Talk:Bob Kane

Year of birth

I found 2 different birth years for Bob Kane: 1915 and 1916. In this article is 1916, but the majority of sites seems to report 1915. May anyone help to solve the question? Marcok 10:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's 1915. See grave tablet Ejrrjs | What? 22:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Credit

"Because Kane had already submitted the proposal for Batman to his editors at DC Comics, he is the only person given official credit for the creation of Batman."

This is not why Kane is given official credit. National Comics -- not DC, which didn't exist yet at the time -- was suing Siegel and Shuster over the rights to Superman, and Kane lied to them about his age. By claiming he was younger than he was, he was able to convince them that the original contract he signed would be null and void, and that he would take the character elsewhere if he were not given a much better deal. Part of the deal he was given (in addition to a lot more money) was that every story Batman ever appeared in would include "Batman created by Bob Kane" on the credits page.

The book "Men of Tomorrow" has a lot more information about this. I didn't want to edit it straight in because I wanted somebody to word it better, so it didn't seem like an attack on Kane, but it's pretty factual that he lied about his age (that's why his birth year is occassionally reported wrong, see above). ThatGuamGuy 16:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)sean

Another interesting story about Kane and copyrights is this one by Arnold Drake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.245.62 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 March 2007

Just to add my two cents. While Finger may have contributed (alot) to the character I think what we're really dealing with is a matter of semantics. Look at television shows. The CREATOR is generally the person who wrote the pilot, although the show could be "conceived" by someone else. While I'm not sure what the rule is with Comics, one could argue that Kane is the "Creator" of Batman but the co-conceiver along with Bill Finger. Fact is, I'm sure many people over the years have helped people come up with ideas for many things, but they aren't listed as co-creators. :: ehmjay 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

TV and film creator credits are negotiated and mediated by the Writers Guild. The comic-book industry doesn't have the same kind of formal structure. In any case, the brief, dual citations by Kane himself and by historian Ron Goulart's Comic Book Encyclopedia in the article intro should suffice. --Tenebrae 19:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Melvin Kahn

== Bob Kane's , Robert Kahn's Family ==Melvin Kahn,Dick Greyson,Robin, The Boy Wonder , My dad are one in the same.

HI just want to add a little trivia, Who was the real Robin AKA Boy Wonder and where did he originate from? Well I can answer that I am a cousin of Bob Kane's,Robert Kahn. And I can say for sure that the likeness of Robin The Boy Wonder was taken from a little cousin of Bob's who was my father. Bob's first cousin Melvin Kahn the true Boy Wonder. My father was with Bob when they signed autographs at a cigar convention at one of the hotels in the catskills in the 1960's My dad signed as The Boy Wonder. I have pictures of them together and a signed Batman And Me Book to my family. There where many of these autographes througout the first years of Batman And Robin. I am Just looking for some recognition for my Dad who is deceased since 2001. He was given permission from Bob to tell his story but then someone threatened to sue whoever would print that. My father was embarrased and humiliated so my dad did nothing. All I want is for the people of the world to know the true story behind The Boy Wonder. Sincerly The children of Melvin Kahn The Boy Wonder Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kane" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.17.82 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 16 June 2005

First, to other WP editors:

I'm now removing the version of the above 'graph that i added here after removing it from the article. It differs only in including typos, from the later, corrected version above. The two versions created on the article page can of course still be seen in the article's history.

More importantly, to the family of Melvin Kahn:

I appreciate your loyalty to your father, and also your generosity in sharing his story, which i think deserves more visibility than it seems to have won itself so far.

I notice you've put an original, and then in its place a revision, into the article Bob Kane, and, since then, two further revisions, in turn, on this page where we discuss the articles. That suggests you sensed that this page was the better place for your contribution. That is the case, and i've removed the earlier draft from the article.

What i take to be your point, is that

Bob Kane took his inspiration for the Robin/Dick Grayson character from Melvin Kahn, who was the son of the brother of Kane's father.

Setting aside your reasoning for bringing that statement to this page, my reasoning in saying that Talk:Bob Kane is the suitable place involves the two related ideas of the lack of verifiability, and of original research.

The verifiability of the statement is currently a problem, including the fact that, as far as you've suggested, definitive evidence of the statement is not available, and starting with the fact that we don't really know who is asserting the existence of the suggestive evidence in the forms of the various autographs, and of family memories of Kane's and MK's statements to them. But i hasten to say that proving the statement to the satisfaction of interested Wikipedia editors is not to the point, because it is not sufficient to justify adding the statement to the article.

The further problem is that it appears the statement is the result of what we call "original research", which we contrast with statements like "nearly all hydrogen atoms are composed of a single proton orbited by at least one electron." Not only can we verify this to a high degree of certainty, beyond that the fact is not a new discovery presented to us by its discoverer or (someone who is part of a short chain originating with the dicoverer), it has also been so widely accepted that it can be regarded as part of the established store of human knowledge. Your desire for "the world to know the true story" and your "looking for some recognition for" MK suggest this is, to the extent it is true, new knowledge waiting to be accepted into the body of accepted knowledge. Helping make that transition is an important and laudable goal, but it is not a goal that WP is suited to pursuing.

If you can find a wider acceptance of your statement, elsewhere on the Web or via other media, such a statement would in my opinion turn it into something that belong in WP articles, and not just on talk pages like this one.

I admire your dad and his cousin for their role in a great American institution that, sadly, i understand best through fiction like The Amazing Adventures of Kavelier and Clay (which i consider a tribute to them and their associates), which for me has a bittersweet tone that may be related to the undercurrent your account seems to me to include. I'd be honored if i can help you further in your quest.

--Jerzy·t 04:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image

Seems bat.gif was deleted by User:OrphanBot, so for now I'm pasting the code from the Batman page that includes Image:Detective27.JPG. --Ktdreyer 10:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it down below User:CmdrClow's image for the time being. (Thanks User:CmdrClow!)--Ktdreyer 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

About four months too late, but you're welcome! --CmdrClow 09:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the Jerry Robinson image from this page. (It which appears rightly on the Jerry Robinson page.) An encyclopedia, as opposed to a newspaper and magazine, does not have images of people who being quoted about the subject — it has pictures of the subject. --Tenebrae 19:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Henry Vallely Swipes Are Real

I just wanted to point out that I purchased the Gang Busters In Action pulp book to find out if those swipes are real after seeing that blog. I found out that they are in fact real. He swiped four pictures from the same book. Anyway, if someone wants a source can the book itself be used rather than those blog entries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.159.163 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Bill Finger as co-creator

I'm not going to argue to remove Bill Finger as being listed as co-creator, but I'm not sure about the statement "In later years, Kane named his studio writer Bill Finger as co-creator." I haven't read the book referenced, but I was made to understand that he said he regretted not crediting Finger as the writer on the stories, which is different from wanting to credit him as co-creator. Can anyone quote the relevant passage(s)? Rhindle The Red 06:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt such a passage exists. He did express some regret about not giving Finger more credit, but nothing about the man suggests he would have ever regretted being listed as sole creator. According to a comics artist I know, Kane even referred to Neal Adams as as "good assistant" long after Kane had ceased involvement with the comic's regular production. Doczilla 07:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the book? I agree with you that it seems unlikely, but I hesitate to remove a sourced comment without proof of its innacuracy. Rhindle The Red 14:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read the book. My Adams remark is OR, though, because a DC artist told me that quote when telling me about his strange meeting with Kane. Doczilla 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think those Finger comments (Kane's and Goulart's) are better served inside the article itself and not in the introduction. Rhindle The Red 16:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. The challenge is to do it in a way that doesn't get the Finger partisans in an uproar and make them start an edit war in the lead, which is how I think the mention ended up there in the first place. Maybe as a footnote in the intro? --Tenebrae 16:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what? No matter what people think about the Finger contribution, this is Bob Kane's article and I don't think it should have commentary in it's intro. Here's what I propose: "Bob Kane (born Robert Kahn, October 24, 1915 – November 3, 1998) was an American comic book artist and writer. He is credited as the creator of the DC Comics superhero Batman, as well as several other comics characters." and that's it. It's all true and undeniable. There's room aplenty in the article to discuss the other issues. Rhindle The Red 17:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I completely agree with you! Your version of the intro here is, to my mind, the best and simplest way to state succinctly who Bob Kane is. I don't know how else to put my total support for what you suggest.

If Finger partisans start a revert war, we'll deal with when it happens. Hopefully, it won't happen; I'm just going by history here and on the Batman and Finger pages. In any case, I'm with you and I got your back.--Tenebrae 17:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents. While Finger may have contributed (alot) to the character I think what we're really dealing with is a matter of semantics. Look at television shows. The CREATOR is generally the person who wrote the pilot, although the show could be "conceived" by someone else. While I'm not sure what the rule is with Comics, one could argue that Kane is the "Creator" of Batman but the co-conceiver along with Bill Finger. Fact is, I'm sure many people over the years have helped people come up with ideas for many things, but they aren't listed as co-creators. :: ehmjay 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehmjay (talk • contribs)

Obsessive anonymous IP

After months and months of the same obsessive fan's non-encyclopedic edits under different anonymous IPs, here is what I've placed on the most recent, at User talk:192.80.65.234

--Batman--

Please STOP your obsessive campaign of disruptiveness on the Bob Kane page. You are doing this simply to disrupt Wikipedia. The proof is that if it were otherwise, you would be registered rather than doing this through a series of anonymous IP. You should be ashamed of yourself. --Tenebrae 18:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

CC of posts at User talk:207.145.67.122

Please stop ignoring the consensus of other editors and reverting edits that the majority have found inappropriate for this article.

Wikipedia works via consensus. I urge you to register and become a responsible, accountable member of our community and WikiProject Comics. It's a great place to be, and we're all good about discussing things. Please consider joining us! --Tenebrae 03:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again I ask you: Please stop making the same obsessive, unencyclopedic, grammatically poor edits. A sentence like "The Joker's origin is an interesting tale of it's own." is inappropriate on many levels, and that is just one sentence out of plethora your put in that continually ignores consensus and which is often accompanied by emotional, capital-letter rants and lack of civility. If you continue to make irresponsible edits incorporating partisan pet theories, your fellow editors will have no choice but to seek Admin intervention to have this article protected or to take other measures.

I personally asked you above to read up on Wiki guidelines, register, and join us in the Comics Project. I'm sorry you seem to have a disinclination to do so. --Tenebrae 04:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page so that, hopefully, discussion will happen on this page to resolve the dispute. -- Samuel Wantman 07:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

More from above IP

User:207.145.67.122 is apparently a sock-puppet of User:Bernard ferrell, making the same edits and putting similar rants in the edit summaries, making bad-faith accusations not only of other editors but of established journalists/columnists.

In response to his remark about grammar and spelling: "...suggested a boy in a 'super costume' named Mercury" is saying that the costume is named Mercury. He redlinked The Spirit by, for no reason, spelling it The SPIRIT. His edits have had other such errors.

His fulminating edits have been reverted by a number of other editors, whom he accuses of not using facts despite numerous citations and footnotes. We have had to protect this page in the past and I truly hope we do not again. I ask that 207/Bernard begin working with other editors and discussing things here first.--Tenebrae 19:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Boy in a super costume" needs a source citation. --Tenebrae 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I added 207/Bernard's Robin-naming information -- corrected and with footnoted citation. --Tenebrae 19:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Much as I hate support any remark by a contentious, anonymous user, I do know Kane called those people assistants. As I mentioned elsewhere on this talk page, he even referred to Neal Adams as a "good assistant" when Kane was not actively involved in the production of Batman stories during the time Adams was drawing them. Nevertheless, if people are going to fight over the word ghost (I realize there's more going on, but that was the last edit as of this writing), then somebody needs to find a quote in writing where Kane used either term. I could pull out his autobiography, but I'm not at home right now. Doczilla 18:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sheldon Moldoff, in a 1994 interview given while Kane was alive, described his clandestine arrangement in Alter Ego #59 (June 2006) p. 15): "I worked for Bob Kane as a ghost from ' 53 to ' 67." That's from the horse's mouth.

Arie Kaplan, a writer for Entertainment Weekly and other publications, in his article "How the Jews Created the Comic Book Industry", writes, " '[Finger] was the best writer in comic books,' asserts former Batman ghost artist Jerry Robinson."

Ken Gale, one of the deans of comics fandom and the longtime host of the New York radio show 'Nuff Said! calls Robinson, "Bob Kane's first ghost artist", as does Peter Sanderson, one of the best-regarded comics historians and the former in-house Marvel Comics historian, [who wrote at IGN.com that "Rbinson was Kane's first "ghost" artist

Atlas Comics' The 100 Greatest Comics Artistsrefers to Jack Burnley as, "Another Golden Age 'ghost' who never quite got his due under his own name"

The term is industry jargon, just like "penciler," and "inker," which I don't believe are used, and certainly not in the same way, in fine art. Given the widespread use of term "ghost artist" in the comics press and comics historians, I believe it's clearer to use the accepted term than not.

As does Sheldon Moldoff, who was there. --Tenebrae 21:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the most recent change. The info MAY be accurate, but it's uncited and the offered citation ([1] goes to a dead page. I was able to find the CORRECT link [2] and the added details are something that is more appropriate for Bill Finger's page. The detail adds nothing we don't already know: Robin came out of a conversation Kane and Finger had, with Robinson offering his POV. So .. team effort. All that detail is already included in the article. Also? These edits keep putting [[User:Bernard ferrell|Bernard ferrell]] 18:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC) at the top of the section. This is obvious a straight revert to a bad version, made without consensus to this talk page. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 17:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The book that seems to be in discussion was an album that compiled a series of interviews that took place in a fanzine called "Comics Interview". The Super Special was published in 1988 in celebration of the major success of Frank Miller's DARK KNIGHT. The volume was re-printed in anticipation of Tim Burton's 1989 film BATMAN. This book is out-of-print but I cannot beleive that I am the only Wikipedian who owns a copy. However, I did offer to fax xeroxes if a supervisor needed them. Yes, I whole-heartedly agree that Robin, like much of the product of the Kane studio, was a team effort. However, some people,fans and professionals alike, try to refer to Robin as the creation of "Bill Finger and Jerry Robinson" as if all Kane did was pick his nose and steal credit. As Kane would have put it "Hogwash!". These errors and disputes usually stem from bad research, lazy writers or even vindictive ones. However, I do plead guilty to errors I have made in terms of using the "Wiki" format. I'm still getting there.Bernard ferrell 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comics Interview was actually a magazine, not a fanzine, and a perfectly valid source. Since these interviews are not online (the magazine being sadly defunct; I wonder who if anyone owns the copyrights?), I would suggest using short, verbatim quotes, so that there can be no misinterpretation of what Kane, Finger, Robinson or whomever actually stated for the record.

If you'd like the process to go more smoothly, I might also suggest adopting a more collegial tone, and to drop accusations of bad editing. I've seen remarkable grammatical and punctuation errors in your work, and, speaking as a longtime professional journalist, editor and author, I have not found your research or objectivity to be of a standard I would accept in myself or others. That's not a personal criticism; I and others are trying to work with you. But there's a saying about glass houses and throwing stones. --Tenebrae 14:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I can be aggressive in debates,however, I felt compelled because some of the sources that have been used in discussing Mr.Kane are far from objective. As I pointed out on the Finger page, there is only controversy concerning Kane,simply because he was an anomaly in the American Comic BOOK industry. In comic books, creators are treated like "hired hands" who get paid crappy wages. The fact that Kane had as much power as he had is quite remarkable.Even so, after the Infantino Regime came to power, they wanted to get rid of Kane and other Golden Age professionals and control everything under their roof. This is typical in American comic books but not so in Japan and Europe where creators own part or all of the Character, splitting things like merchandising and any other projects with the publisher. Finally, when it comes to assistants, they don't always receive credit but there is a venue where they can create their own character or series and pitch it to a publisher; rather than try to ride the coat-tails of their former employer. In Amerca, sadly, in the absence of such an arrangement, "credit" is sometimes all that is availble. My contention is that instead of taking cheap shots at Kane,some of the people who work in the industry should work for a system either similar to what they have in Japan or better wages as in our animation field. DC does have "creator owned" projects, but they are usually reserved for proven talent. As for grammatical errors, in my own capacity as a writer, I tend to write,re-write and re-write again but this format does not allow me that luxury. --The Batmaniac

I have a personal interest in creators' rights, so I appreciate your passion for it. This really isn't the place to mount a soapbox for it, and honestly, hearing someone say things like "Infantino's regime" could reasonably call to question one's own objectivity. I think it's fair to say you're a Kane partisan, and that may be coloring your efforts.

I'm seeing what looks like a balanced article that gives credit where credit is due to both Kane and Finger, and acknowledging Robinson's contributions, while also bringing to light the uncredited artists who ghosted under Kane's name. Details may need polishing here and there as additional sources may come to light, but overall, this read to me, right now, like a fair article on both sides of the debate.

This is not the place to argue for creators' rights, or what Japan and Europe do. We can only list the historical facts as documents and firsthand sources provide, and leave the editorializing out of it. In the end, that's what you want as much as anyone else here, I'm sure.

Reiterate my unaddressed point, since the Comics Interviews material is not online, I would suggest using short, verbatim quotes, so that there can be no misinterpretation of what Kane, Finger, Robinson or whomever actually stated for the record. Does this sound reasonable? --Tenebrae 18:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is my final word on the subject. (Let's work on the Finger Page.) Yes, I beleive in fairness when it comes to the subject of Mr.Kane. However, as we have seen in the past few months exposing myths is a tough chore (such as "Kane never drew anything", "Robin was named after Mr.Robinson's last name", etc). While I agree that it is now a balanced page, whereas beforehand,it certainly wasn't, my contention is that Kane did nothing wrong. It was his comic strip all along and he had the right to hire whomever he wanted to. However, for historical purposes, others, like myself, are interested in seeing that the strips' development was not a solo act. (With the exception of Frank Frazetta, we still don't know anything about Al Capp's former assistants. Mr.Frazetta actually preferred that we discuss the present rather than his past as a "ghost".)Current comic book cartoonists like Todd McFarlane give their assistants "credit" but the visible "ghosts" don't own any of the characters nor are they entitled to do so. Still, some of Mr.Kane's peers,then and now, resented his success and this actually affects the "impartiality" of their comments. No one would dare accuse Matt Groening of not doing any of the animating on "The Simpsons" but even if he didn't, it's still his... aww, you get the picture. In conclusion, whenever we select a source, we should still do the research before we accept it as truth.--The Batmaniac

What I've been saying all along! --Tenebrae 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about this subject, and certainly have to stake in it one way or the other. I entered into this discussion page to let you know it is painfully obvious that the article is not objective, and that one can arrive at this conclusion from reading only the first paragraph. Indeed, that's all I've read so far. How can anyone defend as appropriate having two of the first three sentences of a biographical article about Bob Kane be about Bill Finger?

Furthermore, regardless of who is correct, this is not a matter that should receive more than a passing mention in this particular article. The vast majority of people who know of Bob Kane at all know him as the creator of Batman--not "that guy that screwed over Bill Finger. You may think this is unfair, and you may even be correct, but this is not the place for you to air your grievances.--Ron.Andrews 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with your characterization of the lead, which was edited with great care over time by at least two editors in extended, sometimes frustrating, but ultimately fruitful and mutually respectful collaboration. The two sentences you mention are not, in fact, "about Bill Finger" -- they are about the collaborative creation of the character for which Kane is best known. The fact that Kane acknowledged Batman as a co-creation, combined with a historian corroboration, is absolutely pertinent.

Would you please provide exactly what phrase or sentence you find POV, or that says in effect that "Kane screwed over Finger"? What I'm reading seems to be worded in a neutral tone and is copiously, copiously footnotes. --Tenebrae 00:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this article neglected to mention Kane's tenure with the Fleischer Animation Studio. I think its pertinence has much to do with how he ran his own comic book shop as his modus operandi seems to mimic the early stages of cartoon production: concept,script then production. If I might chime in a little about the new discussion, this is why I was so vocal about getting the story straight. Bob Kane never "screwed" over Finger. Why? Because they were never partners. Finger worked for Kane. A simple analogy: What if you owned a house and everybody on the block said it was ugly? Perturbed, you then decide to call in a decorator who SUGGESTS that you paint it a nice blue; in turn, you hire that decorator to accomplish this; you pay him or her and now everyone likes your home--is the decorator entitled to own your home? How about putting their name and address on your mailbox? Of course not! If I had worked for Kane would I have expected a bonus for any suggestions I made? No, but it would have been nice. Would I have expected to have my name anywhere on it? No, especially since I didn't get it on previous work I had done with him. I would have done precisely what Bill did, thank him for the opportunity and thhen go elsewhere. If Bill got "screwed" by anybody, it wasn't Kane. Still, I do notice one thing. Bill frequently got chewed out by the DC editors for being late with scripts. But, he wasn't fired for it and they kept him on, which is generally unheard of. SOMEBODY liked having him around. I can't say for certain if Kane had anything to do with it but we know he loved Bill's work and a lot of Finger's Batman work for DC was drawn by Moldoff\Kane... --The Batmaniac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.65.235 (talk) 17:17, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Addressing new "additionally" citation

"additionally" refers to the same Steranko column:

"I was very much influenced by The Shadow and Doc Savage, The Phantom, things of that sort." -Bill Finger, Steranko article

In the same article Kane mentioned his own influences: "My early influences in the comics field were Chester Gould's) DICK TRACY, (Billy DeBeck's) BARNEY GOOGLE, (Alex Raymond's) FLASH GORDAN." -Kane, Steranko article.

"As I changed from being a gag cartoonist to an illustrative artist, Milton Canif was my greatest inspiration..." -Kane, from his autobio BATMAN AND ME

--The Batmaniac  —Preceding comment was added at 18:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC) 

Robinson Journal interview is not definitive

As I have stated elsewhere, the Jerry Robinson article from The Comics Journal should not be looked upon as the LAST WORD or authority for the simple reason that he often contradicts himself when it comes to small details. From Steranko to Alter Ego to the TCJ. Also, it was over 60 years ago.Not only this but he just simply wasn't in charge of things. He would occasionally kibbitz with Kane and Finger but by his own admission he was focused on school.

About ROBIN. Kane never claimed he wanted to add a sidekick. He just wasn't opposed to it because when he did Peter Pupp, he had a sidekick in that strip. Finger wanted a sidekick because, as he said, he got bored with writing monologues for Bats. Kane wanted the sidekick to be a kid more likely because of the popularity of DICK TRACY's JUNIOR,which was HUGE. (Kane acknowledged this but never admitted to a direct connection.) However,by himself, Finger never introduced a kid sidekick in other strips, they were always adult men or women.Bernard ferrell (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bob Kane IS in Tim Burton's BATMAN

In one of the scenes when the Batmobile races through Gotham , the film focusses on a man in a fedora and grey trenchcoat , stepping back in amazement as the vehicle drives past him...that man is Bob Kane! Feel free to freeze frame your DVD copy. Bob was on the set of the film at various times , Jack Nicholson , in various interviews , has mentioned dining with Bob Kane because he was such a Batfan as a kid. It's true , Bob did not portray the newspaper cartoonist , but it IS him on the Gotham steets! Harvey J Satan (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead Links

Some of the links given in this article no longer exist, they need checking Lung salad (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Robinson's second quote in the Robin section should be removed

In the quote, Robinson seems to suggest that it was Finger who came up with the idea for a boy sidekick when Bill himself admitted that it was Bob Kane's idea. Bill was an avid reader of pulp heroes, but many of these had either an adult male or female for a "Watson" or associate\partner. Some have speculated that DC wanted to get more kids to read their books and they suggested it, but that doesn't make sense as kids were already their primary audience. But Kane admitted in his autobio that Junior Tracy was already in Dick Tracy and was one source for the "Robin" concept. From reading many books about the ...Tracy comic strip, I can say that Junior was a very popular character. In his interview with The Comics Journal, Robinson insisted that Finger had the idea and that is what drives the comment that I feel should be deleted, he was registering a POV opinion, but in that self-same article he admitted that he was so busy with school work, he really didn't know how Kane and Finger worked together. Normally, I would just go ahead and remove it, but I wanted to run it by Wiki first.MARK VENTURE (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I strongly concur. This is just another on the long list of Robinson's inaccurate and contradictory statements.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to point this out, but this entire discussion is original-research WP:SYNTH, which means making taking our own research — the kind that allows us to make a POV claim about "Robinson's inaccurate and contradictory statements" — and saying that a direct quote from one of the contemporaneous collaborators themselves should be stricken from the record. We can't do that.

If indeed "Bill himself admitted that it was Bob Kane's idea," then we simply add that with proper citation to Bill's quote and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

SYNTH is inapplicable to talk page discussions. Whether one agrees with the proposal here or not, there is such a thing as editorial discretion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry; I can see how my previous post was confusing. I meant to say that the discussion here is about committing SYNTH on the article page. My fault; I was unclear.

We have editorial discretion, but that doesn't mean we can put forth an argument for one side or the other. A direct quote from one of the contemporaneous collaborators cannot be stricken from the record because an editor believes this person, who is generally considered a highly trusted source, is lying. We have no proof he's lying. All we can do is present all sides and let the reader decide. If Bill Finger said it was Kane's idea, that's great — find the quote and put it in. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bob Kane/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Peace Negotiations== Greetings, to all my Fellow Batman fans and (now) Wikipedians. I am the persistent editor to the Bob Kane page who dares to call himself "The Batmaniac".Mainly, the Caped Crusader has been a part of my life since I was 2 years old. In fact, I am old enough to have seen the Adam West show when it was in its original run. While that does not qualify me to be the defintive Bat-Expert (I defer to Joe Desris) I do know a little. I admit to being a Bob Kane fan but I am equally a fan of Bill Finger so there is no bias on my part. I am only interested in truth and fairness, not in perpetuating fatuous distortions. I am also a huge fan of independent comics and support creator rights; while holding a particular antipathy for the "assembly line" system that has evolved in American comics but is rare in Europe and Japan. Having said that let me summarize our dilema. For years, after successfully negotiating partial ownership for his character, "The Batman", with exceptions,Kane generally stayed away from the comics industry and fandom at large. During that time, so-called "experts" began crediting Kane's success exclusively to his staff while demonizing Mr. Kane. While this in no way diminishes their contributions (expecially those of the incomparable Mr. Bill Finger) it just points out how we fans have been MISLED and USED. We must remember two things: 1. Bob Kane never promised Mr.Finger co-ownership or a byline interest in his comic strip. In fact, Mr.Finger was free to leave if he was ever unhappy-- which he did after two years. Mr. Finger never held anything against Mr.Kane, and as fans of Finger, we shouldn't either. Bill could have created his own character,without Kane, and brokered a similar deal as Kane's but for some reason, this did not happen. This was not Kane's fault and we shouldn't act as if it was. 2. Attacking Kane for obtaining control over Batman makes no sense,especially given the way this business is structured in America. A similar thing happened when IMAGE was formed a few years ago. Industry "professionals" attacked Mr.McFarlane and company for creating their own studios. Why? It was a clear example of the "oppressed" defending the "oppressor". (Frank Miller once commented on this strange phenomenon in the Comics Journal which can be read in his monograph). Let's stop demonizing Kane and stereotyping Mr.Finger as some "fingered" loser who couldn't stand up for himself. If anyone "fingered" Mr.Finger, it wasn't Bob Kane. -Rex Ferrell-

Last edited at 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Batman & Me

Hello Tenebrae. Like you saw, I have the book "Batman & Me", An Autobiography By Bob Kane With Tom Andrae from Eclipse Books, 1989. I will write to you in the exact words 2 paragraphs and the first portion of a third from the page 131:
- Eddy Duchin's romantic keyboard was also instrumental in influencing me to get married. I escorted my fiancée, Beverly, to the Starlight Roof of the Waldorf-Astoria to celebrate my birthday. I was quite friendly with Eddy and he played our favorite song, "All the Things You Are."
- I was mesmerized by the magic fingers of the Duchin melodies and the champagne, which motivated me to propose to my best girl. We were married in 1949. And so I have Mr. Duchin to thank for the years of married life which produced a lovely daughter, Deborah. Unfortunately, the marriage didn't last. C'est la vie.
- I came to Hollywood again in 1957, while I was getting a divorce. .....
*Tenebrae, I hope it could help you. Thanks. --Danielvis08 (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Danielvis08:Thanks! Deborah was the name of Kane's daughter. Duchin was a famous bandleader of the time, and Kane is saying that Duchin's romantic music inspired him to propose to fiancee Beverly. It all fits. Thanks for putting this verbatim passage here, which will help future editors! --02:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Kane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110035432/http://www.seeing-stars.com/imagepages/BobKaneGravePhoto.shtml to http://www.seeing-stars.com/ImagePages/BobKaneGravePhoto.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Created most of dc characters?

Putting aside Kane's creative bankruptcy, the intro is not very precise an misleading; in decades of publication there is no way a single man has created most of dc characters, change ot to " a great number" or something 37.159.122.155 (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Kane vs. Steranko

Jim Steranko told a story on Twitter of an encounter that he had with Bob Kane at the San Diego Con, presumably in the early 1970s, which allegedly had witnesses. It would interesting to corroborate the story and include it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.125.95 (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

“Co-creator of Batman”

WTF? Bob Kane the thief didn’t even “co-create” Batman. Wolfquack (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, his and Finger's respective contributions are detailed in the "Batman" section of this article, and my read justifies calling Kane a co-creator. If there's something factually incorrect about that section or some missing context that contests Kane's involvement, be the change you want to see in the world. Theturbolemming (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)