the quotes, but if it's that big a deal I'll just try making the text clearer. --DrBat 04:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with clarifying the text in whatever way you think it needs it. It would likely be shorter and easier to understand from a casual reader's point of view.D1Puck1T 04:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This, and the other savecass blog section should be merged, or one should be archived. Please refer to my points in the other section, merge, respond, so forth. I agree using Save Cass blog as a resource is ridiculous, but not pointing it out as an example of fan reaction seems equally ridiculous. Dan Didio refers to "Websites" being started in reaction to Cassandra Cain's character change, however there is, to my knowledge, only one such website founded for that purpose. Through pigeon hole principle, Save Cass has then been indirectly referred to in the so called mainstream lexicon. Nevertheless, my prior points stand. Is it being withheld due to POV issues?AltonBrownFTW 07:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Cute insinuation, but there's no POV issue. At least, not on the part of the anti-spammers. I'll give you a little challenge, though. Prove that this "savecass" is the only site. That's probably the biggest weakness in the argument. If you could prove that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, reconsidering may be in order. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You can't prove a negative, please provide a more reasonable 'challenge' or provide constraints defining. I don't mean to make you feel confrontational-- I just felt there was a lot of emotion in the arguments both for, and against, and I found both sides were able to clearly see the issue. Everyone just seemed to be talking at each other, not with.
Until further constraints of what a reasonable search to preclude the existence of more websites founded purely in reaction to the change of Batgirl are provided, I will assume reasonable means entering "Cassandra Cain Website" and "Cassandra Cain Evil" on google (english) and without quotes, then examining the first 100 hits in each case. My results are as follows.
In case I, there are 100 pages examined. Of the first 10 pages, save cass dot com is the 9th, and of the other 100, not a single one is focused on Cassandra Cain OYL reaction. The only other site dedicated to Cassandra Cain, misproject dot org forward slash cass, links to Save Cass.
In case II, there are 100 pages examined. Of the first 10 pages, save cass dot com, is the 1st 2nd hit, and none of the other 100 are pages whose purpose directly relates to Cassandra Cain, let alone reaction OYL changes in the character.
Finally, of all the 100 links hit, a great many community forums (SBC, CBR, Girl-Wonder) mention and link to Save Cass, but make zero mention of any other such websites.
I feel that the point is rather incontrovertible, but I am anything but infallible, and perhaps I'm missing something obvious, or inserting site-biased search terms.
Thoughts? AltonBrownFTW 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have to be "fair". The unreasonable part of this is the claim that there is no other site Dan could be referring to. I never said "use Google" or even show me search engine results. I'm telling you to prove your point, outright. If there is another site or even the possibility of one, linking to "savecass" is biased at best and spam/vandalism at worst. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you do have to be fair. The unreasonable part of this, again, is that you are asking me to prove a negative. I refer you to this article in Wikipedia. You would know it as its commonly referred to phrase "Burden of proof." It is impossible to prove that that is the only site founded in reaction to OYL, it is literally, completely, impossible. Even if I were to type in every possible combination of IP address into my google search engine, there could still exist a website on someone's harddrive that's only connected to a local network. Thus, if you want to be considered a legitimate voice of disagreement, you must provide something legitimate to disagree with. As it is, you're merely making it more obvious to anyone who might read that you are toting a Point of View. Within reasonable resources, I have shown that Http://www.savecass.com is not only within the constraints of Didio's phrasing (Websites, plural, existing that were created in response to the change), but it appears to also be not only the only one referred to among the most mainstream fangroups, but the only one in existence. It is within your power to prove me wrong, if I am indeed wrong. I cannot prove me right within the context you've provided. AltonBrownFTW 21:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me add, I said Reasonable, not fair. There is a difference. Fair implies balance. If you are saying you have NPOV, but are not fair, then you are contradicting yourself and you must choose one or the other. I said Reasonable, again. Reasonable means, within reason. You need to be logical and reasonable, or there's no reason to speak, as you are simply dictating what is the case, which is as much the antithesis of Wikipedia as possible.AltonBrownFTW 21:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe Dan knows something we don't. I'm not going to bother with this, though. The site wasn't mentioned by name. That's it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are using an argument that cannot be refuted based on its merits, but because it's an impossible argument to refute logically/inherently... Again, I've made a good faith effort to show that there is legitimate cause for adding Save Cass back to the article.
The only reason used to not include the blog in the article I have called into question. You have made the assertion it does not belong in the article, I have refuted your evidence. Please provide more evidence, or should no further objections be filed, I will begin initiating an edit. So you understand what I'm talking about, I would suggest the inclusion of something to the effect of "There is, in fact, only one website currently founded in reaction to the changes in Cassandra Cain's character in the One Year Later storyline, LINK HERE." Until such evidence can be found to refute this line, or its legitimacy, then I cannot conceive of a reason not to include this line.
Merry Christmas, AltonBrownFTW 23:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
To put in a third opinion; what this discussion is missing is a discussion as to whether or not savecass is 'notable'. Womeninrefrigerators, for instance, is notable in & of its own merits. Dan's mention aside, is the page of value to the Cassandra Cain page? I've heard of it outside of this discussion, but thats only one vote. I'd suggest that a removal from the context currently being debated might allow a reconsidering of its importance. I could be swayed by an argument for inclusion, certainly. I do think that Alton has a point, ACS-- mandating that its inclusion can only be justified by a logical impossibility isn't very constructive. Really, the question comes down to whether or not the Cass article will be improved by a link to the site. --mordicai. 23:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Based solely on notability, I'd say the page won't benefit. It's little more than a fansite. The forumer origins don't exactly impress, either. While I accept the idea not to use Dan's comment as the basis for inclusion or exclusion, I'd like to reference it. Dan uses the plural rather than the singular for a reason. Whether Savecass is the most notable or not, one site shouldn't speak for a whole fandom, especially when the issue is fairly mild as a "controversy", anyway. Bottomline, we don't need a link and choosing that site still seems like a non-neutral decision. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I definately agree that ref'ing Dan's comment is a good idea; referencing 'anything' is a good start in my book. I propose that rather than raise the objection that savecass isn't enough on its own (which I'm inclined to agree with), the issue would be better served by finding other pages or references to include in the mix. That way we create space for the article to grow, rather than stunt it. Also, if you x-mas, consider yourselves all merry congratulated, &c. --mordicai. 04:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of two websites that could be placed as being focused entirely or with a section devoted entirely to/as a reaction to the Cassandra Cain OYL storyline. One of these is mentioned, the other is the Casstoons site. Also, I want a clarification on this, because how it came out certainly can't be what was meant: "It's little more than a fansite. The forumer origins don't exactly impress, either."
First, fansite. We're talking about the fan reaction. What precisely do you want, when citing fan reaction? Wouldn't any example of a website created as a fan reaction be, by definition, a fansite?
Secondly, the forumite origin statement is baffling as well. In order to qualify, the example linked to must be founded by someone that is not active in the online Comic community, and must lack technical expertise? These seem more derisive and dismissive, than actually addressing the point of whether or not Save Cass, and now, Casstoons, can be legitimately cited as sites formed in reaction to the storyline. -AltonBrownFTW 04:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It'd just be nice if we didn't have to bend the external link policy simply to make a point. I still don't believe these sites offer anything encyclopedically benefitial. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's my take.
There has been a negative fan reaction. It's been pretty vocal. Not the most vocal ever, but it's been vocal enough to get people like Didio to speak publicly about it.
Under the Wiki tenet of verifiability, specifically what is considered a reliable source, it is stated that "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic."
In this case, examples of negative fan reaction constitute a primary source; and the sources can well be considered reliable considering they are vouching for nothing but their own existence.
We have a secondary source (Wizard) talking about the fact that there have been websites and letter-writing campaigns, but it is perfectly relevant to this debate to include primary-source examples of the nature and scope of these complaints.
If it's arbitrary to include only SaveCass, then by all means let's include more sources. SaveCass, Casstoons, post threads from several different message boards. But these sources should be included in this article because they are absolutely relevant to the Controversy section.
Because the section is about the fan reaction, the only readily available primary source material will be from blogs and forum posts. That's where the fans register their opinions.
--Kuronekoyama 05:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. As I've been saying, the purpose of inclusion of the link is not to use those links as a source, but to show that what the Cassandra Cain article speaks of exists. Before anyone edits to include the link(s), however, I think further discussion is still meritted, especially by those who have commented prior. --
AltonBrownFTW 05:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
You've got me convinced, Kuronekoyama. My definate vote is for the use of the external links to "make descriptive points." --mordicai. 02:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Previous discussion on this topic can be found at Talk:Cassandra Cain/Archive 1#.22Save_Cass.22_blog. CovenantD 02:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batman Template

Before an edit war breaks out, why is there not one on this characters page? What is the reasoning behind it? -- Majin Gojira 17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, last time I checked, she wasn't in the the template. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd say, whether or not she should be in the Batman Template should be dependent on where the character is taken from this point on. If she becomes a regular again, so long as Barbara Gordon is on the Template, I can conceive of no reasonable argument why Cassandra Cain wouldn't be, either.AltonBrownFTW 08:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The reason?

Well, it can now be said that a reason, of sorts, has been offered for Cassandra's behavior. Should we consider this a "case closed" and update/remove the "controversy" section? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the controversy section should be removed, even if there is a resolve. The sheer amount, and manner of backlash for it is notable for the sake of the article. It is similar to the fan backlash of Tara's death on Buffy, though not as extreme. - Majin Gojira 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The controversy is part of the character's history now and is significant to the article (similar to how fan reaction to Emerald Twilight is referenced in Hal Jordan's entry, despite his later redemption). Also, while explanation has been given, it's unclear if the character will remain villainous or be redeemed, so the controversy is ongoing. Rajah1 11:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur, no reason to remove it at the moment. Why would you? The upset remains, so far as I can tell.AltonBrownFTW 08:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position. I feel the section itself is about fan reaction to the character, -not- about the plot of the character, nor should the section be considered or treated as a platform for an agenda on any side of the 'issue.' Instead, I think it's recognition that, lots of DC fans, and specifically, Batgirl fans were upset by the change. That's relevant, for now, and probably will remain so for several months after a full resolution, depending on where the fans, and the creators, take it.AltonBrownFTW 08:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deathstroke Drugging

At this point I feel it is presumptive to conclude that all of Cass's behavior OYL are attributed to the drugging by Deathstroke. Setting aside arguments that she may be injected with other materials other than that of Rose and/or Rose's own abilites to fight her father's chemical and Machivellian manipulation, mind control does not necessarily yield that she is not still innately evil. Cassie could still be the killer leader of the League of Assassins and was brainwashed/drugged to pull her away from the group. In short, until we see conclusively that she is not acting of her own fruition for EVERYTHING OYL, we shouldn't attribute Slade as the sole cause. 66.109.248.114

A fair point. I think the brainwashing explanation is implied in the issue at least. Deathstroke asks Robin "Why do you think Batgirl's been acting the way she has?" and talks about how if he gets his way, there will be other "changes like Batgirl". If he's not responsible for everything, it sounds like he wants Robin to think he is. But you're right, we don't have full proof of anything yet. Rajah1 21:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost/Batgirl miniseries

I'm editing Ghost (Dark Horse Comics), & came here to see how this page dealt with the Dark Horse-published 4-issue crossover between Cass & Elisa. And I don't even see a list of published appearances in which I could add the series! What do you want me to do? Ventifax 03:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I created the article for this series today and linked it to all appropriate articles.Bookkeeperoftheoccult 08:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)