Talk:Superman/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Reign of the Superman

@Tenebrae: I want to add a few lines to Creation and conception to drive in the point that this Superman and the Superman we know have zero connection beyond the name. I want to insert the name "Bill Dunn" into the first paragraph, and in the second paragraph I want to insert: "apart from the name, this was a completely new character." Kurzon (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like it makes sense. Would this be in the paragraph beginning "In early 1933 or in 1934,[10] Siegel developed a new character, also named Superman...."? How would it read? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

How about this:

"Siegel observed that comic strips that featured villainous protagonists, such as Fu Manchu, tended to struggle, whereas strips with heroic characters, such as Tarzan, were more popular. So in early 1933, he created a new crime-fighting hero comic strip hero which he named "Superman" (other than the shared name, this Superman had no connection to the villainous Bill Dunn). This first prototype of Superman had no fantastic abilities and no costume. Siegel and Shuster often compared this version to Slam Bradley, a comics character they created in 1936."

A reason that Siegel discarded the villainous Bill Dunn and created the heroic Superman is that he and Shuster decided to ditch pulp magazines and go into serialized comics, and for that you need a heroic protagonist.

Also, I'm pretty sure that they conceived hero-Superman in 1933, not 1934. Look at this enlarged scan, the copyright date is 1933. Also, Detective Dan was published in 1933, and Ricca's book says that they conceived hero-Superman at about the same time. The only source that says "1934" is a court document, and court records aren't infallible. Kurzon (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added Bill Dunn's name to the preceding paragraph so that it will be clear who w're talking about in this one.

Also, while Siegel says "early 1933" In Andrae (1983), other sources, including court records, list the year as 1934. It's possible Siegel back-dated the prototype comic to make themselves appear less like newcomers, but that's just speculation. All we do know is that different reliable sources give two different years, and so we must as well.

That in mind, what do you think of this:

Siegel observed that comic strips featuring villainous protagonists such as Fu Manchu tended to struggle, whereas strips with heroic characters such as Tarzan were more popular.[11] In early 1933 or in 1934,[10] he created a new comic strip with a hero named Superman; other than the shared name, this Superman had no connection to the villainous Bill Dunn. This first prototype had no fantastic abilities and no costume.[12][13] Siegel and Shuster would compare this version to Slam Bradley, a comic-book adventurer character they created in 1936.[This actually is uncited, and we need to cite this in order for it to remain]

--Tenebrae (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you say "this first prototype of the heroic Superman"? Kurzon (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I've updated that citation regarding Slam Bradley. BTW, tell me if you can access this (quote is from pg 9). Scribd seems to be throwing up paywalls. Kurzon (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

So inserting your phrase, and doing a little rewording for wordiness, how about:

Siegel observed that comic strips featuring villainous protagonists such as Fu Manchu tended to struggle, whereas strips with heroic characters such as Tarzan were more popular.[11] In early 1933 or in 1934,[10] he created a new comic strip with a hero named Superman. Other than that shared name, this first prototype of the heroic Superman — with no fantastic abilities and no costume[12][13] — had no connection to the villainous Bill Dunn. Shuster compared this version to Slam Bradley, a comic-book adventurer character they created in 1936.[Cite: Shuster in Andrae, p. 9: "He was simply wearing a T-shirt and pants; he was more like Slam Bradly than anything else — just a man of action."

I got the Scribd link OK. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You like dashes, it seems. Kurzon (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I use whatever tool serves the information best. In this case, it lays a foundation by describing this prototype Superman. We need to say what he is before we say what he isn't. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Eh, fine. It's OK. Kurzon (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Okey-doke. I'll copy-paste this consensus version if you haven't already.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Now that I think about it more, what do you think of this take?:

"Siegel observed that comic strips featuring villainous protagonists such as Fu Manchu tended to struggle, whereas strips with heroic characters such as Tarzan were more popular.[10] In early 1933 or in 1934,[11] he created a new comic strip with a hero named Superman. Other than that shared name, this Superman had no connection to the villainous Bill Dunn. This first prototype of the heroic Superman had no fantastic abilities or costume, but was just a "man of action", similar to Slam Bradley or Doc Savage.[12][13]"

I like to break up facts into separate sentences, it just feels neater that way. Also, what do you think about mentioning Doc Savage? This first Superman does sound a lot like Doc Savage, and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Doc Savage influenced Superman. Kurzon (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I like it; it reads better than my version since it's less stop-and-start. However, unless we have Siegel or Shuster specifically stating Doc Savage, then we cannot state it. Our personal observation of circumstantial evidence is disallowed as original research. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I updated my proposal while you were making your reply, please review it. Kurzon (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: If I can cite a historian who sees a link between Doc Savage and Superman, would you approve? Kurzon (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a matter of my approval but of consensus with whoever else joins this discussion, as well as with policies and guidelines. We can only cite Doc Savage as an influence if Siegel or Shuster say it. Anything else is just speculation.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I have to get to work, so I'll be away for a few hours. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've added my proposal to the article, minus the Doc Savage mention. We can settle that later. Kurzon (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Going back to 1933 v 1934: Jerry and Shuster received a letter from Humor Publishing dated August 23, 1933 which read: "We have delayed in replying … until we could give the matter of “The Superman” deliberate consideration … should we desire to put out another edition of DETECTIVE DAN, if the author and artists is not agreeable, we then will be glad to take the matter up with you." This letter is cited in Les Daniels' book on page 7 and in Ricca's book in Chapter 8. That means Siegel and Shuster showed Superman to Humor before August 1933. Which means Superman could not have been conceived in 1934. Look, as editors we have to cite reliable sources, but we aren't obliged to use every source. We have the discretion to decide which sources are correct. It's clear to me that the sources which say "1934" are erroneous. Kurzon (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors, we're generally not supposed to decide what history is but nevertheless in order to write a coherent narrative we have to correct for contradictions between sources. Kurzon (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

In other media

I broke off In other media into a section. It didn't make sense to put that stuff under Cultural impact. This is how most superhero articles do it.

I personally think In other media should be integrated into Publication history, so that the movies and TV shows can be explained alongside the comics. I know its not the convention, but the convention isn't a law set in stone, is it? What do other editors think? I think I can do a really good job with it if you guys let me. Kurzon (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I shifted In other media up because I think its contents flow logically from Publication history.Kurzon (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• I preferred it under cultural impact, I don't personally like "in other media" it has always felt clunky. The way it is organised now doesn't really sit right, as you could instead have a television, a cinema and then an other media section which summarises the rest, as radio and electronic games don't justify their own paragraphs. Hiding T 12:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean paragraphs or subsections? And do you dislike the title "In other media"? Your comment isn't very clear. Kurzon (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Subsections, paragraphs, whatever you want to style them, they don't need their own headings. We've also lost content on theatre somewhere along the way. I do dislike the title "In other media", it tends to place the primacy on the comic book medium rather than the character. Hiding T 12:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Comic book vs magazine

I know Americans don't like to call them "comic magazines", but in some cases we should in order to distinguish the periodicals from the collected editions and graphic novels. Comic book fans like to call them "comic books", but we have to think beyond the fans, particularly foreign readers. Thoughts? Kurzon (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Kurzon (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Stick to comic book. I say that as a non-american. It's the common usage within the US and Wikipedia MOS would then in essence prefer it. There aren't that many places that use comic magazine in my experience. Hiding T 12:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hiding: Historically, they were called comic magazines. If you look inside the older Golden Age books, they're actually called magazines. And using the term "magazine" allows me to distinguish between the periodicals and the graphic novels. Do you think "comic magazine" confuses readers? Kurzon (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Historically they've been widely known as comic books. The distinction you're making with graphic novels doesn't exist. Yes I think comic magazine is somewhat confusing, misleading and unnecessary. More to the point the usage breaches Wikipedia policy and guidance. Hiding T 12:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I promise you, I've found plenty of historical sources referring to them as magazines.

What do you think of the word "periodical"? Kurzon (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• You're evading and deflecting from the fact that WP policy and guidance prefers us to use comic book and expand upon your reasoning that you need to differentiate from the collected editions and graphic novels. Show me how it makes a difference because to me it doesn't. Hiding T 13:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The Tintin comic books were published not as periodicals but as graphic novels released on an irregular basis, and they were not numbered like say Action Comics is. Kurzon (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm reading through Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Comics. Please cite me the exact rule that bans the word "magazine". Kurzon (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Tintin books aren't the discussion here and you're incorrect in what you say about them. With regards what we are discussing here, see the actual manual of style of which the comics guidance is only a portion. WP:MOS. The particular point to note is around commonality. Hiding T 13:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't cited that actual rule to me (the rule which bans the word "magazine" and "periodical"). Kurzon (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I never said they were banned. I've asked you to show me examples of where it would make a difference or impact on our reader to ignore guidance on commonality and you haven't. Please do so rather than continuously challenge me. You want the change, I don't. Base your argument, don't attack mine. Show me what you want. Hiding T 13:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Cite me a rule to support your position. What are you talking about with commonality? Kurzon (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Circular argument. I'm not interested in playing. Show me what you want to change. If you can't do that, there's no need to discuss anything since you have no changes to make. Hiding T 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

We should take this to RfC. Kurzon (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Not until we've tried to find common ground. You keep refusing to engage and are treating the article like you own it. Hiding T 14:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Accusing me of ownership is going to far. I could just as easily accuse you of the same. It's just you vs me at this point. Kurzon (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You've already broken WP:BRD. You were bold and made significant changes to the article, I've amended some of them and am discussing them, and you have reverted my reversions. Regarding comic book vs magazine, *[1] compares usage of "comic book" versus "comic magazine" in the last 14 years. The dominant term is "comic book", and per MOS:COMMONALITY I believe it is the term we should use. Hiding T 14:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

But we should somehow point out that these "comic books" are periodicals. Kurzon (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Why? Hiding T 14:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Most Superman comic books are periodicals, but a number of "one-shot" graphic novels have been published, such as Superman: Peace on Earth.

What are you trying to tell the reader with this edit? This feels overly specific for this top level article. Hiding T 14:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Siegel and Shuster's pay

I found a document submitted in a lawsuit that lists Siegel and Shuster's earnings from 1937 to 1948 and added a line in Copyright lawsuits. Since it was submitted as an exhibit under penalty of perjury and not challenged, I think it's a reliable source. Kurzon (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Where did you find it? You shouldn't cite your upload of the letter as a source. Do you have authority to upload these documents, do we have the ability to verify your uploads? Hiding T 12:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

PACER.gov. These are public records. Kurzon (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Link me to the relevant document at the address you grabbed it from please. Hiding T 13:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't it's behind a paywall. Kurzon (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Then I can't verify it and it's not a reliable source, sorry. Hiding T 13:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hiding: What kind of standard is this? If you can't pay a few dollars to access the docs, that's YOUR problem. On Wikipedia, we regularly cite books, and books cost money. If you can't afford the books in question, then of you course you can't verify them yourself. Should we then negate citations of Tye, Ricca, and Daniels? I bought all those books, paid good money for them. Now it's your turn. The fact that a specific editor does not want to pay to access a publicly available source does not negate the reliability of said source. Kurzon (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You're not citing something behind a paywall, you're citing your upload of it, which may or may not be illegal, and are not providing any way for anyone to verify what you say is true. You are in breach of Wikipedia policy, and while I appreciate your frustration, I don't appreciate it being vented at me. Please read the relevant policies and engage with me regarding those policies and what they say rather than what you think Wikipedia should do. Otherwise I have no interest in debating with you. If you think I'm wrong, show me using Wikipedia policy. Hiding T 13:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not citing my upload, I explicitly said where that document came from. I mentioned the case name, the case number, and the document code. Anyone with PACER access can get his own copy. Your argument is not logical! Kurzon (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• What does the link in our article citation point to please? Hiding T 13:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You tell me. Kurzon (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

If you look back at the thread, you'll find I asked you. Could you explain if you have an illness or health issue which causes you to be overly confrontational and that I could help negate in some way, or otherwise explain to me how you propose de-escalating this conversation into an argument. I've explained that I don't think the fact that you are linking to a document you yourself have uploaded to the web in our article is inline with our policies on verifiability and sourcing. You explain to me how they are. I will remove the information until I am satisfied, per WP:BRD. Hiding T 13:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

What link are you talking about? Kurzon (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hiding: It seems you and I were talking about different things. I see now in the ref you deleted that I had not provided salient information. Thanks for pointing that out. Kurzon (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Also I'm sorry if you felt "vented at". I didn't mean to be insulting. Kurzon (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Lede rewrite

OK, I want to rewrite the lede. Because you guys are so touchy about the lede, I will not alter it until somebody reviews my proposal, however long I have to wait.

My main issue with the lede is that it has a lot of fluff, some of it a bit uncyclopedic, especially the fourth paragraph. I would like to propose something more concise:

Superman is a fictional superhero who appears in comic books published by DC Comics. The character was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, and first appeared in Action Comics #1 (published April 18, 1938). He has also appeared in numerous radio serials, television shows, movies, and electronic games. Although Superman was not the first costumed superhero, he is credited with popularizing the archetype, and to this day he is one of the most popular and lucrative superhero characters. His immediate and great success spawned a wave of imitations and started what historians call the Golden Age of Comic Books.

Superman is an alien from the planet Krypton who was sent to Earth as a baby by his parents to escape his birth-world's destruction. He was found and adopted by an American farming couple, the Kents, who named him Clark. As he matured, he developed superhuman strength, an impervious body, and the ability to fly. He uses these fantastic abilities to fight crime under the alias "Superman", wearing a distinctive blue-and-red costume.

Kurzon (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Kurzon- I think it might be more constructive if you propose specific changes to the existing lead, rather than a wholesale replacement. As such, for now at least, I do not support your revised version. Levdr1lp / talk 05:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp and Hiding: OK, first off, I want to delete the fourth paragraph; the one that begins with "Superman's appearance is distinctive and iconic..." It's all useless fluff. Kurzon (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: What do you think? Kurzon (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer and Levdr1lp: I'll take your silence as tacit approval, then. Kurzon (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Kurzon- So much for "I will not alter it until somebody reviews my proposal, however long I have to wait." While I've been away on vacation, you've done a lot more than just "delete the fourth paragraph". For now at least, I'd like to see the lead restored to the version from June 25th. As I said before, I think it might be more constructive if you propose specific changes rather than a wholesale replacement of the lead. Specific additions, removals, or modifications. I'm also skeptical of the timing of your GA review request. There has been a fair amount of discussion and debate over the last few years on this talk page and its archives regarding, among other things, the wording of the lead. The timing feels rushed, and yet there is no deadline. You also have a history of socking and exhibiting ownership at this article. Given the context, I think this subject deserves more than just "the weakest form of consensus" (silence) before proceeding with a review. At a minimum, I'd like to see what Tenebrae has to say. Levdr1lp / talk 08:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: Hey I thought you were dead! No such luck for me, eh? :) Now that you're here, would you care to look over what I've done on the rest of the article? Kurzon (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Kurzon- Thank you for replying quickly, but I'm about to go to bed now. I'll say that at first glance, however, I'm curious why images are again being stacked all along the right side. Wasn't this discussed before? I thought we settled on alternating left to right per recommended guidelines. Levdr1lp / talk 08:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: I added some new images and this influenced how the text was formatted, so I fixed it up by aligning them all right. I thought this looks neater. Kurzon (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: Hey aren't you going to give some feedback now? Be fair to me. You were gone for over a month, nobody talked to me despite all the pings I sent. Then you came back and at your request I graciously reverted my edits to the lede, but now you've gone silent again. I've already explained what was wrong with the lede and you could also read into my issues with the rewrite (that I reverted). Now be fair to me and talk a bit. Kurzon (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the process of reviewing both the talk page archive and the very many edits (500+) you have made in recent weeks. In the meantime, here's one example I'm referring to: Talk:Superman/Archive_5#Image_staggering (User:Kurzon was then editing with the sock "BaronBifford"). Clearly there is established consensus to stagger images left-and-right in the Creation and conception section (a consensus heading name which you replaced), yet you chose to insert your own preferred version -- stacking all images on the right side -- just when no one seemed to be paying attention (and during Tenebrae's apparent absence). Let me reiterate: you have a history of sockpuppetry and ownership at this article. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt now that the block has been lifted, and not just because it's required, but please don't give me reasons to think you're right back where you left off more than a year ago. Please be patient. Levdr1lp / talk 07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: OK, I've staggered the images as you wanted. Now let's get back to the lede. I want to delete the fourth and fifth paragraphs. Specifically this:

Superman's appearance is distinctive and iconic; he usually wears a blue costume with a red-and-yellow emblem on the chest, consisting of the letter S in a shield shape, and a red cape. This shield is used in many media to symbolize the character. Superman is widely considered an American cultural icon.[2][4][5][6] He has fascinated scholars, with cultural theorists, commentators, and critics alike exploring the character's role and impact in the United States and worldwide.

The character's ownership has often been the subject of dispute, with Siegel and Shuster twice suing for the return of rights. He has been portrayed in many adaptations of the comics as well, including films, television series, and video games. Several actors have played Superman in motion pictures and TV series including Bud Collyer, Kirk Alyn, George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, Dean Cain, Tim Daly, Tom Welling, Brandon Routh, Henry Cavill, and Tyler Hoechlin.

The fourth paragraph is just useless fluff. The fifth contains the names of all the actors who played Superman, which is too trivial for the lede. The fifth mentions the other media that Superman has been adapted too, which is redundant info as the first paragraph mentions this. Kurzon (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I want to rewrite the who lede to this:

Superman is a fictional superhero created by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster. He first appeared in Action Comics #1, a comic magazine published by Detective Comics[a] on April 18, 1938.[1] He appears regularly in comic books published by DC Comics, and has been adapted to radio, newspaper strips, television shows, theatrical movies, and video games. Superman's success popularized the superhero archetype.

Superman was born on the planet Krypton. Soon after he was born, Krypton was destroyed in a natural cataclysm, but his father saved his life by sending him to Earth in a small spaceship. His spaceship landed in the American countryside, where he was discovered and adopted by a farmer and his wife. They named him Clark Kent and imbued him with a strong moral compass. Early in his childhood, Clark developed various superhuman abilities, which, upon reaching maturity, he resolved to use for the benefit of humanity. To protect his privacy, Clark changes into a colorful costume and uses the alias "Superman" when fighting crime. Clark resides in the fictional American city of Metropolis, where he works as a journalist for the Daily Planet. Superman's love interest is Lois Lane, and his classic archenemy is Lex Luthor. He is friends with many other superheroes such as Batman and Wonder Woman.

I think my rewrite boils down the lede to the essentials: the scope of the franchise and a bio of the character in the most concise form possible. Kurzon (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• It's too concise and the plot summary isn't accurate across all media and can lead to confusion. The first paragraph is also confusing for readers by saying action comics was published by detective comics. I think I prefer the current lede. I'm not sure why we'd jettison paragraph four when it describes the character to the extent a reader can visualise the character and can walk away from the article at this point understanding the impact the character has had. I agree with your criticisms of paragraph 5 to a point. I'd rather we stick to the purpose of a lede, which is to summarise the article. Given the article is one of our larger ones, we should be delivering a longer lede than the two paragraphs suggested. Hiding T 12:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Tweaks

Would you accept the following tweaks? Superman is a fictional superhero created by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster. He first appeared in Action Comics #1, a comic book published on April 18, 1938.[1] He appears regularly in comic books published by DC Comics, and has been adapted to radio, newspaper strips, television shows, theatrical movies, and video games. Superman's success popularized the superhero archetype and the character is widely considered a cultural icon of the United States.

Superman was born on the planet Krypton. Soon after he was born, Krypton was destroyed in a natural cataclysm, but his father saved his life by sending him to Earth in a small spaceship. His spaceship landed in the American countryside, where he was discovered and adopted by a farmer and his wife. They named him Clark Kent and imbued him with a strong moral compass. Early in his childhood, Clark developed various superhuman abilities, which, upon reaching maturity, he resolved to use for the benefit of humanity. To protect his privacy, Clark changes into a colorful and iconic costume and uses the alias "Superman" when fighting crime. Clark resides in the fictional American city of Metropolis, where he works as a journalist for the Daily Planet. Superman's love interest is Lois Lane, and his classic archenemy is Lex Luthor. He is friends with many other superheroes such as Batman and Wonder Woman.

Thoughts. Hiding T 14:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hiding: Yes, this is fine. Kurzon (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Levdr1lp: You ought to comment on this because you objected to my rewrite. Kurzon (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead is horrible now

besides the fact that the summary is horribly written and simplistic, superman is THE most important superhero character of the 20th century. why isn't his cultural impact stated in the lead? a number of less impactfull superheroes have far more encompassing leads, without overloading it with useless fluff. i try to understand it and done it myself in a few occasions, but blanking the lead is no answer. DoubleChine (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• I re added a number of properly sourced additions. the i don't like it so i remove it is not enough of a reason to remove all this data. superman is a cultural icon and the most popular fictional superhero character of the 20th century. he witll have an impact both on and off the big screen. that needs to be highlighted in a simple but elegant manner in the lead. DoubleChine (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmphf. Well, at least I'm getting feedback from someone.

It's galling that you accuse me of taking over the article when nobody else has been working on it for years, even when I beg others to pay attention. I proposed changes on this Talk page, inviting editors to discuss, but they all responded with silence, so I went ahead with my changes. Then all of a sudden you show up, with an account barely 2 months old, to rebuke me for years of my work on this article. Kurzon (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

---

that should cover all the bases. DoubleChine (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, all things considered this new version we came up with together is fine. Kurzon (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@DoubleChine: I've made some further tweaks to the third paragraph while trying to preserve the essence of what you want. Please review them. Kurzon (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent Changes

@DrRC: I am Baron Bifford; Kurzon is my alt that I am now sticking with. Considering that in the past we disagreed on my edits to this article, I want to bring you up to speed. For about a month, Tenebrae has been absent from Wikipedia. I have pinged other editors asking for remarks on my edits, but they rarely respond. I interpret extended silence as tacit consensus, so I've been doing more or less what I want. I've left justifications for my work here on the Talk page. If you or Tenebrae have issues with what I've done, do please discuss them here. I've done my best to act in good faith. Kurzon (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kurzon: I appreciate you relating to me the situation with the Superman article. I do recall you and Tenebrae collaborating extensively in good faith. I didn't realize you and Baron Bifford were one and the same. DrRC (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@DrRC: There was a lot bad with the good; we have a rocky relationship. I just hope he doesn't flip his shit after all the modifications I've done. Hey if you're paying attention, why not contribute some remarks? I've done a lot of stuff on this article this past month, with barely any feedback. Kurzon (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

That's because I can't handle dealing with eccentrics and obsessives or having to teach basic writing and punctuation anymore. I'm out. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Siegel Memoir

I've been referencing an unpublished memoir by Jerry Siegel. I think it is OK to use primary sources so long as they are properly authenticated. In this case, the memoir was authenticated by Siegel's own daughter because she filed it as an exhibit in a lawsuit. Kurzon (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have uploaded in full an unpublished memoir by Jerry Siegel, Creation of a Superhero, to Dropbox. I believe this is authentic, because I have come across extracts of this work in court records from the various lawsuits filed by the Siegel estate. Larry Tye also quotes a few passages in his 2012 book. An interesting note is that this memoir says that the 1933 Superman that was shown to Humor had superpowers! Tye cites this in his book. Kurzon (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I've talked with Brad Ricca and shown him my scans. He says they memoir is authentic because he used it for his book. He warned me though to take what Siegel says with a grain of salt. In particular, Siegel tries to take most of the credit for coming up with Superman's costume, which is something Shuster also tried to do. I think Siegel's memoir is about as reliable as the interviews, since we have to take them at their word. Ricca also warned that the memoir is not a public document, but some extracts have been submitted in lawsuits, and these extracts are publicly available on PACER. So far, you've all accepted me using court documents as sources. Kurzon (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed the content that relies upon this source as I do not believe it is reliable. It has not been published, and furthermore the source of upload is yourself. You are breaching Wikipedia policies here that I'd prefer you didn't. Don't rely on material you yourself are providing, it creates a conflict of interest. There's some nice work you are doing here, please keep within the scope of Wikipedia Hiding T 12:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hiding: What do you think of court records? Kurzon (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Depends on what you source from them and what you use it for. They are primary sources . Hiding T 12:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hiding: What I mean is that extracts from the memoir were submitted in court cases, and those extracts are available in the public record. Kurzon (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

IGN and Empire rankings

I removed a line from the lede that lists how IGN and Empire ranked Superman. I read the articles and they don't provide any objective measure to prove that Superman is as great as they say. Rather, their lists seem to be the favorite superheroes of their staff. I think we need to use broad, objective metrics to assess Superman's popularity and influence (and I have been working hard to find these). Thinks like box office revenue, comic book sales, merchandise revenue, public awareness levels, etc. If you say "Superman is the fourth most lucrative superhero franchise", that means something. If you say "Superman's logo is the second most recognizable symbol according to a global survey", that means something. If you say "Superman is the greatest", that means nothing because you provide no justification. The only thing the reader learned from that line in the lede is that Superman is the favorite hero of IGN and Empire. Kurzon (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Powers

I removed descriptions of Superman's powers from Fictional biography because it overlapped with Powers and abilities. Kurzon (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the Powers and abilites section should be merged with Fictional biography. I know it's not the convention, but it would suit this article. Wikipedia's superhero articles do not follow a strict template anyway. Thoughts? Kurzon (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• No preference here. Hiding T 12:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Kurzon@ and superman can get energy & power from sun Mohamadwolf (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

To protect his privacy, he changes into a colorful costume and uses the alias "Superman" when fighting crime.

To protect his privacy, he uses his original colorful costume with the alias "Superman" when fighting crime. To mingle with the generic public he disguises himself in human clothing and hypnotic glasses to play the part of Clark Kent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rane.vijay.prakash (talk • contribs) 12:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah. The first part is enough.Kurzon (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2018

there is a spelling mistake in the Comics section - the word 'hard' is misspelled as 'had' Rane.vijay.prakash (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done, well spotted. Fish+Karate 13:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Lloyd and his glasses

@Kchishol1970: I deleted this line you wrote:

"Furthermore, Lloyd found out that he could out in public and not be recognized by strangers by simply leaving the glasses off."

I think it's a fascinating fact, but did Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster know about this? I'm looking for things which actually influenced Siegel and Shuster when they developed Superman, not coincidental similarities. What I'm looking for is a quote from a memoir or an interview that mentions this aspect of Lloyd. I don't want to come off as pedantic, but there too much speculation out there when it comes analyses of Superman. I prefer hard, verifiable links over coincidental similarities. Kurzon (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Character ruined the acting careers of every actor who played him in live action?

[2]

The above source is self-published and BLPSPS applies to three of the six actors mentioned (as well as Tom Welling, who is not mentioned; plus it's probably too soon to say whether appearing in three not-well-regarded Superman films has severely damaged, much less ruined, Cavill's career anyway), but this seems to be a noteworthy facet of the character that should probably be mentioned here. Apparently Chipman's source for at least some of this is the book Superman vs. Hollywood; has anyone read this or another source that covers the careers of the actors who played Superman?

It seems to be a pretty well-established fact that Reeve is better-known for his non-acting work than for any acting he did post-Superman, Reeves died while his show was still airing, and a quick glance at the lead (including infobox) of our Kirk Alyn article pretty well confirms that the actor, who apparently kept working until 1988 and lived another 11 years after that, never did anything more noteworthy than his early Superman appearances.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Reeves' career was on an upward swing when he was murdered. Dean Cain may not be high profile, but he's done a lot more TV and film work after L&C than he did before... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Reeves died a year after the show ended, not "while it was still airing".. As to the others, Dean Cain and Tom Welling both continue to work fairly consistently in television, Welling just had a high profile role on Lucifer last season. Christopher Reeve's career stalled more because of his injury which limited the type of roles he could play. Spanneraol (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Spanneraol: Ah, I see you're right. I missed the context in which our article wrote The sudden death of the show's star George Reeves in June 1959 was not the end of the series either, in the producers' eyes which out of context heavily implies the show itself was still being produced, rather than the producers considering a revival immediately after the show ended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Even if you could find a reliable source for this, I don't think it's worth mentioning this in the article. Being "typecast" is a common problem for actors; nothing exceptional with Superman. Kurzon (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kurzon: Chipman said, as he essentially promised he would, the exact seem thing in his supposedly-more-reliable-because-it's-not-technically-self-published Escapist video column a few days later.[3] At the very least this is not covered by BLPSPS. And given that I already cited a reliable source that I just happen not to have read (I trust Chipman's reading of it), it's confusing why you would write Even if you could find a reliable source for this; have you read Rossen? If not, a secondary citation of the form "Chipman, citing Rossen" is fairly standard and would generally be considered acceptable on Wikipedia for uncontroversial statements: Ariwara no Narihira, a GA, includes nine such citations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Catch phrase

• Truth, Justice, and the American Way directs readers to this article for a discussion of Superman's catch phrase, which I understand from an archived comment has evolved, yet at present the catch phrase is not longer mentioned. Not sure if the fix is to restore a treatment of the catch phrase, or have the directing page send the reader to a more appropriate page. -Jake (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Quotes

@Dilidor: You don't seem to like these quotes. Do you find them obtrusive? Kurzon (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kurzon: I started posting in here yesterday to address this, then suffered a computer crash moments before hitting "publish", but I will endeavor to remember what I wanted to say. Yes, I do find the quotations to be somewhat intrusive, in the sense that they completely clog the citations section, making it very difficult to use; a reader who wants to verify any detail will find it difficult to bushwhack through the undergrowth. For the most part, they add absolutely nothing—the vast majority merely reiterate what is stated in the article, frequently verbatim. There were a few exceptions, and those exceptions I did not remove. But there is really no value in quoting the artist saying "Joe Smith was my inspiration" to verify the statement that Joe Smith was his inspiration. Can you make an argument that supports their value to the article? —Dilidor (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dilidor: Well, another editor named Tenebrae asked me to do this because he doubted some of the things I wrote and he didn't have access to the reference material. I personally find the quotes convenient whenever I do revisions to this article, as it saves me the effort of digging out my books. Kurzon (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dilidor: So... will you let me restore my quotations? I mean, I can live without them but they're convenient for me. I wrote most of this article and the quotations make it easier for me to spot my own errors and make corrections. Kurzon (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kurzon: I don't own the article, so it isn't for me to "let" you do anything. I would suggest that we wait a bit, however, to see if anyone else has input to add to this talk thread. If nobody else chimes in, then it would suggest that it's not of concern to anybody but you and me. At which point, I'd say it doesn't matter. —Dilidor (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dilidor: Yeah... in my experience it takes forever for another editor to "add input". So I'm restoring the quotations. Kurzon (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind them. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Cultural icon

"Superman is a cultural icon of the United States."

@Argento Surfer and Dilidor: This statement isn't wrong, but it's kind of vague. It could mean all sorts of things. I don't think it's very useful because it doesn't quantify Superman's fame. I'd rather replace this line with something that actually quantifies Superman's fame. Thoughts? Kurzon (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kurzon: One option would be to simply omit the sentence altogether, as it serves no purpose. Another option would be: "Superman has been a popular fictional character in the United States since" XX timeframe, whenever he became popular. He is neither an icon nor a culture-shaping figure, so calling him a "cultural icon" is worse than vague—it's a wrong use of language. Or perhaps: "Superman was the first widely popular superhero fiction character, and his story shaped the superhero genre as a whole." Or.... just omit the sentence altogether. Those are my thoughts. —Dilidor (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I just re-read the intro, and strongly advocate for simply removing that sentence. Seriously: it serves no function. —Dilidor (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Superman's love story

Who does superman really like cause he keeps changing girls so who does he like? Nomsese (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes in Cultural impact section

ablity should be ability --Bizu734 (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Time travel

He can time travel for the superhuman speed Mohamadwolf (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Invulnerability

Bro he's invulnerable Mohamadwolf (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No dawg, he's totes vulnerable to magic and kryptonite. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Just vulnerable to cryptonite he can beat magic and atomicboomb or onother weapens can't beat superman Mohamadwolf (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Another* Mohamadwolf (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Bro He's really invulnerable Mohamadwolf (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I just fail to see the difference between invulnerability and superhuman durability. Why do we have to include both powers in the list? Leader Vladimir (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't. I suspect Mohamadwolf learned a word from another article and wants to add it here. Mohamadwolf, maybe you can wait a few years before editing Wikipedia. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Issue on this article

While I do like the works done on this article. I feel like it’s blatantly obvious that the article reflects too much on just the Golden Age per favor on one user. With a character that has been around through every comics age I think we need to reflect that. It’s true he originated from the Golden Age but more popular interpretations existed afterwards. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? When I wrote this article I'm pretty sure I gave all eras a thorough look. Kurzon (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe i need to proofread it more. It just seems like that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

section names /rearranging

Jhenderson777 has made some substantial copyedits to the article which I reverted. While I am not categorically opposed to modifications, I don't know what he was thinking with his particular changes. He reorganized paragraphs in ways that made no sense. I wrote most of this article and thus established its organization. I did things this way because it made sense to me through the course of my research. Kurzon (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You could have been clearer on what made no sense. Also quit acting like you own the page or something. A lot of it is good info. It just needs to be rearranged. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not claiming ownership, but I think I deserve a little consideration since I did all this research whereas you're just shuffling things around. I have a better understanding of the topic. Kurzon (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Believe me I know more than you think. I planned to expand after I did the shuffling. Also you didn’t add that much into the article. I remember the article before you came along to edit. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 11:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Based on past history with this article, I think discussing any major restructuring on the talk page prior to implementation would be a good idea. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know man! I just want this article GA worthy. So far it’s not. I just did section changing so far. Nothiing too major. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777: If you want to improve the article, why not try rewriting the Literary analysis section? I didn't do much work on that part and I think it's a weak part of the article. I established the general structure of this article as I developed its content. Maybe if you were actually develop some content (ie do research and write extensively as opposed to copy-editing) then maybe you might find some justification for reorganizing it. At least it may give you a feel for the logic by which I structured the article. Kurzon (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Dang bro. I was planning to expand the article after all those arranging too. Just be patient. I am only human and get tired etc. That's what happened then. As for now I am busy with work. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

When I was developing this article, I pissed off a lot of editors because I was breaking a lot of conventions on Wikipedia. I got very frustrated with those guys because I felt they could not see things from my perspective. I spent months working on the article and spent hundreds of dollars on books and court records. As I wrote the article, I structured it in a way that I felt best expressed what I had learned. The other editors could not see it the way I did. Not only did they not extensively research Superman, it seemed like in general they were not the types to do research and develop content. Rather, they preferred to copy-edit many articles at once, arbitrate disputes, and enforce conventions. They could not appreciate the reasons I broke those conventions, and that lack of empathy was infuriating. I don't want to claim ownership of the article, I just want you to develop the same kind of appreciation and perspective that I worked so hard to develop myself. You claim to understand Superman better than I suspect. Step up. Prove it. Kurzon (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Lol ok. I don’t really claim to know more BTW. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a dick measuring contest, and the amount you've spent on sources doesn't mean anything. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, it's an appeal for empathy, not an ego clash! Kurzon (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Clark Kent into Superman. I think that the content in the Clark Kent article can easily be explained in the context of Superman. Other superheroes' alter-egos are also merged, like Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker. Superman doesn't even have any second alter-ego to distinguish. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s been AFD’d a lot of times. Personally I think since it’s the most iconic alter-ego used then I think it’s fine on its own. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is 150k and the Clark Kent one is 70k. That would result in a huge article. Probably better left as it is per WP:SIZERULE. Betty Logan (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense to merge them. The Clark Kent repeats a lot of stuff in the Superman article. I mean, have any of you guys closely examined the Clark Kent article? Kurzon (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven’t proofread it all the way. But I am thinking it’s still a notable topic on its own if done right. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem if the article is merged, partially because there are no separate articles for other equally iconic alter egos like Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker, and partially since a substantial part of that article is devoted to justify the existence of the alter ego and explain why people don't recognize Clark as Superman. Also, the media adaptations part is used as a biography for those particular versions of Superman, like the DC Extended Universe, and I don't know how is that supposed to work. Leader Vladimir (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Since everything else is pointing out other articles. Don’t forget this one.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if the article points out that Clark Kent is the dual identity of both Superman and Superboy (Kal-El). Which I should note is another article on the same character. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

But I am thinking it’s still a notable topic on its own if done right."

"If done right." Yeah, who's going to step up and do that? Looking at the Clark Kent edit history, nobody has done any substantial development on that article in several years. It's been more or less abandoned. Kurzon (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Half of everything DC related feels that way sometimes to me. Outside of movies of course. But still I am not saying it shouldn’t be merged due to bad shape and yes I meant more or less what you are implying. Keep in mind Wp:Imperfect though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Come to think of it, we don't actually need to delete the Clark Kent article. We can just ignore it. Wikipedia is not printed on paper, so space isn't a concern here. So long as no editor decides to move stuff in the Superman article to the Clark Kent article (especially stuff I wrote), I don't mind. Kurzon (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

lol ok. Not a problem. I am thinking that this article could use a section about his alter-ego like Batman#Bruce Wayne though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 09:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge it. It's redundant and silly. It's about a fictional character—in comic books! We're not even on a level with Hamlet. —Dilidor (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No one here has compared it to Hamlet, and you seem unaware that the character has appeared in every type of media that exists. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I need to know what's being merged, and to what sections, before I can render an opinion. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no plans. Just delete that article. It doesn't have anything that the Superman article lacks. Kurzon (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer:The OP wants to merge Clark Kent into Superman. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, but which parts, and where will they go? Looking it over, the most interesting sections are unsourced. I don't support moving OR into this article. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Understandable. Maybe he just means redirect it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There has been so much written about Superman that there is a significant enough portion to write about his alter-ego and the meaning of it. I found multiple sources:

• "Unmasking Clark Kent" in The superhero costume : identity and disguise in fact and fiction
• "The mild-mannered reporter: how Clark Kent surpassed Superman" in The contemporary comic book superhero
• "More human than (Super) human : Clark Kent's Smallville and Reagan's America" in The ages of Superman : essays on the Man of Steel in changing times
• "Mythicizing Clark Kent: Archetypes and Mythic Structures of Smallville" and "Finding Clark Kent: Sites of Nostalgia and Affect" in Mapping Smallville : critical essays on the series and its characters
• "Clark Kent is Superman! The ethics of secrecy" and "A world without a Clark Kent?" and "'It's a bird, it's a plane, it's ... Clark Kent?' : Superman and the problem of identity" in Superman and philosophy : what would the Man of Steel do?
• "The Modern Age: Fall and Rise of the Hero. Rethinking the American Man: Clark Kent, Superman, and Consumer Masculinity" in Ages of heroes, eras of men : superheroes and the American experience

I do find the current Clark Kent article to be excessively in-universe, but the sources above show that it is possible to have an article about this persona. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you think the same for Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's completely possible. Like how it is said "other stuff exists", that "other stuff doesn't exist" is not a reason in itself. It will depends on what reliable sources exist that focus on these personas. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreeing with what Erik said. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• No merge. Both articles are large, well sourced, and two pages of the length would be difficult for a team of writers to merge and not lose any information. Not broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Alex Ross vs. Gary Frank image

Alex Ross Gary Frank

So which image is the consensus? I personally prefer one who shows him flying and shows what he commonly portrayed throughout the modern era. But that’s just me. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I feel we have enough Alex Ross images. Two on Clark Kent for example. Let’s not overdo it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I never liked the Alex Ross image. Firstly, it's not the conventional line art of comic books. Secondly, the position of the cape makes it an unusual pose.Kurzon (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the Ross image, if you think Ross' work is over saturated on Wikipedia then I would change one of the others but this is of his best works.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Frank - Ross is a good artist, but he's known for his distinct style. When we're trying to pick an image that best represents a character, we don't want a distinct style. We want a generic one. I think a Wayne Boring image like this one would be even better. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

That one is based on a Joe Shuster original. Very nice, though I don't like the background. Kurzon (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It could be removed Argento Surfer (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that would be weird because there are shadows on the leg. I'm generally not comfortable with retouching photos as it feels like misrepresenting history, though I suppose for a drawing of a fictional character it might not be so bad. Kurzon (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd also be ok with a different Boring image, that was just the first good example I found. I think he had a defining and influential take on the character, making his version closer to a "universal" version, if such a thing could be said to exist. That could be my age/experience talking, though. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I still prefer the Ross image but this George Perez (words and background removed of course) maybe closer to what you guys are looking for.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There is also e textless version of this which I was considering and should note too. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I definitely prefer the Gary Frank picture. It looks cleaner and more modern. Leader Vladimir (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The Action Comics #1000 image is nice but I'd prefer one without the clutter of a background and text. Kurzon (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little partial towards Joe Shuster. What do you think of this pic. If only there was a colorized version around... Kurzon (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

In regards to the article edit by Jhenderson777 inferring that consensus was not reached for the Ross image, there was consensus if you care to look through the archives. The Gary Frank image is too distinct in its look, considering the obvious similarity to Christopher Reeve. As such, it's an adaptation of the film version. While I think the Ross image would be best, I'm in favor of the image Argento Surfer suggested or an image from the Golden Age. DrRC (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Wr have a golden age image now so that seems redundant. Also I think a more modern look would be more of a common image choice. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Superman Joe Shuster.png If somebody with better Photoshop skills could correct the shadows on Superman's feet, that would be swell. Kurzon (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That picture would look great for historical purposes. I still think the Gary Frank picture should take the main spot. Leader Vladimir (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Update: Kurzon uploaded a new image. It needs to be reduced. I am sure a bot can do it. But I think we still a consensus on what author is the best for lead artist. Whether is is classic Golden Age Superman (Joe Shuster) or classic Silver Age (Like Curt Swan) or post-Crisis Superman images (Like John Byrne, Garry Frank, Alex Ross etc.) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jhenderson777 that the Shuster image is better suited for a historical context, and the same goes with Boring images. Nostalgia doesn't justify an image's place in the infobox. An artist one person grew up with won't be the same for another person. I'm in favor of a well-drawn, modern image like we have in other comic character articles - not a four-color print. I'm still in favor of the Ross image since it's one of his best, as TriiipleThreat mentioned. However, I also agree that there are too many Ross images across Wikipedia, which is mainly because his work is of such a high caliber. I'm not in favor of John Byrne. I think Gary Frank is an excellent artist with an attention to detail who captures the character very well. If the Ross image is not selected, I'm in favor of the Frank image or another one like it. DrRC (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't pick Boring for nostalgia, I picked him because his version was influential for a lot of professional artists that followed him. I think that makes his version something like a platonic form of the character. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and yes, he was influential to many artists. DrRC (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There are some nice ones out there by Ed McGuinness. He has a bit of a distinctive style, but if that's OK with y'all, there are some choice pics around the Web (like this one). Kurzon (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think McGuinness's style would look right here for a main image. I think he makes Superman look too much like an action figure. I prefer artists that give Superman more realistic body proportions like Ivan Reis or Patrick Zircher. Leader Vladimir (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

How about (this Gary Frank variant) from Action Comics #976? It has less of a Christopher Reeve look. DrRC (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It’s better than the current one.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Not really. It features Superman with an outdated suit. The main image must represent Superman with his best-known suit, as perceived by popular culture. Leader Vladimir (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Citation style

@Spinningspark: I started changing the reference style from Harvard style to one that includes the title (or part of the title). I think this is a little more convenient for readers. It's just a matter of taste. I understand that Wikipedia doesn't force you to use a specific style so long as you're consistent in the article wherever possible. Kurzon (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

My point was that WP:CITEVAR says you shouldn't change the established citation style without first getting consensus of the editors of the page. Does the style you are using correspond to one recognised by any style manual? It is certainly not standard for Harvard referencing. You definitely shouldn't be arbitrarily changing from a recognised style to one you made up yourself just because you think it is better. SpinningSpark 12:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Man, nobody is chill here... Kurzon (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Also, WP:BOLD effectively says: "Just do what you think is best until somebody voices an objection." That's what I did. Kurzon (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Power missing

Silver age Superman and All-Star Superman both had superior intelligence. Yet it's not included here. Anyone who can outline the details, please do so. Thetrellan (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Musical

Kryptonite (song) by 3 Doors Down please add

Too trivial. Kurzon (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Blue lantern

Yes!superman and lois is blue lantern Mohamadwolf (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're just trying to be funny, but I can assure you, it's not working. Some people care about these characters and what they represent. Leader Vladimir (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Bro see the comics superman and lois have blue lantern i'm serious Mohamadwolf (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Which comics? Leader Vladimir (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Blackest night aftermath1 blue lantern superman Mohamadwolf (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Superman is white lantern too Mohamadwolf (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but he doesn't use those powers on a regular basis. Leader Vladimir (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Leader Vladimir. Stop trying to be cute, Mohamadwolf. Kurzon (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok bros Mohamadwolf (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Screw up

I may have slightly messed up the info box, and I'm wondering if anyone can fix it. I'm sorry Booger-mike (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Information on cancelled Superman 2000 initiative

https://aiptcomics.com/2020/06/25/superman-2000-grant-morrison-dc-comics/ Darkknight2149 10:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Clark Kent into Superman

Based on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Clark Kent, it seems like there's no major opposition to the idea of folding this into Superman. This should be like Batman#Bruce Wayne because the majority of this is simply retreading ground. Opposing arguments from a decade ago focused on the idea that there's enough to discuss about this particular secret identity to warrant a page, but such a general topic shared by multiple heroes could easily be discussed elsewhere. Much of the discussion in this article seems to just be original research or overly in-depth details that a general encyclopedia doesn't need. TTN (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wait, Clark Kent is Superman?! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Either way, yes per TTN. Couldn't have said it better myself. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I say that the two articles should be kept separate. There have been many instances where Clark and Superman were treated (temporarily at least) as two separate entities, mostly through magical influences or Red Kryptonite. The Marvel Comics cameos listed at the bottom also steer into this direction. DanielC46 (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Those were just one-off stories, not enough to warrant treating Clark Kent as a separate character. Next thing you'll be saying is that there should be separate articles for Don Diego de la Vega. Kurzon (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support Same character, just a different alias, so there is a big WP:OVERLAP. Batman#Bruce Wayne is a good precedent. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support They are the same guy, like how Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same guy, and how Peter Parker and Spider-Man are the same guy. Leo1pard (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support There's hardly any reason to keep a separate page for Clark. Leader Vladimir (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the Clark Kent article should be deleted. I gave it a skim and it repeats a lot of stuff in the Superman article, and a lot of other stuff is uninsightful waffling (e.g. is Clark Kent a separate being or the same man?). I'm afraid if we merge it with the Superman article, some editor will inject lots of useless cruft into the Superman article. Kurzon (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose In order to protect the integrity of the Superman article and avoid silly edit wars, I say we should either leave the Clark Kent article alone or delete it. I oppose a merger. Kurzon (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd say that consensus seems to be to merge, especially when factoring in the comments from the project talk page. I think I'll attempt a merge in the next day or so unless anyone would rather I request closure from a neutral third party. TTN (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete, we can turn it into a redirect. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Google error

The Google view says he was born in the U.S., which is wrong. We all know Superman was born on planet Krypton. Booger-mike (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Booger-mike: In the 1980s, the comic books did this retcon where Superman was transported to Earth as a fetus in a "birthing matrix" (apparently sex and pregnancy were taboo on Krypton, so everything is done in vitro) so that he was "born" on Earth, in America. Yeah it seems the comic writers did some weird creative acrobatics just so they could say Superman is a true natural born American and not some illegal immigrant. That storyline has since been discarded (it was weird). Kurzon (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this might be from Wikidata and not Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

That sounds gross. Booger-mike (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Booger-mike: So says the guy who calls himself "Booger-mike". Kurzon (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, that is stupid. Booger-mike (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Touche, can I change it? My name's not even "Mike" Booger-mike (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't to make Superman an American, it was so they could explain how Superman knew Kryptonite could kill him without him actually dying from it. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Say what? Kurzon (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You're talking about the Byrne reboot in 86, yeah? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Yeah. It's been a long time since I read it but I don't remember anything about kryptonite. Kurzon (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It probably wasn't obvious in the comic, but behind the scenes Byrne wanted to explain how people knew Kryptonite could kill Superman - if he's the last survivor, how would they know, right? His initial plan was to have Jor-El send his pregnant wife to Earth, and Kryptonite would kill her after she gave birth. Jeanette Kahn thought this was too much and suggested the Kryptonite be killing people before the planet exploded. The birthing matrix grew out of that. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: I remember reading about that. It sounds like it could have been both to make him a natural American and set up kryptonite. Kurzon (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"Sorcerer's World" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sorcerer's World. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 12#Sorcerer's World until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Action comics 1 cgc 9-point-0 vincent zurzolo (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Propose to add “Fictional character biography” section

Could we add a fictional character biography section for Superman? AdanXX (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It is already included to some extent at Superman#Fictography, and also at Superman character and cast. I think the level of detail in this article is sufficient TBH. Betty Logan (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I really don't want this article to have lengthy synopses of comic book stories. There's nearly 80 years worth of it. Just keep it condensed to the basic facts. Kurzon (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps pedantic, but I wonder if 'Fictography' is really an accurate term for this. Most definitions or examples of the word seem to be for biographies written for fictional characters, not about fictional characters. I feel like FCB would be a bit more accurate.--Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Amelia-the-comic-geek: I have no objections to that. Kurzon (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2021

SamTransFan1 (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

can i edit the superman page? i need to fix something that isnt correct

@SamTransFan1: Go ahead and do it. If you can't, you can tell me what's wrong and maybe I'll fix it. Kurzon (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Fictional character vs superhero

Over the past few days, editors have been warring over how to describe Superman, whether as a fictional character or a superhero. What should we do? Leader Vladimir (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I can go for either so long as the word "fictional" is in there.Kurzon (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, he is fictional, isn't he? Leader Vladimir (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Just "superhero", as all superheroes are characters and all characters are fictional, when treated in the encyclopaedic sense. If that makes people uncomfortable, then "superhero character" is the best compromise imo (seriously, no one is going to wonder if this superhero character is real). But Superman should be introduced as a superhero in the first sentence as this is the defining trait of the article subject. Popcornfud (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for "fictional superhero". Kurzon (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

As opposed to non-fictional superheroes, such as...? Popcornfud (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

these guys? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Those guys are distinguished from superheroes with the qualifier real-life, which you might notice that frequently non-fictional occupations that, for example, real-life firefighters, real-life nurses and real-life plumbers don't require. Think there's much of a risk of someone confusing Superman for a real-life superhero? Popcornfud (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Does it actually matter that much? Superman is a fictional character and he's also a superhero. There being no real superheroes is like there being no real psychics. "Fictional superhero" is as fine as "fictional psychic" just as "self-proclaimed superhero" is as fine as "self-proclaimed psychic". DonQuixote (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Popcornfud suggests a decent compromise: Superman is a superhero character who first appeared in American comic books published by DC Comics. Nobody is going to be misled by that. A character appears in a work of fiction so it is sloppy writing to qualify it beyond that. Betty Logan (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I just don't understand why do we have to add "character" to Superman's description, since as a superhero, Superman is, by definition, fictional. The character part is redundant and other superheroes like Batman just don't have this problem. "Superhero character" just doesn't feel right. Still, I'm sorry for jumping the gun. Leader Vladimir (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"Comic book character?"

I've always been unsure of whether to call Superman a "comic book character" because most people consume Superman through TV and movies. Comic books are really niche these days. A comic book issue is lucky if it can make 100,000 in sales whereas a TV show can draw millions of viewers. That makes me wonder whether we should change the first line of the lede. Kurzon (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Superman made his debut in comic books and has been in continuous comic book publication since his debut, while TV shows and movies come and go. He may be a pop-culture icon but it all started with the comic books. Leader Vladimir (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Debate over personality

@Alza08: This section seems like really superfluous stuff. I think it bloats the article. Couldn't you perhaps trim it a bit? Kurzon (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the section is great, but a bit long as per Kurzon. Great work though, @Alza08. Havok (T/c/e) 12:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't want to just delete it wholesale given the effort Alza08 put into it. Kurzon (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Superman's personality has changed over his 80+ history, so it's probably best if we remove the unnecessary parts and just keep what's really important. Leader Vladimir (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That's the approach I took. Kurzon (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

tel

@Conmon1015: What do these tel links do? Kurzon (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

Would like to update old images of superman with new images from Jim Lee with the new 52 superman character designs. Drako123deku (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Images are old and incorrect. Would like to update them. Drako123deku (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I object. I think the top image should be the classic character design of Superman. What we see in this image is the common costume design he has worn over the past 80 years of comics, TV, and movies. Whatever "kewl" design is currently in the comics will probably be discarded in a few years. This article is about the entirety of Superman literature, not just the latest comics. Kurzon (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is about Superman as he is known to popular culture, not Superman in his newest depiction. Leader Vladimir (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Character designs

The 52 designs have remained the same for almost 11 years this new suite gets rid of those horrible red underpants.the new 52 character designs were redone in the late 2000s.the new 52 Superman design is more than a decade old. Grow up man. Drako123deku (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drako123deku: The classic red underpants suit has been the standard design for like 90% of all Superman comics, TV shows, and movies. It is you who should take a broader perspective. Kurzon (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is for Superman as he is known to popular culture in general, not for a specific incarnation of Superman. Leader Vladimir (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrong link in "Film" section

Link to "Crisis on Infinite Earths" should point to the Arrowverse crossover, not the comics one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luca Fabbian (talk • contribs)

 Done DonQuixote (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarification under "Powers, abilities, and weaknesses"

Under the said section, the second to last paragraph ends with the sentence "Chad Krowchuk onite Kryptonite first appeared in a 1943 episode of the radio serial.[174]"

I'm not clear on what this sentence is saying. It appears to be a typo and would guess it's saying where kryptonite was created, but following the source leads to a book I can not access.

(This is my first "edit" on Wikipedia, I hope this is not doing anything incorrectly.)

Yetanothersuperhero (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Yetanothersuperhero: It was vandalism [4]. Thank you for pointing it out. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Is Superman a vigilante?

Okay, I gotta ask: can Superman be really considered a vigilante, like Batman? A vigilante is someone who operates outside the law and Superman has been deputized to act as an honorary cop within Metropolis and has been granted honorary citizenship in every free nation on Earth. He even ocassionally speaks at the United Nations. Leader Vladimir (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would regard him as one, but he shouldn't be described as one in this article unless reliable sources also describe him as such. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so what do we do about this? Leader Vladimir (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I would remove "as a vigilante" from the lead. I'm ok with the description in the Personality section. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

powers

Hi guys Superman has "phasing" or "intangibilty" too Pre-crisis, post crisis and rebirth has this power Please add this power too Mamali33333 (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, can see this power in "superman: man of steel #110" and "superman vol 5 #11" Mamali33333 (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

And "superman vol 2 #170-175" Mamali33333 (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Schang14.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Add A Power

Superman has intagibilty/phasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.26.117.41 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2022

Under Religious themes, at the very end of the page, after footnote 225, the 1978 movie:

In the new origins story, Man of Steel (2013), a young Clark Kent pulls a bus filled with children from a river. The parents of the children saved from drowning call it, “An act of God, Providence.” [Source: https://byfaith.org/2022/02/01/dcs-superman-marvel-and-the-search-for-christ-the-saviour/] JohnEnglish2020 (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Nah. It's not a core theme of the movie, just an incidental thing. People thank God all the time. Kurzon (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2022

Under Religious themes, at the very end of the page, after footnote 225, the 1978 movie:

A central theme of Man of Steel (2013), is Clark Kent’s Garden of Gethsemane moment. He sits in a church pondering if he should surrender to General Zod. Behind him is an image of Christ in Gethsemane and he says, “If there’s a chance I can save earth by turning myself in, shouldn’t I take it?” The priest responds, “Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith first, the trust part comes later.”

https://byfaith.org/2022/02/01/dcs-superman-marvel-and-the-search-for-christ-the-saviour/ JohnEnglish2020 (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This is not a reliable source to determine "central themes" of the movie. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If you watch the movie again, you will find it is a very important religious theme; this moment is set in a church on purpose. Should I surrender or fight? The religious parallels are clear. If you're unhappy with 'central theme,' you could change it to, an important theme, or another phrase that better fits your preference. It certainly is very religious in nature. Please don't disregard it, but correct as you feel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnEnglish2020 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by citing reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought over it again and Man of Steel does sort of revisit the messianic theme of Superman 1978. There's even a scene where Superman is in space and has his arms spread out like he's Jesus on the cross. But I don't give much consideration to the church scene. Going to church is too common an act for it mean something. Kurzon (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

Superman has many powers, in fact, he is a super hero who has the most powers in the world. Rhdjeiejbejridbrud (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜  melecie  talk - 01:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Superhero != character

It occurs to me that the word superhero does not strictly mean a fictional character. In the fiction, the superheroes actually refer to themselves as "superheroes". Fictional characters never refer to themselves as "fictional characters". Superman will say "I am a superhero" but you will never hear him say "I am a fictional character". They're not equivalent concepts. The fact that all superheroes up to today exist only in fiction is another thing. Who knows, superheroes might someday become a real thing. Like, maybe scientists will invent some gene therapy or something that can give a man superhuman powers. Spaceships used to be the stuff of fiction, and I'm sure before the Space Age, nobody ever thought "spaceship" by definition meant a fictional object. Kurzon (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Your example of Superman speaking isn't valid because the terms aren't equivalent concepts in the fiction. They are in reality. Even if your hypothetical gene therapy became reality, and the recipient dedicates the use of their powers to protecting others, they would still be labeled a Real-life superhero, not just "superhero". Argento Surfer (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope, they're not equivalent. Think about what I said about spaceships. Before we had actual spaceships, they were the stuff of science fiction, yet nobody defined spaceships as a fictional thing, even if back then they only existed in fiction. Kurzon (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

My main reason for changing "fictional character" to "superhero" with an invisible comment isn't merely because of superpowers. Yes, that nobody has invented superpowers yet doesn't mean they are fictional by definition. My motive is the implied good versus evil aspect of calling people heroes and villains, as the concepts of good and evil are subjective, meaning any attempt to call real people heroes or villains (barring special circumstances like documenting public opinion of a folk hero) would violate WP:NPOV. However, fiction is not reality, and fictional characters can objectively be heroes or villains. As such, calling someone a superhero or supervillain in an encyclopedia implies their fictitious status. This "fictional character" notice is common practice on Wikipedia articles involving superheroes and supervillains, so I've added it back. If you want to dispute its inclusion, please post your reasoning. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on March 30 2022

Superman isn't invulnerable, he's highly durable, but not invulnerable https://qphs.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-126ef86b6bafe72475e1ae4fb0816cb5-lq. As we can see, a sufficiently powerful force can harm him. Benshoemaker10000 (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Be aware that this user was blocked as a sock. BOZ (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SOCKSTRIKE — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox is way too bloated. It should be reduced to the bare essentials. Kurzon (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't care much about the infobox, I've done lots of work on the meat of the article. But I think the infobox should be reduced to the bare essential facts about Superman. There's no need to describe the entire DC Universe in there. Kurzon (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

+1 on that. Keep it to a core summary. And I fully support your observation that the length of time something has been on Wikipedia has no correlation with its quality. Popcornfud (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course one of the principles of Wikipedia is also that if you make a change and are reverted, then YOU are the one who needs to leave it alone and then go to talk to get consensus for your change... not that you keep enforcing your version. I restored some of the info box info that I feel is important to the character but yes there was too much stuff in there originally. Spanneraol (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@MercifulEarthMother: Why don't you comment here instead of reverting? Kurzon (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Stop over simplifying it, it doesn’t have to be that short. MercifulEarthMother (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Stop reverting without getting consensus for your changes. Spanneraol (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@MercifulEarthMother: The infobox should be simple. It should contain only the most essential and consistent facts. You've put in trivia that I didn't even bother to put in the main body of the article. Kurzon (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't care enough about the infobox to fight over this. Kurzon (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kurzon A user named engku1973, just keeps on adding unsourced abilities everytime without citing anything. No matter how many times I have tried to undo the revision. He just keeps on adding those unsourced abilities. Sir, can we please look further into this? Lord kai07 (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Engku1973: You're annoying all of us, engku1973. Kurzon (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@MercifulEarthMother: Talk to us. Kurzon (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, and not specific to this article, I would be completely fine with depreciating the "powers and abilities" section of the comic character infobox. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Stamp Day for Superman.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stamp Day for Superman.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kirk Alyn as Superman in a publicity still from 1948.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Will Murray, Mort Weisinger, and Doc Savage

I'm working on Doc Savage (magazine) and have come across this quote from Will Murray, a pulp historian who has written a good deal about Doc Savage. This is from Murray's 2012 Writings in Bronze, p. 90.

Part of the reason for this transmutation of the Man of Bronze's adventures was the rise of the comic book superhero in the late thirties. The first and greatest of the superheroes was, of course, Superman, who was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster and partially inspired by Doc Savage. The resemblance between the Man of Bronze and the Man of Steel became marked when an admirer and friend of Lester Dent [the author of the Doc Savage novels], Mort Weisinger, became Superman's editor and proceeded to transplant more Doc Savage ideas into Superman. The most obvious of these was Superman's acquisition of Doc's Fortress of Solitude, but there were others.

I thought this was a strong enough claim that I didn't want to include it without checking to see if Siegel and Shuster had confirmed it, and looking at the talk page archives here it appears they have not. However, I am curious about the comments regarding Weisinger -- he was a friend of Dent's and certainly would have known all the details of Doc Savage's ideas. Is it known what Weisinger's influence on Superman's content was? Has he ever talked it or what his influences were? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I looked into this myself when I researched for this article, and I doubt any connection between Doc Savage and Superman. Some of it has to do with timing. A lot of the core elements of Superman were actually worked by Siegel and Shuster before they showed up in Doc Savage. One particular issue was the idea that they got the name "superman" from Doc Savage, because Doc Savage is sometimes described as a superman. Siegel and Shuster were already using the word Superman in 1932, a year before the first Doc Savage publication.

But the big issue is that Siegel did not mention Doc Savage in his memoir. You can read Jerry Siegel's unpublished memoir here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3rb8by5oupsjhz/Creation%20of%20a%20Superhero%20by%20Jerry%20Siegel.pdf?dl=0

Siegel was pretty open about the influences he cribbed from. I remember reading in an interview that Siegel confirmed that he read Doc Savage as a kid, but he never discussed how it influenced Superman. I think it was this interview: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0s3lbpbsetmqe5v/Siegel%20and%20Shuster%20interview%20with%20Andrae%20%28in%20Nemo%20%232%2C%201983%29.pdf?dl=0

Anyway, yeah there are a few circumstantial similarities between Doc Savage and Superman, but I failed to prove a connection in my research.

Kurzon (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. How about the "Fortress of Solitude"? The name is identical, and Savage's version does precede Superman's, so it seems very likely the idea came through Weisinger. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: It's just circumstantial evidence, what you need is someone in an interview or memoir affirming a connection. And I don't have Weisinger's memoir to study. I am very wary of pointing out connections based on circumstantial evidence because too many writers get carried away with them. That is the case when it comes to Judaic influences. Some writers think Superman was influenced by Jewish mythology because Siegel and Shuster happened to be Jewish. But they never admitted to a Judaic connection in any interview or memoir, and they were generally pretty open about their creative process. And their biographers say they weren't practicing Jews either. So I didn't want to be sloppy, I only included stuff that could be proven. Kurzon (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That seems sensible to me. I'm going to leave out material about possible connections for now. If you do find evidence that particular elements were taken from Doc Savage, please drop a note on one of the Doc Savage pages if you remember. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: In that interview I linked above, Siegel acknowledged that he read Doc Savage when he was young, but he couldn't remember if there was an influence on Superman as that interview was done more than forty years after the fact. Kurzon (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

As our article on Mort Weisinger points out, his tenure as editor of the Superman titles involved several new additions to the franchise. Including Supergirl, Krypto, the Phantom Zone, the bottle city of Kandor, and the Legion of Super-Heroes. Dimadick (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Superman Copyright

Hi!

Wanted to chat a bit more about that copyright. United States works enter copyright every year on January 1, and they do not enter on a rolling basis through the year. You're right that they expire on January 1 and not on December 31.

In 2023, works from 1927 entered the public domain following a full 95 years worth of time since that year. Since Superman was first introduced in a work published in 1938, he will have to wait a full 95 years after 1938 to become public domain in the United States. Using the difference of 96 between 1927 and 2023, this means that Superman would enter the public domain in 2034 in the United States. I didn't want to just revert your edit, and I appreciate abiding by the citation.

With all that said, what are your thoughts on changing the copyright date to January 1, 2034 with a note for American copyright? MonkeyBBGB (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@MonkeyBBGB: Cite me the law which says that all copyrights start and end on January 1. I researched copyright law quite carefully when I wrote this article. Also, in The Law for Comic Creators by Joe Sergi, he says that the copyright for Superman will expire in 2033. He's lawyer, so he should know what he's talking about. Kurzon (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Section § 304 of and Section § 305 of U.S. Code Title 17 lay out the terms for works from before 1978. Section § 304 states that "Any copyright, the first term of which is subsisting on January 1, 1978, shall endure for 28 years from the date it was originally secured." This would be the initial 28 year term that Superman's original comic from 1938 had. Following its renewal in 1966, it would then qualify for a 28 year term renewal under copyright law at the time. However, under the revised § 304 this would be 75 years under 1976's law and 95 years under the further revised 1998 law. This manifests as "the copyright shall endure for a renewed and extended further term of 67 years". Further, "Any copyright still in its renewal term at the time that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act becomes effective shall have a copyright term of 95 years from the date copyright was originally secured."

Add to this that Section § 305 states that "All terms of copyright provided by sections 302 through 304 run to the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire." 95 years from 1938 is 2033, and the comic was published in April, 1938. With that addition, Superman would be covered for the full duration of 95 years and then the rest of the calendar year from 1938. This effectively means that Superman's copyright expires at 11:59 and 59 seconds PM on December 31, 2033, or January 1, 2034.

So I guess 2033 is technically correct in the slimmest terms, but effectively Superman will become public domain in 2034. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC) yes