Talk:Bill Finger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm detecting a problem with the wording of this article, and I'm not sure how serious it is. Credited at the bottom is the Gerard Jones book as a reference, but the actual wording of the text is a very close parallel (I hesitate to say "verbatim plagiarism", but that is the idea influencing me as I type this) to an article written by Bulent Yusuf on the Ninth Art website (http://www.ninthart.com). The article itself is here, http://www.ninthart.com/display.php?article=1113 and begins about halfway down the page. Although the text is not a verbatim duplicate, the phrasing, order of ideas, and even objects presented as examples or lists are almost too similar to be coincidence.
Here are a few key passages:
- In the comic book industry, being "Fingered" is slang for being denied credit for one's contributions to a story or character.
- In 1939, the popularity of Superman in Action Comics led the comic book division of National Publications (later DC comics) to seek and develop more superheroes for publication. Artist Bob Kane created a character named "Birdman", and showed sketches of his designs to Bill Finger, a writer with whom he was a regular collaborator. Finger suggested renaming the character "Batman", replacing the domino mask and wings with a cape and cowl, giving him gloves, and removing sections of the original costume that were bright red. Finger then wrote the first BATMAN story, whilst Kane provided the art. However, because Kane had already submitted a proposal for a Batman character to DC, he was the only person given official credit for its creation.
- Finger wrote most of the early stories and, amongst other things, created Bruce Wayne, Robin, the Batcave, the Batmobile, and Gotham City. In addition, these stories were distinctive for their use of giant-size props like giant pennies, typewriters or sewing machines.
Unless Bulent Yusuf wrote the Wikipedia article, this looks a little too much like his source material. I have not read the Jones book, so I cannot argue whether or not Yusuf "borrowed" from it to write his Ninth Art article, but considering that Yusuf is a professional writer and Ninth Art's position on intellectual property rights, I would seriously doubt it.
I think this article needs to be extensively rewritten, including additional sources and proper credit for all reference materials. Canonblack 14:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Name Controversey
I added some stuff to the second paragraph (in addition to rewording what appeared to be plagarism) about how there's still a controversey over whether or not Kane came up with the idea for the name "Batman" (which he may have, especially considering his horror movie influence) as well as details about the costume. I'm not saying Finger didn't do what they say he did, but there's still a question.
The article left out any details of other important Finger-characters: The Green Lantern and Lori Lemaris. I elaborated on them.
Epiphone83 00:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)User: Epiphone83
[edit] Credit, Ownership and Freelancing in Comicville
Personally, I have failed to understand why journey-man (or freelance) artists or writers who work in the comic book industry ( or who have in the past) feel they are entitled to special treatment not afforded to their peers who work in other industries. Bill Finger, who did not start off as a professional writer but was almost "drafted" by Bob Kane, never really complained about owning any part of Batman, but was distressed over not getting a byline for his writing, which he felt he deserved. (Although, Bob Kane claimed in his auto-bio that Finger never asked him for one.)If Finger had chosen to be a true professional writer, he would have learned that in comics, very few writers received a byline and the same was true for several artists, inkers, letterers,etc. He probably learned this eventually, but many of his supporters seem to suffer from "selective amnesia" whenever they discuss him and his relationship with Bob Kane.
In other fields, "ghost writers" or "artists" accept the fact they may not receive a byline and sometimes are even "stiffed" on payment! They look at these incidents as "paying one's dues" on their way to fulfilling their respective careers goals. In terms of ownership for their contributions along the way, again, they understand that if they are working for a "company" or "studio" that is not their own, ownership of "their" creations is out of the question and royalties, a pipe dream, although they could negotiate for such, if desired.
The artists who worked or created characters for the Walt Disney or Warner Bros. animation studios knew they did not own any of these characters. That's why, instead of complaining about this fact, they fought for things like fair wages, pensions and medical benefits. Those who work for comic book companies should do likewise.
Bob Kane and William Marston (the creator of Wonder Woman) were shrewd enough to set up their own studios which negotiated with the publisher (in their case, DC COMICS) concerning part ownership of their creations. This is the standard relationship in Europe and Japan. If someone doesn't want to follow their lead, this is fine, but critics of these men (and others)shouldn't engage in smear tactics in the name of "justice" for any of their respective employees.
-The Batmaniac-
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.236.252.234 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC).
- No one disagrees that it was fair to not include the credit back in the 1930s. It was only procedure. However, seeing as how the franchise escalated from a simple recurring character on DC Comics to an iconic world-famous symbol within a decade or two, it's only proper justice that Finger's efforts be noted. After all, if left to Kane, he would have created "Bird-Man". Had Kane gone along by himself, he would have been nowhere. Finger laid the foundations and he should be credited. We should try not to be POV, yes but then this is a factual and logical conclusion. Zuracech lordum 23:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I understand your righteous anger, and don't disagree that by modern standards he should have been credited. But conclusions are disallowed under Wiki guidelines. For the sake of argument, for instance, a DC attorney might state that there was a long history of uncredited ghost writers long before Kane and Batman, which would be an equally factual and logical conclusion. We can't conclude -- all we can do is state the confirmable, verifiable facts. --Tenebrae 02:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well said. Doczilla 04:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- True. If we don't do that, then wikipedia will never be accepted with the rest of the world. Doesn't make me any more happier about the injustice. I'm considering rewriting this article as it does seem to be plagiarised and POV. Any suggestions or is it good enough already? Zuracech lordum 04:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well said. Doczilla 04:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your righteous anger, and don't disagree that by modern standards he should have been credited. But conclusions are disallowed under Wiki guidelines. For the sake of argument, for instance, a DC attorney might state that there was a long history of uncredited ghost writers long before Kane and Batman, which would be an equally factual and logical conclusion. We can't conclude -- all we can do is state the confirmable, verifiable facts. --Tenebrae 02:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thanks, Doc, and hi, Zuracech. Well, if there's plagiarism, then it's simple: We need to put a copyvio (copyright violation) template on it, with the URL of the page from it was ostensibly copied. Otherwise, I'm really not sure that a total rewrite is needed to eliminate any POV; the language overall seems neutral and there seem to be a lot of footnotes from such sources as the Bob Kane book and the Steranko History of Comics, as well as references include the Gerard Jones book. This suggests to me the article might need judicious editing and cite-requests, as opposed to complete overhaul. --Tenebrae 02:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Actually, it doesn't seem like plagiarism. It might be that the writer from the website may have used the same books to obtain his material from. It seems to follow a NPOV. Editing and cite-requests are enough. I don't think it warrants a copyvio template. Zuracech lordum 06:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Cleanup
I'm giving it a shot at cleaning up. I don't like what I did with the 'sections', but I tried to streamline the parenthetical comments to a degree. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)